10-18-25 The Weekend Hour 2: Our Own Government Conspires to Fundamentally Transform the US

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with
Michael Brown broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. Text
lines open as always, numbers three three, one zero three
on your message app keyword Mike or Michael. Go follow

(00:20):
me on x formerly Twitter at Michael Brown USA or
Instagram at Michael D. Brown. What if I told you
I want to finish this topic up because I mentioned
the State Department? But what if I told you that
it's my belief that our own government. Now, don't get
me wrong, Trump is trying to clean house, but that

(00:44):
can't be done overnight, and it takes time because you
have to really people get burrowed in these in these bureaucracies,
and one of the worst bureaucracies is the State Department. Fundamentally,
one of the reasons why the State Department is one

(01:05):
of the worst ones is because previously it housed the
United States Agency for International Development USAID, and that was
where so much of the funding came from that was
used by this country to affect regime change without putting

(01:29):
boots on the ground in other countries, or to at least,
you know, to it's not all negative. To give you
the positive side of it, to try to help countries
that really did want to establish freedom, the rule of law,
to establish some sort of constitutional regime in which to

(01:51):
allow free markets to prosper and for their people to
be lifted out of poverty. The State Department also helped
in that regard too, So it wasn't a negative. But
what I'm about to tell you is gonna make it
sound like it's all negative, because the ties between this
group behind the No Kings marches, this group that I've

(02:12):
described to you last hour called Indivisible. The ties between
Indivisible and the State Department is actually not just a
historical coincidence. It is something that has existed for decades
and decades and has purposely been used by the bureaucrats.
You know, Secretaries of State come and go. They they

(02:37):
may serve an entire term, they may not serve an
entire term. But while the Secretary of State is overseeing
this behemoth, all of those worker bees way down below,
some that are in offices in foreign countries, the Secretary
of State and may never even visit, and even if
he does, they never get in the vernacular of DC,

(03:00):
they never get down into the weeds of what's really
going on. So this tie between Indivisible It's organizing these
protests and the State Department is not a coincidence. The model, actually,
and this is what I mean by sometimes it's good,
the model resembles the so called civil society tactics that

(03:23):
we once exported abroad. We would mobilize non government organizations.
We would mobilize the government. I say we am talking
about the government. We would mobilize NGOs, we would mobilize activists,
We would coordinate media narratives to challenge national governments that
we thought were not our allies, that were our enemies,

(03:47):
that were suppressing their populations. Now, those methods and oftentimes
we would try to justify it as being a pro
democracy intervention, and sometimes they really were. And I say
pro democracy because that's the vernacular that the State Department used.

(04:12):
But what we were trying to do was to foment,
or to try to germinate movements within countries that were
ruled by dictators or tyrants to start color revolutions to
teach them about, hey, there's a different way of life.
You don't have to live under the oppression. Here's what

(04:33):
a free market looks like. Here's the life that you
could have. You actually could have reliable electricity, unless you
live in California, you could have reliable electricity that when
you flip the switch, it's going to be there all
the time. But they don't know that. So we were
trying to show them that, well, those kinds of things
that we did that were good were often justified as

(04:58):
or repurposed for by those very institutions that have honed
them overseas to now use them here. In effect, they're
using the same playbook that was used to let's say,
destabilize a foreign tyrannical regime, is now being deployed against
the city US president. So when this Leah Greenberg and

(05:22):
Ezra le Evince speak of quote defending democracy, what they're
really trying to do is preserve the dominance of a
political class, a professional political class that defines democracy as
an alignment with their own worldview, which is a Marxist worldview.
So if critics, critics who dismiss what I'm saying as

(05:46):
some sort of conspiracy. Actually ignore the transparency of the
funding and the personnel that I described in the first hour.
The Open Society foundations, for example, the George Soros organizations.
They boast out their support for the group like Indivisible,
this supporting these protests. You go back to twenty eighteen,

(06:08):
you can find Open Society Foundation documents, publications, books, pamphlets,
cashed and archived websites that feature quotes from both Greenberg
and Levin openly acknowledging the partnership between Indivisible and George Soros.

