June 6, 2025 • 17 mins
This recap unpacks an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience with Kash Patel, who discusses significant shifts in the FBI's priorities under a new administration, including a focus on combating fentanyl trafficking by targeting its source in mainland China. He highlights the agency's efforts to reallocate resources to address violent crime, terrorist threats, and child exploitation across the country, moving away from what he describes as politicised agendas that previously took precedence. Patel also touches on his experiences uncovering alleged government misconduct and disinformation campaigns related to issues like the Trump-Russia investigation and the handling of sensitive information. He emphasises a commitment to transparency and restoring public trust in the FBI by releasing previously withheld documents and pursuing investigations into past controversies.
---
We all love The Joe Rogan Experience and much prefer the real thing, but sometimes it's not possible to listen to an entire episode or you just want to recap an episode you've previously listened to. The Joe Rogan Recap uses Google's NotebookLM to create a conversational podcast that recaps episodes of JRE into a more manageable listen.
On that note, for those that would like it, here's the public access link to the Google Notebook to look at the mind map, timeline and briefing doc - https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/e4203240-d7b8-4421-b7b3-4e828641f2d0 - Please note, you must have a Google account to access.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Great to be here.
Today we are diving deep into the transcript of a pretty
significant recent conversation from The Joe Rogan Experience.
That's right. Our source material is coming
straight from someone who's wellrecently been placed in a major
leadership role within the FBIA.Very senior position.
Exactly. So the mission for this deep
(00:21):
dive is really to unpack the keyinsights, the claims, basically
what was shared from his, you know, unique perspective inside
the Bureau. Yeah, and it's a fascinating
look, isn't it, this conversation, It covers just a
huge range of national security,law enforcement challenges
facing the US right now, right? And it's giving us this view
from the inside, someone actually tasked with tackling
(00:43):
these things head on. Priorities, past actions,
current OPS, it's all in there. Straight from someone now high
up in the Bureau, it's definitely a perspective you
don't hear everyday. Definitely not worth exploring
for sure. So let's jump right in.
One of the first big points the source made was about a pretty
significant shift maybe in how the FBI operates.
(01:04):
And maybe surprisingly, he talked about a real kind of
appetite for change among the people actually working there.
What did he find coming into this new role?
Well, he described it as findingthe people inside the Bureau.
You know, agents, analysts, folks with decades of
experience, they were ready, even eager, he said, for changes
(01:25):
they felt were, frankly, long overdue.
Interesting. So not resistance, but
readiness. Exactly.
He mentioned them saying things like, dude, we wanted to do that
15 years ago. It suggests the desire was
already there, just maybe blocked.
Right. And his view of his own role
wasn't like I'm the hero coming in, but more about clearing
obstacles. You know, getting the hell out
(01:46):
of the way, as he put it, so theagents could do their jobs.
The implication being maybe pastleadership had been the
obstacles sometimes. OK.
And what was the most sort of striking example of a change he
was putting in place? Something they'd wanted for a
while. The big one he focused on was
workforce distribution, agent distribution.
So according to the source, he cited U.S. government statistics
showing that out of roughly 37,000 FBI employees like this,
(02:10):
about 11,000 were based in the National Capital Region.
Wow. 11,000 in the DC area. Yeah, almost a third of the
entire workforce. He really highlighted that
contrasting this huge concentration in one spot with,
you know, where crime is actually happening across the
rest of the country. And did the source claim there
was a specific reason for that heavy concentration why so many
(02:33):
people were there? Yes, he did.
He claimed the structure, the way things were set up,
essentially required agents to be based in DC if they wanted
promotions. To move up the ladder, you
typically had to cycle back through headquarters.
So it was baked into the career path according to.
Him. That was his assertion, yeah.
An incentive structure that pulled people into DC maybe,
regardless of where the operational need was greatest
(02:55):
out in the field. So what's the concrete step
being taken now to address that?What are they actually doing?
He stated pretty clearly they'reactively moving 1500 agents and
intelligence analysts out of theDC area. 1500, that's a
significant number. It is and moving them into field
offices nationwide. He really emphasized how long
agents had apparently wanted this.
