11-4-25 - 8am - 30 Years on SNAP and 'Democracy'

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, I figured out somebody who was happy or moving
to Kowa and going to three hours the ad execs
that I heart. They must be running out of prepaid
ads and all they can run is promo and promo
and promo and promo. Was your period as the showgus
on later later, so they'll be happy that they all
have to try and sales money ads for a show

(00:20):
like use reviewers for four hours.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
What kind of work environment do you think that was?
Were you listening to the background noise?

Speaker 3 (00:28):
The machine shop?

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Maybe a mechanic, That's that's what I thought, some sort
of machine shop. I'm not sure about a garage. I
mean I didn't hear clanking like I'd expecting the garage.
You like taking the hammer, you know, to your to
your engine to figure out your air drive. Yeah, that
I'm always fascinated. So tell us where you were working.

(00:49):
Something about promos. I shouldn't make this confession on their
something about promos and glad that we're moving because there's
too many promos or something and now they can sell
some real time.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
It was that you, Yeah, you were channeling your inner
mee on not listening to your own show. But yes,
he was referring to the fact that there are tons
of Michael brown is moving promost.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
There has it been in order?

Speaker 3 (01:16):
There's been a few.

Speaker 4 (01:17):
Well, you know why we have to do that, is
there somebody out there that doesn't know.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Because they're idiots, you got you gotta slap them around
a few times.

Speaker 5 (01:26):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
I don't know how they're going to be. I don't
know that audience over there's gonna respond. But when you
know they've been just moping around, you know, their heads
kind of they've been staring at their phones, staring at
the ground, walking around unless somebody says the word bronco
and then they and then they perk up. And so
they're gonna be kind of moping around and I'm not
come with her and just slap them around. Wake them up. Wow,

(01:55):
I want to go back to New Mexico. I don't
did you get that email? Dragon?

Speaker 4 (02:03):
Oh about the yes this snap women? Yes, it's up supposted.
Michael says, go here dot com.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
I rarely ask you or beg you to go to
the website. Michael says, go here dot com and look
at a video. I'm troubled by this video, and I'll
explain after you listen to it. I want to go
through the entire package. This is from Channel seven Koa

(02:30):
t Albuquerky, New Mexico. This was yesterday.

Speaker 6 (02:39):
Some Americans to federal judges or to the Trump administration
to keep the program running using emergency funds. SNAP recipients
have told us their benefits have not been working. Julian
Patta spoke with some who explained why these benefits are
so important.

Speaker 7 (02:55):
The first thing I did was PRIM following a call
out of when I'm hired to see the world dollar.

Speaker 8 (03:00):
My just went into my throat. Magiotto Gun has been
a SNAP recipient for more than three decades. Even with
these benefits, she says, she also relies on food banks
to get enough food.

Speaker 7 (03:11):
I have depended on those benefits since the nineteen nineties,
and it's detrimental to my life if I don't get them.

Speaker 8 (03:19):
There are more than four hundred and sixty thousand New
Mexicans using SNAP benefits tonight, some of them telling us
they don't have those right now. Friday, Governor Michelle Luhan
Grisham announced thirty million dollars in state funds would be
used to supply SNAP users starting November First.

Speaker 9 (03:34):
We're gonna choose feeding families over politics in New Mexico.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
We're gonna do that right now.

Speaker 8 (03:40):
This announcement was made after the USDA planned to suspend
SNAP benefits for forty two million people across the country.
Tonight's officials with the Governor's Office telling us they were
not aware of this issue until Koat asked them about it.
Those officials letting us and people know. Some recipients may
experience a short delay in seeing their state funded food

(04:00):
benefit balances as the system processes a large volume of data. Today,
all benefits are being loaded and balances should appear by
this evening or tomorrow.

Speaker 7 (04:10):
I lost my job and it's been since July that
I've been receiving until then.

Speaker 8 (04:16):
These people are waiting to hear an updates by Sunday.

