TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I want to thank you, Mr. President, for entrusting me with the critical role of Director of National Intelligence, especially now. I recognize the American people's diminished trust in the intelligence community due to its weaponization and politicization. I'm committed to refocusing our intelligence community, empowering the dedicated patriots who serve, and prioritizing the safety, security, and freedom of all Americans. This aligns with the mandate you received from the American people. Also, your message about aspiring to be remembered as a peacemaker deeply resonates with service members, veterans, and medal of honor recipients. We appreciate your understanding of the cost of sacrifice and your commitment to making war the last resort. Thank you for your leadership.

Today's CIA has become politicized and weaponized, posing a threat to America. Trump, wary of the intelligence community after being spied on, chose to fund his own transition team. Former CIA officials express a belief that the government exists to serve itself rather than the people, reflecting a troubling mindset within the agency. The top 20% of the CIA is described as malignant narcissists, while the majority are seen as patriotic but constrained by leadership. Fixing the CIA requires significant personnel changes, as current leaders are entrenched in a culture that prioritizes their agenda over serving the public. Effective oversight and the inclusion of experienced, conservative voices are crucial for reforming the agency and ensuring it fulfills its intended purpose of national defense.

The speaker discusses a meeting at Trump Tower with the president-elect. The purpose was to convey evidence and assessments regarding Russian objectives and capabilities. The speaker states they are not going to get into the details of that meeting. The speaker confirms they provided the briefing that the president-elect deserved to get. The speaker says Trump should have come away with a clear understanding of where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers, and John Brennan stood on these issues.

Defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine and meeting with figures like Bashar al Assad demonstrates poor judgment. Such actions undermine trust among allies, impacting intelligence sharing. A notable instance was when Donald Trump met with the Russian ambassador and potentially shared sensitive intelligence from a foreign source. This behavior can lead foreign intelligence agencies to withhold critical information, ultimately making Americans less safe. If allies lack trust in U.S. leadership, it poses a significant problem for national security.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

The speaker states the American people deserve truth, accountability, and justice. Records released by ODNI, Senator Grassley, and the House Intelligence Committee confirm the same report. According to the speaker, the Obama administration grossly politicized and manipulated intelligence to delegitimize President Trump before his inauguration, ultimately usurping the will of the American people.

There are members of Congress who are controlled by intel agencies. A high-ranking member of the House Intel Committee admitted to being spied on by the NSA. Even though he provides oversight, they still monitor him. Michael McCall, a leader among neoconservatives, accused someone of being a Russian agent based on what the intel briefers told him. When confronted, he defended himself by saying he believed the intel. This highlights the manipulation and control exerted by intel agencies over politicians.

I sit on a task force at the Department of Defense. They have evidence that Trump believed would cause a civil war if revealed early on. He wanted people to understand the severity of the situation.

Speaker 1 argues that there may come a time with an airborne deadly disease and that to deal with it effectively we must build an infrastructure globally to see, isolate, and respond quickly. He says investing in this infrastructure is a smart, long-term measure and not just insurance, especially in a globalized world where future outbreaks like a flu similar to the Spanish flu could arise in five to ten years. Speaker 2 contends that the CIA enjoys influencing a new president who has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. He claims the day after an election the CIA director offers a president-elect a PDB, a president’s daily brief, describing the “cool things” happening around the world, which allegedly pulls the president in. He asserts the CIA engineers the president’s reactions and questions and that this is a deliberate psychological profiling and manipulation technique used for decades to subvert foreign governments and one’s own government. Speaker 4 relates a story from February 2008 about a high-level asset who allegedly worked for several intelligence agencies, including the Saudi Intelligence Service and the CIA, and who was described as a non-U.S. citizen on a student visa, becoming president in 2008. He alleges the individual’s code name was Renegade and real name Barry Sartaro, claiming a cabal pursued a mission to destroy the United States from within one institution at a time, including defunding the military and ordering military actions that harmed allies and aided enemies. He claims the president’s office instructed commanders not to question orders, and asserts actions created ISIS-like outcomes by redirecting and abandoning equipment to enemies. Speaker 0 interjects with a narrative tying Bush and Obama together, describing a perceived connection through Barack Obama’s supposed adoption by Lolo Sotoro, with references to George H.W. Bush’s CIA tenure and oil-industry ties. He claims Obama’s grandmother operated CIA money channels to the Southwest Pacific, and asserts Obama attended a Hawaii high school with tuition figures and later became extremely wealthy, with Business Insider reporting 2017 net income and 2018 net worth figures for Obama, contrasting them with Trump’s earnings. Speaker 2 discusses Obama-era “kill list” meetings led by John Brennan, suggesting that Tuesday morning kill lists were used to authorize drone strikes or targeted killings, with weekly execution of these lists and a proliferation of drone missiles during Obama’s presidency. He notes uncertainty about whether subsequent presidents continued or revived the practice, but asserts it was a point of pride in the Obama administration. Speaker 5 and Speaker 2 conclude by reaffirming that Obama dropped more missiles from drones than anyone else.

