August 9, 2025 • 48 mins
SECURING AMERICA WITH FRANK GAFFNEY
SEGMENT 1: Frank Gaffney is by John Guandolo Pt. 1
SEGMENT 2: Frank Gaffney is by John Guandolo Pt. 2
SEGMENT 3: Frank Gaffney is by Sam Faddis Pt. 1
SEGMENT 4: Frank Gaffney is by Sam Faddis Pt. 2
SEGMENT 5: Frank Gaffney is by Sam Faddis Pt. 3
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Welcome to Securing America with me, Frank Afney. The program
that's a kind of owner's manual for protecting the country
we love against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to the
glory of God and his Kingdom. I couldn't be more
pleased to say that we have with us a man
who has devoted his entire professional life to protecting the
country we love against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He's
(00:48):
done it as a marine combat veteran with time in
a desert storm. He has done it as a man
who served in the FBI and a number of capacities,
including as a counter terrorism special agent. These days, he
is running a very important private sector initiative aimed at
(01:11):
the same purpose, trying to protect particularly the people and
the state of Texas where he now resides, against enemies well,
both foreign and domestic. His name is John Guandolo. You
can find out more about all that he's doing at
John guandolo dot com and also by staying toune because
(01:36):
we're going to talk a bit about what he's up
to and why it's so important. John.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Welcome back.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
It's good to have you with us here at Securing
America again.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Thanks great to be back on with you, Frank.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So you and I have been talking about and working
together for a long time, and of late particularly are
focused on what is going on in the state of Texas.
There's a lot of you know, thrashing around about redistricting
and special sessions and Democrats abandoning the state.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And all the rest of it.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
But we want to talk about another front and what
has been happening on the ground in Texas with respect
to well what some call the Islamicization of that state,
certainly the intensifying pressure from what I think of as
(02:31):
Sharia supremacists who are taking up residents there. Talk us
through what's happening as you see it, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
So, I appreciate the opportunity to dive into this. So
in Texas, the issue as we've been talking about, that
I think is the center point that woke people up,
is this issue about a four hundred and two acre
facility community that's being planned and they want to build
(03:06):
just in the North DFW area outside of Plano, about
twenty miles east in a place called Josephine. And what
this is is an all Muslim charadherent community, which is
it's a fraction if you will, of their caliphate. But
(03:29):
the key here is, and this is what I really
if there's one thing people take away of is this
is getting attention as well it should because it's one
of the largest in the country. But the key is
this is going on all over the country, these communities
that are being planned and built. So that's the first
(03:52):
thing is that these communities.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Could you just pose for a moment on that, John,
because I think what you you've described very succinctly, it
sounds like what would in due course, if not fairly
short order.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Be.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
What we've seen springing up in Europe extensively, namely what
are called no go zones. Is that what's in prospect?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Do you think, well, this is actually much worse. You know,
in Europe the no go zones can be areas where
the Muslims control. I mean, we had fifteen years ago
or so where we had legislators from Tennessee and other
states that were taken to Europe to be shown how
(04:43):
bad the Muslim incursion was. And there were neighborhoods where
they were told you can't come in here. You know,
this is Morocco. They're like, no, we're in England pretty sure.
But this is worse than that because this is then
a formal Muslim community where yes, it would be a
(05:03):
no go zone because it would be a completely Muslim
only area. But this is getting the approval across the
country of local and county and city councils who see
nothing wrong with this, and so that's what makes it
more dangerous is the non Muslim community is giving its
(05:25):
approval in many cases to these communities thinking it's no
big deal, and it's a huge.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Including this so called epic city East Plano Islamic Center Center. So, John,
how far advanced is this.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
At the moment?
Speaker 1 (05:43):
I understand that there's growing controversy about this Plano facility,
and as you say, there are others in the state
and elsewhere, but just took us through. Is this a
done deal? Are they getting the permits that they need?
Is this being investigated or resisted in any way?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
So? Well, first, it is being resisted by some in
the community, and there are some There is good news
coming out in that local and city councils, county councils, whatever,
are resisting it. In some areas Plano not as much,
(06:27):
but in Josephine where the actual community is going to
be billed as a more Christian conservative area where they're
not tolerating this, and they shouldn't. This is an unconstitutional
I mean to be clear, this is an unconstitutional construct.
It's a part of establishing the Islamic caliphate. And so
(06:51):
there is some good news there. But across the country,
what is not being dealt with and still hasn't been
dealt with as of this moment, is there is a
massive Islamic movement. There's a jihadi support network in the
United States. This is one aspect of it. And this
(07:13):
support network is made up of the most prominent Islamic
organizations in the United States, which we know, as a
matter of fact and evidence, are part of an organized
effort to wage war against the United States. And until local, state,
and federal authorities recognize this, the burden will remain on
(07:35):
the people to do something about it.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And when you say wage war, you're talking about I
guess jihad, the holy war. Are you talking about the
violent physical kind, John, or a more stealthy and well,
I think of it as pre violent sort.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
So both, and this is the problem. Until now, the
violence has been sporadic and organized in most cases, but
still sporadic. But you have just in two months, well
less than a month and maybe five weeks ago, the
(08:18):
leader of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula calling for
all out war in the United States and Europe and
targeting key leaders. You've got the major organizations at the
international level saying jihad without saying it as of now,
(08:40):
but calling people to a new level of fighting the
non Muslim community. So while it has been to date
primarily the non violent jihad, because jahad is total warfare
that includes all of these parts of warfare, pushing and
(09:01):
publicly acknowledging and publicly calling for violent jihad. And so
we have to understand in the past, when they have
done this, we have seen violence then roll out, specifically
when we saw in the fall of twenty ten the
(09:21):
call for violent jahad, specifically targeting Islamic rulers who are
not ruling according to Sharia. And then of course in
January twenty eleven we saw the Muslim Brotherhood's revolution in
the Middle East. Primarily now they're calling for this large
(09:41):
scale violence in Europe and in the United States.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
And I old the thought, John, we have to come
back on that very point the calls for jihad here
be right back with John Gondola State too. We're back
(10:16):
and we're continuing a tremendously important conversation with John Guandolo,
a former FBI special agent now involved in training law enforcement,
intelligence and ordinary citizens about the threat that we are
facing of holy war and then help from its friends,
(10:42):
those Jihadis and their communist allies. But John, just to
tie this off, you're saying that when people are referring
to fighting in some of these comments, it is not
so subliminal a message to their adherents, their followers, their congregants,
(11:05):
whatever you want to call them, that this is the
violent kind of holy war, even if at the moment
it is in a somewhat pre kinetic phase.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Is that right?
Speaker 3 (11:19):
That's exactly right. And I cannot overemphasize this. I mean,
they have thousands of soldiers here, and I certainly would
put between the communists and the Jihadis here in the
United States. You know, half a million soldiers here in
the United States. You've got declared, their intentions are declared,
(11:43):
their doctrine and their strategies are published, and they're working
together seamlessly at the local level in the United States.
But at the national and international levels, these hostile nation
states are working together and have these networks, these proxies,
if you will, for the communist and Islamic movements that
(12:07):
are absolutely focused on going very violent. And I want
to say this because I believe this is very important
in how this is addressed, is that when we see
things like coming up at the end of August in Dallas, Texas,
one of the largest Chinese communist front groups, the Freedom
(12:28):
Road socialist organization that broke off from Liberation Road. These
are the largest Chinese communist groups. These are the groups
that spawned the communist groups, Black Lives Matter and others,
and they're holding a rally, a pro communist Chinese rally
on August thirtieth in Dallas, Texas. And people that do
(12:53):
not understand what you and I are talking about see
this as well. Like you know, everyone has a right
free speech. But when you put these operations, these actions
in the context of the war they're waging against the
United States, it's not merely a and it isn't a
free speech event, and it's not a First Amendment issue.
