January 7, 2025 • 55 mins
What You’ll Hear in This Episode
- Open Border and Unfettered Terror Camps:
Reeve shares how a porous border combined with terror camps in Afghanistan could be laying the groundwork for a new wave of threats on U.S. soil. - Warnings from the Shawn Ryan Podcast:
We dive into the urgent cautions raised on the Shawn Ryan Podcast, discussing why these threats need to be taken more seriously nationwide. - Preparedness for 2025:
Reeve explains why he believes we are not ready for what could be coming in 2025—and the steps you can take to protect your family if these predictions become reality.
From expert insights on national security to practical tips for safeguarding your loved ones, this is one episode that every American should hear.
Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose
between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest thereis no such thing as a left or
right.
There's only an up or down.
This is the no Doubt About it.
Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No doubt about it Now your hosts.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Christy and Mark Runcate.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Christy and Mark Runcate.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay, reeve is wrestling with the microphone as
we start this show off.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Wow, I just told him you better get close to the mic.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, yeah, that's true, I'm trying to hey.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Yeah, no, no no, we'll get him going, he is well
known for being a distant micguy.
Speaker 5 (00:41):
We got to get him in tight.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
That's true, I fail you guys every time.
I'm working hard you are.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
You are Reeve Swainston joining us.
Former federal prosecutor,lives here in the Albuquerque
area, has seen the ins and outsof the federal judicial system,
all sorts of different expertise, and we're glad you're joining
us, reeve.
Thanks, happy to be here, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
No good to have you.
There's a lot to talk about.
Yeah, it just feels like it'sgetting like we covered a show
or covering a lot of the stuffthat's been happening, and it
feels like it gets gets crazier.
The second we put that show upthen it's like more
information's coming out.
It just feels like what's real,what's not real?
What do we need to be doing?
Is there a reason to bepanicking?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I mean honestly yeah, I think there's some real
concern here on a variety ofdifferent fronts.
We're going to talk, I think,the concern, obviously, with the
border and what's happened inthe terrorism issues, with what
happened in New Orleans, withwhat happened in Las Vegas, it
appears now there's no realconnection necessarily between
the two, but there's stillconcern on both fronts really.
And what do we do going forwardhere and kind of, where are we
(01:43):
in as far as where this countryis, with President Trump taking
over in about two weeks?
So this is going to be a veryconsequential time.
I think and there are plenty ofpeople that are sounding the
alarm that we have very realconcerns as far as danger goes
in this country with terror overthe next year and we're going
to play some of that sound foryou.
We want to get some of yourreaction on that as well.
(02:06):
And there's an issue now that ifyou're on Twitter, you may see
this.
It's this letter that was sent,or an email that was sent, from
the guy who effectively blewhimself up in front of Trump's
hotel in Las Vegas.
There's a claim from a formermilitary guy.
I guess we could say Is he anarmy guy?
(02:27):
Intelligence yeah, he says he'san intelligence analyst, right?
Okay, so he went on Sean Ryan'sshow, who's very interesting,
has a lot of interesting guests,wide-ranging stuff, former Navy
SEAL and they had a discussionwhere they talked about this
letter and the letter says avariety of things.
We'll get into what it says andwhether it's true or not true
(02:47):
or anything, we're going to kindof speculate a little bit on
that.
But we're really going to talkabout the more broad point here
of where are we with the dangerthat we face in this country
right now?
And people like Sean Ryan,people like Sarah Adams, who's a
very well-known formerintelligence official, worked
for the CIA.
She is sounding the alarm in amassive way.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Right and we played her a clip on the last show.
We did Just to try to you know,just because that was the first
time we were hearing of some ofthat, and so it's kind of
interesting to see more and moreis coming out.
I mean Sean Ryan's kind of theleader it feels like in some of
this.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
He is.
Yeah, he's broken some of itand like anything.
So we're in a new world, though, and you know this too.
Podcasts, podcasts, right, soyou get all this information on
podcasts.
The question becomes, andstarts to become, the vetting
process what's true, what isn'ttrue?
This is something that we'velost a lot of faith in.
The mainstream media that won'tcover certain things.
Right, all faith, yeah, right,and so now there are good and
(03:46):
bad parts of a process that isso disparate.
Right, you've got all thesedifferent people throwing stuff
at the wall.
Some of it turns out to be true, some of it may not be true.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
We don't know, and we also have a government that has
been very quiet abouteverything, and I'm like we
talked about this in the lastshow.
We still don't know what'sgoing on with the drones on the
East coast.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
I knew you were going to say the drones it's
ridiculous.
What's going on with the?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
drones.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
All right, so we all have friends in New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
We do all have friends in New.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Jersey.
But I mean, do you want to diveinto that first?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I mean, I know Okay, so let's, we're going to tie it
in, so let's do that.
Let's talk.
First of all, let's start withthis Matthew Livelsberger deal.
Okay, so he's the guy who wentand rented a Tesla cyber truck
in Colorado Springs.
Okay, he comes down throughRaton.
Stops in Las Vegas, new Mexico.
(04:34):
Stops in Albuquerque on NewYear's Eve.
Okay, to charge this thing.
By the way, I saw somebodymaking a joke, you know he
charged the thing like eighttimes on his way to Vegas.
So, he's like it must've justbeen nuts, so it takes him
forever to get there, but anywayhe gets to Vegas, the cruises
around Vegas We've got video ofhim doing this and then
(04:54):
eventually basically takes aseries of low end explosives and
fireworks and canisters andblows himself up in front of the
Trump Hotel.
Okay, so now what we now haveis a variety of things.
There are suicide notes, oreffectively what amounts to a
suicide note.
So Ella clip one.
This is a note that the LasVegas PD ended up releasing.
(05:19):
Okay, and as far as what itsays, it talks about a variety
of things, but he basically saysthat United States is
terminally ill and headed towardcollapse and goes through a
variety of different things thathe talks about.
And again he talks about thewar in Ukraine a little bit a
negotiated settlement there.
He says we must move on from aculture of weakness and
(05:41):
self-enrichment and perpetuatedby our senior and political
leaders, military leaders aswell.
So a fair amount of grievancein this letter, which you would
expect for someone who went anddid what he did.
But the question becomes thenso he issues this note.
There's another note that wason his phone, so a couple of
(06:02):
things like on your iPhone.
You have these notes, right,you can do notes on your iPhone.
So that's what he had on hisiPhone.
Well, at the same time that thiskind of comes out, there's
somebody else who steps up.
His name is Sam Shoemate, okay,and he's again we've mentioned
it a former intelligenceofficial who says hey, I got
(06:23):
what I believe is an email fromthe bomber right Livelsberger
before he did this, and he laysout some very interesting
information.
Ok, so what I want to startwith on this is is this
legitimately true?
Is it really an email from him?
And we don't totally know this.
(06:45):
So read.
I guess I want to ask you tokind of jump in here.
You, you watch the interviewand I'll play a little clip of
the Sean Ryan show when Samshoemate which was released on
Saturday, I believe, or onFriday, I believe it's released
on Friday where he talks aboutthis First of all, it was
yesterday.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yeah, it's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Friday, yep, right Friday yeah.
So, yeah, what is your first ofall?
You watched that interview.
You saw the document that hesays is this email.
What is your take on it?
Speaker 4 (07:12):
So let's break it down.
I think there's a couple ofoptions.
There might be more than acouple of options.
So one option is Shoemate.
He did express himself in sucha way that he was shocked, right
Surprised.
He said he was jaw-dropping tothe floor kind of situation.
(07:33):
He was just in complete andtotal dismay that he got this
letter or email from this personthat he seemed to think was
just one of you know one of manycrazy emails that he gets or he
says that he gets from somecrazy person and then, two days
later, the person that sent himthe email blew himself up in
(07:56):
front of the Trump.
Hotel in Las.
Vegas.
So did he receive an email fromthe man the Green Beret active
duty Green Beret or not?
If he did, then this isprofoundly important stuff.
