TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @C__Herridge

C__Herridge
Posted - February 5, 2026 at 6:44 PM
Saved - February 6, 2026 at 6:52 PM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: An Individual Has Been Arrested For Making “Terrorist Threats” Towards @AAGDhillon “Someone has been arrested for threatening me with terrorist threats. It is no joke to be at the DOJ at this point in time.” @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker addresses the severity of threats and the dangers of vigilantism. They note that someone has been arrested for threatening them with terrorist threats, underscoring that it is no joke to be in the DOJ at this time. In discussing aggressive actions against law enforcement, the speaker highlights a scenario where someone breaks into a car of a law enforcement official and then uses information found inside to dox people and publish their home addresses. They emphasize that this action is not limited to targeting the ICE agent alone; it extends to the agent’s family, including the children, the wife, and the husband, highlighting the broader, more serious impact of such conduct. The speaker characterizes this behavior as a very serious matter. They warn that if someone believes they can operate as a renegade militia to police ICE, that person may spend many years in prison for doing so, labeling such a stance as a bad idea. The message clearly rejects vigilantism as a method of protest. The speaker asserts that protest is legitimate and notes their own history of protesting, framing protests as acceptable when conducted through proper channels. However, they insist that breaking into cars, doxxing individuals, and publishing home addresses are not acceptable forms of protest. The conclusion of the statement urges consideration of different, lawful approaches to expression and dissent. The speaker urges others to think of other ways to protest, emphasizing that the approach described—vigilante actions against ICE and doxxing—does not constitute an appropriate form of protest. The overall message is a strong warning against taking the law into one’s own hands and a call to pursue protests through lawful, nonviolent, and constructive means.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you yourself been threatened? How serious are the threats? Well, you know, someone has been arrested for threatening me, with terrorist threats. So it's no joke to be in the DOJ at this point in time. And so when you look at breaking into a car Mhmm. Of a law enforcement official and then using what you find in there to dox people and publish their home addresses, suddenly it's not just that ICE agent, it's the children, the wife, the husband. This is a very serious matter. So if you think you can be some kind of a renegade militia to police ICE, you may spend many years in prison for doing that. It is a bad idea. That is not the way to protest. A protest is legitimate, and I cherish protests from a person who's protested myself. That is not the way. So think of other ways to do it, guys.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Head of @TheJusticeDept Civil Rights Division Says As Many as “40 People” Were Involved in the “Attack” on Twin Cities Church in St. Paul Minnesota. @AAGDhillon Calls It An “Invasion” By Anti-ICE Agitators And Has NOT Ruled Out More Charges. “There are nine people who've been arrested pursuant to the indictment. I believe the total number of people involved in this, based on what we see on the videos that were streamed by the participants themselves, is probably closer to 40 people.” Straight to the Point: AAG Harmeet Dhillon 00:20 FACE Act: Violations of Civil Rights 02:00 Two Stage “Attack” On The Cities Church In St. Paul Minnesota 03:10 Not Ruling Out More Charges, As Many As 40 People Involved 04:30 “Don Lemon Went Into A House Of God Illegally” 05:40 Dhillon “I have been a journalist…the MIC and the Camera are not a license to break the law” 06:40 Some Defendants Claimed To Be Journalists “As A Shield” 07:50 Strongest Evidence Against Don Lemon His Own Words, Live Stream 09:10 Don Lemon Not Singled Out: Arrest By Federal Agents vs. Turning Himself In 10:10 Don Lemon’s Attorney: Journalist Engaged In Constitutionally Protected Activity 10:50 Dhillon: Lawyer Abbe Lowell Knows “There Are Limits To The First Amendment.” 11:40 “This Isn’t The Don Lemon Case… This is the invasion of the Cities Church in St. Paul. It is a very important use of our resources” 13:00 Could There Be Plea Deals? 14:10 Civil Rights Review Of Alex Pretti’s Death 16:30 Anti-ICE Activists Set Up Roadblocks In Minneapolis 17:15 Dhillon: “Someone has been arrested for threatening me, with terrorist threats" 18:20 Prioritizing Body Cameras for Homeland Security Agents and Officers In Minnesota 19:50 Fulton County Georgia 2020 Election Ballots: Irregularities And Probable Cause 24:25 Can Ballot Investigation Be Concluded Before The Midterms 26:00 Voter Confidence In Outcome Of Election: “Good thing whoever they are voting for” @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

Video Transcript AI Summary
This week on Straight to the Point, Harmit Dillon, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, discusses a federal investigation into what she calls an attack on a Minnesota church, detailing charges and potential future arrests. Key points on the Minnesota church protest and related federal charges: - The 14-page indictment centers on violations of the FACE Act, which criminalizes disrupting a religious service or invading a house of worship, and also covers abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy centers. The case includes conspiracy to violate federal civil rights in connection with these offenses. - The accusation describes a two-stage attack rather than a simple protest: a first wave of participants, primarily white allies, sat in pews to appear as a church service, followed by a second wave that disrupted the sermon and caused fear among congregants. - The church scene included statements like “this isn’t God’s house, this is the house of the devil.” Nine individuals have been indicted so far; prosecutors say the broader group involved could number about 40 based on video evidence. - The DOJ is pursuing all individuals who invaded the church with the intent to disrupt prayer and deprive parishioners of First Amendment rights. Some suspects claimed to be journalists, though the government notes the content shows pregame activities, tailgating with donuts and coffee, and coordinated actions that support a conspiracy theory. Reaction to media and journalists: - Don Lemon’s remarks on late-night TV about overreach are addressed. Dillon emphasizes that the mic and camera do not grant a license to break the law, and prosecutors have pursued arrests with search warrants and evidence, while acknowledging that journalism status is not decisive in determining liability in this case. - The DOJ references specific individuals who claimed journalism status, noting that several arrested individuals made such claims. Investigations, scope, and law-enforcement context: - Dillon states the DOJ is examining all participants who invaded the church; the universe could extend beyond the nine indicted to roughly 40 people based on the video evidence. - The incident raised safety concerns for law enforcement and parishioners; she cites prior related church attacks and a fatal shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church as context for a zero-tolerance stance on disrupting houses of worship. Other ongoing civil rights matters: - A separate civil rights review into the January shooting death of ICU nurse Alex Preti by Homeland Security agents is mentioned. The process involves evidence preservation, ballistic analysis, and collaboration with the FBI and DHS; it remains general and non-specific about current investigative steps. Anti-ICE activism and security measures: - Reports of anti-ICE activists setting up roadblocks and using license plate readers are described as a criminal matter—obstruction of federal law enforcement—and are framed against broader safety concerns for federal agents facing threats. - Tom Holman’s push to deploy full body cameras for Homeland Security agents, starting with ICE, is welcomed as a transparency measure to protect civil rights and assess potential violations. Georgia 2020 election ballots and civil/criminal proceedings: - Dillon outlines a timeline of two tracks: a civil suit to obtain Georgia’s voter rolls for a comprehensive review, and a parallel criminal investigation operation leading to a search warrant at an election hub in Fulton County. - The civil case sought ballots because of concerns about irregularities in Fulton County processing; the criminal case took precedence due to implications for Fifth Amendment rights and ongoing investigations. - There is mention of ongoing debates about the handling of ballots, with some Georgia officials acknowledging mishandling, though not framed as systemic fraud; the department may seek ballots in other swing states if appropriate, subject to legal preservation periods and evolving facts. - The timeline hints at potential action ahead of the midterms, with involvement from DNI Tulsi Gabbard on election-security matters. The interview emphasizes that the indictment details a wide-ranging, premeditated conspiracy to disrupt a church service, the DOJ’s commitment to pursuing all involved, and the broader context of civil rights investigations related to use of force, protest rights, and election integrity.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This week on Straight to the Point, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Assistant Attorney General Harmit Dillon makes major news on a federal investigation into what she calls an attack on the city's church in Minnesota. Minnesota. More arrests and more charges are expected, so let's get straight to the point. I'd like to begin with the Minnesota church protest. I have the 14 page indictment. It uses a very specific language, a takeover, menacing, traumatic. At one point it alleges a protester said to the congregation, this isn't God's house, this is the house of the devil. Is this the crux of the alleged civil rights violations? Speaker 1: Well, what you're describing is the allegations relating to the FACE Act. FACE Act is a 1994 law that criminalizes disrupting a religious service or invading a house of worship. And it also covers, reproductive rights, abortion clinics, well as crisis pregnancy centers. And so that is correct. When you go into or even stand outside a house of worship and terrorize, intimidate, and or disrupt what's going on inside, that is a violation of the FACE Act. And then we've also of course charged conspiracy to violate federal civil rights, in connection with the same offenses. Speaker 0: In the Minnesota church protest, is there evidence of significant premeditation and a broader conspiracy? Speaker 1: Well, yes there is and in fact the grand jury found that and agreed with us that there was probable cause to believe that all nine of the participants who had been indicted so far were planning and then executed this attack. And you're calling it a protest. I think it's a little more, a little more evil and menacing than that. Protests are something that are done from a distance and are restricted by time, place, and manner concerns. These folks hid their intent, and they had a two stage attack on this church. There was a first wave of people and they sent in mainly, I believe, perhaps all white, allies of theirs to go sit in the pews as if they were there for a church service. And they lay in waiting for round two to come in and then commence the agitation that interrupted the, sermon, and that put these people in fear. And then these others who were already sitting there lying lying in wait, they got up like a mob, and they were permeated throughout the audience. And so imagine you're sitting there praying, and suddenly on the right and on the left, and from the door, you have people shouting about you being the devil and this not being the house of God, and asking that your pastor, get out. That pastor who they were attacking who works for ICE was not there that day. The pastor that everyone has seen in the audience preaching from the front, pastor Parnell, doesn't work for ICE. The one they were trying to hunt for that day wasn't even there, but his family was there, and his family was in fear of their lives for what was being said by this mob. Speaker 0: Well based on the indictment, the congregants describe a lot of fear, a lot of intimidation. Have you ruled out more charges and more defendants? Speaker 1: Not at all. In fact, we are looking for all of the people who invaded that church with the intent to disrupt the prayer service, and exclude the ability of the parishioners to exercise their First Amendment rights inside that space. I believe every single person who participated in this should be arrested. Not all of them, of course, may be involved in the planning phase of this. Maybe they went along for the ride. They can make their cases once they're arrested, and their lawyers can make the case for them. But there are other laws that may come into play as well regarding financing of such events. So as we're getting into the evidence here, now that we have arrests and search warrants and so forth, we'll be able to build, out more of a case. And of course, the other side can defend themselves as well. Speaker 0: How big is the universe of suspects? Right now we're talking, about 10 people. Is it 15 people? Is it 20? Speaker 1: There are nine people who've been arrested pursuant to the indictment. I believe the total number of people involved in this based on what we see on the videos that were streamed, by the participants themselves is probably closer to 40 people. Speaker 0: 40 people? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Independent journalist Don Lemon was on late night television and he implied that prosecutors in this case have overreached. He said prosecutors can pretty much say what they want with impunity and they don't face any sort of consequence. Your reaction? Speaker 1: Well, of course he's going to say that. Don Lemon went into a house of God illegally and claimed that it was his first amendment right to stick a mic in the face of the pastor during a service. That's not his first amendment right. He's ignorant of the law, and he's got a very good lawyer. I'm sure his lawyer is telling him that he has a great defense, and maybe he does, and maybe he is able in Minnesota to not be held responsible for the crimes that he committed that day. But, look, that's gonna be up to a jury to decide ultimately, or a judge. And meanwhile, I and the DOJ and Pam Bondi, my boss, we treated all of the people involved in this the same way. And I have been a journalist, Catherine, and I have written some edgy stories when I was a journalist. I have represented many independent journalists including, the folks at Project Veritas, including David Deliden, who was prosecuted for recording in public places, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation, doctors talking about fetal part trafficking. And so I think it's very important that journalists know and get legal advice about the contours of their rights. The mic and the camera are not a license to break the law, and so I think it's also important for your viewers to know that several of the people we've arrested so far claimed to be journalists. One of them is William Kelly, who was the white bearded angry man shouting about the devil and shouting in the faces of women and children during this event. Another is Georgia Fort, who was one of the last people to be arrested. So there's several of them who claim to be journalists. So the question So is Speaker 0: you're saying that in this particular case, in this particular case, you're alleging that the defendants are claiming to be independent Absolutely, journalists as a Speaker 1: several of them are claiming to be journalists. I don't know that anybody would pay for their content. I don't really care. I mean, and by the way, we're not I don't even want to get into the debate who's a journalist. It's not my job to decide that. That is a very philosophical question, and I love the democratization of the information age today, and I get a lot of my content from X and from people who are not really professional journalists, they didn't go to J school, but Don Lemon calls himself a professional journalist. He worked at CNN, and so I would think that, you know, certainly many people consider him to be, that's not relevant at all to our analysis. Whether you're a journalist or not, you can't break into a church, you can't make children cry, you can't prevent parents from getting to their children in Sunday school to rescue them, you can't make elderly women run out a side door that actually had a cone in front of it because it was dangerous to go in and out that door, slip and injure themselves and have to go to the emergency room. That's all illegal in our country. Speaker 0: Is the strongest evidence against independent journalist Don Lemon his own words and streaming videos? Speaker 1: You keep calling him a journalist, I'm not gonna stipulate to that. But, yes, as this was unfolding that day, I happened to be perpetually online myself, I'd look for civil rights cases online, and I saw this, and I was horrified, and there are hours and hours of this content, and the content includes for the conspiracy charges, and this is laid out in the indictment, all of the pregame activities, call it the tailgating activities of bringing donuts and coffee and kissing some of the fellow conspirators, and then telling the camera he's gonna turn off his camera and microphone temporarily so as not to reveal the intent of his co conspirators as they're gathered outside. And there's a reference to a first wave, and they're videotaping the people who are gonna go in and play dead, play possum, until the second wave comes in and then they all jump up. All of that is evidence of a conspiracy. Speaker 0: Don Lemon also said on late night television that he was willing to turn himself in. That they didn't need to send in federal agents. Is that accurate? Speaker 1: Well this is something that is frequently offered and done, but there's also reasons why you want to arrest somebody without notice, you know, I'll just leave it at that. There may be law enforcement reasons for that. Speaker 0: Was that the case here? Speaker 1: Look, there's evidence in the possession of people that gets taken into evidence when they're arrested. So there's search warrants and there's executions of multiple things at the same time. So I don't want to get into our law enforcement tools, but Don Lemon wasn't singled out in this way, and I refer you to many exhibits of people who were arrested, for offenses by the prior DOJ, including Roger Stone, including Steve Bannon, including a DOJ lawyer who worked in this building who was dragged out of his house in the middle of the night, children terrorized, pre dawn raids on a house. I mean none of that was done here. There was a, there was a careful waiting until the event that he was at was over, and he returned to a hotel, it was a public place. Speaker 0: Don Lemon's lawyer Abby Lowell says he was engaged in constitutionally protected activity. And then he took aim at the justice department. Lowell said instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, The Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest and he said that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case. Speaker 1: Well I respect Abby Lowell, he's a very able criminal defense attorney, but the United States Department of Justice has hundreds of thousands of employees and we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we do many things on any given day at the same time. And so what I will say is that Abulow also knows better. There are limits to the First Amendment. Every good lawyer knows that. There are time, place, and manner restrictions regarding the First Amendment. If a flash mob of protesters, rioters were to break out in a federal court, I guarantee you that the federal judge would have the marshals round up every single one of them and take them into custody. They don't have a First Amendment right to do that in a courthouse. They don't have a first amendment right as a journalist, whether they're conservative or liberal, to break into an abortion clinic or a pro life clinic and start filming a woman in stirrups while she's being examined by a doctor. That, there, there are limits to these rights and by law, Congress has said one of those limits is the doors of a house of worship. Speaker 0: Is the Don Lemon case a good use of Justice Department resources? Speaker 1: This isn't the Don Lemon case. This is the invasion of the city's church in, Saint Paul. It is a very important use of our resources and it's one of several cases that I have ongoing. Because in the last few years, we have seen many vicious attacks and destructions of property of houses of worship, including loss of life. One of the reasons that so many people were terrorized in that church a couple of weeks ago is because there had been a fatal shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis just months earlier. People thought they were in the middle of a mass shooting incident while they were being surrounded by this mob. I have prosecuted successfully and gotten convictions in several cases of attacks on churches in The United States, and I'm investigating attacks on churches and synagogues. There are several open investigations of face act violations involving several houses of worship in The United States, and our country has to have a zero tolerance policy for invading what should be the last bastion of sanctuary and sanctity in our society which is a house of worship. Do you Speaker 0: see a scenario where the justice department would do plea deals with any of the defendants in this case including Don Lemon? Speaker 1: Well, I mean we're interested in doing justice. This is the Department of Justice. And sometimes that means that you make an agreement with a defendant. So nothing is off the table. I would like to, first and foremost, we rapidly went to court to intervene in this matter to seek, indictment, because I didn't want to see this scenario play out a second Sunday in Minneapolis. It's a tinderbox situation over there, people could get hurt, someone did get hurt in this attack as detailed in the indictment. People were terrorized. So that's why we went to court so rapidly. It usually takes months to build a criminal case, okay? DOJ has all the resources, you go about it very carefully, you get a bunch of warrants, you listen to the evidence. We wanted to stop this from happening again, and I believe we've successfully deterred it, but the attorney general has gone out and put anybody on notice. If you go into a church, a mosque, a synagogue, a Mundar temple, Gurdwara, you will be prosecuted. Speaker 0: I'd like to turn now to, the shootings, in Minnesota. Justice Department has opened a civil rights review into the shooting death of the ICU nurse Alex Preti by Homeland Security agents in January. What are the next steps here? Speaker 1: So I refrain from talking about specifics of open investigations or reviews, but let me tell you what happens in general. In general, the majority of the work of the civil rights division involving use of force cases is focused on, use of force potential violations by state or local law enforcement. In the history of our work, you know, have been many such prosecutions and we have cases open right now for excessive force or unreasonable force. We start with the law enforcement professionals. So in this case, the people who gather evidence in the Department of Justice are not the lawyers, they're the FBI. And so the FBI, or working in conjunction with colleagues at Homeland Security, they will retrieve the evidence, step one, preserve gun, bullets, ballistics. If there's a shooting, medical reports. If there's a fatality, coroner's reports, other evidence of that nature. So that's step one, evidence preservation, and that's been underway since the shooting. That happens as a matter of routine in every officer involved. Speaker 0: Have they begun interviewing individuals? I can't give you Speaker 1: any details of the specific investigation, but I can tell you that, you know, there are people assigned to it in my department, and there are people assigned to it and working on it in the law enforcement agencies in question. And if it were other federal law enforcement agencies, it would be the FBI in conjunction with them. The FBI has, advanced ballistic tools and, you know, other investigative tools that some of our other law enforcement partner agencies don't have, and so that's why the role of the FBI is very important in these cases. Speaker 0: Will the department consider or is it considering opening a civil rights review in the Renee Goode shooting? Speaker 1: I can't comment about the specifics of things that are under contemplation or not, but I can say that I have never been told by any supervisor at the Department of Justice that anything is off limits. Speaker 0: There's, reporting out of Minneapolis that anti ICE activists are setting up roadblocks. They are asking people for identification apparently. They're doing license plate readers. Is this purely a criminal matter or is there a civil rights element to it? Speaker 1: It's a criminal matter. It's criminal to obstruct federal law enforcement. But let me add something, which is there's a safety concern for us on the part of our fellow law enforcement officers. And look, all of us who work at the Department of Justice these days, and FBI agents and ICE agents in particular, ICE officers, you know, they're, we're being threatened with doxing, death threats, terrorist threats against our lives. Speaker 0: Have you yourself been threatened? Serious are the threats? Speaker 1: Well, you know, someone has been arrested for threatening me, with terrorist threats. So it's no joke to be in the DOJ at this point in time. And so when you look at breaking into a car of a law enforcement official and then using what you find in there to dox people and publish their home addresses, suddenly it's not just that ICE agent, it's the children, the wife, the husband. This is a very serious matter. So if you think you can be some kind of a renegade militia to police ICE, you may spend many years in prison for doing that. It is a bad idea. That is not the way to protest. Protest is legitimate, and I cherish protest from a person who's protested myself. That is not the way. So think of other ways to do it, guys. Speaker 0: Earlier today Tom Homan announced that they're gonna make it a priority to bring full body camera deployments to homeland security agents and officers in Minneapolis. You reposted this. As head of the civil rights division, how significant is this, and why sort of this patchwork approach among the agencies to body cameras? Speaker 1: Well I think Tom Holman, who I met in Minneapolis last week, in the course of the work that we're doing here together, is very dedicated as a career professional to doing things the right way. And now some of our agencies are fairly new, you know, alphabet soup of agencies, they change names or what have you. He expressed that as funding permits, this will be rolled out in a non patchwork way, but immediately starting with the ICE, I think it's great. Because I believe in transparency, and I think we need facts to evaluate whether people's civil rights have been violated. I think that's very important. I welcome it, and I think it's stunning the extent to which sometimes you look at some very egregious violations of people's civil rights by law enforcement officials, and they have cameras and they turn them off and they're like, oops, whoops, that didn't work. I mean that's evidence of guilt right there, you're turning off your camera when you are about to do something naughty. So having a policy where they're on all the time is gonna protect everybody. Speaker 0: Finally, I wanna talk about the twenty twenty election ballots and the voter rolls, in Georgia. Fulton County, Georgia has filed a motion seeking the return of files that are associated with the twenty twenty election that were obtained by the FBI through a search warrant. Local authorities have called this improper. In your view, was it improper? Speaker 1: Well, let me give you a timeline. Okay. So I've sued Georgia for its voter rolls. Georgia is one of the states that was a swing state that has refused to turn over its voter rolls as, we're allowed to obtain under the 1960 provisions of the Civil Rights Act. That's one lawsuit. Now secondly, I have reason to believe, based on our knowledge and what we've found out so far, that there were irregularities in Fulton County's processing. It's not a big leap because Fulton County has said that itself. It has come out and there have been, Georgia election boards and Georgia investigations at the state level that have revealed that there was improper handling of hundreds of thousands of ballots. Now some will say, oh, you don't you can't prove fraud or there's no big deal, then no one's investigated them, no one's done an official review of those, and so we found there to be a basis to obtain those ballots civilly under the civil rights provisions that I administer. I first tried to get them voluntarily by letters, I asked for them, the people in possession of these ballots in Fulton County had already defied requests by Georgia election officials and election board to obtain these, so they were already in defiance of state requests. They said no. They said go to the judge, the judge will have them because they were part of a trial. We went to the court, the court said I don't have them, go over there. It was like a big game of, big shell game of who's got the ballots. So I then filed a lawsuit, because in a lawsuit, let's sue everybody and y'all can all figure out who's got the ballots and we can get the ballots and then we can conduct our civil review. While that case has been pending, which was filed fairly recently, just weeks ago, other colleagues of mine at the Department of Justice learned that they believed they had probable cause to obtain a search warrant regarding potential criminal violations of the law, and that is what was executed in the search warrant being executed at a, election hub, some kind of election storage space off-site of where the election offices are in Fulton County. We don't know exactly what was there, whether that's the totality of what I was looking for or not, so that is to be determined. But generally speaking, when there is a criminal case that comes on the heels of a civil case, the criminal case is going to take precedence because a criminal case has implications of the Fifth Amendment and self incrimination and so forth. And so we're working all of that out right now, but, that criminal case means that a magistrate judge did their job, looked at the evidence, and agreed that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed. Speaker 0: That's under seal. Have you seen the probable cause in this case? Speaker 1: I have not. We're not involved in the details of When Speaker 0: we spoke in November you talked about, your belief that there were irregularities in Georgia. Has the investigation uncovered evidence that substantiate your concerns that there were irregularities? Speaker 1: That's, well, since we initiated that I believe many more statements have come out from Georgia officials who have confirmed that the ballots were mishandled, you know, not counted properly, but no big deal is their answer to that. I don't think it's disputed that there was mishandling of ballots in Fulton County. The reason I was seeking those ballots is to do some kind of a comprehensive review. So I haven't done it because I don't have the ballots because they hid them from us and they refused to cooperate with our law enforcement investigation. Speaker 0: Will you seek, the ballots in other, swing states from 2020? Speaker 1: Well, we have certain laws in place that require states and county officials to preserve the ballots for a period of time after the election. That period of time has lapsed. In this case, those ballots existed because there was litigation concerning those ballots, and so there may be pockets somewhere else in The United States where we learn that the ballots from 2020 exist, and if I think there's reason to believe that they were mishandled or there was some irregularity, I might seek to look at them. But, you know, I don't have those facts in front of me right now. Speaker 0: Is the objective, or is it possible to try and conclude this investigation prior to the midterms? Speaker 1: I mean, is possible. We have a little less than eleven months, ten months left. So I would defer to my, colleagues who initiated the criminal investigation. They're probably gonna have the first bite. Also, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is involved in that and has been tasked with looking at election security matters as well, and so I'm sure there's going to be a lot of effort to look at those and learn what we can about what happened in those circumstances. Speaker 0: The DNI sent a letter to Congress where she confirmed that she was in Georgia, there with the FBI, she also facilitated a phone call with President Trump. Do you think the DNI's involvement strengthens the investigation? Or puts at risk allegations of politicization? Speaker 1: I mean how is it politicized? She's a law enforcement official tasked with our national security, and certainly I don't think there's any dispute that the conduct of our elections, which are literally the way that our government comes into power, is a national security issue, and the security of our elections is incredibly important. I'm I'm comforted as a citizen and as someone at the Department of Justice by the fact that, we have national security eyes on this as well as criminal and civil and civil rights review. Because at the end of the day, as a voter myself and someone who's been involved in politics before I took this job, I like every citizen to vote, and a lot of people don't vote. They don't have confidence, they don't care. I think it's important that people have confidence in the outcome of our elections, which will in turn drive people to accept the outcome of the elections and also be more likely to vote. I think that's a very good thing, whoever they're voting for. Speaker 0: In this case, it makes total sense to go to the court records. The indictment will take you fifteen or twenty minutes to read back to front, and there's a lot of great detail about this alleged wide ranging conspiracy. The government's position is that it was organized and premeditated, and we learned from our interview that there's another layer to the investigation that they're looking at the financing. One of the things that jumped out at me is this allegation that the anti ICE activists claim to be journalists as if it was somehow going to shield them from legal consequences, and of course, that will be decided by a court of law. So we'll see you next time on Straight to the Point.
C__Herridge
Posted - December 14, 2025 at 11:07 PM
Saved - December 15, 2025 at 4:41 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I sit down with Elise Stefanik, chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, to discuss GOP divisions, criticism of Speaker Johnson, and why I’m running for New York Governor as Republicans face a high-stakes midterm. We dive into Trump’s endorsement, the razor-thin House majority, MTG, a MAGA split, Epstein files, uniting the party, Mamdani, funding NYC, anti-Semitism, and Russia collusion accountability.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Straight to the Point: Rep. Elise Stefanik As Chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, @EliseStefanik is one of the most powerful women on Capitol Hill. In this exclusive interview, Stefanik addresses divisions within the GOP, criticism of Speaker Johnson and answers why she is running for Governor of New York as Republicans face a high stakes mid-term election. 00:23 Republican Bruce Blakeman @NassauExec enters New York Governor’s race 00:45 Can Stefanik secure President Trump’s endorsement? 02:47 House GOP’s razor-thin majority 03:41 Stefanik, “New York is on the precipice of decay.” 04:19 Would Speaker Johnson @SpeakerJohnson have the votes today? Frustration within GOP 07:18 Marjorie Taylor Greene / 60 Minutes 09:08 Is there a MAGA split? 10:00 Have the Epstein Files divided the party? 10:56 What will it take to unite the Republican Party? 11:45 President Trump’s meeting with NYC mayor-elect @ZohranKMamdani 12:34 Stefanik calls Mamdani “Hochul’s Jihadist” @GovKathyHochul 13:36 As NY Governor, Stefanik says, “I’ll be a check” on Mamdani 14:56 What would it take to withhold funding from New York City? 16:28 Is New York City on the cusp of a police staffing crisis? 18:25 Anti-semitism: The question heard around the world 19:17 I drafted the question “...on the fly” 20:40 The Harvard settlement 24:25 Russia Collusion: Where’s the accountability? 25:22 Why choose Independent journalism? @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

C__Herridge
Posted - December 15, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Saved - December 15, 2025 at 4:37 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I've heard there’s growing frustration; I’m not the only member, Stefanik says about Speaker Johnson. I stood by my criticism that Johnson wouldn’t have the support to be Speaker in a roll-call vote.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Straight to the Point: Rep. Elise Stefanik “..there has been growing frustration. I'm not the only member….” says @EliseStefanik of @SpeakerJohnson Stefanik stood by her recent criticism of Mike Johnson that he would not have the support to be Speaker if there was a roll call vote. @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 discusses the importance of the Speaker of the House using the next two years to deliver the agenda for the American people and to codify President Trump's executive orders. There is growing frustration with the efficacy of getting things done on the House floor, and this is described as part of a fragile majority, with a one- to two-seat margin depending on who steps down or cannot attend votes. Speaker Johnson is encouraged to respond more to members' concerns, and there is a call to work overtime to deliver on making America affordable, making America safe, and codify President Trump's agenda. Speaker 1 notes there have been historic accomplishments, including "the one big beautiful bill, which is the largest tax cut in history specifically for New Yorkers as well as many other provisions." The frustration is described as common in coverage, and the fragility of the majority is cited as a challenge to bring bills to the floor, though they have worked through issues and will continue to do so.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You recently told The Wall Street Journal of Speaker Johnson that he certainly wouldn't have the votes to be Speaker if there was a roll call vote. Have you lost confidence in Speaker Johnson? Speaker 1: I think that it is very important for the Speaker of the House to use these two years as effectively as possible to deliver the agenda for the American people, to codify President Trump's executive orders. And there has been growing frustration I'm not the only member in terms of the efficacy of getting things done on the House floor. And look, this is a fragile majority. The Republican speaker position is not easy. It's been difficult for every speaker. And I've had direct conversations with Speaker Johnson about how I think he needs to respond more to members' concerns. And we need to work overtime to deliver on making America affordable, making America safe, and codify president Trump's agenda. That's not to say we haven't had historic accomplishments because we have. The one big beautiful bill, which is the largest tax cut in history specifically for New Yorkers as well as many other provisions. That's a big win for the American people. Speaker 0: You said there's frustration. Is it fairly widespread with speaker Johnson? Speaker 1: I would say there is I mean, this is covered every single week in the news. There frustration, and I think part of that goes to the fact that you have such a fragile majority right now, a one to two seat in some cases depending upon, you know, whoever stepped down or if someone is not able to come to votes. It is a challenge to bring bills to the floor, and we've worked through and we're gonna continue working through.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Straight to the Point: Rep. Elise Stefanik As Chairwoman of House Republican Leadership, @EliseStefanik is one of the most powerful women on Capitol Hill. In this exclusive interview, Stefanik addresses divisions within the GOP, criticism of Speaker Johnson and answers why she is running for Governor of New York as Republicans face a high stakes mid-term election. 00:23 Republican Bruce Blakeman @NassauExec enters New York Governor’s race 00:45 Can Stefanik secure President Trump’s endorsement? 02:47 House GOP’s razor-thin majority 03:41 Stefanik, “New York is on the precipice of decay.” 04:19 Would Speaker Johnson @SpeakerJohnson have the votes today? Frustration within GOP 07:18 Marjorie Taylor Greene / 60 Minutes 09:08 Is there a MAGA split? 10:00 Have the Epstein Files divided the party? 10:56 What will it take to unite the Republican Party? 11:45 President Trump’s meeting with NYC mayor-elect @ZohranKMamdani 12:34 Stefanik calls Mamdani “Hochul’s Jihadist” @GovKathyHochul 13:36 As NY Governor, Stefanik says, “I’ll be a check” on Mamdani 14:56 What would it take to withhold funding from New York City? 16:28 Is New York City on the cusp of a police staffing crisis? 18:25 Anti-semitism: The question heard around the world 19:17 I drafted the question “...on the fly” 20:40 The Harvard settlement 24:25 Russia Collusion: Where’s the accountability? 25:22 Why choose Independent journalism? @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

C__Herridge
Posted - November 4, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Saved - December 11, 2025 at 9:18 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I find that handwritten notes and emails shaping the media narrative are fascinating but already known. The DOJ filing centers on the FBI electronic communication as a major headline. Taken together, these records reinforce a pattern of alleged obstruction and a broader conspiracy.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

.@Comey handwritten notes and emails shaping media narrative are fascinating but previously known @FBI @FBIDirectorKash In the new DOJ court filing, the FBI electronic communication or EC is a major headline.  Taken together, these records reinforce a fact pattern of alleged obstruction and broader conspiracy.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Newly Filed FBI Records @Comey Reveal Contents “Five Burn Bags” Classified + Potentially Incriminating Records Date Back To 2016 Discovered April 2025 @FBIDirectorKash •Five ‘Burn Bags” •Records from “Mar-a-Lago search, January 06 capitol breach, the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (Trump/Russia Collusion)” •Copy “Classified Appendix to the John Durham Special Counsel” probe •Original CIA referral to former FBI Director James Comey, known as a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL) •Original CIA referral dated SEPT 7, 2016 to Comey and believed missing for several years •CIA referral “contained certain intelligence related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election” •CIA referral found in “storage closet adjacent to the Director’s Office” •Comey testified “he was unfamiliar with (the CIA referral) as well as its related intelligence” FBI Preliminary investigation opened into potential violations 18 USC 2071 •Concealment, Removal or Mutilation Government Records/Evidence 👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/942959690/Comey-Burn-Bags “...appears to be a hasty and chaotic effort by certain employees to collect senior management officials’ records in advance of the anticipated transition of a new team of FBI executives taking control after the presidential inauguration”

Comey Burn Bags | PDF | National Security Of The United States | Federal Government Of The United States Comey Burn Bags - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The document outlines the discovery of highly classified documents in 'burn bags' within a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at FBI Headquarters, prompting an internal review. The review revealed records related to significant investigations and indicated potential misconduct regarding the handling of official records during a leadership transition. A preliminary investigation is recommended to explore possible criminal activity related to the concealment or destruction of these records. scribd.com
C__Herridge
Posted - November 25, 2025 at 3:26 AM
Saved - November 26, 2025 at 12:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I outline key topics from the interview: fixes at FBI HQ; the Thomas Crooks probe; whether lawmakers’ sedition claims have a lawful predicate; if the FBI pursues a broader conspiracy against Trump; the burn bags incident and who placed Trump records in a secure room; a 2016 CIA referral about a Clinton plan tying Trump to Russia; Epstein Files transparency deadlines; fentanyl crackdown and China’s deal cheating timeline; Charlie Kirk assassination probe; Jan 6 pipe bomber updates; Venezuela’s strikes and drug flows; Patel’s use of a government jet and 24/7 comms; and plans to move much of the workforce to Reagan by year’s end.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Straight to the Point Exclusive: FBI Director Kash Patel 00:39 Arrival FBI HQ: What needs to be fixed? 02:44 Is the Thomas Crooks’ investigation a closed case? 06:21 Democratic lawmakers alleged sedition: “Is there a lawful predicate to open up an inquiry and investigation?” 08:28 Clapper, Brennan and others: Is the FBI pursuing a broader conspiracy allegedly designed to undermine President Trump? 09:56 Burn bags discovered at FBI HQ: Patel “we know” who put the burn bags containing Trump records in a secure room. 12:35 A 2016 CIA intelligence referral about an alleged “Clinton plan” to tie candidate Trump to Russia. 13:10 Epstein Files Transparency Act: Meeting the 30 day deadline, commitment to limited redactions. 16:05 Cracking down on Fentanyl: China Deal. How quickly will the US government know if China cheats? 19:00 Charlie Kirk assassination investigation. 21:30 January 6th pipe bomber case update:  “There are new developments” 22:35 Venezuela, military strikes and the impact on illegal drug flow. 23:46 Use Government Jet: Director Patel required by law to use government DOJ aircraft for security and 24/7 communications. 24:39 FBI HQ: Patel said he hopes “by the end of next year, we'll have a large chunk of our workforce” at the Ronald Reagan Building. TIMING NOTE:  We did not ask FBI Director Patel about the dismissal of the James Comey indictment because the news broke two hours after our interview.  Full transparency matters. @thelatmg @latimesstudios_

C__Herridge
Posted - October 15, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Saved - October 16, 2025 at 3:30 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I note the 2019 DOJ IG report criticized James Comey for sharing private memos about talks with Trump with Columbia professor Daniel Richman and attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, including at least one classified memo. Richman is a potential witness in Comey’s Virginia case; Fitzgerald now represents Comey. I ask whether this creates a conflict or appearance problem and whether any legal or ethical red lines are crossed. Richman has not commented.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

The Plot Thickens 2019 Justice Department watchdog concluded @Comey set a “dangerous example” when he shared personal memos documenting his private meetings with President Trump about the FBI's Russia Collusion probe. According to the Inspector General Report, several memos were shared with the Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman.   Richman is expected to be a central witness in the pending federal prosecution against Comey in Virginia for allegedly lying about his role in media leaks. The Inspector General also found attorney Patrick Fitzgerald received multiple Comey memos about the Trump meetings, including at least one memo containing classified information.   Fitzgerald is now representing Comey in the Virginia case. Question: Is there a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict?  Does it cross any legal or ethical red lines? Richman has not responded to our team's multiple requests for comment. Seeking additional comment. 2019 IG report👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/423671596/Doj-Ig-Comey "Comey sends scanned copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 from his personal email account to the personal email account of one of his attorneys, Patrick Fitzgerald.” “The FBI determined that Memos 1 and 3 contained information classified at the “SECRET” level, and that Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the “CONFIDENTIAL” level. The FBI designated Memos 4, 5, and 6 as unclassified, “For Official Use Only.” "By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his (Comey's) @FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example…”

Doj Ig Comey | PDF | Classified Information In The United States | Classified Information Doj Ig Comey - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Justice Department Inspector General Report on former FBI Director James Comey's conduct. After the investigation, the Justice Department has declined prosecution. scribd.com
C__Herridge
Posted - September 25, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Saved - September 26, 2025 at 11:23 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent discussion about the Comey indictment, I highlighted a key exchange from his 2020 congressional testimony with Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz questioned Comey about whether he had ever been an anonymous source regarding the Trump or Clinton investigations, to which Comey replied "Never." Cruz pointed out that Andrew McCabe, who worked under Comey, claimed he leaked information with Comey's knowledge and authorization, creating a contradiction. Comey maintained that he stands by his original testimony from May 2017.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Based on @comey indictment, this appears to be the incriminating exchange from the 2020 congressional testimony with questions from @SenTedCruz "On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman @ChuckGrassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No." Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth? Mr. Comey: I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

CONFIRMED: @Comey INDICTMENT COUNT 1: FALSE STATEMENT 18 USC 1001  "...falsely stating to a US Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B COMEY had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports..’” COUNT 2: OBSTRUCTION CONGRESS 18 USC 1505 "...did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede..."

C__Herridge
Posted - September 26, 2025 at 12:32 AM
Saved - September 26, 2025 at 4:48 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned that an indictment was prepared and that the evidence was solid, contrary to some media claims of a weak case. Critics have accused former US Attorney Erik Siebert of delaying the charges, but Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan has since removed those obstacles. A key factor was @FBIDirectorKash declassifying investigations into media leaks, known as "Arctic Haze," which revealed Comey's involvement in authorizing leaks of classified information. This information may be familiar to my followers. Thank you for your support of independent journalism!

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW REPORTING: @Comey I understand the indictment was ready to go.   I am told "all the evidence was there," not a “shaky" criminal case as characterized some media reporting. Critics of former US Attorney Erik Siebert allege he was "blocking" or "slow walking" the charges. Interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan removed the blocks Key Factor: @FBIDirectorKash declassified FBI leak investigations codenamed "Arctic Haze" 👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/901652042/2021-FBI-Report-Concluding-Media-Leak-Investigation-Arctic-Haze •Revealed Comey's role authorizing media leaks (at least one involved classified information) through his FBI subordinates or through his Columbia law school professor Richman with SGE (Special Government Employee) status. This is old news if you follow me and subscribe! https://catherineherridgereports.com/subscribe Thank you for supporting independent journalism with impact!

2021 FBI Report Concluding Media Leak Investigation "Arctic Haze" | PDF | Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia) | Intelligence Agencies 2021 FBI Report Concluding Media Leak Investigation "Arctic Haze" - Read online for free. This declassified FBI report documents Director Comey's use of a Special Government Employee to pass information to the media and "correct stories critical of Comey." scribd.com
Catherine Herridge Reports Telling the stories I could not tell before, where the facts have a power all their own. catherineherridgereports.com
C__Herridge
Posted - September 11, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Saved - September 11, 2025 at 8:53 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I reported from Ground Zero and have met many parents who lost adult children on September 11th and during the USS Cole attack. They feared they would never see justice, and many have passed without answers. I remain dedicated to investigating their stories.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

I reported from Ground Zero. Since, I have met so many parents who lost adult children on September 11th and when the USS Cole that was struck by Al Qaeda suicide bombers in October 2000. These parents worried they would never see justice in their lifetimes.  Many of them have passed without getting answers. That is why I remain committed to investigating their stories. 9/11

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Reports Reveal Two Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served As An Advance Team” For 9/11 Hijackers These records challenge the official 9/11 narrative shifting the timeline back to December 1998, almost three years before al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 1:17 Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served as (9/11) Advance Team” 2:20 FBI: Ties to Al-Qaeda 3:00 Alleged Advance Team Lead Buried In Secret Government Records 4:00 Arrival In Southern California December 1998 – 13 Months Before Hijackers 5:20 Hijackers’ Support Network -  “50/50” Chance Advance Knowledge 6:00 Letters to Saudi Government Official “Complete Cooperation” 6:35 February 2000 Video: “Welcome Party” 9/11 Hijackers 7:50 Hijackers’ Road Trip Oklahoma + Missouri 8:40 Washington D.C. “Casing” Video / Bin Laden 9/11 Targets 9:20 Trump Administration: For 9/11 Families, Once In A Lifetime Chance For Answers 11:10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Response

Video Transcript AI Summary
Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Suderi, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. There are two hijackers appear in this video. It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. They arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Speaker 1: Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. That really moves the timeline back significantly to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nine eleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nine eleven who were official Saudi employees. Were they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot, or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? I think these records clearly depict not only the advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nine eleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven Commission. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. I think that really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Speaker 0: Bill Evanina is the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He spent twenty four years at the FBI and investigated nineeleven. The FBI says they may have served as an advance team for the non living hijackers. Speaker 1: I think based upon these documents and the videos, I think it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The question would be at whose behest? Was it from the Saudi government or were they working for Al Qaeda directly? Just happened to be Saudi employees. Speaker 0: Filmed two years before the nine eleven terrorist attacks, the video shows these Saudi government employees, Mutaib al Sudhiri behind the wheel, the other Adal Mohammad al Saddan, hiding behind a road map. Along with a third Saudi, they filmed Washington DC landmarks later identified by Al Qaeda terrorists as potential nine eleven targets. The declassified record states the FBI assesses that the two Saudis may still maintain ties to Al Qaeda. Sounds like the two Saudis had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. Speaker 1: Sounds very clear to me that they are, they still possess, which means they once did possess. Speaker 0: Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Sudhiri, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The explosive lead was buried in thousands of pages of once secret government records. We asked you to review these declassified documents. Are they significant documents? Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they really predate what we've known about nineeleven and the support networks domestically here in The US for the hijackers. Speaker 0: Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nineeleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: I think we're closer. I think it's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. Now, they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? Speaker 0: Are the two Saudis overlooked key players in the nineeleven plot? Speaker 1: I think that's a good question. I think these two individuals who are now named provide new investigative leads for the FBI and our intelligence services to go back and put some more pieces together in this really complicated puzzle. Speaker 0: It took nearly two decades and pressure from the nine eleven family who were suing Saudi Arabia over the terrorist attacks for these highly secretive government records to be declassified. Investigators for the families found evidence Sadan and Suderi arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Based on the declassified records, what did the alleged Saudi advance team do? Speaker 1: I think these records clearly depict not only the advance team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, coordinating with imams on the West Coast and on the East Coast, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: The hijackers, many of them did not speak English, had never been to The United States before. Could they have lived under the radar without this support network? Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. If you were going to initiate this type of sophisticated plot, you don't even want to take that chance. So it was critically needed to have a support network here. Speaker 0: The intelligence reports include phone and financial analysis, interviews, and travel patterns, concluding Sedan and Suderi lived at the same address in San Diego where the hijackers would later stay. Other common links include Fahad Althumeri, a well known figure at the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles, reputed to be an Islamic fundamentalist. American cleric Anwar al Alawki, he became a major Al Qaeda leader after 09/11 and was killed in a CIA drone strike. As well as this Saudi, the FBI said there's a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Omar Al Bayoumi, what was his role? Speaker 1: I think he was clearly the fixer, the facilitator, the leader of this potential surveillance cell. And I think the two Saudis came here to vet him. Speaker 0: After helping Saddam and Sudhiri in Southern California, Bayoumi sent letters to Saudi government officials. Bayoumi said of the men, there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. What does that tell you? Speaker 1: I think they are exactly what they say they are. I think they send those messages back to the leaders who need to know that the facilitation of the support network in California is strong and it's workable. There's coordination of the key people that need to make this work. Speaker 0: Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England. His records and videos were seized, including a February 2000 welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego. Some of the most compelling evidence that challenges the official nine eleven narrative was shared by British authorities with the nine eleven families, not by the US government. Speaker 1: Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 1: To the left side of Speaker 0: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 1: He wants these people seen in the video for sure. And absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 0: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal and then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Okay. Speaker 1: Oh, look at that. Speaker 0: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 1: Very significant. It's another direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: In April 2001, five months before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, two hijackers traveled from Arizona to Virginia. Investigators for the nine eleven families developed this map and alleged the hijackers passed through Oklahoma and Missouri, where the same two Saudi government employees were assigned. In Missouri, Sudhiri had lived with a known key communications specialist for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Speaker 1: I believe those two locations in Oklahoma and Missouri were check-in spots, where they had to check-in with trusted people who helped facilitate their arrival to make sure they're on the right path and going in the right direction and if they needed any more assistance on the way. Speaker 0: And there is another nine eleven connection. These Saudi government employees videotaped Washington DC landmarks in June 1999. Does that look like a tourist video? Speaker 1: Clearly not a tourist video. It was very specific with intent of not only the visualization of multiple sides of the building, but also the security detail. Speaker 0: About the same time, Osama bin Laden developed an initial list of targets for the plot, including the White House and US Capitol, the same sites filmed by the Saudis. As a trained investigator, what significance do you place on the video? Speaker 1: I think the video really adds value to the fact that there was thought and mindset of potential targets years ahead of the actual event in nineeleven. And I think that really elongates the timeframe. Speaker 0: We've got new leadership now here in Washington. What can the new director of the FBI do? Speaker 1: I think this is an opportunity for the FBI, the CIA, and the administration for that matter, to go and be the most stalwart supporters in the 11 families, and then deal directly with the Saudi government for access to these individuals. And I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It might not come again, but I think all the stars have aligned to be able to put that request into the Saudi government.
C__Herridge
Posted - September 11, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Saved - September 11, 2025 at 8:48 PM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

MY ANALYSIS: CCTV footage is critical, especially from building where the shot was fired.  Planned, but black clothing can be an indicator we are not dealing with a professional.  Pros would dress to easily assimilate in fleeing crowd. Possible assistance on the ground.

