reSee.it - Related Video Feed

During my time at the CIA, I was responsible for briefing the press and circulating disinformation. Disinformation is not necessarily a lie, but rather a half truth. We would select influential journalists and provide them with information that we wanted to convey to the American public. We targeted respected journalists like Robert Chaplin, Kais Beach, Bud Merrick, Malcolm Brown, and Maynard Parker. I would cultivate their trust by sharing valid information and then slip in the data we wanted to spread, which may not have been true. We would also create an environment where journalists couldn't fact-check by briefing diplomats who would confirm our false information. Personally, I am opposed to these disinformation activities as they serve no useful purpose for the CIA.

The discussion centers on CNN’s report that the CIA is establishing a foothold in Venezuela, with the claim that the CIA has, for decades, enabled the Venezuelan drug trade. The speakers argue that the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA itself facilitated drug trafficking. They cite CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstitute Venezuela’s intelligence to penetrate the government; the general named Ramon Gulen allegedly ran narcotics and created the cartel of the sun. They claim the cartel is used by the Trump administration as a pretext to stage attacks on boats and in Venezuela and that the CIA, with its long history, was behind the Secret Service and the general in creating the drug trade and the cartel, with the Trump administration leveraging it to circumvent Congress. There is reference to a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reporting that the CIA collaborated with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The conversation then moves to John Kerry, who in the mid-1980s led the Contra Cocaine Investigation hearings into U.S. government complicity in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted the inquiry, attempted to discredit witnesses, and assigned the CIA to monitor the probe. Ten years later, the HITS report (the CIA Inspector General report authorized under Inspector General Frederick HITS) concluded that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when deemed operationally important, to keep the Contra War alive and to maintain U.S. objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords; the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drug flow into the United States. The Iran-Contra framework is referenced as arms to Iran funding the Contras, with connections to cocaine trafficking, forming a single pipeline, allegedly placing the CIA at the center of these operations. The panel critiques CNN’s headline as suggesting the CIA’s new foothold is about establishing a presence, arguing the real aim is to block Russia and China’s influence, not democracy or drugs. Venezuela’s oil trade outside the petrodollar with BRICS nations is noted, with claims that the move away from the petrodollar spurred interference and invasion, and that Venezuela later returned to endorsing the petrodollar after a period of yuan transactions with China. The discourse asserts that the CIA’s purpose is to prevent free trade outside U.S. influence and to suppress alternative financial arrangements like BRICS or yuan-based oil transactions. The participants discuss the idea that the CIA has shifted from operating covertly to openly engaging in such activities, suggesting a normalization of “strategy of tension” and the notion that a third of the population would support the government’s actions, a third oppose, and a third are indifferent, thereby reducing public resistance. They connect these elements to broader media complicity, including Operation Mockingbird and the integration of former intelligence heads into media roles, implying entrenched deep-state influence.

Speaker 0 raises the question of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, referencing a past discussion with former Tel Aviv CIA chief of station Susan Miller and noting a reminder about Iran-Contra. They ask why the CIA would be intimately involved with drug trafficking, and mention Candace Owens discussing it in relation to the Charlie Kirk assassination. Speaker 1 answers that trafficking in drugs allows the CIA to get closer to the targets they want to reach. They point to a popular Netflix series, Narcos, which follows the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the Cali cartel, and other major cartels. They claim that, in the show, and in real life, every time the Drug Enforcement Administration gets close to its primary target, the CIA station chief steps in and ruins the investigation. They state that this happens because the CIA doesn’t care about drugs. Speaker 1 continues that the CIA cares about terrorism and communism, implying there are always some other bigger ideological concerns. Therefore, the CIA is “perfectly happy” to allow cocaine to flood into the United States in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra period, just as it was “perfectly happy” to allow Afghanistan to provide 93% of the world’s heroin once the United States began its occupation of Afghanistan.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