It reveals a variety of thingsnot the least of which is a man
(08:22):
in a lot of pain, a warrior in alot of pain, but there's some
allegations online on Twitterand other spaces, youtube as
well, and I posted one includingsome pretty definitive
assertions that Shoemate mayhave made it up Right, and I
(08:44):
even posted that.
If that's the case, I thinkSean Ryan needs to find out.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Right, if this guy's legitimate and let's back up
just a second who is ShoemateLike?
Who is he?
Explain him a little bit, Do weknow?
Speaker 4 (08:55):
We don't.
I don't know much about him,other than he seems to be an
accomplished former Army intelanalyst, right, okay, so let's
take a.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
He seems to be an accomplished former Army intel
analyst.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Okay, so let's take a clip.
So, els, we're going to go toclip three here.
Let's take a little clip fromthis interview and he'll explain
a little bit of what's in thisemail and why this has to do
with the drones he does talkabout it in this email.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
He talks about the drones.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
So let's go ahead and just listen to this clip, Ella.
It's clip three.
Speaker 7 (09:24):
Read the email Yep.
Speaker 8 (09:26):
So this email came in on December 31st at 1042 am,
that is Tuesday.
He said.
In case I do not make it to mydecision point or onto the
Mexico border, I am sending thisnow.
Please do not release thisuntil 1 January and keep my
identity private until then.
First off, I'm not under duressor hostile influence or control
(09:48):
.
My first car was a 2006 blackFord Mustang V6.
For verification, what we havebeen seeing with drones he puts
that in quotes, he says is theoperational use of gravitic
propulsion systems poweredaircraft by, most recently,
china and the East Coast, butthroughout history, the US.
Only we in China have thiscapability.
(10:10):
Our OPSEN, that's OperationCenter, our OPSEN location for
this activity is in the boxbelow.
China has been launching themfrom the Atlantic, from
submarines for years, but thisactivity recently has picked up.
As of now.
It is just a show of force andthey are using it similar to how
they use the balloon for SIGINTand ISR, which are also part of
(10:31):
the integrated comm system.
There are dozens of thoseballoons in the air at any given
time.
The so what is?
Because of the speed andstealth of these unmanned
aircraft, they are the mostdangerous threat to national
security that has ever existed.
They basically have anunlimited payload capacity and
can park it over the White Houseif they wanted.
It's checkmate Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
So that's, you know who knows right.
But you start seeing onlinepeople are all saying you know,
no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
This is crazy, this isn't legit, the comments about
the drone aren't legit, or thisguy is not legit.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Well, a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
People are shooting holes in the fact that he would
have no way to know what's goingon with these drones they're
saying he didn't have theclearance necessary to know
about that kind of technology isone of the allegations.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, so, as you look at this, and the reason we tie
this in and we start talkingabout it here is because it be
and this is one of the caseswe've made a million times, and
that is that, with a lack ofinformation and a lack of true
honesty and forthright, you know, reaching the end of a of an
issue with our government,people fill these things in with
(11:42):
different conspiracy theories,and this, maybe this is a
conspiracy theory too, but hegoes on to talk about some, some
war crimes as well thatoccurred in Afghanistan.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
That's why it's important.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I mean, if he were, if this were just a green beret
who had five, just if this werea war fighter, had five combat
tours and had a mental healthbreakdown?
Terribly sad, also very common.
But things that this letterdisclosed or revealed inferred
(12:15):
that we committed war crimes and, as Sean Ryan did very
effectively, he was able tocorroborate some of the
allegations in that timeline.
That was asserted by the emailwriter, whoever that was.
That's a big deal, because wehave our own country that was
(12:39):
accused of war crimes at thattime denying it, and so that's
important.
It's the content of the emailthat's really at issue.
So if it's real, then thereshould be spinoff investigations
that result from that.
If it's not real, then there areother problems, and that has to
(13:03):
do with the integrity of theperson involved.
Whether a shoemate wrote it ornot, I don't know.
I would love to give them thebenefit of the doubt, but
there's a couple of really bigaccounts online right now
calling them out.
One is this YouTube account,ryan McBeth, who claims to have
(13:23):
caught him in prior lies, andthen you've got the.
Is it Matt Tardio?
Speaker 2 (13:30):
I think Is that his first name?
Yeah, I think so.
So when you look at this andlet's just jump into this,
because to me, the war crimesthing is a serious, serious
matter, clearly, and that'smentioned in this.
And the drone thing issomething we've talked a bunch
about and we've seen this videoof the drones, that that seems
that story seems to have justmagically disappeared again,
(13:52):
right.
Speaker 4 (13:53):
So drones, yeah, they just go away, they just go away
, just like they literally justgo away.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
They literally yeah.
And so when you look at thisand you see all of this kind of
stacking, with what?
With drones?
Speaker 4 (14:12):
With drones, with our security.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
I mean information.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I feel like it's lacking.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
And so that's why this is so disconcerting.
I think if people have morecommunication or filled in like,
hey, this is this, this is this, calm down, you don't need to
worry about it.
That's all people really needto hear.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Nobody says that, though, but nobody's saying that
.
No, in fact, I've never been.
The truth is, if people followme on Twitter, I've said this a
number of times over the lastyear, and I still feel this way.
I've never been more worriedabout my country than I am now.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
And so what's your biggest concern?
When you say that, what do youmean by that?
Speaker 4 (14:43):
It's the broad spectrum thing, right, it's a
little bit of everything.
The biggest, of course, is whatwe saw, what Sarah Adams
predicted for 2025.
On day one, two terror attacks.
If we're going to call the LasVegas attack a terror attack, I
think it meets the elements,notwithstanding his denial, but
(15:08):
the one in Louisiana, in NewOrleans, it clearly was an
Islamic jihadist, isis-motivatedterror attack and it took 14.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It took 14, but it impacted up to 80, is what I'm
hearing.
Dozens more, yeah, up to 80.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
It was a very effective Islamic jihadist,
isis-inspired terror attack.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Right, conservative, islamic jihadist, isis-inspired
terror attack Right.
And she's saying to recap onwhat if you didn't tune into our
last show?
What Sarah said was shebelieves at this point there's
what up to a thousand.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, yeah, actually, let's just do that.
Let's get into a little bit ofwhat she's saying and what she
believes is going on here, Kindof warning, and again explain
who she is.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Mark, a little bit.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
She's a former intelligence official as well.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
She's very well dialed in.
She's a targeter.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Yeah, she's a targeter, which is this is what
she does.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
That's like the NFL of intelligence officials.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
What do you mean?
She's a targeter.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Explain that she's the one that identifies the
whereabouts of the appropriatetargets for our special forces
operators, drone operators whathave you, people, that we take
out?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
She picks them.
Basically, she's a picker.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
She picks them and she finds them Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So let's listen to what she says about the type of
attack, and I think what's soscary about this is the case she
is making is we are not readyfor what's about to occur, and
this is what she says about it.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Walk up to a building with a suicide vest on the
United States.
Americans don't understand this.
Al Qaeda knows this right.
So this is new and innovative,especially now.
You don't have to walk upsideof the building, you can walk in
the building because of theadvancement of the vest.
The other thing is in theUnited States we haven't had
Fideian attackers.
Advancement of the vest.
The other thing is in theUnited States we haven't had
Fideian attackers.
So the concept is the terroristfights to the death.
So he's not exactly a suicidebomber, but he will fight till
(17:04):
either all of us are dead or allof his people are dead.
We think it's going to be aswarming attack, right, multiple
different attacks at one timeacross multiple cities.
We think there will be suicidebombers, just because some of
the attackers went throughsuicide bomber training and they
have these vests.
And then we think there's theseFideian attackers who will
carry on until they're killed.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
You just rephrase that.
So these guys are trained andthey are going to fight until
they're killed.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Yes, and that matters right.
So I was watching this videoand it was a suicide bombing in
Kabul years ago.
The bomber blew up and theneveryone starts moving in.