Speaker 7 (04:19):
I do feel for them. I do have compassion, and
I do hope that they end up receiving their benefits.

Speaker 8 (04:26):
The Governor's office says anyone dealing with these issues should
also visit the New Mexico Healthcare Authorities website for updates.
It's HCA dot mm dot gov slash support Okaya's the
actions have a news.

Speaker 3 (04:37):
I'm Julian Patas.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Did you get the difference between the two people. The
first person that you heard that I've been relying on
these benefits and food bank since the nineteen nineties. I
don't know what her situation is. What I know is
based on what I saw on the video. She has

(05:04):
full use of both hands because she's gesturing and lifting
her hands up at least to her face, So she
has mobility. She is standing, she doesn't appear to be
wheelchair bound. She looks to be. I'm not very good
at guessing women's ages because it's just something I don't do.

Speaker 4 (05:20):
It older woman, but I wouldn't call her elderly.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
I was guessing maybe mid sixties.

Speaker 4 (05:27):
I would say, pushing seventies, okay, maybe early seventies.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
Okay, so sixty five to seventy one or two correct, Okay,
so somewhere with that age. So for thirty years, so
since she was in her thirties or forties, thirties or forties,
she's been on food welfare. And again I don't know,
maybe she has if she has a mental illness. For example,

(05:53):
she certainly seemed to be coherent, she was articulate, she
was able to gesture as she was speaking, she was
quite clear in what she was saying.

Speaker 4 (06:03):
And I think it would be beneficial to the reporter
or the report that if they would have stated the
fact that if she was a handicapped individual who relied
on these more so than somebody who is capable.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
Which gets us to the second person they interview who
Now the first person interviewed, it appeared that they might
have been in a government office building because it was
that government beige and there were a little plaques, you know,
like like like a named desk plate, remember those old

(06:37):
name desk plates that was up above the door jam
with a number on it. So it appeared to me
to be a government style building. So they may have
captured her, you know, confronted her, caught her in a
government building. The second one, I wasn't quite so sure
at first, I thought it was a hotel hallway. Maybe
it was a homeless shelter or something. But she admitted

(06:58):
she said I lost my I think she said in July.
I lost my job in July. I'm assuming she looks
like and she gave the impression anyway that she has
compassion for people who have lost their jobs, because obviously
she has and she needs those and so she's relying them, though,
But I did not get the impression that she was

(07:20):
going to be a thirty decade old recipient of food welfare.
Two entirely different people, two entirely different situations. Now, the
absolute initial reaction from everybody, including myself. My first reaction
was yep, until I heard thirty years. And then I

(07:42):
had to catch myself because I was immediately immediately I
was critical of that woman. And then I said, so,
calm down. Thirty years is a long time. Maybe there's
some debilitating disease. They keep telling her every month, you'll
live a month to live, and now, for you know,
three decades, you've had a month to live for three decades.

(08:05):
I don't know what the circumstances are, but thirty years
on food welfare and you're able to articulate and gesture
and enunciate and pronunciate and put emotion into your delivery.
I mean, she's doing everything. I came to the personal

(08:28):
conclusion you don't have to. I came to the personal
conclusion that this is an able bodied woman, and for
some circumstances that I don't understand, she's receiving money from
you and I as taxpayers. I know she's in New Mexico,
but we all pay for this out It goes from
us to the fans out to the states, and we've
been paying for her to eat and food banks volunteers

(08:52):
for thirty freaking years. Now, do you want to say
that I'm a jerk or whatever, That's fine, I really
don't care. What I'm trying to point out here is
we have a system that needs to be fixed, regardless
of her circumstances. Is it the role of the federal

(09:14):
government for decade upon decade upon decade, there's your three
decades to feed somebody, And is it the responsibility of
not only the Feds doing it visa the estates. But
then she goes and takes advantage of food bangs. Now
let's take the second person. The second person has lost

(09:35):
her job.