(13:14):
It's not a right to speak and assemble freely. It
is part of a long line of actions being taken
to undermine the community and propagandize and show their dominance
in the community. And as you know, Texas is a
target for the Islamic movement and the Communist movement because
(13:36):
they believe if they can take Texas, their movement, the
Islamic movement, the Communist movement in the United States will
be pretty much over because they believe it will demoralize
and have a practical effect as well.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Well, it's hard to overstate just how strategically significant it
would be. Two questions to you, John, One is do
you anticipate that a feature of this August thirtieth event
in Dallas will be the Muslim brotherhoods and other jihadi
(14:13):
networks associations with the communists point one? In point two,
the last time I checked, there were a lot of
patriotic Americans, well armed patriotic Americans, no less in Texas.
How does this thing play out as you see it?
Does this evolve into open clashes and civil war?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well's a good question. So the first question is, you know,
when we look at you know, I just went through.
If you go through just what they put out publicly,
you know, Freedom Road Socialist organization on its website says
we are intent on creating a Marxist Leninist government in
the United States. So it's not they don't have a
(15:01):
hidden agenda. This is a big part of the communist movement.
But if you look through what they put out publicly,
they openly are aligning themselves with the Jihadi movement, with Hamas,
with the Islamic movement overall in the United States and beyond.
So yes to your first question, I would expect there
(15:25):
to be representatives of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others
at the event. Now what do I expect to come
of it. I expect them to do whatever they want
and for the police to protect them, which we continue
to see in Europe. In the United States, police protecting
the communists and Islamic movements because their leadership tells them, hey,
(15:48):
this is just your standard old freedom of speech thing.
And this is the problem. When you look at this
as just a public event and not as a line
of operation in a war against the United States, then
from the legal side, it's treated as nothing and the
(16:08):
police are actually become tools of the communist and Islamic
movements by protecting them. If which is why I think
the training we do for law enforcement is so critical,
because we help them discern between these things.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
I want to come back to that in just a second,
but I do want to say that what's so alarming
about this is, as you've documented fairly well of many
many years, we're not projecting. We're not, you know, sort
of speculating. We're talking about the playbook that we have
(16:45):
seen operating, most notably in Europe, are we not? And
you sort of touched on this a moment ago in
terms of protecting the Jihades in Britain and so on.
But that playbook winds up with submission, does it not.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
That's right, You've got If we use what's going on
in Europe as an example, I would argue a lot
of that is already going on in the United States.
The Muslim Brotherhood's doctrine for North America, their strategy for
North America, says, we get their leaders, the non Muslim leaders,
(17:29):
to do our bidding for us, and so they get
the police to arrest and go after the patriots that
are calling these things out. When Hamas doing business as
Care hosts Muslim Day at the State Capitol in Texas,
and Austin and citizens step up and say this is bs.
(17:51):
It's the citizens that get pulled out of there by
the police, not the terrorists.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
John, I always, at this point in the conversations with
you pull up the explanatory memorandum which, as I recall,
your squad in the FBI found in an unbelievable bit
of luck in the cash the archives of the Muslim
Brotherhood during a raid in Annandale, Virginia. While back Yes,
(18:24):
it's the Muslim Brotherhood Playbook We Believe in which it
talks specifically about this idea of a civilization jihad in
which our miserable house is sabotaged from within by our
hands as well as those are the believers, so that
Allah's religion has made victorious over all others.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Again, it's it's being broadcast their plans in full sight. John, quickly,
talk about your training programs. How do people find out
about them, take part in them, and otherwise benefit from
your insights here?
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Yes, so a few of the key programs. The most
important one is, I believe, is the Into Action program,
which trains citizens how to identify and lawfully flesh out
elements of these movements the Islamic movement, the communist movement
in their county and their local community. And so that
(19:24):
is what we spend the vast majority of our time doing.
We also do law enforcement program understanding and investigating hostile networks,
where we look at these networks and how they operate,
and how law enforcement can use in various investigative strategies,
and how understanding what we're talking about changes how tactical
(19:47):
units engage.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Well, I to cut you off, we have to leave
it at that.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Thank you. John.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Glendola dot com is where you can find out more
about all of that. Keep up the great work, my friend.
Come back to Sorka updates. We'll be right back, folks.
(20:21):
We're back, and so is Charles sam Fattis, Praise the Lord,
one of our most faithful, regular and hugely impressive contributors
to this program. Sam is a former intelligence clandestine service
officer who has, in the years since he came in
(20:43):
from the cold, as they say, become I think, a
profoundly important contributor to our understanding of so many topics,
not least through his extremely impressive platform and my magazine
at substack dot com. Sam is, among other things, an author,
(21:06):
of fiction and nonfiction. He has been an assistant Attorney
General in Washington State. He has been combat well, the
army officer. I'm not sure whether it was combat, but
he certainly was in combat behind enemy lines in the CIA,
and we're very appreciative of his accumulative service, including that
(21:26):
that he is rendering these days. Sam, thank you so
much for joining us once again. It's great to have
you back.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Pleasure to be here. As you see, I'm still in
my summer Whites. Captain James Fanel called me and told
me I was out of uniform a few weeks ago.
So I'm squared away now.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
You're definitely squared away, Sam. Something that's not so squared
away is a woman by the name of Abigail Spamberger,
a member of Congress who is currently I believe the
Democratic nominee to become the next governor of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, which I resided this is a very unsettling
(22:03):
thing for reasons that I hope you will well share
it with us in the course of this block, including
some of the support that she's getting from some dubious
customers as well.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Right.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So, Abigail apparently was an operations officer, a case officer
in the Central Intelligence Agency. Not for a particularly long
period of time, but for a number of years. I'll
take her word for that. I haven't. In other words,
she allegedly served down range for some period of time.
She is now, as you say, the Democratic nominee for
(22:42):
governor of the state of Virginia and supports every predictable
left wing cause. So most recently, just within the last
couple of days, it has surfaced. I mean, there are
all sorts of issue with her, but most recently in
the last couple of days as surface.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But she took fifty.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Thousand dollars from a guy I think his name is
pin Nie, who is a Chinese citizen. So to begin with,
he's not allowed to donate to political candidates in this
country because he's a foreign national, and she's not allowed
to take the money. But she took two separate donations,
I believe, April and May of this year, twenty five
(23:27):
thousand dollars a pop from this fellow, who is a
distinguished member of the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Has been recognized.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
He got some award something like a Great Citizen of
the of Communist China, something like that like twelve times.
He's the head of some big Chinese corporation.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
The guy.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
What he pushes is green technology that's completely dependent upon,
you know, technology and components made in China, to the
detriment of the American fossil fuel industry. Predictably enough, so
his whole.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
And American taxpayer subsidies.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
He takes American taxpayer money to put Americans out of
work and make us more dependent.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
On the CCP.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
And if that all weren't bad enough, he turns out
to be a buddy of Hunter Biden's and has had
business dealings with Hunter on a number of fronts.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
And then, of course, so have a number of other
Chinese nationals.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
As I recall all sorts of other Chinese nationals inclining
a whole bunch of Chinese spies. So when when Hunter
wasn't talking directly to Chinese intelligence, he was hanging out
with this guy.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
And of course, which may have been the same thing,
don't you think.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
Could it?