The first responders move inRight, and then another guy
walks in and blows up.
We know this is a tactic, butif Americans don't understand
this is a tactic and don'tunderstand these attackers are
going to fight to the death.
Think about that.
(17:43):
Battles going on, the attackersurrenders, he might have the
suicide vest.
You know we let our guard down.
That man came to die.
Right, he's going to fight tillhe dies or you die.
So we can't let her.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So you know, we played that for you last episode
too, and there's a couple morethat she has, but the fact is
that what she's warning is thatwe're just not prepared for
what's headed our way.
Does that sound like that's oneof your biggest fears, too?
Sure.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
It resonates with me.
That sounds like that's one ofyour biggest fears too.
Sure, it resonates with me.
One of the fears that she has,that she's expressed either in
that video or another podcast,was an October 7th massacre
style attack here in the UnitedStates.
And if that's one of the fighttill you die type of terrorist
(18:32):
attacks, the damage fromsomething like that is
cataclysmic.
I mean, imagine just a dozenISIS or Al-Qaeda terrorists,
fully equipped, many, you know,30 different, 30 round magazines
taking out a mall, a sportingevent, Marines taking out a mall
, a sporting event.
(18:53):
You name it mass casualty eventlike we've never seen before.
And then you add to that if shesays that we have 1,000, maybe
it's twice that in terms offighters that we have from ISIS
(19:14):
and al-Qaeda that are herebecause this last administration
decided to just let them comeon in.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Imagine 100 fighters, fully equipped.
So you spent a lot of time onthe federal side with the FBI,
knowing how they investigatethings.
What do you think they'retrying to do now, knowing that
you've looked into that world alittle bit?
If you're them, what do youthink they're trying to
accomplish right now to be ableto figure out how to handle this
?
Are they doing anything?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Not like they were after 9-11.
A lot of the training.
This is what I understand fromtalking to a lot of my agents
and hearing their frustration alot of the training that went
into the identifying kind oflike what she does, identifying
proper targets identifyingsuspicious types of
organizations.
(19:57):
Developing the kinds ofrelationships with mosques to
address Islamic jihadism orIslamic terrorists, jihadists
apparently hasn't been donesince the latter part of the
Mueller years, and that isbecause they're just kind of
(20:22):
gone woke, I guess, in manyrespects.
And then you saw the drift fromdealing with Islamic terrorism
into this myth that they triedto force feed us over the last
four years of white supremacy.
The intelligence analysts tellus now that white supremacy is
the greatest threat.
Schellenberger had a great posttoday on Twitter completely
debunking that, and so what theyshould be doing now is
(20:47):
relearning all of the thingsthat the agents had to learn
right after 9-11, because therewas a shift in the FBI after
9-11.
It was no longer about being acrime fighter.
Where a crime happened, youinvestigate it and then you get
a prosecutor who prosecutes itand that person who committed
the crime pays for that crimethrough the judicial process.
(21:09):
Completely different world now,at least after 9-11, for a good
dozen years.
And that is the prevention ofthese types of events.
How you prevent those types ofevents requires an enormous
amount of intelligence andinserting yourself into those
(21:29):
communities, developingresources, friends, confidential
sources, things like that, butnot only here.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
right, afghanistan plays into this too, doesn't it
100%?
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Well, of course it does because, just like Sarah
talks about, we're paying them$80 million a week directly to
the Taliban, the Taliban we'resending the.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Taliban money.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Supposedly under what the guys that were taking care
of widows Humanitarian,humanitarian aid or something.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
They claim they're fighting ISIS or fighting
al-Qaeda.
It's all junk.
They're all together.
The Taliban is al-Qaeda,al-qaeda is the Taliban, and
they're both ISIS.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
And the reason this matters is because these are
effectively training grounds forpeople that can end up coming
over here and doing what so manyof us feared that they could
For a good couple dozendifferent terrorist groups in
Afghanistan.
It is a terror mecca.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
And we are literally funding it.
We created it.
So not only did we create theopportunity for the Taliban to
become the terror entrepreneursof the world again, but we
finance it.
So we're providing materialsupport to terrorism.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
And then you and I, as taxpayers, and then we open
the border and this very realpossibility.
Some people that were trainedthere with our money are now
here.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
No, they're here.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
They're here.
And the thing is it's reallyfrightening that I don't think
people understand is when wepull out of Afghanistan and the
way that we did pull out ofAfghanistan, you know we were
supposed to you know Biden madeall these promises that he we
were still going to have eyesand ears over there, we were
still going to be payingattention, we were still going
to have our, you know, afoothold over there.
We were looking after the womenover there.
All all of that's gone.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, you mean there's no over the horizon?
We don't have this.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Let me give you an analogy on that.
So the Turo app is under somescrutiny right now, right, and
one of the complaints thatterror experts are talking about
is when you go, you're at theairport and you go rent a car,
you've got to see somebody.
You go and you give them yourdriver's license and your credit
card and you have aninteraction With this Turo app.
(23:31):
There's no interaction.
Okay, yeah, have an interactionwith this Turo app.
There's no interaction.
Okay, interactions like thisgive you a sense of what kind of
person that is.
Whether they're agitated,stressed, it might be something
else going on.
You know and you can inquireabout that.
Same thing with terrorinvestigations or any
investigation.
You want to get your eyes onthem.
You want to communicate withpeople.
You want to be able to insertyourself into that community.
(23:55):
We're gone.
We can't develop the kind ofintelligence human intelligence
that we were able to get, had weat least kept some kind of.
Bagram or some kind of presencethere, some kind of
counterterrorism presence there?
Speaker 2 (24:12):
So do you think then that, knowing where we are in
all of this, that most likelybecause you have, you know,
you're a Marine as well, so youlook at where this whole thing
is is are we going to have towhat's the solution here?
Go back in?
We're going to have to go backafter ISIS.
Who do you, who do you go afterin this situation, if we know
that ISIS has effectivelyreconstituted itself To some
(24:33):
degree?
We are funding what's happeningin Afghanistan to the degree
that we don't have any oversightover the money once it leaves
us.
So what do you do then?
If you're Trump and you look atthis, how are you going to pull
this and rein this back in?
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Trump annihilated ISIS in Syria and Iraq last time
he was in.
Well, you remember that phrase.
You know we go after them there, so we don't have to do it here
.
Unfortunately, I think we'reprobably going to have to be
doing both.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I mean going after them here and there.
In the clip that I heardyesterday and I don't know if we
have it or not, but the clipwhere Sarah talks about, you
know, these vests that areuntraceable, you can walk
through anything, you can walkthrough a metal detector, you
can get on an airplane with them, and she was warning schools
and saying schools in Americabetter start really wising up.
They're a real security threatat this point.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, it's a great point.
So let's go to clip eight.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
I think this could be Sean Ryan paraphrasing her, but
it's exactly what you'retalking about.
Let's just listen to clip eight, real quickly.
We've been warning about what'shappening for damn near a year
now.
Sarah first came on I believeit was October of 2023 was her
first interview and nobody tookit seriously.
Now we have the New Orleansattack, we have Iranian missiles
(25:56):
, we have these invisible bombs.
Do you know about the invisiblebombs?
So now these terroristorganizations have developed
invisible bombs that will getthrough metal detectors, any
kind of screening device that'sout there, and they brag about
this.
And now we just did a twitterspaces with sarah adams and they
(26:16):
are now bragging that.
That what we know about theinvisible bomb.
It's now even more advancedthan it was before, so that
means they can get this intostadiums, they can get this into
airports, they can get thispretty much anywhere they want,
because you cannot detect it.
That's scary.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Yeah, great.
So that gets back to your pointon schools.
Yeah, she talked about schools.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
The clip I heard about was she said you know, our
schools need to wise up ontheir security measures and be
looking at things like that,because we have some easy
targets and we're trying to lookout for every everyone kind of
attitude that Americansnaturally have, I think, kind of
a hospitality kind ofpersonality.