Speaker 3 (09:36):
Now, she.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
Appeared to me to be able bodied. She struck me
as a little uncomfortable, saying, I mean, you know, I've
lost my job. I have compassion for those people, and
I'm trying, you know, I get the impression she's looking
for a job. I would still make the argument it's
not the role of the federal government. Just as we
went to the guy that ran the butcher shop in

(09:59):
Fort Collins yesterday, who was willing to help because he
finally saw the faces of people that needed help. But
he was still mad because I shouldn't have to be
doing this, The government should be doing it. So where
do we draw this line? And why is it that
we can't have this conversation. I guarantdamn tee you that

(10:21):
most people will lower their eyes, they won't want to
make eye contact with you. If if you were to
say to your friend's family or anybody else what I said,
they'll either drop their head and not give you eye contact,
and or they're going to argue with you and call
you all sorts of names because you dare to question.
That's the problem, is that people are unwilling to question

(10:45):
what we're doing, and so therefore it just.

Speaker 3 (10:48):
Grows and grows and grows.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
And then you end up with this woman who admits,
freely admits that for thirty plus years she's been on
food welfare. I just find it unacceptable, and I find
it shameful, shameful, but may not for the reason you think.
I find it shameful, understandable, but shameful that we don't

(11:10):
have a private sector charitable network of organizations that without
reliance on taxpayer money. So, Trailhead Institute, you're out of
the picture. At all of the organizations that you support.
Out of the picture. I'm talking about businesses, churches, individual volunteer,

(11:31):
food banks, whatever it is. Why are we not pushing
toward that again, because we've abdicated our compassion to the
government and we expect the government to do so. When
you hand out something free, guess what, You're going to
get more and more and more people that want the
stuff for free. I want to give you an example

(11:53):
of this. So for the for the Michael Brown minute
last night again, I'm I'm scrolling around trying to find
local news. One of the local stories out of Colorado
is this Jared Polus, the governor of Colorado, has decided
that medicaid spending Medicaid not Medicare. Medicaid spending is out

(12:14):
of control in the state of Colorado, and he's looking
for ways to fill the gap. That led me down
the rat hole of trying to figure out why is
medicaid spending out of the hole? Do you know why
it is? Because the radicals in the Colorado Polet Bureau
did the following. They added new benefits to medicaid. They

(12:38):
expanded behavioral health, substance abuse treatment, higher dental caps broader
coverage for services such as therapy, sessions, and addiction treatment. Well,
guess what that means? That that increased utilization because you're
getting something for free, and now you're gonna go utilize it.

(13:01):
You're gonna go get it. That when you increase utilization,
you increase spending. So it goes like this, You increase coverage,
you increase usage, you increase usage, you increase costs. So
then I was very interested in so what is it

(13:21):
that Jared Polis is planning to do? How does he
plan to Now he says, slow down the spending, also
to cover the increased cost of the spending. Well, those
are two separate things. Now, they're not mutually exclusive exclusive.
I would like to see the increase in the cost

(13:43):
reduce or at least slow down, if not reversed, and
I'd certainly like to see the costs decrease. Well, guess
what he wants to do. He wants to reinstate capsule benefits,
in particular dental coverage. He wants to restrict provider rate increases,
so doctors, you may get a little more, but not

(14:05):
as much as you thought you were going to get more.
And he wants to limit eligibility or he wants to
tighten benefit offerings in order to slow the exponential growth
of medicaid spending. Does he not realize that he and
his fellow travelers in the polit bureau are the ones
that are responsible for that spending. Because you increase the benefit,

(14:31):
you expand to the coverage. Same things happen with Obamacare.
When you tell the insurance companies that you now have
to cover everything possible. You can't establish your own definable
risk pool. You have to put everybody in the risk pool. Well,
when you do that, you've got to account for that actuarily.
You've got to make certain that now you increase your
premiums because you're covering every damn thing under the sun.

