Speaker 2 (00:20.782)
I

But

Speaker 2 (00:26.99)
you

Speaker 2 (00:33.75)
I'm it. I know how it's gonna be done.

Speaker 2 (01:08.11)
some hair.

Speaker 2 (01:15.662)
I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (02:05.39)
you

Speaker 1 (02:31.085)
So.

Speaker 2 (03:34.894)
See that? Go.

Speaker 1 (04:20.501)
screen.

Speaker 2 (04:34.444)
at me.

Speaker 2 (05:52.33)
I'm a see you soon

Speaker 1 (06:43.534)
I'd like to be

Under the sea In an octopus's garden In the shade

Speaker 1 (06:58.978)
He'd let us in

knows where we've been. It was on the puss's garden in the shade.

Speaker 1 (07:23.416)
No, because... ...it me.

Speaker 1 (07:28.726)
I like to be on the sea in an octo- SISGA IN THE SHADES

We would be warm below the storm in our little hideaway beneath the waves. Resting our hands on the seabed in an octopus's garden, clear a cave.

We would sing and dance Because we know we don't

Speaker 2 (08:17.112)
Oops.

Speaker 1 (08:27.074)
Hey, good afternoon. I'm your host, Keith Malinak. Thank you so much for spending time here on At the Mic. The Thursday deep dive edition, we gather here every Thursday and Friday at 3 PM Eastern. So if you are unaware, now you are. And on Friday, we like to just, you know, watch animal videos and hang out together. On Thursdays, we focus on one topic and we will get to that here momentarily with an awesome guest for you.

as always, want to say thank you to hero West for all that he does over at the Mike show.com that website right there, book market, everything you need, all the links to YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, rumble. It's all there. Thank you, West, for all that you do for the show and over at Instagram at the Mike show where Gabby handles everything and they it's a labor of love. They are awesome people and I'm grateful for both of them. And I'm grateful for all of you for just hanging out here the way you do. and also for.

Just started, remember we just mentioned it last week. 17 of you have already subscribed to this, my X channel feed page thing, two bucks a month. I have no idea what you're going to get for that, but I do appreciate the support. it's, it's, it's, grateful. am grateful for, all of you who not only have subscribed, and that's what you had to do over at YouTube as well. Like rate, whatever it is review.

subscribe to all the channels and stuff. And thank you as always for all the time that you allow me to hang out with you. So we need to talk about September 11th, 2001 and what came after that for our beloved country. Because that was a very traumatic event. We have discussed alternate theories around the official story on shows in the past.

If you want to check out the archive, pinned to the top here, there's many unanswered questions around that day, but that is not today's conversation. Today's conversation is the surveillance state that came after that. What happened to America after 9-11? That is today's topic. And I want to bring in someone who is way more than qualified to discuss this, George Hill.

Speaker 1 (10:54.238)
And let me do this. Let me put this up there. Look at this. See this? There we go. Former FBI national security intelligence supervisor. His resume is impeccable. mean, George, you've got the knowledge. You've got the street cred, as the young kids might say. You, are a wealth of information. And I know we've talked about this in the past on a deep dive episode about the Patriot Act specifically.

But I really wanted to just have a larger discussion so that Americans can really understand what has changed in our country 24 years later. So welcome, George. I appreciate you making time today, sir.

Hey Keith, it great to be back, thank you.

Okay, so former FBI National Security Intelligence Supervisor, Professor, Marine, I'm not allowed to say former Marine, right? There are no former Marines.

No, they're no ex Marines, but yeah, former active duty Marine. Yeah, I love it.

Speaker 1 (11:56.814)
I love it. Well, bless you, sir.

And JD Vance is a former Marine.

Okay, okay. Yes. Now, so you have dealt with intelligence and counterintelligence. You've done so much in defense of our nation. Just kind of give a thumbnail sketch, I guess, as to what you were, a little bit about your background before 9-11, and then I guess kind of what your role in law enforcement was following 9-11.

Yeah. So was just a regular run of the mill jarhead for 13 years prior to nine 11. I had to get out, cause of some life circumstances and I was out for about nine years and, decided to, go back into the reserves and get some kind of retirement out of it. You know, nothing noteworthy, know, of a pat on the back or anything like that. was strictly a financial decision to get such seven years and, get some sort of retirement check out of it. And, I got waved off.

by the Marine Corps at that time in 1999, the, world was pretty much at peace. Soviet Union had collapsed and there wasn't really a focus on national defense. And the, like I said, the Marine Corps waved me off and the Navy was more than happy to take me. And I had to go to their intelligence training program, which is very different than the Marine Corps intelligence and rightfully so, because the Navy operates in multiple domains. The Marine Corps, not so much.

Speaker 2 (13:26.094)
And, uh, and of course the technology is different. And, um, so on September 11th, 2001, I was, uh, in my office as a civilian and also as a Naval reservist. Um, when the planes crashed into the buildings and, uh, almost 3000 Americans died that day and my life changed forever. It didn't end. Um, so no complaining for me. Um, but, uh, wound up getting mobilized three times after nine 11.

On my last deployment, ahead of that, my company reorganized the marketing department. And oddly enough, I was the only person reorganized out of a job. And I sued under title 38, you Sarah, which is has no teeth in it. And got a small settlement and was unemployed in my mid forties after three deployments. And I was on orders, just.

trying to earn some money and I was out in San Diego on a ship conducting a training out there for a week or two on how to properly handle detainees ahead of their upcoming Mideast deployment. And got a phone call from the national security agency and wound up working for those good people for five years doing fine fixed finish operations deeply in the GWAT, the global war on terror, as it was referred to back then. The country was very different in 2005.

Six, seven, eight, nine, 10. that was really before the rise of ISIS. and then circumstances intervened again and I wound up moving over to the FBI where I became the Boston field office, national security intelligence supervisor, where I had counterterrorism, cyber and counterintelligence. And I had those for about 10 years and, towards the end of that 10 years, I was the co-supervisor for the Boston Marathon bombing task force.

as well on top of everything else. And I was, for lack of a better word, just completely burned out. And so I had an opportunity to move over into gangs and drugs for my last almost two years with the Bureau and didn't know anything about that stuff. It was a real eye-opener and a great education for me. And I'm happy I did it, but I was an unwitting

Speaker 2 (15:51.63)
a participant in 20 years of war, know, trained up lots of people to deploy overseas. Thankfully, I never lost a sailor to combat, although I did lose quite a few cancers from the burn pits.

Yeah. Okay. So you have, worn many hats as you just laid out for us. let me ask you this. How would you define national security? cause you just mentioned how we're a much different country than we were 20 years ago. So, so, and maybe this isn't a fair question and maybe it's, maybe it's not something that can be simplified down into just a response like this, but.

It feels like national security, the definition before 9-11 and after 9-11, at least from those making decisions, seems like that has changed over the years.

It changed dramatically and it changed sometime around September 12th at Camp David with George Bush and Bob Mueller when he came there. When I was in the Marine Corps, national security met the continuation of the United States and the protection of the Constitution. When Bob Mueller visited George Bush at Camp David, George Bush said, I know you're going to catch these guys, Bob, but what are you going to do to stop the next attack?