We also don't grow up withsuicide bombers, you know, in
(27:01):
the middle of a market, likethat's not our, that's not our
culture, and she's basicallysaying listen, we got to wise up
and wake up because these folksare coming after us and what do
you think they're going to do?
These driving things like whathappened in New Orleans, they've
been happening across Europebecause they cause great havoc
and a lot of damage in a reallyquick amount of time.
(27:21):
So I just think, you know, Ihope we're doing something and I
would love to hear if there's,you know, any news on the drones
, because that's a sidebar issue.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
I feel like there's no news on the drones.
There's just nothing.
Nothing Other than that theoryon the Littlesburger thing,
which we don't know.
If any of that's true, that'snot even news.
Yeah, no one's even talkingabout that.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
Nobody will talk about it, and that's why I'm
grateful for podcasts.
It's amazing what we're gettingfrom alternative media now.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Yeah, and let's talk about that because you mentioned
the point.
If there are a thousandfighters in this country right
now, people that are here to dous harm, as a prosecutor and as
an investigator who's been inthe middle of these things, if
there's going to be somecoordinated attack, do you think
we have the wherewithal to havesome ability to understand
(28:13):
what's happening before ithappens?
Or are you concerned that theycould do something?
You know October 7th size here.
If they're in the country rightnow, Do we not have any
tentacles into theircommunication to be able to know
what's happening?
It seems to me that's a biggroup.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
So the way we used to do it is we had relationships.
The FBI was really good atdeveloping relationships in the
communities like you just talkedabout.
So problem is, I don't thinkthey have the same kind of
source development, confidentialsource development that they
used to have.
But you don't plan that kind ofmassive attack without these
(28:53):
Right, massive attack withoutthese right.
So if we're able to use youknow this might be controversial
, but you know I am one of thoseprosecutors who sees the need
for the kind of electronicsurveillance that people
complain about it can be thatone tool that we can use to
prevent harm.
If that's how we're going to useit and let's say we just decide
(29:14):
, trump decides or the DOJdecides, we're not worried about
prosecution.
We need to prevent an October7th in this country we can deal
with some kind of prosecution if, for example, we I don't know
if it would ever happen this waydomestically, but if I were
calling the shots I would allowit.
(29:35):
And that is the unlawfulinterception of electronic and
wire communications, becauseonce we key in on one subject,
we'll get them all.
We'll get them all Anyonecommunicating once we have one.
I think it's just a given.
(29:59):
Take my word for it that we'llget them all.
If we miss one or two, so be it.
But if there's a vast plan, ifthere's an insidious plan to
execute, like she says, I keepbringing up the October 7th
because that's what I fear themost.
I fear that the most becauseit's such an easy thing to
(30:20):
execute and the response timefrom local law enforcement is
what it would be negligible.
I mean.
Imagine APD or the Sheriff'sDepartment trying to respond to
100 fighters On October 7th.
It was thousands of fightersRight, thousands of Hamas
(30:42):
fighters.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Well, and they said.
My understanding of that isthat they were really Israel was
really concentrating on otherareas outside, like they weren't
as focused on what they thoughtHamas was going to do.
I think they were, like, reallyplanning the Hezbollah attack.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Well, yeah, because Hezbollah is an adversary.
That more directly fits intoall the information in which
they gather.
They're a normal, and you sawhow deeply they penetrated
Hezbollah right they were theyknew exactly what Hezbollah was
doing, but Hamas was much moreof a rudimentary crude operation
(31:15):
, which is it's an intelligencefailure.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
I mean, I love Israel and I'm a big supporter of
Israel, but that is anintelligence failure the October
7th massacre was a failure onthe part of Israeli intelligence
.
It can never happen again and weneed to make sure it doesn't
happen here.
One of the ways to do it is, Iguarantee you, on the intel side
, not the law enforcement side,I'm talking CIA, nsa.
(31:41):
They already know who some keyfigures are.
Maybe get them to coordinatewith FBI in a more meaningful
way than they already do andstart hitting those phones.
That's what I would do.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
Now remind me remember the whole big law that
came out right after 9-11, wherewe had all the Patriot.
Act.
Speaker 5 (32:02):
The.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Patriot Act and all that?
Has that died out?
Are we still allowed to betapping phones and listening in
and all that?
Do you know where that stands?
Speaker 4 (32:08):
No, it keeps getting renewed and that's the big
controversial part about it, butit's a tool that works.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Right, because if you're tracking one word or two
words, it's, I mean I'm sorrySiri, word or two words.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I'm sorry Siri's listening to me anyway, trying
to sell me stuff no matter whatI'm doing, siri is a big spy.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Yeah, exactly, my phone just lit up.
Yeah, exactly right.
So they're listening to usanyway.
So I'm like.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
I mean, one side is look, I've got nothing to hide,
but the other side is we'reAmericans, we like our privacy
Right and you don't want to becaught up.
So there's two different kindsof wires.
I did many, many, many manyTitle III's, which is just a
normal wiretap of a criminalorganization, and only a handful
of FISA's, which is the foreignsurveillance.
(32:53):
You know, in the field we don'tdo a ton of those, do lots and
lots and lots of Title III's.
Um, now, the foreign side isyou can target somebody
domestically, but there has tobe.
There's a.
It's very complicated, butthere's a foreign.
It's attenuated through, youknow, foreign contacts.
So the person here might betalking to somebody in in um,
gaza or or uh, somebody withHezbollah or something like that
(33:16):
?
Um and then, uh, you know the.
There's also all sorts of legalissues involved with how you
manage a FISA versus a Title III, but we have the tools.
They do use these.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Everybody's using them.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
They're using them, and so setting aside the need to
send somebody to prison mightbe a way to get very, very
active on the intel side toprevent harm and you know, yeah,
no, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
It's just an idea, I mean it's, it's probably Patriot
Act and really yeah, what we'retalking about is the difference
here between trying to stop anattack and trying to put someone
in jail for a certain thing.
I understand Well, and alsolike money too.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
Money's got to be involved in all this.
I mean, all this costs money.
So it's like I was listening tothis.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
It's such a good point.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
You know I was listening to this.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Tracking money.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Tracking money and apparently there was a.
There's an organization thatwas in Texas that was funding
the guy I can't remember theguy's name Fort Hood when he
went and attacked.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Fort Hood.
But it took them, I think 18,but it took them, I think, 18
months to track that money backto that nonprofit organization
that was funding Hamas at thesame time in Texas, and this is
something over time they shouldhave a decent idea of the
infrastructure on.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
It's like the money, these guys are doing this.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
Well, don't?
We have to report $600 transferthat we send to our kids.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
now I mean seriously, I'm like they're on us, like
you know, white on rice withtaxes.
So I just think, if you've gotthis, obviously this takes a lot
of funding.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I think, yeah, to some degree, but but but not in
the.
In the broad sense it doesn't.
Though.
I mean, that's what makes thisso difficult is because it is so
disparate and it is so crude inmany ways, and that's what
makes it so dangerous it's thecar, thing, no it's the car
thing too right.
I you kill 80 people in Germany.
Why?
Because you just take a truckand go plowing through them.
It's the more crude they are,the more successful they are.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
It seems that way now .
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Because the more digital you go, the more we
track you.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
They love to run people down.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
That is their thing.
Yeah, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
So now, that everybody's freaking out, that's
listening to us and thinkingthat we're totally not safe.
I mean, honestly, there's gotto be more at work in CIA and
FBI and all the secret agenciesthat we all kind of don't know
anything about.
But we think that we do.
We hope, right, that they'reactually tracking these guys
like that.
We're not just big one, bigopen waiting target, correct.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
No, we're a big open waiting target.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
Oh good, you've really calmed us all down.
Jeez, here we go.
Okay, holy cow.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
But you know why that is.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
Because we've had a wide open border.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
There's no way to track it.
No.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
I think you guys and your audience might be able to
check this, but I did read.
I believe I read within thelast few hours.