(14:54):
So when you say to food stamp beneficiaries, welfare food
will fair recipients that well, we're going to expand your coverage,
We're going to expand your eligibility, what do you expect.
It goes back to you feed the straight cat. Straight
cat's gonna come back until you quit feeding a straight cat.

(15:16):
Then they go look elsewhere. Is that harsh? Maybe it is,
maybe it isn't. It depends on your perspective. But the
reality is this, if we ever want to get spending
the fiscal policy of this country under control, there has
to be a realization that we can't keep doing this.

(15:39):
And when you subsidize something or you give away something
for free, now I know it's not free, but to
a recipient it appears to be free. Then you get
more of that consumption, you get more of that utilization,
and then at some point you step back. And what
amazes me is that the ABC affiliate in Albuquerque is
so dumb that they use that person that's been doing

(16:03):
it for thirty thirty plus years, that was their lead story.
Did they not realize that they just made the case
that somehow we've gotten to titan eligibility, that somehow we've
got to start privatizing some of these so called welfare
programs or entitlement programs, because wait a minute, we can't.

(16:28):
As the population grows, as the population gets older, we
can't afford this. We simply can't afford it. If you
want a social safety net, that's great. I'm not opposed
to having a social safety net. What we're debating is
what's the depth of that net? Is it one inch
deep or is it as it currently it's in the

(16:51):
deep water the swimming pool, it's at least eighteen feet deep.
Get to have the conversation. And if you're unwilling to
have the conversation because it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you're
listening to the wrong program, because I'm here to tell
you exactly what the truth is. Koat down in Albuquerque

(17:14):
doesn't realize they just gave me all them MOI needed.
And to Dragon's point, did the reporter that Obviously it
gets edited. It's only a two minute and six second spot,
so we don't know. But if I'd been the reporter,
even off air, I would have made it part of
my package. You know, we talked to Elizabeth in Albuquerque.
She's been on it for thirty decades off air. We

(17:36):
wanted to know why, and here's what she told us.
You don't have to show her. You don't have to,
you know, have her on sound or she can at
least explain to your viewers why in the hell is
somebody on for thirty plus years with no intention, no
indication whatsoever. But she has any desire to ever get off.

(17:57):
Comparing the tracks with the other person who I'll be
to me seems to want to get off.

Speaker 5 (18:03):
Hey, ho.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
Jerk, that's it, Jimmy Christmas. I mean it was expected,
but they had at least another twenty two seconds, didn't they.

Speaker 4 (18:18):
Yeah, it's like that, that's it.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
Yeah, we're totally expected.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
But well you could have filled in instead of sitting
back there in your fat ass. You could have filled
in and done the rest. You know, I wouldn't have
noticed the difference.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
I don't leave them, I just played them.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
You could help the poor guy out. He ran out
of majorities to call me. Whereas you've got a whole list,
You have a whole.

Speaker 4 (18:41):
Book full, so you know most of them. I can't
stand on the radio, thom.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
But we could just heard beeps for thirty seconds. That
would be entertaining. That'd be entertaining. Speaking of entertaining, Joe
Starborough on Morning Joe Today literally welcomed and said, let's well,
from the communists to the show, mom, Donnie shows up.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
Yeah, I explain the difference.

Speaker 10 (19:05):
What is the difference between it a democrat, a democratic
socialist and a communist?

Speaker 2 (19:11):
Well, now do you think that?

Speaker 5 (19:14):
Now?

Speaker 2 (19:14):
I this is only thirty seconds. Just listen to the definition.
But I promise you they're not going to challenge anything
he says at all.

Speaker 11 (19:23):
What is difference between it a democrat, a democratic socialist.

Speaker 3 (19:27):
And a communist.

Speaker 5 (19:28):
Well, I'm a democratic socialist who is also a democrat, right,
And when I say I'm a democratic socialist, I explain
it in the words of doctor Kington from decades ago,
who said, the call it democracy or call it democratic socialism.
There must be a better distribution of wealth for all.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
A better distribution of wealth well.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
Of God's children in this country. Right.