And that's when our definition of national security changed from protecting the country and the Constitution to no person shall die under the hand of a terrorist. And in order to achieve that zero defect goal, we had to shunt aside the Bill of Rights and the Constitution protections in order to do that. And that's when the country changed. At that time, the FBI began its

Speaker 2 (17:45.038)
journey from a law enforcement agency into a domestic intelligence agency. And we'll talk more about that as our conversation progresses. But prior to December 11th, national security was completely different and it changed. So now we're talking what? 24 years ago. Now it's actually part of our psyche that national security

Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:13.87)
means that no one shall die at the hands of a terrorist. And it's even devolved even beyond that, that no one's allowed to say hurtful words anymore. So it's changed a lot, you know, and your audience can quickly figure out that I'm an old man. The country's very different today than when I grew up and dramatically so after 9-11.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So.

I guess the other side of, okay, so you and I, would say, man, I shouldn't, but I shouldn't say this to you. I know that speaking for myself, I feel like I am much more of a civil libertarian in that.

You know.

I value my freedom and my liberties staying intact as opposed to the security that is offered by a larger, all-knowing, all-encompassing federal government. but I think the counter to that could be, well, I mean, your freedom and your liberties mean nothing if you're dead, So, I guess, can you make the case

Speaker 1 (19:30.168)
from the government's point of view here, hey, look, we got some good law enforcement tools now that can prevent this stuff from happening. Is there a coherent argument that one can make from the standpoint of the federal government in a post 9-11 America?

quote two people, Ben Franklin, said that those who, well, something about the blanket of freedom, or willing to sacrifice freedom for safety, does that mean there?

Yeah, deserved neither. It's the greatest quote, and every time I try to say it, I screw it up.

Yeah. and then I'll quote that other, great American film hero governor of California during COVID who said, your freedom, Arnold Schwarzenegger. so a large swath of the country still believes that, you know, that somehow if you don't get the COVID vaccine, you're a threat to me. And by the way, the vaccine works. had the vaccine, but

you don't have the vaccine. somehow you're threat to me. Like I'm cold. So I wear a coat. You won't wear a coat. So, you know, you, you must wear a coat because I I'm wearing a coat. mean, the logic has become so twisted and perverted that, you know, I, you know, I used to be a kind of lean on the civil libertarian side of it. I'm pretty much a hardcore, conservative bill of rights guy. because

Speaker 2 (21:08.362)
In order to be a true civil libertarian, you have to believe of live and let live. Well, half the country wants to shoot me in the face for my beliefs. So to quote another great person of history, gold in my ear, you can't live with people who want to kill you.

I mean that's yes perfectly stated yes and boy it sure would be it would be a much different country if we could just agree on the bill of rights and there's so many people that claim to agree in the principles of the first ten amendments of the constitution but boy when it comes to putting them into practice if it doesn't benefit their side then all of a sudden it's not worth enforcing.

Well, let me give you a quick example to sharpen your point. know, Bill writes, second amendment shall not be infringed. Pretty clear cut on this. There's been Supreme court cases that have clarified it for the people who just refuse to understand. So it's an articulated right in the constitution. Gay marriage. There's nothing in the constitution that says that every state must recognize gay marriage, but yet they do. Yet if I want to take my concealed carry permit,

from Massachusetts and travel to New Jersey, I can't. the Bill of Rights means nothing to the powers that be.

So

Speaker 1 (22:35.48)
Boy, I mean, seriously, the ninth and 10th amendments are the most, underappreciated and underused that's available to us. well, I think I, I smell another show, going through the Bill of Rights with George Hill. okay. So going to nine 11 specifically, because as you saw the, the subtext of this show's title, it's right there. America after nine 11 did the terrorists win.

and i've been thinking about this since you and i agree to do the show

Speaker 1 (23:13.366)
I to oversimplify it. Maybe the terrorists didn't win, but they certainly broke even considering that they, you know, they still have control of Afghanistan and well, they have, they have a bunch of military equipment, but, I think who really won after 9 11, it certainly wasn't us, the American citizens. It was big government, right? Would you agree with that assessment that the, the real winners were the

the those that run this government and have all of these law enforcement tools which we will get into at their fingertips.

Well, they clearly won and maybe the terrorists didn't win, but they succeeded in changing the country, which is remarkable. Look, it's the constitution that's under attack. It's the constitution that is, that the left seeks to undermine all the time because it was written by evil slave owning white men. And the terrorists have achieved the exact same thing that the left is wanting to achieve.

which is to weaken the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I mean, it's that simple. So following nine 11, I was looking up before we went on the air today. it was, it was exactly six weeks after nine 11 that the Patriot act was signed into law. And, I did send you a clip. I forgot to have it ready for today, but of course, Joe Biden took credit for the Patriot act.

Speaker 1 (24:53.546)
numerous times after it passed, which I mean, Joe Biden has taken credit for literally everything under the sun. So it's probably not the best barometer, but it would just be too perfect that, that we can pin the Patriot act on Joe Biden of all people. But can you give us kind of a, a drilled down explanation of what the Patriot act.

empowered our government to do and who who did Who was it used to surveil because it doesn't feel like it was terrorists as much as it was you and me

The Patriot Act put together infrastructure, both in writing and as far as creating government entities. So not only did we get the TSA, but we got DHS and that monolith. So any businessman or woman will be able to tell you that the larger the organization, the more difficult it is to manage and actually have accountability. So it created this monster that

congressional oversight cannot conduct oversight on. So when Chuck Schumer said that the intelligence community has five ways or seven ways from Sunday to get back at you, he was serious because they do. They answer to no one. We saw that with John Brennan and James Clapper and that like, and the shenanigans that they've pulled over time. So the bigger it is, the less accountability it is. it gave us TSA.

under the auspices of DHS. And then it also gave us the director of national intelligence, which started out at Liberty Crossing in Virginia, one floor in a high rise building. At the same time, it gave us NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, which was a multi-agency entity designed to identify terrorist threats originating from overseas.

Speaker 2 (27:02.402)
that were directed towards the United States. Well, since that time, there are now two high rise buildings at Liberty Crossing, one for NCTC, which is probably 50 % contractors. And then the office of director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's outfit. And she reduced that staff by about 40%. I can tell you right now, my time in Boston and even in NSA, I never saw an NCTC product.

that prompted me to go into my boss and say, have you seen this? We need to really reevaluate what we're doing here.

All of those things you just mentioned were created in the Patriot Act?

Well, that's the thing, right? A quarter of a century later, people just take them as this is how we do business today. Right? You know, mean, Tulsi Gabbard eliminated 40 % of the Director of National Intelligence. You know, I feel less safe today than yesterday, but only because of world events, not because of something that Tulsi Gabbard did. You know, having worked in the federal government and the private sector, I can assure you that...

60 % of the people are just collecting a paycheck for showing up to work. Anywhere. The Patriot Act also gave us the fusion centers, which are there are 56 of those throughout the country. Some states obviously have more than one. And then those fusion centers is a representative from DHS, FBI, and then various people from each state, all of a sudden magically by waving of wand become intelligence analysts.

Speaker 2 (28:38.068)
And you work together in one facility. And the idea there is to be able to share classified information down to such a level that it can reach the law enforcement, you know, actually driving a cruiser on the street.

So can you take us through a typical day of a national security analyst and what it's like for them on the job?

It depends on what they do and what agency. If you're not collecting, and there's only a couple types of collection going on. There's human intelligence where you're actually running sources overseas. That's what the CIA and DIA are supposed to do. There is NGA, National Geospatial Agency, and the NSA, National Security Agency. So NGA is collecting, using satellites to collect overhead imagery.