The discussion centers on claims that the CIA has long been involved in Venezuela, has enabled drug trafficking, and now seeks a visible foothold in the country to counter Russia and China. Speaker 0 argues CNN’s report that the CIA will establish a foothold in Venezuela is emblematic of a duplicative pattern: the CIA has supposedly enabled the drug trade for decades, so the attack on Venezuela cannot be about drugs if the CIA is involved. They cite Kevin Shipp, a CIA whistleblower, who said the CIA has been involved in Venezuela since at least the Cartel of the Sun, run by a general who was a CIA proxy and helped reconstruct Venezuela’s intelligence service to penetrate the government. The general cited is General Ramon Gulen, described as running narcotics and creating and running the Cartel of the Sun. The Cartel is portrayed as a pretext used by the Trump administration to stage attacks and operate around Congress, with the CIA behind past secret dealings tied to it. Speaker 0 then references a 60 Minutes piece from the 1990s reported on by mainstream media that allegedly showed the CIA collaborating with Venezuelan National Guard generals who moved tons of cocaine into the United States. The discussion moves to John Kerry, who led the Contra Cocaine Investigation in the mid-1980s, seeking to determine US government involvement in the contra drug trade. The Reagan administration resisted, stonewalled the Senate, and monitored the probe. The HITS report (the CIA inspector general report authorized under inspector general Frederick HITS) is described as concluding in the late 1990s that while the CIA did not officially participate in cocaine trafficking during the Contra War, it knowingly maintained relationships with and protected numerous contra-linked individuals and organizations involved in the drug trade when operationally useful, to keep the contra war alive and to maintain US objectives in Central America, even if it meant enabling and protecting drug lords. It also states the CIA hid this from Congress, contributing to drugs entering the United States. The Iran-Contra connection is summarized as arms to Iran generating cash to fund the Contras, with the same network tied to cocaine trafficking, implying a single pipeline of influence and criminal activity. The speakers discuss media coverage and relationships with locals in Venezuela, questioning the claimed “relationship-building” as a cover for coercive activities, given sanctions that harm locals. They criticize the notion that the CIA is simply building positive ties, suggesting instead a pattern of disruption and control. The dialogue then shifts to geopolitics: Venezuela reportedly traded oil with BRICS outside the petrodollar since at least 2017, which is framed as undermining US global oil hegemony. A recent move to settle oil transactions in yuan is mentioned, with a snide remark that the CIA’s presence in Venezuela aims to prevent any free-trade diversification away from the petrodollar. The claim is made that the CIA’s objective is to prevent alternative global trade arrangements and maintain US influence by blocking competition from Russia, China, and BRICS members. Speaker 3 adds that the CIA’s actions align with a long-standing pattern of intervention, suggesting that the agency’s open, unapologetic approach reflects a broader strategy of tension, where a third of the population would support such actions, a third would oppose, and a third remain indifferent. They reference Operation Mockingbird and the presence of CIA-linked figures in media, including Mike Pompeo as a Fox News contributor, arguing that mainstream outlets act as channels for the deep state’s messaging, with information often flowing from the CIA to outlets like the New York Times. In sum, the discussion argues that US intervention in Venezuela is less about drugs or democracy and more about strategic counteraction to Russian, Chinese, and BRICS influence, with a long history of CIA involvement in drug trafficking and media manipulation. The speakers invite audience reactions on these points.

I was concerned that planted stories meant for foreign audiences were being circulated and believed here at home. This would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through another country. We are looking into this very carefully. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals. I think that getting into the details of whether we have people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks should be handled in a closed session. By 1954, relationships with the CIA had been established at CBS. I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We will evaluate the information we have, and we will include any evidence of wrongdoing in our final report and make recommendations. Whether we name the news organizations in our final report remains to be decided.

Your investigation uncovered witnesses who told you that or told your team that CIA Director John Brennan overruled intelligence officials who were objecting to the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment. How well would some of those witnesses hold up in court or in a public hearing of the House Oversight Committee? Well, these are some of the most senior intelligence officials within the CIA who came forward and spoke the truth to the House Intelligence Committee's, majority staff team that launched this investigation. They invest they they spoke to and interviewed over 20 intelligence community professionals, senior officials within the CIA, which is how they uncovered the truth of what actually happened as reported in the documents that we released yesterday.