@FBISaltLakeCity - FBI Salt Lake City

We are asking for the public's help identifying this person of interest in connection with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. 1-800-CALL-FBI Digital media tips: fbi.gov/utahvalleyshoo… https://t.co/ALuVkTXuDc

C__Herridge
Posted - September 10, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Saved - September 10, 2025 at 5:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across a February 2000 video showing two 9/11 hijackers at a dinner in San Diego. The host instructed the videographer not to film one side of the room, but he accidentally captured a Saudi government religious official. A former intel official noted this is significant, while Saudi lawyers dispute the claims.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

MUST SEE: 9/11 Hijacker Video February 2000 Video Captures Two 9/11 Hijackers At A Dinner Or ‘Welcome Party’ In San Diego. The Party Host Orders The Videographer NOT To Film One Side Of The Room.  The Videographer Slips Up and Captures A “Saudi Government Religious Official” At The Party.  Former Intel Official: “That’s A Big Deal” In Court papers, lawyers for Saudi Arabia dispute the characterization.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal, then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. It's direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Any hijackers in this video? Speaker 1: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Speaker 2: One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. Speaker 1: You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 0: To the left side of Speaker 1: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 0: He wants these people seen in the video for sure, and absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 2: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. Speaker 1: So they're having the meal, then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Speaker 0: Okay. Oh, look at that. Speaker 2: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 0: Very significant. It's direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 2: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Reports Reveal Two Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served As An Advance Team” For 9/11 Hijackers These records challenge the official 9/11 narrative shifting the timeline back to December 1998, almost three years before al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 1:17 Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served as (9/11) Advance Team” 2:20 FBI: Ties to Al-Qaeda 3:00 Alleged Advance Team Lead Buried In Secret Government Records 4:00 Arrival In Southern California December 1998 – 13 Months Before Hijackers 5:20 Hijackers’ Support Network -  “50/50” Chance Advance Knowledge 6:00 Letters to Saudi Government Official “Complete Cooperation” 6:35 February 2000 Video: “Welcome Party” 9/11 Hijackers 7:50 Hijackers’ Road Trip Oklahoma + Missouri 8:40 Washington D.C. “Casing” Video / Bin Laden 9/11 Targets 9:20 Trump Administration: For 9/11 Families, Once In A Lifetime Chance For Answers 11:10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Response

Video Transcript AI Summary
Exclusive reporting and declassified records reveal Saudi government employees Sadan and Suderi may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. That really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England; he said there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. Mohammad Al Qatani appears in the video. Washington, DC landmarks filmed in 1999 align with bin Laden's initial target list. There is a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Investigators view these records as pre-dating known domestic networks and offering new leads for the FBI and intelligence services, including engagement with the Saudi government.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Speaker 1: Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. That really moves the timeline back significantly to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nine eleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nine eleven who were official Saudi employees. Were they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot, or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? I think these records clearly depict not only the advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nine eleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven Commission. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. I think that really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Speaker 0: Bill Evanina is the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He spent twenty four years at the FBI and investigated nineeleven. The FBI says they may have served as an advance team for the non living hijackers. Speaker 1: I think based upon these documents and the videos, I think it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The question would be at whose behest? Was it from the Saudi government or were they working for Al Qaeda directly? Just happened to be Saudi employees. Speaker 0: Filmed two years before the nine eleven terrorist attacks, the video shows these Saudi government employees, Mutaib al Sudhiri behind the wheel, the other Adal Mohammad al Saddan, hiding behind a road map. Along with a third Saudi, they filmed Washington DC landmarks later identified by Al Qaeda terrorists as potential nine eleven targets. The declassified record states the FBI assesses that the two Saudis may still maintain ties to Al Qaeda. Sounds like the two Saudis had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. Speaker 1: Sounds very clear to me that they are, they still possess, which means they once did possess. Speaker 0: Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Sudhiri, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The explosive lead was buried in thousands of pages of once secret government records. We asked you to review these declassified documents. Are they significant documents? Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they really predate what we've known about nineeleven and the support networks domestically here in The US for the hijackers. Speaker 0: Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nineeleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: I think we're closer. I think it's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. Now, they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? Speaker 0: Are the two Saudis overlooked key players in the nineeleven plot? Speaker 1: I think that's a good question. I think these two individuals who are now named provide new investigative leads for the FBI and our intelligence services to go back and put some more pieces together in this really complicated puzzle. Speaker 0: It took nearly two decades and pressure from the nine eleven family who were suing Saudi Arabia over the terrorist attacks for these highly secretive government records to be declassified. Investigators for the families found evidence Sadan and Suderi arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Based on the declassified records, what did the alleged Saudi advance team do? Speaker 1: I think these records clearly depict not only the advance team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, coordinating with imams on the West Coast and on the East Coast, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: The hijackers, many of them did not speak English, had never been to The United States before. Could they have lived under the radar without this support network? Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. If you were going to initiate this type of sophisticated plot, you don't even want to take that chance. So it was critically needed to have a support network here. Speaker 0: The intelligence reports include phone and financial analysis, interviews, and travel patterns, concluding Sedan and Suderi lived at the same address in San Diego where the hijackers would later stay. Other common links include Fahad Althumeri, a well known figure at the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles, reputed to be an Islamic fundamentalist. American cleric Anwar al Alawki, he became a major Al Qaeda leader after 09/11 and was killed in a CIA drone strike. As well as this Saudi, the FBI said there's a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Omar Al Bayoumi, what was his role? Speaker 1: I think he was clearly the fixer, the facilitator, the leader of this potential surveillance cell. And I think the two Saudis came here to vet him. Speaker 0: After helping Saddam and Sudhiri in Southern California, Bayoumi sent letters to Saudi government officials. Bayoumi said of the men, there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. What does that tell you? Speaker 1: I think they are exactly what they say they are. I think they send those messages back to the leaders who need to know that the facilitation of the support network in California is strong and it's workable. There's coordination of the key people that need to make this work. Speaker 0: Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England. His records and videos were seized, including a February 2000 welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego. Some of the most compelling evidence that challenges the official nine eleven narrative was shared by British authorities with the nine eleven families, not by the US government. Speaker 1: Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 1: To the left side of Speaker 0: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 1: He wants these people seen in the video for sure. And absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 0: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal and then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Okay. Speaker 1: Oh, look at that. Speaker 0: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 1: Very significant. It's another direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: In April 2001, five months before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, two hijackers traveled from Arizona to Virginia. Investigators for the nine eleven families developed this map and alleged the hijackers passed through Oklahoma and Missouri, where the same two Saudi government employees were assigned. In Missouri, Sudhiri had lived with a known key communications specialist for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Speaker 1: I believe those two locations in Oklahoma and Missouri were check-in spots, where they had to check-in with trusted people who helped facilitate their arrival to make sure they're on the right path and going in the right direction and if they needed any more assistance on the way. Speaker 0: And there is another nine eleven connection. These Saudi government employees videotaped Washington DC landmarks in June 1999. Does that look like a tourist video? Speaker 1: Clearly not a tourist video. It was very specific with intent of not only the visualization of multiple sides of the building, but also the security detail. Speaker 0: About the same time, Osama bin Laden developed an initial list of targets for the plot, including the White House and US Capitol, the same sites filmed by the Saudis. As a trained investigator, what significance do you place on the video? Speaker 1: I think the video really adds value to the fact that there was thought and mindset of potential targets years ahead of the actual event in nineeleven. And I think that really elongates the timeframe. Speaker 0: We've got new leadership now here in Washington. What can the new director of the FBI do? Speaker 1: I think this is an opportunity for the FBI, the CIA, and the administration for that matter, to go and be the most stalwart supporters in the 11 families, and then deal directly with the Saudi government for access to these individuals. And I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It might not come again, but I think all the stars have aligned to be able to put that request into the Saudi government.
C__Herridge
Posted - September 9, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Saved - September 10, 2025 at 3:13 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I can confirm that the FBI is aware of our new investigation into the timeline of the 9/11 attacks. Our reporting on the Saudi "Advance Team" will be reviewed for leads, and the Bureau is open to tips and information from 9/11 families.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

JUST IN: We have confirmed that the @FBI is aware of our new investigation that challenges the timeline of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. We understand that our reporting today on the Saudi "Advance Team" will be reviewed for leads and the Bureau welcomes tips and information from 9/11 families.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Reports Reveal Two Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served As An Advance Team” For 9/11 Hijackers These records challenge the official 9/11 narrative shifting the timeline back to December 1998, almost three years before al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 1:17 Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served as (9/11) Advance Team” 2:20 FBI: Ties to Al-Qaeda 3:00 Alleged Advance Team Lead Buried In Secret Government Records 4:00 Arrival In Southern California December 1998 – 13 Months Before Hijackers 5:20 Hijackers’ Support Network -  “50/50” Chance Advance Knowledge 6:00 Letters to Saudi Government Official “Complete Cooperation” 6:35 February 2000 Video: “Welcome Party” 9/11 Hijackers 7:50 Hijackers’ Road Trip Oklahoma + Missouri 8:40 Washington D.C. “Casing” Video / Bin Laden 9/11 Targets 9:20 Trump Administration: For 9/11 Families, Once In A Lifetime Chance For Answers 11:10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Response

Video Transcript AI Summary
Declassified intelligence and law enforcement records indicate Saudi government employees Sadan and Sudhiri may have served as an advanced team for hijackers later tied to 9/11. Video filmed in Washington, DC, two years before the attacks shows Mutaib al Sudhiri and Adal Mohammad al Saddan, who reportedly maintained ties to Al Qaeda and identified potential targets. Investigators say the pair arrived in December 1998 in Southern California, received financial support, housing, and guidance, and coordinated with imams on both coasts to facilitate the hijackers’ stay. Omar Al Bayoumi is described as the fixer and leader of a surveillance cell, who communicated back to Saudi leaders about cooperation. A February 2000 welcome party in San Diego for two hijackers is documented, with Mohammad Al Qatani present. The FBI and others are urged to pursue Saudi cooperation to access these individuals; declassification followed pressure from 9/11 families.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Speaker 1: Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. That really moves the timeline back significantly to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nine eleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nine eleven who were official Saudi employees. Were they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot, or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? I think these records clearly depict not only the advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nine eleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven Commission. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. I think that really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Speaker 0: Bill Evanina is the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He spent twenty four years at the FBI and investigated nineeleven. The FBI says they may have served as an advance team for the non living hijackers. Speaker 1: I think based upon these documents and the videos, I think it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The question would be at whose behest? Was it from the Saudi government or were they working for Al Qaeda directly? Just happened to be Saudi employees. Speaker 0: Filmed two years before the nine eleven terrorist attacks, the video shows these Saudi government employees, Mutaib al Sudhiri behind the wheel, the other Adal Mohammad al Saddan, hiding behind a road map. Along with a third Saudi, they filmed Washington DC landmarks later identified by Al Qaeda terrorists as potential nine eleven targets. The declassified record states the FBI assesses that the two Saudis may still maintain ties to Al Qaeda. Sounds like the two Saudis had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. Speaker 1: Sounds very clear to me that they are, they still possess, which means they once did possess. Speaker 0: Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Sudhiri, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The explosive lead was buried in thousands of pages of once secret government records. We asked you to review these declassified documents. Are they significant documents? Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they really predate what we've known about nineeleven and the support networks domestically here in The US for the hijackers. Speaker 0: Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nineeleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: I think we're closer. I think it's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. Now, they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? Speaker 0: Are the two Saudis overlooked key players in the nineeleven plot? Speaker 1: I think that's a good question. I think these two individuals who are now named provide new investigative leads for the FBI and our intelligence services to go back and put some more pieces together in this really complicated puzzle. Speaker 0: It took nearly two decades and pressure from the nine eleven family who were suing Saudi Arabia over the terrorist attacks for these highly secretive government records to be declassified. Investigators for the families found evidence Sadan and Suderi arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Based on the declassified records, what did the alleged Saudi advance team do? Speaker 1: I think these records clearly depict not only the advance team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, coordinating with imams on the West Coast and on the East Coast, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: The hijackers, many of them did not speak English, had never been to The United States before. Could they have lived under the radar without this support network? Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. If you were going to initiate this type of sophisticated plot, you don't even want to take that chance. So it was critically needed to have a support network here. Speaker 0: The intelligence reports include phone and financial analysis, interviews, and travel patterns, concluding Sedan and Suderi lived at the same address in San Diego where the hijackers would later stay. Other common links include Fahad Althumeri, a well known figure at the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles, reputed to be an Islamic fundamentalist. American cleric Anwar al Alawki, he became a major Al Qaeda leader after 09/11 and was killed in a CIA drone strike. As well as this Saudi, the FBI said there's a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Omar Al Bayoumi, what was his role? Speaker 1: I think he was clearly the fixer, the facilitator, the leader of this potential surveillance cell. And I think the two Saudis came here to vet him. Speaker 0: After helping Saddam and Sudhiri in Southern California, Bayoumi sent letters to Saudi government officials. Bayoumi said of the men, there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. What does that tell you? Speaker 1: I think they are exactly what they say they are. I think they send those messages back to the leaders who need to know that the facilitation of the support network in California is strong and it's workable. There's coordination of the key people that need to make this work. Speaker 0: Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England. His records and videos were seized, including a February 2000 welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego. Some of the most compelling evidence that challenges the official nine eleven narrative was shared by British authorities with the nine eleven families, not by the US government. Speaker 1: Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 1: To the left side of Speaker 0: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 1: He wants these people seen in the video for sure. And absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 0: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal and then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Okay. Speaker 1: Oh, look at that. Speaker 0: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 1: Very significant. It's another direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: In April 2001, five months before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, two hijackers traveled from Arizona to Virginia. Investigators for the nine eleven families developed this map and alleged the hijackers passed through Oklahoma and Missouri, where the same two Saudi government employees were assigned. In Missouri, Sudhiri had lived with a known key communications specialist for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Speaker 1: I believe those two locations in Oklahoma and Missouri were check-in spots, where they had to check-in with trusted people who helped facilitate their arrival to make sure they're on the right path and going in the right direction and if they needed any more assistance on the way. Speaker 0: And there is another nine eleven connection. These Saudi government employees videotaped Washington DC landmarks in June 1999. Does that look like a tourist video? Speaker 1: Clearly not a tourist video. It was very specific with intent of not only the visualization of multiple sides of the building, but also the security detail. Speaker 0: About the same time, Osama bin Laden developed an initial list of targets for the plot, including the White House and US Capitol, the same sites filmed by the Saudis. As a trained investigator, what significance do you place on the video? Speaker 1: I think the video really adds value to the fact that there was thought and mindset of potential targets years ahead of the actual event in nineeleven. And I think that really elongates the timeframe. Speaker 0: We've got new leadership now here in Washington. What can the new director of the FBI do? Speaker 1: I think this is an opportunity for the FBI, the CIA, and the administration for that matter, to go and be the most stalwart supporters in the 11 families, and then deal directly with the Saudi government for access to these individuals. And I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It might not come again, but I think all the stars have aligned to be able to put that request into the Saudi government.
C__Herridge
Posted - September 5, 2025 at 1:07 AM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 11:43 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across declassified notes from October 2016 by Comey that detail the FBI's position during the election. He mentions concerns about Feinstein and Schiff putting the FBI in a difficult situation. There's a reference to the Russians having a preference for the election outcome and a need for the intelligence community to clarify what could be publicly stated. The notes suggest that the outgoing Obama administration acknowledged the potential impact of Russian election meddling on the 2016 election. The full document is available online.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Exclusive:  Declassified @Comey Notes October 2016 ‘Election Update’ Under ‘My Thoughts,’ Comey writes: •Feinstein/Schiff - puts FBI in odd spot COS (Not clear if FBI or White House Chief of Staff) •Russians have a view on who should win SR (Susan Rice/National Security Adviser)  •Need IC (intelligence Community) to do their best lay down of what we could say publicly Context: Notes Reveal Outgoing Obama Administration Embraced Narrative That Russian Election Meddling Would Impact Outcome 2016 Election. Full 24 Pages 👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/911548630/Comey-October-2016-Election-Update

Scribd scribd.com

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Exclusive @Comey Handwritten Notes 2016 'Election Update' Declassified via @FBI @FBIDirectorKash Comey Notes October 5, 2016 Reveal Outgoing Obama Administration Embraced Narrative That Russian Election Meddling Would Impact Outcome 2016 Election. Debated Course of Action. Comey writes… What is the goal? •informing US people ? •disrupting Russians? TIMING: October 7, 2016 DHS/DNI Joint Statement Affirms Russian Meddling "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national Full 24 Pages👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/911543293/Exclusive-Comey-2016-Election-Update-Handwritten-Notes

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. dhs.gov
Scribd scribd.com
C__Herridge
Posted - September 9, 2025 at 9:30 PM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 11:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently came across declassified records indicating that two Saudi government employees visited California in December 1998, allegedly laying the groundwork for the 9/11 hijackers. This raises questions about a direct connection between the Saudi government and the 9/11 attacks, challenging the official narrative. Notably, this information pushes the timeline of the plot back nearly three years before the attacks. In response, a spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy has categorically denied the allegations related to an "Advance Team" mentioned in the 9/11 families' lawsuit.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: According to declassified law enforcement and intelligence records, two Saudi government employees came to California in December 1998 and are alleged to have laid the groundwork for the 9/11 hijackers. Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between 9/11 and the Saudi government? This challenges the official 9/11 narrative. This moves the timeline for the plot back nearly THREE YEARS before the attack. A Spokesperson for DC @SaudiEmbassyUSA "categorically denies" the allegations that there was an “Advance Team" and others made in the 9/11 families lawsuit.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Reports Reveal Two Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served As An Advance Team” For 9/11 Hijackers These records challenge the official 9/11 narrative shifting the timeline back to December 1998, almost three years before al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 1:17 Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served as (9/11) Advance Team” 2:20 FBI: Ties to Al-Qaeda 3:00 Alleged Advance Team Lead Buried In Secret Government Records 4:00 Arrival In Southern California December 1998 – 13 Months Before Hijackers 5:20 Hijackers’ Support Network -  “50/50” Chance Advance Knowledge 6:00 Letters to Saudi Government Official “Complete Cooperation” 6:35 February 2000 Video: “Welcome Party” 9/11 Hijackers 7:50 Hijackers’ Road Trip Oklahoma + Missouri 8:40 Washington D.C. “Casing” Video / Bin Laden 9/11 Targets 9:20 Trump Administration: For 9/11 Families, Once In A Lifetime Chance For Answers 11:10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Response

Video Transcript AI Summary
Declassified intelligence and law‑enforcement records allege that Saudi government employees Sadan and Sudhiri may have served as an advanced team for hijackers in Southern California. The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Based on these documents and videos, they were here for that reason, moving the timeline back two to three years to when the support network first arrived in the United States. The two Saudis appeared in video footage; investigators ask whether they were official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or serving Al Qaeda. The records depict the advance team setting up shop, coordinating with imams, and facilitating care, housing, and access to flight schools. Omar Al Bayoumi, described as the fixer, sent letters claiming complete cooperation and advanced coordination. A February 2000 San Diego welcome party for two hijackers included Mohammad Al Qatani.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Speaker 1: Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. That really moves the timeline back significantly to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nine eleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nine eleven who were official Saudi employees. Were they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot, or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? I think these records clearly depict not only the advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nine eleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven Commission. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. I think that really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Speaker 0: Bill Evanina is the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He spent twenty four years at the FBI and investigated nineeleven. The FBI says they may have served as an advance team for the non living hijackers. Speaker 1: I think based upon these documents and the videos, I think it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The question would be at whose behest? Was it from the Saudi government or were they working for Al Qaeda directly? Just happened to be Saudi employees. Speaker 0: Filmed two years before the nine eleven terrorist attacks, the video shows these Saudi government employees, Mutaib al Sudhiri behind the wheel, the other Adal Mohammad al Saddan, hiding behind a road map. Along with a third Saudi, they filmed Washington DC landmarks later identified by Al Qaeda terrorists as potential nine eleven targets. The declassified record states the FBI assesses that the two Saudis may still maintain ties to Al Qaeda. Sounds like the two Saudis had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. Speaker 1: Sounds very clear to me that they are, they still possess, which means they once did possess. Speaker 0: Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Sudhiri, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The explosive lead was buried in thousands of pages of once secret government records. We asked you to review these declassified documents. Are they significant documents? Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they really predate what we've known about nineeleven and the support networks domestically here in The US for the hijackers. Speaker 0: Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nineeleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: I think we're closer. I think it's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. Now, they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? Speaker 0: Are the two Saudis overlooked key players in the nineeleven plot? Speaker 1: I think that's a good question. I think these two individuals who are now named provide new investigative leads for the FBI and our intelligence services to go back and put some more pieces together in this really complicated puzzle. Speaker 0: It took nearly two decades and pressure from the nine eleven family who were suing Saudi Arabia over the terrorist attacks for these highly secretive government records to be declassified. Investigators for the families found evidence Sadan and Suderi arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Based on the declassified records, what did the alleged Saudi advance team do? Speaker 1: I think these records clearly depict not only the advance team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, coordinating with imams on the West Coast and on the East Coast, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: The hijackers, many of them did not speak English, had never been to The United States before. Could they have lived under the radar without this support network? Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. If you were going to initiate this type of sophisticated plot, you don't even want to take that chance. So it was critically needed to have a support network here. Speaker 0: The intelligence reports include phone and financial analysis, interviews, and travel patterns, concluding Sedan and Suderi lived at the same address in San Diego where the hijackers would later stay. Other common links include Fahad Althumeri, a well known figure at the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles, reputed to be an Islamic fundamentalist. American cleric Anwar al Alawki, he became a major Al Qaeda leader after 09/11 and was killed in a CIA drone strike. As well as this Saudi, the FBI said there's a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Omar Al Bayoumi, what was his role? Speaker 1: I think he was clearly the fixer, the facilitator, the leader of this potential surveillance cell. And I think the two Saudis came here to vet him. Speaker 0: After helping Saddam and Sudhiri in Southern California, Bayoumi sent letters to Saudi government officials. Bayoumi said of the men, there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. What does that tell you? Speaker 1: I think they are exactly what they say they are. I think they send those messages back to the leaders who need to know that the facilitation of the support network in California is strong and it's workable. There's coordination of the key people that need to make this work. Speaker 0: Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England. His records and videos were seized, including a February 2000 welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego. Some of the most compelling evidence that challenges the official nine eleven narrative was shared by British authorities with the nine eleven families, not by the US government. Speaker 1: Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 1: To the left side of Speaker 0: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 1: He wants these people seen in the video for sure. And absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 0: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal and then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Okay. Speaker 1: Oh, look at that. Speaker 0: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 1: Very significant. It's another direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: In April 2001, five months before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, two hijackers traveled from Arizona to Virginia. Investigators for the nine eleven families developed this map and alleged the hijackers passed through Oklahoma and Missouri, where the same two Saudi government employees were assigned. In Missouri, Sudhiri had lived with a known key communications specialist for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Speaker 1: I believe those two locations in Oklahoma and Missouri were check-in spots, where they had to check-in with trusted people who helped facilitate their arrival to make sure they're on the right path and going in the right direction and if they needed any more assistance on the way. Speaker 0: And there is another nine eleven connection. These Saudi government employees videotaped Washington DC landmarks in June 1999. Does that look like a tourist video? Speaker 1: Clearly not a tourist video. It was very specific with intent of not only the visualization of multiple sides of the building, but also the security detail. Speaker 0: About the same time, Osama bin Laden developed an initial list of targets for the plot, including the White House and US Capitol, the same sites filmed by the Saudis. As a trained investigator, what significance do you place on the video? Speaker 1: I think the video really adds value to the fact that there was thought and mindset of potential targets years ahead of the actual event in nineeleven. And I think that really elongates the timeframe. Speaker 0: We've got new leadership now here in Washington. What can the new director of the FBI do? Speaker 1: I think this is an opportunity for the FBI, the CIA, and the administration for that matter, to go and be the most stalwart supporters in the 11 families, and then deal directly with the Saudi government for access to these individuals. And I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It might not come again, but I think all the stars have aligned to be able to put that request into the Saudi government.
C__Herridge
Posted - September 4, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 11:21 PM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Exclusive @GenFlynn Case 'Attorney-Client Privileged Information' Declassified via @FBIDirectorKash Names Names ‘Flynn Timeline’ Intent: Thorough prep or getting parties 'on the same page?' Full 24 pages via scribd👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/911548630/Comey-October-2016-Election-Update

Scribd scribd.com

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Exclusive @Comey Handwritten Notes 2016 'Election Update' Declassified via @FBI @FBIDirectorKash Comey Notes October 5, 2016 Reveal Outgoing Obama Administration Embraced Narrative That Russian Election Meddling Would Impact Outcome 2016 Election. Debated Course of Action. Comey writes… What is the goal? •informing US people ? •disrupting Russians? TIMING: October 7, 2016 DHS/DNI Joint Statement Affirms Russian Meddling "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national Full 24 Pages👇 https://www.scribd.com/document/911543293/Exclusive-Comey-2016-Election-Update-Handwritten-Notes

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. dhs.gov
Scribd scribd.com
C__Herridge
Posted - September 9, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 11:02 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
As the senior investigative correspondent for CBS News, I found a half dozen emails likely linked to Joe Biden during my forensic review of the laptop. However, I was instructed to stand down on pursuing these emails for various reasons. Thanks to Judicial Watch, one email address is now visible.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

.@CBSNews as the senior investigative correspondent our forensic review of the laptop revealed a half dozen emails likely used by Joe Biden. For a variety of reasons, the executives did not want to pursue the emails address and I was told to stand down. Thanks to @JudicialWatch we can see now one of those email addresses here.

@TomFitton - Tom Fitton

BREAKING: @JudicialWatch Lawsuit Uncovers 2016 Biden Alias Email: Hunter Biden Copied On Ukrainian President Call Info. This is another smoking gun. It blows out of the water the notion that there was any distance between Joe and Hunter Biden on the Burisma influence-peddling scandal. https://www.judicialwatch.org/joe-biden-email/

Judicial Watch: Lawsuit Uncovers 2016 Joe Biden Email Showing Hunter Biden Copied on Ukraine President Information - Judicial Watch (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received five pages of records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that show then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter received a May 26, 2016, email detailing a scheduled “8:45 am prep for a 9 am phone call with Pres Poroshenko,” who was the president of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s email address is the alias robert.l.peters@pci.gov, Hunter Biden’s email account is disclosed as hbiden@rosemontseneca.com. (Hunter Biden was on the board of the controversial Ukrainian firm Burisma at the time.)The email, with the subject line “Friday Schedule Cards” was sent by John S. Flynn, who was Joe Biden’s assistant:Boss--8:45am prep for 9am phone call with Pres Poroshenko. Then we're off to Rhode Island for infrastructure event and then Wilmington for UDel commencement. Nate will have your draft remarks delivered later tonight or with your press clips in the morning.Respectfully, judicialwatch.org
C__Herridge
Posted - September 9, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Saved - September 9, 2025 at 10:37 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Newly declassified FBI and CIA reports suggest that two Saudi government employees may have acted as an advance team for the 9/11 hijackers, challenging the established timeline of events. The records indicate connections to al-Qaeda dating back to December 1998, well before the attacks. Key findings include the alleged advance team's activities in Southern California and a potential support network for the hijackers. Additionally, there were communications with Saudi officials and a video welcoming the hijackers. The Trump administration has offered families a chance for answers, while the Saudi government has responded.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Reports Reveal Two Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served As An Advance Team” For 9/11 Hijackers These records challenge the official 9/11 narrative shifting the timeline back to December 1998, almost three years before al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001 1:17 Saudi Government Employees “May Have Served as (9/11) Advance Team” 2:20 FBI: Ties to Al-Qaeda 3:00 Alleged Advance Team Lead Buried In Secret Government Records 4:00 Arrival In Southern California December 1998 – 13 Months Before Hijackers 5:20 Hijackers’ Support Network -  “50/50” Chance Advance Knowledge 6:00 Letters to Saudi Government Official “Complete Cooperation” 6:35 February 2000 Video: “Welcome Party” 9/11 Hijackers 7:50 Hijackers’ Road Trip Oklahoma + Missouri 8:40 Washington D.C. “Casing” Video / Bin Laden 9/11 Targets 9:20 Trump Administration: For 9/11 Families, Once In A Lifetime Chance For Answers 11:10 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Response

Video Transcript AI Summary
Declassified records and videos point to Saudi government employees Sadan and Sudhiri as an 'advanced team' for the 9/11 hijackers, with evidence they were here to support hijackers that 'set up shop' and provided 'care and feeding and housing.' 'The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers.' Investigators say this work 'moved the timeline back two to three years' to when 'the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States.' The material notes Sadan and Sudhiri arrived in Southern California in December 1998, 'thirteen months before the first two hijackers,' with living quarters, flight schools, and spiritual guidance. The recordings include a 'welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego' featuring 'Mohammad Al Qatani,' identified as a 'Saudi government religious official.' Additional footage shows Saudis 'filmed Washington DC landmarks in 1999.'
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI says they may have served as an advanced team for the nineeleven hijackers. Speaker 1: Based upon these documents and the videos, it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. That really moves the timeline back significantly to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. Is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nine eleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: It's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nine eleven who were official Saudi employees. Were they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot, or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? I think these records clearly depict not only the advanced team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nine eleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven Commission. Speaker 0: As someone who investigated nineeleven, do these records move the timeline? Speaker 1: They do. I think that really moves the timeline back significantly two to three years to when the support network actually got on the ground here in The United States. Speaker 0: Bill Evanina is the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He spent twenty four years at the FBI and investigated nineeleven. The FBI says they may have served as an advance team for the non living hijackers. Speaker 1: I think based upon these documents and the videos, I think it's pretty clear that they were here for that particular reason. The question would be at whose behest? Was it from the Saudi government or were they working for Al Qaeda directly? Just happened to be Saudi employees. Speaker 0: Filmed two years before the nine eleven terrorist attacks, the video shows these Saudi government employees, Mutaib al Sudhiri behind the wheel, the other Adal Mohammad al Saddan, hiding behind a road map. Along with a third Saudi, they filmed Washington DC landmarks later identified by Al Qaeda terrorists as potential nine eleven targets. The declassified record states the FBI assesses that the two Saudis may still maintain ties to Al Qaeda. Sounds like the two Saudis had longstanding ties to Al Qaeda. Speaker 1: Sounds very clear to me that they are, they still possess, which means they once did possess. Speaker 0: Exclusive reporting and declassified intelligence and law enforcement records reveal the Saudi government employees, Sadan and Sudhiri, may have served as an advanced team to vent those who would later assist hijackers in Southern California. The explosive lead was buried in thousands of pages of once secret government records. We asked you to review these declassified documents. Are they significant documents? Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they really predate what we've known about nineeleven and the support networks domestically here in The US for the hijackers. Speaker 0: Based on these new records and some of the video evidence, is there enough here to draw a direct connection between nineeleven and the Saudi government? Speaker 1: I think we're closer. I think it's clear that we now have individuals who came here prior to nineeleven who were official Saudi employees. Now, they official Saudi employees working on behalf of this plot or they were also Saudi employees and also serving the needs of Al Qaeda? Speaker 0: Are the two Saudis overlooked key players in the nineeleven plot? Speaker 1: I think that's a good question. I think these two individuals who are now named provide new investigative leads for the FBI and our intelligence services to go back and put some more pieces together in this really complicated puzzle. Speaker 0: It took nearly two decades and pressure from the nine eleven family who were suing Saudi Arabia over the terrorist attacks for these highly secretive government records to be declassified. Investigators for the families found evidence Sadan and Suderi arrived in Southern California in December 1998, thirteen months before the first two hijackers also landed in Los Angeles, later receiving financial assistance, obtaining driver's licenses, living quarters, spiritual guidance, and locating flight schools. Based on the declassified records, what did the alleged Saudi advance team do? Speaker 1: I think these records clearly depict not only the advance team coming here in The United States, but setting up shop, coordinating with imams on the West Coast and on the East Coast, facilitating the care and feeding and housing of the hijackers. Speaker 0: The hijackers, many of them did not speak English, had never been to The United States before. Could they have lived under the radar without this support network? Speaker 1: I highly doubt it. If you were going to initiate this type of sophisticated plot, you don't even want to take that chance. So it was critically needed to have a support network here. Speaker 0: The intelligence reports include phone and financial analysis, interviews, and travel patterns, concluding Sedan and Suderi lived at the same address in San Diego where the hijackers would later stay. Other common links include Fahad Althumeri, a well known figure at the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles, reputed to be an Islamic fundamentalist. American cleric Anwar al Alawki, he became a major Al Qaeda leader after 09/11 and was killed in a CIA drone strike. As well as this Saudi, the FBI said there's a fiftyfifty chance he had advanced knowledge of nineeleven. Omar Al Bayoumi, what was his role? Speaker 1: I think he was clearly the fixer, the facilitator, the leader of this potential surveillance cell. And I think the two Saudis came here to vet him. Speaker 0: After helping Saddam and Sudhiri in Southern California, Bayoumi sent letters to Saudi government officials. Bayoumi said of the men, there is complete cooperation and advanced coordination. What does that tell you? Speaker 1: I think they are exactly what they say they are. I think they send those messages back to the leaders who need to know that the facilitation of the support network in California is strong and it's workable. There's coordination of the key people that need to make this work. Speaker 0: Bayoumi was arrested about ten days after nineeleven in Birmingham, England. His records and videos were seized, including a February 2000 welcome party for two hijackers in San Diego. Some of the most compelling evidence that challenges the official nine eleven narrative was shared by British authorities with the nine eleven families, not by the US government. Speaker 1: Are any hijackers in this video? Speaker 0: There are two hijackers appear in this video. One hijacker can be seen in the kitchen. Bayoumi instructs the videographer not to film one side of the room. This caught Evanina's attention. You see, don't, yeah, don't film here. And he's motioning. Speaker 1: To the left side of Speaker 0: the room. So as an investigator, what does that tell you? Speaker 1: He wants these people seen in the video for sure. And absolutely nobody on that side of the video. Speaker 0: Later, the videographer slips up and captures the other side of the room. So they're having the meal and then the videographer pulls up at one point and gets the other side of the room by accident. Okay. Speaker 1: Oh, look at that. Speaker 0: Right? This man is identified in court records as a Saudi government religious official, Mohammad Al Qatani. What's the significance? Speaker 1: Very significant. It's another direct tie to an actual employee of the Saudi government in the welcoming party for two soon to be hijackers. That's a big deal. Speaker 0: That's information that would have been relevant to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 1: These videos were obtained in the 2001. Those videos should have been provided to the nineeleven commission. Speaker 0: In April 2001, five months before the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, two hijackers traveled from Arizona to Virginia. Investigators for the nine eleven families developed this map and alleged the hijackers passed through Oklahoma and Missouri, where the same two Saudi government employees were assigned. In Missouri, Sudhiri had lived with a known key communications specialist for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Speaker 1: I believe those two locations in Oklahoma and Missouri were check-in spots, where they had to check-in with trusted people who helped facilitate their arrival to make sure they're on the right path and going in the right direction and if they needed any more assistance on the way. Speaker 0: And there is another nine eleven connection. These Saudi government employees videotaped Washington DC landmarks in June 1999. Does that look like a tourist video? Speaker 1: Clearly not a tourist video. It was very specific with intent of not only the visualization of multiple sides of the building, but also the security detail. Speaker 0: About the same time, Osama bin Laden developed an initial list of targets for the plot, including the White House and US Capitol, the same sites filmed by the Saudis. As a trained investigator, what significance do you place on the video? Speaker 1: I think the video really adds value to the fact that there was thought and mindset of potential targets years ahead of the actual event in nineeleven. And I think that really elongates the timeframe. Speaker 0: We've got new leadership now here in Washington. What can the new director of the FBI do? Speaker 1: I think this is an opportunity for the FBI, the CIA, and the administration for that matter, to go and be the most stalwart supporters in the 11 families, and then deal directly with the Saudi government for access to these individuals. And I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. It might not come again, but I think all the stars have aligned to be able to put that request into the Saudi government.
C__Herridge
Posted - August 22, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Saved - August 22, 2025 at 12:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned that the FBI has reopened a significant National Security case concerning former national security adviser John Bolton, which had previously been closed by the Biden administration. There are ongoing FBI raids related to government records, and the investigation focuses on classified documents and possible leaks. The FBI has not commented on the situation. Additionally, @X Patel emphasized that no one is above the law and expressed a commitment to dismantling what he calls a “weaponized government.” I'm reaching out to Bolton and his team for their response.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Developing: I understand that @FBIDirectorKash has reopened a high profile National Security case involving former national security adviser John Bolton that was shut down by the Biden administration. I’m told @fbi raids are being conducted and it involves government records.   FBI declined to comment. A source familiar with the matter said it is a national security investigation involving classified documents and potential leaks. Earlier on @X Patel posted “NO ONE is above the law…FBI agents on mission.” Patel has made a public commitment to destroy “weaponized government.” Reaching out to Bolton and team for comment.

C__Herridge
Posted - August 21, 2025 at 11:51 PM
Saved - August 22, 2025 at 1:10 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across declassified FBI records that suggest James Comey directed media leaks to influence the narrative of the Russia investigation. The documents detail a 2017 leak investigation where FBI General Counsel James Baker disclosed classified information to the New York Times, believing he was authorized by Comey. The records also mention a proposed media statement related to Trump's tweet about wiretapping, which appears to have originated from Comey. Interestingly, the Durham Memo recommended no prosecution for Baker or anyone involved.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: FBI RUSSIA RECORDS Declassified FBI Records Reveal More Evidence Alleging @Comey Directed Media Leaks To Shape Russia Investigation Narrative 2017 Leak Investigation “Tropic Vortex” “…Baker (FBI General Counsel) disclosed USG (US Government) classified information to the NYT under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey… “Baker indicated FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki instructed him (Baker) to disclose the information to the NYT, and Baker understood Rybicki was conveying this instruc(tio)n and…on from Comey.” “Durham Memo recommended NO prosecution of Baker or anyone else for this UPD.” On President Trump’s 2017 tweet accusing former President Obama of having “my wires tapped” at Trump Tower, the investigation revealed “a proposed statement to the news media.....originated from Comey…”   While unclassified, it is described as a “potentially unauthorized disclosure to the news media which appeared to be at the impi(     ) of Comey” Reaching out to the parties for comment.  FULL 21 PAGES 👇 Posted records begin page 15:  https://www.scribd.com/document/904673012/FBI-Leak-Investigation-2019-Russia-Investigation?secret_password=jhdv7Zj5z5tpkPwORlJI

Scribd scribd.com
C__Herridge
Posted - July 31, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Saved - July 31, 2025 at 8:46 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The long-awaited John Durham Annex has finally been declassified, and there’s a lot to unpack. I recommend focusing on pages 4 and 5, which allege coordination among top DNC leadership, Clinton, and outside groups to undermine Trump, hinting at foreknowledge of FBI and CIA involvement.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

New:  Long awaited John Durham Annex has been declassified.   A lot to unpack.   Focus: Pages 4 and 5. Two pages you should NOT miss 2016 Memorandum ln Russian: Alleges co-oordinattion top DNC leadership, Clinton, outside group(s) to damage candidate Trump,  suggests foreknowledge FBI and CIA involvement. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/declassified_durham_annex_released_by_chairman_grassley.pdf

C__Herridge
Posted - July 23, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Saved - July 24, 2025 at 2:05 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
C. Herridge highlighted the impact of newly declassified records on a December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference featuring Comey. Herridge questioned Comey about his confidence in the dossier used to secure a surveillance warrant, to which Comey responded that he had total confidence in the FISA process and the handling of the case. In response, Alpine80s accused Comey of lying and perjuring himself under oath, providing a link to further support this claim.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

With the newly declassified records @DNIGabbard This December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference with @Comey lands a lot differently. HERRIDGE: “Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant + in the subsequent renewals? COMEY: “I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and the entire case was handled in a thoughtful and responsible way.” https://t.co/i4oNuQfG2z

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING Newly declassified documents via @DNIGabbard challenge January 2017 intelligence community asssesment  (ICA) that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." KEY PAGES: 16-17 Declassified GOP House Intel Report found Putin had more damaging information about candidate Clinton that could have been used against her in the final days of the 2016 campaign but the information was held back. "The ICA's generic description of material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton." "This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available' given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak." •Among the allegations that Clinton's health was "extraordinarily alarming" to President Obama and party leaders leaders •Russian intelligence had "details of secret meetings" by State Department reps  FULL DECLASSIFICATION 👇 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

@Alpine80s - Rob🗽U.S.A.

@C__Herridge @DNIGabbard @Comey Liar perjures himself under oath.👇 https://t.co/F84lpKSioF

@Alpine80s - Rob🗽U.S.A.

Comey blatantly PERJURES HIMSELF UNDER OATH before Congress.🚨 https://t.co/ySGO9FtTID

C__Herridge
Posted - July 23, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Saved - July 24, 2025 at 1:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Catherine Herridge highlighted the impact of newly declassified records on a December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference featuring James Comey. She quoted Comey’s assurance of total confidence in the FISA process used to secure a surveillance warrant and its renewals. In response, D. Gray Texas referenced a report by Herridge, prompting a discussion about the implications of Comey's statements in light of the new information.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

With the newly declassified records @DNIGabbard This December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference with @Comey lands a lot differently. HERRIDGE: “Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant + in the subsequent renewals? COMEY: “I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and the entire case was handled in a thoughtful and responsible way.” https://t.co/i4oNuQfG2z

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING Newly declassified documents via @DNIGabbard challenge January 2017 intelligence community asssesment  (ICA) that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." KEY PAGES: 16-17 Declassified GOP House Intel Report found Putin had more damaging information about candidate Clinton that could have been used against her in the final days of the 2016 campaign but the information was held back. "The ICA's generic description of material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton." "This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available' given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak." •Among the allegations that Clinton's health was "extraordinarily alarming" to President Obama and party leaders leaders •Russian intelligence had "details of secret meetings" by State Department reps  FULL DECLASSIFICATION 👇 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper

@C__Herridge @DNIGabbard @Comey Catherine…remember this report you did?

@DGrayTexas45 - Clyp Keeper

In 2018 @CBS_Herridge reported that text messages between Peter Strozk & Lisa Page about Crossfire Hurricane… “POTUS wants to know EVERYTHING we’re doing” Hey Cathrine….know that you’re a free agent this would be a GREAT first independent bombshell!!! 🎯👀👇 https://t.co/7XK0AUdM48

C__Herridge
Posted - July 23, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Saved - July 24, 2025 at 12:04 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I came across alarming evidence suggesting that hacking related to President Obama's emails and U.S. government systems may be concealed in a Northern Virginia FBI office. Senators Chuck Grassley and Rick Crawford are urging the FBI to investigate this material immediately. It's astonishing that information, including network diagrams for classified systems, has gone unreviewed by such a prominent law enforcement agency. This revelation stems from the recent declassification of a 2018 investigation into Clinton's emails, highlighting a significant national security failure.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

“Mind-Numbing” Scoop Evidence of hacking that may involve "President Obama emails" and compromise of US government systems hidden in Northern Virginia FBI office, according to new letter to @FBIDirectorKash @ChuckGrassley @RepRickCrawford write, “This material (must) be immediately dug out from hiding and properly assessed." “How evidence which purportedly includes information related to ‘former President Barak Obama's emails’ and ‘network infrastructure diagrams for U.S. government classified networks’ remained unreviewed by the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world is mind-numbing." New lead comes from this week's declassification of the 2018 Annex to the Inspector General Clinton Email investigation. It revealed multiple thumb drives containing data "exfiltrated" from U.S. victims were not reviewed per FBI witnesses. This is a significant nation security failure.

C__Herridge
Posted - July 23, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Saved - July 23, 2025 at 6:40 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Newly declassified documents challenge the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that claimed Putin favored President-elect Trump. A GOP House Intel Report reveals that Putin had more damaging information about Hillary Clinton, which he chose not to leak during the 2016 campaign. This omission violated directives requiring analysis to be informed by all relevant information. The documents suggest that Russian intelligence had alarming details about Clinton's health and secret meetings involving State Department representatives.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING Newly declassified documents via @DNIGabbard challenge January 2017 intelligence community asssesment  (ICA) that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." KEY PAGES: 16-17 Declassified GOP House Intel Report found Putin had more damaging information about candidate Clinton that could have been used against her in the final days of the 2016 campaign but the information was held back. "The ICA's generic description of material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton." "This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available' given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak." •Among the allegations that Clinton's health was "extraordinarily alarming" to President Obama and party leaders leaders •Russian intelligence had "details of secret meetings" by State Department reps  FULL DECLASSIFICATION 👇 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

C__Herridge
Posted - July 23, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Saved - July 23, 2025 at 6:35 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The newly declassified records change the perspective on the December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference with Comey. When asked about his confidence in the dossier used for the surveillance warrant, Comey stated he was confident in the FISA process and how the case was managed.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

With the newly declassified records @DNIGabbard This December 2018 Capitol Hill news conference with @Comey lands a lot differently. HERRIDGE: “Did you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant + in the subsequent renewals? COMEY: “I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed and the entire case was handled in a thoughtful and responsible way.” https://t.co/i4oNuQfG2z

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING Newly declassified documents via @DNIGabbard challenge January 2017 intelligence community asssesment  (ICA) that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." KEY PAGES: 16-17 Declassified GOP House Intel Report found Putin had more damaging information about candidate Clinton that could have been used against her in the final days of the 2016 campaign but the information was held back. "The ICA's generic description of material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton." "This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available' given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak." •Among the allegations that Clinton's health was "extraordinarily alarming" to President Obama and party leaders leaders •Russian intelligence had "details of secret meetings" by State Department reps  FULL DECLASSIFICATION 👇 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

C__Herridge
Posted - July 19, 2025 at 11:08 PM
Saved - July 21, 2025 at 12:26 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
There are four main tracks to the Russia collusion story: newly declassified documents alleging intel manipulation, the use of the Steele Dossier for FISA warrants, the unmasking scandal involving General Flynn, and the basis for the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" probe. The same names keep coming up.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

CONTEXT There are at least four tracks to the Russia collusion story. •Newly declassified @DNIGabbard documents alleging intel manipulation •Use of Steele Dossier to secure FISA surveillance warrants •Unmasking scandal targeting @GenFlynn •Predicate that opened the FBI's 2016 counterintelligence probe "Crossfire Hurricane" RE-UPPING  unmasking documents I first reported in 2020. As you can see, the same names keep surfacing.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Breaking… Newly declassified records from @DNIGabbard are additional, compelling evidence that the 2016 Russia Collusion narrative was not rooted in credible intelligence reporting, but manufactured to fit a preferred political narrative. Gabbard has taken the rare and transparent step of declassifying a December 2016 draft of the President’s Daily Brief or PDB.  This highly classified record, which is a daily national security analysis for the President, assessed that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against (election) infrastructure.” But after push back from the FBI, then led by James Comey, the PDB was spiked “based on new guidance.” After a White House Principals meeting, a new intelligence assessment was commissioned, and media leaks followed, reinforcing a new narrative that “Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” TIMELINE December 8, 2016 Draft PDB - Russia “did not impact US election results” Hours later, FBI withdraws support PDB is killed “based on new guidance” December 9, 2016 Obama White House Gathers Top Cabinet Officials including Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe and others. New Intelligence Assessment is commissioned January 6, 2017 New Intel Assessment : Russia interfered to help Trump FULL READ👇@ODNIgov https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/dig/4085-dig-biden-admin-labeling-covid-dissenters-2

C__Herridge
Posted - June 17, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Saved - June 17, 2025 at 8:16 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I blew the whistle on potential multi-million dollar fraud within the State Department, claiming my signature was forged on crucial compliance records related to national security. Many Foreign Service Officers are aware of such issues, and I support efforts to expose this fraud and cover-up.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: US Security Engineering Officer Blows Whistle on Potential Multi-Million Dollar Fraud State Department Veteran Claims “Forgery” of His Signature on Government Compliance Records Pertinent to National Security “Every @StateDept Foreign Service Officer like myself knows of instances like this… That's why I fully support @DOGE efforts to root out that fraud, waste and abuse.” “It can be boiled down to a cover up plain and simple.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mark Lindsey, a State Department whistleblower and expert in defending against electronic spying, alleges a cover-up of directed energy attacks, including Havana syndrome. Lindsey claims he and his family were targeted in China in 2018, resulting in brain injuries. He says a government testing record confirming his directed energy exposure was altered to remove references to it, and that the State Department and CIA were responsible. Lindsey alleges fraud related to a $5,000,000 State Department contract, claiming his signature was forged on compliance paperwork. He also reports concerning energy readings at the U.S. Embassy in Vilnius, Lithuania, which he believes indicate a potential attack, but says he was told to remove this data from his report. Lindsey believes the US government minimizes potential directed energy attacks. He says he has faced retaliation for exposing fraud, waste, and abuse, including pressure involving his family. He also expresses concern that the State Department did not test his children after the incident in China, which he believes worsened their injuries.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is this government testing record a smoking gun? Speaker 1: I believe it is. Speaker 0: Who would have the authority to remove references to directed energy exposure? Speaker 1: The State Department and CIA. Speaker 0: Why was the intelligence with held? Speaker 1: It gets to the heart of the US government always trying to minimize any potential directed energy, attack. Speaker 0: You've exclusively shared this record with us. Yes. Is that your signature? Speaker 1: No. It is not. Speaker 0: Are you alleging fraud with a government contract? Yes. I am. What is the cost of coming forward? Speaker 1: The cost for me has been not only financial, but has been profound in terms of my career. When I see that, I see the US government doing the worst of the worst, putting pressure on me to be quiet using my kids, using my wife. And that is the worst. That's beyond reprehensible in a very Soviet way. Speaker 0: You've exclusively shared this record with us. Yes. Is that your signature? Speaker 1: No, it is not. Speaker 0: Was anyone authorized to sign for you? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 0: Are you alleging fraud with a government contract? Yes, am. How large is this State Department contract? This particular contract is a $5,000,000 what we call a TSU, a technical security upgrade, but for $5,000,000, yes. Is this an isolated case? Speaker 1: It's actually not. This every state department foreign service officer like myself knows of instances like this where where fraud has been committed at the Department of State, and that's why I fully support Doge's efforts to to root out that fraud, waste, and abuse. Speaker 2: A tough engineer trained to defend against electronic spying at US Embassies, Mark Lindsey is now a state department whistleblower. Speaker 0: What is the cost of coming forward? Speaker 1: The cost for me has been not only financial, but it's been profound in terms of my career. Speaker 2: A Russia ex expert who has worked in war zones and nearly 70 countries, Lindsay told us he is now delivering passports in Washington DC. Speaker 1: The worst thing you could do at State Department is praise President Trump and expose fraud, waste, and abuse. You're gonna be retaliated against. Speaker 2: Before the new whistleblower allegations, Lindsey's story begins in 2018. Lindsey was working for the state department in China when he says he was targeted at his apartment by a directed energy weapon. Lindsey's family, who traveled with him to China, were also injured. They all suffer from debilitating brain injuries known as Havana syndrome, named for a cluster of cases among U. S. Diplomats in Cuba. Lindsey's story mirrors that of other Havana syndrome survivors who came forward to our team and alleged a U. S. Government cover up. Speaker 0: I was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency for nineteen years. The intelligence community has attempted to thwart congressional investigative efforts to uncover the truth at every turn. I mean that sounds like a government cover up. It's a cover up and it's terrifying. Speaker 2: These documents back up Lindsey's account. Speaker 0: This government testing record shows that you were evaluated for directed energy exposure. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Is this government testing record a smoking gun? Speaker 1: I believe it is because it did exactly what it's saying. This test is, you know, comprised of tests that you can't possibly fake, eye tracking movements that are signature of this injury that they're testing for in the field. Speaker 0: Has this testing document been altered or changed in any way? Speaker 1: Yes, it has. After I came back and I was treated for brain injury and diagnosed with brain injury, and my wife was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, this document that you're looking was altered to remove that is testing for directed energy exposure. Speaker 0: Wait a second. Who would have the authority to remove references to directed energy exposure? Speaker 1: The medical offices of both the state and the central intelligence agency, state department and CIA. Speaker 2: These records about a U. S. Government study at the University of Pennsylvania into Havana syndrome were also changed. Speaker 0: Why do you have paperwork that says it's being sponsored by the U. S. Government and then it changes to it's being sponsored by a university. Speaker 1: To cover up the fact that US government knew that it was directed energy causing these certain injuries. I work for the intelligence community. I'm a US State Department diplomat. No one from the intelligence community nor Department of State who I work for has interviewed me about this. Speaker 0: How can that be? Speaker 1: That's because they don't want to know. They wanna have plausible deniability. Speaker 2: To cope with his injury, Lindsey relies on high-tech therapies like this one to improve his brain function. Speaker 1: The goal is to make these three circles converge and do that with your brain. Speaker 2: Lindsey sued the state department in 2021, and as part of the settlement, Lindsey said he kept his job and was reassigned to Helsinki, Finland. His area of responsibility includes embassies on the front line with Russia. Speaker 0: Are these US embassies at high risk for directed energy attacks? Speaker 1: Yes. Again, won't discuss classified, and this hasn't been publicly reported, but not only in Lithuania. In other Baltic countries, there have been, incidents that The US public does not know about but have occurred. Speaker 0: Incidents involving who? Speaker 1: Directed Energy and the Russian Federation Operators Committee against US government personnel. Speaker 0: And when? Speaker 1: Well before 2016. Speaker 2: While Lindsay said he should have been among the first to know, he learned of a serious incident from news reporting. A senior Defense Department official was apparently targeted and had symptoms similar to Havana syndrome at the twenty twenty three NATO summit in Lithuania. Speaker 1: I got a frantic phone call from the regional security officer in Vilnius, Lithuania, my boss basically when I go to the embassy in Vilnius. So in this phone call I said, What? How come I'm hearing about this from media? And they said, We're just telling you the way it is. Yeah, watch the media report. Speaker 0: Why was the intelligence withheld? Speaker 1: It gets to the heart of the US government always trying to minimize any potential directed energy attack. Speaker 2: Lindsey said he immediately began testing to see if the directed energy threat persisted. Speaker 1: I can't get into too many details, but certain readings were extreme of concern, showing both security and safety vulnerabilities, I. E. Data that was in excess of US government safety and security levels. Speaker 0: Let me just stop a second. Can you tell me where those heightened levels were measured? Speaker 1: That was in and around U. S. Embassy of illness. Speaker 0: Okay, so these are levels which are concerning for health reasons, for safety reasons, and also for security reasons. Speaker 1: Yes, yes. Speaker 2: These heavily redacted emails indicate Lindsey started reporting the measurements back to Washington D. C. Using classified networks. Lindsey said he was urged to drop it. Speaker 1: I was told by my supervisors, take that language out of the report. Don't include that language. Speaker 0: Wait a second. You're talking about RF energy, radio frequency energy? Speaker 1: Potentially, yes. Speaker 0: Is that classified? Speaker 1: The details of which are, and it wasn't only RF energy, there was other electrical energy that we're talking about as Okay. Speaker 0: Was the American embassy under attack? Speaker 1: My job as a technical operator, as a security engineering officer, is to take data and send that back to Washington to determine if it's under attack or not. I was told, take that data out. We don't even want to deal with Speaker 0: Is that a violation of state department regulations? Speaker 1: Completely. There's a there's a question in there. In your engineering judgment, how long has this existed? And I said, for years, potentially. And that's what Washington they wanted me to remove that. It absolutely goes against everything that I'm I'm being paid for. It's fraud, waste, and abuse at its worst. Speaker 2: Lindsay said he refused to sign off on a security upgrade project at the US Embassy in Vilnius because of the concerning energy readings. Then a colleague alerted him to this completed compliance paperwork. Speaker 0: Is this your signature? No, it is not. Was anyone authorized to sign for you? No. Are you alleging fraud with a government contract? Yes, I am. How large is the state department contract? This particular contract is a $5,000,000, what we call a TSU, a technical security upgrade, but for $5,000,000. Yes. Speaker 2: We were not able to find information indicating the contractor had been informed of the dispute. Now two government watchdog agencies are involved. Lindsey said he was recently retaliated against and ordered to leave Helsinki, uproot his family, and disrupt therapy for his children. Speaker 1: When I see that, I see the US government doing the worst of the worst, putting pressure on me to be quiet, using my kids, using my wife, and that is the worst. That is beyond reprehensible in a very Soviet way. Speaker 2: Lindsay said his son Thomas, who was a toddler at the time of the 2018 incident in China, has the most severe traumatic brain injury. Lindsey claimed the State Department's inaction made it worse. Speaker 0: Did the State Department test your children? Speaker 1: No, they did not. In the time that it took for me to get my children the help that they needed on my own, the time that it took for my kids led to their injuries being worse than they should have, according to U. S. Military doctors and civilian doctors. Speaker 0: I have an evaluation here for your son that you have shared with us, and it says, Thomas has issues with eye movement, headaches, concentration, hand eye coordination since the traumatic brain injury. When I read this assessment to you as a father, what goes through your head? Speaker 1: I signed up for this, Katherine, for this job, to go up against Vladimir Putin, go up against, you know, these Russians who I have a long history with. This, for me, the fact that if I was injured just by myself something like this, honestly, I wouldn't be in front of you today. My kids and my wife did not sign up for this. So as a father, I wrestle with this all the time when I'm told from a doctor, Well, you should have had them here before. Their injuries would have been less had you been medevaced before, had you been properly evaluated. Because always my biggest fear, Kathryn, still is, is that my wife and I will get early onset of Parkinson's for this, and we won't be there for our kids with their health issues, right? Speaker 2: -After our two recent investigations into Havana syndrome, Tulsi Gabbard, the nation's top intelligence official, committed to initiating a new assessment. Speaker 0: -There seems to be a sea change with this new administration. There a lot of people have described to me that there's an openness or a willingness to acknowledge these weapons. Is this strategic? Is it a leverage point for President Trump? Speaker 1: It is a leverage point. I have faith that President Trump, after this report, after DNI Gabbard's report, after ODNI does this, that President Trump will have a leverage point and that he'll use that.
C__Herridge
Posted - May 5, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Saved - May 5, 2025 at 8:37 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m thrilled to share that the CBP whistleblowers have been vindicated after years of retaliation, securing promotions and full compensation for seven years of injustice. Our August investigation, which garnered over 24 million engagements, highlighted the DHS's failure to enforce federal DNA collection laws for illegal entries. Mark Jones, Fred Wynn, and Mike Taylor emphasized that many American deaths could have been prevented. Thanks to @ChuckGrassley for championing their cause and helping restore their careers.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING @CBP Border Whistleblowers: Vindicated Promotions Secured, Full Compensation For 7 Years of Retaliation. With +24 million engagements, our August investigation exposed @DHSgov Homeland Security’s failure to enforce federal DNA collection law for illegal entries. Mark Jones, Fred Wynn and Mike Taylor told our team Americans deaths "were preventable." @ChuckGrassley championed their cause and has reversed years of injustice. 👇 https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-helps-restore-three-cbp-whistleblowers-careers-after-nearly-a-decade-of-retaliation

Grassley Helps Restore Three CBP Whistleblowers’ Careers after Nearly a Decade of Retaliation | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has successfully secured promotions for three Customs and... grassley.senate.gov

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Leaked government memo confirms whistleblowers were targeted by Border Agency after exposing federal DNA Collection law was not followed for immigration violations Homeland Security whistleblowers claim American deaths “were preventable.” Subscribe on X @C__Herridge https://t.co/x9e6RjGJKH