(06:28):
There are other board members of Indivisible, Tether McGee, Marilyna Cancopy.
They have deep ties to the Open Society initiatives like
the National Immigration Law Center, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. So
you see this overlapping, this overlapping web of grants, fellowships,

(06:49):
directorships that should take any doubt out of your mind
that the network's influence is deliberate, it is sustained, it
is ida illogical, and it continues to operate to this day.
So if you want to understand the purpose of No Kings,
then you have to understand George Sorows because he has

(07:12):
been funded. You know, why do you think, For example,
just stop and think for a minute. He calls his
organization the main organization, his Open Society Foundation. If you
thought about what that means, don't we have an open
society where we're free to speak our minds, where we're
free to travel, we're free to start a business, We're

(07:34):
free to fail, we're free to start over again. No,
their definition of an open society is one where you
dissolve all the traditional structures faith, family, national, sovereignty, and
you dissolve all of that because remember, I've talked before

(07:54):
about how freedom is chaotic. Freedom is chaos. Freedom is
very difficult cult. It takes our understanding of freedom to
operate in a world where the person sitting next to
us can believe exactly the opposite of us. Yet we
should be able to sit down in the same cafe
and have dinner. We should be able to express ourselves

(08:16):
and have disagreements. That's not what they want. They believe
in a technocratic governance. They believe in an elite governance.
And again that gets back to they believe because they
live in this bubble, they believe that they can better
function and bring more order to society. I don't want

(08:40):
more order. I don't want more chaos either, but I
don't want them taking away the chaos that comes with freedom.
So next segment, let's go back and do a little history,
and let's start in the nineteen eighties. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. Be
sure and follow me on x at Michael Brown USA,

(09:01):
And be sure and subscribe to the podcast on your
podcast app. Search for the Situation with Michael Brown. When
you find that, hit that subscribe button. Leave a five
star review that will download the weekday program that we
do from Denver plus this program, and you'll have all
the Michael Brown you need. I'll be right back. Welcome

(09:25):
back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Really glad to
have you with me. We're doing a history lesson now
as I tend to do about sorrows because and I
don't mean to pick I could pick on any number
of people, but he happens to be the one, and
his organizations happen to be the ones that are right
now funding what you're watching this weekend and what you're
going to hear about this weekend. But I could go

(09:47):
on about Michael Bloomberg. You learned about the Rockefellers like
you learned about anybody else. You know, the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, and the court, you know, the counselor for
the you know, for the Public Partnership. All of those
different organizations are funded by these tech giants like Sergey
Brin or Mark Zuckerberg, any of the others. But let's

(10:10):
focus on Sorrows for a moment, because historically he's always
kind of been ooh, that's the boogey man. Well, in
a way, he really is. Go back to the nineteen eighties.
That was when he first kind of started collaborating with
the US State Department, and what was he doing. He
was collaborating with them because they were focused on Eastern Europe.

(10:32):
Then you fast forward by three two thousand and three,
Sorols gets disillusioned with our own, with America's foreign policy,
so then he started redirecting his focus inward and actually
declared the United States itself to be the chief obstacle
to his vision of a world comprised of these open societies,

(10:58):
in other words, of all these societies and countries being
governed by Marxist technocrats. And when you're a bazillionaire, you
can actually think that big. His goal, I said, was
to create these open societies. Well that what that really

(11:20):
means is you've got to weaken the cultural and institutional
foundations that allow a country like us to function as
a self governing society. You can't have technocrats determining how
you know, the who, what, where, when and why, or
the how of what you eat, what you eat, how

(11:42):
you eat, when you eat, how you travel, what kind
of housing you have, what kind of transportation you have.
You cannot have an open society, to use his term,
where you and I make those choices ourselves and a
free market responds to what we want. No, you have
to have a technocratic society where those elitists who are

(12:04):
so damned much smarter than we are, that they make
those decisions. So that goal of creating open societies really
means weakening, destroying the cultural and institutional and governing foundations
that allow a self governing society like ours to actually

(12:25):
function with a free market and what I call a
truly open society. So there's no King's campaign, which you
know you'll hear nothing more. You'll hear it all week.
I promise you this that my kingdom on that all
they'll talk about is they're defending democracy. That is a

(12:48):
carefully branded attempt to delegitimize political authority that does not
serve his globalist idea of a Marxist technocratic world. Were
people who, because they're elitists, know better than you and
I do about how to make choices for our own lives.