And the NSA is collecting signals intelligence. So they are the inject port for the national intelligence apparatus. And by the way, there's nothing I'm talking about here. It is classified. I won't even do that by accident today. you know, so, then they have multiple roles within each one of those organizations, whether it's linguist or analyst or people that are doing fusion. In other words, looking at other forms of intelligence and

trying to pull together a more comprehensive picture. And then it synthesizes down. So when the government says, what Joe Biden, during his debate with Trump said, are 19 intelligence agencies that said that it had all the hallmarks of a Russian operation. There are not 19 intelligence agencies. There's 19 people that are in the intelligence community to get to look at intelligence from other entities. But if you're not collecting, you're not an intelligence activity.

Speaker 1 (30:29.59)
Okay, shoot. I'm looking for that link that I sent you. wait, here it is, hold on. Let me just play this. because there was a comment there in...

Speaker 1 (30:46.614)
I'm having to listen to it.

Speaker 2 (30:51.177)
You're to it yourself.

Okay. There we go. Sorry. All right. I was talking as a thing was playing there. C-SPAN does ads. Awesome. Okay. So Chris made a comment here when I mentioned how six, six weeks to the day after 9-11, we had the Patriot Act. I said, so, so Chris says, you know, guaranteed it was written years ahead of time. Absolutely. I don't know how truthful Joe Biden is. You can say that as a preface to any statement, but, but

this right here. You're right, Chris. They were clearly trying to get something like this enacted long before September 11th, 2001. is after 9-11 and Joe Biden is speaking here. So God only knows how much of what he's saying here is true.

both of it. Right after 1994, and you can ask the attorney general this because I got a call when he introduced the Patriot Act. He said, Joe, I'm introducing the act basically as you wrote it in 1994. It was defeated then not by any liberals. It was defeated then by the folks who were worried that we'd have the Minutemen would get in trouble, by the Mr. Bars of the world who were worried about the right wing, not anything else. So just that has nothing to do with you all, but just to set the record straight.

Okay.

Speaker 2 (32:09.006)
Almost the same thing that got passed, the Patriot Act, was introduced by me in 1994, and it was the right wing that defeated it. You guys tried to help get it passed.

there's your sound. Great. So there you go. that crazy right wingers were trying to stop the Patriot Act and then, you know, don't

Well, that's everybody for the country was very different. Remember, was a year that was Waco. That was a year before the Oklahoma City bombing. There was all this talk about, you know, right wing militias. The country was very different then as well. But that kind of passed, you know, and there's still questions that linger today about the Oklahoma City bombing. But Joe Biden is a serial liar. Serial liar.

Thanks.

If you're cornering him, he'd probably tell you that he was actually already on the moon and lowered the ladder for the lunar landing module for them guys to come down.

Speaker 1 (33:05.742)
And then September 11th comes along and never let a crisis go to waste as Rahm Emanuel taught us Then you get the something like the Patriot Act. Okay, so so a lot of There was a there was a lot of government expansion

Well, I left out one really key part, because we moved on so quick. I'm sorry. There was a lot of debate in that six weeks time. It was agreed upon by the people who actually wrote the act. And by the way, I did a deep dive. I could not find Joe Biden in evidence anywhere in any committees.

You don't know what to believe that man says.

Yeah, so...

Speaker 2 (33:47.68)
It was agreed by the people in the commission that the US needed a domestic intelligence agency. The question that they were batting around was, it going to be like the British set up of MI5, which is their domestic intelligence agency, or are we going to do something else? And what they elected to do was, we're going to have a domestic intelligence agency, but we're not going to make it a standalone. We're just going to lash it up to the FBI so that...

we don't shred people's civil liberties, all of those people are going to belong to our newly created director of national intelligence. So the entire FBI intelligence program increased the manning level for the FBI by just under 45%. So they almost doubled in size overnight at the onset of the Patriot Act with an intelligence capability that they never had before.

All those 0132, that's a job series, that entire group belongs to DNI Tulsi Gabbard. She could change the police state with a stroke of a pen and just end the FBI's intelligence program. Cash Patel and Dan Bongino will never do it. They're not change agents. They weren't sent there to change. They portrayed themselves as change agents, but they're not. So the FBI got all those

intelligence bodies, I think they picked up over 60 senior executive positions, which was a field day for the agents that were still there because even though those are supposed to be intelligence bodies, those went to agents, which is a much better retirement gig, both from a retirement salary standpoint and getting another job once you leave. Then they brought in a woman by the name of Maureen Bajinski, who came from the National Security Agency.

And I was still at NSA when this happened and she was spoken with reverence throughout the agency as a brilliant mind, dedicated. I apologize if I get it wrong. I believe that she was never married, that she was just, you know, dedicated. never found anybody in that entity that spoke ill of her. And Bob Mueller quickly dismissed her in about a year. She was trying to build a program.

Speaker 2 (36:13.774)
And then it floundered around for a couple of years. And then he brought in the consultant to consultant, McKinsey and company. And that's where we have the monster that we have today.

Speaker 1 (36:32.864)
It felt like a dangerous world after 9-11. And don't even get me into the anthrax attacks talk because that is another deep dive show waiting to happen all of its own in the hallmarks of where that powder actually came from and so on.

Well, more people died of fentanyl than anthrax, okay? So we keep on killing 100,000 people a year bringing in fentanyl, but we won't call that a weapon of mass destruction, but anthrax, we're gonna throw a hissy fit over, but congrats.

And that was the time when I don't have my timeline in front of me, but I feel like when was the first when was the first anthrax attack because the bill gets introduced, I think on October 23rd, first anthrax attack. Surely that was 2001. What was that? September 18th. God, great. One week later. All right. So, so clearly, I mean, look, we're a nation where it's

You got to strike while the iron's hot. If you're, if you're trying to change the face of the American government and you're trying to tell a free people that we need to expand this protection to make sure that something is horrific is what you watched on your TV screens on Tuesday morning, September 11th never happens again. So we get the Patriot act. it's, cause it's always a good idea to pass big laws, sweeping laws when you, when you have a crisis on your hands.

let's go back to March of 2020, shall we? No, but, when it comes to the Patriot act and again, a case can be made not by me, but a case can be made by people who just like, you can go to, a little league game and, talk to, to young parents and just say, Hey, I mean, look, this is why we had to pass the Patriot act. Surely.

Speaker 1 (38:31.21)
Surely, George Hill, there were some important law enforcement tools that came out of that and a new way of doing things that have kept us safe, yes?

No,

Speaker 1 (38:49.115)
No!

Speaker 2 (38:56.568)
There's a process in place whereby the FBI gets notified by the national security apparatus of a threat to the United States. So I was with the FBI in a national security position for a decade. During that time, we have one case where that actually happened and they teach it at the academy because there was one case.

That was Abraham Rahim, think was his last name. And he got caught by a five eye partner, F V E Y, meaning someone in the United Kingdom, hoovered up some intelligence of him communicating with an operative whose name escapes me. used to keep the video of that guy getting drone striked, on my computer. If I never needed a quick pick me up and

He came to the Brits attention and they quickly notified the FBI. I think it was Memorial weekend, because I was not in Massachusetts. I was further North and got a text, the email, my unclassified phone saying, get into the office. Well, I knew what that meant. And went into the office, brought up the top secret enclave in the SCIF, secure compartmented information facility.