Speaker 4 (24:46):
I mean, this guy is of course as well, you
could write this script from memory by this point. The guy,
this guy is associated with every other United Front entity
that you could operates inside the United States. So he
is part of this worldwide program.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
And then, of course, and.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Just so clear that is an influence operation.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
That's the whole point, is that the whole point is
to buy foreigners and push the CCP's agenda and co
opt foreigners. And so this guy, of course is in
bed with Hunter Biden. I don't know, I'm speaking figuratively.
I don't want to know if it was literally. And
then of course he ended up speaking to then Vice
(25:32):
President Joe Biden in a meeting arranged by Hunter back
I think in twenty fourteen, and afterward is documented on
the infamous laptop as reaching out the Hunter who had
bought some sort of electric sports car from one of
his companies, and the Hunter was having trouble, and this
guy was falling all over himself to say, let me
(25:54):
get your sports car fixed, my brother and all this
kind of nonsense.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
So this guy's got a web of ties here. But
just back to Spenberger, Sam, the last time I checked,
quite aside from the fact that it's illegal to take
money from Chinese nationals, I thought people were sort of
capped out it, you know, twenty five hundred dollars or
something like that per person, maybe five thousand dollars as
(26:21):
a couple, How does she take fifty thousand dollars from
this Chinese I.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Had exactly the same question, which is, I know that
there is a very strict limit on federal donations, much
lower than any So whether it's what Virginia's specific laws
on that are, I don't know. But in any event,
her campaign, the guy had to know, the CCP guy
(26:49):
had to know that this was illegal, and her campaign
certainly had to know it was illegal, and the whole
thing reeks and good lord. The woman's says she was
a Central Intelligence Agency officer, which is apparently true, and
claims to have been a case officer, an operator, somebody
who should be steeped in counterintelligence trade craft. And yet
(27:12):
she's taking very large.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Quantities of money from, you know.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
From a guy tied directly to the government of our
most mortal enemy on the face of the.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Planet, and not just once, which one could attribute to
an oversighter of mistake, but twice twice.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
And even if there's an oversight of mistake, I mean,
let's see, it's August now, so the first check came
in April, so we've got what four months for somebody
in her campaign to figure out. I don't know how
this happened, but we're giving the money back and returning
the donation, which happens in political campaigns. I mean, presumably
(27:53):
she will now do that because she's been caught.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
But that hasn't happened as not.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Yeah, as of so far, she's ignoring the whole issues.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Well, so, Sam, as a guy who is a distinguished
veteran of the intelligence, clandestine services and steeped in counterintelligence,
how Siah's a problem? Do you think this represents for
her candidacy?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
I think well, it should be a fatal wound. I
mean she should withdraw as the only decent thing she
should do. Whether she will do that or not, we
will see. I mean this is disqualifying and her entire
connection to pushing Chinese technologies and so forth. I mean
it's like, you know, come on, we just had an
(28:42):
election where the American people stated pretty definitively they were
fed up with this and they wanted to take back
control of their government. And here's another CCP Lackey running
for aud.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Let's talk about Steady State, which is a group I'd
never heard of when he started writing it up. They've
endorsed Abigail Spenberger. I gather, who are these characters and
what should we know about what they're up to?
Speaker 4 (29:10):
Yeah, well, I find Steady State to be extremely troubling,
and most people have not heard of them until relatively recently.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
What do they say publicly?
Speaker 4 (29:20):
They are an organization of somewhere over three hundred They
describe themselves as former national security professionals or officials. From
the names that are public, most of them seem to
be former intelligence community types. And they're run by a guy.
Their leader, president whatever he calls himself, is a guy
(29:43):
named Steve Cash, who is a Democratic Party operative, used
to work for Dianne Feinstein, spent some time in the CIA.
But you know how many and they're agenda basically boils
down to Donald Trump. The Mega Movement represent a mortal
(30:07):
threat to the Constitution and the Republic. And if you
read what they say very carefully, it amounts to a
justification for why people in the intelligence community should fight
the President of the United States resist his agenda.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
I mean, you know, in my opinion, it.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Is a justification for treason. In other words, they are
now the Praetorian Guard. They get to decide when you
get deposed, who's allowed to sit on the throne, and
so forth.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
So a Sam, when you are talking about this it
it isn't a call to people to resign and protest
what the president is talking about. It's an op call
for subversive You say, treason is activities. And we're going
(31:05):
to take a short break here in a moment, and
we're going to come back and talk about other kinds
of reason of this activities that some in the intelligence
community have been engaged in in fairness among others. But
I do want to just to make sure I'm clear
about this. A group of purported national security professionals, including
(31:28):
people with intelligence backgrounds, are propounding the idea that this
kind of well fifth column, I guess one might call
it inside the government, inside the intelligence agencies specifically, can
and should be encouraged to subvert a sitting president of
(31:49):
the United States. That would seem to be a criminal
activity to me. But we're going to get your take
on it on the other side of this break. Stay
tuned for much more with Charles sam Faddest be right back.
(32:21):
We're back, and so is Sam Fattis. We can't be
more excited about hearing what he has to say on
the subject of treachery inside our intelligence communities, apparently being
phone matted by a group called Steady State that recently
(32:44):
endorsed the candidacy of Abigail Spanberger, another former intelligence individual,
to become the next governor of the state of Virginia.
And Sam, you've made the case that she's got a
problem them with this Chinese national spending big money, presumably
(33:06):
unconnected from his influence operations with the United Front. But
talk about these well, I guess one might call them
enemies within. Do you regard what they're doing as treacherous
if not flat out treason us And has this become
(33:29):
a thing inside the inteligence community at this point?
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Would you say, well, I do regard it as treasonous
and up front, let me add I said initially, these
guys admit to or say publicly, we are three hundred plus.
They don't name an exact number, and they they those
(33:54):
are the former intelligence community national security officials. What is
not addressed in their statements, which is okay, But to
what extent are you also an organization that exists within
the federal government amongst active serving officials. Now, they're obviously
(34:17):
not going to publicly address that issue, because this goes
directly now into the realm of criminal activity. But that
does not mean that that is not true. In other words,
the idea that there's some sort of fixed barrier between
these two worlds, I think is well, that's just erroneous.
That okay, So these guys are not just sitting off
(34:40):
in their living rooms opining.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
This is something.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
They are talking about action that needs to be taken
by serving officers, and philosophically, if you read what they
say honestly, it reads like every justification every junta of
colonels ever gave in Latin America for staging a coup.
They are not just intelligence professionals. They are the guardians
(35:06):
of the constitution, if you will, and when and if
they decide that a president and in fact they refer
to Trump directly, is, in their opinion, acting contrary to
the Constitution, whatever the heck of their interpretation is. Then no,
they're not talking about resigning. They're not talking about running
(35:30):
for leaving and running for office or writing a strongly
world letter. They are talking about how it is their
moral imperative to take whatever action is necessary. So this
is literally, when you read their stuff in my opinion,
you know, not as just as an old CIA guy,
but as an attorney. You're reading the legal justification, legal
(35:55):
in quotes for why taking trees in this unconstitutional action
is somehow now in this inside out word world constitutional
and required. So yeah, it's incredibly dangerous. I mean, this
is pushing the idea that they can depose someone, obstruct someone,
(36:19):
act completely contrary to the legal orders of the President
of the United States and be justified in doing so.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
So huge weally dangerous.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I would think it's a problem for Ebigagel Spenberger that
she's getting that endorsement from such individuals.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
But Sam, unfortunately, as you know very well, and you've
been speaking out about this very powerfully, these are not
people just off on a toot.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Nope.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
These are folks who are now well I suspect, in
some cases at least were involved in previous acts that
have now been described by the Director of National Intelligence
as a treasonous conspiracy to mount a coup against initially
(37:11):
the President elect Donald J. Trump after the November election
in twenty sixteen, and subsequently during his presidency. To what
extent would you anticipate that people would be saying, well, listen,
John Brennan and James Clapper and James Camy, and well,
(37:34):
according to Tulsa Gabbert, but Rock Obama himself were engaged
in precisely the kinds of things we're calling for here.