Video Transcript AI Summary
Three government whistleblowers with seven decades of law enforcement experience allege that Homeland Security is intentionally failing to enforce the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, which requires collecting DNA from non-US persons detained for immigration violations. They claim this non-compliance, spanning multiple administrations, has led to preventable deaths. Recent data suggests nearly 70% of border encounters don't include DNA collection, potentially leaving almost a million violent criminals unidentified. The whistleblowers suggest this failure may have contributed to the death of Rachel Morin, as the suspect had multiple prior encounters with border agents where DNA could have been collected. The whistleblowers also allege retaliation for speaking out, including denial of promotion, a hostile work environment, and the removal of law enforcement credentials and firearms. One supervisor allegedly stated the agency's goal was to bankrupt them, make them quit, die, or kill themselves. The whistleblowers believe the intentional dereliction of implementing the DNA law is criminal.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Americans are dead, and these deaths were preventable. Speaker 1: So this internal government memo confirms that you were retaliated against because you spoke out against officials at Homeland Security who you believed were violating the law. Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah. 100%. Speaker 2: The agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically preferably all of the above. Speaker 1: This law is on the books. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: Is Homeland Security enforcing the DNA collection law? Not fully. As a result, are Americans less safe? Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: No question in your mind? Speaker 2: They are not at all. None. No. Speaker 1: Our team sat down with three government whistleblowers with seven decades of law enforcement experience. They work at customs and border protection or CBP, a division of homeland security. This internal government memo confirms that you were retaliated against because you spoke out against officials at homeland security who you believed were violating the law. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. 100%. Speaker 1: The agency's intentional decade long failure to implement a law designed to protect public safety. That's its conclusion. Customs and border protection is in violation of the federal law, and it's done knowingly. Yes. This internal homeland security directive marked law enforcement sensitive lays out the law. The border agency is required to collect DNA samples from non United States persons in detention for immigration violations. Known as the DNA Fingerprint Act, it passed in 02/2005 with bipartisan support. So there's no ambiguity. The language is clear. It Speaker 3: lays it out as a road map. Speaker 1: Have you ever seen a directive like this be ignored? Speaker 0: Never. No. Speaker 1: Okay. A lot of people are gonna be confused. Homeland Security's job is to uphold the law and to keep Americans safe. But what you're alleging is that Homeland Security is not complying with the law. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 1: Since 2021, under the Biden Harris administration, Homeland Security's own data reports more than 10,000,000 border encounters. Speaker 2: The internal mood is it's a dumpster fire. Speaker 3: It is a questioning of our mission versus what is actually being executed in the field. Speaker 1: Jones showed us what's supposed to happen in the field when DNA is collected from individuals detained and processed on immigration violations. Speaker 3: So, Catherine, this is the kit that's provided by the FBI to the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents. Place it inside your cheek. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Rub inside your cheek three Three Speaker 1: times. Yeah. Speaker 3: You're collecting saliva and skin cells or epithelial cells. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: I would then take it back from you, close it, place it inside the white envelope, which then gets sent to the FBI laboratory for processing. Speaker 1: So thirty seconds to collect, about four dollars a pack. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: How long to process by the FBI? Speaker 3: Approximately seventy two hours. Speaker 1: So it helps you identify suspects? Speaker 3: Absolutely. It gives an investigative lead to a law enforcement agency. Speaker 1: Has the system solved cold cases? Speaker 2: Yes. It's presumptively solved over 1,000 cases just from DNA collection. Speaker 3: Not only does it cut down on crime, it also cuts down on the time that it takes law enforcement to find this individual. Speaker 1: You've had Republican administrations. You've had Democratic administrations. Have either of them implemented the law? Speaker 2: No. The willful noncompliance, I believe, is inexplicable. Speaker 0: For many years, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection have failed to follow the law. Speaker 1: Recent data released by Republican senator Chuck Grassley suggests nearly seventy percent of border encounters did not include DNA collection as required by law, and as many as nine hundred and fifty thousand violent criminals were unidentified. 950,000 violent criminals went unidentified. That's nearly a million people. Speaker 3: That estimate was from 02/2010 through 02/2019. That was 5,000,000 illegal entries at the time. Speaker 1: What you're saying to me is that 950,000 violent criminals is a is an old number. It's on the low end. Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. The continued prolonged willful failure to comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act has resulted in the harm that Americans are dead, and these deaths were preventable. Speaker 1: That's a very significant statement. Speaker 0: I believe that to be statistically verifiable. Speaker 1: The August 2023 sexual assault and murder of a 37 year old mother of five in Bel Air, Maryland haunts the whistleblowers. Are you alleging that Homeland Security's failure to comply with the DNA collection law may have been a contributing factor in Rachel Morin's death? Speaker 0: It may have been a contributing factor. Yes. Speaker 1: No question in your mind? Speaker 0: None. Speaker 1: That's a very serious charge to make. Speaker 0: It is. Speaker 1: Now charged with Rachel Morin's murder is 23 year old Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez from El Salvador. An alleged gang member, authorities claim he murdered another woman before fleeing to The US in February 2023. Based on our reporting, the suspect didn't just have one encounter with border agents. He had multiple encounters. So there were multiple opportunities to take his DNA. Speaker 3: We understand we had three bites at the apple with this subject and never took it. Speaker 1: It's gonna be hard for the family to hear that there was an opportunity to identify the suspect and stop him if federal law had been followed? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Had the subject had DNA taken the first time they were encountered, there would have been an instant possibility that any future criminal activity would have been stopped immediately, and there was definite potential for the individual to be apprehended. Speaker 1: Six months before Rachel Morin's murder, the suspect was linked to a brutal home invasion in Los Angeles. Speaker 2: I think if due diligence was exercised and we comply with the law, DNA was collected, we would have known who we were looking for on behalf of the little girl and the the young lady out in Los Angeles and hopefully vindicated him long before he got to Maryland. Speaker 1: Did Homeland Security fail Rachel Morne? Speaker 3: In the context of not collecting the DNA that is mandated by law, they they did not do it, and there there's no other answer. Speaker 1: Even independent government investigators admitted in this May 2023 letter that border agencies do not systematically record data on the reasons for the noncollections. What's the consequence for the American public? Speaker 0: We know for a fact that not every individual who crosses the border illegally into The United States goes on to commit violent acts. But given the number, even a very small percentage results in a definite increase in crime within The United States. Speaker 1: Does Homeland Security owe the victims an apology? Does Customs and Border Protection owe the victims an apology? Speaker 0: At a minimum, many people in this country are owed an explanation. Speaker 2: Ultimately, the secretary of Department of Homeland Security is responsible. We know that he's been notified of the noncompliance. They've done so with impunity. Speaker 1: Has anyone at Homeland Security been disciplined? Speaker 3: Not that we're aware of. Speaker 1: No. Demoted? Speaker 3: No. No. And to the contrary, promoted. Speaker 1: Promoted? Anyone fired for failing to comply with the DNA law? Speaker 2: No. No. The only ones disciplined are sitting right here. Speaker 1: This exclusive internal memo concluded the border agency retaliated against them, including denial of promotion, hostile work environment, reputational harm, among other issues. How hard did you have to work within the government bureaucracy to get this memo? Speaker 3: The office of special counsel refused to give it to us. We received it through discovery with our legal counsel. Speaker 1: So you had you had to spend your own money to get confirmation that you were being punished by the government? Speaker 0: That's correct. For me personally, it's a mystery as to why the office of special counsel did not see fit to share that document with us. Speaker 2: I've had my law enforcement, credentials, a firearm taken away from me. I've had my law enforcement retirement taken away from me. And we will tell you this, in a law enforcement environment, publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult and degradation. Speaker 0: I was basically iced, left to sit at my desk every day, do nothing but the most menial tasks. My future career options, because I was working in such a limited sphere, all that future potential vanished in a day. Speaker 3: I was demoted three levels. Like Mr. Taylor, my firearm was taken, my credentials were taken, and it was the final blow to a professional career. And what we did was we came forward. Not in seventy five years or so of combined service have one of us even had a written or verbal disciplinary action. Speaker 2: One of the supervisors said, very matter of fact, the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically, preferably all of the above. Speaker 1: What you describe sounds like a criminal conspiracy. Speaker 2: We think a lot of this is criminal, not so much even when it comes to us, but the absolute intentional dereliction of implementing the DNA law. Speaker 3: We don't need to bring in more crime. We have enough of our own. The tool we have, the DNA Fingerprint Act, we are willfully not complying. And we ask ourselves, how is this happening? I think we know how it's happening.
C__Herridge
Posted - April 22, 2025 at 6:10 PM
Saved - April 23, 2025 at 7:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it difficult to dispute the evidence presented in the documents and scientific analysis. A medically retired defense department professional shared brain scans showing significant atrophy, linking their injury to a directed energy weapon attack in 2015, rather than a natural disease.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

It’s hard to argue with documents and science. These brain scans and analysis were shared by a medically retired defense department professional who described a directed energy weapon attack in 2015 while working with a US embassy in Eastern Europe. RED flags abnormal findings, including evidence of significant brain atrophy. The DoD professional reported their brain injury is consistent with a traumatic attack, not a naturally occurring neurological disease.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Retired CounterIntelligence Officer Mike Beck says he and his partner were attacked by a microwave energy weapon in 1996 after they “walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing” against the United States. Since the attack Beck has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s and more recently, dementia. This is Beck’s first interview after he moved into assisted living because his family can no longer care for him at home. This interview may be hard to watch.  Beck’s suffering and struggle are plain to see which makes the Biden Intelligence Community’s denial of legitimate, directed energy attacks even more suspect.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike Beck, a former counterintelligence operative who handled highly classified information, states that his government intelligence work remains highly classified. In 1996, a year after a home video was shot, Beck says he and his partner were attacked with a directed energy weapon while on assignment for the U.S. government in a secret location within a hostile country, after discovering some gear and walking in on an operation. According to a letter from a Parkinson's expert, Beck has a clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon and brain injury, more so than those described in "Havana syndrome" cases, and his Parkinson's disease and symptoms are due to his government service. Beck states that when he applied for workers' compensation, the agencies involved did everything they could to deny his application.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, it is. Speaker 0: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the U. S. Government. The location remains secret. Speaker 1: We traveled to a hostile country and we found some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service after you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 1: I Speaker 0: have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, Although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon, as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 1: We'd applied for workers' compensation and The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Top US Neuroscientist & Military Advisor Confirms Reports Are ‘Credible’ That Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Have Happened on US Soil And Targeted US Personnel Abroad; Exclusive New Records Reveal Exposure to “Microwave Weapon” After Intel Officer Discovered Secret Op.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Directed energy weapons are real and have been used against US government personnel, causing brain network disruption and cell death. Mike Beck, a retired counterintelligence officer, believes he was attacked by a hostile intelligence service using such a weapon, resulting in Parkinson's and dementia. Despite a doctor's letter linking his condition to microwave weapon exposure, his worker's compensation was initially denied multiple times, and the government is behind on assisted living payments. James Giordano, an advisor to the US military, notes that these weapons cause maximum disruption, with effects that may not be immediately known. There are reportedly nearly 2,000 attacks in over a dozen countries. According to one expert, there are two forms of sonic weapons and scalable, directable microwaves. A CIA whistleblower also described being targeted by a directed energy weapon in Africa. While an intelligence community assessment deems it unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for Havana syndrome, Marco Rubio stated that there are cases where the injuries appear to be caused by an external mechanism.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. These are weapons of maximum disruption. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information. Speaker 2: We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 2: We had applied for workers compensation. The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times Speaker 3: for workman's comp. Right. All these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Based on your first hand research, are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used at targets overseas? Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: Are reports of directed energy weapon attacks inside The US credible? Absolutely. Speaker 4: A longtime adviser to the US military, James Giordano is the director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare at the National Defense University. Giordano shared his expertise with the caveat he does not speak for the US government. Speaker 1: These are weapons of maximum disruption. It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and then and only then will the effects begin to be known. Speaker 4: In 2016, when almost two dozen government employees became ill in Cuba at the US embassy, Giordano was brought in as a lead consulting neuroscientist. The US diplomat's debilitating brain injuries became known as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. Speaker 0: How many types of directed energy weapons exist that have been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: To my experience and from my analysis, essentially three. So we're looking at two forms of sonic weapon. They both use sound and the expansions and contractions of a sound wave as the mechanism by which it's going to disrupt function and structure of various tissues, but they do so differently. And the third was something that was really something of a revelation, and this is the use of scalable and directable microwaves. Speaker 4: With nearly 2,000 reported attacks in more than a dozen countries, our team hit the road to investigate validated Havana syndrome cases. We traveled to Maryland and this assisted living facility to visit retired counterintelligence officer Mike Beck. Medical records we exclusively obtained link a microwave weapon to Beck's clearly documented brain injury. Beck moved here last August after his condition worsened, and his wife of forty years could no longer care for him at home. It's devastating. Speaker 3: We had a we had a bucket list Speaker 0: for when we retired, and being together was on it, not living apart. Mike, was it a hard decision for you to leave your family home and move into assisted living at what, 63? Speaker 2: It was hard. It was depressing. But I understood the situation I was in. Speaker 0: Help people understand what they're seeing and hearing from your husband. Speaker 3: So it has been a slow deterioration over time, and, he's gradually losing his train of thought. He forgets what the next word is, so he'll get stuck. And he just he'll stop because he his brain isn't processing fast enough. Speaker 4: Incredibly sharp and capable counterintelligence officer, much of Beck's thirty three years of government service remain classified. Beck's progressive brain injury has left him physically and mentally debilitated. We took multiple breaks during our interview. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. It it is. Speaker 4: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the US government. The location remains secret. Speaker 2: We traveled to a hostile country, and we found some some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service Right. After you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 4: This 2014 national security memo linked the hostile country where Beck says he was attacked to a high powered microwave system weapon, but the Beck's are still fighting for recognition. Speaker 0: If if this memo is not enough evidence that your husband was hit by a directed energy weapon, what else does the US government need? Speaker 3: They basically wanted the hostile country to say, yes. We hit Mike Beck on this date, this time, in this place. Speaker 0: Why do you think the US government is setting the bar so high? Speaker 3: I I think they just wanted to protect their reputation instead of protecting their employees. Speaker 4: Giordano showed us how brain injuries like Beck's can happen. Hollow spaces in the skull, the mouth, nose, ears, and eye sockets can become echo chambers, funneling energy waves into the brain with catastrophic consequences. Speaker 1: I think the easiest way, for a layperson to understand what what particularly rapidly pulsed microwaves could do is to think about something like WiFi connections in a cellular phone. So if you were to take your phone and put it in the microwave oven for a second or two seconds, you would take the phone out and structurally it would look fine. It would seem that it would be working just fine for you on some levels, but the actual sophistication of that phone would have been changed as a consequence of the microwave damage, and not only will it change then, but that change is durable and characteristically progressive. Speaker 0: That's what a directed energy weapon attack does. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. It can cause both brain cell death and change in the functional ability of various cells and nodes in the brain to be able to maintain the networks that are so vital to our thought, our emotions, and our behaviors. Speaker 0: When a directed energy weapon attack happens, is that the end of the damage? Speaker 1: The problem with directed energy attacks, like many things that can happen to the brain, is that the initial insult at the injury itself is nothing more than the first snowball that then leads to the avalanche. The injury to the brain impairs the brain's ability to not only function at the time of the injury and thereafter, but to compensate effectively. So then you begin to see a cascade of effects. Speaker 0: Who or what is responsible? Speaker 1: This becomes difficult. But I think what's important to note is who has developed these technologies and who may be using them in a whole set of practices. Here we encounter, if you will, the big three. The United States and some of its international economic and technological and military allies. Our Trans Pacific peer competitor, China, who has developed types of technologies for a variety of uses, and certainly our Trans Atlantic peer competitor, Russia. Speaker 4: These British medical records show in 02/2006 Beck was diagnosed with Parkinsonism. That's an umbrella term that refers to brain conditions that cause slowed movement and stiffness. Speaker 0: What made Mike's Parkinson's case stand out? Well, it's very unusual because he was a young onset. Speaker 3: He was only 45. It's usually 70s, 60s, late 60s to be diagnosed. Did he have any of the typical signs of Parkinson's? No. His first sign that I noticed was his anxiety. He never had the tremor. He still doesn't have a tremor. Speaker 0: So you've had a Parkinson's diagnosis and then more recently a diagnosis of dementia. Yeah. Is that a secondary consequence of the Parkinson's? Yes. Are you frustrated? Are you looking for the words? Speaker 2: Yes, it's very frustrating. I always wanted to have my A game on for work assignments until I got hurt. I had a lot of success in the workplace. The one thing I can say about work is I love my job. Speaker 0: I can see a lot of sadness in your eyes. Speaker 2: It was a great career. I was blessed to have such a good job, work with good people. Speaker 4: Cases like Beck's impact diplomats, military operatives, law enforcement professionals, and America's Spies. Speaker 5: I was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency for nineteen years. Speaker 4: In December, a CIA whistleblower, we agreed to call Alice to protect her identity, came forward for the first time. Alice described the fallout of a directed energy weapon attack targeting her in Africa. Speaker 5: We're basically like ticking time bombs, Catherine. You know, I've already started having to go to funerals. I have friends in nursing homes. I have friends with dementia and Parkinson's. In some ways, you know, people have a heart attack, and if you don't die of it, we know how to fix a heart attack. We don't know how to fix this. Speaker 4: Like the CIA whistleblower, the Labor Department acknowledges Beck's traumatic brain injury is the result of his government service. In Beck's case, the Labor Department only acknowledged his Parkinson's diagnosis after a high profile intervention. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 2: We applied for workers' compensation and the agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times for workman's comp. Right. Did you finally get workman's comp? Speaker 3: The benefit we received was they will have, they will pay for Mike's Speaker 0: assisted assisted living. You shared one of the bills for the assisted living with our team and it says there's a balance due of over $25,000 Is the government paying Mike's assisted living on time? No. No? No. How many months behind is the US government on its payments for Mike's assisted living? Three months behind. Does that just create more anxiety? It does. It's scary. Speaker 3: I mean, don't know how long, you know, when am I gonna get the call that says you're gonna have to pay this because we still haven't gotten the check. And it'd be devastating because, you know, we're not living on a whole ton of money. Speaker 0: I have this intelligence community assessment from January. It was released by the Biden administration. It says most of the intelligence community continues to assess unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for the events reported as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. It's ridiculous. Speaker 3: I mean all these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. I mean how do you Speaker 0: make this up? Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Is the US government trying to limit the identification of cases and compensation? Speaker 2: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Is that what you think? Speaker 2: I think it's problematic that there's evidence that the US government has regarding the availability and use of the weapons and that hasn't been brought to light. Speaker 0: Were you left behind by the US government? Speaker 2: Most definitely. Speaker 0: There's a narrative that directed energy weapon attacks didn't really begin until 2016. Is that a false narrative? Speaker 1: It is, it is. I think part of the problem is that the cases prior to them were far more insular cases, and they occurred in particular circumstances that did not warrant broad public dissemination. In other words, characteristically, it was some aspect of that case that was classified. Speaker 4: The Trump administration is more openly addressing Havana syndrome. In February, we sat down with secretary of state Marco Rubio. Speaker 6: But I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need. Speaker 0: Has there been a sea change within The US Government about directed energy weapon attacks? Speaker 1: It's been perceptible to me and from many of my colleagues that at this point there's really much more of a lean in to this, recognizing A, the reality of the actual devices, B, the reality of the individuals who suffered an injury, and C, the need to do something about it. Speaker 0: Mike, what are you fighting for? Speaker 2: Equity for our family. Speaker 0: What are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 2: Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies. Speaker 0: Rita, what are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 3: I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our our people, and it should stop.
C__Herridge
Posted - April 23, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Saved - April 23, 2025 at 3:30 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe President Trump needs to prioritize Americans and ensure that no foreign entity harms our people. My husband, Mike, a retired counterintelligence officer, suffers from dementia and Parkinson’s, which we attribute to a microwave weapon attack. He’s now in assisted living because I can no longer care for him at home, a decision that has been devastating for us. We had plans to be together and check items off our bucket list, but now we’re living apart. It's heartbreaking to see the impact of these circumstances.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

HERRIDGE “What are you asking President Trump to do?” Rita Cicala: “I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our people and it should stop.” Rita’s husband, Mike Beck, is a retired counterintelligence officer whose dementia and Parkinson’s diagnosis are blamed on a microwave weapon attack by a hostile country. Mike Beck: “Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies.” 63 year old Beck is now in assisted living because Rita can no longer care for him at home. Rita said the decision was “devastating.  We had a bucket list and being together was on it, not living apart.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike is fighting for equity for his family and asks President Trump to clean up inaccuracies. Rita is asking President Trump to show that America cares about Americans first and that other countries don't have the right to harm Americans, and that this should stop.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mike, what are you fighting for? Speaker 1: Equity for our family. Speaker 0: What are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 1: Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies. Speaker 0: Rita, what are you asking President Trump to do? I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our people. And it should stop.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Top US Neuroscientist & Military Advisor Confirms Reports Are ‘Credible’ That Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Have Happened on US Soil And Targeted US Personnel Abroad; Exclusive New Records Reveal Exposure to “Microwave Weapon” After Intel Officer Discovered Secret Op. “These are weapons of maximum disruption…It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and only then will the effects begin to be known.” 1:50 Reports of DEW Attacks on US Soil Are Credible 2:50 Different Types of DEWs: Sonic & Scalable, Directable Microwaves 3:30 Retired Counterintelligence Officer Mike Beck Now In Assisted Living Following DEW Attack 4:50 DEW Attack Happened After Beck And His Partner Discovered Operation Targeting USA By Hostile Country 6:40 How DEW Attacks Disrupt & Destroy Brain Networks 7:30 DEW Attack Aftermath: Brain Cell Death & The Domino Effect 8:20 Big Three: USA, Russia & China Have DEW Capability 9:05 Why Beck’s Case Stands Out And The Legacy of Suffering 10:20 CIA Whistleblower ‘Alice’ Targeted by DEW in Africa 11:00 Exclusive New Medical Records Document Beck’s Microwave Weapon Brain Injury 11:55 US Government Denied Beck Workers’ Compensation Multiple Times Before Approving It 12:10 US Government Currently Three Months Behind ($25,000+) On Payments for Beck’s Assisted Living 13:00 Beck: US Government Has Critical Evidence About Attacks & Weapons 14:20 Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Started in 2016: False 14:50 Trump Administration Openly Addresses Havana Syndrome: Secretary Rubio 15:50 Beck’s Request for President Trump

Video Transcript AI Summary
Directed energy weapons are real and have been used against US government personnel, causing brain disruption and cell death. Mike Beck, a retired counterintelligence officer, was attacked while on assignment and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson's. A leading expert confirmed Beck's condition was due to microwave weapon exposure, more clearly documented than in Havana syndrome cases. The US government is accused of a cover-up, denying worker's compensation and delaying payments for Beck's assisted living. There are reportedly nearly 2,000 attacks in over a dozen countries. James Giordano, an advisor to the US military, identified sonic and microwave weapons as the primary types used. A CIA whistleblower, Alice, described similar attacks and resulting health issues. While an intelligence community assessment downplayed foreign adversary involvement, Marco Rubio acknowledged unexplained brain injuries. There's a perceived shift towards recognizing the reality of these weapons and the need for support. Beck's family seeks equity and asks for a cleanup of inaccuracies and for the US to prioritize the safety of its citizens.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. These are weapons of maximum disruption. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information. Speaker 2: We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 2: We had applied for workers compensation. The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times Speaker 3: for workman's comp. Right. All these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Based on your first hand research, are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used at targets overseas? Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: Are reports of directed energy weapon attacks inside The US credible? Absolutely. Speaker 4: A longtime adviser to the US military, James Giordano is the director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare at the National Defense University. Giordano shared his expertise with the caveat he does not speak for the US government. Speaker 1: These are weapons of maximum disruption. It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and then and only then will the effects begin to be known. Speaker 4: In 2016, when almost two dozen government employees became ill in Cuba at the US embassy, Giordano was brought in as a lead consulting neuroscientist. The US diplomat's debilitating brain injuries became known as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. Speaker 0: How many types of directed energy weapons exist that have been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: To my experience and from my analysis, essentially three. So we're looking at two forms of sonic weapon. They both use sound and the expansions and contractions of a sound wave as the mechanism by which it's going to disrupt function and structure of various tissues, but they do so differently. And the third was something that was really something of a revelation, and this is the use of scalable and directable microwaves. Speaker 4: With nearly 2,000 reported attacks in more than a dozen countries, our team hit the road to investigate validated Havana syndrome cases. We traveled to Maryland and this assisted living facility to visit retired counterintelligence officer Mike Beck. Medical records we exclusively obtained link a microwave weapon to Beck's clearly documented brain injury. Beck moved here last August after his condition worsened, and his wife of forty years could no longer care for him at home. It's devastating. Speaker 3: We had a we had a bucket list Speaker 0: for when we retired, and being together was on it, not living apart. Mike, was it a hard decision for you to leave your family home and move into assisted living at what, 63? Speaker 2: It was hard. It was depressing. But I understood the situation I was in. Speaker 0: Help people understand what they're seeing and hearing from your husband. Speaker 3: So it has been a slow deterioration over time, and, he's gradually losing his train of thought. He forgets what the next word is, so he'll get stuck. And he just he'll stop because he his brain isn't processing fast enough. Speaker 4: Incredibly sharp and capable counterintelligence officer, much of Beck's thirty three years of government service remain classified. Beck's progressive brain injury has left him physically and mentally debilitated. We took multiple breaks during our interview. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. It it is. Speaker 4: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the US government. The location remains secret. Speaker 2: We traveled to a hostile country, and we found some some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service Right. After you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 4: This 2014 national security memo linked the hostile country where Beck says he was attacked to a high powered microwave system weapon, but the Beck's are still fighting for recognition. Speaker 0: If if this memo is not enough evidence that your husband was hit by a directed energy weapon, what else does the US government need? Speaker 3: They basically wanted the hostile country to say, yes. We hit Mike Beck on this date, this time, in this place. Speaker 0: Why do you think the US government is setting the bar so high? Speaker 3: I I think they just wanted to protect their reputation instead of protecting their employees. Speaker 4: Giordano showed us how brain injuries like Beck's can happen. Hollow spaces in the skull, the mouth, nose, ears, and eye sockets can become echo chambers, funneling energy waves into the brain with catastrophic consequences. Speaker 1: I think the easiest way, for a layperson to understand what what particularly rapidly pulsed microwaves could do is to think about something like WiFi connections in a cellular phone. So if you were to take your phone and put it in the microwave oven for a second or two seconds, you would take the phone out and structurally it would look fine. It would seem that it would be working just fine for you on some levels, but the actual sophistication of that phone would have been changed as a consequence of the microwave damage, and not only will it change then, but that change is durable and characteristically progressive. Speaker 0: That's what a directed energy weapon attack does. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. It can cause both brain cell death and change in the functional ability of various cells and nodes in the brain to be able to maintain the networks that are so vital to our thought, our emotions, and our behaviors. Speaker 0: When a directed energy weapon attack happens, is that the end of the damage? Speaker 1: The problem with directed energy attacks, like many things that can happen to the brain, is that the initial insult at the injury itself is nothing more than the first snowball that then leads to the avalanche. The injury to the brain impairs the brain's ability to not only function at the time of the injury and thereafter, but to compensate effectively. So then you begin to see a cascade of effects. Speaker 0: Who or what is responsible? Speaker 1: This becomes difficult. But I think what's important to note is who has developed these technologies and who may be using them in a whole set of practices. Here we encounter, if you will, the big three. The United States and some of its international economic and technological and military allies. Our Trans Pacific peer competitor, China, who has developed types of technologies for a variety of uses, and certainly our Trans Atlantic peer competitor, Russia. Speaker 4: These British medical records show in 02/2006 Beck was diagnosed with Parkinsonism. That's an umbrella term that refers to brain conditions that cause slowed movement and stiffness. Speaker 0: What made Mike's Parkinson's case stand out? Well, it's very unusual because he was a young onset. Speaker 3: He was only 45. It's usually 70s, 60s, late 60s to be diagnosed. Did he have any of the typical signs of Parkinson's? No. His first sign that I noticed was his anxiety. He never had the tremor. He still doesn't have a tremor. Speaker 0: So you've had a Parkinson's diagnosis and then more recently a diagnosis of dementia. Yeah. Is that a secondary consequence of the Parkinson's? Yes. Are you frustrated? Are you looking for the words? Speaker 2: Yes, it's very frustrating. I always wanted to have my A game on for work assignments until I got hurt. I had a lot of success in the workplace. The one thing I can say about work is I love my job. Speaker 0: I can see a lot of sadness in your eyes. Speaker 2: It was a great career. I was blessed to have such a good job, work with good people. Speaker 4: Cases like Beck's impact diplomats, military operatives, law enforcement professionals, and America's Spies. Speaker 5: I was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency for nineteen years. Speaker 4: In December, a CIA whistleblower, we agreed to call Alice to protect her identity, came forward for the first time. Alice described the fallout of a directed energy weapon attack targeting her in Africa. Speaker 5: We're basically like ticking time bombs, Catherine. You know, I've already started having to go to funerals. I have friends in nursing homes. I have friends with dementia and Parkinson's. In some ways, you know, people have a heart attack, and if you don't die of it, we know how to fix a heart attack. We don't know how to fix this. Speaker 4: Like the CIA whistleblower, the Labor Department acknowledges Beck's traumatic brain injury is the result of his government service. In Beck's case, the Labor Department only acknowledged his Parkinson's diagnosis after a high profile intervention. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 2: We applied for workers' compensation and the agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times for workman's comp. Right. Did you finally get workman's comp? Speaker 3: The benefit we received was they will have, they will pay for Mike's Speaker 0: assisted assisted living. You shared one of the bills for the assisted living with our team and it says there's a balance due of over $25,000 Is the government paying Mike's assisted living on time? No. No? No. How many months behind is the US government on its payments for Mike's assisted living? Three months behind. Does that just create more anxiety? It does. It's scary. Speaker 3: I mean, don't know how long, you know, when am I gonna get the call that says you're gonna have to pay this because we still haven't gotten the check. And it'd be devastating because, you know, we're not living on a whole ton of money. Speaker 0: I have this intelligence community assessment from January. It was released by the Biden administration. It says most of the intelligence community continues to assess unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for the events reported as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. It's ridiculous. Speaker 3: I mean all these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. I mean how do you Speaker 0: make this up? Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Is the US government trying to limit the identification of cases and compensation? Speaker 2: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Is that what you think? Speaker 2: I think it's problematic that there's evidence that the US government has regarding the availability and use of the weapons and that hasn't been brought to light. Speaker 0: Were you left behind by the US government? Speaker 2: Most definitely. Speaker 0: There's a narrative that directed energy weapon attacks didn't really begin until 2016. Is that a false narrative? Speaker 1: It is, it is. I think part of the problem is that the cases prior to them were far more insular cases, and they occurred in particular circumstances that did not warrant broad public dissemination. In other words, characteristically, it was some aspect of that case that was classified. Speaker 4: The Trump administration is more openly addressing Havana syndrome. In February, we sat down with secretary of state Marco Rubio. Speaker 6: But I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need. Speaker 0: Has there been a sea change within The US Government about directed energy weapon attacks? Speaker 1: It's been perceptible to me and from many of my colleagues that at this point there's really much more of a lean in to this, recognizing A, the reality of the actual devices, B, the reality of the individuals who suffered an injury, and C, the need to do something about it. Speaker 0: Mike, what are you fighting for? Speaker 2: Equity for our family. Speaker 0: What are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 2: Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies. Speaker 0: Rita, what are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 3: I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our our people, and it should stop.
C__Herridge
Posted - April 22, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Saved - April 23, 2025 at 3:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared breaking news from a top US neuroscientist and military advisor confirming credible reports of directed energy weapon (DEW) attacks on US soil and against personnel abroad. These weapons, designed for maximum disruption, have serious effects on brain networks, leading to conditions like brain cell death. Retired counterintelligence officer Mike Beck, who suffered a DEW attack after uncovering a hostile operation, now lives in assisted care. Despite government delays and denials regarding compensation, Beck insists there is critical evidence about these attacks.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Top US Neuroscientist & Military Advisor Confirms Reports Are ‘Credible’ That Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Have Happened on US Soil And Targeted US Personnel Abroad; Exclusive New Records Reveal Exposure to “Microwave Weapon” After Intel Officer Discovered Secret Op. “These are weapons of maximum disruption…It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and only then will the effects begin to be known.” 1:50 Reports of DEW Attacks on US Soil Are Credible 2:50 Different Types of DEWs: Sonic & Scalable, Directable Microwaves 3:30 Retired Counterintelligence Officer Mike Beck Now In Assisted Living Following DEW Attack 4:50 DEW Attack Happened After Beck And His Partner Discovered Operation Targeting USA By Hostile Country 6:40 How DEW Attacks Disrupt & Destroy Brain Networks 7:30 DEW Attack Aftermath: Brain Cell Death & The Domino Effect 8:20 Big Three: USA, Russia & China Have DEW Capability 9:05 Why Beck’s Case Stands Out And The Legacy of Suffering 10:20 CIA Whistleblower ‘Alice’ Targeted by DEW in Africa 11:00 Exclusive New Medical Records Document Beck’s Microwave Weapon Brain Injury 11:55 US Government Denied Beck Workers’ Compensation Multiple Times Before Approving It 12:10 US Government Currently Three Months Behind ($25,000+) On Payments for Beck’s Assisted Living 13:00 Beck: US Government Has Critical Evidence About Attacks & Weapons 14:20 Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Started in 2016: False 14:50 Trump Administration Openly Addresses Havana Syndrome: Secretary Rubio 15:50 Beck’s Request for President Trump

Video Transcript AI Summary
Directed energy weapons are real and have been used against US government personnel, causing brain network disruption and cell death. Mike Beck, a retired counterintelligence officer, believes he was attacked by a hostile intelligence service using such a weapon, resulting in Parkinson's and dementia. Despite a doctor's letter linking his condition to microwave weapon exposure, his worker's compensation was initially denied multiple times, and the government is behind on assisted living payments. James Giordano, a neuroscientist, explained how directed energy weapons, including sonic and microwave weapons, can cause brain injuries. A CIA whistleblower described similar attacks and resulting health issues among colleagues. While a government assessment deemed foreign adversary involvement in Havana syndrome unlikely, Marco Rubio stated that some injuries have no other logical explanation than an external mechanism. There's a perceived shift towards acknowledging the reality of these weapons and the need to support victims. Beck and his wife are seeking equity, recognition, and an end to these attacks.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. These are weapons of maximum disruption. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information. Speaker 2: We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 2: We had applied for workers compensation. The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times Speaker 3: for workman's comp. Right. All these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Based on your first hand research, are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used at targets overseas? Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: Are reports of directed energy weapon attacks inside The US credible? Absolutely. Speaker 4: A longtime adviser to the US military, James Giordano is the director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare at the National Defense University. Giordano shared his expertise with the caveat he does not speak for the US government. Speaker 1: These are weapons of maximum disruption. It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and then and only then will the effects begin to be known. Speaker 4: In 2016, when almost two dozen government employees became ill in Cuba at the US embassy, Giordano was brought in as a lead consulting neuroscientist. The US diplomat's debilitating brain injuries became known as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. Speaker 0: How many types of directed energy weapons exist that have been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: To my experience and from my analysis, essentially three. So we're looking at two forms of sonic weapon. They both use sound and the expansions and contractions of a sound wave as the mechanism by which it's going to disrupt function and structure of various tissues, but they do so differently. And the third was something that was really something of a revelation, and this is the use of scalable and directable microwaves. Speaker 4: With nearly 2,000 reported attacks in more than a dozen countries, our team hit the road to investigate validated Havana syndrome cases. We traveled to Maryland and this assisted living facility to visit retired counterintelligence officer Mike Beck. Medical records we exclusively obtained link a microwave weapon to Beck's clearly documented brain injury. Beck moved here last August after his condition worsened, and his wife of forty years could no longer care for him at home. It's devastating. Speaker 3: We had a we had a bucket list Speaker 0: for when we retired, and being together was on it, not living apart. Mike, was it a hard decision for you to leave your family home and move into assisted living at what, 63? Speaker 2: It was hard. It was depressing. But I understood the situation I was in. Speaker 0: Help people understand what they're seeing and hearing from your husband. Speaker 3: So it has been a slow deterioration over time, and, he's gradually losing his train of thought. He forgets what the next word is, so he'll get stuck. And he just he'll stop because he his brain isn't processing fast enough. Speaker 4: Incredibly sharp and capable counterintelligence officer, much of Beck's thirty three years of government service remain classified. Beck's progressive brain injury has left him physically and mentally debilitated. We took multiple breaks during our interview. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. It it is. Speaker 4: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the US government. The location remains secret. Speaker 2: We traveled to a hostile country, and we found some some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service Right. After you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 4: This 2014 national security memo linked the hostile country where Beck says he was attacked to a high powered microwave system weapon, but the Beck's are still fighting for recognition. Speaker 0: If if this memo is not enough evidence that your husband was hit by a directed energy weapon, what else does the US government need? Speaker 3: They basically wanted the hostile country to say, yes. We hit Mike Beck on this date, this time, in this place. Speaker 0: Why do you think the US government is setting the bar so high? Speaker 3: I I think they just wanted to protect their reputation instead of protecting their employees. Speaker 4: Giordano showed us how brain injuries like Beck's can happen. Hollow spaces in the skull, the mouth, nose, ears, and eye sockets can become echo chambers, funneling energy waves into the brain with catastrophic consequences. Speaker 1: I think the easiest way, for a layperson to understand what what particularly rapidly pulsed microwaves could do is to think about something like WiFi connections in a cellular phone. So if you were to take your phone and put it in the microwave oven for a second or two seconds, you would take the phone out and structurally it would look fine. It would seem that it would be working just fine for you on some levels, but the actual sophistication of that phone would have been changed as a consequence of the microwave damage, and not only will it change then, but that change is durable and characteristically progressive. Speaker 0: That's what a directed energy weapon attack does. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. It can cause both brain cell death and change in the functional ability of various cells and nodes in the brain to be able to maintain the networks that are so vital to our thought, our emotions, and our behaviors. Speaker 0: When a directed energy weapon attack happens, is that the end of the damage? Speaker 1: The problem with directed energy attacks, like many things that can happen to the brain, is that the initial insult at the injury itself is nothing more than the first snowball that then leads to the avalanche. The injury to the brain impairs the brain's ability to not only function at the time of the injury and thereafter, but to compensate effectively. So then you begin to see a cascade of effects. Speaker 0: Who or what is responsible? Speaker 1: This becomes difficult. But I think what's important to note is who has developed these technologies and who may be using them in a whole set of practices. Here we encounter, if you will, the big three. The United States and some of its international economic and technological and military allies. Our Trans Pacific peer competitor, China, who has developed types of technologies for a variety of uses, and certainly our Trans Atlantic peer competitor, Russia. Speaker 4: These British medical records show in 02/2006 Beck was diagnosed with Parkinsonism. That's an umbrella term that refers to brain conditions that cause slowed movement and stiffness. Speaker 0: What made Mike's Parkinson's case stand out? Well, it's very unusual because he was a young onset. Speaker 3: He was only 45. It's usually 70s, 60s, late 60s to be diagnosed. Did he have any of the typical signs of Parkinson's? No. His first sign that I noticed was his anxiety. He never had the tremor. He still doesn't have a tremor. Speaker 0: So you've had a Parkinson's diagnosis and then more recently a diagnosis of dementia. Yeah. Is that a secondary consequence of the Parkinson's? Yes. Are you frustrated? Are you looking for the words? Speaker 2: Yes, it's very frustrating. I always wanted to have my A game on for work assignments until I got hurt. I had a lot of success in the workplace. The one thing I can say about work is I love my job. Speaker 0: I can see a lot of sadness in your eyes. Speaker 2: It was a great career. I was blessed to have such a good job, work with good people. Speaker 4: Cases like Beck's impact diplomats, military operatives, law enforcement professionals, and America's Spies. Speaker 5: I was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency for nineteen years. Speaker 4: In December, a CIA whistleblower, we agreed to call Alice to protect her identity, came forward for the first time. Alice described the fallout of a directed energy weapon attack targeting her in Africa. Speaker 5: We're basically like ticking time bombs, Catherine. You know, I've already started having to go to funerals. I have friends in nursing homes. I have friends with dementia and Parkinson's. In some ways, you know, people have a heart attack, and if you don't die of it, we know how to fix a heart attack. We don't know how to fix this. Speaker 4: Like the CIA whistleblower, the Labor Department acknowledges Beck's traumatic brain injury is the result of his government service. In Beck's case, the Labor Department only acknowledged his Parkinson's diagnosis after a high profile intervention. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 2: We applied for workers' compensation and the agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times for workman's comp. Right. Did you finally get workman's comp? Speaker 3: The benefit we received was they will have, they will pay for Mike's Speaker 0: assisted assisted living. You shared one of the bills for the assisted living with our team and it says there's a balance due of over $25,000 Is the government paying Mike's assisted living on time? No. No? No. How many months behind is the US government on its payments for Mike's assisted living? Three months behind. Does that just create more anxiety? It does. It's scary. Speaker 3: I mean, don't know how long, you know, when am I gonna get the call that says you're gonna have to pay this because we still haven't gotten the check. And it'd be devastating because, you know, we're not living on a whole ton of money. Speaker 0: I have this intelligence community assessment from January. It was released by the Biden administration. It says most of the intelligence community continues to assess unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for the events reported as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. It's ridiculous. Speaker 3: I mean all these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. I mean how do you Speaker 0: make this up? Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Is the US government trying to limit the identification of cases and compensation? Speaker 2: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Is that what you think? Speaker 2: I think it's problematic that there's evidence that the US government has regarding the availability and use of the weapons and that hasn't been brought to light. Speaker 0: Were you left behind by the US government? Speaker 2: Most definitely. Speaker 0: There's a narrative that directed energy weapon attacks didn't really begin until 2016. Is that a false narrative? Speaker 1: It is, it is. I think part of the problem is that the cases prior to them were far more insular cases, and they occurred in particular circumstances that did not warrant broad public dissemination. In other words, characteristically, it was some aspect of that case that was classified. Speaker 4: The Trump administration is more openly addressing Havana syndrome. In February, we sat down with secretary of state Marco Rubio. Speaker 6: But I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need. Speaker 0: Has there been a sea change within The US Government about directed energy weapon attacks? Speaker 1: It's been perceptible to me and from many of my colleagues that at this point there's really much more of a lean in to this, recognizing A, the reality of the actual devices, B, the reality of the individuals who suffered an injury, and C, the need to do something about it. Speaker 0: Mike, what are you fighting for? Speaker 2: Equity for our family. Speaker 0: What are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 2: Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies. Speaker 0: Rita, what are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 3: I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our our people, and it should stop.
C__Herridge
Posted - April 22, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Saved - April 23, 2025 at 3:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my experience as a retired CounterIntelligence Officer, detailing an attack by a microwave energy weapon in 1996 after I inadvertently interrupted a hostile operation against the U.S. Since then, I've been diagnosed with Parkinson’s and dementia, and this is my first interview after moving into assisted living due to my family's inability to care for me. Watching this may be difficult, as my struggles are evident, raising questions about the Biden Intelligence Community's denial of directed energy attacks.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Retired CounterIntelligence Officer Mike Beck says he and his partner were attacked by a microwave energy weapon in 1996 after they “walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing” against the United States. Since the attack Beck has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s and more recently, dementia. This is Beck’s first interview after he moved into assisted living because his family can no longer care for him at home. This interview may be hard to watch.  Beck’s suffering and struggle are plain to see which makes the Biden Intelligence Community’s denial of legitimate, directed energy attacks even more suspect.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Mike Beck, a former counterintelligence operative, confirms his government intelligence work remains highly classified. In 1996, a year after a home video was shot, Beck says he and his partner were attacked with a directed energy weapon while on assignment in a hostile country after discovering advanced capabilities being developed for use against the United States. According to a letter from a Parkinson's expert, Beck has a clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon and brain injury, more so than those described in cases of Havana syndrome. The expert states Beck's Parkinson's disease and symptoms are due to his government service. Beck states that after applying for workers' compensation, the agencies involved worked to deny his application.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, it is. Speaker 0: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the U. S. Government. The location remains secret. Speaker 1: We traveled to a hostile country and we found some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service after you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 1: I Speaker 0: have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, Although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon, as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 1: We'd applied for workers' compensation and The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Top US Neuroscientist & Military Advisor Confirms Reports Are ‘Credible’ That Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Have Happened on US Soil And Targeted US Personnel Abroad; Exclusive New Records Reveal Exposure to “Microwave Weapon” After Intel Officer Discovered Secret Op. “These are weapons of maximum disruption…It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and only then will the effects begin to be known.” 1:50 Reports of DEW Attacks on US Soil Are Credible 2:50 Different Types of DEWs: Sonic & Scalable, Directable Microwaves 3:30 Retired Counterintelligence Officer Mike Beck Now In Assisted Living Following DEW Attack 4:50 DEW Attack Happened After Beck And His Partner Discovered Operation Targeting USA By Hostile Country 6:40 How DEW Attacks Disrupt & Destroy Brain Networks 7:30 DEW Attack Aftermath: Brain Cell Death & The Domino Effect 8:20 Big Three: USA, Russia & China Have DEW Capability 9:05 Why Beck’s Case Stands Out And The Legacy of Suffering 10:20 CIA Whistleblower ‘Alice’ Targeted by DEW in Africa 11:00 Exclusive New Medical Records Document Beck’s Microwave Weapon Brain Injury 11:55 US Government Denied Beck Workers’ Compensation Multiple Times Before Approving It 12:10 US Government Currently Three Months Behind ($25,000+) On Payments for Beck’s Assisted Living 13:00 Beck: US Government Has Critical Evidence About Attacks & Weapons 14:20 Directed Energy Weapon Attacks Started in 2016: False 14:50 Trump Administration Openly Addresses Havana Syndrome: Secretary Rubio 15:50 Beck’s Request for President Trump

Video Transcript AI Summary
Directed energy weapons are real and have been used against US government personnel, causing brain disruption and cell death. Mike Beck, a retired counterintelligence officer, claims he was attacked by a hostile intelligence service with such a weapon, resulting in Parkinson's and dementia. Despite a doctor's letter linking his condition to microwave weapon exposure, his worker's compensation was initially denied multiple times, and the government is behind on payments for his assisted living. James Giordano, an advisor to the US military, notes that Havana syndrome, or anomalous health incidents, may be linked to directed energy weapons. There are reportedly three types of directed energy weapons: two forms of sonic weapons and scalable, directable microwaves. These weapons can cause lasting and progressive damage by disrupting brain networks. The US, China, and Russia are believed to have developed these technologies. Some believe the US government is covering up these attacks to protect its reputation, while others, like Marco Rubio, acknowledge the reality of brain injuries caused by external mechanisms and the need for support for victims.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. These are weapons of maximum disruption. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information. Speaker 2: We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 2: We had applied for workers compensation. The agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times Speaker 3: for workman's comp. Right. All these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Based on your first hand research, are directed energy weapons real? Speaker 1: Without doubt. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Have directed energy weapons been used at targets overseas? Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: Are reports of directed energy weapon attacks inside The US credible? Absolutely. Speaker 4: A longtime adviser to the US military, James Giordano is the director of the Center for Disruptive Technology and Future Warfare at the National Defense University. Giordano shared his expertise with the caveat he does not speak for the US government. Speaker 1: These are weapons of maximum disruption. It allows you to get in fast, hit hard, get out, and then and only then will the effects begin to be known. Speaker 4: In 2016, when almost two dozen government employees became ill in Cuba at the US embassy, Giordano was brought in as a lead consulting neuroscientist. The US diplomat's debilitating brain injuries became known as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. Speaker 0: How many types of directed energy weapons exist that have been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: To my experience and from my analysis, essentially three. So we're looking at two forms of sonic weapon. They both use sound and the expansions and contractions of a sound wave as the mechanism by which it's going to disrupt function and structure of various tissues, but they do so differently. And the third was something that was really something of a revelation, and this is the use of scalable and directable microwaves. Speaker 4: With nearly 2,000 reported attacks in more than a dozen countries, our team hit the road to investigate validated Havana syndrome cases. We traveled to Maryland and this assisted living facility to visit retired counterintelligence officer Mike Beck. Medical records we exclusively obtained link a microwave weapon to Beck's clearly documented brain injury. Beck moved here last August after his condition worsened, and his wife of forty years could no longer care for him at home. It's devastating. Speaker 3: We had a we had a bucket list Speaker 0: for when we retired, and being together was on it, not living apart. Mike, was it a hard decision for you to leave your family home and move into assisted living at what, 63? Speaker 2: It was hard. It was depressing. But I understood the situation I was in. Speaker 0: Help people understand what they're seeing and hearing from your husband. Speaker 3: So it has been a slow deterioration over time, and, he's gradually losing his train of thought. He forgets what the next word is, so he'll get stuck. And he just he'll stop because he his brain isn't processing fast enough. Speaker 4: Incredibly sharp and capable counterintelligence officer, much of Beck's thirty three years of government service remain classified. Beck's progressive brain injury has left him physically and mentally debilitated. We took multiple breaks during our interview. Speaker 0: Mike, you did counterintelligence work for the US government. You dealt with highly classified information above top secret special access programs. Does your government intelligence work remain highly classified to this day? Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. It it is. Speaker 4: A year after this home video was shot of his daughter's christening in 1995, Beck describes a directed energy weapon attack that hit him and his partner while on assignment for the US government. The location remains secret. Speaker 2: We traveled to a hostile country, and we found some some pieces of gear that we only heard about. We walked in on an operation that the hostile country was doing. Speaker 0: So you were attacked by a hostile intelligence service Right. After you made a major find about their capabilities that they were going to use against The United States. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 4: This 2014 national security memo linked the hostile country where Beck says he was attacked to a high powered microwave system weapon, but the Beck's are still fighting for recognition. Speaker 0: If if this memo is not enough evidence that your husband was hit by a directed energy weapon, what else does the US government need? Speaker 3: They basically wanted the hostile country to say, yes. We hit Mike Beck on this date, this time, in this place. Speaker 0: Why do you think the US government is setting the bar so high? Speaker 3: I I think they just wanted to protect their reputation instead of protecting their employees. Speaker 4: Giordano showed us how brain injuries like Beck's can happen. Hollow spaces in the skull, the mouth, nose, ears, and eye sockets can become echo chambers, funneling energy waves into the brain with catastrophic consequences. Speaker 1: I think the easiest way, for a layperson to understand what what particularly rapidly pulsed microwaves could do is to think about something like WiFi connections in a cellular phone. So if you were to take your phone and put it in the microwave oven for a second or two seconds, you would take the phone out and structurally it would look fine. It would seem that it would be working just fine for you on some levels, but the actual sophistication of that phone would have been changed as a consequence of the microwave damage, and not only will it change then, but that change is durable and characteristically progressive. Speaker 0: That's what a directed energy weapon attack does. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: It fundamentally disrupts the brain network. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. Speaker 0: And can cause brain cell death. Speaker 1: Yes ma'am. It can cause both brain cell death and change in the functional ability of various cells and nodes in the brain to be able to maintain the networks that are so vital to our thought, our emotions, and our behaviors. Speaker 0: When a directed energy weapon attack happens, is that the end of the damage? Speaker 1: The problem with directed energy attacks, like many things that can happen to the brain, is that the initial insult at the injury itself is nothing more than the first snowball that then leads to the avalanche. The injury to the brain impairs the brain's ability to not only function at the time of the injury and thereafter, but to compensate effectively. So then you begin to see a cascade of effects. Speaker 0: Who or what is responsible? Speaker 1: This becomes difficult. But I think what's important to note is who has developed these technologies and who may be using them in a whole set of practices. Here we encounter, if you will, the big three. The United States and some of its international economic and technological and military allies. Our Trans Pacific peer competitor, China, who has developed types of technologies for a variety of uses, and certainly our Trans Atlantic peer competitor, Russia. Speaker 4: These British medical records show in 02/2006 Beck was diagnosed with Parkinsonism. That's an umbrella term that refers to brain conditions that cause slowed movement and stiffness. Speaker 0: What made Mike's Parkinson's case stand out? Well, it's very unusual because he was a young onset. Speaker 3: He was only 45. It's usually 70s, 60s, late 60s to be diagnosed. Did he have any of the typical signs of Parkinson's? No. His first sign that I noticed was his anxiety. He never had the tremor. He still doesn't have a tremor. Speaker 0: So you've had a Parkinson's diagnosis and then more recently a diagnosis of dementia. Yeah. Is that a secondary consequence of the Parkinson's? Yes. Are you frustrated? Are you looking for the words? Speaker 2: Yes, it's very frustrating. I always wanted to have my A game on for work assignments until I got hurt. I had a lot of success in the workplace. The one thing I can say about work is I love my job. Speaker 0: I can see a lot of sadness in your eyes. Speaker 2: It was a great career. I was blessed to have such a good job, work with good people. Speaker 4: Cases like Beck's impact diplomats, military operatives, law enforcement professionals, and America's Spies. Speaker 5: I was an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency for nineteen years. Speaker 4: In December, a CIA whistleblower, we agreed to call Alice to protect her identity, came forward for the first time. Alice described the fallout of a directed energy weapon attack targeting her in Africa. Speaker 5: We're basically like ticking time bombs, Catherine. You know, I've already started having to go to funerals. I have friends in nursing homes. I have friends with dementia and Parkinson's. In some ways, you know, people have a heart attack, and if you don't die of it, we know how to fix a heart attack. We don't know how to fix this. Speaker 4: Like the CIA whistleblower, the Labor Department acknowledges Beck's traumatic brain injury is the result of his government service. In Beck's case, the Labor Department only acknowledged his Parkinson's diagnosis after a high profile intervention. Speaker 0: I have a letter here from one of the country's leading Parkinson's experts. He writes, although I have limited expertise in so called Havana syndrome, I can state that Mr. Beck has a much more clearly documented exposure to a microwave weapon as well as a much more clearly documented brain injury than those patients described in either the literature or the media. Mr. Beck clearly merits the recognition that his Parkinson's disease and its associated symptoms are due to his government service. Speaker 2: We applied for workers' compensation and the agencies involved did everything they could to not approve my application. Speaker 0: You were denied three times for workman's comp. Right. Did you finally get workman's comp? Speaker 3: The benefit we received was they will have, they will pay for Mike's Speaker 0: assisted assisted living. You shared one of the bills for the assisted living with our team and it says there's a balance due of over $25,000 Is the government paying Mike's assisted living on time? No. No? No. How many months behind is the US government on its payments for Mike's assisted living? Three months behind. Does that just create more anxiety? It does. It's scary. Speaker 3: I mean, don't know how long, you know, when am I gonna get the call that says you're gonna have to pay this because we still haven't gotten the check. And it'd be devastating because, you know, we're not living on a whole ton of money. Speaker 0: I have this intelligence community assessment from January. It was released by the Biden administration. It says most of the intelligence community continues to assess unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible for the events reported as Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents. It's ridiculous. Speaker 3: I mean all these people being injured and you're just saying, no, it didn't really happen. I mean how do you Speaker 0: make this up? Mike, do you think it's a government cover up? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Is the US government trying to limit the identification of cases and compensation? Speaker 2: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Is that what you think? Speaker 2: I think it's problematic that there's evidence that the US government has regarding the availability and use of the weapons and that hasn't been brought to light. Speaker 0: Were you left behind by the US government? Speaker 2: Most definitely. Speaker 0: There's a narrative that directed energy weapon attacks didn't really begin until 2016. Is that a false narrative? Speaker 1: It is, it is. I think part of the problem is that the cases prior to them were far more insular cases, and they occurred in particular circumstances that did not warrant broad public dissemination. In other words, characteristically, it was some aspect of that case that was classified. Speaker 4: The Trump administration is more openly addressing Havana syndrome. In February, we sat down with secretary of state Marco Rubio. Speaker 6: But I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need. Speaker 0: Has there been a sea change within The US Government about directed energy weapon attacks? Speaker 1: It's been perceptible to me and from many of my colleagues that at this point there's really much more of a lean in to this, recognizing A, the reality of the actual devices, B, the reality of the individuals who suffered an injury, and C, the need to do something about it. Speaker 0: Mike, what are you fighting for? Speaker 2: Equity for our family. Speaker 0: What are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 2: Clean up the mess that's been made with all these inaccuracies. Speaker 0: Rita, what are you asking President Trump to do? Speaker 3: I think he needs to show that we care about Americans first and that other countries, even if you don't name them, don't have the right to harm our our people, and it should stop.
C__Herridge
Posted - April 11, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Saved - April 14, 2025 at 1:13 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
A discussion highlights a nearly 700-page review related to the FBI's investigation, revealing details from a 2017 interview with Christopher Steele. The interview notes Steele's personal animosity towards President Trump, who he referred to as his "main opponent." Steele and his partner expressed regret for going to the press in 2016. The conversation also mentions that media reports on the dossier were used in FISA applications for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, indicating "circular reporting." Steele's expense reports show a total payment request of $74,000 in July 2016.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

RUSSIAGATE BINDER Joint review nearly 700 pages @shellenberger @galexybrane FBI interview: Christopher Steele Calls President Trump “Main Opponent” 26 page FBI summary Christopher Steele 2017 interview provides more granularity about Steele’s relationship with the bureau, his personal dislike of President Trump as well as eye-popping expense reports. According to the interview, Steele and his business partner “apologized for going to the press in the fall of 2016.”  The 2016 media reports about the dossier were cited in the FBI’s FISA applications for Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  This is know as “circular reporting.” Further, Steele and his business partner “described President Trump as their ‘main opponent.’” Russiagate Binder includes Steele expense reports. July 2016 payment request documents an “Aggregate Total Paid: $74,000.00” More analysis this weekend for subscribers!

@elonmusk - Elon Musk

@C__Herridge @shellenberger @galexybrane Wow

C__Herridge
Posted - April 11, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Saved - April 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights from a nearly 700-page review indicating that the FBI's Russia collusion probe was influenced more by personal and political biases than by factual evidence. Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the NSA, stated in a 2017 interview that the Steele Dossier was largely uncorroborated and opposed its inclusion in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference. Notably, the dossier had already been used to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against a Trump campaign aide. More analysis will be available this weekend for subscribers.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

RUSSIAGATE BINDER Further evidence FBI Russia collusion probe was not fact based, but largely driven by personal and political bias. Joint review nearly 700 pages @shellenberger @galexybrane Senior Intel Official Pushed Back Against Dossier In his 2017 FBI interview, head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Mike Rogers said the Steele Dossier “was considered largely uncorroborated.” ADM Rogers pushed back against including the Steele Dossier in the main body of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment into Russian election interference. Timing matters: Dossier had already used to help secure FISA surveillance warrant Trump campaign aide. More analysis this weekend for subscribers!