There were some people arrestedin San Diego who trained in the
al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
Right.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
Holy.
What did they cross our border?
Speaker 4 (36:11):
And they crossed our border illegally.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Okay, so what do you recommend them?
If you're sitting at homeyou're listening to this going,
oh my gosh, what do you do?
What do you recommend forpeople Right now, if I said what
should I do?
What do we do about this?
Are there places you wouldavoid?
Are there things you wouldavoid?
Is there any advice you cangive?
Speaker 4 (36:35):
I'll give American advice.
You need to be armed in placesthat you can, in our state, get
your concealed carry permit.
Don't ever become an easytarget to these people.
So if somebody's coming at usin an October 7th type of attack
(36:56):
, all it would take is a fewarmed citizens to counteract
that while we're waiting for anofficial response.
But I am not willing, and Idon't think any American should
be eager, to change the way welive.
Head on a swivel right advice Iever got when I was a baby
(37:20):
prosecutor, 30 years ago or sowas.
I went to a gang conference andone of the officers talked
about how every time he stops ata stoplight, his head goes to
the left, to the right andrearview mirror.
Every single time, everystoplight, every stop sign, not
just looking for traffic, butwhat's going on on my left,
(37:40):
what's going on my right.
But the reality is we do haveto be more alert because of what
this last administration did tous.
Yeah, okay, even if what?
10%, 5% of those who crossedthe border have not just
terrorism on their mind, but thegangs that we're getting from
(38:00):
Venezuela and Colombia andelsewhere and even China.
there are some people here whowant to do us harm, and one of
the other things that'shappening now, even in our
community, are these homeinvasions all over the country
right now, typically Venezuelangangs.
(38:21):
You got to be ready for that.
Don't be a willing victim.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
in my opinion, Do you think our government doesn't
tell us as much just becausethey don't want to panic people?
I mean, like to me the dronething.
I thought from the beginningthat if this is something that
is not from us, they're notgoing to tell us that because
they don't want to like risepanic when actually, you know, I
don't know, is that wrong?
I mean, I think about theChinese balloon that just you
(38:47):
know, went across our countryand we're like, yeah, we should
shoot that down.
Yeah, we should shoot that down.
Oh, let's not.
Well, we will.
Eventually, let's let it crossall the way across the United
States before we take that thingout.
So I look at these drones andI'm like, why are we not taking
these things down?
Like there must be a reason.
This is just my rational, likethis is the way I think.
Speaker 4 (39:07):
One of the sheriffs that tried to at least put their
drones up to check it out.
It took off so fast theycouldn't drive it.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
They couldn't get it Exactly.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
So I don't know the answer to that.
I probably subscribe to theSean Ryan advice on the
government and we don't trustanything they say anymore, right
, wow, um, so yeah, I, I, thedrones are a mystery.
But, uh, when you start havingpeople tell you I mean, some of
them are probably aircraft themisidentifications are happening
, no doubt about it.
(39:35):
But there's also a realityhappening and that is that there
are unidentified objects in thesky, yeah, and our government
isn't telling us what they are.
I have assumed from thebeginning it's ours, right?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
right, I would have thought too.
You know, that's kind of what Iwas thinking, and it's a
classified operation of somekind, right?
Speaker 4 (39:53):
and then you saw the other theory that, uh, they
might be um looking for anuclear material, material of
some kind?
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to sense that or whatever
it is.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
If they can sense it.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
Okay, okay.
So going back to this guy inVegas, right, cause somebody
brought up one of our guests orone of our viewers brought up
the fact that they thoughtthere's no way this was really a
terrorist attack, because thisguy knew ammunitions, he was
obviously military, he picked acar that he knew would not hurt
other people if it exploded, butyet he didn't go and privately
(40:26):
commit suicide.
He wanted to make a scene, hewanted to raise the alarm bell,
so to speak, and he did it in away of not really wanting to
hurt other people.
Now I don't necessarily agreewith that, because I think you
blew up a car Like you didn'treally know exactly what was
going to go down, right, and ifsomebody would happen to be
walking by, I mean he wasalready dead.
So like he shot himself andthen, however many time ticked
(40:48):
by before that car detonated,you know.
But it's an interesting theorythat was this guy just trying to
get attention for whatinformation he knew that he was
like, hey, I'm not going to justgo and kill myself.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
I need to do this and get your attention to wake up
and pay, let me.
Let me ask you one thing onthat, though, because I I'm
worried now what we're dealingwith here, now that we've kind
of seen that potentially the guythat was on Sean Ryan's podcast
maybe that's true, maybe itisn't you know.
You have the other letters thatthat that the Vegas PD has put
out, and you start to look atall this and go are we looking
at a psyop here?
Yeah, I don't know I don't know.
(41:25):
Who knows?
what he said and what's reallytrue and what isn't.
Speaker 4 (41:28):
Right, so are the notes in his phone.
So the notes in his phone aredifferent than the letter.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Very different style.
They're written in a verydifferent style.
Okay, explain that.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
What's the difference ?
But also different content.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
Yeah, oh very good Explain that.
Yeah, so the letter here.
I would go ahead and throw upthat letter.
So this is off his phone, okay,yeah, and so he discusses a
variety of issues here In more.
Some of it's political, some ofit's you know, and it's your
garden variety, sort of.
Our government's going to hellin a handbasket.
Ok, now the letter that theytalked about on the Ryan podcast
(42:03):
is this letter this isgovernment secrets.
Yeah, Like this is hey, wecommitted war crimes.
Hey, by the way, those areChinese drones.
And so this is two totally itseems like it's two totally
different people.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
And what did the Vegas police share the notes on
the guy's phone, or something?
Speaker 2 (42:20):
They shared the notes on the guy's phone.
Police share the notes on theguy's phone or they shared the
notes on the guy's phone.
However, ella let.
Speaking of them, let's go toclip two.
The fbi was asked was the emailthat was sent to shoemake?
Was that from?
From the email, the differentemail talking about the, the uh,
the chinese drones?
(42:40):
And everything else is thatfrom him?
Speaker 6 (42:43):
listen to what law enforcement in vegas says about
this yeah, so, in terms of theso-called manifesto that's
circling or circulating online,uh, we have strong evidence to
suggest that it was, uh, thesubject that wrote it, but we
haven't conclusively proven thatyet.
That evidence relates to otherevidence that we're finding,
that we're able to compare thatlead us to believe it was, in
(43:06):
fact, him who sent it.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
So they're saying wait a minute, it may be true.
Speaker 3 (43:10):
And I guess I don't understand why it's in again.
Maybe this guy's a big liarthat got on Sean Ryan and this,
this intelligence officer, but Iguess I don't get what, why he
would do this and then be.
Is he still?
Is he still currently anintelligence?
Speaker 2 (43:24):
officer.
No, no, no, no, no, okay somaybe he's got a.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
I don't know.
Is he clout chasing or whatever?
Yeah, I don't know.
Maybe he's trying to like makea name for himself.
I'm not really sure, right, butI just think you wouldn't tell
you wouldn't?
As somebody who protectedgovernment secrets, it'd be odd,
I think, to me to get a letterthat's revealing government
secrets and then you're outthere sharing those even if
you're retired.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
But a lot of his information has been more
critical, so it's hard to sayOkay.
Speaker 4 (43:50):
I just find it interesting that the letters do
not link together At all.
They just don't.
No they don't.
On this day he complained aboutthis, and on this day, the very
next day, he complained aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
Yeah and yeah, totally different subject matter
.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
There's no continuity , none From the former.
Speaker 3 (44:07):
But what we've learned really is he's not
really a terrorist, he's notreally a homegrown terrorist?
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Oh no, no, no, Not at all.
He's a war fighter.
Not at all.
Speaker 4 (44:15):
The act itself was.
It may not be an act of terrorfrom a legal definition, but it
terrorized.
Right and there were a goodhalf a dozen injured.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Right.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no very true, and thankfully it
wasn't worse, I guess because ofthe truck.