(03:16):
And he talked about the potential impact, even one extra
agent fully focused on cases in the field, you know, potentially
preventing a homicide, a major drug bust, things that really
hit communities outside the Beltway.
And the agents reaction. He felt they were very positive
about this, Schiff eager to get out there and well do the job
they signed up for in the placesthat needed them.
(03:38):
Now, he also tied this, didn't he?
This DC concentration in focus. He linked it to what he saw as a
shift in priorities under the previous administration.
He did, yeah. This was a key claim.
He asserted that drug trafficking wasn't actually
classified as a tier one threat during that time.
Is that right? That's exactly what he claimed.
He argued that instead the priorities were placed on other
(03:59):
issues. He mentioned things like climate
change and diversity, equity andinclusion, and his argument was
that prioritizing those divertedlimited resources and buy
resources. He mainly meant people, agents
away from what he clearly believes are core FBI threats
like major drug trafficking operations.
So a misallocation of focus in his view.
(04:19):
He basically called it crazy in the context of FBI priorities.
Now, he did acknowledge these were broader government wide
priorities that influence resource allocation across
departments, not just the FBI, right?
But he felt this lack of specific FBI focus on something
like drug trafficking had real negative consequences down the
line. Which leads us, I guess,
(04:40):
directly into a crisis he talkedabout with just intense urgency.
Fentanyl. Oh.
Absolutely. He framed this as a massive
threat. And directly connected it, it
seems, to that alleged lack of focus you just mentioned.
He shared some really, really stark statistics from the source
material. He did.
He cited U.S. government stats showing over 100,000 people
dying every year from drug overdoses in the USA. 100,000 a
(05:02):
year. Yeah, which he broke it down.
It's about one death every 7 minutes.
Now, he acknowledged not all of those are fentanyl, obviously,
but he strongly connected that overall devastating number to
the fentanyl crisis being a primary driver.
Just staggering numbers. And what did the source identify
as the root cause? Where's this stuff coming from?
He was absolutely unequivocal onthis point, he stated.
(05:25):
The necessary ingredients, the precursors for making fentanyl,
they come from mainland China, supplied, he alleged by the CCP,
the Chinese Communist Party. OK.
So precursors from China? Yes, and he described these
alleged tactics. The CCP uses things like
providing the precursors while publicly denying they make
fentanyl itself, or changing which precursors they supply to
(05:48):
stay ahead of detection effort. And getting it here.
Facilitating these roundabout shipping routes, he claimed.
Sometimes going through India oreven setting up manufacturing
labs in Canada to sort of bypassUS interdiction efforts that
might be focused just on, say, the southern border.
And the motivation? Why would the CCP allegedly do
this, according to the source? What's the goal?
(06:08):
He framed it as a very deliberate long term strategy.
His words were to kneecap the United States.
He kept the US. That's strong language.
Very strong. His perspective was that by
contributing to the deaths of 10s of thousands of young
Americans every year, the CCP isessentially targeting future
generations, people who might serve in the military and
(06:30):
critical industries. You know, the future workforce.
He called it a dark, dark thing,but he seemed convinced it was a
directed play by the CCP. He even suggested it wasn't just
about profit from the precursor chemicals, but more about the
strategic damage to the US. And the way this drug actually
gets to the users, Yeah, the source described that as
particularly insidious, didn't he?
(06:52):
Absolutely disturbing. Yeah.
He highlighted the role of drug trafficking organizations, the
cartels, mainly using pill presses.
They make fake pills that look exactly like legitimate
pharmaceuticals. Fake Oxycontin, Adderall, Xanax,
whatever. So people don't even know what
they're taking. Exactly.
They're laced with deadly amounts.
It's a fentanyl. Someone thinks they're taking a
painkiller or something else andit kills them.
(07:13):
And even more horrifying, he mentioned reports cases where
illicit narcotics are being shaped or colored to look like
candy, gummy bears, things like that.
They target kids. Specifically targeting youth,
yes, he cited just tragic examples of high school kids
dying after taking one pill theythought was something harmless
they got from a friend. It's just.