Does that provide a cover? I guess you'd say in
the intelligence business.
Speaker 4 (37:53):
Well, sure, I mean I think you've put your finger
on something very very important. We're now, what nine years
into activity by individuals where I mean nine years ago
at a minimum, some very powerful people in this country
decided we don't really like this whole constitutional republic concept.
(38:15):
With this messy the people get to decide who's the
president of the United States. We're putting our hands on
the controls. We are going to decide who is allowed
to rule this country. And then a stage essentially an
ongoing coup. Over the course of nine years, they tried
to manipulate the system to keep Trump out of the
(38:36):
White House. In twenty sixteen, they tried to depose him.
They successfully prevented him from being re elected in twenty twenty.
They've tried to put him in prison. They've they've burned
every rule to the ground. A long time ago. So
the idea that steady states finally come along. I mean,
(38:57):
what steady state is speaking out loud and pop arising,
if you will, the doctrine that these guys enunciated nine
years ago so incredibly incredibly dangerous. And anybody who thinks
that just because people like Brennan are out of the system,
that you don't still have people in very powerful positions
(39:19):
throughout this government who are following the same game plan
is not paying attention.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
We will not cleanse the system.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yeah, and as you know from first had experience, there's
a whole cohort of people who are promoted and mentored
and presumably retain loyalty to Brennan. Yes, and I think
this is what's been making so dangerous some of the
platforms that have been given to him to continue to
(39:48):
spouse all of this sort of thing in the media
at large. Sam, we have to take another break. We'll
be right back with more, and we're going to talk
about the prospects for prosecuting these treason is conspirators, alleged
treasonous conspirators. Stay tuned for that and more. Right after this,
(40:27):
we're back for a final installment of an extended conversation
I'm very pleased to say with our friend Sam fattis
men of great distinction, both for his public service over
many years in the uniform of the United States Army
and without a uniform in the Secret Service, if you will,
(40:49):
of the CIA. He continues that work in his role
as the proprietor of and magazine. You can find a
magazine dot Subsick dot com. Sam So Tulsi Gabbard has
made a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Justice
(41:11):
Department has now evidently assigned and as yet, as far
as I know, unnamed federal prosecutor, some speculate, perhaps in
South Florida, to impanel a grand jury and begin presenting
the evidence that Tulsea Gabbert has compiled as the basis
(41:33):
for a prosecution of as yet unnamed individuals. I mean
in terms of any indictments and that sort of thing.
But there's a long litany of names of people who
were implicated and I guess are now the subject of
this referral. Talk us through as a not only trained
intelligence operative but also as an attorney, what the lay
(41:57):
of the land is here legally and where you think
this is likely to wind up in terms of actual
prosecutions if you care to go there, possible you know, convictions.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Right, Well, I think the first thing that folks need
to absorb, in line with what we were just talking about, is,
you know, you're not talking about negligence, you're not talking
about incompetence, you're not talking about sloppiness, You're not talking
about somebody should have looked.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
More closely at the facts.
Speaker 4 (42:30):
I mean this from Jump Street going back to when
Obama's still in office, is in my view, a criminal
conspiracy that then evolves over time. But its intent was
clear from the beginning to take a series of illegal
and unconstitutional actions, and as I said, it evolved from
(42:50):
trying to stop Trump from getting an office to deposing him, etc.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
So we're not talking about misdemeanors or or minor offenses here.
We're talking about.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
A series of We're talking about very serious felony charges
involving very very senior people and potentially Barack Obama himself.
And so this is not a minor thing. It shouldn't
be treated as one. In the fact that we're talking
about convening a federal grand jury, which means we're going
(43:22):
to we're looking to return indictments and charge people with
offenses that will put them in prison if convicted, is
to me encouraging. It is also encouraging to me that
they're looking very carefully at the venue, because wherever you
convene the grand jury, you're going to draw the grand
jury from the pool of people that live in that area.
Your chances of getting an indictments returned in Florida are
(43:45):
going to be a hell of a lot better than
they are going to be if you convene this grand
jury in Washington, DC.
Speaker 2 (43:51):
And given the.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
Scope of the activities and all the activities involved in
the fact that we're talking about a conspiracy, this thing
stretch stretches all across the United States by this point,
So there are completely legitimate reasons why you could look
very carefully at convene where you convene it.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
But on that point, sim could you speak to this
issue of statute of limitations and the prospect that if
the conspiracy has effectively been continuing to the present moment, basically,
that will not be a get out of jail free
card for any of these characters.
Speaker 4 (44:32):
Yeah, I think if you've got if you've got sharp
legal counsel, which presumably DOJ intends on assigning that the
Statute of limitations is not going to be an issue
because it is an ongoing offense, which means it didn't
it didn't conclude years ago. It has been ongoing, and
I think that will not be the issue. In regard
(44:53):
to Obama himself, do I think he has committed criminal offenses?
My person opinion, yes. Would I hold out a tremendous
amount of hope that you're going to get around the
incredibly broad scope of the immunity that he enjoys as
former commander in chief and prosecute him. I would not
(45:15):
pin a lot of hopes on. That doesn't mean I
don't think it should happen, and I'm not saying they
shouldn't try. I'm just saying the courts are going to
draw a really, really broad boundary around that. It's going
to make it very hard. I would also say.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
And this is on the basis of the Supreme Court
ruling in connection with.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
That just enhances a whole bunch of that just adds
to a whole bunch of previous rulings. The courts are
going to really bend over backwards to stop you from
criminally prosecuting a former president. That doesn't mean that I'm
saying his actions are legal. I'm justifying him, I'm excusing them.
I'm just saying as a practical matter, it will be difficult.
I would also say this, if you're going to come
(45:55):
after these other guys Brennan, who I absolutely one hundred
things should go to prison, you better come loaded for
bear because the gut every high priced legal attorney on
the left is going to come out of the woodwork
with an unlimited budget to defend these guys. So you're
not going to charge them, take them to court, and
(46:16):
put them in jail next week. You better it doesn't.
That is not me arguing against it. It's to the contrary.
It's just saying, get your act together and bring some
serious boys and girls to this fight, because they are
not going to go quietly. You are going to really
have to fight a war to put these people in prison.
But I think it has to be done for the
(46:38):
future of the republic, of.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
The rule of law, not at least and Sam. Again, this
is speculation, of course at this moment, but just I'd
be interested in your informed speculation. Our friend Trevor Lowden,
who has been on this program many times and featured
with you and others of us in various places. Has
(47:01):
been arguing, as I think you probably aware, for the
use of well anti mafia prosecutorial techniques to roll up
these enemies within, as he calls them, a feature of which,
as you know, is that you try to secure the
(47:25):
cooperation of lower level participants in a conspiracy, flip them,
turn them state's evidence, give them immunity for prosecution in
order to secure their testimony against some of the higher
individuals in the conspiracy. Would you anticipate that that will
(47:48):
be a technique employed by the Trump Justice Department team,
And if so, what are the chances in your estimation
that some of these people will in fact flip.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Look, I think Trever put his finger on it. This
is essential.
Speaker 4 (48:05):
The only way you're going to win this war is
by rolling getting some guys to roll on the dawn
to you know, to use the mafia example. Odds I
think pretty good because at this point the world has
changed your your sense that nobody. I think honestly, you're
also going to find there were some good people in here.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
I'm out of time. I just forgot that this is
out of time. Thank you, my friend, come back to
us with through the updates and all this soon.