"For ODNI, number one, our focus is and must always be making sure that our intelligence community is is focused on our mission, keeping the American people safe, secure, and free." "Secondly, mister president, you have charged me with the mission of finding the truth and telling the truth to the American people." "And we've exposed some of the worst examples of the weaponization of intelligence in the last several weeks." "Transparency telling the truth is what will drive true accountability for the American people who deserve nothing less." "I've gone through a reorganization for ODNI that we've announced in the last week." "We've cut nearly half of redundant unnecessary functions within ODNI, saving taxpayers over $700,000,000 a year." "Great job." "Thank you." "We look forward to hearing it."

Speaker 0: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Speaker 1: There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. So that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we've made the investment, and we're further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It's not just insurance. It is knowing that down the road, we're gonna continue to have problems like this, particularly in a globalized world. Speaker 2: The CIA, they really love it when a new president is elected, and he has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. Barack Obama, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in intelligence. The day after an election, the director of the CIA authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a PDB, a president's daily brief. And so the day after the election, they go with this this 16 page document and they say, Mr. President-elect, wait till you see the cool things we're doing all around the world. And they've sucked him in. They made him one of the guys. And then we get the feedback at the CIA. Oh, the president loved this. The president had a follow-up question on that. Oh, the president said, oh my God, when he read this. Speaker 3: It almost sounds like you're psychologically profiling the president. Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's exactly what they do. Speaker 3: And so they use the tools that they have employed for decades to subvert foreign governments, to subvert their own government. Speaker 4: 02/2008, something unbelievable happened for us in the FBI. We were getting lots of rumors about this high level asset that worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time. He worked for the Saudi Intelligence Service. He worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not even a United States citizen, but it was said that he was a student visa and that he was a a national from another country. In 02/2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. Speaker 1: And I will faithfully execute. Speaker 3: The office of Speaker 2: president of the United States. Speaker 1: The office of president of the United Speaker 4: One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sartaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within, one institution at a time. One of the things he did, of course, was he he defunded our military. He brought down he brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ICEs. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your Speaker 0: order. Forty four and one before that, '43, Bush and Obama. Well, there are pictures of Bush with his arm around eight year old Barack Obama because his stepdaddy, adopted daddy, Lolo Sotoro, had done a lifetime where the business with the Bushes. Wow. Uncle George Herbert Walker, after whom George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush won president, was named, founded Halliburton in 1946 in Oklahoma. And Lolo Sotoro had been international executive vice president for Standard Oil. There there was talk of him being a CIA asshole. Well, yeah. See, he ran the death squads for the Indonesian army. On his own call, anyone could be assassinated. So when George Herbert Walker Bush became head of the CIA under the Ford administration, he just got with his old buddy in the oil business, Lolo Sotoro, and pulled off the hits. See, Barack's grandmother has been acknowledged as being the woman that operated the channels through which CIA money went to the Southwest Pacific. So she introduced her daughter who had just had Barry Barack to Lolo Sotoro, and they got married and Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack Obama. The name was changed to Barry Sotoro. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now when he went to high school in Hawaii, I know about that high school. I almost sent my oldest son to it. I could afford it, but I didn't think he observed deserved it. Twenty years ago, the tuition was $95,000 a year, not including room and board. When Obama went there, I've talked to two of his classmates. They independently state that the tuition, not including room and board, was 45,000. Now Business Insider reports his income for 2017 at over 200,000,000 net. That's after taxes, deductions, write offs. For this last year, 2018, they've reported it as 570 plus million dollars, and that's after all deductions tax. Right? Speaker 2: Trump doesn't make that net. Speaker 2: All these other ones who thought they were untouchable, now they're gonna have to answer for their actions. In the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. The teams go out. They kill everybody that's on the list, and then they meet next Tuesday and get that kill list. And you just do it week after week. Well, if you're not having to devote armies of targeting analysts, to to finding these guys, if if your computers can find them just based on their, you know, email messaging, text messaging, whatever, metadata. There. Your job's easy. You just fire a missile from the drone or you drop a guy in that does a close in shot, and then you get back Speaker 4: on the helicopter and fly home. Speaker 2: I hate to sound cynical like that, but that's just the way it is. Speaker 5: I think that's, just calling it how it is. What, what year or years was that was Brennan doing that Tuesday morning kill list? Speaker 2: He started in o nine and kept it going. I have no idea if Donald Trump kept it or Joe Biden kept it or revived it, But it was something that they were very proud of in the Obama administration. They were just going out whacking everybody. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, no nobody dropped more missiles from drones than Obama did. Speaker 2: No. Nobody.