Speaker 5 (19:47):
And what I actually find is that when you're speaking
to New Yorkers, they ask you less how you describe
your politics and more whether there's room for them in
that politics. When New Yorkers are asking me, does your
politics have room for my struggle to afford my rent,
my childcare, my groceries, and frankly, President Trump ran an
entire campaign focusing on the cost of living, focusing on

(20:08):
the promise of cheaper groceries, and his inability to do
so is now making him increasingly desperate to try and
stop the campaign that will actually deliver on the same
diagnosis that he shared Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
Now, as I told you earlier, he can't deliver on
most of his campaign promises because he doesn't have the
authority to do so. But have you ever thought about that?
They proudly call themselves the Democratic Socialists of America? Well,
what is democratic socialism? You can go to the website

(20:41):
DSA USA dot org DSA USA dot org. In fact,
let me scroll back to the front to the landing page.
When you go to the landing page, Oh, there is
which one is this? This is not elon Omar? Who's
the other one? Rashida Talid and Mom donning together on

(21:07):
the landing page. Yes, proud Democratic Socialists of America. And
you you then go to the fact the FAQ page.
What what are these?

Speaker 3 (21:20):
What?

Speaker 2 (21:21):
What? What do they stand for? In fact, here you
can learn more about democratic socialism. Cause you in the
very first sentence, first paragraph, capitalism is a system designed
by the owning class to exploit the rest of us

(21:41):
for their profit. We must replace it, replace it with
democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real
voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society. We believe there
are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Oh,

(22:02):
it's a democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further
than historical social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of
socialism in the dust benef history. That's what you drive,
but that's not what you do. You want to replace
a free market, capitalist country with a fundamental transformation where

(22:29):
you collectively own the key drivers that dominate our lives.
You want to collectively own energy, production, transportation. That's what
they want. They want single payer healthcare, socialized medicine, defunding police,
refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a

(22:52):
transition to a freer, more just life. We want a
democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us
we are powerless, but together we can seize the means
of production. No, it doesn't say that. They don't go
that far. Instead they say, the capitalist class tells us

(23:13):
we are powerless, but together we can take back not
our country control, together we can take back control. So, yeah,
you want to seize the means of production. You're communists.
It's right there. You don't have to. You could read

(23:33):
it an eighth grade level and understand what they're telling.
Well maybe not. I don't know, because too many people
don't understand. This is precisely what they're up to. This
is what they want, and we're too stupid to recognize it.
The Democrats and the gorules that represent the Democrat Party
are really beginning to melt down. Somebody that James Carville

(23:59):
out of his Heidi hole back on Friday to share
his increasingly in thing brand of wisdom with the American left.
He's on with Al Hunt. Al Hunt used to be
a pundit for the either the Associated Press or CNN.
I forget he was a talking head on one of them.

Speaker 3 (24:20):
The Democrats.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
Now Dragon, I've checked this, I think twice, because it's
after all, it's James Carble. I think I've got all
of the bad words out of fact. I think this
was actually, if I recall correctly, last night, he didn't
drop any f moms. Maybe he's on drugs.

Speaker 10 (24:36):
The Democrats talk about democracy and you have you see
the importance of democracy and deserved in democracy and saving democracy. Well,
the truth of that is people are right when they
say this democracy is really imperfect, and they're going to
have to do if the Democrats win the presidency, the Senate,
in the House in twenty twenty eight, which is not impossible.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
I don't know.

Speaker 10 (24:58):
If you say likely possible, I don't know what words
you know, but it's certainly not impossible.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
They are just going to have to, you know, Lily,
are you ready?

Speaker 2 (25:09):
This is what they want, And interestingly, if it's right
in line with the Democratic Socialists of America.

Speaker 10 (25:19):
And Puerto Rican industry of Columbia States, they're gonna have
to the Congress does get The Constitution gives.