C__Herridge
Posted - April 13, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Saved - April 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I found a crucial detail in a 2016 expense report related to Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier. It highlights that Steele's reporting aligns closely with intelligence received from a foreign government, which was the basis for our investigation. However, the unverified dossier was misused by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide. The full story of the Russiagate probe won't be complete until all records regarding its origins are made public.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

This is the one ‘Russiagate Binder’ record you should not miss! Buried in this 2016 expense report for former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele is an important datapoint. Steele's "reporting is corroborative of Intel we received from a FGI (Foreign Government Information) that predicated our investigation. To date, we have not received Intel from other sources that so closely tracks to the predicate.” What exactly was the Russia collusion probe predicate? We know the uncorroborated dossier was wrongly used by the FBI to secure surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide. The Russiagate reporting will never be complete until ALL records about its origins are public. @FBIDirectorKash @DNIGabbard

C__Herridge
Posted - April 11, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Saved - April 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I reviewed the Russia Binder, which includes two heavily redacted pages of Comey’s text messages. Notably, one message from an anonymous sender expresses gratitude for Comey's integrity during a challenging time, while Comey responds humorously, acknowledging his predicament but reassuring that all is well. This exchange highlights the pressures he faced around the reopening of the Clinton email investigation in late October 2016. More detailed analysis will be available for subscribers this weekend.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

RUSSIAGATE BINDER: Comey Text Messages “I’m totally screwed” Joint review nearly 700 pages @shellenberger @galexybrane The Russia Binder contains two heavily redacted pages labelled “Comey Text Messages” A handful of texts stand out.   We did our best to enlarge the type. On or around October 30, 2016, just days after Comey reopened the Clinton email probe, there is a note of encouragement in what appears to be Comey’s inbox. The sender’s name is blacked out.  “Thanks for being a beacon of integrity inside the USG (US Government) Stand tall - wait - you are tall ) PS. Tired of seeing your picture on TV and in the newspaper.  Seriously, I appreciate your efforts!” In what appears to be Comey’s outbox, “Yup. I’m totally screwed but tall. All is well. Thanks for the goodwork. Andy (McCabe) is in good place too.” More analysis this weekend for subscribers!

C__Herridge
Posted - April 11, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Saved - April 12, 2025 at 4:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I reviewed nearly 700 pages of the Russiagate Binder, including a 26-page summary of Christopher Steele's 2017 FBI interview. Steele expressed a personal dislike for President Trump, calling him his "main opponent," and acknowledged that he and his partner regretted going to the press in 2016. The dossier's media reports were referenced in the FBI's FISA applications for Carter Page, highlighting "circular reporting." Additionally, Steele's expense reports reveal a payment request totaling $74,000 in July 2016. More analysis will follow for subscribers.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

RUSSIAGATE BINDER Joint review nearly 700 pages @shellenberger @galexybrane FBI interview: Christopher Steele Calls President Trump “Main Opponent” 26 page FBI summary Christopher Steele 2017 interview provides more granularity about Steele’s relationship with the bureau, his personal dislike of President Trump as well as eye-popping expense reports. According to the interview, Steele and his business partner “apologized for going to the press in the fall of 2016.”  The 2016 media reports about the dossier were cited in the FBI’s FISA applications for Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  This is know as “circular reporting.” Further, Steele and his business partner “described President Trump as their ‘main opponent.’” Russiagate Binder includes Steele expense reports. July 2016 payment request documents an “Aggregate Total Paid: $74,000.00” More analysis this weekend for subscribers!

C__Herridge
Posted - April 1, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Saved - April 1, 2025 at 5:12 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared breaking news about the FBI imposing a "gag order" regarding Hunter Biden's laptop after an employee inadvertently confirmed its authenticity during a conference call on October 14, 2020. Internal messages reveal that senior officials actively silenced discussions about the laptop's credibility just days before the election. The FBI had a task force to counter foreign interference but chose not to clarify the laptop's status, allowing misinformation to spread. The Bureau provided redacted chat messages to congressional investigators, indicating awareness of potential criminal activity linked to the laptop.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: FBI Imposed  “Gag Order” About Hunter Biden Laptop After Employee Accidentally Confirmed Its Authenticity To Twitter   Newly released internal FBI chat messages reveal senior bureau officials actively shutting down discussion of the laptop’s credibility days before the 2020 Presidential election This is a CatherineHerridgeReports @C__Herridge  / Public @Shellenberger Joint Investigation An FBI official admitted to House investigators that an FBI employee had inadvertently confirmed the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop to Twitter on a conference call the morning of October 14, 2020, the day the New York Post published a story about it.  “I recall that when the question came up, an intelligence analyst assigned to the Criminal Investigative Division said something to the effect of, ‘Yes, the laptop is real’,” the then Russia unit chief testified in a closed door transcribed interview. “I believe it was an (Office of General Counsel) attorney assigned to the (Foreign Influence Task Force) stepped in and said, ‘We will not comment further on this topic.’” For the first time, and with a change of administration, the FBI has now turned over to GOP House investigators the internal chat messages that show Bureau leadership actively silenced its employees.   The FBI, which had a special task force to counter foreign election interference, could have set the record straight by confirming the laptop was real and the subject of an ongoing criminal probe. Instead, FBI leadership allowed the false narrative about the laptop to gain momentum. The FBI provided the chat messages to congressional investigators with heavy redactions. Some of the redactions on the chats are marked “OGC AGC,” which appears to mean that they were made by the FBI’s Office of General Counsel and Associate General Counsel.  An individual whose name is blacked out, tells Elvis M. Chan, the San Francisco-based FBI special agent tasked with interacting with social media companies, there was a “gag order” on discussion of Hunter Biden’s laptop. In a separate exchange, Chan is told “official response no commen(t).” In the chat, the FBI officials showed awareness that the laptop may have contained evidence of criminal activity. Asked Chan, “actually what kind of case is the laptop thing? corruption? campaign financing?” Another FBI employee responds, “CLOSE HOLD —” after which the response is redacted.  To which Chan responds, “oh crap” appearing to underscore the serious nature of the probe, which included felony tax charges. Chan adds, “ok. It ends here”. In the same conversation, Chan is asked if “Anyone discussing that NYPost article on the Biden’s?”  Chan responds, “yes we are. c d confirmed an active investigation. No further comment.”  “C D” is likely shorthand for the FBI’s Criminal Division. Said another FBI employee, whose name was redacted by the Bureau, “please do not discuss biden matter.” We asked for a response from the bureau and the FBI employees identified in the chat messages. An FBI spokesman declined to comment. We go in-depth on the chat messages for subscribers!

C__Herridge
Posted - March 16, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 7:16 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Some media outlets are shifting their coverage regarding the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origins. I noted that there has been no accountability for the CCP, as @SecRubio emphasized. He believes we need to prove the theory and share that evidence globally. It's crucial to prevent a similar situation from occurring again, as it could be even more devastating. Many countries suspect the same but hesitate to confront China due to their own limitations. As the United States, we have a responsibility to present the evidence if we can prove it.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

As some media reframe their coverage that downplayed the COVID-19 origins lab leak theory… With no accountability for the CCP the world has to assume “they’re still doing that,” @SecRubio recently told our team.  Time Code: 30:00 HERRIDGE: …there really has been no accountability for the CCP. SECRETARY RUBIO: …So, I think we have to do two things.  We have to – if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it – we need to show that to the world.  But we also have to make sure this never happens again, because there’s – if they were doing that, we have to assume they’re still doing that, and we have to assume that they’re still doing that and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe.  We can never – we can’t let that happen.  And I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too… They may not want to stand up to it, they may not want to have to take on the wrath of China because they don’t have our standing and our stature.  But I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that’s what happened here as well.  But we’re the United States, and if we can prove it, we need to – and at least put the evidence out there that this is what’s indicated. Full transcript 👇 https://www.state.gov/secretary-marco-rubio-with-catherine-herridge/

Secretary Marco Rubio With Catherine Herridge of Catherine Herridge Reports - United States Department of State QUESTION:  Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity.  As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages, said to include a mother and two children.  Your thoughts? SECRETARY RUBIO:  I think it’s a reminder of who Hamas really is.  I mean, just think about the fact they went in, they […] state.gov

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Our full, unedited interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio(@SecRubio) on his first 30 days leading the Department. Restarting U.S./Russia relations following the Biden Administration, direct engagement with Ukraine, U.S. proposal for Gaza, preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, China, Canada, and the emerging role of independent media. 00:28 Hamas, Israel, and Gaza reconstruction 03:28 First 30 days 07:45 @DOGE at State Department  13:00 Cartels terrorist designation  15:30 US Russia talks/War in Ukraine 19:00 Push back on President Zelensky, Europeans not consulted 25:00 President Trump is only global leader who can end the Russia/Ukraine war 25:45 Preventing a nuclear armed Iran 27:15 President Trump's instructions if he were assassinated by Iran 28:30 China  30:00  COVID-19 lab leak 37:15 Havana Syndrome 36:00 Canada: 51st State? 40:00 Independent Media vs Legacy Media

Video Transcript AI Summary
Secretary Rubio discussed Hamas, stating they are evil and cannot be allowed to control territory. Regarding Gaza, he said the President has a plan to remove people for reconstruction, challenging regional partners to propose better solutions. Rubio aims to realign the State Department with U.S. national interests, pausing foreign aid to review alignment, issuing waivers for programs like fentanyl precursor training in Guatemala. He mentioned restructuring bureaus and consolidating those related to human trafficking and migration. Rubio addressed the USAID shutdown, citing a lack of cooperation and misalignment with the State Department's goals. He refuted claims he isn't in charge, detailing his involvement in foreign policy, including trips to the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East. He designated aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations. Rubio confirmed renewed contact with Russia to explore ending the Ukraine war, denying specific negotiations about territorial details. He criticized Zelenskyy's ungratefulness and discussed a potential Trump-Putin meeting contingent on progress in Ukraine. Rubio affirmed the U.S. commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and addressed China, advocating for reciprocity in trade and expressing concerns about COVID-19's origins. He reiterated the U.S. stance against forced changes to Taiwan's status and acknowledged the risk of terrorist groups finding safe havens in Afghanistan. He pledged support for State Department personnel affected by Havana Syndrome and expressed openness to independent journalists.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We spoke exclusively with secretary Marco Rubio about his first thirty days leading the state department. He revealed new details about The US Russia talks, direct engagement with Ukraine, The US proposal for Gaza, plus Iran, China, and the emerging role of independent media. This is our full unedited interview with the secretary. Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity. As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages said to include a mother and two children. Your thoughts? Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of who Hamas really is. Just think about the fact they went in, they grabbed this family, this young woman, her two infant children, think one was only four years old, the other one was one, and it's not just that they did it, and that they died in their captivity, who does that? Who kidnaps families? And then the way even that they were released, you know, with people cheering in the streets, it just tells you who we're dealing with with Hamas. This is not a government, this is not simply an ideological movement, these are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized, and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable. So, our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from religious standpoint, it's a sacred thing. But it's, I think to everybody else, it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 0: One of the Israeli government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 1: Well, would never discuss intelligence, but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows, they clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government, or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be a As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza, because they are going to go back to attacking Israel, and Israel's going have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks, if a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out every, and no country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state, and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuance of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas, because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 0: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 1: Well, that's a great question. I mean, President's plan is the only one that's out there right now, and what the President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel's going go after them. So, he's put out his plan, and his view of it is, you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done, and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich, they can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is, what do you, who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas. Speaker 0: You've been Secretary of State for thirty days. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 0: that's right. What have you learned and what has been accomplished? Speaker 1: Well, think first of all what I've learned is a couple of things. We have good people that work at the State Department. The challenge, it's reconfirmed my view is there's a lot of work to be done to realign everything we do at the State Department with the national interest. That's what our foreign policy needs to be about, and that's been lost over the years. The idea that we have to define what our national interest is, and then ensure that everything we do, every dollar we spend, every program we operate, every word we say is in furtherance of the national interest. Speaker 0: Is that, if I could jump in, is that what an America First State Department looks like? Speaker 1: Yeah, an America First State Department is not an America only State Department, it's a State Department that defines what is the important national interest The United States has in different parts of the world, and then everything we do is aligned with that principle, and that's been lost, I think, by and large in American foreign policy for a long time. I think you can track it back without going into history lessons in the post Cold War era, where The U. S. Was the sole superpower, and we were called into doing all sorts of things that no other country in the world could do, and some of it was not aligned with our national interest, because we hadn't even defined what the national interest is. It also means there are things in the world that are important, and that matter, and are good causes, but they can't be a priority, because the priority first and foremost has to be on the national interest of The United States. So I think this is by and large an organization of people that seek direction, and if you give them clear direction about what we're trying to pursue and accomplish, they'll go out and they'll do it, And that's how we're trying to align, even as we have to do our job on a daily basis, is what our hope is to align and give the State Department clear missions from the field, meaning our embassies and people out across the world, all the way to the Seventh Floor where I work. Speaker 0: What are your directions for the first one hundred days? Speaker 1: Well, I think we really view it as more than a one hundred day project, but as we've gone in and done it, one of the things we're looking on restructuring is our bureaus. You know, we have our policy bureaus, they're geographically based, and then we also have our functional bureaus, and human rights, and for example, there's a bureau for trafficking, human trafficking, there's a bureau for migration, I think those issues are interrelated. So one of things we're working through, we haven't made a decision yet, is whether that bureau should be consolidated into a bureau, and what's our national interest, that prevents migration and prevents trafficking, not facilitates migration and mass migration, which is not just a challenge to The United States, by way, it's one of the leading issues in Europe. We just came back from the Munich Security Conference. Every country in Europe is facing the challenge of mass migration, but it's really putting strain on virtually every country in the world that's facing migration challenges, every developed country in the world. So, that's just an example of the kinds of realignments that we're looking to make, and we want to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, but also in an expeditious way. We can't move too slowly either because then it just won't happen. Speaker 0: A month ago, you hit pause on most of the foreign aid. Is that review nearing completion? Speaker 1: Well, part of that review was issuing waivers, so I think we've issued over two fifty waivers, and that means someone comes forward and says, This program is really important. It's important, it can be justified, it's aligned with the national interest. We issue a waiver for it. I'll give you real world examples. We were in Guatemala, and we came across a program where we are helping train Guatemalans to identify the precursors of fentanyl and intercept it, to help us extradite drug dealers that we're trying to get ahold of. And we issued a waiver for that program, because that's clearly aligned, right? It wasn't our national interest, we want to prevent fentanyl from reaching the streets, and we want to take the people responsible for trafficking in it, and if they're wanted, bring them to The United States to stand trial and serve prison sentences. So, those are the kinds of waivers that are being issued. We also issued a blanket waiver for emergency humanitarian support, food, medicine, housing, things where there's a crisis somewhere in the world. But that's an ongoing process, and I think before the ninety day period is up, we'll have a real good insight into all the foreign aid we do. I know it's been disruptive for some programs, but I think in the long term it's going be beneficial because we'll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest because it makes us stronger, or more prosperous, or safer. That's the process we're trying to go through, and we go through it on a daily basis. Speaker 0: When will the State Department get the DOGE treatment? Speaker 1: Well, the State Department has DOGE people here that are present, and they're part of this process that we're going through in identifying primarily programs that we look at that are on pause, and understanding why are they justified versus not justified. For example, there's a lot of climate programs that we're funding all over the world, and people are free. We're not banning climate programs. If somebody wants to fund a climate program out of their own pocket or through an NGO, they can do so. The fundamental question is whether that should be a priority for The United States, or instead, should we be focused on programs that are helping nations gain energy independence or reliability in their energy sector so they can develop economically. And so that's the sort of repurposing that we're trying to do, and they've been very helpful in identifying what those programs are. Likewise with personnel. There's no government agency that can tell you that every single person that works there, we need, that they're indispensable. I think that's true for virtually every entity in any government across the country. So that'll be a process we go through as well. We have very talented people. We don't want to lose talented people, but there are functions and roles that need to be examined, and we're going through that on a daily, even as we do this other job, we have people that are working through that every day, and Doja's been very helpful in the State Department in that regard. We have more work to do. Speaker 0: Do you have any regrets about the shuttering of USAID? Speaker 1: No, it's not regret, look I wish we'd had more cooperation, I know people at USAID don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And I'm going go back to my time in Congress, okay, I've had two problems with AID going back to my time in Congress. I'm not against foreign aid, I've supported foreign aid, we're going to do foreign aid, no one here is saying we're going Speaker 0: have a good So some programs will survive. Speaker 1: Absolutely, and some already have. We've issued waivers for PEPFAR as an example, and others. That's not the question. The question is, no one can tell me every program, every program is valuable and needs to be kept. Some, frankly, shouldn't have ever existed. In many other cases, you have programs where the program is titled something, and then you realize the program's not run by USAID, the USAID simply provides grants or money to a company, or to an entity, an NGO, whatever, and they're out there running the program, and as a member of Congress, when you wanted to ask, well, who is operating this program? Because sometimes it goes from a program and then they give it to a third person, that third person Speaker 0: Sounds like a shell game. Speaker 1: It can be, and so that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So ideally you would have people open up the books and say, well here's who our contractors are, and here's what they work on, and here's why it's mission critical. We didn't find a lot of cooperation in that regard, and so the result was, and this was before I became acting, but even after, some of those people that became uncooperative, in some cases, were even trying to push payments through the system to get around the freeze. That we have to address, and so I think it's unfortunate, because the ideal way would have been, but this, to go through it the way I've just described, but this is an agency, frankly, at least at some levels, that has been largely uncooperative, and completely unaligned with the State Department. We have embassies where USAID and the embassy work very well together, and we have embassies where embassy is working on one mission, and USAID is working on a completely different mission that's in contradiction with what the State Department's directive is in that nation. That has to be fixed. So, ideally we would have fixed it in a way that would have been different, but when you run into passive aggressive, and in some cases aggressive opposition to your work, that requires you to now go in and put a stop to everything, and so that's the process we've had to follow, unfortunately, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this. We have to answer, this is American taxpayer money. The idea that USAID is some sort of global charity that's out there serving the interest of the global community, no, it's called the USAID in The United States. It's our taxpayer money. That should also be aligned with the national interest, and if it isn't, it needs to stop. Speaker 0: I want you to respond to a story that was in POLITICO. It said that you are Secretary of State in only name. It quoted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut saying, Rubio is not in charge. How often are you in the Oval at the White House for the big decisions? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about how often. I'm there pretty often. Just came from there right before I met with you here now. Look, that's just part of the stuff that happens in Washington and people, columnists and people write stuff. I didn't even know that story was out there. I'm just focused on doing my job. I feel pretty busy, and I know we're pretty busy. We're working on, even as we're working through all these reforms in the department, we're also out there trying to realign American foreign policy, whether it's my trip to the Western Hemisphere, we had a very successful trip. We think we're going to get, we already are getting more cooperation on migration from Panama, from Costa Rica, from Guatemala, that's been documented. We had a great visit to The Dominican Republic, which is very tightly aligned with The United States on a host of issues. We were to talk about Haiti there as well. Then we traveled to The Middle East. I met with the foreign ministers of all the key countries and our allies in Europe, both in the G7 setting, G7 plus one with the EU, and then a separate meeting with what they call the QUINT, which is the key countries involved Speaker 0: in the It was a busy Speaker 1: couple of Yeah, then from there we went to Saudi Arabia, had great meetings there. We obviously had the first high level engagement. Speaker 0: Was just, I was just going ask you if I'm, I'm pretty busy then. Know, I gotta, before we talk about the meetings in Saudi, this week you branded aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, including TDA. You've been tracking TDA since the Senate, right? Yes. Does this foreign terrorist organization designation unlock new diplomatic tools? Speaker 1: Well, not just new diplomatic tools, new economic ones as well because it basically doesn't allow anyone to have any sort of commercial relationship with these groups, and all of these gangs have to operate by touching the banking system, by being able to buy, and in many cases by having business partnerships, whether it's a warehouse they're renting in The U. S. To distribute guns or distribute drugs, whether it's someone who's actually helping them launder money from what they're making. In some cases these guys set up their own companies as shell companies to hide their profits and be able to distribute the funds they have, so it's going be very helpful. But just naming them and understanding that they're a problem. Trinidad Agua, TDA, is a group I followed, that was a prison gang in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime sort of pushed them out of the country. They terrorized Peru, they terrorized Ecuador, they terrorized all kinds of countries, and they worked their way up the migration path into The United States. And I've been warning about them now for a year and a half. I think I might have been the first member of Congress, maybe of the U. S. Government, to actually identify them by name, and I was being told that that wasn't true, that they didn't exist. Now we do know that they exist. They run human trafficking operations. They actually target Venezuelan migrant communities. We've seen them take control of apartment buildings in Colorado, and now they're being deported, and being deported because they're identified with that organization. So I think those designations are important, and it gives us a valuable tool to cut off any partnerships they may have, not just with U. S. Nationals, but any other businesses or individuals around the world that are assisting them in what they're doing, and it's not just the gang, it's the drug trafficking organizations that operate out of Mexico too. Speaker 0: Does the foreign terrorist organization, does the FTO designation, does that move the US government a step closer to using military force against the cartels? Speaker 1: Well it depends where they're located. Obviously in the case of Mexico the preference always is to work in conjunction with our partners in Mexico and we can provide them a lot of information about who they are and where they're located. If in the end these people pose an imminent threat to The United States, or cross into our borders and into The United States, then it gives us tools to go after them using law enforcement, using DHS, using ICE, using the FBI, the DEA, whatever agencies we have available. But if they're located in a third country, like operating out of Mexico, we can now share that information with our Mexican partners. It's their country, and they can action that item, because it poses a threat to both of our countries, and we would hope now that we can get more cooperation for them on that front. Speaker 0: You told reporters in Saudi Arabia, that there hasn't been regularized contact with the Russians in in three and a half years. How much ground was lost under the Biden White House? Speaker 1: Well, there was no ground. I mean, was all lost. We had no there are three things that people have to understand. The first is even at the height of the Cold War, even in the worst days of the Cold War, the United States and The Soviet Union had communication. And the reason why, a if you wanna be mature and grown ups about it, I'm not a fan of most of what Vladimir Putin has done, and that's largely irrelevant when it comes to statecraft, because we ultimately have to be able to talk to a nation that has, in some cases, the largest tactical nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, and the second largest, if not the largest strategic nuclear weapon stockpile in the world. So, you have to have, I mean, whether we like it or not, Russia is a power, a global power, and they're involved and engaged in Syria, they've been involved and engaged in the Middle East, even in the Western Hemisphere, certainly in Europe, we have to have some communication with them. So step one is, our embassy in Moscow is barely functioning. I mean, it literally barely operates, because it's been denied access to the banking system. That has to be fixed. If we close our mission in Russia, we have to close their mission here, and then we really have no communication with them, whether it's a detained American or some other item. The second is, the president has been very clear. He wants this war with Ukraine to end, and he wants to know, the Russians serious about ending the war, or not serious about ending the war? The only way is to test them, to basically engage them and say, okay, are you serious about ending the war, and if so, what are your demands? Are your public demands and your private demands different? We have to have some process by which we engage in that conversation. Now, it may turn out that they don't want to end the war, I don't know, we're going find out, but we have to have that process to determine that, and so our meeting was really a follow-up to President Trump's conversation with Putin. It's unfortunate that some of this hyperbole and some of this hysteria, because he talked to him on the phone, has clouded some of the rationale behind this. At the end of the day, we have to have relations with Russia whether we like everything they're doing or not, because we did with the Soviet Union, and we have to be able to test and see if they're serious about ending this war. Speaker 0: In your meetings, did the Russian Foreign Minister make clear that there can be no end to the war if, Ukraine joins NATO? Speaker 1: There was no discussions about any details. Now, the Russians have their own read out of what happened, but I can tell you we did not negotiate any fine points about any deal. The course of that conversation was as follows. Number one, we have to, some level of regularization, just of our diplomatic missions, because we have to be able to communicate with them, given the nature of our two countries, and the importance that we have in the world. The second is, there are things we could cooperate on geopolitically, potentially. I mean, there are items of the world where I think we have a common interest. I'm not sure the Russians are fans of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons, as an example, and so forth, but we can't work on those things. We're gonna disagree on a lot, but we can't work on the things we might potentially agree on, or de conflict on things that could lead to dangerous confrontations, as long as this Ukraine impediment stands in the way. So really, as much as anything else, this meeting was, are you interested in even talking about ending a war? If you are, then let's create a process where we can begin to engage at a technical level, and that process will now, at some point, be set up and begin. I also think, by the way, it's unfair to say that we didn't consult anybody on it. Speaker 0: Was just going to, I was just going to ask you. Talk about that. Ukraine was not at the talks, are you consulting with President Zelenskyy about his red lines? Speaker 1: Well, just in the last week, okay, President Zelenskyy has met with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of The United States, the Secretary of State, bipartisan delegations in the U. S. Senate and House that were also in Munich, our Special Envoy is there today meeting with him, so we talked to the Ukrainians throughout this process, and we explained to them very clearly what our intentions were in terms of pursuing this. In fact, the President of United States spoke to Zelenskyy right after he hung up with Putin. I was in the office for both phone calls, so to say that we haven't consulted with him is not accurate. It's not true. It's also not true that we haven't consulted with our allies in Europe. I personally spoke to the five foreign ministers right after my meeting with the Russians and walked them through what had happened. We talked to them before those meetings, the same five, plus the G7, plus the EU, and all the other meetings we had in Munich, so this is just not accurate. But that was a meeting to largely determine whether they were interested or not in finding a way to end this war, Speaker 0: and Are they interested? Speaker 1: We're going to find out. I I tell people peace is not a, it's an action, it's not a noun, it's a verb, it's an action. You have to actually pursue it. So, at the end of day, they're either interested or they're not. If the demands they make for ending the war are maximalist and unrealistic, then I think we have our answer. If, on the other hand, there's any opportunity to pursue peace, we have to do it. And I think people have, I really am sort of puzzled, generally, in diplomacy, people who are seeking to end the killing and the harming of thousands and thousands of people in war are usually celebrated for an effort to end the war. If it was just the Vatican who was involved in these talks, who would criticize it. For the president of The United States to be engaged in finding whether there's the possibility of peace should be celebrated, not condemned. But, anyway, that's the kind of the war the world we live in right now. Speaker 0: Did The US delegation make clear to the Russians that there are no guarantees about the retention of territory they have annexed from Ukraine? Speaker 1: We we didn't engage in any specifics about territories, none of these because that wasn't the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether there was a real interest in discussing peace or not. If there is, then a process like that can begin, and I also think it's silly to say, well, the Ukrainians are going to be cut out, or the Europeans are going to be cut out. You can't. You can't find a stop to a war unless both sides and their views are represented. They both have to agree to it. Like, Russia can't agree to a cease fire or to an end of hostilities if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, it has to be on terms acceptable to both sides, likewise with the Europeans. The Europeans and the EU have their own set of sanctions on Russia. Even if we lifted all of our sanctions, which none of that was discussed, the Europeans would have to lift sanctions too, in order for something to be, possible. So, they'll all have to be consulted at some point, but we're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: So, so what's the signal, Secretary Rubio, that the Russians are serious about peace? Speaker 1: Well, signal, I can't answer whether they're serious about peace or not yet. That will have to be determined by the attitude they take moving forward. The only thing we agreed upon is that we're going to talk about peace. What they offer, what they're willing to concede to, what they're willing to consider will determine whether they're serious about peace or not. We're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky and rightfully so. Look, number one, Joe Biden had frustrations with Zelenskyy, people shouldn't forget it, there are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at him in a phone call because Zelenskyy, instead of saying thank you for all your help, is immediately out there messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting. I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky, the Vice President and I, the two, three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be in joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country, but because we think that's actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money the taxpayers have given, close to $200,000,000,000 and it also, now we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine, and he said, sure, we want to do this deal, it makes all the sense in the world, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process, they have to approve it. I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, I rejected the deal, I told him no way that we're not doing that, well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So, you start to get upset by somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the President made in his messaging is, it's not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent, you know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about it, because it has implications for our allies, and ultimately for the world. There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don't see it, and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain to you or anybody else, Donald Trump's not, President Trump's not the kind of person that's going to sit there and take that. He's very transparent, he's going to tell you exactly how he feels, and he sent a message that he's not going to get gamed here. He's willing to work on peace because he cares about Ukraine, and he hopes Zelensky will be a partner in that, and not someone who's out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to, you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not that's not gonna be productive here. Speaker 0: What's the timeline for a meeting, between President Trump and, President Putin? Speaker 1: Well, that topic came up in our conversation with the Russians, and what I said, I know that now they're saying that they said it, but we actually said it. And that is, well, there isn't going to be a meeting until we know what the meeting's going be about. Mean, Speaker 0: we discuss Do expect it later in 2025? Speaker 1: I don't know the timing of it. But a meeting between President Putin and President Trump has to meeting a meeting about something. We have to know what that meeting is about, what's going to be achieved at it. You don't generally have these meetings until you know some outcome or some progress has been made. So, think when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine. And if we can, and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He's the only global leader right now that can make this happen. The only global leader Speaker 0: Why do you say he's the only one? Speaker 1: Well, because others have tried and have failed. There was an effort in Istanbul A Couple Years ago, and it involved a number of European countries, and it failed. It didn't lead to a result. No, this war is now going on its third year. Where who what global leader now could engage in this and actually even bring Putin to the table? Maybe we're not successful either, but right now we're the only ones that, through President Trump, that have any chance. Maybe the chance is 1%, I don't know. Maybe the chance is 90%, but he's the only one that can even test that proposition, And everyone should recognize that and celebrate the fact that he's willing to do that early in his presidency. He's willing to do it. No one else is willing to do it, and no one else right now apparently can. Speaker 0: You were also in Israel in recent days, and when you were in Israel, you said there will be no nuclear Iran. How far is the Trump administration willing to go to stop a nuclear Iran? Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, think president Trump's been clear. We're not gonna discuss tactics or measures. He's issued an executive order to once again return to the maximum pressure, primarily because we've seen that Iran uses the Iranian regime, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the Iranian people, the regime, they use any money that they make to fund their weapons programs, to fund their sponsorship of terrorism. If you look at all the destabilizing things that are happening in The Middle East, the Houthis and their attack on global shipping, Hamas, Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq that attack both Israel and The US presence there, the anti ISIS presence that we have, all of them are sponsored by money from Iran. They're behind all of this, and so why would we allow them to make any more money that they can use to sponsor these things? Now, how we prevent a nuclear Iran, I'm not going to discuss the options that are available to us, or anyone else for that matter, but I want to make it abundantly clear, the Iranian regime can never be a regime that's behind all of this, can and and believes that it is their duty to export their revolution to other countries in the region, they can never allow to possess a nuclear weapon where they can hold the world hostage and where they could potentially attack Israel. Speaker 0: Earlier this month, president Trump said that he had given instructions to his advisers of what to do if he were to be assassinated by Iran. Are you familiar with those instructions? Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with what he's talking about, and again, we're not gonna get into tactics or options available to The United States. Suffice it to say that if The United States chose to do so, it could bring about the end of the Iranian regime, but the president's a peacemaker. He'd prefer to avoid that and avoid those circumstances, and, but I don't think anyone should be confused here. Under Donald Trump, there is not going to be a nuclear Iran. Speaker 0: China, as secretary of state, what is your position on China? Speaker 1: Well, not my position, it'll be the Trump position on it, and I think the president Trump's position is pretty straightforward. On the one hand, just like Russia, China's a global power, the second largest economy in the world, rapidly growing military, we have to have relations with the Chinese, we have to. Whether we agree with everything they do, we understand that in some cases we're competitors, and others we're direct adversaries, but there has to be communication, because the lack of communication could lead to conflict. Speaker 0: If I can just jump in, what I'm hearing you say is that in the last four years, there's been a breakdown in communication with China and also Russia. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, the communication with China has actually been better than the communication with the Russians, under the Biden administration and to the current day, which is why there has to be some level of maturity here and practicality and pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. That said, we're not going to live in a world where we depend on China for critical rare earth minerals, for critical components in our supply chain. We're not going to live in a world in which China gets to dominate the Indo Pacific, we're not allowed to have commercial ties in that region because they're holding countries hostage, and they all become tributary states. The Japanese have no interest in being a tributary state, and they're close allies of ours, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia. None of these countries want to become tributary states, Vietnam for that matter, are not interested in becoming tributary states in a Chinese zone of influence. We are a Pacific nation. We intend to remain one, and maintain our relationships there, so that is a red line for us. We're not going to abandon our engagement as a Pacific power, and by the other token, we're not going to live in a world where the Chinese dominate things that are critical to our economy and be held hostage by them. That's just silly to do it. Some of that involves improving our domestic industrial capability, some of that involves partnering with allied nations to secure our supply chains, and the third point I would make is, we have to deal with this unfairness. You know, Chinese companies can do virtually anything they want in the American economy for many, many years. We allowed them to do anything they wanted in America, but American companies can virtually do nothing inside of China, and if they do, it's because they want to steal your intellectual property, and then put you out of business, and replace you with a Chinese company. That's why the President's always talking about reciprocity. Whatever they, whatever we are allowed to do there is what they should be allowed to do here. Whatever they charge us on tariffs is what we should be charging them, and that's what the president's bringing, not just to China, but to the world, is reciprocity and fairness. Speaker 0: You have access as a senator to high level intelligence, you have more access now that you are secretary of state. Does the intelligence leave no doubt that COVID nineteen came from the lab in Wuhan, China? Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't say that leaves no doubt. I would say, and I've long believed this, and I've said this irrespective, just common sense tells you, that the chances that this was an, and I say an accident, you know, we know that the Chinese spent years, in some cases with Western funding, taking viruses, and re engineering these viruses, trying to predict, what if this virus carried over into humans, what would it look like? And they were probably doing it because they were trying to come up with a vaccine for it. Let's say somebody got infected, messing around with that in a lab, and went out into Wuhan, they gave it to 10 people, those 10 people spread it to the world. I think the evidence is compelling that that's exactly what happened here. And I put out a report as a senator that detailed all kinds of circumstantial evidence that proved that as well. So, I think, in my view, based on everything I have seen, that the likeliest situation here was that the Chinese were messing around with the virus, somebody caught it in a lab, and they took this novel virus and spread it through China, and then spread it to the world, and it was devastating. And there needs to be accountability Speaker 0: for that. I was just going to say there really has been no accountability for the Yeah, mean, Speaker 1: the accountability begins by proving it, and it's hard to do, right, because the Chinese are not necessarily going to open their books. Look, if that had happened in The United States, if that had happened in some other country in the world, that country would have probably been forthcoming, and said, we had a problem guys, we were messing around with this stuff, and look what happened. They would have shared that information, and we could have worked very quickly, much faster than we were able to, to figure out how to counteract it, and they didn't. Instead, what they did is clam up and refuse to share information with the world, and then this thing spread and just ravaged the global economy. Just think about how many people died, how many businesses went out, how much money we had to spend in this country just to keep Main Street open when we had the shutdowns, how divisive it became. Some of that could have been prevented if they had been forthcoming, but instead, like most authoritarian regimes, they clammed up, and they held that information back. So, I think we have to do two things. We have to, if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it, We need to show that to the world, but we also have to make sure this never happens again, because if they were doing that, we have to assume they're still doing that, and have to assume that they're still doing that, and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe. We can't let that happen, and I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too. They may have the guts to say it, they may not want to stand up to it, they may not want have to take on the wrath of China, because they don't have our standing and our stature, but I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that's what happened here as well, But we're The United States, if we can prove it, we need to. And, at least put the evidence out there that this is what's indicated. Speaker 0: Will The US defend Taiwan if China moves against the island? Speaker 1: Let me just say that I think our commitments to Taiwan have been clear, and they've been expressed through multiple administrations for multiple years. We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That's been our policy, that remains our policy. We're not seeking to trigger a conflict, we don't want to see a conflict, but we have made very clear through years and years of our policies, the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act, that we are against any sort of change in status by force or by, you know, threat or by coercion, and that remains our policy. And that's generally how we've left it, and that's what's provided stability, and I hope it continues to provide stability. Whether the Chinese and President Xi shares that view, I think there's real doubts about it. But, we are not going to walk away from, for example, supporting Taiwan being involved in international forums, where their views and their interests are not represented by the mainland at this point. So, we're going to keep all the commitments we've made, but the most important one is to make clear that we are against and oppose any sort of forced change in status. Speaker 0: Okay. I'd like to talk about Afghanistan. Based on the intelligence, have Al Qaeda and ISIS found a safe haven in Afghanistan that mirrors the pre nine eleven landscape? Speaker 1: Well, wouldn't say I think any time you have governing spaces that are contested, that you don't have a government that has full control of every part of their territory, it creates the opportunity for these groups. The difference between today and ten years ago is we don't have American elements on the ground to target and go after them. In some cases the Taliban's been cooperative when they've been told, ISIS or Al Qaeda is operating in this part of your country, go after them. In other cases, not so much. So I would say that, I wouldn't compare it to Pope pre nine eleven, but I would compare it, but it's certainly far more uncertain, and it's not just limited to Afghanistan. I mean, there's real concerns about Syria, where everyone's glad Assad is gone, but there's about 8,000 ISIS killers who are in a prison there, and if the destabilization there leads to them getting out, we've a big problem on our hands. So, I think these groups are constantly looking for new places to migrate. We've seen that happen in the Horn Of Africa and the Sahil. We're concerned about that as well. These groups are constantly looking for ungoverned spaces where they can plot externally and even to destabilize, the region. Speaker 0: I have a question about, Qatar. American victims of terrorism have won judgments in The US courts against Iran. Qatar is sitting on billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Will you ask Qatar to satisfy these judgments for American victims of terrorism? Speaker 1: The the answer is yes, but in a very, it's a difficult situation, again, in describing foreign policy to people. On the one hand, the Qataris, there's a lot to be concerned about, but there's a lot to be concerned about how they've given Hamas and others operating space within their country. On the other hand, this cease fire which has allowed these hostages to be released would not have been possible without their mediation. So, it's a complex relation that we have with the Qataris, where in some cases they've been very productive in some of the things they've done. In other cases, not so much, and so it's one we're going have to navigate very carefully. It's what makes foreign policy so difficult. Foreign policy is rarely a choice between the great and the bad. Sometimes it's between the bad and the worse, and I think in this particular case it's a challenging relationship we have, but nonetheless an important one strategically that requires us to be pragmatic about how we approach it. But that doesn't mean we need to look away or celebrate the things they've been supportive of, but also we need to recognize the strategic importance they've played in allowing, for example, to serve as intermediaries with Hamas, and allowing the cease fire to happen and these hostages to go free. Were it not for the Qataris that wouldn't have happened, so it's a complicating juggling act. Speaker 0: Well, you raised the issue with them. Speaker 1: We've raised that issue, previous administrations have as well, and that issue will continue to be raised, at the same time as we want to work with them on getting all the hostages out, because they all should be out. Speaker 0: I want to ask a question about Havana Syndrome or AHIs, these debilitating neurological conditions, State Department personnel, intelligence community, military, even families. Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Oh, I do not believe in the conclusions that we've seen in the past, and I think evidence in time will prove me correct, that these things happened by accident. That these things were a result of mass hysteria, or some pre existing conditions. Now, some cases, maybe, but I have no doubt in my mind that something caused people to be suffering from these things, in different posts around the world, not just limited to Havana. There's a lot of work still going on. I think we're going learn a lot more about it over the next few years, as more work goes into it, but I've met some of these people, I've interacted with them for years, and I can't explain every case, but I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need, and it's a top commitment of mine to make sure these are people we sent abroad to serve our country, they were harmed in the service of our country, and they deserve our ongoing support, not being accused of things like mass hysteria, or, you know, they're Speaker 0: just It's government gaslighting. Speaker 1: Well, I think it's outrageous, and I don't know what the intent was behind that, but ultimately, this State Department is going be transparent with them. Anything we know, they will know, and in the meantime, we are going to assume the worst and we're going to treat them as if they were victims. No matter what, we're going treat them as they were people that were harmed by serving our country overseas. Speaker 0: Okay, we just have a couple of minutes left here. President Trump has talked about expanding The US footprint. In a hot mic moment Canada's Prime Minister said that absorbing Canada is a real thing. Is it a real thing? Speaker 1: You know how that came about. President's meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose, if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist as a country. At which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can't exist without cheating and trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation. Speaker 0: That's how it started. Speaker 1: It is how it started. I think he's told the story publicly, and that's how all this began. Look, Canada's our friend. Canada's our neighbor. Canada's our partner, but it goes back to the point I made. For decades, The United States allowed uneven trade imbalances to develop. During the Cold War, you know why we did it? We did it because we felt like we want countries to be strong economically, even if it means they're cheating, because we don't want them to fall victim to some internal Marxist coup that overturns their government or what have you. Those days are gone. These are rich, developed economies. Ultimately, who can argue against the fact that whatever they charge us, we should charge them? Whatever they prohibit if they don't allow American companies to do it, we should not allow their companies to do it here. American banks can't even operate in Canada, so there has to be reciprocity here. We can continue to work together on all kinds of things, but whether it's Canada, Mexico, China, anybody else, when it comes to economics and trade, there has to be reciprocity. There has to be fairness. Who would argue how can anybody argue against that? The days where we just allow countries to take advantage of us, that has to end. That's not good for the global order. That leads to imbalances that create friction points. That's the case with Canada. It's the case with a lot of countries, who are our allies and friends, but on trade, we have an imbalance and it has to be dealt with. Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes. We're here today. We're here talking Speaker 0: I was going to say, secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen, but this will always be their State Department. We're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. Had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets, whose sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information, and in these sort of long form interviews, where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information. Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, thank you very much for the opportunity today, and thank you for acknowledging and supporting independent journalism. Speaker 1: Thank you.
C__Herridge
Posted - March 17, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 7:15 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I obtained an internal FBI inclusivity guide that advises agents on managing unconscious bias and improving inclusive intelligence. Retired agents expressed concerns that DEI priorities compromised law enforcement standards, dubbing the Quantico Training Academy the “Participation Academy” due to pressure to pass underperforming candidates. They noted declines in physical fitness, firearms training, and writing skills among recruits. Despite valuing diversity, they felt standards were lowered. They hope to meet with Director Patel to discuss necessary changes, emphasizing a mission-focused FBI.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: An internal FBI inclusivity “Guide,” obtained by our team, counseled agents on “Ways to Manage Your Unconscious Bias,” “Micro-Inequities” and “How to Improve Your Inclusive Intelligence.” “The New IQ: Your Guide to Sustaining Inclusive Habits in the Workplace” was shared in mid-2020 and includes nine “tips” to counter unconscious bias.  Separately, as part of our investigation, recently retired FBI agents said they saw, firsthand, how law enforcement capabilities were compromised because merit took a backseat to DEI priorities. They dubbed the legendary FBI Quantico Training Academy the “Participation Academy” because of headquarters’ pressure to “push through” poorly performing candidates to meet DEI objectives. The retired agents said FBI Director Patel inherits a workforce where standards dropped impacting physical fitness of agents, their firearms skills as well as professional qualifications, putting the FBI mission and safety at risk. DEEP DIVE More than a half dozen recently retired FBI agents agreed to speak with me on a confidential basis.  They said they feared retaliation for describing their experiences with the FBI’s DEI initiatives. While fiercely loyal to the bureau, they said they felt compelled to come forward, citing a dangerous reduction in standards. The group of retired agents was diverse.  It included male, female, Asian, Black and White agents from field offices in different parts of the country.  Their work experience covered multiple facets of the recruitment and training process. Everyone we spoke with offered a first hand account of DEI’s impact. The retired agents told me they valued diversity because it could strengthen the FBI mission but in recent years FBI leadership took the attitude the bureau was “too White.”    We were told that the physical fitness performance of candidates declined. The requirements include timed sit-ups (1 minute), timed 300-m sprint, untimed push-up maximum and timed 1.5-mile run.  The retired agents described recruits who had an ‘attitude problem.’ The recruits would quit the long distance run or claim injuries if they thought they would not pass a requirement. The number of successfully completed push ups was routinely low because many recruits didn’t have the skill or strength to follow the required protocol (i.e bad form, not low enough.)  What we learned about firearms training was also concerning.  We were told some recruits lacked the “mental toughness” to competently handle weapons. Other candidates had documented mental health issues.  While their performance was poor, there was a “push them through Quantico attitude.”  The backbone of FBI investigations is a witness interview summary known as a “302.”  In some cases, new agents lacked basic writing skills to complete a 302, in part, because work experience requirements had been relaxed.  Once poor performing recruits were “pushed through Quantico,” the hope was that FBI Field Offices would fix them. These retired FBI agents are solution oriented and respectfully asked if Director Patel would be willing to meet with them because they understand where the change needs to happen internally. Describing how “woke broke the FBI,” one of the agents shared the wrenching personal decision to discourage their child from following in their professional footsteps. In response to our questions, FBI spokesman Ben Williamson said, “Director Patel’s new FBI will be an entirely mission focused institution — working every day to get criminals off our streets, keep the American people safe, and let good agents be good agents. We are aggressively working to abide by any Presidential directive to root out politically motivated, social engineering projects — they have zero home here and never will as long as Director Patel is at the helm.” FULL FBI DEI guide available to our subscribers @C__Herridge We rely on your subscriptions to deliver fact driven reporting. No third party agenda driven money

C__Herridge
Posted - March 4, 2025 at 11:30 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 3:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
This week, our team inquired with the Justice Department about their plans to review alleged misconduct by DOJ and HHS during the Biden administration. Our investigation, "Government Malpractice," highlighted the pressure from these agencies to target those opposing their stance on “gender affirming care” for minors. Tonight, whistleblower Eithan Haim from Texas Children’s Hospital is attending a joint session of Congress, bringing attention to their situation, which has garnered over 7 million engagements and significant congressional interest as they face $2 million in legal debt.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

This week our team asked the Justice Department whether it will review alleged misconduct by DOJ and HHS under the Biden administration. @AGPamBondi Our recent investigation "Government Malpractice" revealed pressure from the Biden DOJ + HHS to investigate those who challenged that administration's position on “gender affirming care” for minors. Tonight, the Texas Children’s Hospital whistleblower @EithanHaim attends the joint session of Congress with @HawleyMO With +7 million engagements and congressional interest, accountability is closer for @EithanHaim and his wife @AndreaCohenHaim who face $2 million in legal debt.  https://www.givesendgo.com/texas_whistleblower

Legal Defense Fund for Surgeon Whistleblower My name is Eithan Haim. I am a 33-year-old general surgeon who was the anonymous whistleblower in a story released May 16, 2023 by Christopher Rufo. We expos... givesendgo.com

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: Records obtained during our investigation show pressure from Biden Administration @HHSGov to target those who blocked or restricted “Gender-affirming” care for minors. https://t.co/pyXon8iX8Y

Video Transcript AI Summary
This memo from Health and Human Services is a notice on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. The message is clear: anyone interfering with gender affirming care will be targeted by the federal government, which will use its full power to advance its political agenda. This memo is essentially a green light for prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA. HIPAA is supposed to protect patient privacy, not shield billion-dollar hospital corporations, but that's how it's being used. Federal agents showed up at my door, badges in hand, investigating a medical records case. They gave me a target letter stating I was a potential target in a criminal investigation. I knew immediately that everything was about to change.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. What message was sent by this Health and Human Services memo? Speaker 1: So the message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. That they're going to use the entirety of their power and authority to target people who get in the way of their political goals. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA in exactly the way that we're talking about. Speaker 0: What you're alleging in this case is that the law was being used by the Justice Department to protect doctors and the hospitals. Speaker 2: It was shocking and it was, you know, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. HIPAA is intended to protect patient privacy. It's not designed to protect billion dollar hospital corporations, but that's what they were using it for. Speaker 1: Two people standing out there, they show me their badges, tell me that they're with Health and Human Services, and that they're investigating a case regarding medical records. And in that moment, I knew exactly what they were there for. And Andrea gives me one look, and she says, you know, we have to go talk privately. So we walk over to our bedroom, and she tells me that we should not speak with them without an attorney present. But before they leave, they give me a target letter. Speaker 0: Well, I've got the target letter right here. The federal agents give you this target letter. And it says, This office is involved, that's the US Attorney's Office in Texas, in an investigation dealing with federal law violations. You are a potential target in this criminal investigation. That means that you are the focus of a criminal investigation. Andrea, you know that there's serious legal risk. Speaker 2: I knew the minute that we received that target letter that everything was going to change.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Doctor Targeted by Biden DOJ After Blowing The Whistle on ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care For Minors at Texas Children’s Hospital Breaks Silence After All Charges Dropped; Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate His Case “I was willing to go to jail” 00:00…