And lo and behold, this guy had glum dawned to wanting to kill Pamela Geller, who was sponsoring draw Mohammed contest at that time, because it is a, an apostasy, a sin punishable by death under Sharia law to make images of the prophet. And so he was going to kill her. And so we, because he was communicating with a foreign terrorist organization.

we were able to go up on a FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. All perfectly legal, all perfectly constitutional. so we increased the tempo of operations to 24-7 watching this guy. Long story short, he gets ventilated by the JTTF when he tried to come at them with a knife that

Speaker 2 (41:25.004)
was just under the length of a machete. And his brother went to trial. He was convicted as well because he was a willing participant in this. was part of that plan to kill Ms. Geller. That's the only time that we have waived our constitutional rights under the guise of making sure that no American shall die of terrorism that I actually saw the construct work. Look.

Living in a free world is a dangerous place and I'd rather live free and dangerously than safe in the democratic people's republic of North Korea.

Yeah. amen. So

So 2001, we get the Patriot Act and all of the expansion of government and surveillance that comes with that. Let's fast forward to. like it was, it like it was the end of 2012 or early 2013. I'd have to check my, my timelines here, but about that time is when we get the information of what.

the government is doing through the NSA. Thank you to Edward Snowden. Can you give us like a brief overview of, refresh our memories, what was revealed by Edward Snowden?

Speaker 2 (42:53.398)
Christ, I forget the programs that he revealed from the NSA. And, and even if I did know them off the top of my head, the names of those programs are still classified. And even though they're in the public domain, I'd still be in violation of my non-disclosure agreements for repeating them. But we did learn a lot about how the NSA collects. And, know, when the snow case first broke, I was mortified, you know, was a flag waving Patriot.

You know, multiple deployments overseas, throughout two different careers, Marine Corps and Navy. and then I listened, it was so long. took Joe Rogan to podcast interview Snowden and it changed my mind. That's the difference between a conservative and a leftist. I willing to listen to an opposing point of view. mean, truly listen, actively listen. and he changed my mind and.

Yes.

Speaker 2 (43:52.396)
The NSA collects everything that moves around the globe. They still do. This latest incident with these SIMS farms that we discovered in New York, my contact at Akamai said that about 63 % now of all threat traffic actually starts with inside the United States.

So the NSA has become a victim of their own success in terms of hoovering up everything around the world in the way of electronic communications.

Wow. Okay, well, I mean, you kind of answered one of my questions is going to be Edward Snowden hero or trader.

Look, Donald Trump missed a golden opportunity on his first administration. If he had just pardoned, goodness gracious, the guy who founded WikiLeaks.

Holy crap, we're both we're both thrown a plank at the same time. Someone will hit me in the chat. my gosh. gosh. What is happening to us, George? anyway, Julian Assange.

Speaker 2 (45:07.694)
Julian Assange, if he had pardoned Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and brought them back to the United States, we would not be in the constitutional crisis that we're in right now.

Explain.

They have the keys to the kingdom. Hey, no, everything. If he had just given them a full pardon and brought them back, we could have been, we could have, we would have had two guides, you know, that could navigate us through the wilderness and say, you know, that, that, that needs to go that, that, that, that, that, I can help you deconstruct the FBI because I lived on the inside. Those gentlemen have a,

even broader view than I have on the National Collection Apparatus.

And it was Mike Pompeo that stopped that if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 2 (45:58.7)
Yeah, Mike Pompeo, who also recommended,

the woman who became head of the CIA. can't remember her name now. she was, she was a chief of station in London and she was front and center for the whole Russia hoax and had interactions with, the British fellow who wrote the steel dossier. so Mike Pompeo is a bad guy.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's the difference between for the most part, or plenty of exceptions, of course. But I think that is the biggest difference between the first Trump administration. The second Trump administration is, and he said so himself, interviews, that he just kind of accepted people that, know, that would help him fill out these government roles, people that he thought he could trust and sure as hell could not. and a much different story.

Well, look, mean, in a trusting society, for a trusting society, for any society to function, there has to be a certain degree of trust, and you have to have trust in your institutions. So you want to be able to trust that the CIA is doing everything above board in accordance with the law and their own internal guidelines to keep the country safe, as you believe that the FBI and the NSA are also.

operating within the confines and constructs of congressional oversight and the laws that are in place. For society to function, you need to believe that. Where we're at now is we're finding out painfully so that these institutions are about themselves, not so much the American people.

Speaker 1 (47:40.334)
Kara says this the name we're looking for their gene has.

Neema Hospital, yep, 100%. Thank you, Karen.

do do you have? Yeah, because I mean, there are so many names that get thrown at us. It's tough to remember all these. So thank you, Kara. Yeah, she's somebody that I should. She her name's popped up enough that I should have more information up here about her, I think. Okay, huh. I'm just trying to figure out where to go from here. Okay, so I because because I remember some of the Snowden stuff that was revealed. I remember there were programs that

that you could go to a search engine and start typing in stuff and then backspace it and that's captured. You don't even have to hit enter on the search. Like there are so many just jaw-dropping things that Edward Snowden revealed. And I knew at the time I said to myself, we're going to forget about this as a country. I'm going to forget about all of this stuff that is leaving me dumbfounded. I'm personally going to ensure is how both are true. And I just remember Prism.

was a thing that just captured it's it's stunning. It's stunning. The kind of stuff that we let our government get away with.

Speaker 2 (48:54.208)
It's one thing to capture this stuff, right? So the NSA captures and catalogs, right? It's another thing to use it. So for example, I was decorated by the director of national intelligence for my work during the Mumbai attack. And there were instances where it's kind of like,

for the protection against the United States persons, uspers, that you can't spy on a Five Eye partner either. Who's that? So the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. So those are the five English speaking partners that share intelligence pretty openly. There are instances where you get intelligence products that are quote,

Explain 5i.

Speaker 2 (49:51.756)
REL, R-E-L, meeting release, US only, they may have their versions of that as well. But we had Five Eye partners roaming around Fort Meade every day. I would brief General Alexander on a weekly basis for a couple of years on all matters counterterrorism related, and there would be Five Eye partners in the room. And occasionally he would ask a question, and I would say, I can't get into that right now, sir. I can get back to you.

And he knew what that meant. It was just a gentlemanly way of saying, like, sorry, guys, rules are rules. Can't tell you. So that's the five eye community. So you're not supposed to be spying on the five eye community. And there were ways that I could basically conduct a parallel investigation and have another country. And I'm not going to, like maybe India, for example, get some intelligence from them so that I could look at what these other five eye partners were doing.

But you can't do that. It's against...

Well, it might be against executive order 12, triple three, but there was a couple of documents that you really had to test out of the NSA every year to make sure that you were in compliance with. So United States persons, uspers, five, I partners off limits. You know, you want to get jammed up, go ahead and violate that. you're going to get jammed up. And so the, the FBI could do the same thing now, because at the end of Barack Obama's administration.

He changed executive order 12, triple three and made the NSA's databases available to the FBI. And so if you're an FBI analyst and you're invent investigating George Hill, who is a Croatian international arms dealer, and, but you really want to get at Keith Malik. So you keep on looking, looking, looking, and it's like, my God, here I have George Hill in contact with Keith Malik.

Speaker 2 (51:52.696)
So now I'm gonna go up on a, you know, now I can start to look at that and open up a parallel investigation completely unrelated to national security or FISA collection on George Hill, the Croatian arms dealer. You know, so the NSA databases in and of themselves are harmless, you know, to our constitution and Bill of Rights is what people do with them that are the problem.