(07:35):
A truly horrifying. So given all that, what's the
current approach? What is the FBI doing now to
combat this? According to the source, it
sounds like a multi pronged effort.
It is. He described it as an olive
government effort and an international one too.
It involves working closely withthe Treasury Department, for
instance, to put sanctions on those Chinese precursor
(07:55):
companies. Getting them financially.
Right. Also collaborating really
closely with the Five Eyes partners, that's US, Canada, the
UK, Australia, New Zealand, sharing intelligence,
coordinating operations. And beyond the Five Eyes.
Actively seeking cooperation, hesaid from the governments of
India and Mexico, asking them tohelp shut down precursor
shipments transiting their countries or manufacturing
(08:17):
operations being set up there. It's a global network, so the
response has to be global. And he seemed to tie the scale
of the current problem back to that earlier point.
He did. He reiterated his claim that a
lack of focused effort specifically on this for about
four years allowed the problem to metastasize to grow
significantly worse. You could really hear the
(08:37):
commitment in his voice though, when he talked about fighting
them. Oh absolutely.
He made it crystal clear this isa top priority now stated very
firmly, something like we are committed to stopping kids from
dying from fentanyl overdoses. And he mentioned a massive
operation underway globally to tackle it.
OK. Let's shift gears a bit, moving
to a different but also really significant challenge, the
(08:58):
source highlighted. He spent quite a bit of time on
what he sees as a pattern, a pattern of government processes,
even information itself being allegedly weaponized for
political purposes. Yes, this was a major theme.
He clearly views this as deeply damaging to public trust in
institutions. And where did he trace this back
(09:19):
to? He said essentially all roads
lead back to Russia gate. That was his framing.
OK. And how did he describe Russia
gate from his perspective as presented in the source?
Well, the core of it, as he laidit out, was this.
A political party allegedly funding foreign intelligence
gathering specifically to targeta political opponent's campaign,
then taking that questionable material and allegedly using it
(09:43):
in applications to the secret federal FISA court, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.
To do what? To get warrants to surveil
individuals associated with thatopponent's campaign, he claimed
there were deliberate lies told to the court and importantly,
omissions of exculpatory information, stuff that might
have weakened the case for surveillance.
So manipulating the system, he alleged.
(10:05):
He called it a coordinated conspiracy involving elements he
claimed of FBI leadership at thetime and parts of the
intelligence community. A very serious allegation.
Did he give specific examples beyond that broad framing to
illustrate this pattern, this alleged weaponization and
disinformation? He did focus on one example
quite heavily related to allegeddisinformation right before an
(10:26):
election. That was the Hunter Biden laptop
scenario. Yes.
What was his take on that? He highlighted the letter, you
remember, signed by 51 former senior intelligence officials,
the one claiming the laptop story, which emerged just weeks
before the 2020 election, had all the hallmarks of Russian
disinformation. I remember the letter right.
(10:47):
Well, he claimed that the FBI atthat very time knew the laptop
was real, not disinformation, and that it contained relevant
information and in fact was partof an active criminal
investigation they were conducting.
So the. SB-9 knew, but these officials
put out the letter. That was his claim.
He viewed that letter and its timing just before the vote as
intentional politicization, an effort he suggested designed
(11:10):
specifically to suppress the story and influence the election
outcome. It was happened since.
He noted with what sounded like quite a bit of frustration, that
even after the laptops authenticity was widely
confirmed, some of the signatories have reportedly
doubled down on their initial assessment refused to retract.
It and he seemed to connect these instances Russia gate the
(11:32):
laptop letter connect them back to that broader concern about
trust. Exactly.
His overall point, drawing from these examples presented in the
source, was that when governmentprocesses are perceived as being
weaponized, or when former intelligence officials
participate in what he alleges are disinformation campaigns,
especially when amplified by themedia, it just shreds public
(11:55):
trust. Is it hard to know what's real?
Precisely, it damages the credibility of the institutions
themselves, makes it harder for citizens for you to discern
truth from narrative on criticalissues.