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department against me and my family for whistleblowing about gender affirming care at Texas Children's Hospital. A HHS memo signaled that anyone interfering with gender affirming care would be targeted. I faced multiple indictments, based on a nonexistent law, for allegedly violating patient privacy, even though I protected patient identities while the DOJ did not. The prosecution was relentless, even threatening my wife. Facing financial ruin and the possibility of imprisonment, I used X to share my story and expose the injustice. The charges were eventually dropped, a moment of indescribable relief. Accountability is needed to prevent this from happening to others.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was willing to go to jail if this judge was gonna throw me in jail, but the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 0: 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against us. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care. Speaker 0: The message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital, but in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. Speaker 2: This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the Speaker 1: DOJ. Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believe that people would hear this story. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. Speaker 1: Tell us about that moment when you learned the criminal prosecution was over. Speaker 2: To know that it's finally over, that Eitan was safe and that he was going to be with us for the next several years, I think was just an indescribable relief. Speaker 0: It's one of those moments like when you hear that your wife is pregnant for the first time, or you get bad news from someone in your family is hurt, Right? Those that moment that you'll always remember where you were. Speaker 3: On January 24, '2 years of injustice came to an end for doctor Eitan Heim, the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower who went public about its gender affirming care for minors. Doctor. Heim was accused of violating patient privacy laws by the Biden Justice Department. We spoke exclusively to doctor Heim and his wife in Washington DC just days after the charges were dropped. Speaker 0: You know, she kinda yelled my name, I knew it was either gonna be really good or really bad. And she comes into the room, I could see it on her face that case was dismissed. It was signed by the judge. I said, It's over. It's over. I love you. And I gave her a hug. I gave her a kiss. We just held each other for a long time and so much we had gone through at that moment. Were there tears? Of course. It's indescribable because you achieve so much, you go through so much pain and heartache, and then all of a sudden, one second later, you go from facing ten years in prison, losing everything, and then it's over. Speaker 1: I have the court order here. I want to read it to you. The United States Of America versus Eitan David Haim. It's Criminal Action number H-twentyFour-two98. It says the indictment in all open counts in the above listed criminal case are hereby dismissed with prejudice. I can feel a lot of emotion from the two of you just reading the court order. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, clears his name. It made clear what we knew all along, was that this prosecution should have never been brought in the first place. Speaker 1: Did the court order give you your lives back? Speaker 0: Yeah, and the important thing for people to know is it's dismissed with prejudice. It's a big deal because that means they can never bring the case again in the future. The only thing I want to do is just hold my baby because the biggest fear was not being there for her. Speaker 2: I would look at him holding her and think, Oh my gosh, what if he goes to jail? What if he's not there for her growing up? And so at the end, there's this picture of him holding, Talia is her name, and holding this glass of champagne. It's this celebratory moment and just this knowledge that he's going to be there for her. Speaker 1: You posted, Today is for celebrating. Tomorrow is for accountability. What does accountability look like for you and your family? Speaker 2: Accountability looks like the people who did this, the agents responsible, the prosecutors responsible, being held to account for breaches of their duties as prosecutors and agents and also for their breaches of duties as lawyers. Speaker 0: They should be nowhere near a position of authority where they can use their position to target people who oppose their political agenda. Because to accuse someone of a crime and destroy everything they've ever worked for, for something, in this case, for doing the right thing, is the most evil thing you can do to someone. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. And we ended up winning. It's the greatest victory of my life. Mean, it's amazing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 2: 100%. Speaker 0: Yes, 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against Speaker 1: Was Health and Human Services weaponized against you? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: What harm was done to your family? Speaker 2: Huge amount of harm. You know, I think the number one was the emotional toll that all of took, the fear and living with all of that. It's cost us personally almost $2,000,000 Speaker 1: Wait, dollars 2,000,000 to defend yourself? Speaker 2: Yes, and that's conservative for the quality of lawyers that we have and the amount of the legal work that was required in this case. If you look at the docket entries for the court, you know, there are hundreds of motions, and each one of those costs tens of thousands, if not sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to. Speaker 1: Do you think bad actors in government count on the fact that most people cannot financially afford to defend themselves? Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think that's a huge part of the calculus that the government it's a huge advantage that the government has. Speaker 3: In 2023, the Himes story went viral after Christopher Rufo posted his whistleblower account. A year earlier, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton found gender affirming care can legally constitute child abuse under Texas family law. Texas Children's Hospital released a statement that it paused hormone related prescription therapies for gender affirming services, citing potential criminal legal ramifications. But Doctor. Himes says the hospital schedules indicated that the controversial treatments for minors continued. Speaker 1: When you took these screenshots, did you hack into the hospital system? Did you have unauthorized access? Speaker 0: Absolutely not. I was working in the hospital, operating as part of my residency program. Speaker 1: What drove you to take the screenshots? Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital. And everything we do is to make them healthy again. But in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. The diagnosis code is gender dysphoria. What is gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: So this is the distress that people feel when they believe that their sex is different than, their biological sex. Speaker 1: I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Minors can't give consent for these procedures. So the parents are giving consent. Do you believe it's informed consent? Speaker 0: So I believe this is not informed consent because the informing party is the doctor. If the doctor is misinformed about the pathology they're treating and the success of the interventions, then the patients are being misinformed. And that's exactly what's happening here. Speaker 1: Just to be clear, this medical procedure is a surgical procedure. Speaker 0: Yeah, this is a surgical procedure that requires anesthesia, that requires surgical instruments, that carries surgical risks in every way. Speaker 1: And this non biodegradable drug delivery implant, this is a puberty blocker. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, this is a very, very powerful medication. Speaker 1: I see the red highlighting here. Did you make those marks? Yeah. Why were you blocking this information? Speaker 0: To protect the patients. Because this whole story has nothing to do with patients, right? They're the victims. It has to do with the hospital. So I wanted to make sure to protect their identities. Speaker 1: What would you say to those families and children who are struggling with gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: I would listen to them. I think that's the most important thing. They're hurting. What they need is someone to go through that emotional pain with them, to listen to them, to tell them that they're dignified, that they're created perfect the way they are. Speaker 1: Because of your whistleblower activity, were you retaliated against? Speaker 0: Yes, I believe so. And really in a number of ways. Speaker 1: I'd like to walk through the reviews that were left on your medical profile online. This one says, He touched me inappropriately and was super creepy. He had no idea what he was doing, and he has no business being in medicine. He should be in jail for being a terrible physician. He mutilates patients. It sounds like you're an abuser. Speaker 0: An important thing for people to know about those reviews is that they were written when I was anonymous, before I took my story public. So the person who wrote those reviews had come from inside the hospital. Speaker 3: These claims are backed up by criminal attorney Mark Lytle, a member of Doctor. Haim's legal team. Speaker 4: Those are outrageous comments that, they were not real. They were fake, and they were put there by someone to retaliate against Doctor. Haim. We did our, as best we could, our own investigation, and we determined that it was coming from the hospital, the same IP address. Speaker 3: The government's case stood out for other reasons. Lytle says the Biden appointed US attorney, Alamdar Hamdani, circumvented long standing justice department checks and balances and worked directly with assistant US attorney Tina Anseri, who prosecuted the case. Lytle told us about a specific conversation with Anseri. Speaker 1: So in the twenty plus years you've been practicing law, you've never had a conversation like you did with the prosecutor. Speaker 4: Never. Under, under all the cases I prosecuted I was chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit. I supervised 15 to 17 attorneys at any given time and we reviewed this, these types of things, these types of procedures. Never heard of it before. Speaker 1: Did the prosecutor cross a red line in the conversation? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 1: You got threats in that phone call. Speaker 4: Yeah, threats essentially like we're going to go after this guy if he doesn't come in and admit what he did was wrong and if he doesn't do that, then he's gonna get a felony and we're gonna try him on a technicality and we don't care if we lose. And that's disturbing. That's wielding the law as a weapon. It's not trying to be on a search for truth. This case was like a freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it. The prosecutor was dead set to bring this case against Doctor. Heim. Speaker 3: Two years before Doctor. Heim was indicted, the Biden administration sent this guidance from Washington, D. C. About investigating anyone who blocked or restricted gender affirming care for minors. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. What message was sent by this Health and Human Services memo? Speaker 0: So the message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. That they're going to use the entirety of their power and authority to target people who get in the way of their political goals. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA in exactly the way that we're talking about. Speaker 3: At the heart of the government's government's case was a federal law called HIPAA that protects the privacy of patients and their health care information. Speaker 1: What you're alleging in this case is that the law was being used by the Justice Department to protect doctors and the hospitals. Speaker 2: It was shocking and it was, you know, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. HIPAA is intended to protect patient privacy. It's not designed to protect billion dollar hospital corporations, but that's what they were using it for. Speaker 3: On 06/23/2023, the day of his graduation, the Himes described two federal agents from Health and Human Services knocking on their door. Speaker 0: Two people standing out there, they show me their badges, tell me that they're with Health and Human Services, and that they're investigating a case regarding medical records. In that moment, I knew exactly what they were there for. And Andrea gives me one look, and she says, We have to go talk privately. So we walk over to our bedroom, and she tells me that we should not speak with them without an attorney present. But before they leave, they give me a target letter. Speaker 1: Well, I've got the target letter right here. The federal agents give you this target letter. And it says, This office is involved, that's the U. S. Attorney's Office Texas, in an investigation dealing with federal law violations. You are a potential target in this criminal investigation. That means that you are the focus of a criminal investigation. Andrea, you know that there's serious legal risk. Speaker 2: I knew the minute that we received that target letter that everything was going to change. Speaker 3: The target letter was signed by Assistant U. S. Attorney Tina Enseri, who Lytle says accused Andrea Haim of obstructing the investigation. Speaker 4: When I asked her why, it was because when the HHS agents came to visit him and they sought a voluntary interview, Doctor. Haim's wife, who is an attorney, suggested that he should wait to have an attorney before he submit to an interview. AUSA and SARI believed that was obstruction. Speaker 3: At that time, Andrea Heim was onboarding for her own position as a federal prosecutor in Texas. Speaker 4: Ansari knew that Doctor. Heim's wife was freshly hired as an assistant US attorney in another office and undergoing security clearance, a background check. And this is where AUSA Ansari said something that was shocking to us. She said she wasn't going to do anything about that even though she believed it was obstruction but she might do something if Doctor. Haim's wife became difficult. Speaker 1: That sounds like a threat. Speaker 4: That's the way we took it. Speaker 3: Nearly a year after the Target letter federal marshals delivered the first of three criminal indictments for allegedly violating patient privacy laws. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. What explains three indictments? Speaker 2: First of all, it is ridiculous that there are three indictments. This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. That's why it failed. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did, right? To try to get me to plead, to make other whistleblowers disincentivized from doing the same thing. Speaker 1: It says that you violated Title 42, U. S. Code Chapter seven Subchapter XL. I couldn't find Subchapter XL. I mean, does it exist? Speaker 2: It does not. It's a typo. This isn't a typo of their versus their or something like that. This is the operative language of their indictment, the name of the statute that they're charging with. And they got that wrong in multiple indictments. Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are gonna be confused that you've got a Justice Department indictment, federal criminal charges, and it cites a law that does not exist. Speaker 0: Yeah, and they admitted that during a hearing, right? They had to apologize that they weren't proofreading properly. Speaker 1: I just think American taxpayers would want an answer about sloppy lawyering. Speaker 2: They deserve one. Speaker 0: I mean, consider how many resources were spent on this case alone. Right? Months and months of legal work, right? You had FBI agents, prosecutors, you had the court's time, all of that. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. Is this a violation of their privacy? Yes or no? Speaker 0: I would say that it is. Speaker 1: The screenshots you took in the hospital, you redacted, you used the red highlighter to block the name of the patients. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the DOJ who was violating the patient's privacy because I never released patient information. It was the Department of Justice who had released the patient's initials. Speaker 3: These exclusive internal emails show Doctor. Haim's legal team pushed the prosecutor for evidence patient names were disclosed. His lawyer wrote, I have not been able to find an instance where this actually happened. The prosecutor eventually sent doctor Haim screenshots of the hospital surgery schedule where doctor Haim removed patient names. Speaker 2: To me, this is one of the most unbelievable parts of this case is that they're charging him with accessing private patient information, but the government released more information about child patients than Eitan ever did. Speaker 3: As the full weight of the Biden Harris Justice Department came down on the couple, Andrea neared her due date, and Eitan had to be in court. Speaker 1: What was the darkest moment? Speaker 2: The happiest moment of my life was the birth of my four month old daughter, but it was also the scariest, and I ended up having to have an emergency C section. Eitan had to leave the hospital room where I was with our daughter an hour after I had surgery to go to Houston for a court hearing. And at that point, we had no idea what was going to happen. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment when you feared for Andrea and your daughter? Speaker 0: Yeah, especially because whenever giving birth, if something happens, if there's any complications, happens after. If something happened, I wouldn't be there. And that's awful. Speaker 1: Did you feel that you had let your wife down? Speaker 0: Yeah. I knew that, she understood that, it's something I had to do, right? Speaker 1: I can see you choking up about it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Because if I did, mean, these people are going send me to prison. Speaker 1: Yeah, just take a minute. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life when you bring a child into the world. Speaker 0: Yeah. But then especially to have my baby born, to go to trial the next day and just see these people lie, and just see the judge accept it. What kind of country is this? What kind of country are we delivering our kids into? Speaker 3: In late twenty twenty four, the trial date shifted multiple times After Doctor. Hyme posted court records on X, the federal judge threatened a gag order. Speaker 1: You're facing federal criminal charges, 250,000 in fines, and then the court threatens to silence you. What's going through your head at that point? Speaker 0: That was by far the most painful part of this case because what I was simply talking about was public motions. So every point I made on X in these interviews was already made by my attorneys. Speaker 1: I want to read some of the court transcript. It says from the judge, If similar conduct continues, I will not hesitate to reconsider the issuing of a gag order. Furthermore, any violation of this order by the defendant, that's you, could lead to the revocation of his bond and immediate custody at a federal detention center. Speaker 0: And he knows that at that point we're completely broke, completely desperate, that we have no ability to fight back, that we have to preserve our resources for trial. What I believe is his way of protecting himself, his way of protecting the DOJ from criticism, but that comes at a cost, and That cost is paid by my own constitutional rights. The rights that they took an oath to protect in that courtroom. Speaker 3: On the morning of January 24, Doctor. Haim was under more pressure after he called the case at Kangaroo Court on X, an apparent violation of the judge's instructions. Speaker 2: I really woke up that morning on the twenty fourth thinking there was a fiftyfifty chance my husband might be going to jail. Speaker 0: Things were getting so desperate. The injustice had built up to the point where I couldn't stay silent any longer. So whatever these people were going to do to me, I was willing to take those consequences. I was willing to go to jail if this judge was going to throw me in jail. But the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: There's no doubt about that. First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believed that people would hear this story. So it was essential in the most true way possible. Speaker 2: Without a free X where people could express their beliefs freely, I don't think this case would have had nearly the attention. And X agrees because X actually intervened to protect Eitan's right to speak platform. Speaker 0: When you lay out on X the nature of what the government is accusing me of, people can see it for themselves. You open it up to public scrutiny. Speaker 1: Are you calling on the Trump administration to investigate your case? Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say absolutely. Speaker 2: I would say investigating is a first step certainly. And I think, you know, taking action against the people that did this to make sure it doesn't happen again. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment where you felt like you didn't recognize this America? Speaker 0: From the very beginning to the very end, it was every moment in between. You know, I feel like it's not the country that I grew up in. You know, maybe there were problems back then, but I feel like things were different. You know, having our first daughter in the middle of all this just made it that much more important because this is the country we have now. It's unrecognizable. It's awful. But we can maybe do something about that. Speaker 2: I took that oath as an Assistant U. S. Attorney to uphold the Constitution, to respect the rights of defendants, to respect the first amendment. These things that we hold as sacred as Americans were being weaponized against us.
C__Herridge
Posted - March 7, 2025 at 12:37 AM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 3:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared news about DHS whistleblowers Mark Jones, Mike Taylor, and Fred Wynn, who faced retaliation for exposing the agency's failure to enforce DNA collection laws for illegal entries. On the Senate floor, Chuck Grassley urged Trump to address their situation, highlighting that proper enforcement might have saved Rachel Morin's life. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have neglected the DNA Fingerprint Act. CBS News declined to cover the story, citing its political nature. I'm grateful for subscribers who enable me to share these important stories.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: DHS Whistleblowers Vindicated On DNA Border Law On the Senate floor @ChuckGrassley has called on @realDonaldTrump to "immediately remedy the situation” of DHS whistleblowers Mark Jones, Mike Taylor and Fred Wynn. The three @CBP whistleblowers told our investigation last fall that they were demoted and retaliated against after revealing DHS willfully violated federal laws requiring DNA collection from illegal entries.   Had the Biden administration enforced the DNA collection policy; the whistleblowers said murdered Maryland mom Rachel Morin might be alive today.  @Sec_Noem NOTE: Both republican and democratic administrations have failed to fully enforce the law known as the DNA Fingerprint Act. CBS News executives passed on the DNA collection border story because they said it was “too political.” Telling the stories I could not tell before is possible now because of our subscribers.  Consider supporting our work today! Subscribe @C__Herridge Our newsletter compliments our investigations @X ! https://catherineherridgereports.com/subscribe

Catherine Herridge Reports Telling the stories I could not tell before, where the facts have a power all their own. catherineherridgereports.com

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

With over 2 million views our border investigation is gaining traction. This is the one whistleblower exchange you cannot miss! “One of the supervisors said, very matter a fact, the agency’s goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically all of the above,” according to whistleblower MIchael Taylor.

Video Transcript AI Summary
This internal government memo confirms I was retaliated against for speaking out against Homeland Security officials who I believed were breaking the law. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for failing to comply with the DNA law. To the contrary, some have been promoted. I've had my law enforcement credentials and firearm taken away, and my law enforcement retirement revoked. Publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult. I was iced, left to do menial tasks, and my future career potential vanished. I was demoted three levels, and like my colleague, my firearm and credentials were taken. Never in our combined seventy-five years of service have any of us even had a disciplinary action. One of the supervisors said the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or preferably all of the above.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This internal government memo confirms that you were retaliated against because you spoke out against officials at Homeland Security who you believed were violating the law. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. 100%. Speaker 0: Has anyone at Homeland Security been disciplined? Speaker 2: Not that we're aware of. Speaker 0: No. Demoted? Speaker 2: No. No. And to the contrary, promoted. Speaker 0: Promoted? Anyone fired for failing to comply with the DNA law? Speaker 3: No. No. The only ones disciplined are sitting right here. I've had my law enforcement credentials, my firearm taken away from me. I've had my law enforcement retirement taken away from me. And we will tell you this, in a law enforcement environment, publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult and degradation. Speaker 1: I was basically iced, left to sit at my desk every day, do nothing but the most menial tasks. My future career options, because I was working in such a limited sphere, all that future potential vanished in a day. Speaker 2: I was demoted three levels. Like Mr. Taylor, my firearm was taken, my credentials were taken, and it was the final blow to a professional career. And what we did was we came forward. Not in seventy five years or so of combined service have one of us even had a written or verbal disciplinary action. Speaker 3: One of the supervisors said, very matter of fact, the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically, preferably all of the above.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Leaked government memo confirms whistleblowers were targeted by Border Agency after exposing federal DNA Collection law was not followed for immigration violations Homeland Security whistleblowers claim American deaths “were preventable.” Subscribe on X @C__Herridge

Video Transcript AI Summary
As government whistleblowers with decades of law enforcement experience, we've witnessed Homeland Security's intentional failure to implement the DNA Fingerprint Act, a law designed to protect public safety. This noncompliance, impacting millions of border encounters, has led to preventable deaths, including the tragic case of Rachel Morin. Despite bipartisan support for DNA collection upon detention for immigration violations, the law isn't fully enforced, leaving potentially hundreds of thousands of violent criminals unidentified. We faced retaliation for speaking out, including demotions and removal of credentials. The agency's goal, according to one supervisor, is to bankrupt us, make us quit, or worse. We believe this dereliction is criminal, exacerbating crime by ignoring a vital tool.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Americans are dead, and these deaths were preventable. Speaker 1: So this internal government memo confirms that you were retaliated against because you spoke out against officials at Homeland Security who you believed were violating the law. Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. 100%. The agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically Speaker 1: This law is on the books. Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: Is Homeland Security enforcing the DNA collection law? Speaker 0: Not fully. Speaker 1: As a result, are Americans less safe? Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: No question in your mind. Speaker 2: They don't have it all. No. Speaker 1: Our team sat down with 3 government whistleblowers with 7 decades of law enforcement experience. They work at Customs and Border Protection or CBP, a division of Homeland Security. This internal government memo confirms that you were retaliated against because you spoke out against officials at Homeland Security who you believed were violating the law. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. 100%. The Speaker 1: agency's intentional decade long failure to implement a law designed to protect public safety. That's its conclusion. Customs and border protection is in violation of the federal law, and it's done knowingly. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: This internal homeland security directive marked law enforcement sensitive lays out the law. The border agency is required to collect DNA samples from non United States persons in detention for immigration violations. Known as the DNA fingerprint act, it passed in 2,005 with bipartisan support. So there's no ambiguity. The language is clear. Speaker 3: It lays it out as a road map. Speaker 1: Have you ever seen a directive like this be ignored? Speaker 0: Never. No. Speaker 1: Okay. A lot of people are gonna be confused. Homeland Security's job is to uphold the law and to keep Americans safe. But what you're alleging is that Homeland Security is not complying with the law. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 1: Since 2021, under the Biden Harris administration, Homeland Security's own data reports more than 10,000,000 border encounters. Speaker 2: The internal mood is it's a dumpster fire. Speaker 3: It is a questioning of our mission versus what is actually being executed in the field. Speaker 1: Jones showed us what's supposed to happen in the field when DNA is collected from individuals detained and processed on immigration violations. Speaker 3: So, Catherine, this is the kit that's provided by the FBI to the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents. Place it inside your cheek. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Rub inside your cheek 3 times. Speaker 1: Three times. Yeah. Speaker 3: You're collecting saliva, and skin cells are epithelial cells. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: I would then take it back from you, close it, place it inside the white envelope, which then gets sent to the FBI laboratory for processing. Speaker 1: So 30 seconds to collect, about $4 a pack. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: How long to process by the FBI? Speaker 3: Approximately 72 hours. Speaker 1: So it helps to identify suspects? Speaker 3: Absolutely. It gives an investigative lead to a law enforcement agency. Speaker 1: Has the system solved cold cases? Speaker 2: Yes. It's presumptively solved over 1,000 cases just from DNA collection. Speaker 3: Not only does it cut down on crime, it also cuts down on the time that it takes law enforcement to find this individual. Speaker 1: You've had Republican administrations. You've had Democratic administrations. Have either of them implemented the law? Speaker 2: No. The willful noncompliance, I believe, is inexplicable. Speaker 0: For many years, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection have failed to follow the law. Speaker 1: Recent data released by Republican senator Chuck Grassley suggests nearly 70% of border encounters did not include DNA collection as required by law. And as many as 950,000 violent criminals were unidentified. 950,000 violent criminals went unidentified. That's nearly a 1000000 people. Speaker 3: That estimate was from 2010 through 2019. That was 5,000,000 illegal entries at the time. Speaker 1: What you're saying to me is that 950,000 violent criminals is a is an old number. It's on the low end. Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. The continued prolonged willful failure to comply with the DNA fingerprint act has resulted in the harm that Americans are dead, and these deaths were preventable. Speaker 1: That's a very significant statement. Speaker 0: I believe that to be statistically verifiable. Speaker 1: The August 2023 sexual assault and murder of a 37 year old mother of 5 in Bel Air, Maryland haunts the whistleblowers. Are you alleging that Homeland Security's failure to comply with the DNA collection law may have been a contributing factor in Rachel Morin's death? Speaker 0: It may have been a contributing factor. Yes. Speaker 1: No question in your mind? Speaker 2: None. Speaker 1: That's a very serious charge to make. Speaker 0: It is. Speaker 1: Now charged with Rachel Morin's murder is 23 year old Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez from El Salvador. An alleged gang member, authorities claim he murdered another woman before fleeing to the US in February 2020 3. Based on our reporting, the suspect didn't just have one encounter with border agents. He had multiple encounters. So there were multiple opportunities to take his DNA. Speaker 3: We understand we had 3 bites at the apple with the subject and never took it. Speaker 1: It's gonna be hard for the family to hear that there was an opportunity to identify the suspect and stop him if federal law had been followed? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Had the subject had DNA taken the first time they were encountered, there would have been an instant possibility that any future criminal activity would have been stopped immediately, and there was definite potential for the individual to be apprehended. Speaker 1: 6 months before Rachel Moren's murder, the suspect was linked to a brutal home invasion in Los Angeles. Speaker 2: I think if due diligence was exercised, we comply with the law, DNA was collected, we would have known who we were looking for on behalf of the little girl and the the young lady out in Los Angeles and hopefully vindictive him long before he got to Maryland. Speaker 1: Did Homeland Security fail Rachel Morn? Speaker 3: In the context of not collecting the DNA that is mandated by law, they they did not do it, and there there's no other answer. Speaker 1: Even independent government investigators admitted in this May 2023 letter that border agencies do not systematically record data on the reasons for the noncollections. What's the consequence for the American public? Speaker 0: We know for a fact that not every individual who crosses the border illegally into the United States goes on to commit violent acts. But given the number, even a very small percentage results in a definite increase in crime within the United States. Speaker 1: Does Homeland Security owe the victims an apology? Does Customs and Border Protection owe the victims an apology? Speaker 0: At a minimum, many people in this country are owed an explanation. Speaker 2: Ultimately, the secretary of Department of Homeland Security is responsible. We know that he's been notified of the noncompliance. They've done so with impunity. Speaker 1: Has anyone at Homeland Security been disciplined? Speaker 3: Not that we're aware of. No. Speaker 1: Demoted? No. Speaker 3: No. And to the contrary, promoted. Speaker 1: Promoted? Anyone fired for failing to comply with the DNA law? Speaker 2: No. No. The only ones disciplined are sitting right here. Speaker 1: This exclusive internal memo concluded the border agency retaliated against them, including denial of promotion, hostile work environment, reputational harm, among other issues. How hard did you have to work within the government bureaucracy to get this memo? Speaker 3: The office of special counsel refused to give it to us. We received it through discovery with our legal counsel. Speaker 1: So you had you had to spend your own money to get confirmation that you were being punished by the government. Speaker 0: That's correct. For me personally, it's a mystery as to why the Office of Special Counsel did not see fit to share that document with us. Speaker 2: I've had my law enforcement, credentials. I have a firearm taken away from me. I've had my law enforcement retirement taken away from me. And we will tell you this in a law enforcement environment, publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult and degradation. Speaker 0: I was basically iced, left to sit at my desk every day, do nothing but the most menial tasks. My future career options, because I was working in such a limited sphere, all that future potential vanished in a day. Speaker 3: I was demoted 3 levels. Like mister Taylor, my firearm was taken. My credentials were taken. And it was the final blow to a professional career. And what we did was we came forward. Not in 75 years or so of combined service have one of us even had a written or verbal disciplinary action. Speaker 2: 1 of the supervisors said, very matter of fact, the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or basically, preferably all of the above. Speaker 1: What you describe sounds like a criminal conspiracy. Speaker 2: We think a lot of this is criminal, not so much even when it comes to us, but the absolute intentional dereliction of implementing the DNA law. Speaker 3: We don't need to bring in more crime. We have enough of our own. The tool we have, the DNA fingerprint act, we are willfully not complying, and we ask ourselves, how is this happening? I think we know how it's happening.
C__Herridge
Posted - March 6, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 3:31 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently explored the complexities surrounding Hunter Biden's art sales and book deals, which some suggest serve to enrich political families. An IRS whistleblower, Joseph Ziegler, indicated that these transactions might provide access and benefits to the Biden family, potentially aiding the former President. In a legal context, Hunter's attorneys noted a significant decline in his income from these ventures over the past 18 months, highlighting the financial challenges he faces.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: Hunter Biden While at @CBSNews even asking around about Hunter Biden, his art sales, and California friends could elicit nasty emails from his lawyers.  Here's how it apparently works: Art sales, six-figure book deals for first time writers can be vehicles to enrich political families.  IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler told our investigation that it was about access and enriching the Biden family, which benefitted the former President. HERRIDGE: “Did Joe Biden benefit from his son's business deals?” ZIEGLER: “…look at how do these foreign officials pay U.S. politicians…by paying their families." Seeking to dismiss the case with former White House aide Garrett Ziegler (no relation) Hunter Biden's attorneys write:  "Plaintiff has suffered a significant downturn in his income over the past 18 months with reduced book and art sales, which has been his main source of income over the prior years..” https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67788762/85/robert-hunter-biden-v-garrett-ziegler/

Order – #85 in Robert Hunter Biden v. Garrett Ziegler (C.D. Cal., 2:23-cv-07593) – CourtListener.com EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2) filed by Plaintiff Robert Hunter Biden. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 2 Declaration DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 3 Exhibit EXHIBIT A re DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 4 Exhibit EXHIBIT B re DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 5 Exhibit EXHIBIT C re DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 6 Exhibit EXHIBIT D re DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 7 Exhibit EXHIBIT E re DECLARATION OF BRYAN M. SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MOTION AND MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2), # 8 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ROBERT HUNTER BIDENS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2)) (Hansen, Zachary) (Entered: 03/05/2025) courtlistener.com
C__Herridge
Posted - March 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Saved - March 2, 2025 at 1:31 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Tension between President Trump, President Zelenskyy, VP Vance, and Secretary Rubio has been building prior to the recent White House meeting. I shared an unedited interview with Secretary Rubio, highlighting the importance of independent journalism, which garnered significant engagement. During the interview, Rubio expressed his frustration with Zelenskyy, particularly regarding a miscommunication about mineral rights. He emphasized that Trump won't tolerate being misled and is transparent about his feelings, indicating a need for gratitude from Zelenskyy.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

CONTEXT: The tension between President Trump, President Zelenskyy, VP Vance and SEC Rubio existed long before Friday's White House meeting. Our followers had important context over a week ago when we released the full, unedited interview with @SecRubio That's what independent journalism brings to the table + 7 million engagements. Thank you @X TIMECODE 22:13 HERRIDGE:  When President Trump posted that President Zelenskyy is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? SECRETARY RUBIO:  I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelenskyy and – and some – and rightfully so... I think the second thing is, frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelenskyy – the Vice President and I, the two – three of us.  And we discussed this issue about the mineral rights... I read two days later that Zelenskyy is out there saying:  I rejected the deal; I told them no way, that we’re not doing that.  Well, that’s not what happened in that meeting… There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don’t see it and you see him out there accusing the President of living in a world of disinformation, that’s highly, very counterproductive. And I don’t need to explain to you or anybody else Donald Trump’s not – President Trump’s not the kind of person that’s going to sit there and take that.  He’s very transparent.  He’s going to tell you exactly how he feels.  And he sent a message that he’s not going to get gamed here.…”

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Our full, unedited interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio(@SecRubio) on his first 30 days leading the Department. Restarting U.S./Russia relations following the Biden Administration, direct engagement with Ukraine, U.S. proposal for Gaza, preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, China, Canada, and the emerging role of independent media. 00:28 Hamas, Israel, and Gaza reconstruction 03:28 First 30 days 07:45 @DOGE at State Department  13:00 Cartels terrorist designation  15:30 US Russia talks/War in Ukraine 19:00 Push back on President Zelensky, Europeans not consulted 25:00 President Trump is only global leader who can end the Russia/Ukraine war 25:45 Preventing a nuclear armed Iran 27:15 President Trump's instructions if he were assassinated by Iran 28:30 China  30:00  COVID-19 lab leak 37:15 Havana Syndrome 36:00 Canada: 51st State? 40:00 Independent Media vs Legacy Media

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hamas's recent actions remind us of their evil nature; they can't be allowed to control any territory. The President has a plan for Gaza reconstruction involving removing people from the area, and I'm challenging regional partners to propose better alternatives. In my first 30 days as Secretary of State, I've learned we have good people at the State Department, but we need to realign our work with the national interest. We're restructuring bureaus to better address issues like migration and trafficking. We've paused foreign aid to review programs, issuing waivers for those aligned with our interests, like fentanyl prevention. Regarding Russia, even during the Cold War, the U.S. communicated with them. President Trump wants to end the Ukraine war and needs to determine Russia's seriousness.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We spoke exclusively with secretary Marco Rubio about his first thirty days leading the state department. He revealed new details about The US Russia talks, direct engagement with Ukraine, The US proposal for Gaza, plus Iran, China, and the emerging role of independent media. This is our full unedited interview with the secretary. Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity. As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages said to include a mother and two children. Your thoughts? Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of who Hamas really is. Just think about the fact they went in, they grabbed this family, this young woman, her two infant children, think one was only four years old, the other one was one, and it's not just that they did it, and that they died in their captivity, who does that? Who kidnaps families? And then the way even that they were released, you know, with people cheering in the streets, it just tells you who we're dealing with with Hamas. This is not a government, this is not simply an ideological movement, these are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized, and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable. So, our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from religious standpoint, it's a sacred thing. But it's, I think to everybody else, it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 0: One of the Israeli government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 1: Well, would never discuss intelligence, but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows, they clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government, or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be a As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza, because they are going to go back to attacking Israel, and Israel's going have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks, if a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out every, and no country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state, and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuance of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas, because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 0: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 1: Well, that's a great question. I mean, President's plan is the only one that's out there right now, and what the President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel's going go after them. So, he's put out his plan, and his view of it is, you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done, and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich, they can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is, what do you, who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas. Speaker 0: You've been Secretary of State for thirty days. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 0: that's right. What have you learned and what has been accomplished? Speaker 1: Well, think first of all what I've learned is a couple of things. We have good people that work at the State Department. The challenge, it's reconfirmed my view is there's a lot of work to be done to realign everything we do at the State Department with the national interest. That's what our foreign policy needs to be about, and that's been lost over the years. The idea that we have to define what our national interest is, and then ensure that everything we do, every dollar we spend, every program we operate, every word we say is in furtherance of the national interest. Speaker 0: Is that, if I could jump in, is that what an America First State Department looks like? Speaker 1: Yeah, an America First State Department is not an America only State Department, it's a State Department that defines what is the important national interest The United States has in different parts of the world, and then everything we do is aligned with that principle, and that's been lost, I think, by and large in American foreign policy for a long time. I think you can track it back without going into history lessons in the post Cold War era, where The U. S. Was the sole superpower, and we were called into doing all sorts of things that no other country in the world could do, and some of it was not aligned with our national interest, because we hadn't even defined what the national interest is. It also means there are things in the world that are important, and that matter, and are good causes, but they can't be a priority, because the priority first and foremost has to be on the national interest of The United States. So I think this is by and large an organization of people that seek direction, and if you give them clear direction about what we're trying to pursue and accomplish, they'll go out and they'll do it, And that's how we're trying to align, even as we have to do our job on a daily basis, is what our hope is to align and give the State Department clear missions from the field, meaning our embassies and people out across the world, all the way to the Seventh Floor where I work. Speaker 0: What are your directions for the first one hundred days? Speaker 1: Well, I think we really view it as more than a one hundred day project, but as we've gone in and done it, one of the things we're looking on restructuring is our bureaus. You know, we have our policy bureaus, they're geographically based, and then we also have our functional bureaus, and human rights, and for example, there's a bureau for trafficking, human trafficking, there's a bureau for migration, I think those issues are interrelated. So one of things we're working through, we haven't made a decision yet, is whether that bureau should be consolidated into a bureau, and what's our national interest, that prevents migration and prevents trafficking, not facilitates migration and mass migration, which is not just a challenge to The United States, by way, it's one of the leading issues in Europe. We just came back from the Munich Security Conference. Every country in Europe is facing the challenge of mass migration, but it's really putting strain on virtually every country in the world that's facing migration challenges, every developed country in the world. So, that's just an example of the kinds of realignments that we're looking to make, and we want to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, but also in an expeditious way. We can't move too slowly either because then it just won't happen. Speaker 0: A month ago, you hit pause on most of the foreign aid. Is that review nearing completion? Speaker 1: Well, part of that review was issuing waivers, so I think we've issued over two fifty waivers, and that means someone comes forward and says, This program is really important. It's important, it can be justified, it's aligned with the national interest. We issue a waiver for it. I'll give you real world examples. We were in Guatemala, and we came across a program where we are helping train Guatemalans to identify the precursors of fentanyl and intercept it, to help us extradite drug dealers that we're trying to get ahold of. And we issued a waiver for that program, because that's clearly aligned, right? It wasn't our national interest, we want to prevent fentanyl from reaching the streets, and we want to take the people responsible for trafficking in it, and if they're wanted, bring them to The United States to stand trial and serve prison sentences. So, those are the kinds of waivers that are being issued. We also issued a blanket waiver for emergency humanitarian support, food, medicine, housing, things where there's a crisis somewhere in the world. But that's an ongoing process, and I think before the ninety day period is up, we'll have a real good insight into all the foreign aid we do. I know it's been disruptive for some programs, but I think in the long term it's going be beneficial because we'll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest because it makes us stronger, or more prosperous, or safer. That's the process we're trying to go through, and we go through it on a daily basis. Speaker 0: When will the State Department get the DOGE treatment? Speaker 1: Well, the State Department has DOGE people here that are present, and they're part of this process that we're going through in identifying primarily programs that we look at that are on pause, and understanding why are they justified versus not justified. For example, there's a lot of climate programs that we're funding all over the world, and people are free. We're not banning climate programs. If somebody wants to fund a climate program out of their own pocket or through an NGO, they can do so. The fundamental question is whether that should be a priority for The United States, or instead, should we be focused on programs that are helping nations gain energy independence or reliability in their energy sector so they can develop economically. And so that's the sort of repurposing that we're trying to do, and they've been very helpful in identifying what those programs are. Likewise with personnel. There's no government agency that can tell you that every single person that works there, we need, that they're indispensable. I think that's true for virtually every entity in any government across the country. So that'll be a process we go through as well. We have very talented people. We don't want to lose talented people, but there are functions and roles that need to be examined, and we're going through that on a daily, even as we do this other job, we have people that are working through that every day, and Doja's been very helpful in the State Department in that regard. We have more work to do. Speaker 0: Do you have any regrets about the shuttering of USAID? Speaker 1: No, it's not regret, look I wish we'd had more cooperation, I know people at USAID don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And I'm going go back to my time in Congress, okay, I've had two problems with AID going back to my time in Congress. I'm not against foreign aid, I've supported foreign aid, we're going to do foreign aid, no one here is saying we're going Speaker 0: have a good So some programs will survive. Speaker 1: Absolutely, and some already have. We've issued waivers for PEPFAR as an example, and others. That's not the question. The question is, no one can tell me every program, every program is valuable and needs to be kept. Some, frankly, shouldn't have ever existed. In many other cases, you have programs where the program is titled something, and then you realize the program's not run by USAID, the USAID simply provides grants or money to a company, or to an entity, an NGO, whatever, and they're out there running the program, and as a member of Congress, when you wanted to ask, well, who is operating this program? Because sometimes it goes from a program and then they give it to a third person, that third person Speaker 0: Sounds like a shell game. Speaker 1: It can be, and so that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So ideally you would have people open up the books and say, well here's who our contractors are, and here's what they work on, and here's why it's mission critical. We didn't find a lot of cooperation in that regard, and so the result was, and this was before I became acting, but even after, some of those people that became uncooperative, in some cases, were even trying to push payments through the system to get around the freeze. That we have to address, and so I think it's unfortunate, because the ideal way would have been, but this, to go through it the way I've just described, but this is an agency, frankly, at least at some levels, that has been largely uncooperative, and completely unaligned with the State Department. We have embassies where USAID and the embassy work very well together, and we have embassies where embassy is working on one mission, and USAID is working on a completely different mission that's in contradiction with what the State Department's directive is in that nation. That has to be fixed. So, ideally we would have fixed it in a way that would have been different, but when you run into passive aggressive, and in some cases aggressive opposition to your work, that requires you to now go in and put a stop to everything, and so that's the process we've had to follow, unfortunately, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this. We have to answer, this is American taxpayer money. The idea that USAID is some sort of global charity that's out there serving the interest of the global community, no, it's called the USAID in The United States. It's our taxpayer money. That should also be aligned with the national interest, and if it isn't, it needs to stop. Speaker 0: I want you to respond to a story that was in POLITICO. It said that you are Secretary of State in only name. It quoted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut saying, Rubio is not in charge. How often are you in the Oval at the White House for the big decisions? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about how often. I'm there pretty often. Just came from there right before I met with you here now. Look, that's just part of the stuff that happens in Washington and people, columnists and people write stuff. I didn't even know that story was out there. I'm just focused on doing my job. I feel pretty busy, and I know we're pretty busy. We're working on, even as we're working through all these reforms in the department, we're also out there trying to realign American foreign policy, whether it's my trip to the Western Hemisphere, we had a very successful trip. We think we're going to get, we already are getting more cooperation on migration from Panama, from Costa Rica, from Guatemala, that's been documented. We had a great visit to The Dominican Republic, which is very tightly aligned with The United States on a host of issues. We were to talk about Haiti there as well. Then we traveled to The Middle East. I met with the foreign ministers of all the key countries and our allies in Europe, both in the G7 setting, G7 plus one with the EU, and then a separate meeting with what they call the QUINT, which is the key countries involved Speaker 0: in the It was a busy Speaker 1: couple of Yeah, then from there we went to Saudi Arabia, had great meetings there. We obviously had the first high level engagement. Speaker 0: Was just, I was just going ask you if if I'm, I'm pretty busy then. Know, I gotta, before we talk about the meetings in Saudi, this week you branded aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, including TDA. You've been tracking TDA since the Senate, right? Yes. Does this foreign terrorist organization designation unlock new diplomatic tools? Speaker 1: Well, not just new diplomatic tools, new economic ones as well because it basically doesn't allow anyone to have any sort of commercial relationship with these groups, and all of these gangs have to operate by touching the banking system, by being able to buy, and in many cases by having business partnerships, whether it's a warehouse they're renting in The U. S. To distribute guns or distribute drugs, whether it's someone who's actually helping them launder money from what they're making. In some cases these guys set up their own companies as shell companies to hide their profits and be able to distribute the funds they have, so it's going be very helpful. But just naming them and understanding that they're a problem. Trinidad Agua, TDA, is a group I followed, that was a prison gang in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime sort of pushed them out of the country. They terrorized Peru, they terrorized Ecuador, they terrorized all kinds of countries, and they worked their way up the migration path into The United States. And I've been warning about them now for a year and a half. I think I might have been the first member of Congress, maybe of the U. S. Government, to actually identify them by name, and I was being told that that wasn't true, that they didn't exist. Now we do know that they exist. They run human trafficking operations. They actually target Venezuelan migrant communities. We've seen them take control of apartment buildings in Colorado, and now they're being deported, and being deported because they're identified with that organization. So I think those designations are important, and it gives us a valuable tool to cut off any partnerships they may have, not just with U. S. Nationals, but any other businesses or individuals around the world that are assisting them in what they're doing, and it's not just the gang, it's the drug trafficking organizations that operate out of Mexico too. Speaker 0: Does the foreign terrorist organization, does the FTO designation, does that move the US government a step closer to using military force against the cartels? Speaker 1: Well it depends where they're located. Obviously in the case of Mexico the preference always is to work in conjunction with our partners in Mexico and we can provide them a lot of information about who they are and where they're located. If in the end these people pose an imminent threat to The United States, or cross into our borders and into The United States, then it gives us tools to go after them using law enforcement, using DHS, using ICE, using the FBI, the DEA, whatever agencies we have available. But if they're located in a third country, like operating out of Mexico, we can now share that information with our Mexican partners. It's their country, and they can action that item, because it poses a threat to both of our countries, and we would hope now that we can get more cooperation for them on that front. Speaker 0: You told reporters in Saudi Arabia, that there hasn't been regularized contact with the Russians in in three and a half years. How much ground was lost under the Biden White House? Speaker 1: Well, there was no ground. I mean, was all lost. We had no There are three things that people have to understand. The first is even at the height of the Cold War, even in the worst days of the Cold War, the United States and The Soviet Union had communication. And the reason why, a If you want to be mature and grown ups about it, I'm not a fan of most of what Vladimir Putin has done, and that's largely irrelevant when it comes to statecraft, because we ultimately have to be able to talk to a nation that has, in some cases, the largest tactical nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, and the second largest, if not the largest strategic nuclear weapon stockpile in the world. So, you have to have, I mean, whether we like it or not, Russia is a power, a global power, and they're involved and engaged in Syria, they've been involved and engaged in the Middle East, even in the Western Hemisphere, certainly in Europe, we have to have some communication with them. So step one is, our embassy in Moscow is barely functioning. I mean, it literally barely operates, because it's been denied access to the banking system. That has to be fixed. If we close our mission in Russia, we have to close their mission here, and then we really have no communication with them, whether it's a detained American or some other item. The second is, the president has been very clear. He wants this war with Ukraine to end, and he wants to know, the Russians serious about ending the war, or not serious about ending the war? The only way is to test them, to basically engage them and say, okay, are you serious about ending the war, and if so, what are your demands? Are your public demands and your private demands different? We have to have some process by which we engage in that conversation. Now, it may turn out that they don't want to end the war, I don't know, we're going find out, but we have to have that process to determine that, and so our meeting was really a follow-up to President Trump's conversation with Putin. It's unfortunate that some of this hyperbole and some of this hysteria, because he talked to him on the phone, has clouded some of the rationale behind this. At the end of the day, we have to have relations with Russia whether we like everything they're doing or not, because we did with the Soviet Union, and we have to be able to test and see if they're serious about ending this war. Speaker 0: In your meetings, did the Russian Foreign Minister make clear that there can be no end to the war if, Ukraine joins NATO? Speaker 1: There was no discussions about any details. Now, the Russians have their own read out of what happened, but I can tell you we did not negotiate any fine points about any deal. The course of that conversation was as follows. Number one, we have to, some level of regularization, just of our diplomatic missions, because we have to be able to communicate with them, given the nature of our two countries, and the importance that we have in the world. The second is, there are things we could cooperate on geopolitically, potentially. I mean, there are items of the world where I think we have a common interest. I'm not sure the Russians are fans of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons, as an example, and so forth, but we can't work on those things. We're gonna disagree on a lot, but we can't work on the things we might potentially agree on, or de conflict on things that could lead to dangerous confrontations, as long as this Ukraine impediment stands in the way. So really, as much as anything else, this meeting was, are you interested in even talking about ending a war? If you are, then let's create a process where we can begin to engage at a technical level, and that process will now, at some point, be set up and begin. I also think, by the way, it's unfair to say that we didn't consult anybody on it. Speaker 0: Was just going to, I was just going to ask you. Talk about that. Ukraine was not at the talks, are you consulting with President Zelenskyy about his red lines? Speaker 1: Well, just in the last week, okay, President Zelenskyy has met with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of The United States, the Secretary of State, bipartisan delegations in the U. S. Senate and House that were also in Munich, our Special Envoy is there today meeting with him, so we talked to the Ukrainians throughout this process, and we explained to them very clearly what our intentions were in terms of pursuing this. In fact, the President of United States spoke to Zelenskyy right after he hung up with Putin. I was in the office for both phone calls, so to say that we haven't consulted with him is not accurate. It's not true. It's also not true that we haven't consulted with our allies in Europe. I personally spoke to the five foreign ministers right after my meeting with the Russians and walked them through what had happened. We talked to them before those meetings, the same five, plus the G7, plus the EU, and all the other meetings we had in Munich, so this is just not accurate. But that was a meeting to largely determine whether they were interested or not in finding a way to end this war, Speaker 0: and Are they interested? Speaker 1: We're going to find out. I I tell people peace is not a, it's an action, it's not a noun, it's a verb, it's an action. You have to actually pursue it. So, at the end of day, they're either interested or they're not. If the demands they make for ending the war are maximalist and unrealistic, then I think we have our answer. If, on the other hand, there's any opportunity to pursue peace, we have to do it. And I think people have, I really am sort of puzzled, generally, in diplomacy, people who are seeking to end the killing and the harming of thousands and thousands of people in war are usually celebrated for an effort to end the war. If it was just the Vatican who was involved in these talks, who would criticize it. For the president of The United States to be engaged in finding whether there's the possibility of peace should be celebrated, not condemned. But, anyway, that's the kind of the war the world we live in right now. Speaker 0: Did The US delegation make clear to the Russians that there are no guarantees about the retention of territory they have annexed from Ukraine? Speaker 1: We we didn't engage in any specifics about territories, none of these because that wasn't the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether there was a real interest in discussing peace or not. If there is, then a process like that can begin, and I also think it's silly to say, well, the Ukrainians are going to be cut out, or the Europeans are going to be cut out. You can't. You can't find a stop to a war unless both sides and their views are represented. They both have to agree to it. Like, Russia can't agree to a cease fire or to an end of hostilities if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, it has to be on terms acceptable to both sides, likewise with the Europeans. The Europeans and the EU have their own set of sanctions on Russia. Even if we lifted all of our sanctions, which none of that was discussed, the Europeans would have to lift sanctions too, in order for something to be, possible. So, they'll all have to be consulted at some point, but we're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: So, so what's the signal, Secretary Rubio, that the Russians are serious about peace? Speaker 1: Well, signal, I can't answer whether they're serious about peace or not yet. That will have to be determined by the attitude they take moving forward. The only thing we agreed upon is that we're going to talk about peace. What they offer, what they're willing to concede to, what they're willing to consider will determine whether they're serious about peace or not. We're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky and rightfully so. Look, number one, Joe Biden had frustrations with Zelenskyy, people shouldn't forget it, there are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at him in a phone call because Zelenskyy, instead of saying thank you for all your help, is immediately out there messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting. I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky, the Vice President and I, the two, three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be in joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country, but because we think that's actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money the taxpayers have given, close to $200,000,000,000 and it also, now we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine, and he said, sure, we want to do this deal, it makes all the sense in the world, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process, they have to approve it. I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, I rejected the deal, I told him no way that we're not doing that, well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So, you start to get upset by somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the President made in his messaging is, it's not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent, you know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about it, because it has implications for our allies, and ultimately for the world. There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don't see it, and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain to you or anybody else, Donald Trump's not, President Trump's not the kind of person that's going to sit there and take that. He's very transparent, he's going to tell you exactly how he feels, and he sent a message that he's not going to get gamed here. He's willing to work on peace because he cares about Ukraine, and he hopes Zelensky will be a partner in that, and not someone who's out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to, you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not that's not gonna be productive here. Speaker 0: What's the timeline for a meeting, between President Trump and, President Putin? Speaker 1: Well, that topic came up in our conversation with the Russians, and what I said, I know that now they're saying that they said it, but we actually said it. And that is, well, there isn't going to be a meeting until we know what the meeting's going be about. Mean, Speaker 0: we discuss Do expect it later in 2025? Speaker 1: I don't know the timing of it. But a meeting between President Putin and President Trump has to meeting a meeting about something. We have to know what that meeting is about, what's going to be achieved at it. You don't generally have these meetings until you know some outcome or some progress has been made. So, think when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine. And if we can, and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He's the only global leader right now that can make this happen. The only global leader Speaker 0: Why do you say he's the only one? Speaker 1: Well, because others have tried and have failed. There was an effort in Istanbul A Couple Years ago, and it involved a number of European countries, and it failed. It didn't lead to a result. No, this war is now going on its third year. Where who what global leader now could engage in this and actually even bring Putin to the table? Maybe we're not successful either, but right now we're the only ones that, through President Trump, that have any chance. Maybe the chance is 1%, I don't know. Maybe the chance is 90%, but he's the only one that can even test that proposition, And everyone should recognize that and celebrate the fact that he's willing to do that early in his presidency. He's willing to do it. No one else is willing to do it, and no one else right now apparently can. Speaker 0: You were also in Israel in recent days, and when you were in Israel, you said there will be no nuclear Iran. How far is the Trump administration willing to go to stop a nuclear Iran? Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, think president Trump's been clear. We're not gonna discuss tactics or measures. He's issued an executive order to once again return to the maximum pressure, primarily because we've seen that Iran uses the Iranian regime, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the Iranian people, the regime, they use any money that they make to fund their weapons programs, to fund their sponsorship of terrorism. If you look at all the destabilizing things that are happening in The Middle East, the Houthis and their attack on global shipping, Hamas, Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq that attack both Israel and The US presence there, the anti ISIS presence that we have, all of them are sponsored by money from Iran. They're behind all of this, and so why would we allow them to make any more money that they can use to sponsor these things? Now, how we prevent a nuclear Iran, I'm not going to discuss the options that are available to us, or anyone else for that matter, but I want to make it abundantly clear, the Iranian regime can never be a regime that's behind all of this, can and and believes that it is their duty to export their revolution to other countries in the region, they can never allow to possess a nuclear weapon where they can hold the world hostage and where they could potentially attack Israel. Speaker 0: Earlier this month, president Trump said that he had given instructions to his advisers of what to do if he were to be assassinated by Iran. Are you familiar with those instructions? Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with what he's talking about, and again, we're not gonna get into tactics or options available to The United States. Suffice it to say that if The United States chose to do so, it could bring about the end of the Iranian regime, but the president's a peacemaker. He'd prefer to avoid that and avoid those circumstances, and, but I don't think anyone should be confused here. Under Donald Trump, there is not going to be a nuclear Iran. Speaker 0: China, as secretary of state, what is your position on China? Speaker 1: Well, not my position, it'll be the Trump position on it, and I think the president Trump's position is pretty straightforward. On the one hand, just like Russia, China's a global power, the second largest economy in the world, rapidly growing military, we have to have relations with the Chinese, we have to. Whether we agree with everything they do, we understand that in some cases we're competitors, and others we're direct adversaries, but there has to be communication, because the lack of communication could lead to conflict. Speaker 0: If I can just jump in, what I'm hearing you say is that in the last four years, there's been a breakdown in communication with China and also Russia. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, the communication with China has actually been better than the communication with the Russians, under the Biden administration and to the current day, which is why there has to be some level of maturity here and practicality and pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. That said, we're not going to live in a world where we depend on China for critical rare earth minerals, for critical components in our supply chain. We're not going to live in a world in which China gets to dominate the Indo Pacific, we're not allowed to have commercial ties in that region because they're holding countries hostage, and they all become tributary states. The Japanese have no interest in being a tributary state, and they're close allies of ours, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia. None of these countries want to become tributary states, Vietnam for that matter, are not interested in becoming tributary states in a Chinese zone of influence. We are a Pacific nation. We intend to remain one, and maintain our relationships there, so that is a red line for us. We're not going to abandon our engagement as a Pacific power, and by the other token, we're not going to live in a world where the Chinese dominate things that are critical to our economy and be held hostage by them. That's just silly to do it. Some of that involves improving our domestic industrial capability, some of that involves partnering with allied nations to secure our supply chains, and the third point I would make is, we have to deal with this unfairness. You know, Chinese companies can do virtually anything they want in the American economy for many, many years. We allowed them to do anything they wanted in America, but American companies can virtually do nothing inside of China, and if they do, it's because they want to steal your intellectual property, and then put you out of business, and replace you with a Chinese company. That's why the President's always talking about reciprocity. Whatever they, whatever we are allowed to do there is what they should be allowed to do here. Whatever they charge us on tariffs is what we should be charging them, and that's what the president's bringing, not just to China, but to the world, is reciprocity and fairness. Speaker 0: You have access as a senator to high level intelligence, you have more access now that you are secretary of state. Does the intelligence leave no doubt that COVID nineteen came from the lab in Wuhan, China? Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't say that leaves no doubt. I would say, and I've long believed this, and I've said this irrespective, just common sense tells you, that the chances that this was an, and I say an accident, you know, we know that the Chinese spent years, in some cases with Western funding, taking viruses, and re engineering these viruses, trying to predict, what if this virus carried over into humans, what would it look like? And they were probably doing it because they were trying to come up with a vaccine for it. Let's say somebody got infected, messing around with that in a lab, and went out into Wuhan, they gave it to 10 people, those 10 people spread it to the world. I think the evidence is compelling that that's exactly what happened here. And I put out a report as a senator that detailed all kinds of circumstantial evidence that proved that as well. So, I think, in my view, based on everything I have seen, that the likeliest situation here was that the Chinese were messing around with the virus, somebody caught it in a lab, and they took this novel virus and spread it through China, and then spread it to the world, and it was devastating. And there needs to be accountability Speaker 0: for that. I was just going to say there really has been no accountability for the Yeah, mean, Speaker 1: the accountability begins by proving it, and it's hard to do, right, because the Chinese are not necessarily going to open their books. Look, if that had happened in The United States, if that had happened in some other country in the world, that country would have probably been forthcoming, and said, we had a problem guys, we were messing around with this stuff, and look what happened. They would have shared that information, and we could have worked very quickly, much faster than we were able to, to figure out how to counteract it, and they didn't. Instead, what they did is clam up and refuse to share information with the world, and then this thing spread and just ravaged the global economy. Just think about how many people died, how many businesses went out, how much money we had to spend in this country just to keep Main Street open when we had the shutdowns, how divisive it became. Some of that could have been prevented if they had been forthcoming, but instead, like most authoritarian regimes, they clammed up, and they held that information back. So, I think we have to do two things. We have to, if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it, We need to show that to the world, but we also have to make sure this never happens again, because if they were doing that, we have to assume they're still doing that, and have to assume that they're still doing that, and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe. We can't let that happen, and I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too. They may have the guts to say it, they may not want to stand up to it, they may not want have to take on the wrath of China, because they don't have our standing and our stature, but I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that's what happened here as well, But we're The United States, if we can prove it, we need to. And, at least put the evidence out there that this is what's indicated. Speaker 0: Will The US defend Taiwan if China moves against the island? Speaker 1: Let me just say that I think our commitments to Taiwan have been clear, and they've been expressed through multiple administrations for multiple years. We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That's been our policy, that remains our policy. We're not seeking to trigger a conflict, we don't want to see a conflict, but we have made very clear through years and years of our policies, the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act, that we are against any sort of change in status by force or by, you know, threat or by coercion, and that remains our policy. And that's generally how we've left it, and that's what's provided stability, and I hope it continues to provide stability. Whether the Chinese and President Xi shares that view, I think there's real doubts about it. But, we are not going to walk away from, for example, supporting Taiwan being involved in international forums, where their views and their interests are not represented by the Mainland at this point. So, we're going to keep all the commitments we've made, but the most important one is to make clear that we are against and oppose any sort of forced change in status. Speaker 0: Okay. I'd like to talk about Afghanistan. Based on the intelligence, have Al Qaeda and ISIS found a safe haven in Afghanistan that mirrors the pre nine eleven landscape? Speaker 1: Well, wouldn't say I think any time you have governing spaces that are contested, that you don't have a government that has full control of every part of their territory, it creates the opportunity for these groups. The difference between today and ten years ago is we don't have American elements on the ground to target and go after them. In some cases the Taliban's been cooperative when they've been told, ISIS or Al Qaeda is operating in this part of your country, go after them. In other cases, not so much. So I would say that, I wouldn't compare it to Pope pre nine eleven, but I would compare it, but it's certainly far more uncertain, and it's not just limited to Afghanistan. I mean, there's real concerns about Syria, where everyone's glad Assad is gone, but there's about 8,000 ISIS killers who are in a prison there, and if the destabilization there leads to them getting out, we've a big problem on our hands. So, I think these groups are constantly looking for new places to migrate. We've seen that happen in the Horn Of Africa and the Sahil. We're concerned about that as well. These groups are constantly looking for ungoverned spaces where they can plot externally and even to destabilize, the region. Speaker 0: I have a question about, Qatar. American victims of terrorism have won judgments in The US courts against Iran. Qatar is sitting on billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Will you ask Qatar to satisfy these judgments for American victims of terrorism? Speaker 1: The the answer is yes, but in a very, it's a difficult situation, again, in describing foreign policy to people. On the one hand, the Qataris, there's a lot to be concerned about, but there's a lot to be concerned about how they've given Hamas and others operating space within their country. On the other hand, this cease fire which has allowed these hostages to be released would not have been possible without their mediation. So, it's a complex relation that we have with the Qataris, where in some cases they've been very productive in some of the things they've done. In other cases, not so much, and so it's one we're going have to navigate very carefully. It's what makes foreign policy so difficult. Foreign policy is rarely a choice between the great and the bad. Sometimes it's between the bad and the worse, and I think in this particular case it's a challenging relationship we have, but nonetheless an important one strategically that requires us to be pragmatic about how we approach it. But that doesn't mean we need to look away or celebrate the things they've been supportive of, but also we need to recognize the strategic importance they've played in allowing, for example, to serve as intermediaries with Hamas, and allowing the cease fire to happen and these hostages to go free. Were it not for the Qataris that wouldn't have happened, so it's a complicating juggling act. Speaker 0: Well, you raised the issue with them. Speaker 1: We've raised that issue, previous administrations have as well, and that issue will continue to be raised, at the same time as we want to work with them on getting all the hostages out, because they all should be out. Speaker 0: I want to ask a question about Havana Syndrome or AHIs, these debilitating neurological conditions, State Department personnel, intelligence community, military, even families. Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Oh, I do not believe in the conclusions that we've seen in the past, and I think evidence in time will prove me correct, that these things happened by accident. That these things were a result of mass hysteria, or some pre existing conditions. Now, some cases, maybe, but I have no doubt in my mind that something caused people to be suffering from these things, in different posts around the world, not just limited to Havana. There's a lot of work still going on. I think we're going learn a lot more about it over the next few years, as more work goes into it, but I've met some of these people, I've interacted with them for years, and I can't explain every case, but I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need, and it's a top commitment of mine to make sure these are people we sent abroad to serve our country, they were harmed in the service of our country, and they deserve our ongoing support, not being accused of things like mass hysteria, or, you know, they're Speaker 0: just It's government gaslighting. Speaker 1: Well, I think it's outrageous, and I don't know what the intent was behind that, but ultimately, this State Department is going be transparent with them. Anything we know, they will know, and in the meantime, we are going to assume the worst and we're going to treat them as if they were victims. No matter what, we're going treat them as they were people that were harmed by serving our country overseas. Speaker 0: Okay, we just have a couple of minutes left here. President Trump has talked about expanding The US footprint. In a hot mic moment Canada's Prime Minister said that absorbing Canada is a real thing. Is it a real thing? Speaker 1: You know how that came about. President's meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose, if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist as a country. At which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can't exist without cheating and trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation. Speaker 0: That's how it started. Speaker 1: It is how it started. I think he's told the story publicly, and that's how all this began. Look, Canada's our friend. Canada's our neighbor. Canada's our partner, but it goes back to the point I made. For decades, The United States allowed uneven trade imbalances to develop. During the Cold War, you know why we did it? We did it because we felt like we want countries to be strong economically, even if it means they're cheating, because we don't want them to fall victim to some internal Marxist coup that overturns their government or what have you. Those days are gone. These are rich, developed economies. Ultimately, who can argue against the fact that whatever they charge us, we should charge them? Whatever they prohibit if they don't allow American companies to do it, we should not allow their companies to do it here. American banks can't even operate in Canada, so there has to be reciprocity here. We can continue to work together on all kinds of things, but whether it's Canada, Mexico, China, anybody else, when it comes to economics and trade, there has to be reciprocity. There has to be fairness. Who would argue how can anybody argue against that? The days where we just allow countries to take advantage of us, that has to end. That's not good for the global order. That leads to imbalances that create friction points. That's the case with Canada. It's the case with a lot of countries, who are our allies and friends, but on trade, we have an imbalance and it has to be dealt with. Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes. We're here today. We're here talking Speaker 0: I was going to say, secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen, but this will always be their State Department. We're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. Had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets, whose sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information, and in these sort of long form interviews, where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information. Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, thank you very much for the opportunity today, and thank you for acknowledging and supporting independent journalism. Speaker 1: Thank you.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 21, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:44 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m excited to announce that I will open the State Department briefing room to independent journalists. It’s important that our message isn’t just filtered through traditional media, which is seeing declining engagement. We need to reach people where they get their news.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Exclusive: @SecRubio will open the State Department briefing room to independent journalists. “We can’t allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy, traditional media outlets…their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down.  I have – we have to take our message where people are getting their news and information…”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Yes, we will open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists. I chose to do this interview with an independent journalist because we have to go where the people are to communicate effectively. This is their State Department, and they deserve to hear directly from us. We need to deliver our news and information where people are actually getting it. While we'll still engage with traditional outlets, we'll emphasize independent journalism more. This is because that's where many people now get their news. It also allows for serious questions and nuanced answers, not just sound bites for entertainment.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes, we're here today. We're here talking. Speaker 0: I was going to say, Secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen. But this will always be their State Department, and we're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. We had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets who's sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information and in these sort of long form interviews where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So, we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Our full, unedited interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio(@SecRubio) on his first 30 days leading the Department. Restarting U.S./Russia relations following the Biden Administration, direct engagement with Ukraine, U.S. proposal for Gaza, preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, China, Canada, and the emerging role of independent media. 00:28 Hamas, Israel, and Gaza reconstruction 03:28 First 30 days 07:45 @DOGE at State Department  13:00 Cartels terrorist designation  15:30 US Russia talks/War in Ukraine 19:00 Push back on President Zelensky, Europeans not consulted 25:00 President Trump is only global leader who can end the Russia/Ukraine war 25:45 Preventing a nuclear armed Iran 27:15 President Trump's instructions if he were assassinated by Iran 28:30 China  30:00  COVID-19 lab leak 37:15 Havana Syndrome 36:00 Canada: 51st State? 40:00 Independent Media vs Legacy Media