Speaker 3 (25:26):
Congress power over federal elections.

Speaker 10 (25:28):
I don't think they can read district, but they the
things they gonna do, they're gonna have to do it.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
Take over the make DC and Puerto Rico states Democrats strongholds,
nationalize federalized elections so that they can more easily cheat.
You know, it's easier to have a centralized cheating mechanism
than a decentralized cheating organization.

Speaker 10 (25:50):
They're just gonna have to do it, and they may
have to expand.

Speaker 3 (25:54):
The court to thirteen members.

Speaker 10 (25:57):
Any of those things in isolation I would be skeptical about.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
I would be any one of those is not good enough.
Any one of those in isolation, I would be skeptical.

Speaker 10 (26:09):
But about I would say, well, I don't know if
that's the greatest idea in the world. If you're opening
Pandora's box or all kinds of things, I don't listen.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
This is fascinating to me. Any of those things alone
is just opening Pandora's box. So you got to do
everything if you.

Speaker 10 (26:27):
Want to save democracy. I think you've got to do
all those things, because.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Hm, wow, that's the Democrat Party of twenty twenty five.

Speaker 10 (26:39):
But just of moving further and further away from being
anything closer to democracy.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Which is good because we're not a democracy. I hadn't
gotten to that point yet.

Speaker 10 (26:52):
I don't know if it's something that they should talk
about during the campaign. I guess you probably would want to,
because when.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
Those are the things you want to do, but you
want to be deceitful, I'm not sure you want to
talk about those things during the campaign. So don't really
tell the American public what we really want because they'll
reject it. They will have a visceral reaction that says,
oh no, no, no, we don't want that.

Speaker 10 (27:19):
But if you have a democratic House, a democratic senator,
and a democratic president, they should do that.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
On Day one, four more United.

Speaker 10 (27:28):
States senators, four more Supreme Court members, and some stringent
national legislation on how you can do Congress, they could
easily task a loss and you can only redistrict ONTs
every ten years. Yeah, I mean, what pre semitated consertates
a crisis with Disupreme courts say you can't expand to thirteen.

(27:53):
They say that's some impediment to adding two more states.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Sure, And what they do they don't.

Speaker 10 (28:02):
Just issue ruling on the shadowed dock it saying it's overturned.

Speaker 3 (28:08):
Right, you got to force a hand.

Speaker 11 (28:11):
Yeah, the shadow document is supposed to be the emergency document.
The only rule when there's an emergency the shadow document
now is emergencies or when Trump needs it.

Speaker 3 (28:23):
And that's what they've done. They don't give you a
reason anymore. Yeah, I mean, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Let me just pause from them. Do you know why
they use the emergency dockets so much? Because so many
rogue judges at the trial level are issuing all of
these conflicting opinions and opinions that are in direct violation
of the Constitution, and they don't want those stupid opinions
to linger out there affecting the Constitution until it can finally,

(28:55):
if ever get to them. That's why they do it,
And by the way, there's absolutely nothing unusual about that.

Speaker 4 (29:07):
Ask not what your country can do for you, but
what you can do for your country.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
A silly boy, Oh that was pretty naive. Ask instead
what you can get from your country. That's what you
need to do. That's what you can get from the
other taxpayers. Thinking about Carvil, that's really some good entertainment,
isn't it. In order to save democracy, as he puts it,

(29:34):
the Democrats have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and DC
as new states because that allows them to undemocratically rig
the US Senate. They have to unilatterally add four additional
justices to the undemocratically in order to undemocratically rig the
US Supreme Court. They have to unilaterally in the filibuster

(29:57):
so they can undemocratically rig the Senate process and end
minority protections in the US Senate. They have to unilaterally
redistrict the entire country and in vote federal control over
the elections, a power that is specifically granted and reserved
to the states, so that they can help Democrats undemocratically
rig the national elections. And then he's skeptical whether they