A ton of cocaine, worth hundreds of millions, was smuggled into the United States not in the usual way, but through a CIA-backed operation with Venezuela’s National Guard, according to former DEA head Judge Robert Bonner. He says this drug trafficking was approved or condoned by the CIA, and that it was illegal unless approved by the DEA or a US law enforcement authority. Bonner conducted a two-year secret investigation with the DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility in cooperation with the CIA’s inspector general, and concluded that the CIA broke the law by facilitating drug shipments into the United States. The CIA’s stated rationale for promoting the drug smuggling was that it would yield valuable drug intelligence about the Colombian cartels. The plan, described as an undercover operation in Venezuela, involved the CIA and Venezuela’s Guardia Nacional to handle the transshipment of the cartel’s cocaine en route to the United States and Europe. The operation reportedly produced more than a ton of cocaine, stored at a CIA-financed Counter Narcotics Intelligence Center in Caracas. The center’s commander and the CIA’s man in Venezuela was National Guard General Ramon Guillen Davila. Annabelle Grimm, a DEA agent with eighteen years’ experience, testified that CIA station chief James Campbell and CIA officer Mark McFarlane told her that to keep the undercover smuggling operation credible, they had to keep the cartel happy by delivering their dope untouched by US law enforcement to the cartel’s distributors in the United States. Grimm said the CIA and the Guardia Nacional wanted “to let cocaine go on into the traffic without doing anything,” with no surveillance, no interference. Grimm and others argued that the operation would not stop drugs in Miami, Houston, or elsewhere; the plan was to allow shipments to reach the United States and then enter the traffic. Campbell and McFarlane sought Washington approval, but the CIA leadership in Washington allegedly went over Grimm’s head to DEA headquarters. The joint DEA-CIA investigation confirmed that more than a ton of cocaine moved from the Caracas counter-narcotics center to US streets, and that at one point Guillen’s National Guard tried to ship 1,500 kilos at once—an effort that failed because the box would not fit through the airplane door of a Boeing 707. General Guillen admitted bungling the operation, but he denied involvement in an unauthorized shipment. He insisted the operation was approved by US authorities. The CIA maintains it found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, though it acknowledged instances of poor judgment and management leading to disciplinary actions for several CIA officers; Mark McFarlane resigned, and James Campbell was brought back to the US, promoted, and later retired. Campbell claimed he devoted his life to his country and felt like a victim in this thing, insisting the issue occurred without CIA knowledge. Senator Dennis DeConcini was briefed by the CIA, and some officials argued no one in the CIA has been prosecuted, while others argued that the drugs did reach the streets. The intelligence gained from the operation was disputed; some questioned whether any valuable intelligence was produced. Three to four truck drivers were arrested, but the larger goal—US intelligence or seizures—was contested. General Guillen later traveled to Miami and was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating the CIA’s cocaine, but Venezuela reportedly would not permit testimony. The investigation continues to raise questions about the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking, with ongoing inquiries by House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.

The speaker, a former LAPD narcotics detective, accuses the CIA of drug trafficking and presents evidence of CIA involvement in drug operations. Another individual mentions past CIA activities, including assassination attempts and espionage. They question the credibility of the CIA director's denial of such activities in Los Angeles.

My team faced significant obstruction from USAID while trying to access records on taxpayer money. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending with minimal results. Notably, USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and also allocated money for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite travel warnings from the State Department. There are numerous examples of questionable expenditures.

The speaker claims that the CIA's army, the contras, brought cocaine to Los Angeles, sparking the crack epidemic. Some accuse the CIA of deliberately targeting young African Americans. However, the speaker does not believe there was a conscious decision to poison black America. The controversy surrounding the story continues, with some journalists finding it reckless and wrong. Freeway Ricky Ross, a drug dealer, played a significant role in the crack epidemic. He received a steady supply of cheap cocaine and introduced crack to other cities. While Ross's drug supplier had connections to the contras, there is no evidence of CIA involvement. A Senate investigation found complicity in drug trafficking by individuals supporting the contras, with some using the US government's airlift operation for smuggling.

Director Deutch and Congressman Julian Dixon are interrupted by audience members as they discuss allegations of CIA and agency involvement in drug activities. A former Los Angeles Police narcotics detective, Mike Rupert, asserts that the agency has dealt drugs across the country for a long time. He directs his comments to Director Deutch and references specific agency operations named Amadeus, Pegasus, and Watchtower. Rupert states that he has Watchtower documents that are heavily redacted by the agency, and that he was personally exposed to CIA operations and recruited by CIA personnel in the late 1970s to help protect agency drug operations in the United States. He asks, in the context of the IG’s investigations and Fred Hitz’s work, whether, if evidence of severely criminal activity is found and it is classified, the classification will be used to hide the crime or to tell the American people the truth. The moderator then defers to Director Deutch to speak first and then to Congressman Dixon. A speaker on the panel (Speaker 2) suggests that if there is information about CIA illegal activity in drugs, it should be brought to the Los Angeles Police Department, the inspector general, or to a congressperson. The moderator emphasizes that the audience wants to hear the answer. Another speaker (Speaker 3) adds that if information turns up wrongdoing, the proper recourse is to bring those responsible to justice. Congressman Julian Dixon expresses appreciation for the visit. He thanks the attendee and acknowledges the interest in discussion, inviting the guest to provide information privately or through the committee staff so it can be contacted that evening. A staff member (Speaker 3) asks for the information to be handed up so it can be seen by all. Rupert identifies himself for the record as Mike Rupert, with the spelling of his name given, and notes that he brought this information out eighteen years ago, was shot at, and forced out of the LAPD, and has been on the record for eighteen years. He offers to provide Congress with anything he has. The exchange ends with the acknowledgment of Rupert’s statement and an expression of thanks from Congressman Dixon.