And the people that are abusing it the most, almost exclusively, is the FBI.

The FBI. Yeah. And I recall, I think it was our, I think it was our mutual friend, Steve friend, who I heard on an interview talking about when Cash Patel had been nominated to be FBI director and then got an alert or something from the Biden administration that like some foreign entity was trying to hack in, does email.

And the way that it was explained by Steve, and I'm going to completely butcher this, is that you can basically make up any excuse to get into someone's email. It felt like it's a kind of a simple path to get that ball rolling. Like, forgot what he said, but like they open up a, they can open up a threat assessment or something. I don't know. They make up some excuse to get into your email.

based on who said something to you. But I forget the whole detail.

Speaker 2 (53:32.21)
Yeah, so I'm so that's what I guess an easier example for people to understand is During the 2016 election Hillary Clinton got a briefing from the FBI And you got it right as a threat assessment that the Russians were Targeting her campaign, but they elected not to give Donald Trump the same briefing It's it's kind of like that

you know, that he would have gotten notice that, hey, he meaning cash would have got noticed that a foreign country, a threat nation is trying to access your email account.

And how would they know that to begin with?

You would get that an alert from the National Security Agency.

They're what they're called their mask. So you get notification that someone in your either AOR area of operations or in your organization is being targeted by a foreign entity. Do you want the name? And there's a process you go through and says, yes, give me the name. And then you get that same information back with the name on mask. So Samantha Powers, when she was at the United Nations,

Speaker 2 (54:50.53)
had hundreds of names unmasked, something no UN ambassador had ever done before. And she was just basically trying to get names in order to open up unlawful investigations of people that were not in the Obama sphere, specifically Trump and the whole Russian collusion hoax. So there's a whole process for masking and unmasking. So all uspers, when NSA is collecting,

all you know, uspers are masked as a matter of procedure, then they notify the FBI again, it's lawful. And I would have my analyst ask me like, you know, this is what I got from the NSA today. Do we want to, you know, pursue this any further? And we look at it together and say, you know, no, this is really, this is not ours or, you know, yes. And then once that name comes back on mask at the bureau, what we would do then is run that through our databases and then just a quick

flirt back, just acknowledging, thank you or something like that, but never like, thank goodness you sent this to us. This guy's a real dirt bag and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So there are protocols in place to do this. It's just that we've chosen not to do it. It comes down to people. when I was in Gitmo, I was the Saudi Arabian team chief down there.

Alright, that's the

Speaker 2 (56:18.574)
So I had my own detainees that I went and interrogate. And then I had 24 seven, uh, interrogation operations going on. This was all 2004 and Abu Ghraib broke at that time and, um, the Navy and the DOD, everybody panicked. And, um, so my, my tour of duty ended and I met with the, Admiral in charge of the Navy reserves intelligence program. And he said, well, what do we got to do to keep this sort of thing from happening again? You know, what protocols can we put in place?

And I said, you have to do what you've been doing, which is identify the very best people for the work, be very selective, and then have a rigorous training process where you weed out people that don't meet up. But then once you put that person into an interrogation booth with them, it's all on them. So we can have congressional oversight. We can have these safeguards and guardrails and things of that nature. But at the end of the day,

It comes down to the man or woman that's actually doing the work. And that's where I said, you know, we're talking about a trust society. want to believe, we want to trust that the people at our intelligence entities are decent people that are abiding by the law and have reverence for the bill of rights and are doing the right thing. But at the end of the day, you've got to trust Keith and George to do the right thing.

So you mentioned congressional oversight. mean, that is as close as we get to. It's designed this way. I mean, those are our representatives in Washington, D.C. Those are our voices.

It's unfair question. I'll tell you that ahead of time. what would you percentage of this gargantuan federal spy state that we are all under? How much of it do you think is really understood by Congress? I don't know how you can quantify that. but okay. What percentage of Congress do you think actually understands the capabilities of this government?

Speaker 2 (58:27.79)
What percentage of Congress understand what's going on with the government or do you think that's up right?

understands what the intelligence apparatus is capable of.

So a couple of things. Let's start with the foundation first. The New York Times in 2003, I think, did an article entitled, What's the Difference Between a Sunni and a Shia? So we're building this great intelligence apparatus and Congress doesn't even know what the difference is. They had polling data. Congress doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia, which is really kind of a big deal. So let's start there. That's our foundation. Let's go forward now to about

2010, 2011, yeah, probably about 2011, 2012, Dana Priest of the Washington Post and one other journalist did a series of articles looking at the intelligence community and the tremendous amount of overlap. So based on their data alone, there's probably about a 66, two thirds percentage overlap between all the intelligence agencies.

So it's, it's, it's, you know, more than twice as large as it needs to be. So you've got people running around looking for work and idle hands, right? They're the devil's playground. and then Mike Waller is a friend of mine, wrote a great book called big Intel, which I highly recommend, reading, people who want to get their head around just how massive the intelligence collection apparatus is. And.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04.462)
You know, we saw what the Stasi was able to do back in the analog days. Well, now we have the Stasi with facial recognition, gate recognition, license plate readers, you know, all nine yards. So they're, they're, they're, they're fully in the digital age and they're just as intrusive as the Stasi was.

Right. Okay. Um, wow. You've, you've already touched on right there. A couple of things I want to ask you about. recently heard a fun fact, George is a fun fact that every call, every voicemail, every text from Americans for the next 500 years is being stored at that gargantuan facility in Utah. Is that accurate? You know,

I don't know about the 500 years, but yeah, yeah. I remember when they had to build it. was the, two things happened. It was the invention of the smartphone and, multimedia that can reside on a smartphone and the telecommunications companies, they used to store all that data and the NSA and they said, well, we're not going to store it beyond a certain length of time. think it was like five years and the NSA said,

Not a problem. Uncle Sugar's got a big fat wallet. We'll take care of it for you.

Okay, yeah boy, how do they keep all that stuff cool out those computers cool out there? No water close by is there or I don't know

Speaker 2 (01:01:34.636)
I don't know either. you know, Utah is interesting. most of your NSA linguists, are, are Mormon and come from Utah because they have their, hopefully it's the right term. They're evangelists. They're missionaries. Yes, they're missionaries. And, so, in, terms of a population set, for the United States having multilingual population set, that's where it's at.

That's good job. they go on these missions, I guess, learn the language and then they can apply it to a government job analyzing.

Well, that's the thing, right? So I did find fixed finish operations. So when you're finding a target and then fixing their location, it's not electronic. It's a man or a woman who's been listening to that person in some cases for years and they know their tone of language, they know their moods, they know how they punctuate their sentences. They know that person inside and out.

We may get there someday with artificial intelligence, but it's a man or woman with a set of headphones on listening to hours and hours of people talking trash and saying, yeah, that's Abu bad guy from trash can of Stan. And this is where he is.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57.106)
Avu bad guy from trash can stand. That's awesome. And Benjamin makes a point he's over in Denmark. He talks about their interrogations getting outsourced to places like Lithuania to circumvent certain human rights. I mean, that's what we do, right? I mean

Yeah, the black sites were notoriously written about. absolutely. You know, the interesting thing about interrogations is that I might be wrong on the exact percentage, but 70 % of people respond to direct questioning, which is I asked a question, you answer me back in that first 24 hours of capture.