(30:20):
should even talk about wanting to do any of those
things during the upcoming twenty twenty eight midterms or election
up the midterms, because they are actually fearful that the
voters might reject them through the oh democratic process of
free and fair elections. No, I know you can't make

(30:40):
that stuff up, and don't try if you laugh at
this kind of losing his mind, old fart all you like,
and I started to do it myself, but understand that
all he is doing is preaching to a growing, increasingly
violent fire of soulless ghouls on the radical left who

(31:04):
hate you and would rather you were dead when we
winness the national national events each and every day, a
rising number of those solis ghouls who are only too
willing to make that happen to you and your loved ones. Now,
Carvel's not the only elderly star ghoul of the far
left out there in the public scaring children during Halloween's over.

(31:28):
They don't realize that they're still there trying to scareless,
scare everybody. Here's the real life incarnation of the Daradal
character from the Homeland series. The former CIA director John
Brennan caught on video three separate times over the last
week as he did everything he could to directly address

(31:51):
the crimes that he committed from twenty fifteen through twenty twenty. Anyway,
go ahead and start taking audience questions.

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Sound good? Why don't we start over here? It should
be on can you hear me? Okay?

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Good?

Speaker 9 (32:10):
First, I want to introduce myself. My name is Tom Speciali.
I've been a career intelligence officer for over twenty years
in the military for over thirty four years. I recently
left the D and I as a senior advisor for
Tulsa Gabbert on counterintelligence and security, and in fact I
made many of the suggestions on dismantling some of the

(32:32):
things that are being dismantled, and also made some suggestions
on improvements, which I'd love to talk to you guys
afterwards and get your feedback on, because hopefully it's going
to be going to some important desks very shortly. I
want to agree completely Director with your assessment on Iran
being on their heels. We've got to keep them on

(32:53):
their heels until they reform. We've got to do that.
I disagree on the deep state only because Trump says
it's the deep state, but as we all know it's
really just the entrenched bureaucrats that run the country.

Speaker 3 (33:05):
I'll get to my question.

Speaker 9 (33:06):
I will to please, but I want to establish sort
of my bona fides on this question before I ask it,
because I really hesitated to put you guys on the
spot on this in public. But if you're not going
to be at the after hours, I got to take
my chance.

Speaker 10 (33:21):
Now.

Speaker 9 (33:22):
I was at the d and I when the first
ICA was released regarding cyber influence on the twenty sixteen election.

Speaker 3 (33:33):
I was there.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
I was working in the NIM.

Speaker 3 (33:35):
I read it.

Speaker 9 (33:37):
I also was involved in setting up the Principal's Committee
meeting that took place in December that resulted in President
Obama directing a more fulsome because I understand the difference
between a cyber ICA and a total whole of government
ICA intelligence collection on Russian involvement or influence in the election.
And I noticed immediately in the ICA second ICA, because

(34:01):
I had access to the classified ICA, that there were
statements in that ICA that were not supported with the
sourcing that was associated to the ICA, specifically that president
that Putin had directed the action, and that Putin had
that the Russians were actively trying to support President Trump
instead of just so chaos.

Speaker 3 (34:22):
Question. My question.

Speaker 9 (34:24):
There was there was there was an email that went
around from General Clapper, from General Clapper to yourself and Hayden.
I'm sorry, not not Hayden, uh uh, you're yourself and Comy,
et cetera, that basically said, we all got to get
on board with this, otherwise it isn't going to work, basically,

(34:46):
and I think that email puts everybody in the crosshairs.

Speaker 3 (34:51):
I would like to hear what your.

Speaker 9 (34:52):
Justification was for supporting the dossa that was known to
be false being used as material in the second ICA.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
The ICA is the Intelligence Community assessment in which the
Steele dossier was included, knowing that it was based in
false intel. He's directed that question to John Brennan, former
director of the CIA. Yeah, pretty good, teased, wasn't it?
Wait to hear his answer next