(13:09):
When you look at it that way, that means that
all of these slogans really are dark. In my belief.
You don't have to believe as I do, but in
my belief, it is evil. It is truly evil, because
I am one that believes that if we're made in

(13:31):
the image of God, which I do believe, we're meant
to live in freedom and liberty. They are just the opposite.
They don't believe in freedom and liberty. They want an organized,
technocratic society that is governed by people that you know,
I guess you have to have a certain iq, you
got to have a certain balance in your brokerage account

(13:53):
or your bank account. They are the ones. They are
the ones that need to be making these decisions. The
organizations that are behind what you're watching this weekend, well,
they're conspicuously silent when progressive leaders flat constitutional limits or
manipulate institutions for partisan game. So their outrage, like they're funding,

(14:17):
is conditional. What unites them is not devotion to freedom
and liberty, but obedience to a transnational vision that subordinates
every country's national sovereignty to an elitist consensus, to an
elitist governance. Now, I think it's tempting to see all
that as a natural evolution of political activism in a

(14:42):
digital age. They're able to do all this organizing just
I go back to the simple text message that I
received on Thursday night at seven fifty pm. Think of
the millionllions of text messages. Now this is you know what?

(15:03):
You know what it's like. I would liken it to scammers.
Scammers just have to send the phishing email, the text
message with the malware in a link. They have to
send it to a billion people, because if they can
get a million people, do the math. If you can

(15:25):
get them or even five hundred thousand, whatever the number is,
to respond, wow, that's success to them. The same is
true here. So this continuity between Indivisible's origins, indivisibles funding sources,

(15:45):
and the way they operate their organizational structure, their funding structure,
their strategies, their tactics. This is calculated and it is evil.
And then the use of donor advise funds obscures the accountability.
So the recycling of all these people that used to
work in the State Department into domestic activism, that also

(16:09):
is purposeful because that blurs the line between governance and agitation.
Are you working for and tay and fulfilling your oath
to the United States of America as a bureaucrat working
in the State Department, or is your real loyalty to
the agitation, to the organization, to the fundamental transformation. That's

(16:33):
why the deep state, the administrative state, is so dangerous
to the future of this republic. And every component that
I just mentioned has the same goal and it serves
the same goal, and that is to replace representative governance
representative politics with managed consent, with directed consent. In fact,

(16:56):
I probably shouldn't even use the word consent. With managed
organization and managed governance. This is where we are, and
our failure to recognize where we are empowers them and
encourages them even further. This is why I'm not I

(17:18):
am being alarmist, but I'm trying to be rational about
my alarm. And what I'm trying to hopefully convince you
of is that while the cabal will talk to you
about you know, they're they're all for democracy, and you
know they're just anti Trump. No, it goes much much
deeper than that. This is a fundamental transformation of America

(17:42):
and Trump has stepped in and he's disrupted that. You know,
in startups and technology we talk about disruptors. Trump is
a disruptor, and that's why the reaction is so vociferous,
so strong. They got us Trump by any means necessary. Tonight,

(18:10):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing
a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown,
broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado's The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning
in as always, text lines open. I was just fact
I'm just sitting here reading through text messages during the break.
Text number on your message app is three three one

(18:31):
zero three three three one zero three. Keyword Mike or
Michael didn't do me a favor, Go over on x
and follow me on X or on Instagram follow me
either place. When I was with the Bush administration, John
Bolton was a part of the administration also. He was
the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs,

(18:53):
I think from early on in the administration till sometime
in maybe mid two thousand and five, and then after
that he got a recess appointment and became the Ambassador
to the United Nations. I remember being in a few
meetings with him, but our paths didn't cross in any