And he sees that erosion of trust as a direct risk to
national security. Part of his stated mission, he
said, was to expose this patternto help prevent it from
happening again and start rebuilding that trust.
(12:16):
OK, that's a lot on the controversies.
Let's shift now to what the source discussed about the
current work, the priorities of the FBI today.
He did mention some positive trends they're seeing, didn't
he? Yes, he did bring up some
positive developments. He cited recent FBI statistics,
for example, indicating a prettysignificant drop in the murder
rate nationally. Oh really?
(12:37):
By how much? Down 20%, he said, and
potentially, he added, heading towards the lowest murder rate
in decades if the trend continues.
He seemed quite optimistic aboutthat, noting it happened within
his first 100 days or so in his current role.
That's a significant drop. What did he attribute that
improvement to? Well, his explanation was pretty
straightforward. He credited it to letting good
(13:00):
cops be cops. That was his phrase, meaning
providing resources, removing politicization, basically
getting out of the way and letting agents and police
officers do their jobs effectively.
His view seemed to be that the capability and the will are
there, they just needed the freedom and support.
Any examples? He did mention successfully
apprehending some high profile fugitives fairly quickly, like
(13:22):
the individual alleged to be theAbbey Gate bomber from the
Afghanistan withdrawal, framing it as an example of prioritizing
core law enforcement functions and allowing federal agents to
execute. He also addressed the border
issue, didn't he? Specifically, the entry of
individuals classified as known or suspected terrorists.
KS TS. That sounds like a major current
(13:43):
concern. Yes, he framed this as a
critical national security issue.
Now, his claim here was quite pointed.
He alleged that under the previous administration, KS TS
were allowed to enter the country.
He even cited claims he said from his predecessor about
dozens entering whose whereabouts became unknown.
Allowed to enter? That sounds serious.
It's a very serious claim, he stated.
(14:05):
The current focus now, alongsideother border operations, is
specifically targeting these individuals who have allegedly
already entered the homeland over the past few years.
Trying to find them. Now exactly viewing it as a
critical threat mitigation effort, he stressed it involves
close coordination with DHS and local law enforcement partners.
He tried to separate this specific KST threat from the
(14:26):
broader, often political debate about overall border policy,
focusing just on the national security implication of known or
suspected terrorists allegedly being inside the country.
OK. So looking across all these
different areas, fentanyl, crimerates, border threats, past
controversies, what were some ofthe key challenges he
highlighted? What makes tackling all this
(14:48):
difficult for the FBI today? Well, one huge challenge he
talked about is simply the speedand scale of misinformation, how
quickly narratives, true or false, can spread, especially on
social media. Right, the digital age problem.
Yeah, he noted how it can be fueled by coordinated efforts,
domestic or foreign, and how it can distract from real issues or
again, erode trust and institutions trying to address
(15:09):
those issues. And trust seem to be a recurring
theme for him. Definitely.
He explicitly acknowledged the significant challenge of
rebuilding public trust in the FBI itself.
Trust, he felt, was badly damaged by the actions, as he
put it, of a few leaders in the past.
How do you fix that? He believes transparency and
demonstrating results. You know, actually solving
(15:31):
crimes, neutralizing threats, holding people accountable is
the only way. But he recognizes it's a slow,
difficult process. It takes time to fix systemic
issues, build infrastructure andregain credibility.
It's not an overnight thing. So wrapping this up, this deep
dive into the source material, wow, it really gives you a lot
to consider, doesn't it it? Really does.
(15:52):
We've covered shifts in FBI operational focus, that intense
fight against the fentanyl crisis, different perspectives
on a huge controversies like Russia gate and the laptop, plus
current challenges like border security and foreign threats.
It's a massive landscape. Indeed, and the sources
perspective woven through all ofit really emphasized A
(16:12):
commitment back to what he sees as the core missions, you know,
protecting the homeland, aggressively tackling violent
crime, upholding the Constitution, and trying to
restore that public trust through transparency and
oversight. But acknowledging it takes time.