Speaker 2 (48:32):
More next time, God bless you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (48:34):
I hope the rest of you'll join us next time
as well. Until THENK of fourth and multiply
Welcome to Securing America with me, Frank Afney. The program
that's a kind of owner's manual for protecting the country
we love against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to the
glory of God and his Kingdom. I couldn't be more
pleased to say that we have with us a man
who has devoted his entire professional life to protecting the
country we love against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He's
(00:48):
done it as a marine combat veteran with time in
a desert storm. He has done it as a man
who served in the FBI and a number of capacities,
including as a counter terrorism special agent. These days, he
is running a very important private sector initiative aimed at
(01:11):
the same purpose, trying to protect particularly the people and
the state of Texas where he now resides, against enemies well,
both foreign and domestic. His name is John Guandolo. You
can find out more about all that he's doing at
John guandolo dot com and also by staying toune because
(01:36):
we're going to talk a bit about what he's up
to and why it's so important. John.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Welcome back.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
It's good to have you with us here at Securing
America again.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Thanks great to be back on with you, Frank.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So you and I have been talking about and working
together for a long time, and of late particularly are
focused on what is going on in the state of Texas.
There's a lot of you know, thrashing around about redistricting
and special sessions and Democrats abandoning the state.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And all the rest of it.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
But we want to talk about another front and what
has been happening on the ground in Texas with respect
to well what some call the Islamicization of that state,
certainly the intensifying pressure from what I think of as
(02:31):
Sharia supremacists who are taking up residents there. Talk us
through what's happening as you see it, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
So, I appreciate the opportunity to dive into this. So
in Texas, the issue as we've been talking about, that
I think is the center point that woke people up,
is this issue about a four hundred and two acre
facility community that's being planned and they want to build
(03:06):
just in the North DFW area outside of Plano, about
twenty miles east in a place called Josephine. And what
this is is an all Muslim charadherent community, which is
it's a fraction if you will, of their caliphate. But
(03:29):
the key here is, and this is what I really
if there's one thing people take away of is this
is getting attention as well it should because it's one
of the largest in the country. But the key is
this is going on all over the country, these communities
that are being planned and built. So that's the first
(03:52):
thing is that these communities.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Could you just pose for a moment on that, John,
because I think what you you've described very succinctly, it
sounds like what would in due course, if not fairly
short order.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Be.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
What we've seen springing up in Europe extensively, namely what
are called no go zones. Is that what's in prospect?
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Do you think, well, this is actually much worse. You know,
in Europe the no go zones can be areas where
the Muslims control. I mean, we had fifteen years ago
or so where we had legislators from Tennessee and other
states that were taken to Europe to be shown how
(04:43):
bad the Muslim incursion was. And there were neighborhoods where
they were told you can't come in here. You know,
this is Morocco. They're like, no, we're in England pretty sure.
But this is worse than that because this is then
a formal Muslim community where yes, it would be a
(05:03):
no go zone because it would be a completely Muslim
only area. But this is getting the approval across the
country of local and county and city councils who see
nothing wrong with this, and so that's what makes it
more dangerous is the non Muslim community is giving its
(05:25):
approval in many cases to these communities thinking it's no
big deal, and it's a huge.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Including this so called epic city East Plano Islamic Center Center. So, John,
how far advanced is this.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
At the moment?
Speaker 1 (05:43):
I understand that there's growing controversy about this Plano facility,
and as you say, there are others in the state
and elsewhere, but just took us through. Is this a
done deal? Are they getting the permits that they need?
Is this being investigated or resisted in any way?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
So? Well, first, it is being resisted by some in
the community, and there are some There is good news
coming out in that local and city councils, county councils, whatever,
are resisting it. In some areas Plano not as much,
(06:27):
but in Josephine where the actual community is going to
be billed as a more Christian conservative area where they're
not tolerating this, and they shouldn't. This is an unconstitutional
I mean to be clear, this is an unconstitutional construct.
It's a part of establishing the Islamic caliphate. And so
(06:51):
there is some good news there. But across the country,
what is not being dealt with and still hasn't been
dealt with as of this moment, is there is a
massive Islamic movement. There's a jihadi support network in the
United States. This is one aspect of it. And this
(07:13):
support network is made up of the most prominent Islamic
organizations in the United States, which we know, as a
matter of fact and evidence, are part of an organized
effort to wage war against the United States. And until local, state,
and federal authorities recognize this, the burden will remain on
(07:35):
the people to do something about it.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
And when you say wage war, you're talking about I
guess jihad, the holy war. Are you talking about the
violent physical kind, John, or a more stealthy and well,
I think of it as pre violent sort.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
So both, and this is the problem. Until now, the
violence has been sporadic and organized in most cases, but
still sporadic. But you have just in two months, well
less than a month and maybe five weeks ago, the
(08:18):
leader of al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula calling for
all out war in the United States and Europe and
targeting key leaders. You've got the major organizations at the
international level saying jihad without saying it as of now,
(08:40):
but calling people to a new level of fighting the
non Muslim community. So while it has been to date
primarily the non violent jihad, because jahad is total warfare
that includes all of these parts of warfare, pushing and
(09:01):
publicly acknowledging and publicly calling for violent jihad. And so
we have to understand in the past, when they have
done this, we have seen violence then roll out, specifically
when we saw in the fall of twenty ten the
(09:21):
call for violent jahad, specifically targeting Islamic rulers who are
not ruling according to Sharia. And then of course in
January twenty eleven we saw the Muslim Brotherhood's revolution in
the Middle East. Primarily now they're calling for this large
(09:41):
scale violence in Europe and in the United States.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
And I old the thought, John, we have to come
back on that very point the calls for jihad here
be right back with John Gondola State too. We're back
(10:16):
and we're continuing a tremendously important conversation with John Guandolo,
a former FBI special agent now involved in training law enforcement,
intelligence and ordinary citizens about the threat that we are
facing of holy war and then help from its friends,
(10:42):
those Jihadis and their communist allies. But John, just to
tie this off, you're saying that when people are referring
to fighting in some of these comments, it is not
so subliminal a message to their adherents, their followers, their congregants,
(11:05):
whatever you want to call them, that this is the
violent kind of holy war, even if at the moment
it is in a somewhat pre kinetic phase.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Is that right?
Speaker 3 (11:19):
That's exactly right. And I cannot overemphasize this. I mean,
they have thousands of soldiers here, and I certainly would
put between the communists and the Jihadis here in the
United States. You know, half a million soldiers here in
the United States. You've got declared, their intentions are declared,
(11:43):
their doctrine and their strategies are published, and they're working
together seamlessly at the local level in the United States.
But at the national and international levels, these hostile nation
states are working together and have these networks, these proxies,
if you will, for the communist and Islamic movements that
(12:07):
are absolutely focused on going very violent. And I want
to say this because I believe this is very important
in how this is addressed, is that when we see
things like coming up at the end of August in Dallas, Texas,
one of the largest Chinese communist front groups, the Freedom
(12:28):
Road socialist organization that broke off from Liberation Road. These
are the largest Chinese communist groups. These are the groups
that spawned the communist groups, Black Lives Matter and others,
and they're holding a rally, a pro communist Chinese rally
on August thirtieth in Dallas, Texas. And people that do
(12:53):
not understand what you and I are talking about see
this as well. Like you know, everyone has a right
free speech. But when you put these operations, these actions
in the context of the war they're waging against the
United States, it's not merely a and it isn't a
free speech event, and it's not a First Amendment issue.