(19:14):
significant or meaningful way. So I only knew Bolton by reputation.
I only knew Bolton by which is pretty common among
members of administration, particularly at that level cabinet level, that
everybody has people. You almost form little cliques that the

(19:36):
people that you work with the most. For example, while
while indeed Bolton was at DoD at the Pentagon, most
of my interactions were with either Rumsfeld, who was the
Secretary of Defense at the time, or with Gordon England,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Department of Energy. UH,

(20:01):
it was with certain people that were with the National
Nuclear Security Administration, and then the White House was Chief
of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Comms Director white House
Advanced Team a lot. So you just did that. That's
how you develop the relationships when you're at that level,

(20:22):
when you're in the cabinet or the sub cabinet. So
Bolton and I, because he was just dealing with arms
control stuff, really we just didn't cross paths that much.
But the reputation was that he was a freelancer. That
he was. That he was, he was always in it.
He's one of those creatures of the Beltway, always there

(20:44):
just looking for whatever the next opportunity. Was. Not what
we expected people to do in the cabinet, you know,
to come and serve your country and then leave. When
I talk about a freelancer, I mean sense that he
really didn't give a ratsass about whatever the president's agenda was.

(21:06):
It was more about what his agenda was. And I
had a hard time dealing with that because I felt like, look,
if you if you're nominated by the president and then
you have to go through a Senate confirmation and then
you go through all of the rigorm role that you
go through to get your clearances, you owe an obligation
that if the president's agenda is X, even though you

(21:29):
may disagree with X. Now, if it's earth shattering and
it violates principles, then you shouldn't take the position to
begin with. But if you got minor differences about policy,
then your job is to help implement that policy or
to convince, as I would often do, try to vent,
to convince the President or the White or the White
House staff, Hey can we do this just a little differently.

(21:53):
Sometimes I'd win, sometimes I wouldn't. But with John Bolton
it was always his way of the highway, at least
that was the perception and the reputation. So when the
headline reads that John Bolton surrenders to federal authorities, I
just think, wow, never saw that coming, or did I? So?

(22:16):
Bolton's now been indicted by a grand jury. Bolton had
gone on to become Trump's National security advisor. He was
also I've deliberately left out one point. He was also
one of the architects, if not a manipulator, of my
old boss's decision to go into Iraq. In fact, he

(22:40):
was one that convinced a lot of people, including me
at times, that Sadam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.
I still believe to this day that prior to our
invasion of Iraq that Sadam Hussein did have wmd but
from the top that we started building the coalition, and

(23:02):
from the time that Colin Powell went to the United
Nations and drew the line in the sand, we had
given saw them Hussein more than enough time to go
to Vladimir Putin and say, hey, listen, I need to
get rid of these WMDs. Whatever it might be, the
nerve gas, saren gas, whatever it might be that he had,
we had plenty. We gave him plenty of time to

(23:24):
get rid of it. So I think it's just kind
of an academic exercise to argue about whether he did
or did not. But nonetheless, Bolton was convinced of it.
And Bolton was an architect because he's a typical neocon
that thinks the solution to everything is to go to war.
These charges against Bolton claim that he was unlawfully hoarding

(23:47):
documents that he sent classified info over AOL America online
instant messaging in twenty eighteen. You know, TEETHA twenty eighteen
seems like the Dark Ages to some people, But AOL
to me is really the Dark Ages because I can

(24:09):
remember when you remember all the discs in the mail.
Every single day, the mail man would deliver at least
to AOL disc trying to you know, hey, I signed
up for AOL when it came out. I think I
had an AOL email address. You've got mail. He actually
shared classified communications over AOL messaging services. It's alleged that

(24:36):
he shared more than a thousand pages of notes while
working on a memoir. He shared it with his wife
and his daughter, neither of whom had security clearances. Part
of the indictment says this from Honor about April nine,
twenty eighteen, through Honor about September fifteenth, twenty nineteen, on

(24:57):
a regular basis, Bolton diary like entries to his wife
and daughter that contain information classified up to the top
secret slash SCI level SCI special compartmentalized information. That's one
of the highest levels of classification. And he's sending that