Absolutely. His view is very much that
achieving these goals requires sustained effort, methodical
(16:34):
work, no quick fixes. And thinking about everything
we've discussed, especially the sources, claims about past
politicization, the alleged weaponization of information and
these ongoing challenges with misinformation, it really does
raise a significant question foryou, the listener, as you
navigate the news and information landscape today.
Well, how do you verify what's being presented, particularly
(16:55):
when it comes to these really critical, often complex issues
impacting the entire country? How do you sort through the
noise, the competing narratives,to figure out what's actually
going on? That's a tough one, discerning
truth from narrative when the stakes are so high.
Definitely something to Mull over.
Something to think about until our next deep dive.
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Great to be here.
Today we are diving deep into the transcript of a pretty
significant recent conversation from The Joe Rogan Experience.
That's right. Our source material is coming
straight from someone who's wellrecently been placed in a major
leadership role within the FBIA.Very senior position.
Exactly. So the mission for this deep
(00:21):
dive is really to unpack the keyinsights, the claims, basically
what was shared from his, you know, unique perspective inside
the Bureau. Yeah, and it's a fascinating
look, isn't it, this conversation, It covers just a
huge range of national security,law enforcement challenges
facing the US right now, right? And it's giving us this view
from the inside, someone actually tasked with tackling
(00:43):
these things head on. Priorities, past actions,
current OPS, it's all in there. Straight from someone now high
up in the Bureau, it's definitely a perspective you
don't hear everyday. Definitely not worth exploring
for sure. So let's jump right in.
One of the first big points the source made was about a pretty
significant shift maybe in how the FBI operates.
(01:04):
And maybe surprisingly, he talked about a real kind of
appetite for change among the people actually working there.
What did he find coming into this new role?
Well, he described it as findingthe people inside the Bureau.
You know, agents, analysts, folks with decades of
experience, they were ready, even eager, he said, for changes
(01:25):
they felt were, frankly, long overdue.
Interesting. So not resistance, but
readiness. Exactly.
He mentioned them saying things like, dude, we wanted to do that
15 years ago. It suggests the desire was
already there, just maybe blocked.
Right. And his view of his own role
wasn't like I'm the hero coming in, but more about clearing
obstacles. You know, getting the hell out
(01:46):
of the way, as he put it, so theagents could do their jobs.
The implication being maybe pastleadership had been the
obstacles sometimes. OK.
And what was the most sort of striking example of a change he
was putting in place? Something they'd wanted for a
while. The big one he focused on was
workforce distribution, agent distribution.
So according to the source, he cited U.S. government statistics
showing that out of roughly 37,000 FBI employees like this,
(02:10):
about 11,000 were based in the National Capital Region.
Wow. 11,000 in the DC area. Yeah, almost a third of the
entire workforce. He really highlighted that
contrasting this huge concentration in one spot with,
you know, where crime is actually happening across the
rest of the country. And did the source claim there
was a specific reason for that heavy concentration why so many
(02:33):
people were there? Yes, he did.
He claimed the structure, the way things were set up,
essentially required agents to be based in DC if they wanted
promotions. To move up the ladder, you
typically had to cycle back through headquarters.
So it was baked into the career path according to.
Him. That was his assertion, yeah.
An incentive structure that pulled people into DC maybe,
regardless of where the operational need was greatest
(02:55):
out in the field. So what's the concrete step
being taken now to address that?What are they actually doing?
He stated pretty clearly they'reactively moving 1500 agents and
intelligence analysts out of theDC area. 1500, that's a
significant number. It is and moving them into field
offices nationwide. He really emphasized how long
agents had apparently wanted this.
(03:16):
And he talked about the potential impact, even one extra
agent fully focused on cases in the field, you know, potentially
preventing a homicide, a major drug bust, things that really
hit communities outside the Beltway.
And the agents reaction. He felt they were very positive
about this, Schiff eager to get out there and well do the job
they signed up for in the placesthat needed them.
(03:38):
Now, he also tied this, didn't he?
This DC concentration in focus. He linked it to what he saw as a
shift in priorities under the previous administration.
He did, yeah. This was a key claim.