Whether he intended that or not, I really don't know.
But I mean he had tanks ofgasoline in the vehicle.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I mean, the thing blew up pretty significantly,
not just fireworks.
Speaker 3 (44:41):
There were tanks of gasoline in there, yeah, so I
think he wanted to do moredamage.
No, doubt.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
But.
But the question becomes what?
What is this?
And the reality is we may neverknow.
Right, I mean the reality ifwe're going off past.
You know, performance from fromintelligence.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
we're never, we're not going to know.
I mean, they're not telling uswho, the guy that tried to shoot
Trump initially, the guy thatfired.
We know nothing about that guyZero.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Okay, let's do a couple more things to get you
out of here.
We don't want to belabor.
I appreciate your time, and soa couple other quick things.
Albuquerque, where we are rightnow I don't know if you've seen
, I know you keep an eye onthings and what's going on here
with crime and with what'shappening on our streets.
There are plenty of people outthere who say what do we do?
So from a guy in yourperspective, what do we do to
(45:29):
get crime under control in thiscity?
Speaker 4 (45:32):
The same thing that I would tell you a thousand times
over, and I've told you before,is we've got to get extremely
aggressive with two things.
One we got to deal with that nobail situation.
Right.
If you're a violent offender,you should be presumed to be
detained.
Your detention should be apresumption of detention if
you're a violent offender,meaning you stay in jail while
(45:53):
you wait for your trial.
Unfortunately, we're justconstantly releasing the same
offenders over and over and overagain, which then bleeds to the
other issue.
I'm sorry, I had pneumonia, somy voice is kind of gone.
The other issue is what no bailhas created in our city and
(46:15):
that's this crisis of repeatviolent offenders.
The recidivism in this state,not just Albuquerque is
cataclysmic.
So how do you deal with that?
You use the federal government,through the FBI, dea, etc.
All of the agencies that canaddress those types of offenses,
and you target that demographicso aggressively that it creates
(46:40):
a natural response that fromyour aggressive law enforcement
activities it will hopefullycreate a situation in the city
where repeat violent offenders,if they're out, decide to go
elsewhere, right.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, you make it uncomfortable for them.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
You got to make crime illegal again.
Is what I'm saying?
Yep, okay, and you thinkfederal.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
We need federal help to do that.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
We do now?
Oh, because the hammer is somuch bigger, right.
Speaker 4 (47:09):
It can be bigger.
But not just that there is apresumption of detention in
federal court for violentoffenses.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
Do we have enough prosecutors?
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:19):
We do yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (47:20):
I don't think that's an issue.
Okay, now we may need more,excuse me.
We may need more moving forward, because I think this next
administration, with theno-tolerance policies that it's
going to bring from the federalside, there's going to be many,
many, many more cases in federalcourt, especially immigration
(47:42):
cases.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
Well, in talking about that, what is your take on
what you see?
We played a lot of sound fromHomans saying look, we're going
to come in, we're going first,after the criminals.
If you're advising the Trumpadministration saying, how do
you handle the first six monthsof the new administration, who
are you going after and how areyou doing it in a way that you
(48:04):
not only will do what needs tobe done, but you're going to
keep public support while you'redoing it?
Speaker 4 (48:07):
That's fairly easy because there's generally public
support for targeting those whohurt other people, right?
I don't think there will be anyissue with that.
So if they're going, afterpeople, you know, criminal
aliens essentially who havecommitted any variety of crime,
but they're specializing, if youwill, on violent crime, drug
(48:29):
trafficking, firearms offenses,gang activity, things like that.
Nobody's going to have aproblem with that.
And you set up task forces,multi-agency task forces, to go
after them and you getaggressive with that task forces
to go after them.
And, and you get aggressivewith that, okay, the um, the
other thing that, uh, you dothen is you can layer it down to
to the less violent offenses,um, and then get a task force to
(48:52):
go after them, because goingafter violent offenders is
itself very, very dangerous well, and that's, and that's
important too.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
If you have city cooperation whatever city that
is, if they allow you to go intothe jails, it's a lot easier to
do it there than in thecommunity.
Speaker 4 (49:07):
They're not, these cities, these so-called
sanctuary cities are not lettingthem do it.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
And they've already come out and so they're not
going to help with the Trumpadministration of this.
So that is terrifying to me.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
What will happen and it has happened is not only are
agents' lives at risk as aconsequence of that, somebody is
going to get hurt, maybe, evenworse, innocent people that are
in the community, so it could bepeople in the community, it
could be the agents, it could bethe defendant himself, yep,
which is completely avoidable byjust allowing them to come into
(49:38):
the prison and walk them out.
Yep, be done, yeah, thecoordination.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
part of this is so easy and it's so nakedly
political and put so many otherpeople at danger.
Anybody who advocates for thesesort of things should be
ashamed, and they really should.
So I want to play one morepiece of sound, then we'll get
everybody's kind of predictionon where we go, since we're, you
know, kind of new year showhere.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
This has been a bit of a downer.
Watch yourself, look out forinvisible bombs yourself, yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:07):
So speaking of that, and I'm not going to pick the
mood up with this particular onebut uh so this is one other
little clip from from the SeanRyan show where he talks about
what's coming our way this yearand what you could do.
It's clip nine this year andwhat you could do.
Speaker 7 (50:25):
It's clip nine.
So what I basically want to sayis it's going to be a bloody
2025.
I think that's very obvious.
And so, for those of you thatare looking for something to do,
and and if, if, if finally cometo the realization that our
government is failing us, here'swhat you need to do you need to
get with your local communities.
(50:45):
You need to especially schools.
Schools are very vulnerable, nomatter how many active shooters
we have in the schools, theinfrastructure that's been put
in, which is minimal to none alot of schools still have none.
You better start holding yourschools accountable and you
(51:06):
better start raising hell andhaving them upgrade security, no
matter what the cost, becauseno matter what the cost is, it's
not going to amount to the lossof life that we will
potentially see throughout theUnited States.
And so, and start calling yourcongressmen, get these guys to
(51:27):
do something.
Start calling your senators.
Get these guys to do something.
They have been warned for overa year that this is coming and
nobody wants to take itseriously.
Nobody wants to take itseriously.
Speaker 2 (51:42):
Sorry this is a downer, but I just kind of feel
like we got to have thesediscussions.
Speaker 3 (51:48):
Well, I mean on a state level.
We're getting ready to go intoa January session where
supposedly crime is going to beon the docket, right.
So again, you know, just on astatewide level, can we not push
back on to our statelegislature to actually pass
bills that will fight crime andkeep criminals behind bars.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
I mean no question, it has to be done on that level.
And then federal level.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
I mean, you've got some of these guys that I think
are going to start trying to runfor governor or other things
and I'm like well, let's.
Are you doing us any favors?
But with what you're voting forto start with, are you
protecting citizens to startwith?
That's my takeaway from thatclip.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
Yeah well, I mean clearly not.
I mean we've seen thelegislature has been.
I mean, hopefully thegovernor's woken up to this
point.
The legislature still has not.
I mean that's just a fact, andso they seem to have very little
interest in toughening our lawsand doing the things necessary
to keep people safe.
I've seen no indication fromthem that that's going to change
.
Speaker 4 (52:42):
There's been some who have tried, but Bill Rehm,
right, oh sure, absolutely.
Look, republicans will do it.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Yeah, republicans will do it, but you have some of
the far left that will not, forwhatever reason.
They won't, and even whenthey're when they're a governor
of their own party stands up andsays let's get this done, their
answer is no.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
The bills are too complicated, we're not going to
do it.
Speaker 2 (53:03):
I'm like I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (53:05):
It's too hard, people .
Speaker 2 (53:06):
Yeah, it's ridiculous .
Speaker 3 (53:08):
Let's hope for let's hope for some some pushback.
Maybe there's a Democrat outthere that wants to come on our
show.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
That's in the state legislature.
That's going to fight six, Ithink.