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hamas's actions remind us of their evil nature, and they can't be allowed to have arms or control territory. The President's plan for Gaza involves removing people for reconstruction, but regional partners need to propose better plans. The key challenge is determining who will govern Gaza post-Hamas. In my first 30 days as Secretary of State, I've focused on realigning the State Department with American national interests, defining those interests, and ensuring our actions support them. We're restructuring bureaus to prevent migration and trafficking, and reviewing foreign aid to ensure it serves our national interests. We're also identifying programs for repurposing, like climate programs, to prioritize energy independence.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We spoke exclusively with secretary Marco Rubio about his first thirty days leading the state department. He revealed new details about The US Russia talks, direct engagement with Ukraine, The US proposal for Gaza, plus Iran, China, and the emerging role of independent media. This is our full unedited interview with the secretary. Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity. As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages said to include a mother and two children. Your thoughts? Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of who Hamas really is. Just think about the fact they went in, they grabbed this family, this young woman, her two infant children, think one was only four years old, the other one was one, and it's not just that they did it, and that they died in their captivity, who does that? Who kidnaps families? And then the way even that they were released, you know, with people cheering in the streets, it just tells you who we're dealing with with Hamas. This is not a government, this is not simply an ideological movement, these are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized, and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable. So, our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from religious standpoint, it's a sacred thing. But it's, I think to everybody else, it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 0: One of the Israeli government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 1: Well, would never discuss intelligence, but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows, they clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government, or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be a As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza, because they are going to go back to attacking Israel, and Israel's going have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks, if a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out every, and no country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state, and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuance of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas, because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 0: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 1: Well, that's a great question. I mean, President's plan is the only one that's out there right now, and what the President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel's going go after them. So, he's put out his plan, and his view of it is, you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done, and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich, they can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is, what do you, who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas. Speaker 0: You've been Secretary of State for thirty days. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 0: that's right. What have you learned and what has been accomplished? Speaker 1: Well, think first of all what I've learned is a couple of things. We have good people that work at the State Department. The challenge, it's reconfirmed my view is there's a lot of work to be done to realign everything we do at the State Department with the national interest. That's what our foreign policy needs to be about, and that's been lost over the years. The idea that we have to define what our national interest is, and then ensure that everything we do, every dollar we spend, every program we operate, every word we say is in furtherance of the national interest. Speaker 0: Is that, if I could jump in, is that what an America First State Department looks like? Speaker 1: Yeah, an America First State Department is not an America only State Department, it's a State Department that defines what is the important national interest The United States has in different parts of the world, and then everything we do is aligned with that principle, and that's been lost, I think, by and large in American foreign policy for a long time. I think you can track it back without going into history lessons in the post Cold War era, where The U. S. Was the sole superpower, and we were called into doing all sorts of things that no other country in the world could do, and some of it was not aligned with our national interest, because we hadn't even defined what the national interest is. It also means there are things in the world that are important, and that matter, and are good causes, but they can't be a priority, because the priority first and foremost has to be on the national interest of The United States. So I think this is by and large an organization of people that seek direction, and if you give them clear direction about what we're trying to pursue and accomplish, they'll go out and they'll do it, And that's how we're trying to align, even as we have to do our job on a daily basis, is what our hope is to align and give the State Department clear missions from the field, meaning our embassies and people out across the world, all the way to the Seventh Floor where I work. Speaker 0: What are your directions for the first one hundred days? Speaker 1: Well, I think we really view it as more than a one hundred day project, but as we've gone in and done it, one of the things we're looking on restructuring is our bureaus. You know, we have our policy bureaus, they're geographically based, and then we also have our functional bureaus, and human rights, and for example, there's a bureau for trafficking, human trafficking, there's a bureau for migration, I think those issues are interrelated. So one of things we're working through, we haven't made a decision yet, is whether that bureau should be consolidated into a bureau, and what's our national interest, that prevents migration and prevents trafficking, not facilitates migration and mass migration, which is not just a challenge to The United States, by way, it's one of the leading issues in Europe. We just came back from the Munich Security Conference. Every country in Europe is facing the challenge of mass migration, but it's really putting strain on virtually every country in the world that's facing migration challenges, every developed country in the world. So, that's just an example of the kinds of realignments that we're looking to make, and we want to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, but also in an expeditious way. We can't move too slowly either because then it just won't happen. Speaker 0: A month ago, you hit pause on most of the foreign aid. Is that review nearing completion? Speaker 1: Well, part of that review was issuing waivers, so I think we've issued over two fifty waivers, and that means someone comes forward and says, This program is really important. It's important, it can be justified, it's aligned with the national interest. We issue a waiver for it. I'll give you real world examples. We were in Guatemala, and we came across a program where we are helping train Guatemalans to identify the precursors of fentanyl and intercept it, to help us extradite drug dealers that we're trying to get ahold of. And we issued a waiver for that program, because that's clearly aligned, right? It wasn't our national interest, we want to prevent fentanyl from reaching the streets, and we want to take the people responsible for trafficking in it, and if they're wanted, bring them to The United States to stand trial and serve prison sentences. So, those are the kinds of waivers that are being issued. We also issued a blanket waiver for emergency humanitarian support, food, medicine, housing, things where there's a crisis somewhere in the world. But that's an ongoing process, and I think before the ninety day period is up, we'll have a real good insight into all the foreign aid we do. I know it's been disruptive for some programs, but I think in the long term it's going be beneficial because we'll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest because it makes us stronger, or more prosperous, or safer. That's the process we're trying to go through, and we go through it on a daily basis. Speaker 0: When will the State Department get the DOGE treatment? Speaker 1: Well, the State Department has DOGE people here that are present, and they're part of this process that we're going through in identifying primarily programs that we look at that are on pause, and understanding why are they justified versus not justified. For example, there's a lot of climate programs that we're funding all over the world, and people are free. We're not banning climate programs. If somebody wants to fund a climate program out of their own pocket or through an NGO, they can do so. The fundamental question is whether that should be a priority for The United States, or instead, should we be focused on programs that are helping nations gain energy independence or reliability in their energy sector so they can develop economically. And so that's the sort of repurposing that we're trying to do, and they've been very helpful in identifying what those programs are. Likewise with personnel. There's no government agency that can tell you that every single person that works there, we need, that they're indispensable. I think that's true for virtually every entity in any government across the country. So that'll be a process we go through as well. We have very talented people. We don't want to lose talented people, but there are functions and roles that need to be examined, and we're going through that on a daily, even as we do this other job, we have people that are working through that every day, and Doja's been very helpful in the State Department in that regard. We have more work to do. Speaker 0: Do you have any regrets about the shuttering of USAID? Speaker 1: No, it's not regret, look I wish we'd had more cooperation, I know people at USAID don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And I'm going go back to my time in Congress, okay, I've had two problems with AID going back to my time in Congress. I'm not against foreign aid, I've supported foreign aid, we're going to do foreign aid, no one here is saying we're going Speaker 0: have a good So some programs will survive. Speaker 1: Absolutely, and some already have. We've issued waivers for PEPFAR as an example, and others. That's not the question. The question is, no one can tell me every program, every program is valuable and needs to be kept. Some, frankly, shouldn't have ever existed. In many other cases, you have programs where the program is titled something, and then you realize the program's not run by USAID, the USAID simply provides grants or money to a company, or to an entity, an NGO, whatever, and they're out there running the program, and as a member of Congress, when you wanted to ask, well, who is operating this program? Because sometimes it goes from a program and then they give it to a third person, that third person Speaker 0: Sounds like a shell game. Speaker 1: It can be, and so that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So ideally you would have people open up the books and say, well here's who our contractors are, and here's what they work on, and here's why it's mission critical. We didn't find a lot of cooperation in that regard, and so the result was, and this was before I became acting, but even after, some of those people that became uncooperative, in some cases, were even trying to push payments through the system to get around the freeze. That we have to address, and so I think it's unfortunate, because the ideal way would have been, but this, to go through it the way I've just described, but this is an agency, frankly, at least at some levels, that has been largely uncooperative, and completely unaligned with the State Department. We have embassies where USAID and the embassy work very well together, and we have embassies where embassy is working on one mission, and USAID is working on a completely different mission that's in contradiction with what the State Department's directive is in that nation. That has to be fixed. So, ideally we would have fixed it in a way that would have been different, but when you run into passive aggressive, and in some cases aggressive opposition to your work, that requires you to now go in and put a stop to everything, and so that's the process we've had to follow, unfortunately, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this. We have to answer, this is American taxpayer money. The idea that USAID is some sort of global charity that's out there serving the interest of the global community, no, it's called the USAID in The United States. It's our taxpayer money. That should also be aligned with the national interest, and if it isn't, it needs to stop. Speaker 0: I want you to respond to a story that was in POLITICO. It said that you are Secretary of State in only name. It quoted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut saying, Rubio is not in charge. How often are you in the Oval at the White House for the big decisions? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about how often. I'm there pretty often. Just came from there right before I met with you here now. Look, that's just part of the stuff that happens in Washington and people, columnists and people write stuff. I didn't even know that story was out there. I'm just focused on doing my job. I feel pretty busy, and I know we're pretty busy. We're working on, even as we're working through all these reforms in the department, we're also out there trying to realign American foreign policy, whether it's my trip to the Western Hemisphere, we had a very successful trip. We think we're going to get, we already are getting more cooperation on migration from Panama, from Costa Rica, from Guatemala, that's been documented. We had a great visit to The Dominican Republic, which is very tightly aligned with The United States on a host of issues. We were to talk about Haiti there as well. Then we traveled to The Middle East. I met with the foreign ministers of all the key countries and our allies in Europe, both in the G7 setting, G7 plus one with the EU, and then a separate meeting with what they call the QUINT, which is the key countries involved Speaker 0: in the It was a busy Speaker 1: couple of Yeah, then from there we went to Saudi Arabia, had great meetings there. We obviously had the first high level engagement. Speaker 0: Was just, I was just going ask you if I'm, I'm pretty busy then. Know, I gotta, before we talk about the meetings in Saudi, this week you branded aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, including TDA. You've been tracking TDA since the Senate, right? Yes. Does this foreign terrorist organization designation unlock new diplomatic tools? Speaker 1: Well, not just new diplomatic tools, new economic ones as well because it basically doesn't allow anyone to have any sort of commercial relationship with these groups, and all of these gangs have to operate by touching the banking system, by being able to buy, and in many cases by having business partnerships, whether it's a warehouse they're renting in The U. S. To distribute guns or distribute drugs, whether it's someone who's actually helping them launder money from what they're making. In some cases these guys set up their own companies as shell companies to hide their profits and be able to distribute the funds they have, so it's going be very helpful. But just naming them and understanding that they're a problem. Trinidad Agua, TDA, is a group I followed, that was a prison gang in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime sort of pushed them out of the country. They terrorized Peru, they terrorized Ecuador, they terrorized all kinds of countries, and they worked their way up the migration path into The United States. And I've been warning about them now for a year and a half. I think I might have been the first member of Congress, maybe of the U. S. Government, to actually identify them by name, and I was being told that that wasn't true, that they didn't exist. Now we do know that they exist. They run human trafficking operations. They actually target Venezuelan migrant communities. We've seen them take control of apartment buildings in Colorado, and now they're being deported, and being deported because they're identified with that organization. So I think those designations are important, and it gives us a valuable tool to cut off any partnerships they may have, not just with U. S. Nationals, but any other businesses or individuals around the world that are assisting them in what they're doing, and it's not just the gang, it's the drug trafficking organizations that operate out of Mexico too. Speaker 0: Does the foreign terrorist organization, does the FTO designation, does that move the US government a step closer to using military force against the cartels? Speaker 1: Well it depends where they're located. Obviously in the case of Mexico the preference always is to work in conjunction with our partners in Mexico and we can provide them a lot of information about who they are and where they're located. If in the end these people pose an imminent threat to The United States, or cross into our borders and into The United States, then it gives us tools to go after them using law enforcement, using DHS, using ICE, using the FBI, the DEA, whatever agencies we have available. But if they're located in a third country, like operating out of Mexico, we can now share that information with our Mexican partners. It's their country, and they can action that item, because it poses a threat to both of our countries, and we would hope now that we can get more cooperation for them on that front. Speaker 0: You told reporters in Saudi Arabia, that there hasn't been regularized contact with the Russians in in three and a half years. How much ground was lost under the Biden White House? Speaker 1: Well, there was no ground. I mean, was all lost. We had no there are three things that people have to understand. The first is even at the height of the Cold War, even in the worst days of the Cold War, the United States and The Soviet Union had communication. And the reason why, a if you wanna be mature and grown ups about it, I'm not a fan of most of what Vladimir Putin has done, and that's largely irrelevant when it comes to statecraft, because we ultimately have to be able to talk to a nation that has, in some cases, the largest tactical nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, and the second largest, if not the largest strategic nuclear weapon stockpile in the world. So, you have to have, I mean, whether we like it or not, Russia is a power, a global power, and they're involved and engaged in Syria, they've been involved and engaged in the Middle East, even in the Western Hemisphere, certainly in Europe, we have to have some communication with them. So step one is, our embassy in Moscow is barely functioning. I mean, it literally barely operates, because it's been denied access to the banking system. That has to be fixed. If we close our mission in Russia, we have to close their mission here, and then we really have no communication with them, whether it's a detained American or some other item. The second is, the president has been very clear. He wants this war with Ukraine to end, and he wants to know, the Russians serious about ending the war, or not serious about ending the war? The only way is to test them, to basically engage them and say, okay, are you serious about ending the war, and if so, what are your demands? Are your public demands and your private demands different? We have to have some process by which we engage in that conversation. Now, it may turn out that they don't want to end the war, I don't know, we're going find out, but we have to have that process to determine that, and so our meeting was really a follow-up to President Trump's conversation with Putin. It's unfortunate that some of this hyperbole and some of this hysteria, because he talked to him on the phone, has clouded some of the rationale behind this. At the end of the day, we have to have relations with Russia whether we like everything they're doing or not, because we did with the Soviet Union, and we have to be able to test and see if they're serious about ending this war. Speaker 0: In your meetings, did the Russian Foreign Minister make clear that there can be no end to the war if, Ukraine joins NATO? Speaker 1: There was no discussions about any details. Now, the Russians have their own read out of what happened, but I can tell you we did not negotiate any fine points about any deal. The course of that conversation was as follows. Number one, we have to, some level of regularization, just of our diplomatic missions, because we have to be able to communicate with them, given the nature of our two countries, and the importance that we have in the world. The second is, there are things we could cooperate on geopolitically, potentially. I mean, there are items of the world where I think we have a common interest. I'm not sure the Russians are fans of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons, as an example, and so forth, but we can't work on those things. We're gonna disagree on a lot, but we can't work on the things we might potentially agree on, or de conflict on things that could lead to dangerous confrontations, as long as this Ukraine impediment stands in the way. So really, as much as anything else, this meeting was, are you interested in even talking about ending a war? If you are, then let's create a process where we can begin to engage at a technical level, and that process will now, at some point, be set up and begin. I also think, by the way, it's unfair to say that we didn't consult anybody on it. Speaker 0: Was just going to, I was just going to ask you. Talk about that. Ukraine was not at the talks, are you consulting with President Zelenskyy about his red lines? Speaker 1: Well, just in the last week, okay, President Zelenskyy has met with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of The United States, the Secretary of State, bipartisan delegations in the U. S. Senate and House that were also in Munich, our Special Envoy is there today meeting with him, so we talked to the Ukrainians throughout this process, and we explained to them very clearly what our intentions were in terms of pursuing this. In fact, the President of United States spoke to Zelenskyy right after he hung up with Putin. I was in the office for both phone calls, so to say that we haven't consulted with him is not accurate. It's not true. It's also not true that we haven't consulted with our allies in Europe. I personally spoke to the five foreign ministers right after my meeting with the Russians and walked them through what had happened. We talked to them before those meetings, the same five, plus the G7, plus the EU, and all the other meetings we had in Munich, so this is just not accurate. But that was a meeting to largely determine whether they were interested or not in finding a way to end this war, Speaker 0: and Are they interested? Speaker 1: We're going to find out. I I tell people peace is not a, it's an action, it's not a noun, it's a verb, it's an action. You have to actually pursue it. So, at the end of day, they're either interested or they're not. If the demands they make for ending the war are maximalist and unrealistic, then I think we have our answer. If, on the other hand, there's any opportunity to pursue peace, we have to do it. And I think people have, I really am sort of puzzled, generally, in diplomacy, people who are seeking to end the killing and the harming of thousands and thousands of people in war are usually celebrated for an effort to end the war. If it was just the Vatican who was involved in these talks, who would criticize it. For the president of The United States to be engaged in finding whether there's the possibility of peace should be celebrated, not condemned. But, anyway, that's the kind of the war the world we live in right now. Speaker 0: Did The US delegation make clear to the Russians that there are no guarantees about the retention of territory they have annexed from Ukraine? Speaker 1: We we didn't engage in any specifics about territories, none of these because that wasn't the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether there was a real interest in discussing peace or not. If there is, then a process like that can begin, and I also think it's silly to say, well, the Ukrainians are going to be cut out, or the Europeans are going to be cut out. You can't. You can't find a stop to a war unless both sides and their views are represented. They both have to agree to it. Like, Russia can't agree to a cease fire or to an end of hostilities if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, it has to be on terms acceptable to both sides, likewise with the Europeans. The Europeans and the EU have their own set of sanctions on Russia. Even if we lifted all of our sanctions, which none of that was discussed, the Europeans would have to lift sanctions too, in order for something to be, possible. So, they'll all have to be consulted at some point, but we're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: So, so what's the signal, Secretary Rubio, that the Russians are serious about peace? Speaker 1: Well, signal, I can't answer whether they're serious about peace or not yet. That will have to be determined by the attitude they take moving forward. The only thing we agreed upon is that we're going to talk about peace. What they offer, what they're willing to concede to, what they're willing to consider will determine whether they're serious about peace or not. We're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky and rightfully so. Look, number one, Joe Biden had frustrations with Zelenskyy, people shouldn't forget it, there are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at him in a phone call because Zelenskyy, instead of saying thank you for all your help, is immediately out there messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting. I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky, the Vice President and I, the two, three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be in joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country, but because we think that's actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money the taxpayers have given, close to $200,000,000,000 and it also, now we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine, and he said, sure, we want to do this deal, it makes all the sense in the world, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process, they have to approve it. I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, I rejected the deal, I told him no way that we're not doing that, well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So, you start to get upset by somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the President made in his messaging is, it's not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent, you know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about it, because it has implications for our allies, and ultimately for the world. There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don't see it, and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain to you or anybody else, Donald Trump's not, President Trump's not the kind of person that's going to sit there and take that. He's very transparent, he's going to tell you exactly how he feels, and he sent a message that he's not going to get gamed here. He's willing to work on peace because he cares about Ukraine, and he hopes Zelensky will be a partner in that, and not someone who's out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to, you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not that's not gonna be productive here. Speaker 0: What's the timeline for a meeting, between President Trump and, President Putin? Speaker 1: Well, that topic came up in our conversation with the Russians, and what I said, I know that now they're saying that they said it, but we actually said it. And that is, well, there isn't going to be a meeting until we know what the meeting's going be about. Mean, Speaker 0: we discuss Do expect it later in 2025? Speaker 1: I don't know the timing of it. But a meeting between President Putin and President Trump has to meeting a meeting about something. We have to know what that meeting is about, what's going to be achieved at it. You don't generally have these meetings until you know some outcome or some progress has been made. So, think when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine. And if we can, and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He's the only global leader right now that can make this happen. The only global leader Speaker 0: Why do you say he's the only one? Speaker 1: Well, because others have tried and have failed. There was an effort in Istanbul A Couple Years ago, and it involved a number of European countries, and it failed. It didn't lead to a result. No, this war is now going on its third year. Where who what global leader now could engage in this and actually even bring Putin to the table? Maybe we're not successful either, but right now we're the only ones that, through President Trump, that have any chance. Maybe the chance is 1%, I don't know. Maybe the chance is 90%, but he's the only one that can even test that proposition, And everyone should recognize that and celebrate the fact that he's willing to do that early in his presidency. He's willing to do it. No one else is willing to do it, and no one else right now apparently can. Speaker 0: You were also in Israel in recent days, and when you were in Israel, you said there will be no nuclear Iran. How far is the Trump administration willing to go to stop a nuclear Iran? Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, think president Trump's been clear. We're not gonna discuss tactics or measures. He's issued an executive order to once again return to the maximum pressure, primarily because we've seen that Iran uses the Iranian regime, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the Iranian people, the regime, they use any money that they make to fund their weapons programs, to fund their sponsorship of terrorism. If you look at all the destabilizing things that are happening in The Middle East, the Houthis and their attack on global shipping, Hamas, Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq that attack both Israel and The US presence there, the anti ISIS presence that we have, all of them are sponsored by money from Iran. They're behind all of this, and so why would we allow them to make any more money that they can use to sponsor these things? Now, how we prevent a nuclear Iran, I'm not going to discuss the options that are available to us, or anyone else for that matter, but I want to make it abundantly clear, the Iranian regime can never be a regime that's behind all of this, can and and believes that it is their duty to export their revolution to other countries in the region, they can never allow to possess a nuclear weapon where they can hold the world hostage and where they could potentially attack Israel. Speaker 0: Earlier this month, president Trump said that he had given instructions to his advisers of what to do if he were to be assassinated by Iran. Are you familiar with those instructions? Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with what he's talking about, and again, we're not gonna get into tactics or options available to The United States. Suffice it to say that if The United States chose to do so, it could bring about the end of the Iranian regime, but the president's a peacemaker. He'd prefer to avoid that and avoid those circumstances, and, but I don't think anyone should be confused here. Under Donald Trump, there is not going to be a nuclear Iran. Speaker 0: China, as secretary of state, what is your position on China? Speaker 1: Well, not my position, it'll be the Trump position on it, and I think the president Trump's position is pretty straightforward. On the one hand, just like Russia, China's a global power, the second largest economy in the world, rapidly growing military, we have to have relations with the Chinese, we have to. Whether we agree with everything they do, we understand that in some cases we're competitors, and others we're direct adversaries, but there has to be communication, because the lack of communication could lead to conflict. Speaker 0: If I can just jump in, what I'm hearing you say is that in the last four years, there's been a breakdown in communication with China and also Russia. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, the communication with China has actually been better than the communication with the Russians, under the Biden administration and to the current day, which is why there has to be some level of maturity here and practicality and pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. That said, we're not going to live in a world where we depend on China for critical rare earth minerals, for critical components in our supply chain. We're not going to live in a world in which China gets to dominate the Indo Pacific, we're not allowed to have commercial ties in that region because they're holding countries hostage, and they all become tributary states. The Japanese have no interest in being a tributary state, and they're close allies of ours, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia. None of these countries want to become tributary states, Vietnam for that matter, are not interested in becoming tributary states in a Chinese zone of influence. We are a Pacific nation. We intend to remain one, and maintain our relationships there, so that is a red line for us. We're not going to abandon our engagement as a Pacific power, and by the other token, we're not going to live in a world where the Chinese dominate things that are critical to our economy and be held hostage by them. That's just silly to do it. Some of that involves improving our domestic industrial capability, some of that involves partnering with allied nations to secure our supply chains, and the third point I would make is, we have to deal with this unfairness. You know, Chinese companies can do virtually anything they want in the American economy for many, many years. We allowed them to do anything they wanted in America, but American companies can virtually do nothing inside of China, and if they do, it's because they want to steal your intellectual property, and then put you out of business, and replace you with a Chinese company. That's why the President's always talking about reciprocity. Whatever they, whatever we are allowed to do there is what they should be allowed to do here. Whatever they charge us on tariffs is what we should be charging them, and that's what the president's bringing, not just to China, but to the world, is reciprocity and fairness. Speaker 0: You have access as a senator to high level intelligence, you have more access now that you are secretary of state. Does the intelligence leave no doubt that COVID nineteen came from the lab in Wuhan, China? Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't say that leaves no doubt. I would say, and I've long believed this, and I've said this irrespective, just common sense tells you, that the chances that this was an, and I say an accident, you know, we know that the Chinese spent years, in some cases with Western funding, taking viruses, and re engineering these viruses, trying to predict, what if this virus carried over into humans, what would it look like? And they were probably doing it because they were trying to come up with a vaccine for it. Let's say somebody got infected, messing around with that in a lab, and went out into Wuhan, they gave it to 10 people, those 10 people spread it to the world. I think the evidence is compelling that that's exactly what happened here. And I put out a report as a senator that detailed all kinds of circumstantial evidence that proved that as well. So, I think, in my view, based on everything I have seen, that the likeliest situation here was that the Chinese were messing around with the virus, somebody caught it in a lab, and they took this novel virus and spread it through China, and then spread it to the world, and it was devastating. And there needs to be accountability Speaker 0: for that. I was just going to say there really has been no accountability for the Yeah, mean, Speaker 1: the accountability begins by proving it, and it's hard to do, right, because the Chinese are not necessarily going to open their books. Look, if that had happened in The United States, if that had happened in some other country in the world, that country would have probably been forthcoming, and said, we had a problem guys, we were messing around with this stuff, and look what happened. They would have shared that information, and we could have worked very quickly, much faster than we were able to, to figure out how to counteract it, and they didn't. Instead, what they did is clam up and refuse to share information with the world, and then this thing spread and just ravaged the global economy. Just think about how many people died, how many businesses went out, how much money we had to spend in this country just to keep Main Street open when we had the shutdowns, how divisive it became. Some of that could have been prevented if they had been forthcoming, but instead, like most authoritarian regimes, they clammed up, and they held that information back. So, I think we have to do two things. We have to, if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it, We need to show that to the world, but we also have to make sure this never happens again, because if they were doing that, we have to assume they're still doing that, and have to assume that they're still doing that, and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe. We can't let that happen, and I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too. They may have the guts to say it, they may not want to stand up to it, they may not want have to take on the wrath of China, because they don't have our standing and our stature, but I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that's what happened here as well, But we're The United States, if we can prove it, we need to. And, at least put the evidence out there that this is what's indicated. Speaker 0: Will The US defend Taiwan if China moves against the island? Speaker 1: Let me just say that I think our commitments to Taiwan have been clear, and they've been expressed through multiple administrations for multiple years. We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That's been our policy, that remains our policy. We're not seeking to trigger a conflict, we don't want to see a conflict, but we have made very clear through years and years of our policies, the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act, that we are against any sort of change in status by force or by, you know, threat or by coercion, and that remains our policy. And that's generally how we've left it, and that's what's provided stability, and I hope it continues to provide stability. Whether the Chinese and President Xi shares that view, I think there's real doubts about it. But, we are not going to walk away from, for example, supporting Taiwan being involved in international forums, where their views and their interests are not represented by the mainland at this point. So, we're going to keep all the commitments we've made, but the most important one is to make clear that we are against and oppose any sort of forced change in status. Speaker 0: Okay. I'd like to talk about Afghanistan. Based on the intelligence, have Al Qaeda and ISIS found a safe haven in Afghanistan that mirrors the pre nine eleven landscape? Speaker 1: Well, wouldn't say I think any time you have governing spaces that are contested, that you don't have a government that has full control of every part of their territory, it creates the opportunity for these groups. The difference between today and ten years ago is we don't have American elements on the ground to target and go after them. In some cases the Taliban's been cooperative when they've been told, ISIS or Al Qaeda is operating in this part of your country, go after them. In other cases, not so much. So I would say that, I wouldn't compare it to Pope pre nine eleven, but I would compare it, but it's certainly far more uncertain, and it's not just limited to Afghanistan. I mean, there's real concerns about Syria, where everyone's glad Assad is gone, but there's about 8,000 ISIS killers who are in a prison there, and if the destabilization there leads to them getting out, we've a big problem on our hands. So, I think these groups are constantly looking for new places to migrate. We've seen that happen in the Horn Of Africa and the Sahil. We're concerned about that as well. These groups are constantly looking for ungoverned spaces where they can plot externally and even to destabilize, the region. Speaker 0: I have a question about, Qatar. American victims of terrorism have won judgments in The US courts against Iran. Qatar is sitting on billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Will you ask Qatar to satisfy these judgments for American victims of terrorism? Speaker 1: The the answer is yes, but in a very, it's a difficult situation, again, in describing foreign policy to people. On the one hand, the Qataris, there's a lot to be concerned about, but there's a lot to be concerned about how they've given Hamas and others operating space within their country. On the other hand, this cease fire which has allowed these hostages to be released would not have been possible without their mediation. So, it's a complex relation that we have with the Qataris, where in some cases they've been very productive in some of the things they've done. In other cases, not so much, and so it's one we're going have to navigate very carefully. It's what makes foreign policy so difficult. Foreign policy is rarely a choice between the great and the bad. Sometimes it's between the bad and the worse, and I think in this particular case it's a challenging relationship we have, but nonetheless an important one strategically that requires us to be pragmatic about how we approach it. But that doesn't mean we need to look away or celebrate the things they've been supportive of, but also we need to recognize the strategic importance they've played in allowing, for example, to serve as intermediaries with Hamas, and allowing the cease fire to happen and these hostages to go free. Were it not for the Qataris that wouldn't have happened, so it's a complicating juggling act. Speaker 0: Well, you raised the issue with them. Speaker 1: We've raised that issue, previous administrations have as well, and that issue will continue to be raised, at the same time as we want to work with them on getting all the hostages out, because they all should be out. Speaker 0: I want to ask a question about Havana Syndrome or AHIs, these debilitating neurological conditions, State Department personnel, intelligence community, military, even families. Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Oh, I do not believe in the conclusions that we've seen in the past, and I think evidence in time will prove me correct, that these things happened by accident. That these things were a result of mass hysteria, or some pre existing conditions. Now, some cases, maybe, but I have no doubt in my mind that something caused people to be suffering from these things, in different posts around the world, not just limited to Havana. There's a lot of work still going on. I think we're going learn a lot more about it over the next few years, as more work goes into it, but I've met some of these people, I've interacted with them for years, and I can't explain every case, but I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need, and it's a top commitment of mine to make sure these are people we sent abroad to serve our country, they were harmed in the service of our country, and they deserve our ongoing support, not being accused of things like mass hysteria, or, you know, they're Speaker 0: just It's government gaslighting. Speaker 1: Well, I think it's outrageous, and I don't know what the intent was behind that, but ultimately, this State Department is going be transparent with them. Anything we know, they will know, and in the meantime, we are going to assume the worst and we're going to treat them as if they were victims. No matter what, we're going treat them as they were people that were harmed by serving our country overseas. Speaker 0: Okay, we just have a couple of minutes left here. President Trump has talked about expanding The US footprint. In a hot mic moment Canada's Prime Minister said that absorbing Canada is a real thing. Is it a real thing? Speaker 1: You know how that came about. President's meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose, if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist as a country. At which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can't exist without cheating and trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation. Speaker 0: That's how it started. Speaker 1: It is how it started. I think he's told the story publicly, and that's how all this began. Look, Canada's our friend. Canada's our neighbor. Canada's our partner, but it goes back to the point I made. For decades, The United States allowed uneven trade imbalances to develop. During the Cold War, you know why we did it? We did it because we felt like we want countries to be strong economically, even if it means they're cheating, because we don't want them to fall victim to some internal Marxist coup that overturns their government or what have you. Those days are gone. These are rich, developed economies. Ultimately, who can argue against the fact that whatever they charge us, we should charge them? Whatever they prohibit if they don't allow American companies to do it, we should not allow their companies to do it here. American banks can't even operate in Canada, so there has to be reciprocity here. We can continue to work together on all kinds of things, but whether it's Canada, Mexico, China, anybody else, when it comes to economics and trade, there has to be reciprocity. There has to be fairness. Who would argue how can anybody argue against that? The days where we just allow countries to take advantage of us, that has to end. That's not good for the global order. That leads to imbalances that create friction points. That's the case with Canada. It's the case with a lot of countries, who are our allies and friends, but on trade, we have an imbalance and it has to be dealt with. Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes. We're here today. We're here talking Speaker 0: I was going to say, secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen, but this will always be their State Department. We're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. Had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets, whose sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information, and in these sort of long form interviews, where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information. Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, thank you very much for the opportunity today, and thank you for acknowledging and supporting independent journalism. Speaker 1: Thank you.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 21, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:38 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared insights from @SecRubio regarding the U.S. approach to Gaza and Hamas. He emphasized that Hamas is not just an ideological group but a dangerous entity. He mentioned President Trump's plan, which involves relocating people to facilitate reconstruction, but noted that regional partners like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are not in favor of it. Rubio challenged these partners to propose a better alternative if they disagree with the current plan.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: @SecRubio on U.S. plan for Gaza and Hamas “This is not a government.  This is not a – simply an ideological movement.  These are evil, terrible people.”  “(President Trump) put out his plan, and his view of it is you’ve got to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction.  Now, our partners in the region don’t like that plan, and I talked to them.  I’ve talked to the Egyptians; I’ve talked to the Jordanians.  They came here a week ago.  Talked to the Saudis; I talked to the UAE yesterday.  And my challenge is if you don’t like the President’s plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hamas are evil people, and the idea of them controlling territory is unfathomable. Our hearts break for the families of the deceased, and the return of remains is a sacred thing. Hamas is weaker than before but still a threat and cannot be allowed to reconstitute. As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will be no peace, and they must be eliminated. No country can coexist with a group whose purpose is destruction and atrocities. The President has a plan for Gaza's reconstruction, which involves removing people from the area to allow construction, but regional partners disagree. If they don't like the President's plan, they should propose a better one. The fundamental challenge is determining who will govern Gaza and how to eliminate Hamas.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is not a government. This is not simply an ideological movement. These are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable, so our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from a religious standpoint. It's a sacred thing, but I think to everybody else it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 1: One of these really government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 0: Well, would never discuss intelligence but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows. They clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be as long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza because they are going to go back to attacking Israel and Israel's going to have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks. If a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out. No country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuit of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas. Because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 1: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 0: That's a great question. The President's plan is the only one that's out there right now. The President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel is going to go after them. So, he's put out his plan. His view of it is you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich. They can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Our full, unedited interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio(@SecRubio) on his first 30 days leading the Department. Restarting U.S./Russia relations following the Biden Administration, direct engagement with Ukraine, U.S. proposal for Gaza, preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, China, Canada, and the emerging role of independent media. 00:28 Hamas, Israel, and Gaza reconstruction 03:28 First 30 days 07:45 @DOGE at State Department  13:00 Cartels terrorist designation  15:30 US Russia talks/War in Ukraine 19:00 Push back on President Zelensky, Europeans not consulted 25:00 President Trump is only global leader who can end the Russia/Ukraine war 25:45 Preventing a nuclear armed Iran 27:15 President Trump's instructions if he were assassinated by Iran 28:30 China  30:00  COVID-19 lab leak 37:15 Havana Syndrome 36:00 Canada: 51st State? 40:00 Independent Media vs Legacy Media