He asserted that drug trafficking wasn't actually
classified as a tier one threat during that time.
Is that right? That's exactly what he claimed.
He argued that instead the priorities were placed on other
(03:59):
issues. He mentioned things like climate
change and diversity, equity andinclusion, and his argument was
that prioritizing those divertedlimited resources and buy
resources. He mainly meant people, agents
away from what he clearly believes are core FBI threats
like major drug trafficking operations.
So a misallocation of focus in his view.
(04:19):
He basically called it crazy in the context of FBI priorities.
Now, he did acknowledge these were broader government wide
priorities that influence resource allocation across
departments, not just the FBI, right?
But he felt this lack of specific FBI focus on something
like drug trafficking had real negative consequences down the
line. Which leads us, I guess,
(04:40):
directly into a crisis he talkedabout with just intense urgency.
Fentanyl. Oh.
Absolutely. He framed this as a massive
threat. And directly connected it, it
seems, to that alleged lack of focus you just mentioned.
He shared some really, really stark statistics from the source
material. He did.
He cited U.S. government stats showing over 100,000 people
dying every year from drug overdoses in the USA. 100,000 a
(05:02):
year. Yeah, which he broke it down.
It's about one death every 7 minutes.
Now, he acknowledged not all of those are fentanyl, obviously,
but he strongly connected that overall devastating number to
the fentanyl crisis being a primary driver.
Just staggering numbers. And what did the source identify
as the root cause? Where's this stuff coming from?
He was absolutely unequivocal onthis point, he stated.
(05:25):
The necessary ingredients, the precursors for making fentanyl,
they come from mainland China, supplied, he alleged by the CCP,
the Chinese Communist Party. OK.
So precursors from China? Yes, and he described these
alleged tactics. The CCP uses things like
providing the precursors while publicly denying they make
fentanyl itself, or changing which precursors they supply to
(05:48):
stay ahead of detection effort. And getting it here.
Facilitating these roundabout shipping routes, he claimed.
Sometimes going through India oreven setting up manufacturing
labs in Canada to sort of bypassUS interdiction efforts that
might be focused just on, say, the southern border.
And the motivation? Why would the CCP allegedly do
this, according to the source? What's the goal?
(06:08):
He framed it as a very deliberate long term strategy.
His words were to kneecap the United States.
He kept the US. That's strong language.
Very strong. His perspective was that by
contributing to the deaths of 10s of thousands of young
Americans every year, the CCP isessentially targeting future
generations, people who might serve in the military and
(06:30):
critical industries. You know, the future workforce.
He called it a dark, dark thing,but he seemed convinced it was a
directed play by the CCP. He even suggested it wasn't just
about profit from the precursor chemicals, but more about the
strategic damage to the US. And the way this drug actually
gets to the users, Yeah, the source described that as
particularly insidious, didn't he?
(06:52):
Absolutely disturbing. Yeah.
He highlighted the role of drug trafficking organizations, the
cartels, mainly using pill presses.
They make fake pills that look exactly like legitimate
pharmaceuticals. Fake Oxycontin, Adderall, Xanax,
whatever. So people don't even know what
they're taking. Exactly.
They're laced with deadly amounts.
It's a fentanyl. Someone thinks they're taking a
painkiller or something else andit kills them.
(07:13):
And even more horrifying, he mentioned reports cases where
illicit narcotics are being shaped or colored to look like
candy, gummy bears, things like that.
They target kids. Specifically targeting youth,
yes, he cited just tragic examples of high school kids
dying after taking one pill theythought was something harmless
they got from a friend. It's just.
(07:35):
A truly horrifying. So given all that, what's the
current approach? What is the FBI doing now to
combat this? According to the source, it
sounds like a multi pronged effort.
It is. He described it as an olive
government effort and an international one too.
It involves working closely withthe Treasury Department, for
instance, to put sanctions on those Chinese precursor
(07:55):
companies. Getting them financially.
Right. Also collaborating really
closely with the Five Eyes partners, that's US, Canada, the
UK, Australia, New Zealand, sharing intelligence,
coordinating operations. And beyond the Five Eyes.