In 1992, Congress passed the JFK Records Act, mandating the release of all records related to the assassination unless national security was at risk. The Assassination Records Review Board tried to get records released until 1998, but the CIA did not cooperate, claiming national security concerns. The speaker claims the CIA has revealed nothing of importance, despite evidence of illegal activities in foreign policy. The speaker asks the committee to reopen the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination, citing issues with the Warren Commission's findings. The speaker calls for reinvestigation of the crime scene, chain of custody of evidence, and Lee Harvey Oswald's connections to intelligence agencies. The speaker demands a true interrogation of the CIA, whose "muddy footprints" are all over the case. Quoting CIA member James Angleton, the speaker suggests some CIA members deserve to "end up in hell." The speaker concludes by saying the presidency belongs to the people and asks to be treated with respect.

We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.

Grant and Mike Benz discuss alleged U.S. and CIA involvement in drug trafficking connected to Venezuela and the implications for prosecuting Nicolas Maduro. - Maduro indictment history: The DOJ superseded its 2020 drug trafficking indictment of Nicolas Maduro in 2025. The conversation references the Bay of Piglets failed operation to capture Maduro in 2019 and the 2020 indictment linked to Jordan Goudreaux’s Silvercorp private mercenary firm. The discussion frames this within a broader Cold War context of U.S. actions in Latin America. - CIA and drug trafficking link: The speakers claim the “Cartel of the Suns” (Cartel of the Suns) was a CIA cartel. They state two Venezuelan military brigadier generals who started the Cartel of the Suns were on the CIA payroll. They reference a 1993 confrontation where the head of the DEA resigned in protest after the CIA allegedly greenlit the deliberate importation of 1,500 kilos of cocaine from Venezuela into the U.S. They allege the CIA and DOJ later granted immunity to Venezuelan military officials involved in the operation. This is presented as pre-Hugo Chávez era activity in the 1990s. - Broader historical pattern: The discussion situates these actions within a long-running pattern across the 20th century—U.S. support for pro-American groups (insurgent, rebel, or militia-type entities) funded by drug proceeds. They compare this to past episodes in Afghanistan (Mujahideen, warlords) and to narcotics and intelligence collaborations in South America (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela). The speakers draw a parallel to a Noriega-style “smash and grab,” noting Noriega’s trial revealed decades of CIA association and payroll. - Implications for Maduro prosecution: Mike Benz suggests the case could be complicated because many allegations about Maduro are “thinly sourced” and relate to minor Venezuelan officials rather than Maduro directly. He notes that many points of evidence are tangential and question whether Maduro’s leadership directly sanctioned drug operations, despite the indictment labeling him as head of the Cartel of the Suns multiple times. The Bush family connections and historic CIA involvement are mentioned to illustrate the complexity of attributing direct responsibility. - Stabilization and funding argument: Benz outlines a three-part stabilization plan for Venezuela—stabilization, privatization, and transition. He describes stabilization as “hearts and minds work,” which in practice involves paying off military, civil society, and business leaders with cash. He cites the CIA’s reported $70,000,000 in drug-money bribes used to influence such actors in stabilization campaigns in Afghanistan and analogous actions in Latin America. - Closing notes: Grant appreciates Benz’s insights and asks where to follow him. Benz directs listeners to X (Twitter) at @mikebencyber, and also mentions YouTube and Rumble. - Notable names: Nicolas Maduro, Jordan Goudreaux, the Silvercorp firm, the Cartel of the Suns, Noriega, the head of the DEA who resigned in 1993, and George H. W. Bush’s historical CIA involvement are referenced to frame claims.