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hamas's attack is a reminder of their evil nature; they cannot be allowed to rearm or govern. The President's plan for Gaza involves removing people for reconstruction, but regional partners need to propose better solutions. My first 30 days as Secretary of State have reinforced that the State Department needs realignment with national interests. An "America First" approach means defining those interests and aligning our actions accordingly. We're restructuring bureaus to address issues like migration and human trafficking effectively. We've paused foreign aid to review its alignment with national interests, issuing waivers for critical programs like fentanyl interdiction training in Guatemala. The goal is to ensure every program strengthens America.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We spoke exclusively with secretary Marco Rubio about his first thirty days leading the state department. He revealed new details about The US Russia talks, direct engagement with Ukraine, The US proposal for Gaza, plus Iran, China, and the emerging role of independent media. This is our full unedited interview with the secretary. Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity. As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages said to include a mother and two children. Your thoughts? Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of who Hamas really is. Just think about the fact they went in, they grabbed this family, this young woman, her two infant children, think one was only four years old, the other one was one, and it's not just that they did it, and that they died in their captivity, who does that? Who kidnaps families? And then the way even that they were released, you know, with people cheering in the streets, it just tells you who we're dealing with with Hamas. This is not a government, this is not simply an ideological movement, these are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized, and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable. So, our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from religious standpoint, it's a sacred thing. But it's, I think to everybody else, it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 0: One of the Israeli government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 1: Well, would never discuss intelligence, but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows, they clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government, or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be a As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza, because they are going to go back to attacking Israel, and Israel's going have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks, if a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out every, and no country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state, and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuance of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas, because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 0: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 1: Well, that's a great question. I mean, President's plan is the only one that's out there right now, and what the President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel's going go after them. So, he's put out his plan, and his view of it is, you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done, and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich, they can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is, what do you, who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas. Speaker 0: You've been Secretary of State for thirty days. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 0: that's right. What have you learned and what has been accomplished? Speaker 1: Well, think first of all what I've learned is a couple of things. We have good people that work at the State Department. The challenge, it's reconfirmed my view is there's a lot of work to be done to realign everything we do at the State Department with the national interest. That's what our foreign policy needs to be about, and that's been lost over the years. The idea that we have to define what our national interest is, and then ensure that everything we do, every dollar we spend, every program we operate, every word we say is in furtherance of the national interest. Speaker 0: Is that, if I could jump in, is that what an America First State Department looks like? Speaker 1: Yeah, an America First State Department is not an America only State Department, it's a State Department that defines what is the important national interest The United States has in different parts of the world, and then everything we do is aligned with that principle, and that's been lost, I think, by and large in American foreign policy for a long time. I think you can track it back without going into history lessons in the post Cold War era, where The U. S. Was the sole superpower, and we were called into doing all sorts of things that no other country in the world could do, and some of it was not aligned with our national interest, because we hadn't even defined what the national interest is. It also means there are things in the world that are important, and that matter, and are good causes, but they can't be a priority, because the priority first and foremost has to be on the national interest of The United States. So I think this is by and large an organization of people that seek direction, and if you give them clear direction about what we're trying to pursue and accomplish, they'll go out and they'll do it, And that's how we're trying to align, even as we have to do our job on a daily basis, is what our hope is to align and give the State Department clear missions from the field, meaning our embassies and people out across the world, all the way to the Seventh Floor where I work. Speaker 0: What are your directions for the first one hundred days? Speaker 1: Well, I think we really view it as more than a one hundred day project, but as we've gone in and done it, one of the things we're looking on restructuring is our bureaus. You know, we have our policy bureaus, they're geographically based, and then we also have our functional bureaus, and human rights, and for example, there's a bureau for trafficking, human trafficking, there's a bureau for migration, I think those issues are interrelated. So one of things we're working through, we haven't made a decision yet, is whether that bureau should be consolidated into a bureau, and what's our national interest, that prevents migration and prevents trafficking, not facilitates migration and mass migration, which is not just a challenge to The United States, by way, it's one of the leading issues in Europe. We just came back from the Munich Security Conference. Every country in Europe is facing the challenge of mass migration, but it's really putting strain on virtually every country in the world that's facing migration challenges, every developed country in the world. So, that's just an example of the kinds of realignments that we're looking to make, and we want to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, but also in an expeditious way. We can't move too slowly either because then it just won't happen. Speaker 0: A month ago, you hit pause on most of the foreign aid. Is that review nearing completion? Speaker 1: Well, part of that review was issuing waivers, so I think we've issued over two fifty waivers, and that means someone comes forward and says, This program is really important. It's important, it can be justified, it's aligned with the national interest. We issue a waiver for it. I'll give you real world examples. We were in Guatemala, and we came across a program where we are helping train Guatemalans to identify the precursors of fentanyl and intercept it, to help us extradite drug dealers that we're trying to get ahold of. And we issued a waiver for that program, because that's clearly aligned, right? It wasn't our national interest, we want to prevent fentanyl from reaching the streets, and we want to take the people responsible for trafficking in it, and if they're wanted, bring them to The United States to stand trial and serve prison sentences. So, those are the kinds of waivers that are being issued. We also issued a blanket waiver for emergency humanitarian support, food, medicine, housing, things where there's a crisis somewhere in the world. But that's an ongoing process, and I think before the ninety day period is up, we'll have a real good insight into all the foreign aid we do. I know it's been disruptive for some programs, but I think in the long term it's going be beneficial because we'll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest because it makes us stronger, or more prosperous, or safer. That's the process we're trying to go through, and we go through it on a daily basis. Speaker 0: When will the State Department get the DOGE treatment? Speaker 1: Well, the State Department has DOGE people here that are present, and they're part of this process that we're going through in identifying primarily programs that we look at that are on pause, and understanding why are they justified versus not justified. For example, there's a lot of climate programs that we're funding all over the world, and people are free. We're not banning climate programs. If somebody wants to fund a climate program out of their own pocket or through an NGO, they can do so. The fundamental question is whether that should be a priority for The United States, or instead, should we be focused on programs that are helping nations gain energy independence or reliability in their energy sector so they can develop economically. And so that's the sort of repurposing that we're trying to do, and they've been very helpful in identifying what those programs are. Likewise with personnel. There's no government agency that can tell you that every single person that works there, we need, that they're indispensable. I think that's true for virtually every entity in any government across the country. So that'll be a process we go through as well. We have very talented people. We don't want to lose talented people, but there are functions and roles that need to be examined, and we're going through that on a daily, even as we do this other job, we have people that are working through that every day, and Doja's been very helpful in the State Department in that regard. We have more work to do. Speaker 0: Do you have any regrets about the shuttering of USAID? Speaker 1: No, it's not regret, look I wish we'd had more cooperation, I know people at USAID don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And I'm going go back to my time in Congress, okay, I've had two problems with AID going back to my time in Congress. I'm not against foreign aid, I've supported foreign aid, we're going to do foreign aid, no one here is saying we're going Speaker 0: have a good So some programs will survive. Speaker 1: Absolutely, and some already have. We've issued waivers for PEPFAR as an example, and others. That's not the question. The question is, no one can tell me every program, every program is valuable and needs to be kept. Some, frankly, shouldn't have ever existed. In many other cases, you have programs where the program is titled something, and then you realize the program's not run by USAID, the USAID simply provides grants or money to a company, or to an entity, an NGO, whatever, and they're out there running the program, and as a member of Congress, when you wanted to ask, well, who is operating this program? Because sometimes it goes from a program and then they give it to a third person, that third person Speaker 0: Sounds like a shell game. Speaker 1: It can be, and so that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So ideally you would have people open up the books and say, well here's who our contractors are, and here's what they work on, and here's why it's mission critical. We didn't find a lot of cooperation in that regard, and so the result was, and this was before I became acting, but even after, some of those people that became uncooperative, in some cases, were even trying to push payments through the system to get around the freeze. That we have to address, and so I think it's unfortunate, because the ideal way would have been, but this, to go through it the way I've just described, but this is an agency, frankly, at least at some levels, that has been largely uncooperative, and completely unaligned with the State Department. We have embassies where USAID and the embassy work very well together, and we have embassies where embassy is working on one mission, and USAID is working on a completely different mission that's in contradiction with what the State Department's directive is in that nation. That has to be fixed. So, ideally we would have fixed it in a way that would have been different, but when you run into passive aggressive, and in some cases aggressive opposition to your work, that requires you to now go in and put a stop to everything, and so that's the process we've had to follow, unfortunately, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this. We have to answer, this is American taxpayer money. The idea that USAID is some sort of global charity that's out there serving the interest of the global community, no, it's called the USAID in The United States. It's our taxpayer money. That should also be aligned with the national interest, and if it isn't, it needs to stop. Speaker 0: I want you to respond to a story that was in POLITICO. It said that you are Secretary of State in only name. It quoted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut saying, Rubio is not in charge. How often are you in the Oval at the White House for the big decisions? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about how often. I'm there pretty often. Just came from there right before I met with you here now. Look, that's just part of the stuff that happens in Washington and people, columnists and people write stuff. I didn't even know that story was out there. I'm just focused on doing my job. I feel pretty busy, and I know we're pretty busy. We're working on, even as we're working through all these reforms in the department, we're also out there trying to realign American foreign policy, whether it's my trip to the Western Hemisphere, we had a very successful trip. We think we're going to get, we already are getting more cooperation on migration from Panama, from Costa Rica, from Guatemala, that's been documented. We had a great visit to The Dominican Republic, which is very tightly aligned with The United States on a host of issues. We were to talk about Haiti there as well. Then we traveled to The Middle East. I met with the foreign ministers of all the key countries and our allies in Europe, both in the G7 setting, G7 plus one with the EU, and then a separate meeting with what they call the QUINT, which is the key countries involved Speaker 0: in the It was a busy Speaker 1: couple of Yeah, then from there we went to Saudi Arabia, had great meetings there. We obviously had the first high level engagement. Speaker 0: Was just, I was just going ask you if I'm, I'm pretty busy then. Know, I gotta, before we talk about the meetings in Saudi, this week you branded aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, including TDA. You've been tracking TDA since the Senate, right? Yes. Does this foreign terrorist organization designation unlock new diplomatic tools? Speaker 1: Well, not just new diplomatic tools, new economic ones as well because it basically doesn't allow anyone to have any sort of commercial relationship with these groups, and all of these gangs have to operate by touching the banking system, by being able to buy, and in many cases by having business partnerships, whether it's a warehouse they're renting in The U. S. To distribute guns or distribute drugs, whether it's someone who's actually helping them launder money from what they're making. In some cases these guys set up their own companies as shell companies to hide their profits and be able to distribute the funds they have, so it's going be very helpful. But just naming them and understanding that they're a problem. Trinidad Agua, TDA, is a group I followed, that was a prison gang in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime sort of pushed them out of the country. They terrorized Peru, they terrorized Ecuador, they terrorized all kinds of countries, and they worked their way up the migration path into The United States. And I've been warning about them now for a year and a half. I think I might have been the first member of Congress, maybe of the U. S. Government, to actually identify them by name, and I was being told that that wasn't true, that they didn't exist. Now we do know that they exist. They run human trafficking operations. They actually target Venezuelan migrant communities. We've seen them take control of apartment buildings in Colorado, and now they're being deported, and being deported because they're identified with that organization. So I think those designations are important, and it gives us a valuable tool to cut off any partnerships they may have, not just with U. S. Nationals, but any other businesses or individuals around the world that are assisting them in what they're doing, and it's not just the gang, it's the drug trafficking organizations that operate out of Mexico too. Speaker 0: Does the foreign terrorist organization, does the FTO designation, does that move the US government a step closer to using military force against the cartels? Speaker 1: Well it depends where they're located. Obviously in the case of Mexico the preference always is to work in conjunction with our partners in Mexico and we can provide them a lot of information about who they are and where they're located. If in the end these people pose an imminent threat to The United States, or cross into our borders and into The United States, then it gives us tools to go after them using law enforcement, using DHS, using ICE, using the FBI, the DEA, whatever agencies we have available. But if they're located in a third country, like operating out of Mexico, we can now share that information with our Mexican partners. It's their country, and they can action that item, because it poses a threat to both of our countries, and we would hope now that we can get more cooperation for them on that front. Speaker 0: You told reporters in Saudi Arabia, that there hasn't been regularized contact with the Russians in in three and a half years. How much ground was lost under the Biden White House? Speaker 1: Well, there was no ground. I mean, was all lost. We had no there are three things that people have to understand. The first is even at the height of the Cold War, even in the worst days of the Cold War, the United States and The Soviet Union had communication. And the reason why, a if you wanna be mature and grown ups about it, I'm not a fan of most of what Vladimir Putin has done, and that's largely irrelevant when it comes to statecraft, because we ultimately have to be able to talk to a nation that has, in some cases, the largest tactical nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, and the second largest, if not the largest strategic nuclear weapon stockpile in the world. So, you have to have, I mean, whether we like it or not, Russia is a power, a global power, and they're involved and engaged in Syria, they've been involved and engaged in the Middle East, even in the Western Hemisphere, certainly in Europe, we have to have some communication with them. So step one is, our embassy in Moscow is barely functioning. I mean, it literally barely operates, because it's been denied access to the banking system. That has to be fixed. If we close our mission in Russia, we have to close their mission here, and then we really have no communication with them, whether it's a detained American or some other item. The second is, the president has been very clear. He wants this war with Ukraine to end, and he wants to know, the Russians serious about ending the war, or not serious about ending the war? The only way is to test them, to basically engage them and say, okay, are you serious about ending the war, and if so, what are your demands? Are your public demands and your private demands different? We have to have some process by which we engage in that conversation. Now, it may turn out that they don't want to end the war, I don't know, we're going find out, but we have to have that process to determine that, and so our meeting was really a follow-up to President Trump's conversation with Putin. It's unfortunate that some of this hyperbole and some of this hysteria, because he talked to him on the phone, has clouded some of the rationale behind this. At the end of the day, we have to have relations with Russia whether we like everything they're doing or not, because we did with the Soviet Union, and we have to be able to test and see if they're serious about ending this war. Speaker 0: In your meetings, did the Russian Foreign Minister make clear that there can be no end to the war if, Ukraine joins NATO? Speaker 1: There was no discussions about any details. Now, the Russians have their own read out of what happened, but I can tell you we did not negotiate any fine points about any deal. The course of that conversation was as follows. Number one, we have to, some level of regularization, just of our diplomatic missions, because we have to be able to communicate with them, given the nature of our two countries, and the importance that we have in the world. The second is, there are things we could cooperate on geopolitically, potentially. I mean, there are items of the world where I think we have a common interest. I'm not sure the Russians are fans of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons, as an example, and so forth, but we can't work on those things. We're gonna disagree on a lot, but we can't work on the things we might potentially agree on, or de conflict on things that could lead to dangerous confrontations, as long as this Ukraine impediment stands in the way. So really, as much as anything else, this meeting was, are you interested in even talking about ending a war? If you are, then let's create a process where we can begin to engage at a technical level, and that process will now, at some point, be set up and begin. I also think, by the way, it's unfair to say that we didn't consult anybody on it. Speaker 0: Was just going to, I was just going to ask you. Talk about that. Ukraine was not at the talks, are you consulting with President Zelenskyy about his red lines? Speaker 1: Well, just in the last week, okay, President Zelenskyy has met with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of The United States, the Secretary of State, bipartisan delegations in the U. S. Senate and House that were also in Munich, our Special Envoy is there today meeting with him, so we talked to the Ukrainians throughout this process, and we explained to them very clearly what our intentions were in terms of pursuing this. In fact, the President of United States spoke to Zelenskyy right after he hung up with Putin. I was in the office for both phone calls, so to say that we haven't consulted with him is not accurate. It's not true. It's also not true that we haven't consulted with our allies in Europe. I personally spoke to the five foreign ministers right after my meeting with the Russians and walked them through what had happened. We talked to them before those meetings, the same five, plus the G7, plus the EU, and all the other meetings we had in Munich, so this is just not accurate. But that was a meeting to largely determine whether they were interested or not in finding a way to end this war, Speaker 0: and Are they interested? Speaker 1: We're going to find out. I I tell people peace is not a, it's an action, it's not a noun, it's a verb, it's an action. You have to actually pursue it. So, at the end of day, they're either interested or they're not. If the demands they make for ending the war are maximalist and unrealistic, then I think we have our answer. If, on the other hand, there's any opportunity to pursue peace, we have to do it. And I think people have, I really am sort of puzzled, generally, in diplomacy, people who are seeking to end the killing and the harming of thousands and thousands of people in war are usually celebrated for an effort to end the war. If it was just the Vatican who was involved in these talks, who would criticize it. For the president of The United States to be engaged in finding whether there's the possibility of peace should be celebrated, not condemned. But, anyway, that's the kind of the war the world we live in right now. Speaker 0: Did The US delegation make clear to the Russians that there are no guarantees about the retention of territory they have annexed from Ukraine? Speaker 1: We we didn't engage in any specifics about territories, none of these because that wasn't the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether there was a real interest in discussing peace or not. If there is, then a process like that can begin, and I also think it's silly to say, well, the Ukrainians are going to be cut out, or the Europeans are going to be cut out. You can't. You can't find a stop to a war unless both sides and their views are represented. They both have to agree to it. Like, Russia can't agree to a cease fire or to an end of hostilities if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, it has to be on terms acceptable to both sides, likewise with the Europeans. The Europeans and the EU have their own set of sanctions on Russia. Even if we lifted all of our sanctions, which none of that was discussed, the Europeans would have to lift sanctions too, in order for something to be, possible. So, they'll all have to be consulted at some point, but we're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: So, so what's the signal, Secretary Rubio, that the Russians are serious about peace? Speaker 1: Well, signal, I can't answer whether they're serious about peace or not yet. That will have to be determined by the attitude they take moving forward. The only thing we agreed upon is that we're going to talk about peace. What they offer, what they're willing to concede to, what they're willing to consider will determine whether they're serious about peace or not. We're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky and rightfully so. Look, number one, Joe Biden had frustrations with Zelenskyy, people shouldn't forget it, there are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at him in a phone call because Zelenskyy, instead of saying thank you for all your help, is immediately out there messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting. I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky, the Vice President and I, the two, three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be in joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country, but because we think that's actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money the taxpayers have given, close to $200,000,000,000 and it also, now we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine, and he said, sure, we want to do this deal, it makes all the sense in the world, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process, they have to approve it. I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, I rejected the deal, I told him no way that we're not doing that, well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So, you start to get upset by somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the President made in his messaging is, it's not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent, you know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about it, because it has implications for our allies, and ultimately for the world. There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don't see it, and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain to you or anybody else, Donald Trump's not, President Trump's not the kind of person that's going to sit there and take that. He's very transparent, he's going to tell you exactly how he feels, and he sent a message that he's not going to get gamed here. He's willing to work on peace because he cares about Ukraine, and he hopes Zelensky will be a partner in that, and not someone who's out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to, you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not that's not gonna be productive here. Speaker 0: What's the timeline for a meeting, between President Trump and, President Putin? Speaker 1: Well, that topic came up in our conversation with the Russians, and what I said, I know that now they're saying that they said it, but we actually said it. And that is, well, there isn't going to be a meeting until we know what the meeting's going be about. Mean, Speaker 0: we discuss Do expect it later in 2025? Speaker 1: I don't know the timing of it. But a meeting between President Putin and President Trump has to meeting a meeting about something. We have to know what that meeting is about, what's going to be achieved at it. You don't generally have these meetings until you know some outcome or some progress has been made. So, think when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine. And if we can, and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He's the only global leader right now that can make this happen. The only global leader Speaker 0: Why do you say he's the only one? Speaker 1: Well, because others have tried and have failed. There was an effort in Istanbul A Couple Years ago, and it involved a number of European countries, and it failed. It didn't lead to a result. No, this war is now going on its third year. Where who what global leader now could engage in this and actually even bring Putin to the table? Maybe we're not successful either, but right now we're the only ones that, through President Trump, that have any chance. Maybe the chance is 1%, I don't know. Maybe the chance is 90%, but he's the only one that can even test that proposition, And everyone should recognize that and celebrate the fact that he's willing to do that early in his presidency. He's willing to do it. No one else is willing to do it, and no one else right now apparently can. Speaker 0: You were also in Israel in recent days, and when you were in Israel, you said there will be no nuclear Iran. How far is the Trump administration willing to go to stop a nuclear Iran? Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, think president Trump's been clear. We're not gonna discuss tactics or measures. He's issued an executive order to once again return to the maximum pressure, primarily because we've seen that Iran uses the Iranian regime, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the Iranian people, the regime, they use any money that they make to fund their weapons programs, to fund their sponsorship of terrorism. If you look at all the destabilizing things that are happening in The Middle East, the Houthis and their attack on global shipping, Hamas, Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq that attack both Israel and The US presence there, the anti ISIS presence that we have, all of them are sponsored by money from Iran. They're behind all of this, and so why would we allow them to make any more money that they can use to sponsor these things? Now, how we prevent a nuclear Iran, I'm not going to discuss the options that are available to us, or anyone else for that matter, but I want to make it abundantly clear, the Iranian regime can never be a regime that's behind all of this, can and and believes that it is their duty to export their revolution to other countries in the region, they can never allow to possess a nuclear weapon where they can hold the world hostage and where they could potentially attack Israel. Speaker 0: Earlier this month, president Trump said that he had given instructions to his advisers of what to do if he were to be assassinated by Iran. Are you familiar with those instructions? Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with what he's talking about, and again, we're not gonna get into tactics or options available to The United States. Suffice it to say that if The United States chose to do so, it could bring about the end of the Iranian regime, but the president's a peacemaker. He'd prefer to avoid that and avoid those circumstances, and, but I don't think anyone should be confused here. Under Donald Trump, there is not going to be a nuclear Iran. Speaker 0: China, as secretary of state, what is your position on China? Speaker 1: Well, not my position, it'll be the Trump position on it, and I think the president Trump's position is pretty straightforward. On the one hand, just like Russia, China's a global power, the second largest economy in the world, rapidly growing military, we have to have relations with the Chinese, we have to. Whether we agree with everything they do, we understand that in some cases we're competitors, and others we're direct adversaries, but there has to be communication, because the lack of communication could lead to conflict. Speaker 0: If I can just jump in, what I'm hearing you say is that in the last four years, there's been a breakdown in communication with China and also Russia. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, the communication with China has actually been better than the communication with the Russians, under the Biden administration and to the current day, which is why there has to be some level of maturity here and practicality and pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. That said, we're not going to live in a world where we depend on China for critical rare earth minerals, for critical components in our supply chain. We're not going to live in a world in which China gets to dominate the Indo Pacific, we're not allowed to have commercial ties in that region because they're holding countries hostage, and they all become tributary states. The Japanese have no interest in being a tributary state, and they're close allies of ours, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia. None of these countries want to become tributary states, Vietnam for that matter, are not interested in becoming tributary states in a Chinese zone of influence. We are a Pacific nation. We intend to remain one, and maintain our relationships there, so that is a red line for us. We're not going to abandon our engagement as a Pacific power, and by the other token, we're not going to live in a world where the Chinese dominate things that are critical to our economy and be held hostage by them. That's just silly to do it. Some of that involves improving our domestic industrial capability, some of that involves partnering with allied nations to secure our supply chains, and the third point I would make is, we have to deal with this unfairness. You know, Chinese companies can do virtually anything they want in the American economy for many, many years. We allowed them to do anything they wanted in America, but American companies can virtually do nothing inside of China, and if they do, it's because they want to steal your intellectual property, and then put you out of business, and replace you with a Chinese company. That's why the President's always talking about reciprocity. Whatever they, whatever we are allowed to do there is what they should be allowed to do here. Whatever they charge us on tariffs is what we should be charging them, and that's what the president's bringing, not just to China, but to the world, is reciprocity and fairness. Speaker 0: You have access as a senator to high level intelligence, you have more access now that you are secretary of state. Does the intelligence leave no doubt that COVID nineteen came from the lab in Wuhan, China? Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't say that leaves no doubt. I would say, and I've long believed this, and I've said this irrespective, just common sense tells you, that the chances that this was an, and I say an accident, you know, we know that the Chinese spent years, in some cases with Western funding, taking viruses, and re engineering these viruses, trying to predict, what if this virus carried over into humans, what would it look like? And they were probably doing it because they were trying to come up with a vaccine for it. Let's say somebody got infected, messing around with that in a lab, and went out into Wuhan, they gave it to 10 people, those 10 people spread it to the world. I think the evidence is compelling that that's exactly what happened here. And I put out a report as a senator that detailed all kinds of circumstantial evidence that proved that as well. So, I think, in my view, based on everything I have seen, that the likeliest situation here was that the Chinese were messing around with the virus, somebody caught it in a lab, and they took this novel virus and spread it through China, and then spread it to the world, and it was devastating. And there needs to be accountability Speaker 0: for that. I was just going to say there really has been no accountability for the Yeah, mean, Speaker 1: the accountability begins by proving it, and it's hard to do, right, because the Chinese are not necessarily going to open their books. Look, if that had happened in The United States, if that had happened in some other country in the world, that country would have probably been forthcoming, and said, we had a problem guys, we were messing around with this stuff, and look what happened. They would have shared that information, and we could have worked very quickly, much faster than we were able to, to figure out how to counteract it, and they didn't. Instead, what they did is clam up and refuse to share information with the world, and then this thing spread and just ravaged the global economy. Just think about how many people died, how many businesses went out, how much money we had to spend in this country just to keep Main Street open when we had the shutdowns, how divisive it became. Some of that could have been prevented if they had been forthcoming, but instead, like most authoritarian regimes, they clammed up, and they held that information back. So, I think we have to do two things. We have to, if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it, We need to show that to the world, but we also have to make sure this never happens again, because if they were doing that, we have to assume they're still doing that, and have to assume that they're still doing that, and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe. We can't let that happen, and I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too. They may have the guts to say it, they may not want to stand up to it, they may not want have to take on the wrath of China, because they don't have our standing and our stature, but I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that's what happened here as well, But we're The United States, if we can prove it, we need to. And, at least put the evidence out there that this is what's indicated. Speaker 0: Will The US defend Taiwan if China moves against the island? Speaker 1: Let me just say that I think our commitments to Taiwan have been clear, and they've been expressed through multiple administrations for multiple years. We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That's been our policy, that remains our policy. We're not seeking to trigger a conflict, we don't want to see a conflict, but we have made very clear through years and years of our policies, the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act, that we are against any sort of change in status by force or by, you know, threat or by coercion, and that remains our policy. And that's generally how we've left it, and that's what's provided stability, and I hope it continues to provide stability. Whether the Chinese and President Xi shares that view, I think there's real doubts about it. But, we are not going to walk away from, for example, supporting Taiwan being involved in international forums, where their views and their interests are not represented by the mainland at this point. So, we're going to keep all the commitments we've made, but the most important one is to make clear that we are against and oppose any sort of forced change in status. Speaker 0: Okay. I'd like to talk about Afghanistan. Based on the intelligence, have Al Qaeda and ISIS found a safe haven in Afghanistan that mirrors the pre nine eleven landscape? Speaker 1: Well, wouldn't say I think any time you have governing spaces that are contested, that you don't have a government that has full control of every part of their territory, it creates the opportunity for these groups. The difference between today and ten years ago is we don't have American elements on the ground to target and go after them. In some cases the Taliban's been cooperative when they've been told, ISIS or Al Qaeda is operating in this part of your country, go after them. In other cases, not so much. So I would say that, I wouldn't compare it to Pope pre nine eleven, but I would compare it, but it's certainly far more uncertain, and it's not just limited to Afghanistan. I mean, there's real concerns about Syria, where everyone's glad Assad is gone, but there's about 8,000 ISIS killers who are in a prison there, and if the destabilization there leads to them getting out, we've a big problem on our hands. So, I think these groups are constantly looking for new places to migrate. We've seen that happen in the Horn Of Africa and the Sahil. We're concerned about that as well. These groups are constantly looking for ungoverned spaces where they can plot externally and even to destabilize, the region. Speaker 0: I have a question about, Qatar. American victims of terrorism have won judgments in The US courts against Iran. Qatar is sitting on billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Will you ask Qatar to satisfy these judgments for American victims of terrorism? Speaker 1: The the answer is yes, but in a very, it's a difficult situation, again, in describing foreign policy to people. On the one hand, the Qataris, there's a lot to be concerned about, but there's a lot to be concerned about how they've given Hamas and others operating space within their country. On the other hand, this cease fire which has allowed these hostages to be released would not have been possible without their mediation. So, it's a complex relation that we have with the Qataris, where in some cases they've been very productive in some of the things they've done. In other cases, not so much, and so it's one we're going have to navigate very carefully. It's what makes foreign policy so difficult. Foreign policy is rarely a choice between the great and the bad. Sometimes it's between the bad and the worse, and I think in this particular case it's a challenging relationship we have, but nonetheless an important one strategically that requires us to be pragmatic about how we approach it. But that doesn't mean we need to look away or celebrate the things they've been supportive of, but also we need to recognize the strategic importance they've played in allowing, for example, to serve as intermediaries with Hamas, and allowing the cease fire to happen and these hostages to go free. Were it not for the Qataris that wouldn't have happened, so it's a complicating juggling act. Speaker 0: Well, you raised the issue with them. Speaker 1: We've raised that issue, previous administrations have as well, and that issue will continue to be raised, at the same time as we want to work with them on getting all the hostages out, because they all should be out. Speaker 0: I want to ask a question about Havana Syndrome or AHIs, these debilitating neurological conditions, State Department personnel, intelligence community, military, even families. Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Oh, I do not believe in the conclusions that we've seen in the past, and I think evidence in time will prove me correct, that these things happened by accident. That these things were a result of mass hysteria, or some pre existing conditions. Now, some cases, maybe, but I have no doubt in my mind that something caused people to be suffering from these things, in different posts around the world, not just limited to Havana. There's a lot of work still going on. I think we're going learn a lot more about it over the next few years, as more work goes into it, but I've met some of these people, I've interacted with them for years, and I can't explain every case, but I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need, and it's a top commitment of mine to make sure these are people we sent abroad to serve our country, they were harmed in the service of our country, and they deserve our ongoing support, not being accused of things like mass hysteria, or, you know, they're Speaker 0: just It's government gaslighting. Speaker 1: Well, I think it's outrageous, and I don't know what the intent was behind that, but ultimately, this State Department is going be transparent with them. Anything we know, they will know, and in the meantime, we are going to assume the worst and we're going to treat them as if they were victims. No matter what, we're going treat them as they were people that were harmed by serving our country overseas. Speaker 0: Okay, we just have a couple of minutes left here. President Trump has talked about expanding The US footprint. In a hot mic moment Canada's Prime Minister said that absorbing Canada is a real thing. Is it a real thing? Speaker 1: You know how that came about. President's meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose, if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist as a country. At which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can't exist without cheating and trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation. Speaker 0: That's how it started. Speaker 1: It is how it started. I think he's told the story publicly, and that's how all this began. Look, Canada's our friend. Canada's our neighbor. Canada's our partner, but it goes back to the point I made. For decades, The United States allowed uneven trade imbalances to develop. During the Cold War, you know why we did it? We did it because we felt like we want countries to be strong economically, even if it means they're cheating, because we don't want them to fall victim to some internal Marxist coup that overturns their government or what have you. Those days are gone. These are rich, developed economies. Ultimately, who can argue against the fact that whatever they charge us, we should charge them? Whatever they prohibit if they don't allow American companies to do it, we should not allow their companies to do it here. American banks can't even operate in Canada, so there has to be reciprocity here. We can continue to work together on all kinds of things, but whether it's Canada, Mexico, China, anybody else, when it comes to economics and trade, there has to be reciprocity. There has to be fairness. Who would argue how can anybody argue against that? The days where we just allow countries to take advantage of us, that has to end. That's not good for the global order. That leads to imbalances that create friction points. That's the case with Canada. It's the case with a lot of countries, who are our allies and friends, but on trade, we have an imbalance and it has to be dealt with. Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes. We're here today. We're here talking Speaker 0: I was going to say, secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen, but this will always be their State Department. We're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. Had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets, whose sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information, and in these sort of long form interviews, where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information. Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, thank you very much for the opportunity today, and thank you for acknowledging and supporting independent journalism. Speaker 1: Thank you.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 21, 2025 at 9:38 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:38 AM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Our interview with @SecRubio is now trending, with multiple outlets covering what was first reported exclusively on @X! This is the power of new media. Support our work by subscribing @C__Herridge and joining our newsletter that complements our reporting: https://catherineherridgereports.com/subscribe

Catherine Herridge Reports Telling the stories I could not tell before, where the facts have a power all their own. catherineherridgereports.com

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

EXCLUSIVE: Our full, unedited interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio(@SecRubio) on his first 30 days leading the Department. Restarting U.S./Russia relations following the Biden Administration, direct engagement with Ukraine, U.S. proposal for Gaza, preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, China, Canada, and the emerging role of independent media. 00:28 Hamas, Israel, and Gaza reconstruction 03:28 First 30 days 07:45 @DOGE at State Department  13:00 Cartels terrorist designation  15:30 US Russia talks/War in Ukraine 19:00 Push back on President Zelensky, Europeans not consulted 25:00 President Trump is only global leader who can end the Russia/Ukraine war 25:45 Preventing a nuclear armed Iran 27:15 President Trump's instructions if he were assassinated by Iran 28:30 China  30:00  COVID-19 lab leak 37:15 Havana Syndrome 36:00 Canada: 51st State? 40:00 Independent Media vs Legacy Media

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hamas's actions remind us of their evil nature, and they can't be allowed to continue to have arms. The plan is to rebuild Gaza, but that can't happen with Hamas there. Our partners need a better plan for Gaza's reconstruction. The State Department needs to align with the national interest; it's not an "America only" approach. We're restructuring bureaus to prevent migration and trafficking. Foreign aid is under review, with waivers issued for programs aligned with our interests, like fentanyl interdiction. We're also re-evaluating climate programs, prioritizing energy independence. We want cooperation from USAID. Regarding Russia, maintaining communication is crucial, and we need to determine whether they are serious about ending the war in Ukraine. We need to be able to communicate with people. It is crucial to meet people where they're getting their news and information, and not only be available through the mainstream media.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We spoke exclusively with secretary Marco Rubio about his first thirty days leading the state department. He revealed new details about The US Russia talks, direct engagement with Ukraine, The US proposal for Gaza, plus Iran, China, and the emerging role of independent media. This is our full unedited interview with the secretary. Secretary Rubio, thank you for the opportunity. As we sit down today, Hamas has released the bodies of four Israeli hostages said to include a mother and two children. Your thoughts? Speaker 1: I think it's a reminder of who Hamas really is. Just think about the fact they went in, they grabbed this family, this young woman, her two infant children, think one was only four years old, the other one was one, and it's not just that they did it, and that they died in their captivity, who does that? Who kidnaps families? And then the way even that they were released, you know, with people cheering in the streets, it just tells you who we're dealing with with Hamas. This is not a government, this is not simply an ideological movement, these are evil, terrible people, and the idea that they would ever be allowed to continue to have arms, to be militarized, and to control territory anywhere in the world is unfathomable. So, our hearts break for these families. You can't be happy that remains are returned, but that's very important to these families from religious standpoint, it's a sacred thing. But it's, I think to everybody else, it's a reminder as well of who we're talking about here when we talk about Hamas. Speaker 0: One of the Israeli government's objectives is the destruction of Hamas. You see some of these pictures, they suggest some strength. What does the intelligence tell us? Speaker 1: Well, would never discuss intelligence, but I can tell you Hamas is weaker than they once were. They clearly have enough people to put on these shows, they clearly have enough people to still be a threat at some level, but they can't be allowed to reconstitute. Hamas cannot be allowed to once again be a group that can do three things: terrorize the people of Gaza, attack Israel, and actually be a government, or anything like a government anywhere in the world. There just can't be a As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will never be peace in Gaza, because they are going to go back to attacking Israel, and Israel's going have to respond. And I just ask everybody, if a group like that was operating on the other side of our border with Canada or Mexico, constantly launching attacks, if a group existed in Mexico that came across our border, kidnapped Americans, babies, and launched rockets, we would eliminate them. We would wipe them out every, and no country in the world can coexist alongside a group whose intended purpose is the destruction of your state, and is willing to commit atrocities like this in the pursuance of it. So, I think it's in the best interest of everyone, including Palestinians, to get rid of Hamas, because Hamas terrorizes them too, they hide behind these people. Speaker 0: What is the plan for Gaza? Speaker 1: Well, that's a great question. I mean, President's plan is the only one that's out there right now, and what the President's point is, how are you going to rebuild this place when you have people living among the rubble? How are you going to rebuild it as long as a group like Hamas is operating there? You can't. If Hamas is there, Israel's going go after them. So, he's put out his plan, and his view of it is, you've to remove people from the area so you can actually do the construction. Now, our partners in the region don't like that plan, and I talk to them. I've talked to the Egyptians, I've talked to the Jordanians, they came here a week ago. I've talked to the Saudis, I've talked to The UAE yesterday. And my challenge is, if you don't like the President's plan, then I think you should come up with a better plan, and I hope they do. I hope they come up with a plan that allows for the reconstruction of Gaza. The United States will try to help, or will help, as will others, including countries in the region that have to take ownership, but I, look, the job of removing rubble, the job of rebuilding housing, that can be done, and finding the money to pay for it. The countries in that region are very rich, they can help do that as well. I think the fundamental challenge in any plan is, what do you, who is going to govern Gaza, what organization, because it can't be Hamas, and how are you going to get rid of them? Because ultimately someone is going to have to go in and get rid of Hamas. Speaker 0: You've been Secretary of State for thirty days. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 0: that's right. What have you learned and what has been accomplished? Speaker 1: Well, think first of all what I've learned is a couple of things. We have good people that work at the State Department. The challenge, it's reconfirmed my view is there's a lot of work to be done to realign everything we do at the State Department with the national interest. That's what our foreign policy needs to be about, and that's been lost over the years. The idea that we have to define what our national interest is, and then ensure that everything we do, every dollar we spend, every program we operate, every word we say is in furtherance of the national interest. Speaker 0: Is that, if I could jump in, is that what an America First State Department looks like? Speaker 1: Yeah, an America First State Department is not an America only State Department, it's a State Department that defines what is the important national interest The United States has in different parts of the world, and then everything we do is aligned with that principle, and that's been lost, I think, by and large in American foreign policy for a long time. I think you can track it back without going into history lessons in the post Cold War era, where The U. S. Was the sole superpower, and we were called into doing all sorts of things that no other country in the world could do, and some of it was not aligned with our national interest, because we hadn't even defined what the national interest is. It also means there are things in the world that are important, and that matter, and are good causes, but they can't be a priority, because the priority first and foremost has to be on the national interest of The United States. So I think this is by and large an organization of people that seek direction, and if you give them clear direction about what we're trying to pursue and accomplish, they'll go out and they'll do it, And that's how we're trying to align, even as we have to do our job on a daily basis, is what our hope is to align and give the State Department clear missions from the field, meaning our embassies and people out across the world, all the way to the Seventh Floor where I work. Speaker 0: What are your directions for the first one hundred days? Speaker 1: Well, I think we really view it as more than a one hundred day project, but as we've gone in and done it, one of the things we're looking on restructuring is our bureaus. You know, we have our policy bureaus, they're geographically based, and then we also have our functional bureaus, and human rights, and for example, there's a bureau for trafficking, human trafficking, there's a bureau for migration, I think those issues are interrelated. So one of things we're working through, we haven't made a decision yet, is whether that bureau should be consolidated into a bureau, and what's our national interest, that prevents migration and prevents trafficking, not facilitates migration and mass migration, which is not just a challenge to The United States, by way, it's one of the leading issues in Europe. We just came back from the Munich Security Conference. Every country in Europe is facing the challenge of mass migration, but it's really putting strain on virtually every country in the world that's facing migration challenges, every developed country in the world. So, that's just an example of the kinds of realignments that we're looking to make, and we want to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, but also in an expeditious way. We can't move too slowly either because then it just won't happen. Speaker 0: A month ago, you hit pause on most of the foreign aid. Is that review nearing completion? Speaker 1: Well, part of that review was issuing waivers, so I think we've issued over two fifty waivers, and that means someone comes forward and says, This program is really important. It's important, it can be justified, it's aligned with the national interest. We issue a waiver for it. I'll give you real world examples. We were in Guatemala, and we came across a program where we are helping train Guatemalans to identify the precursors of fentanyl and intercept it, to help us extradite drug dealers that we're trying to get ahold of. And we issued a waiver for that program, because that's clearly aligned, right? It wasn't our national interest, we want to prevent fentanyl from reaching the streets, and we want to take the people responsible for trafficking in it, and if they're wanted, bring them to The United States to stand trial and serve prison sentences. So, those are the kinds of waivers that are being issued. We also issued a blanket waiver for emergency humanitarian support, food, medicine, housing, things where there's a crisis somewhere in the world. But that's an ongoing process, and I think before the ninety day period is up, we'll have a real good insight into all the foreign aid we do. I know it's been disruptive for some programs, but I think in the long term it's going be beneficial because we'll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest because it makes us stronger, or more prosperous, or safer. That's the process we're trying to go through, and we go through it on a daily basis. Speaker 0: When will the State Department get the DOGE treatment? Speaker 1: Well, the State Department has DOGE people here that are present, and they're part of this process that we're going through in identifying primarily programs that we look at that are on pause, and understanding why are they justified versus not justified. For example, there's a lot of climate programs that we're funding all over the world, and people are free. We're not banning climate programs. If somebody wants to fund a climate program out of their own pocket or through an NGO, they can do so. The fundamental question is whether that should be a priority for The United States, or instead, should we be focused on programs that are helping nations gain energy independence or reliability in their energy sector so they can develop economically. And so that's the sort of repurposing that we're trying to do, and they've been very helpful in identifying what those programs are. Likewise with personnel. There's no government agency that can tell you that every single person that works there, we need, that they're indispensable. I think that's true for virtually every entity in any government across the country. So that'll be a process we go through as well. We have very talented people. We don't want to lose talented people, but there are functions and roles that need to be examined, and we're going through that on a daily, even as we do this other job, we have people that are working through that every day, and Doja's been very helpful in the State Department in that regard. We have more work to do. Speaker 0: Do you have any regrets about the shuttering of USAID? Speaker 1: No, it's not regret, look I wish we'd had more cooperation, I know people at USAID don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And I'm going go back to my time in Congress, okay, I've had two problems with AID going back to my time in Congress. I'm not against foreign aid, I've supported foreign aid, we're going to do foreign aid, no one here is saying we're going Speaker 0: have a good So some programs will survive. Speaker 1: Absolutely, and some already have. We've issued waivers for PEPFAR as an example, and others. That's not the question. The question is, no one can tell me every program, every program is valuable and needs to be kept. Some, frankly, shouldn't have ever existed. In many other cases, you have programs where the program is titled something, and then you realize the program's not run by USAID, the USAID simply provides grants or money to a company, or to an entity, an NGO, whatever, and they're out there running the program, and as a member of Congress, when you wanted to ask, well, who is operating this program? Because sometimes it goes from a program and then they give it to a third person, that third person Speaker 0: Sounds like a shell game. Speaker 1: It can be, and so that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So ideally you would have people open up the books and say, well here's who our contractors are, and here's what they work on, and here's why it's mission critical. We didn't find a lot of cooperation in that regard, and so the result was, and this was before I became acting, but even after, some of those people that became uncooperative, in some cases, were even trying to push payments through the system to get around the freeze. That we have to address, and so I think it's unfortunate, because the ideal way would have been, but this, to go through it the way I've just described, but this is an agency, frankly, at least at some levels, that has been largely uncooperative, and completely unaligned with the State Department. We have embassies where USAID and the embassy work very well together, and we have embassies where embassy is working on one mission, and USAID is working on a completely different mission that's in contradiction with what the State Department's directive is in that nation. That has to be fixed. So, ideally we would have fixed it in a way that would have been different, but when you run into passive aggressive, and in some cases aggressive opposition to your work, that requires you to now go in and put a stop to everything, and so that's the process we've had to follow, unfortunately, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this. We have to answer, this is American taxpayer money. The idea that USAID is some sort of global charity that's out there serving the interest of the global community, no, it's called the USAID in The United States. It's our taxpayer money. That should also be aligned with the national interest, and if it isn't, it needs to stop. Speaker 0: I want you to respond to a story that was in POLITICO. It said that you are Secretary of State in only name. It quoted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut saying, Rubio is not in charge. How often are you in the Oval at the White House for the big decisions? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about how often. I'm there pretty often. Just came from there right before I met with you here now. Look, that's just part of the stuff that happens in Washington and people, columnists and people write stuff. I didn't even know that story was out there. I'm just focused on doing my job. I feel pretty busy, and I know we're pretty busy. We're working on, even as we're working through all these reforms in the department, we're also out there trying to realign American foreign policy, whether it's my trip to the Western Hemisphere, we had a very successful trip. We think we're going to get, we already are getting more cooperation on migration from Panama, from Costa Rica, from Guatemala, that's been documented. We had a great visit to The Dominican Republic, which is very tightly aligned with The United States on a host of issues. We were to talk about Haiti there as well. Then we traveled to The Middle East. I met with the foreign ministers of all the key countries and our allies in Europe, both in the G7 setting, G7 plus one with the EU, and then a separate meeting with what they call the QUINT, which is the key countries involved Speaker 0: in the It was a busy Speaker 1: couple of Yeah, then from there we went to Saudi Arabia, had great meetings there. We obviously had the first high level engagement. Speaker 0: Was just, I was just going ask you if I'm, I'm pretty busy then. Know, I gotta, before we talk about the meetings in Saudi, this week you branded aid cartels and criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, including TDA. You've been tracking TDA since the Senate, right? Yes. Does this foreign terrorist organization designation unlock new diplomatic tools? Speaker 1: Well, not just new diplomatic tools, new economic ones as well because it basically doesn't allow anyone to have any sort of commercial relationship with these groups, and all of these gangs have to operate by touching the banking system, by being able to buy, and in many cases by having business partnerships, whether it's a warehouse they're renting in The U. S. To distribute guns or distribute drugs, whether it's someone who's actually helping them launder money from what they're making. In some cases these guys set up their own companies as shell companies to hide their profits and be able to distribute the funds they have, so it's going be very helpful. But just naming them and understanding that they're a problem. Trinidad Agua, TDA, is a group I followed, that was a prison gang in Venezuela. The Venezuelan regime sort of pushed them out of the country. They terrorized Peru, they terrorized Ecuador, they terrorized all kinds of countries, and they worked their way up the migration path into The United States. And I've been warning about them now for a year and a half. I think I might have been the first member of Congress, maybe of the U. S. Government, to actually identify them by name, and I was being told that that wasn't true, that they didn't exist. Now we do know that they exist. They run human trafficking operations. They actually target Venezuelan migrant communities. We've seen them take control of apartment buildings in Colorado, and now they're being deported, and being deported because they're identified with that organization. So I think those designations are important, and it gives us a valuable tool to cut off any partnerships they may have, not just with U. S. Nationals, but any other businesses or individuals around the world that are assisting them in what they're doing, and it's not just the gang, it's the drug trafficking organizations that operate out of Mexico too. Speaker 0: Does the foreign terrorist organization, does the FTO designation, does that move the US government a step closer to using military force against the cartels? Speaker 1: Well it depends where they're located. Obviously in the case of Mexico the preference always is to work in conjunction with our partners in Mexico and we can provide them a lot of information about who they are and where they're located. If in the end these people pose an imminent threat to The United States, or cross into our borders and into The United States, then it gives us tools to go after them using law enforcement, using DHS, using ICE, using the FBI, the DEA, whatever agencies we have available. But if they're located in a third country, like operating out of Mexico, we can now share that information with our Mexican partners. It's their country, and they can action that item, because it poses a threat to both of our countries, and we would hope now that we can get more cooperation for them on that front. Speaker 0: You told reporters in Saudi Arabia, that there hasn't been regularized contact with the Russians in in three and a half years. How much ground was lost under the Biden White House? Speaker 1: Well, there was no ground. I mean, was all lost. We had no there are three things that people have to understand. The first is even at the height of the Cold War, even in the worst days of the Cold War, the United States and The Soviet Union had communication. And the reason why, a if you wanna be mature and grown ups about it, I'm not a fan of most of what Vladimir Putin has done, and that's largely irrelevant when it comes to statecraft, because we ultimately have to be able to talk to a nation that has, in some cases, the largest tactical nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, and the second largest, if not the largest strategic nuclear weapon stockpile in the world. So, you have to have, I mean, whether we like it or not, Russia is a power, a global power, and they're involved and engaged in Syria, they've been involved and engaged in the Middle East, even in the Western Hemisphere, certainly in Europe, we have to have some communication with them. So step one is, our embassy in Moscow is barely functioning. I mean, it literally barely operates, because it's been denied access to the banking system. That has to be fixed. If we close our mission in Russia, we have to close their mission here, and then we really have no communication with them, whether it's a detained American or some other item. The second is, the president has been very clear. He wants this war with Ukraine to end, and he wants to know, the Russians serious about ending the war, or not serious about ending the war? The only way is to test them, to basically engage them and say, okay, are you serious about ending the war, and if so, what are your demands? Are your public demands and your private demands different? We have to have some process by which we engage in that conversation. Now, it may turn out that they don't want to end the war, I don't know, we're going find out, but we have to have that process to determine that, and so our meeting was really a follow-up to President Trump's conversation with Putin. It's unfortunate that some of this hyperbole and some of this hysteria, because he talked to him on the phone, has clouded some of the rationale behind this. At the end of the day, we have to have relations with Russia whether we like everything they're doing or not, because we did with the Soviet Union, and we have to be able to test and see if they're serious about ending this war. Speaker 0: In your meetings, did the Russian Foreign Minister make clear that there can be no end to the war if, Ukraine joins NATO? Speaker 1: There was no discussions about any details. Now, the Russians have their own read out of what happened, but I can tell you we did not negotiate any fine points about any deal. The course of that conversation was as follows. Number one, we have to, some level of regularization, just of our diplomatic missions, because we have to be able to communicate with them, given the nature of our two countries, and the importance that we have in the world. The second is, there are things we could cooperate on geopolitically, potentially. I mean, there are items of the world where I think we have a common interest. I'm not sure the Russians are fans of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons, as an example, and so forth, but we can't work on those things. We're gonna disagree on a lot, but we can't work on the things we might potentially agree on, or de conflict on things that could lead to dangerous confrontations, as long as this Ukraine impediment stands in the way. So really, as much as anything else, this meeting was, are you interested in even talking about ending a war? If you are, then let's create a process where we can begin to engage at a technical level, and that process will now, at some point, be set up and begin. I also think, by the way, it's unfair to say that we didn't consult anybody on it. Speaker 0: Was just going to, I was just going to ask you. Talk about that. Ukraine was not at the talks, are you consulting with President Zelenskyy about his red lines? Speaker 1: Well, just in the last week, okay, President Zelenskyy has met with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President of The United States, the Secretary of State, bipartisan delegations in the U. S. Senate and House that were also in Munich, our Special Envoy is there today meeting with him, so we talked to the Ukrainians throughout this process, and we explained to them very clearly what our intentions were in terms of pursuing this. In fact, the President of United States spoke to Zelenskyy right after he hung up with Putin. I was in the office for both phone calls, so to say that we haven't consulted with him is not accurate. It's not true. It's also not true that we haven't consulted with our allies in Europe. I personally spoke to the five foreign ministers right after my meeting with the Russians and walked them through what had happened. We talked to them before those meetings, the same five, plus the G7, plus the EU, and all the other meetings we had in Munich, so this is just not accurate. But that was a meeting to largely determine whether they were interested or not in finding a way to end this war, Speaker 0: and Are they interested? Speaker 1: We're going to find out. I I tell people peace is not a, it's an action, it's not a noun, it's a verb, it's an action. You have to actually pursue it. So, at the end of day, they're either interested or they're not. If the demands they make for ending the war are maximalist and unrealistic, then I think we have our answer. If, on the other hand, there's any opportunity to pursue peace, we have to do it. And I think people have, I really am sort of puzzled, generally, in diplomacy, people who are seeking to end the killing and the harming of thousands and thousands of people in war are usually celebrated for an effort to end the war. If it was just the Vatican who was involved in these talks, who would criticize it. For the president of The United States to be engaged in finding whether there's the possibility of peace should be celebrated, not condemned. But, anyway, that's the kind of the war the world we live in right now. Speaker 0: Did The US delegation make clear to the Russians that there are no guarantees about the retention of territory they have annexed from Ukraine? Speaker 1: We we didn't engage in any specifics about territories, none of these because that wasn't the purpose of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether there was a real interest in discussing peace or not. If there is, then a process like that can begin, and I also think it's silly to say, well, the Ukrainians are going to be cut out, or the Europeans are going to be cut out. You can't. You can't find a stop to a war unless both sides and their views are represented. They both have to agree to it. Like, Russia can't agree to a cease fire or to an end of hostilities if the Ukrainians don't agree to it, it has to be on terms acceptable to both sides, likewise with the Europeans. The Europeans and the EU have their own set of sanctions on Russia. Even if we lifted all of our sanctions, which none of that was discussed, the Europeans would have to lift sanctions too, in order for something to be, possible. So, they'll all have to be consulted at some point, but we're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: So, so what's the signal, Secretary Rubio, that the Russians are serious about peace? Speaker 1: Well, signal, I can't answer whether they're serious about peace or not yet. That will have to be determined by the attitude they take moving forward. The only thing we agreed upon is that we're going to talk about peace. What they offer, what they're willing to concede to, what they're willing to consider will determine whether they're serious about peace or not. We're just not at that stage yet. Speaker 0: When President Trump posts that President Zelensky is a dictator without elections, what are you thinking? Speaker 1: I think President Trump is very upset at President Zelensky and rightfully so. Look, number one, Joe Biden had frustrations with Zelenskyy, people shouldn't forget it, there are newspaper articles out there about how he cursed at him in a phone call because Zelenskyy, instead of saying thank you for all your help, is immediately out there messaging what we're not doing or what he's not getting. I think the second thing is frankly, I was personally very upset because we had a conversation with President Zelensky, the Vice President and I, the two, three of us, and we discussed this issue about the mineral rights, and we explained to them, look, we want to be in joint venture with you, not because we're trying to steal from your country, but because we think that's actually a security guarantee. If we're your partner in an important economic endeavor, we get to get paid back some of the money the taxpayers have given, close to $200,000,000,000 and it also, now we have a vested interest in the security of Ukraine, and he said, sure, we want to do this deal, it makes all the sense in the world, the only thing is, I need to run it through my legislative process, they have to approve it. I read two days later that Zelensky is out there saying, I rejected the deal, I told him no way that we're not doing that, well, that's not what happened in that meeting. So, you start to get upset by somebody, we're trying to help these guys. One of the points the President made in his messaging is, it's not that we don't care about Ukraine, but Ukraine is on another continent, you know, it doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans. We care about it, because it has implications for our allies, and ultimately for the world. There should be some level of gratitude here about this, and when you don't see it, and you see him out there accusing the president of living in a world of disinformation, that's highly, very counterproductive, and I don't need to explain to you or anybody else, Donald Trump's not, President Trump's not the kind of person that's going to sit there and take that. He's very transparent, he's going to tell you exactly how he feels, and he sent a message that he's not going to get gamed here. He's willing to work on peace because he cares about Ukraine, and he hopes Zelensky will be a partner in that, and not someone who's out there putting this sort of counter messaging to try to, you know, hustle us in that regard. That's not that's not gonna be productive here. Speaker 0: What's the timeline for a meeting, between President Trump and, President Putin? Speaker 1: Well, that topic came up in our conversation with the Russians, and what I said, I know that now they're saying that they said it, but we actually said it. And that is, well, there isn't going to be a meeting until we know what the meeting's going be about. Mean, Speaker 0: we discuss Do expect it later in 2025? Speaker 1: I don't know the timing of it. But a meeting between President Putin and President Trump has to meeting a meeting about something. We have to know what that meeting is about, what's going to be achieved at it. You don't generally have these meetings until you know some outcome or some progress has been made. So, think when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine. And if we can, and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He's the only global leader right now that can make this happen. The only global leader Speaker 0: Why do you say he's the only one? Speaker 1: Well, because others have tried and have failed. There was an effort in Istanbul A Couple Years ago, and it involved a number of European countries, and it failed. It didn't lead to a result. No, this war is now going on its third year. Where who what global leader now could engage in this and actually even bring Putin to the table? Maybe we're not successful either, but right now we're the only ones that, through President Trump, that have any chance. Maybe the chance is 1%, I don't know. Maybe the chance is 90%, but he's the only one that can even test that proposition, And everyone should recognize that and celebrate the fact that he's willing to do that early in his presidency. He's willing to do it. No one else is willing to do it, and no one else right now apparently can. Speaker 0: You were also in Israel in recent days, and when you were in Israel, you said there will be no nuclear Iran. How far is the Trump administration willing to go to stop a nuclear Iran? Speaker 1: Well, ultimately, think president Trump's been clear. We're not gonna discuss tactics or measures. He's issued an executive order to once again return to the maximum pressure, primarily because we've seen that Iran uses the Iranian regime, let me be clear, I'm not talking about the Iranian people, the regime, they use any money that they make to fund their weapons programs, to fund their sponsorship of terrorism. If you look at all the destabilizing things that are happening in The Middle East, the Houthis and their attack on global shipping, Hamas, Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq that attack both Israel and The US presence there, the anti ISIS presence that we have, all of them are sponsored by money from Iran. They're behind all of this, and so why would we allow them to make any more money that they can use to sponsor these things? Now, how we prevent a nuclear Iran, I'm not going to discuss the options that are available to us, or anyone else for that matter, but I want to make it abundantly clear, the Iranian regime can never be a regime that's behind all of this, can and and believes that it is their duty to export their revolution to other countries in the region, they can never allow to possess a nuclear weapon where they can hold the world hostage and where they could potentially attack Israel. Speaker 0: Earlier this month, president Trump said that he had given instructions to his advisers of what to do if he were to be assassinated by Iran. Are you familiar with those instructions? Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with what he's talking about, and again, we're not gonna get into tactics or options available to The United States. Suffice it to say that if The United States chose to do so, it could bring about the end of the Iranian regime, but the president's a peacemaker. He'd prefer to avoid that and avoid those circumstances, and, but I don't think anyone should be confused here. Under Donald Trump, there is not going to be a nuclear Iran. Speaker 0: China, as secretary of state, what is your position on China? Speaker 1: Well, not my position, it'll be the Trump position on it, and I think the president Trump's position is pretty straightforward. On the one hand, just like Russia, China's a global power, the second largest economy in the world, rapidly growing military, we have to have relations with the Chinese, we have to. Whether we agree with everything they do, we understand that in some cases we're competitors, and others we're direct adversaries, but there has to be communication, because the lack of communication could lead to conflict. Speaker 0: If I can just jump in, what I'm hearing you say is that in the last four years, there's been a breakdown in communication with China and also Russia. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, the communication with China has actually been better than the communication with the Russians, under the Biden administration and to the current day, which is why there has to be some level of maturity here and practicality and pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. That said, we're not going to live in a world where we depend on China for critical rare earth minerals, for critical components in our supply chain. We're not going to live in a world in which China gets to dominate the Indo Pacific, we're not allowed to have commercial ties in that region because they're holding countries hostage, and they all become tributary states. The Japanese have no interest in being a tributary state, and they're close allies of ours, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia. None of these countries want to become tributary states, Vietnam for that matter, are not interested in becoming tributary states in a Chinese zone of influence. We are a Pacific nation. We intend to remain one, and maintain our relationships there, so that is a red line for us. We're not going to abandon our engagement as a Pacific power, and by the other token, we're not going to live in a world where the Chinese dominate things that are critical to our economy and be held hostage by them. That's just silly to do it. Some of that involves improving our domestic industrial capability, some of that involves partnering with allied nations to secure our supply chains, and the third point I would make is, we have to deal with this unfairness. You know, Chinese companies can do virtually anything they want in the American economy for many, many years. We allowed them to do anything they wanted in America, but American companies can virtually do nothing inside of China, and if they do, it's because they want to steal your intellectual property, and then put you out of business, and replace you with a Chinese company. That's why the President's always talking about reciprocity. Whatever they, whatever we are allowed to do there is what they should be allowed to do here. Whatever they charge us on tariffs is what we should be charging them, and that's what the president's bringing, not just to China, but to the world, is reciprocity and fairness. Speaker 0: You have access as a senator to high level intelligence, you have more access now that you are secretary of state. Does the intelligence leave no doubt that COVID nineteen came from the lab in Wuhan, China? Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't say that leaves no doubt. I would say, and I've long believed this, and I've said this irrespective, just common sense tells you, that the chances that this was an, and I say an accident, you know, we know that the Chinese spent years, in some cases with Western funding, taking viruses, and re engineering these viruses, trying to predict, what if this virus carried over into humans, what would it look like? And they were probably doing it because they were trying to come up with a vaccine for it. Let's say somebody got infected, messing around with that in a lab, and went out into Wuhan, they gave it to 10 people, those 10 people spread it to the world. I think the evidence is compelling that that's exactly what happened here. And I put out a report as a senator that detailed all kinds of circumstantial evidence that proved that as well. So, I think, in my view, based on everything I have seen, that the likeliest situation here was that the Chinese were messing around with the virus, somebody caught it in a lab, and they took this novel virus and spread it through China, and then spread it to the world, and it was devastating. And there needs to be accountability Speaker 0: for that. I was just going to say there really has been no accountability for the Yeah, mean, Speaker 1: the accountability begins by proving it, and it's hard to do, right, because the Chinese are not necessarily going to open their books. Look, if that had happened in The United States, if that had happened in some other country in the world, that country would have probably been forthcoming, and said, we had a problem guys, we were messing around with this stuff, and look what happened. They would have shared that information, and we could have worked very quickly, much faster than we were able to, to figure out how to counteract it, and they didn't. Instead, what they did is clam up and refuse to share information with the world, and then this thing spread and just ravaged the global economy. Just think about how many people died, how many businesses went out, how much money we had to spend in this country just to keep Main Street open when we had the shutdowns, how divisive it became. Some of that could have been prevented if they had been forthcoming, but instead, like most authoritarian regimes, they clammed up, and they held that information back. So, I think we have to do two things. We have to, if we can prove that this is what happened, and I think the day will come when we might be able to prove it, We need to show that to the world, but we also have to make sure this never happens again, because if they were doing that, we have to assume they're still doing that, and have to assume that they're still doing that, and that this could happen again, and it could be even more devastating than COVID, as hard as that is to believe. We can't let that happen, and I think, by the way, a lot of countries in the world suspect this too. They may have the guts to say it, they may not want to stand up to it, they may not want have to take on the wrath of China, because they don't have our standing and our stature, but I think a lot of countries in the world suspect that that's what happened here as well, But we're The United States, if we can prove it, we need to. And, at least put the evidence out there that this is what's indicated. Speaker 0: Will The US defend Taiwan if China moves against the island? Speaker 1: Let me just say that I think our commitments to Taiwan have been clear, and they've been expressed through multiple administrations for multiple years. We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That's been our policy, that remains our policy. We're not seeking to trigger a conflict, we don't want to see a conflict, but we have made very clear through years and years of our policies, the Six Assurances, the Taiwan Relations Act, that we are against any sort of change in status by force or by, you know, threat or by coercion, and that remains our policy. And that's generally how we've left it, and that's what's provided stability, and I hope it continues to provide stability. Whether the Chinese and President Xi shares that view, I think there's real doubts about it. But, we are not going to walk away from, for example, supporting Taiwan being involved in international forums, where their views and their interests are not represented by the mainland at this point. So, we're going to keep all the commitments we've made, but the most important one is to make clear that we are against and oppose any sort of forced change in status. Speaker 0: Okay. I'd like to talk about Afghanistan. Based on the intelligence, have Al Qaeda and ISIS found a safe haven in Afghanistan that mirrors the pre nine eleven landscape? Speaker 1: Well, wouldn't say I think any time you have governing spaces that are contested, that you don't have a government that has full control of every part of their territory, it creates the opportunity for these groups. The difference between today and ten years ago is we don't have American elements on the ground to target and go after them. In some cases the Taliban's been cooperative when they've been told, ISIS or Al Qaeda is operating in this part of your country, go after them. In other cases, not so much. So I would say that, I wouldn't compare it to Pope pre nine eleven, but I would compare it, but it's certainly far more uncertain, and it's not just limited to Afghanistan. I mean, there's real concerns about Syria, where everyone's glad Assad is gone, but there's about 8,000 ISIS killers who are in a prison there, and if the destabilization there leads to them getting out, we've a big problem on our hands. So, I think these groups are constantly looking for new places to migrate. We've seen that happen in the Horn Of Africa and the Sahil. We're concerned about that as well. These groups are constantly looking for ungoverned spaces where they can plot externally and even to destabilize, the region. Speaker 0: I have a question about, Qatar. American victims of terrorism have won judgments in The US courts against Iran. Qatar is sitting on billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Will you ask Qatar to satisfy these judgments for American victims of terrorism? Speaker 1: The the answer is yes, but in a very, it's a difficult situation, again, in describing foreign policy to people. On the one hand, the Qataris, there's a lot to be concerned about, but there's a lot to be concerned about how they've given Hamas and others operating space within their country. On the other hand, this cease fire which has allowed these hostages to be released would not have been possible without their mediation. So, it's a complex relation that we have with the Qataris, where in some cases they've been very productive in some of the things they've done. In other cases, not so much, and so it's one we're going have to navigate very carefully. It's what makes foreign policy so difficult. Foreign policy is rarely a choice between the great and the bad. Sometimes it's between the bad and the worse, and I think in this particular case it's a challenging relationship we have, but nonetheless an important one strategically that requires us to be pragmatic about how we approach it. But that doesn't mean we need to look away or celebrate the things they've been supportive of, but also we need to recognize the strategic importance they've played in allowing, for example, to serve as intermediaries with Hamas, and allowing the cease fire to happen and these hostages to go free. Were it not for the Qataris that wouldn't have happened, so it's a complicating juggling act. Speaker 0: Well, you raised the issue with them. Speaker 1: We've raised that issue, previous administrations have as well, and that issue will continue to be raised, at the same time as we want to work with them on getting all the hostages out, because they all should be out. Speaker 0: I want to ask a question about Havana Syndrome or AHIs, these debilitating neurological conditions, State Department personnel, intelligence community, military, even families. Have directed energy weapons been used against US government personnel? Speaker 1: Oh, I do not believe in the conclusions that we've seen in the past, and I think evidence in time will prove me correct, that these things happened by accident. That these things were a result of mass hysteria, or some pre existing conditions. Now, some cases, maybe, but I have no doubt in my mind that something caused people to be suffering from these things, in different posts around the world, not just limited to Havana. There's a lot of work still going on. I think we're going learn a lot more about it over the next few years, as more work goes into it, but I've met some of these people, I've interacted with them for years, and I can't explain every case, but I think there are most definitely cases where there is no logical explanation other than the fact that some external mechanism caused them to suffer brain injuries that in many cases look like they were hit over the head with a baseball bat, or assaulted somewhere. We can't ignore that, and in the meantime, what we have to ensure is that whether they were state department personnel, or working for some other agency, that those people are getting the treatment and the support that they need, and it's a top commitment of mine to make sure these are people we sent abroad to serve our country, they were harmed in the service of our country, and they deserve our ongoing support, not being accused of things like mass hysteria, or, you know, they're Speaker 0: just It's government gaslighting. Speaker 1: Well, I think it's outrageous, and I don't know what the intent was behind that, but ultimately, this State Department is going be transparent with them. Anything we know, they will know, and in the meantime, we are going to assume the worst and we're going to treat them as if they were victims. No matter what, we're going treat them as they were people that were harmed by serving our country overseas. Speaker 0: Okay, we just have a couple of minutes left here. President Trump has talked about expanding The US footprint. In a hot mic moment Canada's Prime Minister said that absorbing Canada is a real thing. Is it a real thing? Speaker 1: You know how that came about. President's meeting with Trudeau and Trudeau says, well, if you impose, if you even out our trade relationship, then we will cease to exist as a country. At which point the President responded very logically, and that is, well, if you can't exist without cheating and trade, then you should become a state. That was his observation. Speaker 0: That's how it started. Speaker 1: It is how it started. I think he's told the story publicly, and that's how all this began. Look, Canada's our friend. Canada's our neighbor. Canada's our partner, but it goes back to the point I made. For decades, The United States allowed uneven trade imbalances to develop. During the Cold War, you know why we did it? We did it because we felt like we want countries to be strong economically, even if it means they're cheating, because we don't want them to fall victim to some internal Marxist coup that overturns their government or what have you. Those days are gone. These are rich, developed economies. Ultimately, who can argue against the fact that whatever they charge us, we should charge them? Whatever they prohibit if they don't allow American companies to do it, we should not allow their companies to do it here. American banks can't even operate in Canada, so there has to be reciprocity here. We can continue to work together on all kinds of things, but whether it's Canada, Mexico, China, anybody else, when it comes to economics and trade, there has to be reciprocity. There has to be fairness. Who would argue how can anybody argue against that? The days where we just allow countries to take advantage of us, that has to end. That's not good for the global order. That leads to imbalances that create friction points. That's the case with Canada. It's the case with a lot of countries, who are our allies and friends, but on trade, we have an imbalance and it has to be dealt with. Speaker 0: Will you open up the State Department briefing room to independent journalists? Speaker 1: Yes. We're here today. We're here talking Speaker 0: I was going to say, secretary Rubio, you could have given this interview to any reporter, any major corporate outlet, but you chose an independent journalist who posts on X. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but here's my observation. We have to go where the people are, and so we need to communicate with people. We need to be able to this is their State Department. It's not my State Department. I'll be here for a number of years, and then my job is done, and I'll go back to being a private citizen, but this will always be their State Department. We're doing making decisions every day, and they deserve to hear from us. Where are people getting their news and information? That's where we need to be delivering our news and information. I still talk to them. I just went overseas. Had a bunch of people from different traditional outlets on our trip, and we're not going to exclude them, but we have to be able to communicate people where they're getting their news and information. What we can't allow to have happen is we can't allow our message to solely be provided through the filter of legacy traditional media outlets, whose sadly I don't mean to hurt their I'm not trying to be mean here, but their readership is down, their viewership is down, their ratings are down. We have to take our message where people are getting their news and information, and in these sort of long form interviews, where you're getting serious questions and can provide answers to nuanced issues, not little sound bites that they run during the cable news hour for news and entertainment purposes. So we'll engage everybody, but we'll almost certainly see a greater emphasis on independent journalism, because that's where people are getting their news and information. Speaker 0: Secretary Rubio, thank you very much for the opportunity today, and thank you for acknowledging and supporting independent journalism. Speaker 1: Thank you.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 25, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:38 AM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

NEW: Dr. Haim’s Texas Attorneys Marcella Burke and Jeffrey Hall Told us The Biden DOJ Case Was Designed to Discourage Other “Gender Affirming Care” Whistleblowers With the criminal charges dismissed, the flood gates have opened. https://t.co/aZtEk3Tll4

Video Transcript AI Summary
Since Dr. Haim's charges were dropped, my law firm has received more calls from doctors reporting False Claims Act violations at their hospitals. They feel safer coming forward now, trusting they won't be threatened under the current administration. This increase in calls suggests the prosecution was suppressing whistleblowers. US Attorney Alamdar Hamdani is out with the change of administration, but will he be held accountable? At the very least, the Department of Justice should investigate and reveal their findings, especially regarding violations of department policy. Examples include the improper use of the target designation before the Assistant U. Attorney reviewed the evidence and the use of a personal cell phone to discuss the case with agents. Even just an analysis of what went wrong under his watch would start the process of accountability.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since his charges were dropped, the volume of doctors that have called my law firm to report violations in this area and other areas under the False Claims Act saying that these things are happening at their hospitals and there's false billing for it and that they're aware of it. And they've seen what happened with Doctor. Haim, and they now trust that under this administration, if they do come forward, they will not be so threatened. I think that even just seeing that fall out after his case was dropped and the increase in calls that we're getting just goes to show that the prosecution was actively trying to suppress whistleblowers. The US Attorney in the Southern District, Alamdar Hamdani, is now out with the change of administration, so does he escape accountability? Speaker 1: Well, even if the Department of Justice just investigates and reveals their findings on what happened here and why it ran afoul of Department policy, and we already have indicated to Congress that we know there are various violations of department policy. Speaker 0: And what were those violations? Speaker 1: Well for instance, the improper use of the target designation, certainly before the Assistant U. Attorney had even reviewed the evidence or knew what was going on and didn't have a basis to believe that Doctor. Haim was a punitive defendant at that point. The use of her personal cell phone to discuss information about the case with the agents would be another violation. We discussed some of those in the letter to Congress. We've pointed others elsewhere to the department. Even if just that occurs, right, there's an analysis of what he did wrong and allowed to happen under his watch, I think that will start the process of accountability.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Doctor Targeted by Biden DOJ After Blowing The Whistle on ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care For Minors at Texas Children’s Hospital Breaks Silence After All Charges Dropped; Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate His Case “I was willing to go to jail” 00:00 Introduction 02:00 Reaction - Criminal Case Dismissed 04:20 All I Wanted Was To Hold My Baby 04:40 What Accountability Looks Like 06:40 Whistleblower Story Goes Viral 09:30 Retaliation 10:40 Biden DOJ/Alleged Threats 12:00 HHS Memo 13:50 Target Letter 15:15 Three Indictments 16:10 DOJ Errors 18:10 Darkest Moment 19:50 Gag Order 21:40 X Lifeline 22:20 Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate his case 23:20 Responses Subscriptions @C__Herridge support independent journalism. Subscribe today!