That's where most of your intelligence is gained. So you don't have to come at anybody hard or play any kind of mind games. It's just like, my God, Keith, that was horrible. You just saw five of your friends get smoked by a bunch of seals. You know, how are you feeling? Can I get you a glass of water? And usually nine times out of 10 is going to go pretty well from now on.

And this is when you're talking to Abu bad guy from trash can of Stan.

Yeah, but you got to meet him in Treshkantistan, right? So if you give him time to, you know, to collect himself, you know, so like the people that were coming to Gitmo from an intelligence standpoint were useless from an operational standpoint, but they were extremely valuable in the intelligence community learning about the global jihad movement. knew nothing. Really. Michael Shoyer and a few people did.

Speaker 2 (01:04:29.986)
at the CIA, a few FBI joint task forces, we knew nothing. on September 11th, 2001, we didn't know anything about funding, how the recruited members is all like, you know, almost pre internet, you know, people got recruiting tapes on, on cassettes that they picked up at the mosque.

Yes. Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay. so this next question I'm going to ask you, I had thought about this because we originally going, we were going to have this conversation on nine 11 and then obviously the horrific assassination of Charlie Kurt preempted the programming topic here. So we moved this back a couple of weeks, but as I look at this next question, I want to ask you, it has a different, hue to it now, I guess.

Because I wanted to talk to you about how the FBI tags cases as domestic terrorism. And, and, and maybe we can talk about that in connection with January 6th. But as I'm sitting here today, I'm thinking of it in the context of Antifa with that designation now through executive order. Can you talk to us about, help us to understand domestic terrorism in the United States?

There is no such thing as a domestic terrorist organization. Trump just invented that out of whole cloth by calling them a DTO. He could have easily and lawfully declared them an international terrorist organization or an FTO, foreign terrorist That's the one. Right, yeah. That's where you can go up on FISEs and things of that nature. and you could have made a...

that has teeth in it,

Speaker 2 (01:06:12.554)
legal argument there because we just witnessed this week, horrible protest in the Netherlands and France with Antifa on the street in Black Bloc. hopefully your audience knows what Black Bloc is. It's when they all dress up in black and then I go coordinated military movements. you know, all, you have to do is just find them in communication. This is where the NSA would come in.

heard a term associated

Speaker 2 (01:06:42.124)
with a U.S. number or email address, then you would unmask that, you send it to the FBI. Then you go up and you get a FISA, and then you're off to the races, and you can start taking that organization apart. It may have played well on Twitter and Truth Social declaring it a domestic terrorist organization, but there is no legal construct in U.S. for that. Now, the FBI does have domestic terrorist squads,

that focus in on strictly homegrown entities. So your climate pagans who like to shoot at power substations or hammer nails into trees or burn down entire construction sites to protect the spot at Wood Owl or whatever. groups like that.

You know, we haven't had an abortion shooting in a while, but you know, there are groups, you know, like back in the nineties that would have fallen under that group that were planning to commit violent acts. But those are domestic terrorists and those can be prosecuted under US code that exists, but there is nothing in US code for a DTO, domestic terrorist organization. And then for January 6th, that's when the FBI really perverted the law.

and labeled all those people who were wandering through with their cell phones taking pictures as domestic terrorists. I forget what the case code is that they use for that. I've been out of it for a while. But by policy and procedures, they're supposed to open up all those cases in DC since that's where the crime took place, alleged crime. Instead, they opened them up from Miami to Seattle, from San Diego to Bangor, Maine in order to put the narrative out there that

We had domestic terrorists all over the country and we're close to losing our democracy.

Speaker 1 (01:08:46.473)
So if you had to on a scale of zero to 10, zero being not political at all, 10 being the most political, where would you put the FBI today? Say during the Biden administration, has it always been whatever your score is about to be?

No, I mean, they're, they're, they're a 10 on a 10 scale. They're hyper political. Always been that way or no, absolutely. I changed on, on September 12th when they became an intelligence entity and, they even set it, Bob Bollereap has said it more than once that the FBI is now the federal bureau of intelligence. They want to do pre-crime. So the intelligence cadre, they write products.

based on stuff that hasn't even happened yet. So we're gonna take a look at Catholics who go to Latin Mass, for example, because they may be a problem. So you're leaving it up to college graduate, like right out of college graduate is what I mean, people with no real life experience that can surf through NSA databases and come up and say, you know what, this group of people may be a problem. So we need to open up.

an intelligence case on them. And then from there, we can actually maybe build some actual criminal cases. But without predication, we're just going to open up a case on on, you know, traditional Catholics or agave, anti-government, anti-authority, violent extremist. You know, so no, it was September 12th.

Yeah, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25.372)
Wait, it gets worse.

no, okay.

So when Mahler brought in McKinsey, they created something called integrated program management. And it is a process, a highly disciplined process, whereby they create their own metrics that determine success. So success is determined by disruptions or arrest or things of that nature. They decide how many FISEs are we gonna open up? How many sources are we going to have?

How many intelligence products are we gonna write? What types of intelligence products are we gonna write? So they lowball these predetermined statistics before the beginning of the new fiscal year. And then at the end of the fiscal year, you're talking five figure bonuses for the special agent in charge for hitting these metrics that they intentionally lowball. And then these metrics are monitored not by.

like the intelligence directorate or something like that, you know, some similar entity within the bureau, it's monitored and tracked by HRD, the human resources department. So if you're in a leadership position and you're continually crushing these metrics, this is what moves you up the organization. So they've created an entire framework that out of whole cloth where they determine what they make the determination what success is.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55.426)
They lowball the number, you hit success, and then you move up without any legal predication of a violation of law.

Speaker 2 (01:12:07.566)
And that was given to us by a man by the name of Dave Schlendorf. Spell it just like it sounds. You can find him on LinkedIn. He's now a consultant for some other company right now. But he was a good friend of Jim Comey's and Bob Mueller's.

Cool. goodness, George. So, earlier I mentioned our mutual friend, Steve friend, and I'd forgotten that I had printed out a tweet from him from back in August that, I wanted for this discussion. speaker Mike Johnson cast the deciding vote against an amendment that would have required a warrant for the government to spy on Americans under visor section seven two. So.

Can you please tell us why that's important? Why casting that vote and continuing FISA section 702 the way it is? Why is that a bad thing?

702 came about after the findings of the church committee or church commission. I don't know what people like to use. think most people call it the church committee. And that's where they drove, dragged in multiple members of the central intelligence agency talking about assassinations overseas and the Jimmy. Yeah. So Jimmy Carter.

MKUltra, right?

Speaker 2 (01:13:33.678)
afterwards he wasn't the president during those hearings, gutted the CIA and tried to rein it in. And some people say that Jimmy Carter is ultimately responsible for 9-11. That's a whole nother week-long discussion. not gonna go there tonight. So also created at that time was the FISA Court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And that was there to try to provide a...

guardrails and a construct for the CIA and the NSA to operate under that wasn't extra constitutional. So this FISA court, it doesn't convene in a physical location. It's actually a rotating series of judges that are cleared up to the top secret level. And you put together a package that goes in front of the court and it's usually pretty thick. And the, it's,

think like 99.8 % approval rating, approval for FISA applications by the FISA court. So they almost never say no. Right. And even that two tenths of a percent is usually just a rewrite. So it's pretty much a hundred percent. So when the FBI goes and asks for a FISA warrant, they're going to get one. And the FISA gives you the ability to what's called to hop. So say I'm going to go up on that arms dealer from Croatia, George Hill.