Speaker 3 (53:20):
It would be great if they could build their influence
.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
They know who they are.
I don't want to wreck theirpolitical career by mentioning
them, because me mentioning themas a good political actor will
hurt their career.
But I will tell you, there arefive or six, and some of them
are up north and some of themare not.
But you have some ruralDemocrats as well that are good
on this stuff.
Democrats as well that are goodon this stuff.
(53:44):
But you've got a core of thesepeople, like in Albuquerque and
Santa Fe and Cruces, where theyare absolutely derelict in their
duties and they've hurt people.
Because of it.
We're now the most violentstate in the country.
Speaker 3 (53:55):
So Albuquerque is the 23rd most violent city in the
world In the world, in the worldthat just came out.
Speaker 4 (54:01):
Well, here's the reality.
If communities become safe whenyou remove the people
responsible for that communitybeing not safe from the
community, it's really verysimple and the process isn't
difficult.
It can be done at both thestate and the federal side, and
it should be done.
Hopefully we'll be playing somesmash mouth crime enforcement
(54:23):
here in the near future.
Trump has a huge opportunity.
Speaker 2 (54:27):
He does Huge opportunity.
He really does, Cause he's gotthe support of people.
If he can do it in a way thatis, you know, effective and
targeted, it will be it will bean opportunity.
Speaker 4 (54:36):
Being a victim of crime whether it be getting your
windshield smashed and thestuff in your car stolen,
everyone's of crime.
Yeah, whether it be gettingyour windshield smashed and the
stuff in your car stolen,everyone's sick of it.
Speaker 2 (54:45):
Yep no, you're across the board.
Yep no, here it is okay, we'vethanks, so the next big issue.
Uh, we'll, uh, we'll bring itback in, and you know that we
need to do like a.
You do like a fun show.
Yeah, like one of these sunriseshows this one's a pretty tough
one this one's middle of thenight, like hey man, hey man,
it's scary out there.
So but we appreciate yourhonesty and your take head on a
swivel.
All right, that's very, verytrue.
We'll see you back here.
(55:06):
Uh, this show is out and thenwe'll be back with you on Sunday
, so we look forward to that.
Speaker 1 (55:12):
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook, at noDoubt About it.
Podcast.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it Podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (55:36):
There is no doubt about it.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose
between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest thereis no such thing as a left or
right.
There's only an up or down.
This is the no Doubt About it.
Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
No doubt about it Now your hosts.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Christy and Mark Runcate.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Christy and Mark Runcate.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay, reeve is wrestling with the microphone as
we start this show off.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Wow, I just told him you better get close to the mic.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, yeah, that's true, I'm trying to hey.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Yeah, no, no no, we'll get him going, he is well
known for being a distant micguy.
Speaker 5 (00:41):
We got to get him in tight.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
That's true, I fail you guys every time.
I'm working hard you are.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
You are Reeve Swainston joining us.
Former federal prosecutor,lives here in the Albuquerque
area, has seen the ins and outsof the federal judicial system,
all sorts of different expertise, and we're glad you're joining
us, reeve.
Thanks, happy to be here, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
No good to have you.
There's a lot to talk about.
Yeah, it just feels like it'sgetting like we covered a show
or covering a lot of the stuffthat's been happening, and it
feels like it gets gets crazier.
The second we put that show upthen it's like more
information's coming out.
It just feels like what's real,what's not real?
What do we need to be doing?
Is there a reason to bepanicking?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I mean honestly yeah, I think there's some real
concern here on a variety ofdifferent fronts.
We're going to talk, I think,the concern, obviously, with the
border and what's happened inthe terrorism issues, with what
happened in New Orleans, withwhat happened in Las Vegas, it
appears now there's no realconnection necessarily between
the two, but there's stillconcern on both fronts really.
And what do we do going forwardhere and kind of, where are we
(01:43):
in as far as where this countryis, with President Trump taking
over in about two weeks?
So this is going to be a veryconsequential time.
I think and there are plenty ofpeople that are sounding the
alarm that we have very realconcerns as far as danger goes
in this country with terror overthe next year and we're going
to play some of that sound foryou.
We want to get some of yourreaction on that as well.
(02:06):
And there's an issue now that ifyou're on Twitter, you may see
this.
It's this letter that was sent,or an email that was sent, from
the guy who effectively blewhimself up in front of Trump's
hotel in Las Vegas.
There's a claim from a formermilitary guy.
I guess we could say Is he anarmy guy?
(02:27):
Intelligence yeah, he says he'san intelligence analyst, right?
Okay, so he went on Sean Ryan'sshow, who's very interesting,
has a lot of interesting guests,wide-ranging stuff, former Navy
SEAL and they had a discussionwhere they talked about this
letter and the letter says avariety of things.
We'll get into what it says andwhether it's true or not true
(02:47):
or anything, we're going to kindof speculate a little bit on
that.
But we're really going to talkabout the more broad point here
of where are we with the dangerthat we face in this country
right now?
And people like Sean Ryan,people like Sarah Adams, who's a
very well-known formerintelligence official, worked
for the CIA.
She is sounding the alarm in amassive way.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Right and we played her a clip on the last show.
We did Just to try to you know,just because that was the first
time we were hearing of some ofthat, and so it's kind of
interesting to see more and moreis coming out.
I mean Sean Ryan's kind of theleader it feels like in some of
this.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
He is.
Yeah, he's broken some of itand like anything.
So we're in a new world, though, and you know this too.
Podcasts, podcasts, right, soyou get all this information on
podcasts.
The question becomes, andstarts to become, the vetting
process what's true, what isn'ttrue?
This is something that we'velost a lot of faith in.
The mainstream media that won'tcover certain things.
Right, all faith, yeah, right,and so now there are good and
(03:46):
bad parts of a process that isso disparate.
Right, you've got all thesedifferent people throwing stuff
at the wall.
Some of it turns out to be true, some of it may not be true.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
We don't know, and we also have a government that has
been very quiet abouteverything, and I'm like we
talked about this in the lastshow.
We still don't know what'sgoing on with the drones on the
East coast.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
I knew you were going to say the drones it's
ridiculous.
What's going on with the?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
drones.
Speaker 4 (04:07):
All right, so we all have friends in New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 4 (04:10):
We do all have friends in New.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Jersey.
But I mean, do you want to diveinto that first?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I mean, I know Okay, so let's, we're going to tie it
in, so let's do that.
Let's talk.
First of all, let's start withthis Matthew Livelsberger deal.
Okay, so he's the guy who wentand rented a Tesla cyber truck
in Colorado Springs.
Okay, he comes down throughRaton.
Stops in Las Vegas, new Mexico.
(04:34):
Stops in Albuquerque on NewYear's Eve.
Okay, to charge this thing.
By the way, I saw somebodymaking a joke, you know he
charged the thing like eighttimes on his way to Vegas.
So, he's like it must've justbeen nuts, so it takes him
forever to get there, but anywayhe gets to Vegas, the cruises
around Vegas We've got video ofhim doing this and then
(04:54):
eventually basically takes aseries of low end explosives and
fireworks and canisters andblows himself up in front of the
Trump Hotel.
Okay, so now what we now haveis a variety of things.
There are suicide notes, oreffectively what amounts to a
suicide note.
So Ella clip one.
This is a note that the LasVegas PD ended up releasing.
(05:19):
Okay, and as far as what itsays, it talks about a variety
of things, but he basically saysthat United States is
terminally ill and headed towardcollapse and goes through a
variety of different things thathe talks about.
And again he talks about thewar in Ukraine a little bit a
negotiated settlement there.
He says we must move on from aculture of weakness and
(05:41):
self-enrichment and perpetuatedby our senior and political
leaders, military leaders aswell.
So a fair amount of grievancein this letter, which you would
expect for someone who went anddid what he did.
But the question becomes thenso he issues this note.
There's another note that wason his phone, so a couple of
(06:02):
things like on your iPhone.