USAID is how the CIA gets things done, attempting regime change with secret accounts and shell companies. They receive $50 billion annually, even funding Al-Shabaab groups and commanding the Taliban to keep opium flowing. USAID, the State Department, and the CIA rigged the Guatemalan election to install CIA-controlled politicians and run a child trafficking network. DHS and HHS created public-private partnerships with Mexican cartels and NGOs like Save the Children to fund international child trafficking. There's a crisis of human smuggling and trafficking where the federal government cannot be turned to for help. We are failing in our American heritage, we have hope in President Trump.

It is an honor and solemn responsibility to testify regarding disturbing new revelations from the newest JFK files. It is a grave matter to assert that CIA officers were culpable or complicit in the death of a president, so fact checkers should have all the evidence used to support this testimony.

After a 4-year investigation, the justice department released a 300-page report on the FBI's failures. Members of Congress will bring in John Durham to review the findings. The investigation confirms what we already knew from a previous inspector general report: the FBI did not uphold their duty to follow the law in certain events and activities related to the crossfire hurricane and intelligence operations.

The witness testifies about the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct a serious and thorough investigation into the allegations of CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking to fund its contra war activities. He says the fear that the CIA would be unable to investigate itself has been confirmed with this report. The inspector general's report lacks credibility. It is fraught with contradictions and illogical conclusions. In a 09/03/1996 memo, then CIA director John Deutsch laid out the framework for this investigation. In his instructions to CIA inspector general Frederick, Pietz, Director Doidge stated, "I have no reason to believe that there's any substance to the allegations published in the Mercury News." Despite his premature conclusion,

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

"In some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something." "This this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy." "When you look at the so called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war." "And look at what that has cost our country in lives and treasure." "This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded." "So so, again, this is this is really what is at the heart of needs of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much."

I believe the CIA was definitely involved in the murder of my uncle and the subsequent cover-up for six years. They have not released the necessary papers, despite legal obligations. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, confessions, and books like Jim Douglas' The Unspeakable that support this claim. These revelations are often released gradually, so they don't receive much attention.

The speaker claims that a year before 9/11, they identified every Al Qaeda cell, including the New York cell, but the Able Danger team was stopped from sharing this information with the FBI three times. They assert that former FBI Director Louie Free stated this information could have prevented 9/11. They also allege that after criticizing the agency, the Pentagon's inspector general, John Crane, filed a whistleblower paper claiming he was told to lie to Congress. The speaker calls the 9/11 Commission a "cover-up," led by Philip Zelikow, who was allegedly handpicked by Condoleezza Rice. They claim Zelikow shut down Tony Schaeffer's office and tried to destroy his career after Schaeffer met with him in Afghanistan and had information about 9/11 in advance. The speaker states that the government bought and destroyed all copies of Schaeffer's book, "Dark Heart," because it named Zelikow. They also claim that the intelligence they received as vice chairman of a committee was not solid, and they formed a network of intelligence agency insiders who fed them raw data. They allege that intelligence agencies manipulate the media and play games with Congress. The speaker believes that some individuals within these agencies have become wealthy through their positions. They claim that after speaking out, the FBI raided their daughter's house, leading to their electoral defeat. They felt responsible for 9/11 because they knew it could have been prevented.

The cocaine networks in Venezuela were set up by the CIA, not by Maduro. A 1993 60 Minutes episode with Mike Wallace reportedly revealed that the CIA had set up an anti-cocaine warehouse in Venezuela and struck a secret agreement with the Venezuelan National Guard to traffic 1,500 tons of cocaine into Miami, with the proceeds sold on the streets of Miami to support CIA black operations and paramilitary groups. The opposition backed by the US inside Venezuela in 2019 is deeply affiliated with the CIA cocaine networks. There are probably international crimes that Maduro committed, but the idea of charging him with running a cocaine conspiracy, which Venezuela inherited from the central intelligence agency itself, has made this case very tenuous. There is concern that the case could be dismissed because there will be considerable last-minute activity inside the DOJ as the CIA is expected to lean on the DOJ to limit discovery.

Our first investigation will be announced soon and will cover a thorough investigation into the John F. Kennedy assassination. Based on what I've seen so far, the initial hearing held in Congress was faulty regarding the single bullet theory. I believe that there were two shooters, and we should find more information as we gain access to the SCIF, hopefully before the files are released to the public.