And I can not only look at everything that George Hill's doing from a lawful standpoint, I can look at now everything, everyone that George Hill is in contact with. So I'm the FBI agent, I'm a hot runner. I've been with the Bureau all three years and I think I would be a great supervisor already. I see that, I know Keith Malick's involved in something.

He says it's an auto body shop, but I know it's a chop shop. He's doing something, you know, so, let's take a look at what Keith is doing too. And by the way, Keith's sons work for him too. So we're going to take a look at them. So we're going to two hop George Hill to the entire Malik family. So, you know, and, and so let's say one of your kids is involved with Antifa, which is now I'm just saying for the sake of argument, a foreign terrorist organization.

Speaker 2 (01:15:57.757)
So now we're going to go up on a FISA on your son. You know, so it's almost unlimited spying on the country. And I'm not exaggerating. It just takes a little bit of creativity and initiative on people to misuse it. Like I said, like I explained to that Admiral at the end of the day, it comes down to that man or woman doing the right thing. If you're, know, in a trust society.

I have very little faith in my fellow man. Yeah, okay And here we are So, I I made a note here because I wanted to ask you about this again, there is so much that gets thrown at us just in the 24-hour news cycle much less over the past 24 years since 9-eleven, but I vaguely remember this and shame on me for not knowing more on this but

And so did the framers, by the way.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53.334)
I know that you've criticized Bank of America. provided, remind me now, they provided the FBI some customer data or something, transactions. What was that about?

So I was one of the things I testified to Jim Jordan's committee about behind closed doors. Okay. That the Democrats leaked to Rolling Stone magazine before I even got home and they wrote a 3000 word hit piece on me. one of the things I talked about that came to light, the FBI's system of record is called Sentinel. And in Sentinel, write what's called, everything resides there, but they...

It's also that they have a honeydew list that referred to as leads, L-E-A-D-S. And it's kind of like an electronic post-it note, hey, do this. So my supervisor, special agent counterpart got a stating that he is to open up cases based on this Bank of America list. And the reason that I would have this conversation with him

is because I have two analysts, one at the fusion center and one at the Boston regional intelligence center, that interact with him and the agents on his squad every day. And I'm like, well, where did they get this list? So we get the guy who sent the lead from, he worked at WFO Washington field office, sometimes referred to as worst field office. And the list was generated,

by Bank of America, according to him, of their own accord. And the list was everyone that was in DC, I'm sorry, every Bank of America customer who was either in DC, they'd use a Bank of America product, whether it be a debit card or a credit card that we could show that was in DC on January 6th, or had purchased a plane ticket that put them in DC on or about January 6th.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05.302)
I think they boxed the travel dates from 5 to 8 January. I think that was the time window that they boxed the tickets on. So if you use a Bank of America product to either while in DC or to buy a plane ticket to go to DC during that time block, you were on that list. And then they took that list and resorted it and stacked it so that if you had ever purchased a firearm in your life,

Anywhere you went to the top of that list and WFO expected us to open up cases on all these people to which my colleague responded with a, a, a gently worded response via email, but really when it comes down to it was the giant middle finger and went out and talked to his boss and said, we're not, we're not doing that.

And his boss was a former F-18 pilot and Naval Academy graduate. This is what I'm talking about. You have to have good people that are willing to stand against the tie. So I just named two of them, not by name, but by position. Two good people that said, no, we're not violating these people's constitutional rights. There's no predication here. You know? So he told the guy to F off. He said, well, I'm going to tell my boss. And he said, well, go right ahead. I've already told my boss.

So WFO boss calls the F-18 pilot and says, hey, you can't do this. And he said, yeah, well, F you too. He said, well, I'm going to call your boss, who is the special agent in charge, right? So I said, go ahead, I already told him. they called somebody from WFO called Joe Bonavolante, who was the SEC at the Boston office at that time. And he said, no.

We're not going to do this. I'm going to talk to your boss, who at the time was Jill Sanborn, who ran the entire, terrorism program for the FBI. She was short-lived because she wasn't one of the boys, not because she wasn't born with the twig and berries, but she just didn't play their silly little games. Again, a good person doing the right thing. And Jill said, no, Joe, you don't have to do that. That's that's baloney. And she didn't last much longer after that. think she was out within less than a year, after that exchange.

Speaker 2 (01:21:29.41)
And so director Ray, when he testified in front of Congress, I don't know the genesis of the list. don't know if we requested it. don't know whose email box it showed up in when it came from bank of America. don't know who from bank of America sent it, you know, and, Jim Jordan never probed on it. Never, you know, it's so easy, you know, to look at, you know, how the genesis of this list came about and other field offices.

We're thankful for it and went on and opened up cases on all those.

For the record, that's not the first time that I've heard from someone informing me that Jim Jordan has received amazing information and didn't do much with it. And that's frustrating.

Well, I mean, you go on Hannity, you get a hit, and you bend that out to your constituents. That's what you get out of

Yeah. Um, I have a buddy of mine who is in law enforcement and recently he and I were having an email exchange and I knew this conversation was coming up about the surveillance state after nine 11. And I thought, you know what, I'm going to read some of this, uh, back and forth to George and see if he has some thoughts on it. Um, the automated license plate recognition, something you're familiar with. Okay. Right. Okay. So awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53.134)
I want to read a little bit from this email from my law enforcement buddy. I've been trying to sound the alarm in reference to automated license plate readers for some time. It is the epitome of police state surveillance systems. He goes on to talk about a nationwide system, blah, blah, blah. Okay, because I view it as a constitutionally troubling as constitutionally we're troubling, troubling and refuse to use this system. New guys getting into law enforcement today are all over the system.

They love it. He says that he's been told by his bosses specifically to avoid mentioning the system in police reports when it's used to identify and apprehend someone. Well, it continues. He says the system, because I asked him, know, give me some specifics. What is this thing? So the system tracks every vehicle on the road. Records the time, date, location and surrounding vehicles along with photos.

This data is held indefinitely and is only limited by local laws or agency policy. The data that law enforcement agencies can utilize includes all data recorded by private entities like repo agencies, tow trucks, private companies seeking marketing data, et cetera. That means that if a tow truck with this LPR system attached, like this plate reader, cruises an apartment complex parking lot looking for repo vehicles, it is recording every vehicle

in that lot as a permanent data point that law enforcement can use later if they want to. It is associating each vehicle with those around it and the addresses. It is turning every entity with this system into a government agent, in my opinion, and is tracking innocent people in case the data needs to be used later. He goes on, he says, in training, the question came up, why a warrant isn't needed to track someone this way.

because normally a GPS requires a search warrant. answer was the system only becomes illegal when enough exists to track people similarly to a full GPS full-time GPS tracker. He goes on to talk about where is the line? What are your thoughts George Hill to the license plate readers and all that because I didn't know any of this. I mean, this is

Speaker 2 (01:25:15.306)
As of this video, there is no linked national network. So if you're on the lam from Pennsylvania and you're headed out to Wyoming, they're not going to be able to track your movements from state to state to state through some sort of national networks. Each state operates their LPR. I know in Massachusetts it's not functioning half the time, but that's when I retired. So that was two years ago. So that may have changed.

by now. And I know Massachusetts refuses to just leave it on and use it on constitutional basis, which is odd for a state like Massachusetts, who's fine with killing babies and taking my gun rights away, but they won't read your license plate. But be that as it may, they won't allow people to use it. But look, here at the end of the day, and to put it in prison parlance,

If they want to get you, you're going to get got. Unless you find a way to digitally disappear, change your gate, change your face and live on cash. You're going to get caught unless you're the guy who planted the bomb in front of the DNC on January 5th. You can run free for the rest of your life.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42.252)
Look, I look, I participated in the scenario of manhunt. know how these things work. If the government wants to get you, you will get got. Make no mistake about it. You might as well make plans on writing letters from prison.