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department and Health and Human Services against me and my family after I blew the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. A memo was sent out saying that anyone who interferes with gender affirming care would become a target of the federal government. They tried to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law, accusing me of violating patient privacy, even though I protected patient identities while the DOJ released patient initials. They aimed to make me pay for doing the right thing. I was willing to go to jail so the world could see what they were doing. With the help of X, we exposed the injustice and ultimately won, achieving the greatest victory of my life. We seek accountability for those who abused their power.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was willing to go to jail if this judge was gonna throw me in jail, but the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 0: 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against us. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care. Speaker 0: The message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital, but in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. Speaker 2: This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the Speaker 1: DOJ. Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believe that people would hear this story. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. Speaker 1: Tell us about that moment when you learned the criminal prosecution was over. Speaker 2: To know that it's finally over, that Eitan was safe and that he was going to be with us for the next several years, I think was just an indescribable relief. Speaker 0: It's one of those moments like when you hear that your wife is pregnant for the first time, or you get bad news from someone in your family is hurt, Right? Those that moment that you'll always remember where you were. Speaker 3: On January 24, '2 years of injustice came to an end for doctor Eitan Heim, the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower who went public about its gender affirming care for minors. Doctor. Heim was accused of violating patient privacy laws by the Biden Justice Department. We spoke exclusively to doctor Heim and his wife in Washington DC just days after the charges were dropped. Speaker 0: You know, she kinda yelled my name, I knew it was either gonna be really good or really bad. And she comes into the room, I could see it on her face that case was dismissed. It was signed by the judge. I said, It's over. It's over. I love you. And I gave her a hug. I gave her a kiss. We just held each other for a long time and so much we had gone through at that moment. Were there tears? Of course. It's indescribable because you achieve so much, you go through so much pain and heartache, and then all of a sudden, one second later, you go from facing ten years in prison, losing everything, and then it's over. Speaker 1: I have the court order here. I want to read it to you. The United States Of America versus Eitan David Haim. It's Criminal Action number H-twentyFour-two98. It says the indictment in all open counts in the above listed criminal case are hereby dismissed with prejudice. I can feel a lot of emotion from the two of you just reading the court order. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, clears his name. It made clear what we knew all along, was that this prosecution should have never been brought in the first place. Speaker 1: Did the court order give you your lives back? Speaker 0: Yeah, and the important thing for people to know is it's dismissed with prejudice. It's a big deal because that means they can never bring the case again in the future. The only thing I want to do is just hold my baby because the biggest fear was not being there for her. Speaker 2: I would look at him holding her and think, Oh my gosh, what if he goes to jail? What if he's not there for her growing up? And so at the end, there's this picture of him holding, Talia is her name, and holding this glass of champagne. It's this celebratory moment and just this knowledge that he's going to be there for her. Speaker 1: You posted, Today is for celebrating. Tomorrow is for accountability. What does accountability look like for you and your family? Speaker 2: Accountability looks like the people who did this, the agents responsible, the prosecutors responsible, being held to account for breaches of their duties as prosecutors and agents and also for their breaches of duties as lawyers. Speaker 0: They should be nowhere near a position of authority where they can use their position to target people who oppose their political agenda. Because to accuse someone of a crime and destroy everything they've ever worked for, for something, in this case, for doing the right thing, is the most evil thing you can do to someone. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. And we ended up winning. It's the greatest victory of my life. Mean, it's amazing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 2: 100%. Speaker 0: Yes, 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against Speaker 1: Was Health and Human Services weaponized against you? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: What harm was done to your family? Speaker 2: Huge amount of harm. You know, I think the number one was the emotional toll that all of took, the fear and living with all of that. It's cost us personally almost $2,000,000 Speaker 1: Wait, dollars 2,000,000 to defend yourself? Speaker 2: Yes, and that's conservative for the quality of lawyers that we have and the amount of the legal work that was required in this case. If you look at the docket entries for the court, you know, there are hundreds of motions, and each one of those costs tens of thousands, if not sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to. Speaker 1: Do you think bad actors in government count on the fact that most people cannot financially afford to defend themselves? Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think that's a huge part of the calculus that the government it's a huge advantage that the government has. Speaker 3: In 2023, the Himes story went viral after Christopher Rufo posted his whistleblower account. A year earlier, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton found gender affirming care can legally constitute child abuse under Texas family law. Texas Children's Hospital released a statement that it paused hormone related prescription therapies for gender affirming services, citing potential criminal legal ramifications. But Doctor. Himes says the hospital schedules indicated that the controversial treatments for minors continued. Speaker 1: When you took these screenshots, did you hack into the hospital system? Did you have unauthorized access? Speaker 0: Absolutely not. I was working in the hospital, operating as part of my residency program. Speaker 1: What drove you to take the screenshots? Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital. And everything we do is to make them healthy again. But in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. The diagnosis code is gender dysphoria. What is gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: So this is the distress that people feel when they believe that their sex is different than, their biological sex. Speaker 1: I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Minors can't give consent for these procedures. So the parents are giving consent. Do you believe it's informed consent? Speaker 0: So I believe this is not informed consent because the informing party is the doctor. If the doctor is misinformed about the pathology they're treating and the success of the interventions, then the patients are being misinformed. And that's exactly what's happening here. Speaker 1: Just to be clear, this medical procedure is a surgical procedure. Speaker 0: Yeah, this is a surgical procedure that requires anesthesia, that requires surgical instruments, that carries surgical risks in every way. Speaker 1: And this non biodegradable drug delivery implant, this is a puberty blocker. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, this is a very, very powerful medication. Speaker 1: I see the red highlighting here. Did you make those marks? Yeah. Why were you blocking this information? Speaker 0: To protect the patients. Because this whole story has nothing to do with patients, right? They're the victims. It has to do with the hospital. So I wanted to make sure to protect their identities. Speaker 1: What would you say to those families and children who are struggling with gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: I would listen to them. I think that's the most important thing. They're hurting. What they need is someone to go through that emotional pain with them, to listen to them, to tell them that they're dignified, that they're created perfect the way they are. Speaker 1: Because of your whistleblower activity, were you retaliated against? Speaker 0: Yes, I believe so. And really in a number of ways. Speaker 1: I'd like to walk through the reviews that were left on your medical profile online. This one says, He touched me inappropriately and was super creepy. He had no idea what he was doing, and he has no business being in medicine. He should be in jail for being a terrible physician. He mutilates patients. It sounds like you're an abuser. Speaker 0: An important thing for people to know about those reviews is that they were written when I was anonymous, before I took my story public. So the person who wrote those reviews had come from inside the hospital. Speaker 3: These claims are backed up by criminal attorney Mark Lytle, a member of Doctor. Haim's legal team. Speaker 4: Those are outrageous comments that, they were not real. They were fake, and they were put there by someone to retaliate against Doctor. Haim. We did our, as best we could, our own investigation, and we determined that it was coming from the hospital, the same IP address. Speaker 3: The government's case stood out for other reasons. Lytle says the Biden appointed US attorney, Alamdar Hamdani, circumvented long standing justice department checks and balances and worked directly with assistant US attorney Tina Anseri, who prosecuted the case. Lytle told us about a specific conversation with Anseri. Speaker 1: So in the twenty plus years you've been practicing law, you've never had a conversation like you did with the prosecutor. Speaker 4: Never. Under, under all the cases I prosecuted I was chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit. I supervised 15 to 17 attorneys at any given time and we reviewed this, these types of things, these types of procedures. Never heard of it before. Speaker 1: Did the prosecutor cross a red line in the conversation? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 1: You got threats in that phone call. Speaker 4: Yeah, threats essentially like we're going to go after this guy if he doesn't come in and admit what he did was wrong and if he doesn't do that then he's gonna get a felony and we're gonna try him on a technicality and we don't care if we lose. And that's disturbing. That's wielding the law as a weapon. It's not trying to be on a search for truth. This case was like a freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it. The prosecutor was dead set to bring this case against Doctor. Heim. Speaker 3: Two years before Doctor. Heim was indicted, the Biden administration sent this guidance from Washington, D. C. About investigating anyone who blocked or restricted gender affirming care for minors. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. What message was sent by this Health and Human Services memo? Speaker 0: So the message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. That they're going to use the entirety of their power and authority to target people who get in the way of their political goals. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA in exactly the way that we're talking about. Speaker 3: At the heart of the government's government's case was a federal law called HIPAA that protects the privacy of patients and their health care information. Speaker 1: What you're alleging in this case is that the law was being used by the Justice Department to protect doctors and the hospitals. Speaker 2: It was shocking and it was, you know, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. HIPAA is intended to protect patient privacy. It's not designed to protect billion dollar hospital corporations, but that's what they were using it for. Speaker 3: On 06/23/2023, the day of his graduation, the Himes described two federal agents from Health and Human Services knocking on their door. Speaker 0: Two people standing out there, they show me their badges, tell me that they're with Health and Human Services, and that they're investigating a case regarding medical records. In that moment, I knew exactly what they were there for. And Andrea gives me one look, and she says, We have to go talk privately. So we walk over to our bedroom, and she tells me that we should not speak with them without an attorney present. But before they leave, they give me a target letter. Speaker 1: Well, I've got the target letter right here. The federal agents give you this target letter. And it says, This office is involved, that's the U. S. Attorney's Office Texas, in an investigation dealing with federal law violations. You are a potential target in this criminal investigation. That means that you are the focus of a criminal investigation. Andrea, you know that there's serious legal risk. Speaker 2: I knew the minute that we received that target letter that everything was going to change. Speaker 3: The target letter was signed by Assistant U. S. Attorney Tina Enseri, who Lytle says accused Andrea Haim of obstructing the investigation. Speaker 4: When I asked her why, it was because when the HHS agents came to visit him and they sought a voluntary interview, Doctor. Haim's wife, who is an attorney, suggested that he should wait to have an attorney before he submit to an interview. AUSA and SARI believed that was obstruction. Speaker 3: At that time, Andrea Heim was onboarding for her own position as a federal prosecutor in Texas. Speaker 4: Ansari knew that Doctor. Heim's wife was freshly hired as an assistant US attorney in another office and undergoing security clearance, a background check. And this is where AUSA Ansari said something that was shocking to us. She said she wasn't going to do anything about that even though she believed it was obstruction but she might do something if Doctor. Haim's wife became difficult. Speaker 1: That sounds like a threat. Speaker 4: That's the way we took it. Speaker 3: Nearly a year after the Target letter federal marshals delivered the first of three criminal indictments for allegedly violating patient privacy laws. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. What explains three indictments? Speaker 2: First of all, it is ridiculous that there are three indictments. This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. That's why it failed. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did, right? To try to get me to plead, to make other whistleblowers disincentivized from doing the same thing. Speaker 1: It says that you violated Title 42, U. S. Code Chapter seven Subchapter XL. I couldn't find Subchapter XL. I mean, does it exist? Speaker 2: It does not. It's a typo. This isn't a typo of their versus their or something like that. This is the operative language of their indictment, the name of the statute that they're charging with. And they got that wrong in multiple indictments. Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are gonna be confused that you've got a Justice Department indictment, federal criminal charges, and it cites a law that does not exist. Speaker 0: Yeah, and they admitted that during a hearing, right? They had to apologize that they weren't proofreading properly. Speaker 1: I just think American taxpayers would want an answer about sloppy lawyering. Speaker 2: They deserve one. Speaker 0: I mean, consider how many resources were spent on this case alone. Right? Months and months of legal work, right? You had FBI agents, prosecutors, you had the court's time, all of that. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. Is this a violation of their privacy? Yes or no? Speaker 0: I would say that it is. Speaker 1: The screenshots you took in the hospital, you redacted, you used the red highlighter to block the name of the patients. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the DOJ who was violating the patient's privacy because I never released patient information. It was the Department of Justice who had released the patient's initials. Speaker 3: These exclusive internal emails show Doctor. Haim's legal team pushed the prosecutor for evidence patient names were disclosed. His lawyer wrote, I have not been able to find an instance where this actually happened. The prosecutor eventually sent doctor Haim screenshots of the hospital surgery schedule where doctor Haim removed patient names. Speaker 2: To me, this is one of the most unbelievable parts of this case is that they're charging him with accessing private patient information, but the government released more information about child patients than Eitan ever did. Speaker 3: As the full weight of the Biden Harris Justice Department came down on the couple, Andrea neared her due date, and Eitan had to be in court. Speaker 1: What was the darkest moment? Speaker 2: The happiest moment of my life was the birth of my four month old daughter, but it was also the scariest, and I ended up having to have an emergency C section. Eitan had to leave the hospital room where I was with our daughter an hour after I had surgery to go to Houston for a court hearing. And at that point, we had no idea what was going to happen. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment when you feared for Andrea and your daughter? Speaker 0: Yeah, especially because whenever giving birth, if something happens, if there's any complications, happens after. If something happened, I wouldn't be there. And that's awful. Speaker 1: Did you feel that you had let your wife down? Speaker 0: Yeah. I knew that, she understood that, it's something I had to do, right? Speaker 1: I can see you choking up about it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Because if I did, mean, these people are going send me to prison. Speaker 1: Yeah, just take a minute. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life when you bring a child into the world. Speaker 0: Yeah. But then especially to have my baby born, to go to trial the next day and just see these people lie, and just see the judge accept it. What kind of country is this? What kind of country are we delivering our kids into? Speaker 3: In late twenty twenty four, the trial date shifted multiple times After Doctor. Hyme posted court records on X, the federal judge threatened a gag order. Speaker 1: You're facing federal criminal charges, 250,000 in fines, and then the court threatens to silence you. What's going through your head at that point? Speaker 0: That was by far the most painful part of this case because what I was simply talking about was public motions. So every point I made on X in these interviews was already made by my attorneys. Speaker 1: I want to read some of the court transcript. It says from the judge, If similar conduct continues, I will not hesitate to reconsider the issuing of a gag order. Furthermore, any violation of this order by the defendant, that's you, could lead to the revocation of his bond and immediate custody at a federal detention center. Speaker 0: And he knows that at that point we're completely broke, completely desperate, that we have no ability to fight back, that we have to preserve our resources for trial. What I believe is his way of protecting himself, his way of protecting the DOJ from criticism, but that comes at a cost, and That cost is paid by my own constitutional rights. The rights that they took an oath to protect in that courtroom. Speaker 3: On the morning of January 24, Doctor. Haim was under more pressure after he called the case at Kangaroo Court on X, an apparent violation of the judge's instructions. Speaker 2: I really woke up that morning on the twenty fourth thinking there was a fiftyfifty chance my husband might be going to jail. Speaker 0: Things were getting so desperate. The injustice had built up to the point where I couldn't stay silent any longer. So whatever these people were going to do to me, I was willing to take those consequences. I was willing to go to jail if this judge was going to throw me in jail. But the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: There's no doubt about that. First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believed that people would hear this story. So it was essential in the most true way possible. Speaker 2: Without a free X where people could express their beliefs freely, I don't think this case would have had nearly the attention. And X agrees because X actually intervened to protect Eitan's right to speak platform. Speaker 0: When you lay out on X the nature of what the government is accusing me of, people can see it for themselves. You open it up to public scrutiny. Speaker 1: Are you calling on the Trump administration to investigate your case? Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say absolutely. Speaker 2: I would say investigating is a first step certainly. And I think, you know, taking action against the people that did this to make sure it doesn't happen again. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment where you felt like you didn't recognize this America? Speaker 0: From the very beginning to the very end, it was every moment in between. You know, I feel like it's not the country that I grew up in. You know, maybe there were problems back then, but I feel like things were different. You know, having our first daughter in the middle of all this just made it that much more important because this is the country we have now. It's unrecognizable. It's awful. But we can maybe do something about that. Speaker 2: I took that oath as an Assistant U. S. Attorney to uphold the Constitution, to respect the rights of defendants, to respect the first amendment. These things that we hold as sacred as Americans were being weaponized against us.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 24, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:37 AM

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

Thank you Senator @TedCruz for leading on this story. The charges were dropped. Congressional Accountability Is Coming. https://t.co/Ikec1dwSqz

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Doctor Targeted by Biden DOJ After Blowing The Whistle on ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care For Minors at Texas Children’s Hospital Breaks Silence After All Charges Dropped; Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate His Case “I was willing to go to jail” 00:00 Introduction 02:00 Reaction - Criminal Case Dismissed 04:20 All I Wanted Was To Hold My Baby 04:40 What Accountability Looks Like 06:40 Whistleblower Story Goes Viral 09:30 Retaliation 10:40 Biden DOJ/Alleged Threats 12:00 HHS Memo 13:50 Target Letter 15:15 Three Indictments 16:10 DOJ Errors 18:10 Darkest Moment 19:50 Gag Order 21:40 X Lifeline 22:20 Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate his case 23:20 Responses Subscriptions @C__Herridge support independent journalism. Subscribe today!

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department against me and my family, targeting me for blowing the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. A Health and Human Services memo signaled that anyone interfering with this care would be targeted. They tried to manufacture an indictment, violating my patient privacy while accusing me of the same. Without X, the truth wouldn't have been heard. The charges were eventually dropped, a moment of indescribable relief after immense pain. This dismissal, with prejudice, means the case can never be brought again. Accountability is crucial: those responsible should be held accountable. The emotional and financial toll was huge, costing us almost $2,000,000. This case highlights how the government can exploit its resources to crush dissent. This isn't the America I grew up in.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was willing to go to jail if this judge was gonna throw me in jail, but the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 0: 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against us. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care. Speaker 0: The message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital, but in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. Speaker 2: This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the Speaker 1: DOJ. Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believe that people would hear this story. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. Speaker 1: Tell us about that moment when you learned the criminal prosecution was over. Speaker 2: To know that it's finally over, that Eitan was safe and that he was going to be with us for the next several years, I think was just an indescribable relief. Speaker 0: It's one of those moments like when you hear that your wife is pregnant for the first time, or you get bad news from someone in your family is hurt, Right? Those that moment that you'll always remember where you were. Speaker 3: On January 24, '2 years of injustice came to an end for doctor Eitan Heim, the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower who went public about its gender affirming care for minors. Doctor. Heim was accused of violating patient privacy laws by the Biden Justice Department. We spoke exclusively to doctor Heim and his wife in Washington DC just days after the charges were dropped. Speaker 0: You know, she kinda yelled my name, I knew it was either gonna be really good or really bad. And she comes into the room, I could see it on her face that case was dismissed. It was signed by the judge. I said, It's over. It's over. I love you. And I gave her a hug. I gave her a kiss. We just held each other for a long time and so much we had gone through at that moment. Were there tears? Of course. It's indescribable because you achieve so much, you go through so much pain and heartache, and then all of a sudden, one second later, you go from facing ten years in prison, losing everything, and then it's over. Speaker 1: I have the court order here. I want to read it to you. The United States Of America versus Eitan David Haim. It's Criminal Action number H-twentyFour-two98. It says the indictment in all open counts in the above listed criminal case are hereby dismissed with prejudice. I can feel a lot of emotion from the two of you just reading the court order. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, clears his name. It made clear what we knew all along, was that this prosecution should have never been brought in the first place. Speaker 1: Did the court order give you your lives back? Speaker 0: Yeah, and the important thing for people to know is it's dismissed with prejudice. It's a big deal because that means they can never bring the case again in the future. The only thing I want to do is just hold my baby because the biggest fear was not being there for her. Speaker 2: I would look at him holding her and think, Oh my gosh, what if he goes to jail? What if he's not there for her growing up? And so at the end, there's this picture of him holding, Talia is her name, and holding this glass of champagne. It's this celebratory moment and just this knowledge that he's going to be there for her. Speaker 1: You posted, Today is for celebrating. Tomorrow is for accountability. What does accountability look like for you and your family? Speaker 2: Accountability looks like the people who did this, the agents responsible, the prosecutors responsible, being held to account for breaches of their duties as prosecutors and agents and also for their breaches of duties as lawyers. Speaker 0: They should be nowhere near a position of authority where they can use their position to target people who oppose their political agenda. Because to accuse someone of a crime and destroy everything they've ever worked for, for something, in this case, for doing the right thing, is the most evil thing you can do to someone. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. And we ended up winning. It's the greatest victory of my life. Mean, it's amazing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 2: 100%. Speaker 0: Yes, 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against Speaker 1: Was Health and Human Services weaponized against you? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: What harm was done to your family? Speaker 2: Huge amount of harm. You know, I think the number one was the emotional toll that all of took, the fear and living with all of that. It's cost us personally almost $2,000,000 Speaker 1: Wait, dollars 2,000,000 to defend yourself? Speaker 2: Yes, and that's conservative for the quality of lawyers that we have and the amount of the legal work that was required in this case. If you look at the docket entries for the court, you know, there are hundreds of motions, and each one of those costs tens of thousands, if not sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to. Speaker 1: Do you think bad actors in government count on the fact that most people cannot financially afford to defend themselves? Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think that's a huge part of the calculus that the government it's a huge advantage that the government has. Speaker 3: In 2023, the Himes story went viral after Christopher Rufo posted his whistleblower account. A year earlier, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton found gender affirming care can legally constitute child abuse under Texas family law. Texas Children's Hospital released a statement that it paused hormone related prescription therapies for gender affirming services, citing potential criminal legal ramifications. But Doctor. Himes says the hospital schedules indicated that the controversial treatments for minors continued. Speaker 1: When you took these screenshots, did you hack into the hospital system? Did you have unauthorized access? Speaker 0: Absolutely not. I was working in the hospital, operating as part of my residency program. Speaker 1: What drove you to take the screenshots? Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital. And everything we do is to make them healthy again. But in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. The diagnosis code is gender dysphoria. What is gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: So this is the distress that people feel when they believe that their sex is different than, their biological sex. Speaker 1: I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Minors can't give consent for these procedures. So the parents are giving consent. Do you believe it's informed consent? Speaker 0: So I believe this is not informed consent because the informing party is the doctor. If the doctor is misinformed about the pathology they're treating and the success of the interventions, then the patients are being misinformed. And that's exactly what's happening here. Speaker 1: Just to be clear, this medical procedure is a surgical procedure. Speaker 0: Yeah, this is a surgical procedure that requires anesthesia, that requires surgical instruments, that carries surgical risks in every way. Speaker 1: And this non biodegradable drug delivery implant, this is a puberty blocker. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, this is a very, very powerful medication. Speaker 1: I see the red highlighting here. Did you make those marks? Yeah. Why were you blocking this information? Speaker 0: To protect the patients. Because this whole story has nothing to do with patients, right? They're the victims. It has to do with the hospital. So I wanted to make sure to protect their identities. Speaker 1: What would you say to those families and children who are struggling with gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: I would listen to them. I think that's the most important thing. They're hurting. What they need is someone to go through that emotional pain with them, to listen to them, to tell them that they're dignified, that they're created perfect the way they are. Speaker 1: Because of your whistleblower activity, were you retaliated against? Speaker 0: Yes, I believe so. And really in a number of ways. Speaker 1: I'd like to walk through the reviews that were left on your medical profile online. This one says, He touched me inappropriately and was super creepy. He had no idea what he was doing, and he has no business being in medicine. He should be in jail for being a terrible physician. He mutilates patients. It sounds like you're an abuser. Speaker 0: An important thing for people to know about those reviews is that they were written when I was anonymous, before I took my story public. So the person who wrote those reviews had come from inside the hospital. Speaker 3: These claims are backed up by criminal attorney Mark Lytle, a member of Doctor. Haim's legal team. Speaker 4: Those are outrageous comments that, they were not real. They were fake, and they were put there by someone to retaliate against Doctor. Haim. We did our, as best we could, our own investigation, and we determined that it was coming from the hospital, the same IP address. Speaker 3: The government's case stood out for other reasons. Lytle says the Biden appointed US attorney, Alamdar Hamdani, circumvented long standing justice department checks and balances and worked directly with assistant US attorney Tina Anseri, who prosecuted the case. Lytle told us about a specific conversation with Anseri. Speaker 1: So in the twenty plus years you've been practicing law, you've never had a conversation like you did with the prosecutor. Speaker 4: Never. Under, under all the cases I prosecuted I was chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit. I supervised 15 to 17 attorneys at any given time and we reviewed this, these types of things, these types of procedures. Never heard of it before. Speaker 1: Did the prosecutor cross a red line in the conversation? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 1: You got threats in that phone call. Speaker 4: Yeah, threats essentially like we're going to go after this guy if he doesn't come in and admit what he did was wrong and if he doesn't do that then he's gonna get a felony and we're gonna try him on a technicality and we don't care if we lose. And that's disturbing. That's wielding the law as a weapon. It's not trying to be on a search for truth. This case was like a freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it. The prosecutor was dead set to bring this case against Doctor. Heim. Speaker 3: Two years before Doctor. Heim was indicted, the Biden administration sent this guidance from Washington, D. C. About investigating anyone who blocked or restricted gender affirming care for minors. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. What message was sent by this Health and Human Services memo? Speaker 0: So the message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. That they're going to use the entirety of their power and authority to target people who get in the way of their political goals. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA in exactly the way that we're talking about. Speaker 3: At the heart of the government's government's case was a federal law called HIPAA that protects the privacy of patients and their health care information. Speaker 1: What you're alleging in this case is that the law was being used by the Justice Department to protect doctors and the hospitals. Speaker 2: It was shocking and it was, you know, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. HIPAA is intended to protect patient privacy. It's not designed to protect billion dollar hospital corporations, but that's what they were using it for. Speaker 3: On 06/23/2023, the day of his graduation, the Himes described two federal agents from Health and Human Services knocking on their door. Speaker 0: Two people standing out there, they show me their badges, tell me that they're with Health and Human Services, and that they're investigating a case regarding medical records. In that moment, I knew exactly what they were there for. And Andrea gives me one look, and she says, We have to go talk privately. So we walk over to our bedroom, and she tells me that we should not speak with them without an attorney present. But before they leave, they give me a target letter. Speaker 1: Well, I've got the target letter right here. The federal agents give you this target letter. And it says, This office is involved, that's the U. S. Attorney's Office Texas, in an investigation dealing with federal law violations. You are a potential target in this criminal investigation. That means that you are the focus of a criminal investigation. Andrea, you know that there's serious legal risk. Speaker 2: I knew the minute that we received that target letter that everything was going to change. Speaker 3: The target letter was signed by Assistant U. S. Attorney Tina Enseri, who Lytle says accused Andrea Haim of obstructing the investigation. Speaker 4: When I asked her why, it was because when the HHS agents came to visit him and they sought a voluntary interview, Doctor. Haim's wife, who is an attorney, suggested that he should wait to have an attorney before he submit to an interview. AUSA and SARI believed that was obstruction. Speaker 3: At that time, Andrea Heim was onboarding for her own position as a federal prosecutor in Texas. Speaker 4: Ansari knew that Doctor. Heim's wife was freshly hired as an assistant US attorney in another office and undergoing security clearance, a background check. And this is where AUSA Ansari said something that was shocking to us. She said she wasn't going to do anything about that even though she believed it was obstruction but she might do something if Doctor. Haim's wife became difficult. Speaker 1: That sounds like a threat. Speaker 4: That's the way we took it. Speaker 3: Nearly a year after the Target letter federal marshals delivered the first of three criminal indictments for allegedly violating patient privacy laws. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. What explains three indictments? Speaker 2: First of all, it is ridiculous that there are three indictments. This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. That's why it failed. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did, right? To try to get me to plead, to make other whistleblowers disincentivized from doing the same thing. Speaker 1: It says that you violated Title 42, U. S. Code Chapter seven Subchapter XL. I couldn't find Subchapter XL. I mean, does it exist? Speaker 2: It does not. It's a typo. This isn't a typo of their versus their or something like that. This is the operative language of their indictment, the name of the statute that they're charging with. And they got that wrong in multiple indictments. Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are gonna be confused that you've got a Justice Department indictment, federal criminal charges, and it cites a law that does not exist. Speaker 0: Yeah, and they admitted that during a hearing, right? They had to apologize that they weren't proofreading properly. Speaker 1: I just think American taxpayers would want an answer about sloppy lawyering. Speaker 2: They deserve one. Speaker 0: I mean, consider how many resources were spent on this case alone. Right? Months and months of legal work, right? You had FBI agents, prosecutors, you had the court's time, all of that. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. Is this a violation of their privacy? Yes or no? Speaker 0: I would say that it is. Speaker 1: The screenshots you took in the hospital, you redacted, you used the red highlighter to block the name of the patients. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the DOJ who was violating the patient's privacy because I never released patient information. It was the Department of Justice who had released the patient's initials. Speaker 3: These exclusive internal emails show Doctor. Haim's legal team pushed the prosecutor for evidence patient names were disclosed. His lawyer wrote, I have not been able to find an instance where this actually happened. The prosecutor eventually sent doctor Haim screenshots of the hospital surgery schedule where doctor Haim removed patient names. Speaker 2: To me, this is one of the most unbelievable parts of this case is that they're charging him with accessing private patient information, but the government released more information about child patients than Eitan ever did. Speaker 3: As the full weight of the Biden Harris Justice Department came down on the couple, Andrea neared her due date, and Eitan had to be in court. Speaker 1: What was the darkest moment? Speaker 2: The happiest moment of my life was the birth of my four month old daughter, but it was also the scariest, and I ended up having to have an emergency C section. Eitan had to leave the hospital room where I was with our daughter an hour after I had surgery to go to Houston for a court hearing. And at that point, we had no idea what was going to happen. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment when you feared for Andrea and your daughter? Speaker 0: Yeah, especially because whenever giving birth, if something happens, if there's any complications, happens after. If something happened, I wouldn't be there. And that's awful. Speaker 1: Did you feel that you had let your wife down? Speaker 0: Yeah. I knew that, she understood that, it's something I had to do, right? Speaker 1: I can see you choking up about it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Because if I did, mean, these people are going send me to prison. Speaker 1: Yeah, just take a minute. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life when you bring a child into the world. Speaker 0: Yeah. But then especially to have my baby born, to go to trial the next day and just see these people lie, and just see the judge accept it. What kind of country is this? What kind of country are we delivering our kids into? Speaker 3: In late twenty twenty four, the trial date shifted multiple times After Doctor. Hyme posted court records on X, the federal judge threatened a gag order. Speaker 1: You're facing federal criminal charges, 250,000 in fines, and then the court threatens to silence you. What's going through your head at that point? Speaker 0: That was by far the most painful part of this case because what I was simply talking about was public motions. So every point I made on X in these interviews was already made by my attorneys. Speaker 1: I want to read some of the court transcript. It says from the judge, If similar conduct continues, I will not hesitate to reconsider the issuing of a gag order. Furthermore, any violation of this order by the defendant, that's you, could lead to the revocation of his bond and immediate custody at a federal detention center. Speaker 0: And he knows that at that point we're completely broke, completely desperate, that we have no ability to fight back, that we have to preserve our resources for trial. What I believe is his way of protecting himself, his way of protecting the DOJ from criticism, but that comes at a cost, and That cost is paid by my own constitutional rights. The rights that they took an oath to protect in that courtroom. Speaker 3: On the morning of January 24, Doctor. Haim was under more pressure after he called the case at Kangaroo Court on X, an apparent violation of the judge's instructions. Speaker 2: I really woke up that morning on the twenty fourth thinking there was a fiftyfifty chance my husband might be going to jail. Speaker 0: Things were getting so desperate. The injustice had built up to the point where I couldn't stay silent any longer. So whatever these people were going to do to me, I was willing to take those consequences. I was willing to go to jail if this judge was going to throw me in jail. But the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: There's no doubt about that. First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believed that people would hear this story. So it was essential in the most true way possible. Speaker 2: Without a free X where people could express their beliefs freely, I don't think this case would have had nearly the attention. Platform. Speaker 0: When you lay out on X the nature of what the government is accusing me of, people can see it for themselves. You open it up to public scrutiny. Speaker 1: Are you calling on the Trump administration to investigate your case? Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say absolutely. Speaker 2: I would say investigating is a first step certainly. And I think, you know, taking action against the people that did this to make sure it doesn't happen again. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment where you felt like you didn't recognize this America? Speaker 0: From the very beginning to the very end, it was every moment in between. You know, I feel like it's not the country that I grew up in. You know, maybe there were problems back then, but I feel like things were different. You know, having our first daughter in the middle of all this just made it that much more important because this is the country we have now. It's unrecognizable. It's awful. But we can maybe do something about that. Speaker 2: I took that oath as an Assistant U. S. Attorney to uphold the Constitution, to respect the rights of defendants, to respect the first amendment. These things that we hold as sacred as Americans were being weaponized against us.
C__Herridge
Posted - February 26, 2025 at 1:06 AM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 12:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
My attorney, Mark Lytle, described the case involving Dr. Eithan Haim, the whistleblower from Texas Children’s Hospital, as a runaway freight train. He claimed that US Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani bypassed established Justice Department protocols and collaborated directly with Assistant US Attorney Tina Ansari on the prosecution. Lytle highlighted a particular conversation with Ansari, but she did not respond to our attempts for comment. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas stated they have no further information to share.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

The criminal attorney for the Texas Children’s Hospital whistleblower Dr. @EithanHaim says the case “was like freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it.” Attorney Mark Lytle said the Biden-appointed US attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani circumvented long standing Justice Department checks and balances… And worked directly with Assistant US Attorney Tina Ansari who prosecuted the case.   Lytle said a specific conversation with Ansari stood out. AUSA Ansari did not respond to our emails and phone calls seeking comment. A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas said, “we do not have any additional information to provide at this time.”

Video Transcript AI Summary
In my twenty-plus years of practicing law, including my time as chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit, I've never encountered anything like this conversation with the prosecutor. A red line was definitely crossed. Essentially, the threats were, "admit wrongdoing, or we'll pursue a felony charge on a technicality, win or lose." That's disturbing, it's wielding the law as a weapon, not a search for truth. This case felt like a runaway freight train, the prosecutor is dead set on bringing this case against Dr. Hine.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So in the twenty plus years you've been practicing law you've never had a conversation like you did with the prosecutor. Speaker 1: Never. Under all the cases I prosecuted I was chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit. I supervised 15 to 17 attorneys at any given time and we reviewed this, these types of things, these types of procedures. Never heard of it before. Speaker 0: Did the prosecutor cross a red line in the conversation? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: You got threats in that phone call. Speaker 1: Yeah, threats essentially like we're going to go after this guy if he doesn't come in and admit what he did was wrong. And if he doesn't do that, then he's going to get a felony and we're going to try him on a technicality and we don't care if we lose. And that's disturbing. That's wielding the law as a weapon. It's not trying to be on a search for truth. This case was like a freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it. The prosecutor is dead set to bring this case against Doctor. Hine.

@C__Herridge - Catherine Herridge

BREAKING: Doctor Targeted by Biden DOJ After Blowing The Whistle on ‘Gender-Affirming’ Care For Minors at Texas Children’s Hospital Breaks Silence After All Charges Dropped; Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate His Case “I was willing to go to jail” 00:00 Introduction 02:00 Reaction - Criminal Case Dismissed 04:20 All I Wanted Was To Hold My Baby 04:40 What Accountability Looks Like 06:40 Whistleblower Story Goes Viral 09:30 Retaliation 10:40 Biden DOJ/Alleged Threats 12:00 HHS Memo 13:50 Target Letter 15:15 Three Indictments 16:10 DOJ Errors 18:10 Darkest Moment 19:50 Gag Order 21:40 X Lifeline 22:20 Calls on Trump Administration/DOJ to Investigate his case 23:20 Responses Subscriptions @C__Herridge support independent journalism. Subscribe today!

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department and Health and Human Services against my family after I blew the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. They targeted anyone interfering with this care, manipulating HIPAA to protect hospitals, not patients. The prosecution tried to manufacture a case, even citing nonexistent laws and violating patient privacy themselves. The legal battle cost us nearly $2,000,000 and took an immense emotional toll, especially with the birth of our daughter. I faced potential jail time and risked losing everything. I was even threatened with a gag order for posting public motions on X, which was a lifeline, allowing me to share my story and gain public scrutiny. We need accountability for those who abused their power and weaponized the system against us. This isn't the America I recognize.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was willing to go to jail if this judge was gonna throw me in jail, but the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 0: 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against us. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care. Speaker 0: The message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital, but in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. Speaker 2: This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the Speaker 1: DOJ. Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believe that people would hear this story. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. Speaker 1: Tell us about that moment when you learned the criminal prosecution was over. Speaker 2: To know that it's finally over, that Eitan was safe and that he was going to be with us for the next several years, I think was just an indescribable relief. Speaker 0: It's one of those moments like when you hear that your wife is pregnant for the first time, or you get bad news from someone in your family is hurt, Right? Those that moment that you'll always remember where you were. Speaker 3: On January 24, '2 years of injustice came to an end for doctor Eitan Heim, the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower who went public about its gender affirming care for minors. Doctor. Heim was accused of violating patient privacy laws by the Biden Justice Department. We spoke exclusively to doctor Heim and his wife in Washington DC just days after the charges were dropped. Speaker 0: You know, she kinda yelled my name, I knew it was either gonna be really good or really bad. And she comes into the room, I could see it on her face that case was dismissed. It was signed by the judge. I said, It's over. It's over. I love you. And I gave her a hug. I gave her a kiss. We just held each other for a long time and so much we had gone through at that moment. Were there tears? Of course. It's indescribable because you achieve so much, you go through so much pain and heartache, and then all of a sudden, one second later, you go from facing ten years in prison, losing everything, and then it's over. Speaker 1: I have the court order here. I want to read it to you. The United States Of America versus Eitan David Haim. It's Criminal Action number H-twentyFour-two98. It says the indictment in all open counts in the above listed criminal case are hereby dismissed with prejudice. I can feel a lot of emotion from the two of you just reading the court order. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, clears his name. It made clear what we knew all along, was that this prosecution should have never been brought in the first place. Speaker 1: Did the court order give you your lives back? Speaker 0: Yeah, and the important thing for people to know is it's dismissed with prejudice. It's a big deal because that means they can never bring the case again in the future. The only thing I want to do is just hold my baby because the biggest fear was not being there for her. Speaker 2: I would look at him holding her and think, Oh my gosh, what if he goes to jail? What if he's not there for her growing up? And so at the end, there's this picture of him holding, Talia is her name, and holding this glass of champagne. It's this celebratory moment and just this knowledge that he's going to be there for her. Speaker 1: You posted, Today is for celebrating. Tomorrow is for accountability. What does accountability look like for you and your family? Speaker 2: Accountability looks like the people who did this, the agents responsible, the prosecutors responsible, being held to account for breaches of their duties as prosecutors and agents and also for their breaches of duties as lawyers. Speaker 0: They should be nowhere near a position of authority where they can use their position to target people who oppose their political agenda. Because to accuse someone of a crime and destroy everything they've ever worked for, for something, in this case, for doing the right thing, is the most evil thing you can do to someone. It was because they were trying to crush us that we worked so hard to let them not crush us. And we ended up winning. It's the greatest victory of my life. Mean, it's amazing. Speaker 1: Was the Biden Justice Department weaponized against you and your family? Speaker 2: 100%. Speaker 0: Yes, 100% the Biden administration had weaponized the Justice Department against Speaker 1: Was Health and Human Services weaponized against you? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: What harm was done to your family? Speaker 2: Huge amount of harm. You know, I think the number one was the emotional toll that all of took, the fear and living with all of that. It's cost us personally almost $2,000,000 Speaker 1: Wait, dollars 2,000,000 to defend yourself? Speaker 2: Yes, and that's conservative for the quality of lawyers that we have and the amount of the legal work that was required in this case. If you look at the docket entries for the court, you know, there are hundreds of motions, and each one of those costs tens of thousands, if not sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to. Speaker 1: Do you think bad actors in government count on the fact that most people cannot financially afford to defend themselves? Speaker 2: Absolutely. I think that's a huge part of the calculus that the government it's a huge advantage that the government has. Speaker 3: In 2023, the Himes story went viral after Christopher Rufo posted his whistleblower account. A year earlier, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton found gender affirming care can legally constitute child abuse under Texas family law. Texas Children's Hospital released a statement that it paused hormone related prescription therapies for gender affirming services, citing potential criminal legal ramifications. But Doctor. Himes says the hospital schedules indicated that the controversial treatments for minors continued. Speaker 1: When you took these screenshots, did you hack into the hospital system? Did you have unauthorized access? Speaker 0: Absolutely not. I was working in the hospital, operating as part of my residency program. Speaker 1: What drove you to take the screenshots? Speaker 0: I spent a lot of time taking care of these sick kids at Texas Children's Hospital. And everything we do is to make them healthy again. But in the same operating rooms, I find out that they're taking perfectly healthy children, right? Inserting medications into their body, putting them down this road to turn them into chronic medical patients. Speaker 1: I'd like you to walk us through this schedule from Texas Children's Hospital. The diagnosis code is gender dysphoria. What is gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: So this is the distress that people feel when they believe that their sex is different than, their biological sex. Speaker 1: I'm looking at the ages here, 15, 13, 12, 14, 12, 11. Minors can't give consent for these procedures. So the parents are giving consent. Do you believe it's informed consent? Speaker 0: So I believe this is not informed consent because the informing party is the doctor. If the doctor is misinformed about the pathology they're treating and the success of the interventions, then the patients are being misinformed. And that's exactly what's happening here. Speaker 1: Just to be clear, this medical procedure is a surgical procedure. Speaker 0: Yeah, this is a surgical procedure that requires anesthesia, that requires surgical instruments, that carries surgical risks in every way. Speaker 1: And this non biodegradable drug delivery implant, this is a puberty blocker. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, this is a very, very powerful medication. Speaker 1: I see the red highlighting here. Did you make those marks? Yeah. Why were you blocking this information? Speaker 0: To protect the patients. Because this whole story has nothing to do with patients, right? They're the victims. It has to do with the hospital. So I wanted to make sure to protect their identities. Speaker 1: What would you say to those families and children who are struggling with gender dysphoria? Speaker 0: I would listen to them. I think that's the most important thing. They're hurting. What they need is someone to go through that emotional pain with them, to listen to them, to tell them that they're dignified, that they're created perfect the way they are. Speaker 1: Because of your whistleblower activity, were you retaliated against? Speaker 0: Yes, I believe so. And really in a number of ways. Speaker 1: I'd like to walk through the reviews that were left on your medical profile online. This one says, He touched me inappropriately and was super creepy. He had no idea what he was doing, and he has no business being in medicine. He should be in jail for being a terrible physician. He mutilates patients. It sounds like you're an abuser. Speaker 0: An important thing for people to know about those reviews is that they were written when I was anonymous, before I took my story public. So the person who wrote those reviews had come from inside the hospital. Speaker 3: These claims are backed up by criminal attorney Mark Lytle, a member of Doctor. Haim's legal team. Speaker 4: Those are outrageous comments that, they were not real. They were fake, and they were put there by someone to retaliate against Doctor. Haim. We did our, as best we could, our own investigation, and we determined that it was coming from the hospital, the same IP address. Speaker 3: The government's case stood out for other reasons. Lytle says the Biden appointed US attorney, Alamdar Hamdani, circumvented long standing justice department checks and balances and worked directly with assistant US attorney Tina Anseri, who prosecuted the case. Lytle told us about a specific conversation with Anseri. Speaker 1: So in the twenty plus years you've been practicing law, you've never had a conversation like you did with the prosecutor. Speaker 4: Never. Under, under all the cases I prosecuted I was chief of the Financial Crimes of Public Corruption Unit. I supervised 15 to 17 attorneys at any given time and we reviewed this, these types of things, these types of procedures. Never heard of it before. Speaker 1: Did the prosecutor cross a red line in the conversation? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 1: You got threats in that phone call. Speaker 4: Yeah, threats essentially like we're going to go after this guy if he doesn't come in and admit what he did was wrong and if he doesn't do that, then he's gonna get a felony and we're gonna try him on a technicality and we don't care if we lose. And that's disturbing. That's wielding the law as a weapon. It's not trying to be on a search for truth. This case was like a freight train running down the mountainside without any brake pads on it. The prosecutor was dead set to bring this case against Doctor. Heim. Speaker 3: Two years before Doctor. Heim was indicted, the Biden administration sent this guidance from Washington, D. C. About investigating anyone who blocked or restricted gender affirming care for minors. Speaker 1: This memo is from Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and it's their notice and guidance on gender affirming care, civil rights, and patient privacy. What message was sent by this Health and Human Services memo? Speaker 0: So the message from this memo is that anyone who interferes with the administration of quote unquote gender affirming care is going to become a target of the federal government. That they're going to use the entirety of their power and authority to target people who get in the way of their political goals. Speaker 2: This memo was a green light by the Biden administration to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA in exactly the way that we're talking about. Speaker 3: At the heart of the government's government's case was a federal law called HIPAA that protects the privacy of patients and their health care information. Speaker 1: What you're alleging in this case is that the law was being used by the Justice Department to protect doctors and the hospitals. Speaker 2: It was shocking and it was, you know, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. HIPAA is intended to protect patient privacy. It's not designed to protect billion dollar hospital corporations, but that's what they were using it for. Speaker 3: On 06/23/2023, the day of his graduation, the Himes described two federal agents from Health and Human Services knocking on their door. Speaker 0: Two people standing out there, they show me their badges, tell me that they're with Health and Human Services, and that they're investigating a case regarding medical records. In that moment, I knew exactly what they were there for. And Andrea gives me one look, and she says, We have to go talk privately. So we walk over to our bedroom, and she tells me that we should not speak with them without an attorney present. But before they leave, they give me a target letter. Speaker 1: Well, I've got the target letter right here. The federal agents give you this target letter. And it says, This office is involved, that's the U. S. Attorney's Office Texas, in an investigation dealing with federal law violations. You are a potential target in this criminal investigation. That means that you are the focus of a criminal investigation. Andrea, you know that there's serious legal risk. Speaker 2: I knew the minute that we received that target letter that everything was going to change. Speaker 3: The target letter was signed by Assistant U. S. Attorney Tina Enseri, who Lytle says accused Andrea Haim of obstructing the investigation. Speaker 4: When I asked her why, it was because when the HHS agents came to visit him and they sought a voluntary interview, Doctor. Haim's wife, who is an attorney, suggested that he should wait to have an attorney before he submit to an interview. AUSA and SARI believed that was obstruction. Speaker 3: At that time, Andrea Heim was onboarding for her own position as a federal prosecutor in Texas. Speaker 4: Ansari knew that Doctor. Heim's wife was freshly hired as an assistant US attorney in another office and undergoing security clearance, a background check. And this is where AUSA Ansari said something that was shocking to us. She said she wasn't going to do anything about that even though she believed it was obstruction but she might do something if Doctor. Haim's wife became difficult. Speaker 1: That sounds like a threat. Speaker 4: That's the way we took it. Speaker 3: Nearly a year after the Target letter federal marshals delivered the first of three criminal indictments for allegedly violating patient privacy laws. Speaker 1: The first indictment is May of twenty twenty four. The second indictment is October. The third indictment is November. What explains three indictments? Speaker 2: First of all, it is ridiculous that there are three indictments. This is absolutely speaking to the fact that this prosecution, they were trying any way that they could to manufacture an indictment out of nonexistent law. That's why it failed. Speaker 0: They were going to do anything possible to make me pay for what I did, right? To try to get me to plead, to make other whistleblowers disincentivized from doing the same thing. Speaker 1: It says that you violated Title 42, U. S. Code Chapter seven Subchapter XL. I couldn't find Subchapter XL. I mean, does it exist? Speaker 2: It does not. It's a typo. This isn't a typo of their versus their or something like that. This is the operative language of their indictment, the name of the statute that they're charging with. And they got that wrong in multiple indictments. Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are gonna be confused that you've got a Justice Department indictment, federal criminal charges, and it cites a law that does not exist. Speaker 0: Yeah, and they admitted that during a hearing, right? They had to apologize that they weren't proofreading properly. Speaker 1: I just think American taxpayers would want an answer about sloppy lawyering. Speaker 2: They deserve one. Speaker 0: I mean, consider how many resources were spent on this case alone. Right? Months and months of legal work, right? You had FBI agents, prosecutors, you had the court's time, all of that. Speaker 1: The allegation is that you violated patient privacy. Yet when I read the indictment, the Justice Department identifies patients with their initials. Is this a violation of their privacy? Yes or no? Speaker 0: I would say that it is. Speaker 1: The screenshots you took in the hospital, you redacted, you used the red highlighter to block the name of the patients. So who's violating patient privacy here? Speaker 0: I think there's a strong argument to make that it was the DOJ who was violating the patient's privacy because I never released patient information. It was the Department of Justice who had released the patient's initials. Speaker 3: These exclusive internal emails show Doctor. Haim's legal team pushed the prosecutor for evidence patient names were disclosed. His lawyer wrote, I have not been able to find an instance where this actually happened. The prosecutor eventually sent doctor Haim screenshots of the hospital surgery schedule where doctor Haim removed patient names. Speaker 2: To me, this is one of the most unbelievable parts of this case is that they're charging him with accessing private patient information, but the government released more information about child patients than Eitan ever did. Speaker 3: As the full weight of the Biden Harris Justice Department came down on the couple, Andrea neared her due date, and Eitan had to be in court. Speaker 1: What was the darkest moment? Speaker 2: The happiest moment of my life was the birth of my four month old daughter, but it was also the scariest, and I ended up having to have an emergency C section. Eitan had to leave the hospital room where I was with our daughter an hour after I had surgery to go to Houston for a court hearing. And at that point, we had no idea what was going to happen. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment when you feared for Andrea and your daughter? Speaker 0: Yeah, especially because whenever giving birth, if something happens, if there's any complications, happens after. If something happened, I wouldn't be there. And that's awful. Speaker 1: Did you feel that you had let your wife down? Speaker 0: Yeah. I knew that, she understood that, it's something I had to do, right? Speaker 1: I can see you choking up about it. Speaker 0: Yeah. Because if I did, mean, these people are going send me to prison. Speaker 1: Yeah, just take a minute. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life when you bring a child into the world. Speaker 0: Yeah. But then especially to have my baby born, to go to trial the next day and just see these people lie, and just see the judge accept it. What kind of country is this? What kind of country are we delivering our kids into? Speaker 3: In late twenty twenty four, the trial date shifted multiple times After Doctor. Hyme posted court records on X, the federal judge threatened a gag order. Speaker 1: You're facing federal criminal charges, 250,000 in fines, and then the court threatens to silence you. What's going through your head at that point? Speaker 0: That was by far the most painful part of this case because what I was simply talking about was public motions. So every point I made on X in these interviews was already made by my attorneys. Speaker 1: I want to read some of the court transcript. It says from the judge, If similar conduct continues, I will not hesitate to reconsider the issuing of a gag order. Furthermore, any violation of this order by the defendant, that's you, could lead to the revocation of his bond and immediate custody at a federal detention center. Speaker 0: And he knows that at that point we're completely broke, completely desperate, that we have no ability to fight back, that we have to preserve our resources for trial. What I believe is his way of protecting himself, his way of protecting the DOJ from criticism, but that comes at a cost, and That cost is paid by my own constitutional rights. The rights that they took an oath to protect in that courtroom. Speaker 3: On the morning of January 24, Doctor. Haim was under more pressure after he called the case at Kangaroo Court on X, an apparent violation of the judge's instructions. Speaker 2: I really woke up that morning on the twenty fourth thinking there was a fiftyfifty chance my husband might be going to jail. Speaker 0: Things were getting so desperate. The injustice had built up to the point where I couldn't stay silent any longer. So whatever these people were going to do to me, I was willing to take those consequences. I was willing to go to jail if this judge was going to throw me in jail. But the whole world would have to see what he was doing. Speaker 1: Was X a lifeline? Speaker 0: There's no doubt about that. First of all, there's no whistleblowing without X. The only reason I blew the whistle is because I believed that people would hear this story. So it was essential in the most true way possible. Speaker 2: Without a free X where people could express their beliefs freely, I don't think this case would have had nearly the attention. And X agrees because X actually intervened to protect Eitan's right to speak platform. Speaker 0: When you lay out on X the nature of what the government is accusing me of, people can see it for themselves. You open it up to public scrutiny. Speaker 1: Are you calling on the Trump administration to investigate your case? Speaker 0: Yeah, I would say absolutely. Speaker 2: I would say investigating is a first step certainly. And I think, you know, taking action against the people that did this to make sure it doesn't happen again. Speaker 1: Did you have a moment where you felt like you didn't recognize this America? Speaker 0: From the very beginning to the very end, it was every moment in between. You know, I feel like it's not the country that I grew up in. You know, maybe there were problems back then, but I feel like things were different. You know, having our first daughter in the middle of all this just made it that much more important because this is the country we have now. It's unrecognizable. It's awful. But we can maybe do something about that. Speaker 2: I took that oath as an Assistant U. S. Attorney to uphold the Constitution, to respect the rights of defendants, to respect the first amendment. These things that we hold as sacred as Americans were being weaponized against us.
View Full Interactive Feed