Actively seeking cooperation, hesaid from the governments of
India and Mexico, asking them tohelp shut down precursor
shipments transiting their countries or manufacturing
(08:17):
operations being set up there. It's a global network, so the
response has to be global. And he seemed to tie the scale
of the current problem back to that earlier point.
He did. He reiterated his claim that a
lack of focused effort specifically on this for about
four years allowed the problem to metastasize to grow
significantly worse. You could really hear the
(08:37):
commitment in his voice though, when he talked about fighting
them. Oh absolutely.
He made it crystal clear this isa top priority now stated very
firmly, something like we are committed to stopping kids from
dying from fentanyl overdoses. And he mentioned a massive
operation underway globally to tackle it.
OK. Let's shift gears a bit, moving
to a different but also really significant challenge, the
(08:58):
source highlighted. He spent quite a bit of time on
what he sees as a pattern, a pattern of government processes,
even information itself being allegedly weaponized for
political purposes. Yes, this was a major theme.
He clearly views this as deeply damaging to public trust in
institutions. And where did he trace this back
(09:19):
to? He said essentially all roads
lead back to Russia gate. That was his framing.
OK. And how did he describe Russia
gate from his perspective as presented in the source?
Well, the core of it, as he laidit out, was this.
A political party allegedly funding foreign intelligence
gathering specifically to targeta political opponent's campaign,
then taking that questionable material and allegedly using it
(09:43):
in applications to the secret federal FISA court, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.
To do what? To get warrants to surveil
individuals associated with thatopponent's campaign, he claimed
there were deliberate lies told to the court and importantly,
omissions of exculpatory information, stuff that might
have weakened the case for surveillance.
So manipulating the system, he alleged.
(10:05):
He called it a coordinated conspiracy involving elements he
claimed of FBI leadership at thetime and parts of the
intelligence community. A very serious allegation.
Did he give specific examples beyond that broad framing to
illustrate this pattern, this alleged weaponization and
disinformation? He did focus on one example
quite heavily related to allegeddisinformation right before an
(10:26):
election. That was the Hunter Biden laptop
scenario. Yes.
What was his take on that? He highlighted the letter, you
remember, signed by 51 former senior intelligence officials,
the one claiming the laptop story, which emerged just weeks
before the 2020 election, had all the hallmarks of Russian
disinformation. I remember the letter right.
(10:47):
Well, he claimed that the FBI atthat very time knew the laptop
was real, not disinformation, and that it contained relevant
information and in fact was partof an active criminal
investigation they were conducting.
So the. SB-9 knew, but these officials
put out the letter. That was his claim.
He viewed that letter and its timing just before the vote as
intentional politicization, an effort he suggested designed
(11:10):
specifically to suppress the story and influence the election
outcome. It was happened since.
He noted with what sounded like quite a bit of frustration, that
even after the laptops authenticity was widely
confirmed, some of the signatories have reportedly
doubled down on their initial assessment refused to retract.
It and he seemed to connect these instances Russia gate the
(11:32):
laptop letter connect them back to that broader concern about
trust. Exactly.
His overall point, drawing from these examples presented in the
source, was that when governmentprocesses are perceived as being
weaponized, or when former intelligence officials
participate in what he alleges are disinformation campaigns,
especially when amplified by themedia, it just shreds public
(11:55):
trust. Is it hard to know what's real?
Precisely, it damages the credibility of the institutions
themselves, makes it harder for citizens for you to discern
truth from narrative on criticalissues.
And he sees that erosion of trust as a direct risk to
national security. Part of his stated mission, he
said, was to expose this patternto help prevent it from
happening again and start rebuilding that trust.
(12:16):
OK, that's a lot on the controversies.
Let's shift now to what the source discussed about the
current work, the priorities of the FBI today.
He did mention some positive trends they're seeing, didn't
he? Yes, he did bring up some
positive developments. He cited recent FBI statistics,
for example, indicating a prettysignificant drop in the murder
rate nationally. Oh really?
(12:37):
By how much? Down 20%, he said, and
potentially, he added, heading towards the lowest murder rate
in decades if the trend continues.