The first speaker notes perturbations in intelligence agencies due to political appointees, especially early on when appointees lacked experience with intelligence. He observes some individuals have decided to retire or leave the national security community, but believes many colleagues will continue their work because it is critically important. He suggests professionals are trying to keep their heads down and focus on responsibilities as political winds in Washington blow strongly. The second speaker adds a historical perspective, noting that at the nadir of US-UK political relations around the Suez crisis, US and UK intelligence services (GCHQ and NSA) were working hand in glove, studying the Soviet intervention in Hungary, despite surface tensions. He expresses confidence that professionals will be able to carry on with their duties. The third speaker mentions that, in Washington, civil servants have been behaving like hostages, unable to speak out for fear of saying the wrong thing. He confirms that firings across departments have made people concerned about their livelihoods and ability to continue work. He hopes intelligence officers will continue to provide objective, evidence-based assessments to US policymakers, regardless of White House policy preferences, and notes the importance of the integrity of the intelligence process for both US and British security. He acknowledges that both US and British intelligence have made mistakes, but emphasizes a sense of strong integrity in British intelligence and questions whether US intelligence will maintain the same level of integrity and objectivity. He recalls his experience at CIN at the White House, where he worked closely with British colleagues to pursue Al Qaeda and destroy terrorist organizations. He recounts extensive conversations with British counterparts about the basis of intelligence, what the rules of engagement were, and their desire to understand and support the intelligence basis. He hopes that the rules of engagement and the intelligence basis for US actions around the globe remain strong, allowing British colleagues to continue counting on the US. The second speaker briefly affirms that this mutual reliability and collaboration would be expected to continue.

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to Clapper's book, he and his team created something that was not there. Considering his actions then and in 2016 as Obama's director of national intelligence, Clapper allegedly has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

There is irrefutable evidence that detail how president Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. The Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was a massive pressure campaign that came right from the top. Obama and his spy chiefs knew that Putin didn't prefer Trump over Hillary, but they cooked the intelligence to make it look like he did.

The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war. - Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations. - Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims. - Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era. - Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes. - Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues: - Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses. - Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain. - The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration. - The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat. - Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends: - The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action. - The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise. - He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence. - The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict. - Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight: - The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets. - The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond. - Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications. - Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including: - Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments. - The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness. - Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes. - Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.

In briefings, decisions on what to read are crucial. It's more about discussing than just reading notes to ministers. The briefing notes highlight the seriousness of foreign interference and the need for action.

"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."