(25:18):
over unsecured lines to people who do not have clearances. Now,
this is not death penalty type infractions. This is not
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. This is not aldrich Aims stuff.
What was Bolton doing, To put it charitably, he was

(25:39):
trying to cash in. He was trying to cash in
on a lifelong career of neo conservative warmongering. The problem
is this Iranian hackers representatives of a government that have
called for and put a reward on the head of
Donald Trump, not to mention Bolton himself, they also had

(26:04):
access to AOL. Now I'm only laughing because every time
I use the phrase AOL, I think back, Jimminy Christmas Bucko,
that's what you were using. I think to this day,
I may still have a listener or two out there.
This sends me that still has an AOL addressed. You
know what I think. Now, it's just kind of cute,

(26:24):
kind of retro. But according to the indictment, the Iranians
intercepted the messages, So it looks like the guy that
had the you know, the guy that's known as the
Stash because of his mustache, probably got a little too
careless with his soul called secret travel memos. Bolton has
issued a statement that these charges are not just about

(26:46):
Trump's focus on me or my diaries, but it is
his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents to ensure that
he alone determines what is said about his conduct, dissent
and disagreement are foundational to America's constitutional system and vitally
important to our freedom. I look forward to the fight
to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse

(27:07):
of power. Well that's package. That's quite a package that
was written by a damn good lawyer, because you know,
whatsent and disagreement are foundational to our constitutional system. I agree,
that's not what you're accused of having done wrong. What
you're accused of, which interestingly he doesn't address whatsoever in
that statement, is the dissemination of classified information to people

(27:32):
who don't have clearances, and using unsecured lines to disseminate
that classified information, such that we know for a fact
that he was hacked by the Iranians, a nation that
calls us the Great Satan and has called and has,
for my belief, has terrors sales located in this country. Now,

(27:56):
they may be weakened right now, but those sales still exist.
And we're just supposed to blow this off because the
claim is it's so easy to claim, oh, this is
just Trump trying to get against his enemies. Let's not
forget something about the Bolton case in particular. I'll tell
you what that is. Next, it's the Weekend with Michael Brown.

(28:17):
Go follow me on X right now at Michael Brown USA.
Be right back. Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. If you like what
we do on the weekend, you know you can listen
during the weekday too. All you have to do is
take your iHeart app, which many of you used to

(28:37):
listen to this program, and set a new preset. And
the preset is forestation in Denver. That's called six thirty
khow six thirty k how? Once you find that hit
it as a preset. And then if you want to
listen to me live Monday through Friday, you can listen
to me from six to ten Mountain time, which is

(28:58):
what eight to eight eight to noon Eastern time. Six
thirty khow. I'd love to have you joined the program.
Back to John Bolton for a moment. So his response
to this indictment is that these are you know, Trump's,

(29:23):
these charges are not just about Trump's focus on me
on my diaries. It's his effort to intimidate his opponents.
Wait a minute, How's Trump intimidating his opponents? If the
Department of Justice takes I tried to explain this to
my audience yesterday. Yes, I know the old trope about

(29:45):
how easy it is to indict a ham sandwich. But
if the ham sandwich a couple of pieces of white bread,
some of that plastic American cheese, and a slice of
cheap ham, maybe a little mayo on it, if that
ham sandwich has violated the ham sandwich laws, and you

(30:09):
take it not. You don't decide yourself that the ham
sandwich has violated the laws, but instead take it to
a jury of its peers who are sitting looking at
all sorts of cases. You know, A grand jury is
selected and then they are seated, and they don't meet

(30:31):
every day necessarily. Now in some busy jurisdictions they might,
but they get called up they're in that particular grand
jury pool, and they are asked to come in that
day or maybe for several days, and the prosecutor presents
his evidence or her evidence against the ham sandwich. Now,

(30:54):
the grand jury's taken an oath, and that oath is
to be fair and objective to apply the law to
the allegations that the prosecutor is presenting, and much like
a preliminary hearing, albeit without defense counsel. They're supposed to

(31:14):
look and see is there enough evidence? Does it appear
that there is sufficient evidence to return an indictment against
this ham Sandwich? And if the jurors and you know,
to somehow dismiss the grand jury as or they're just
indicting a ham Sandwich, is really unfair to those jurors.