(13:14):
It's not a right to speak and assemble freely. It
is part of a long line of actions being taken
to undermine the community and propagandize and show their dominance
in the community. And as you know, Texas is a
target for the Islamic movement and the Communist movement because
(13:36):
they believe if they can take Texas, their movement, the
Islamic movement, the Communist movement in the United States will
be pretty much over because they believe it will demoralize
and have a practical effect as well.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Well, it's hard to overstate just how strategically significant it
would be. Two questions to you, John, One is do
you anticipate that a feature of this August thirtieth event
in Dallas will be the Muslim brotherhoods and other jihadi
(14:13):
networks associations with the communists point one? In point two,
the last time I checked, there were a lot of
patriotic Americans, well armed patriotic Americans, no less in Texas.
How does this thing play out as you see it?
Does this evolve into open clashes and civil war?
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Well's a good question. So the first question is, you know,
when we look at you know, I just went through.
If you go through just what they put out publicly,
you know, Freedom Road Socialist organization on its website says
we are intent on creating a Marxist Leninist government in
the United States. So it's not they don't have a
(15:01):
hidden agenda. This is a big part of the communist movement.
But if you look through what they put out publicly,
they openly are aligning themselves with the Jihadi movement, with Hamas,
with the Islamic movement overall in the United States and beyond.
So yes to your first question, I would expect there
(15:25):
to be representatives of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others
at the event. Now what do I expect to come
of it. I expect them to do whatever they want
and for the police to protect them, which we continue
to see in Europe. In the United States, police protecting
the communists and Islamic movements because their leadership tells them, hey,
(15:48):
this is just your standard old freedom of speech thing.
And this is the problem. When you look at this
as just a public event and not as a line
of operation in a war against the United States, then
from the legal side, it's treated as nothing and the
(16:08):
police are actually become tools of the communist and Islamic
movements by protecting them. If which is why I think
the training we do for law enforcement is so critical,
because we help them discern between these things.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
I want to come back to that in just a second,
but I do want to say that what's so alarming
about this is, as you've documented fairly well of many
many years, we're not projecting. We're not, you know, sort
of speculating. We're talking about the playbook that we have
(16:45):
seen operating, most notably in Europe, are we not? And
you sort of touched on this a moment ago in
terms of protecting the Jihades in Britain and so on.
But that playbook winds up with submission, does it not.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
That's right, You've got If we use what's going on
in Europe as an example, I would argue a lot
of that is already going on in the United States.
The Muslim Brotherhood's doctrine for North America, their strategy for
North America, says, we get their leaders, the non Muslim leaders,
(17:29):
to do our bidding for us, and so they get
the police to arrest and go after the patriots that
are calling these things out. When Hamas doing business as
Care hosts Muslim Day at the State Capitol in Texas,
and Austin and citizens step up and say this is bs.
(17:51):
It's the citizens that get pulled out of there by
the police, not the terrorists.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
John, I always, at this point in the conversations with
you pull up the explanatory memorandum which, as I recall,
your squad in the FBI found in an unbelievable bit
of luck in the cash the archives of the Muslim
Brotherhood during a raid in Annandale, Virginia. While back Yes,
(18:24):
it's the Muslim Brotherhood Playbook We Believe in which it
talks specifically about this idea of a civilization jihad in
which our miserable house is sabotaged from within by our
hands as well as those are the believers, so that
Allah's religion has made victorious over all others.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Folks.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Again, it's it's being broadcast their plans in full sight. John, quickly,
talk about your training programs. How do people find out
about them, take part in them, and otherwise benefit from
your insights here?
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Yes, so a few of the key programs. The most
important one is, I believe, is the Into Action program,
which trains citizens how to identify and lawfully flesh out
elements of these movements the Islamic movement, the communist movement
in their county and their local community. And so that
(19:24):
is what we spend the vast majority of our time doing.
We also do law enforcement program understanding and investigating hostile networks,
where we look at these networks and how they operate,
and how law enforcement can use in various investigative strategies,
and how understanding what we're talking about changes how tactical
(19:47):
units engage.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Well, I to cut you off, we have to leave
it at that.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Thank you. John.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Glendola dot com is where you can find out more
about all of that. Keep up the great work, my friend.
Come back to Sorka updates. We'll be right back, folks.
(20:21):
We're back, and so is Charles sam Fattis, Praise the Lord,
one of our most faithful, regular and hugely impressive contributors
to this program. Sam is a former intelligence clandestine service
officer who has, in the years since he came in
(20:43):
from the cold, as they say, become I think, a
profoundly important contributor to our understanding of so many topics,
not least through his extremely impressive platform and my magazine
at substack dot com. Sam is, among other things, an author,
(21:06):
of fiction and nonfiction. He has been an assistant Attorney
General in Washington State. He has been combat well, the
army officer. I'm not sure whether it was combat, but
he certainly was in combat behind enemy lines in the CIA,
and we're very appreciative of his accumulative service, including that
(21:26):
that he is rendering these days. Sam, thank you so
much for joining us once again. It's great to have
you back.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
Pleasure to be here. As you see, I'm still in
my summer Whites. Captain James Fanel called me and told
me I was out of uniform a few weeks ago.
So I'm squared away now.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
You're definitely squared away, Sam. Something that's not so squared
away is a woman by the name of Abigail Spamberger,
a member of Congress who is currently I believe the
Democratic nominee to become the next governor of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, which I resided this is a very unsettling
(22:03):
thing for reasons that I hope you will well share
it with us in the course of this block, including
some of the support that she's getting from some dubious
customers as well.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Right.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
So, Abigail apparently was an operations officer, a case officer
in the Central Intelligence Agency. Not for a particularly long
period of time, but for a number of years. I'll
take her word for that. I haven't. In other words,
she allegedly served down range for some period of time.
She is now, as you say, the Democratic nominee for
(22:42):
governor of the state of Virginia and supports every predictable
left wing cause. So most recently, just within the last
couple of days, it has surfaced. I mean, there are
all sorts of issue with her, but most recently in
the last couple of days as surface.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But she took fifty.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Thousand dollars from a guy I think his name is
pin Nie, who is a Chinese citizen. So to begin with,
he's not allowed to donate to political candidates in this
country because he's a foreign national, and she's not allowed
to take the money. But she took two separate donations,
I believe, April and May of this year, twenty five
(23:27):
thousand dollars a pop from this fellow, who is a
distinguished member of the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Has been recognized.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
He got some award something like a Great Citizen of
the of Communist China, something like that like twelve times.
He's the head of some big Chinese corporation.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
The guy.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
What he pushes is green technology that's completely dependent upon,
you know, technology and components made in China, to the
detriment of the American fossil fuel industry. Predictably enough, so
his whole.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
And American taxpayer subsidies.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
He takes American taxpayer money to put Americans out of
work and make us more dependent.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
On the CCP.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
And if that all weren't bad enough, he turns out
to be a buddy of Hunter Biden's and has had
business dealings with Hunter on a number of fronts.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
And then, of course, so have a number of other
Chinese nationals.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
As I recall all sorts of other Chinese nationals inclining
a whole bunch of Chinese spies. So when when Hunter
wasn't talking directly to Chinese intelligence, he was hanging out
with this guy.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
And of course, which may have been the same thing,
don't you think.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
Could it?
Speaker 4 (24:46):
I mean, this guy is of course as well, you
could write this script from memory by this point. The guy,
this guy is associated with every other United Front entity
that you could operates inside the United States. So he
is part of this worldwide program.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
And then, of course, and.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Just so clear that is an influence operation.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
That's the whole point, is that the whole point is
to buy foreigners and push the CCP's agenda and co
opt foreigners. And so this guy, of course is in
bed with Hunter Biden. I don't know, I'm speaking figuratively.