Senior officials at the National Security Council (NSC) were reportedly fired, including Lieutenant General Timothy Hawk, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and commander of CyberCom. These firings were allegedly not due to incompetence or involvement in the Signal Group chat. Instead, a right-wing influencer and conspiracy theorist purportedly advised the president to remove them based on claims from an internet troll who alleged the officials were not sufficiently loyal to the president. The speaker suggests this action betrays national security and indicates a pattern of turning away from allies.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Afshan and Rutansi host Going Underground from the UAE, discussing Gaza hunger amid Western actions and the wider US-Israeli war context in West Asia, alongside references to Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. They introduce Melvin Goodman, a former CIA officer and whistleblower who criticized politicization of intelligence, and now a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a Johns Hopkins government professor, and Counterpunch columnist. Netanyahu’s White House visit is highlighted: Israeli Channel 14 claims Netanyahu demanded complete cancellation of Iran’s nuclear program, zero uranium enrichment, removal of enrichment capabilities, limits on ballistic missiles to 300 kilometers, and intensive, genuine oversight of Iran. The hosts question Netanyahu’s influence and the ease with which an Israeli prime minister can press a US president. Speaker Goodman notes Netanyahu has a very good relationship with Trump, citing Netanyahu as a “houseguest” of the Kushner family in the past, and asserts the ceasefire is a joke as people die. He suggests Netanyahu will push for military force, with targets possibly concentrating on Iranian ballistic missile sites rather than nuclear facilities, based on satellite imagery of reconstruction. Goodman calls Netanyahu a “war president” and warns the government could move further right; he says the US continues to provide and may increase military aid to Israel despite civilian harm. Afshan and Goodman discuss US policy under Trump and Biden, agreeing that both have cooperated with genocide in Gaza. They contrast Netanyahu’s alignment with Trump and US arms support to Israel, noting heavy tonnage bombings and ongoing military aid. The conversation shifts to US intelligence and leadership: Goodman discusses CIA director John Ratcliffe as a political appointee, the broader claim that Trump’s administration is the worst cabinet in US history, and the need for the CIA to tell truth to power. Goodman states Ratcliffe has kept CIA out of the news regarding Venezuelan, Caribbean, and Pacific intelligence activities, aiding US military actions, while criticizing Trump’s overall approach to intelligence and governance. Ukraine is addressed briefly: Bill Burns as Moscow ambassador is argued to have not gone quiet, having warned both sides. They discuss genocide labels for Russia’s actions in Ukraine and the Gaza situation, with a back-and-forth about whether similar terms apply to Ukraine and Gaza. Goodman argues NATO expansion is a root cause of the war, and that Trump’s approach lacks a clear long-term disarmament strategy. He recalls participating in SALT I and ABM treaty contexts and critiques the Trump administration’s handling of arms control negotiations, blaming the absence of seasoned negotiators and the influence of non-experts like real estate billionaires on policy. The START treaty expiry is mentioned, with expectations of renewed talks and the importance of limits on new weapons from Russia and China. Goodman emphasizes the need to negotiate, noting past successes like the partial test ban treaty and INF/ABM treaties, and warns that the current US trajectory risks an arms race and destabilization, especially given China’s rapidly growing arsenal. The interview broadens to Epstein-related political pressure, noting Trump’s use of the Department of Justice and alleged pressure from various sources, including claims about Epstein files. Goodman discusses domestic pressures on Trump, including personnel changes and public opinion. Toward the end, Goodman cautions that the US aims to “be king of the Western Hemisphere,” and warns of dark days for Cuba and Venezuela, as Latin American governments move right in response to US policy. He observes a lack of coherent diplomatic channels and disarmament engagement, concluding that the near term is not optimistic. The program ends with condolences for Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran victims, and a teaser for a Saturday episode.

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to the speaker, Clapper wrote in his book that he and his team created something that was not there. The speaker claims that Clapper's actions in 2016, as Obama's Director of National Intelligence, show that he has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

I sit on a task force at the Department of Defense. They have important information, and Trump believed that revealing it early would cause a civil war. He thought it was necessary for people to understand the severity of the situation.

The speaker discusses a meeting at Trump Tower with the president-elect. The meeting, which lasted several hours, involved conveying knowledge and assessments regarding Russian objectives and capabilities. The speaker states they are not going to get into the details of that meeting. The speaker confirms they provided the briefing that the president-elect deserved. The speaker says that Trump should have come away with a very clear understanding of where James Clapper, Jim Comey, Mike Rogers, and John Brennan stood on these issues.