He seemed quite optimistic aboutthat, noting it happened within
his first 100 days or so in his current role.
That's a significant drop. What did he attribute that
improvement to? Well, his explanation was pretty
straightforward. He credited it to letting good
(13:00):
cops be cops. That was his phrase, meaning
providing resources, removing politicization, basically
getting out of the way and letting agents and police
officers do their jobs effectively.
His view seemed to be that the capability and the will are
there, they just needed the freedom and support.
Any examples? He did mention successfully
apprehending some high profile fugitives fairly quickly, like
(13:22):
the individual alleged to be theAbbey Gate bomber from the
Afghanistan withdrawal, framing it as an example of prioritizing
core law enforcement functions and allowing federal agents to
execute. He also addressed the border
issue, didn't he? Specifically, the entry of
individuals classified as known or suspected terrorists.
KS TS. That sounds like a major current
(13:43):
concern. Yes, he framed this as a
critical national security issue.
Now, his claim here was quite pointed.
He alleged that under the previous administration, KS TS
were allowed to enter the country.
He even cited claims he said from his predecessor about
dozens entering whose whereabouts became unknown.
Allowed to enter? That sounds serious.
It's a very serious claim, he stated.
(14:05):
The current focus now, alongsideother border operations, is
specifically targeting these individuals who have allegedly
already entered the homeland over the past few years.
Trying to find them. Now exactly viewing it as a
critical threat mitigation effort, he stressed it involves
close coordination with DHS and local law enforcement partners.
He tried to separate this specific KST threat from the
(14:26):
broader, often political debate about overall border policy,
focusing just on the national security implication of known or
suspected terrorists allegedly being inside the country.
OK. So looking across all these
different areas, fentanyl, crimerates, border threats, past
controversies, what were some ofthe key challenges he
highlighted? What makes tackling all this
(14:48):
difficult for the FBI today? Well, one huge challenge he
talked about is simply the speedand scale of misinformation, how
quickly narratives, true or false, can spread, especially on
social media. Right, the digital age problem.
Yeah, he noted how it can be fueled by coordinated efforts,
domestic or foreign, and how it can distract from real issues or
again, erode trust and institutions trying to address
(15:09):
those issues. And trust seem to be a recurring
theme for him. Definitely.
He explicitly acknowledged the significant challenge of
rebuilding public trust in the FBI itself.
Trust, he felt, was badly damaged by the actions, as he
put it, of a few leaders in the past.
How do you fix that? He believes transparency and
demonstrating results. You know, actually solving
(15:31):
crimes, neutralizing threats, holding people accountable is
the only way. But he recognizes it's a slow,
difficult process. It takes time to fix systemic
issues, build infrastructure andregain credibility.
It's not an overnight thing. So wrapping this up, this deep
dive into the source material, wow, it really gives you a lot
to consider, doesn't it it? Really does.
(15:52):
We've covered shifts in FBI operational focus, that intense
fight against the fentanyl crisis, different perspectives
on a huge controversies like Russia gate and the laptop, plus
current challenges like border security and foreign threats.
It's a massive landscape. Indeed, and the sources
perspective woven through all ofit really emphasized A
(16:12):
commitment back to what he sees as the core missions, you know,
protecting the homeland, aggressively tackling violent
crime, upholding the Constitution, and trying to
restore that public trust through transparency and
oversight. But acknowledging it takes time.
Absolutely. His view is very much that
achieving these goals requires sustained effort, methodical
(16:34):
work, no quick fixes. And thinking about everything
we've discussed, especially the sources, claims about past
politicization, the alleged weaponization of information and
these ongoing challenges with misinformation, it really does
raise a significant question foryou, the listener, as you
navigate the news and information landscape today.
Well, how do you verify what's being presented, particularly
(16:55):
when it comes to these really critical, often complex issues
impacting the entire country? How do you sort through the
noise, the competing narratives,to figure out what's actually
going on? That's a tough one, discerning
truth from narrative when the stakes are so high.
Definitely something to Mull over.
Something to think about until our next deep dive.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.