Yeah. So I think I forgot when, when was this? had been on the front of the live stream last week. there was a band that, that had cameras focused on the crowd at their show. And just from the facial recognition, it put their, it put their picture up on the board behind them, the giant video wall and identified who they were, et cetera, et cetera.

I mean, that's real stuff and it's in the hand of law enforcement agencies,

Yeah, I believe, and hopefully we won't get jammed up by some lawyer here, I believe the name of the company is CP Clear, which is only available to law enforcement. Maybe one of your viewers can search it real quick, but I believe it's CP Clear, Charles Papa Clear. they, their software is only available to law enforcement. And I can run a couple of images there and I can look at,

every place your face ever showed up in social media posts or anywhere to include your driver's license. And facial recognition has come a long way since that manhunt of the scenarios. you know, law enforcement has reached omnipotence, omnipotent powers now.

Speaker 1 (01:28:22.014)
How did you guys get the... How did you find them hiding under a boat cover? How did that play out? Is there anything you can...

Yeah, it was just, we were under tremendous pressure from the governor who was under pressure from Barack Obama to lift the lockdown that had taken place for over two days. Yeah, April 15th. So that was 2014. God. And

I'm on bomber for those that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:58.638)
One of the where the house where the boat was was an older gentleman who's passed away now Just a great guy who's retired he used to like taking kids from the children's hospital for cancer out on boat rides on his dime And his wife didn't let him smoke in the house He hadn't had a cigarette for two days that he was really hurting pretty bad and he went out to this small little back deck and he saw the Tyvek

that his boat had been wrapped in at the end of the season, flapping in the breeze. And he's like, I think I secured that. And so he went into the garage, got a ladder, put it up against the boat, started climbing up the the ladder, and saw the blood on the engine cowling where Johar had left. And came down the ladder and made the phone call. And Hal...

he survived that full set of bullets is beyond me because I went to the site the next morning and there were holes everywhere. mean, the privacy fence, the garage, the boat, mean, how he didn't get shot was a mystery. And now he's escaped the death penalty, which I'm kind of glad for. You know, let him spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement.

Yeah. okay. So I want to go back to where we started and I just have maybe one or two more questions here for you. the premise of the show was, is America after nine 11, are we safer? You know, did the terrorists win and you've had to deal with a lot of high value targets. You, talked about your time there at Gitmo.

And what was the guy's name? Abu bad guy from try. I will never forget that for as long as I live, You're not a nice man. So he's not, he's not, he's not a nice man. Okay. So.

Speaker 2 (01:30:50.318)
But I don't want to

Not a nice man.

Speaker 1 (01:31:01.706)
Again, and I asked it earlier, I was asking it again, just because I'm annoying that way. Is there anything, is there an elevator pitch? Is there anything you can say about the laws and the Patriot Act and the things that came after 9-11? there anything that has made us safer as a country?

No, it's actually made us unsafer. I, like so many Americans, have been focused on kinetic attacks in the country emanating from jihadi groups overseas. And I miss the real threat that lives amongst us. All one has to do is take a look at what's happening in Western Europe now, who have been overrun by seventh century illiterates from Islamic countries.

destroying those countries, rate cases going up a thousand percent throughout Europe. And now we're seeing it in Flint, Michigan, in Texas and other places. We have missed the true threat, which is unfettered immigration. People need to understand that Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology with a religious component. I was fortunate enough that my linguist in Gitmo was a former professor at Al-Ansar University in Cairo.

The brilliant man, it was very helpful in helping me understand Islam. We would read the Quran and the Hadith on a regular basis because the Saudis practice the best interrogation technique out there, which is don't say anything. But if you start talking about religion, you can't shut them up. So in order to do that, you have to have approach it from a basis of knowledge. Well, I never read the Quran and had no reason to or the Hadith, which are

Essentially loosely translated or the tales of Muhammad, which were written 300 years after Muhammad's death. so people need to understand what we're up against here. Islam, they say is a religion of peace, but they never finished the sentence. It's peace through submission in that mass of myths or woman submits to the will of man. Man submits to the will of God. Islam replaces all that that came before it. Islam.

Speaker 2 (01:33:23.15)
Christianity replaced Judaism and Mohammed is God's last prophet on earth and he replaces Christianity because the Muslims do not believe that Christ was the son of God. So we've missed the real threat which is unfettered immigration from these Islamic countries. They do not assimilate, they cannot assimilate, but under Sharia law they cannot assimilate. They cannot live by man's laws.

In this country, it's problematic because we have something called the Supremacy Clause, which means that no other law in the country still exists above that of the Constitution. So that's a real problem for the Islamic community. Keith Ellison, who's now member of Congress, used to be the district attorney in Minnesota. And then I forget what's said. He might've been in Minneapolis at some point in time in his career. But when he was a congressional representative, he tried to get Sharia law enacted in his district and was shot down pretty handily.

because of the supremacy clause, but they're going to come back and they're going to try again and again and again and again and if you Dearborn, Michigan is now 50 % Islamic and you want to listen to the call of prayer five o'clock in the morning move Dearborn, Michigan

And a mayor that doesn't want you there. If you dislike a certain road it's being named after.

Yeah, they don't assimilate, can't assimilate, they won't assimilate.

Speaker 1 (01:34:43.854)
All right, well, before we go, is there any last thoughts you'd like to share about America and what has happened to us since 9-11? I think you pretty much summed it up nicely there.

Look, you know, getting away from the Patriot Act, but I'm deeply concerned about where we are right now with these killings, you know, with ICE and everybody being either fascist, Hitler, Nazi, or whatever. What we're seeing after Charlie Kirk's brutal assassination is the political leadership in our country in conjunction with the legacy media.

They're building a moral framework wherein they're giving license to violence. And once a country goes down the path of political violence, there is no coming back from it. So it's not gonna be blue and gray lining up on the battlefield. It's going to be neighbor on neighbor, random killings, which could escalate. David Best, who is a professor at the War College, I'm sorry, the King's College,

Department of War Studies in the United Kingdom lays out all the criteria and he says that England is actually in a civil war right now, then it's going to go from bad to worse. Those same criteria exist in this country. We have a lot more.

Speaker 2 (01:36:16.728)
speed bumps and things that will keep us from going down that path. The British have very little control over who governs them. Fortunately, we do. But I just want to close with a warning that there is no coming back from political violence. And we need to stop othering people and dehumanizing them because then it makes it easier to hurt them physically, literally. And that's what I want to close with.

You know, not a kumbaya moment. in a very dangerous time right now. But this name calling has to stop. It's not helping.

George Hill, it's always a great discussion with you. You're a wealth of knowledge and I appreciate you sharing it here yet again on At the Mic. And I look forward to the next time that we can gather. So thank you for your time, sir.

Hopefully this was helpful for your audience. That's all I really care about.

Absolutely. Absolutely it was. All right. You be safe. Everyone watching, please be safe and we will see you all in about 22 hours from now for the Friday live stream here on X. Thanks so much.