I don't want to know if it was literally. And
then of course he ended up speaking to then Vice
(25:32):
President Joe Biden in a meeting arranged by Hunter back
I think in twenty fourteen, and afterward is documented on
the infamous laptop as reaching out the Hunter who had
bought some sort of electric sports car from one of
his companies, and the Hunter was having trouble, and this
guy was falling all over himself to say, let me
(25:54):
get your sports car fixed, my brother and all this
kind of nonsense.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
So this guy's got a web of ties here. But
just back to Spenberger, Sam, the last time I checked,
quite aside from the fact that it's illegal to take
money from Chinese nationals, I thought people were sort of
capped out it, you know, twenty five hundred dollars or
something like that per person, maybe five thousand dollars as
(26:21):
a couple, How does she take fifty thousand dollars from
this Chinese I.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
Had exactly the same question, which is, I know that
there is a very strict limit on federal donations, much
lower than any So whether it's what Virginia's specific laws
on that are, I don't know. But in any event,
her campaign, the guy had to know, the CCP guy
(26:49):
had to know that this was illegal, and her campaign
certainly had to know it was illegal, and the whole
thing reeks and good lord. The woman's says she was
a Central Intelligence Agency officer, which is apparently true, and
claims to have been a case officer, an operator, somebody
who should be steeped in counterintelligence trade craft. And yet
(27:12):
she's taking very large.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Quantities of money from, you know.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
From a guy tied directly to the government of our
most mortal enemy on the face of the.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Planet, and not just once, which one could attribute to
an oversighter of mistake, but twice twice.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
And even if there's an oversight of mistake, I mean,
let's see, it's August now, so the first check came
in April, so we've got what four months for somebody
in her campaign to figure out. I don't know how
this happened, but we're giving the money back and returning
the donation, which happens in political campaigns. I mean, presumably
(27:53):
she will now do that because she's been caught.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
But that hasn't happened as not.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Yeah, as of so far, she's ignoring the whole issues.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Well, so, Sam, as a guy who is a distinguished
veteran of the intelligence, clandestine services and steeped in counterintelligence,
how Siah's a problem? Do you think this represents for
her candidacy?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
I think well, it should be a fatal wound. I
mean she should withdraw as the only decent thing she
should do. Whether she will do that or not, we
will see. I mean this is disqualifying and her entire
connection to pushing Chinese technologies and so forth. I mean
it's like, you know, come on, we just had an
(28:42):
election where the American people stated pretty definitively they were
fed up with this and they wanted to take back
control of their government. And here's another CCP Lackey running
for aud.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Let's talk about Steady State, which is a group I'd
never heard of when he started writing it up. They've
endorsed Abigail Spenberger. I gather, who are these characters and
what should we know about what they're up to?
Speaker 4 (29:10):
Yeah, well, I find Steady State to be extremely troubling,
and most people have not heard of them until relatively recently.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
What do they say publicly?
Speaker 4 (29:20):
They are an organization of somewhere over three hundred They
describe themselves as former national security professionals or officials. From
the names that are public, most of them seem to
be former intelligence community types. And they're run by a guy.
Their leader, president whatever he calls himself, is a guy
(29:43):
named Steve Cash, who is a Democratic Party operative, used
to work for Dianne Feinstein, spent some time in the CIA.
But you know how many and they're agenda basically boils
down to Donald Trump. The Mega Movement represent a mortal
(30:07):
threat to the Constitution and the Republic. And if you
read what they say very carefully, it amounts to a
justification for why people in the intelligence community should fight
the President of the United States resist his agenda.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
I mean, you know, in my opinion, it.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Is a justification for treason. In other words, they are
now the Praetorian Guard. They get to decide when you
get deposed, who's allowed to sit on the throne, and
so forth.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
So a Sam, when you are talking about this it
it isn't a call to people to resign and protest
what the president is talking about. It's an op call
for subversive You say, treason is activities. And we're going
(31:05):
to take a short break here in a moment, and
we're going to come back and talk about other kinds
of reason of this activities that some in the intelligence
community have been engaged in in fairness among others. But
I do want to just to make sure I'm clear
about this. A group of purported national security professionals, including
(31:28):
people with intelligence backgrounds, are propounding the idea that this
kind of well fifth column, I guess one might call
it inside the government, inside the intelligence agencies specifically, can
and should be encouraged to subvert a sitting president of
(31:49):
the United States. That would seem to be a criminal
activity to me. But we're going to get your take
on it on the other side of this break. Stay
tuned for much more with Charles sam Faddest be right back.
(32:21):
We're back, and so is Sam Fattis. We can't be
more excited about hearing what he has to say on
the subject of treachery inside our intelligence communities, apparently being
phone matted by a group called Steady State that recently
(32:44):
endorsed the candidacy of Abigail Spanberger, another former intelligence individual,
to become the next governor of the state of Virginia.
And Sam, you've made the case that she's got a
problem them with this Chinese national spending big money, presumably
(33:06):
unconnected from his influence operations with the United Front. But
talk about these well, I guess one might call them
enemies within. Do you regard what they're doing as treacherous
if not flat out treason us And has this become
(33:29):
a thing inside the inteligence community at this point?
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Would you say, well, I do regard it as treasonous
and up front, let me add I said initially, these
guys admit to or say publicly, we are three hundred plus.
They don't name an exact number, and they they those
(33:54):
are the former intelligence community national security officials. What is
not addressed in their statements, which is okay, But to
what extent are you also an organization that exists within
the federal government amongst active serving officials. Now, they're obviously
(34:17):
not going to publicly address that issue, because this goes
directly now into the realm of criminal activity. But that
does not mean that that is not true. In other words,
the idea that there's some sort of fixed barrier between
these two worlds, I think is well, that's just erroneous.
That okay, So these guys are not just sitting off
(34:40):
in their living rooms opining.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
This is something.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
They are talking about action that needs to be taken
by serving officers, and philosophically, if you read what they
say honestly, it reads like every justification every junta of
colonels ever gave in Latin America for staging a coup.
They are not just intelligence professionals. They are the guardians
(35:06):
of the constitution, if you will, and when and if
they decide that a president and in fact they refer
to Trump directly, is, in their opinion, acting contrary to
the Constitution, whatever the heck of their interpretation is. Then no,
they're not talking about resigning. They're not talking about running
(35:30):
for leaving and running for office or writing a strongly
world letter. They are talking about how it is their
moral imperative to take whatever action is necessary. So this
is literally, when you read their stuff in my opinion,
you know, not as just as an old CIA guy,
but as an attorney. You're reading the legal justification, legal
(35:55):
in quotes for why taking trees in this unconstitutional action
is somehow now in this inside out word world constitutional
and required. So yeah, it's incredibly dangerous. I mean, this
is pushing the idea that they can depose someone, obstruct someone,
(36:19):
act completely contrary to the legal orders of the President
of the United States and be justified in doing so.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
So huge weally dangerous.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I would think it's a problem for Ebigagel Spenberger that
she's getting that endorsement from such individuals.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
But Sam, unfortunately, as you know very well, and you've
been speaking out about this very powerfully, these are not
people just off on a toot.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Nope.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
These are folks who are now well I suspect, in
some cases at least were involved in previous acts that
have now been described by the Director of National Intelligence
as a treasonous conspiracy to mount a coup against initially
(37:11):
the President elect Donald J. Trump after the November election
in twenty sixteen, and subsequently during his presidency. To what
extent would you anticipate that people would be saying, well, listen,
John Brennan and James Clapper and James Camy, and well,
(37:34):
according to Tulsa Gabbert, but Rock Obama himself were engaged
in precisely the kinds of things we're calling for here.