(31:36):
They're being forced to take time out of their day,
maybe out of their week, sometimes out of their month
to go serve on that grand jury. And every jur
that I every jur I've ever encountered, either in a
grand jury situation or in a trial, in a criminal
trial or even a contract trial, jurors take that oath series.

(32:01):
They may bitch and moan, aback, I get a serve
on the jury, blah blah blah blah. But once they
set in that room and they hear evidence and the
gravity of what is before them hits them, they take
it seriously. I've talked to many jurors, not all, not
all the cases I've been involved in, but other people
have been involved in juries, and that what was it like?

(32:22):
Because of course I'll never be able to serve on
a jury. And I'll ask them what did it feel like?
What was it like? And they're like, yeah, you know,
we didn't want to be there, and you know, we
weren't sure about the case. But then they start presenting
the evidence and we start realizing, oh, there's two sides
to a story. Or if they're in front of a
grand jury, they start realizing, oh, this prosecutor has really

(32:44):
put things together. You know, let's ask some questions about this.
Let's go into the room and deliberate it. They do
take it seriously. I point all that out because here,
the Department of Justice, the US Attorney just didn't decide, hey,
I'm going to bring charges against John Bolton. They took
the evidence they had and said, here, grand jurors, you

(33:07):
look at it. You decide do you think there's enough
evidence here. Now, of course they're going to make their case,
but the grand jury is ultimately the ones that decide
to return the indictment, and if they do, that's an
indication that they looked at the evidence and they thought
it was enough that the charges ought to be brought.
That's what happened in the Bolton case. So for Bolton

(33:29):
to claim that, oh, he's just trying to intimidate his opponents, No,
there must be some evidence here. And in fact, if
you look at the indictment, if you look at the
charging document, they actually point out and quote and they
give evidence of where these violations occurred. Now he's still
presumed innocent. Don't get me wrong, John Bolton is presumed innocent.

(33:50):
But the charging document is like probable cause. It's like
showing that here's why we believe there are charges, here's
why we believe this person is guilty. And when they
start to present the case, whether it goes in front
of the judge only or it's a jury trial, the

(34:12):
prosecutors stand up and they make a contract with that
judge and with that jury, and that contract is simply this,
we're going to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt
that XYZ happened. It's a pretty serious contract. And if
the jurors don't believe that you've met the terms of

(34:34):
the contract, in other words, that you'd improve beyond a
reasonable doubt that XYZ occurred, then hmm, you're going to
lose the case. I only say that because every defendant
claims that they're innocent, and some are, but most are not.

(34:55):
It's true that Bolton has said some unkind things of
about Donald Trump since he was left his political orbit.
And it's also true that Trump is using any means
necessary to target enemies, real or perceived. But unlike James

(35:16):
Comy or Letitia James, for that matter, Trump's other two
most powerful recent lawfair targets. Bolton's indictment actually has a
chance to stick. He almost certainly won't serve a full
ten year sentence, as is allowed under these charges, but
the grand jury indictment is quite specific and is very pointed.

(35:37):
The law tends to be biased against the guy who
is actually hoarding strategic government communications to write a memoir. Well,
I forget that I was in the room or something.
Let's keep in mind that, as I said, he was
a key architect of the idea that Salim Hussein had WMD.

(36:06):
In two thousand and three, in an interview with National
Public Radio, a sure sign that the political winds had
shifted for Bolton, he said, well, what I said about
WMD depends on how you define a lie, Because if
you believe that's a lie, then law, then a lot
of what I hear on NPR on any given days

(36:26):
a lie. To me, a lie is a statement that
is untrue. That's uttered deliberately knowing its faults. The administration
didn't lie, And that fascinating is he saying that we
believed it to be true even though it proved ultimately
that it wasn't. So many the text line says, oh,

(36:48):
by the way, I was with the Colorado National Guard
and I saw those WMD's being shipped to Syria. Yeah,
just as I suspected. So. Bolton's indictment is once again
about holding people accountable.