Does that provide a cover? I guess you'd say in
the intelligence business.
Speaker 4 (37:53):
Well, sure, I mean I think you've put your finger
on something very very important. We're now, what nine years
into activity by individuals where I mean nine years ago
at a minimum, some very powerful people in this country
decided we don't really like this whole constitutional republic concept.
(38:15):
With this messy the people get to decide who's the
president of the United States. We're putting our hands on
the controls. We are going to decide who is allowed
to rule this country. And then a stage essentially an
ongoing coup. Over the course of nine years, they tried
to manipulate the system to keep Trump out of the
(38:36):
White House. In twenty sixteen, they tried to depose him.
They successfully prevented him from being re elected in twenty twenty.
They've tried to put him in prison. They've they've burned
every rule to the ground. A long time ago. So
the idea that steady states finally come along. I mean,
(38:57):
what steady state is speaking out loud and pop arising,
if you will, the doctrine that these guys enunciated nine
years ago so incredibly incredibly dangerous. And anybody who thinks
that just because people like Brennan are out of the system,
that you don't still have people in very powerful positions
(39:19):
throughout this government who are following the same game plan
is not paying attention.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
We will not cleanse the system.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yeah, and as you know from first had experience, there's
a whole cohort of people who are promoted and mentored
and presumably retain loyalty to Brennan. Yes, and I think
this is what's been making so dangerous some of the
platforms that have been given to him to continue to
(39:48):
spouse all of this sort of thing in the media
at large. Sam, we have to take another break. We'll
be right back with more, and we're going to talk
about the prospects for prosecuting these treason is conspirators, alleged
treasonous conspirators. Stay tuned for that and more. Right after this,
(40:27):
we're back for a final installment of an extended conversation
I'm very pleased to say with our friend Sam fattis
men of great distinction, both for his public service over
many years in the uniform of the United States Army
and without a uniform in the Secret Service, if you will,
(40:49):
of the CIA. He continues that work in his role
as the proprietor of and magazine. You can find a
magazine dot Subsick dot com. Sam So Tulsi Gabbard has
made a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Justice
(41:11):
Department has now evidently assigned and as yet, as far
as I know, unnamed federal prosecutor, some speculate, perhaps in
South Florida, to impanel a grand jury and begin presenting
the evidence that Tulsea Gabbert has compiled as the basis
(41:33):
for a prosecution of as yet unnamed individuals. I mean
in terms of any indictments and that sort of thing.
But there's a long litany of names of people who
were implicated and I guess are now the subject of
this referral. Talk us through as a not only trained
intelligence operative but also as an attorney, what the lay
(41:57):
of the land is here legally and where you think
this is likely to wind up in terms of actual
prosecutions if you care to go there, possible you know, convictions.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Right, Well, I think the first thing that folks need
to absorb, in line with what we were just talking about, is,
you know, you're not talking about negligence, you're not talking
about incompetence, you're not talking about sloppiness, You're not talking
about somebody should have looked.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
More closely at the facts.
Speaker 4 (42:30):
I mean this from Jump Street going back to when
Obama's still in office, is in my view, a criminal
conspiracy that then evolves over time. But its intent was
clear from the beginning to take a series of illegal
and unconstitutional actions, and as I said, it evolved from
(42:50):
trying to stop Trump from getting an office to deposing him, etc.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
So we're not talking about misdemeanors or or minor offenses here.
We're talking about.
Speaker 4 (43:01):
A series of We're talking about very serious felony charges
involving very very senior people and potentially Barack Obama himself.
And so this is not a minor thing. It shouldn't
be treated as one. In the fact that we're talking
about convening a federal grand jury, which means we're going
(43:22):
to we're looking to return indictments and charge people with
offenses that will put them in prison if convicted, is
to me encouraging. It is also encouraging to me that
they're looking very carefully at the venue, because wherever you
convene the grand jury, you're going to draw the grand
jury from the pool of people that live in that area.
Your chances of getting an indictments returned in Florida are
(43:45):
going to be a hell of a lot better than
they are going to be if you convene this grand
jury in Washington, DC.
Speaker 2 (43:51):
And given the.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
Scope of the activities and all the activities involved in
the fact that we're talking about a conspiracy, this thing
stretch stretches all across the United States by this point,
So there are completely legitimate reasons why you could look
very carefully at convene where you convene it.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
But on that point, sim could you speak to this
issue of statute of limitations and the prospect that if
the conspiracy has effectively been continuing to the present moment, basically,
that will not be a get out of jail free
card for any of these characters.
Speaker 4 (44:32):
Yeah, I think if you've got if you've got sharp
legal counsel, which presumably DOJ intends on assigning that the
Statute of limitations is not going to be an issue
because it is an ongoing offense, which means it didn't
it didn't conclude years ago. It has been ongoing, and
I think that will not be the issue. In regard
(44:53):
to Obama himself, do I think he has committed criminal offenses?
My person opinion, yes. Would I hold out a tremendous
amount of hope that you're going to get around the
incredibly broad scope of the immunity that he enjoys as
former commander in chief and prosecute him. I would not
(45:15):
pin a lot of hopes on. That doesn't mean I
don't think it should happen, and I'm not saying they
shouldn't try. I'm just saying the courts are going to
draw a really, really broad boundary around that. It's going
to make it very hard. I would also say.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
And this is on the basis of the Supreme Court
ruling in connection with.
Speaker 4 (45:34):
That just enhances a whole bunch of that just adds
to a whole bunch of previous rulings. The courts are
going to really bend over backwards to stop you from
criminally prosecuting a former president. That doesn't mean that I'm
saying his actions are legal. I'm justifying him, I'm excusing them.
I'm just saying as a practical matter, it will be difficult.
I would also say this, if you're going to come
(45:55):
after these other guys Brennan, who I absolutely one hundred
things should go to prison, you better come loaded for
bear because the gut every high priced legal attorney on
the left is going to come out of the woodwork
with an unlimited budget to defend these guys. So you're
not going to charge them, take them to court, and
(46:16):
put them in jail next week. You better it doesn't.
That is not me arguing against it. It's to the contrary.
It's just saying, get your act together and bring some
serious boys and girls to this fight, because they are
not going to go quietly. You are going to really
have to fight a war to put these people in prison.
But I think it has to be done for the
(46:38):
future of the republic, of.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
The rule of law, not at least and Sam. Again, this
is speculation, of course at this moment, but just I'd
be interested in your informed speculation. Our friend Trevor Lowden,
who has been on this program many times and featured
with you and others of us in various places. Has
(47:01):
been arguing, as I think you probably aware, for the
use of well anti mafia prosecutorial techniques to roll up
these enemies within, as he calls them, a feature of which,
as you know, is that you try to secure the
(47:25):
cooperation of lower level participants in a conspiracy, flip them,
turn them state's evidence, give them immunity for prosecution in
order to secure their testimony against some of the higher
individuals in the conspiracy. Would you anticipate that that will
(47:48):
be a technique employed by the Trump Justice Department team,
And if so, what are the chances in your estimation
that some of these people will in fact flip.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Look, I think Trever put his finger on it. This
is essential.
Speaker 4 (48:05):
The only way you're going to win this war is
by rolling getting some guys to roll on the dawn
to you know, to use the mafia example. Odds I
think pretty good because at this point the world has
changed your your sense that nobody. I think honestly, you're
also going to find there were some good people in here.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
I'm out of time. I just forgot that this is
out of time. Thank you, my friend, come back to
us with through the updates and all this soon.
Speaker 2 (48:32):
More next time, God bless you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 (48:34):
I hope the rest of you'll join us next time
as well. Until THENK of fourth and multiply
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.