You have these notes, right,you can do notes on your iPhone.
So that's what he had on hisiPhone.
Well, at the same time that thiskind of comes out, there's
somebody else who steps up.
His name is Sam Shoemate, okay,and he's again we've mentioned
it a former intelligenceofficial who says hey, I got
(06:23):
what I believe is an email fromthe bomber right Livelsberger
before he did this, and he laysout some very interesting
information.
Ok, so what I want to startwith on this is is this
legitimately true?
Is it really an email from him?
And we don't totally know this.
(06:45):
So read.
I guess I want to ask you tokind of jump in here.
You, you watch the interviewand I'll play a little clip of
the Sean Ryan show when Samshoemate which was released on
Saturday, I believe, or onFriday, I believe it's released
on Friday where he talks aboutthis First of all, it was
yesterday.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yeah, it's.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Friday, yep, right Friday yeah.
So, yeah, what is your first ofall?
You watched that interview.
You saw the document that hesays is this email.
What is your take on it?
Speaker 4 (07:12):
So let's break it down.
I think there's a couple ofoptions.
There might be more than acouple of options.
So one option is Shoemate.
He did express himself in sucha way that he was shocked, right
Surprised.
He said he was jaw-dropping tothe floor kind of situation.
(07:33):
He was just in complete andtotal dismay that he got this
letter or email from this personthat he seemed to think was
just one of you know one of manycrazy emails that he gets or he
says that he gets from somecrazy person and then, two days
later, the person that sent himthe email blew himself up in
(07:56):
front of the Trump.
Hotel in Las.
Vegas.
So did he receive an email fromthe man the Green Beret active
duty Green Beret or not?
If he did, then this isprofoundly important stuff.
It reveals a variety of thingsnot the least of which is a man
(08:22):
in a lot of pain, a warrior in alot of pain, but there's some
allegations online on Twitterand other spaces, youtube as
well, and I posted one includingsome pretty definitive
assertions that Shoemate mayhave made it up Right, and I
(08:44):
even posted that.
If that's the case, I thinkSean Ryan needs to find out.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Right, if this guy's legitimate and let's back up
just a second who is ShoemateLike?
Who is he?
Explain him a little bit, Do weknow?
Speaker 4 (08:55):
We don't.
I don't know much about him,other than he seems to be an
accomplished former Army intelanalyst, right, okay, so let's
take a.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
He seems to be an accomplished former Army intel
analyst.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Okay, so let's take a clip.
So, els, we're going to go toclip three here.
Let's take a little clip fromthis interview and he'll explain
a little bit of what's in thisemail and why this has to do
with the drones he does talkabout it in this email.
Speaker 7 (09:18):
He talks about the drones.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
So let's go ahead and just listen to this clip, Ella.
It's clip three.
Speaker 7 (09:24):
Read the email Yep.
Speaker 8 (09:26):
So this email came in on December 31st at 1042 am,
that is Tuesday.
He said.
In case I do not make it to mydecision point or onto the
Mexico border, I am sending thisnow.
Please do not release thisuntil 1 January and keep my
identity private until then.
First off, I'm not under duressor hostile influence or control
(09:48):
.
My first car was a 2006 blackFord Mustang V6.
For verification, what we havebeen seeing with drones he puts
that in quotes, he says is theoperational use of gravitic
propulsion systems poweredaircraft by, most recently,
china and the East Coast, butthroughout history, the US.
Only we in China have thiscapability.
(10:10):
Our OPSEN, that's OperationCenter, our OPSEN location for
this activity is in the boxbelow.
China has been launching themfrom the Atlantic, from
submarines for years, but thisactivity recently has picked up.
As of now.
It is just a show of force andthey are using it similar to how
they use the balloon for SIGINTand ISR, which are also part of
(10:31):
the integrated comm system.
There are dozens of thoseballoons in the air at any given
time.
The so what is?
Because of the speed andstealth of these unmanned
aircraft, they are the mostdangerous threat to national
security that has ever existed.
They basically have anunlimited payload capacity and
can park it over the White Houseif they wanted.
It's checkmate Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
So that's, you know who knows right.
But you start seeing onlinepeople are all saying you know,
no, no, no.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
This is crazy, this isn't legit, the comments about
the drone aren't legit, or thisguy is not legit.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Well, a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
People are shooting holes in the fact that he would
have no way to know what's goingon with these drones they're
saying he didn't have theclearance necessary to know
about that kind of technology isone of the allegations.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, so, as you look at this, and the reason we tie
this in and we start talkingabout it here is because it be
and this is one of the caseswe've made a million times, and
that is that, with a lack ofinformation and a lack of true
honesty and forthright, you know, reaching the end of a of an
issue with our government,people fill these things in with
(11:42):
different conspiracy theories,and this, maybe this is a
conspiracy theory too, but hegoes on to talk about some, some
war crimes as well thatoccurred in Afghanistan.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
That's why it's important.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I mean, if he were, if this were just a green beret
who had five, just if this werea war fighter, had five combat
tours and had a mental healthbreakdown?
Terribly sad, also very common.
But things that this letterdisclosed or revealed inferred
(12:15):
that we committed war crimes and, as Sean Ryan did very
effectively, he was able tocorroborate some of the
allegations in that timeline.
That was asserted by the emailwriter, whoever that was.
That's a big deal, because wehave our own country that was
(12:39):
accused of war crimes at thattime denying it, and so that's
important.
It's the content of the emailthat's really at issue.
So if it's real, then thereshould be spinoff investigations
that result from that.
If it's not real, then there areother problems, and that has to
(13:03):
do with the integrity of theperson involved.
Whether a shoemate wrote it ornot, I don't know.
I would love to give them thebenefit of the doubt, but
there's a couple of really bigaccounts online right now
calling them out.
One is this YouTube account,ryan McBeth, who claims to have
(13:23):
caught him in prior lies, andthen you've got the.
Is it Matt Tardio?
Speaker 2 (13:30):
I think Is that his first name?
Yeah, I think so.
So when you look at this andlet's just jump into this,
because to me, the war crimesthing is a serious, serious
matter, clearly, and that'smentioned in this.
And the drone thing issomething we've talked a bunch
about and we've seen this videoof the drones, that that seems
that story seems to have justmagically disappeared again,
(13:52):
right.
Speaker 4 (13:53):
So drones, yeah, they just go away, they just go away
, just like they literally justgo away.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
They literally yeah.
And so when you look at thisand you see all of this kind of
stacking, with what?
With drones?
Speaker 4 (14:12):
With drones, with our security.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
I mean information.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
I feel like it's lacking.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
And so that's why this is so disconcerting.
I think if people have morecommunication or filled in like,
hey, this is this, this is this, calm down, you don't need to
worry about it.
That's all people really needto hear.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Nobody says that, though, but nobody's saying that
.
No, in fact, I've never been.
The truth is, if people followme on Twitter, I've said this a
number of times over the lastyear, and I still feel this way.
I've never been more worriedabout my country than I am now.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
And so what's your biggest concern?
When you say that, what do youmean by that?
Speaker 4 (14:43):
It's the broad spectrum thing, right, it's a
little bit of everything.
The biggest, of course, is whatwe saw, what Sarah Adams
predicted for 2025.
On day one, two terror attacks.
If we're going to call the LasVegas attack a terror attack, I
think it meets the elements,notwithstanding his denial, but
(15:08):
the one in Louisiana, in NewOrleans, it clearly was an
Islamic jihadist, isis-motivatedterror attack and it took 14.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It took 14, but it impacted up to 80, is what I'm
hearing.
Dozens more, yeah, up to 80.
Speaker 4 (15:27):
It was a very effective Islamic jihadist,
isis-inspired terror attack.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
Right, conservative, islamic jihadist, isis-inspired
terror attack Right.
And she's saying to recap onwhat if you didn't tune into our
last show?
What Sarah said was shebelieves at this point there's
what up to a thousand.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, yeah, actually, let's just do that.
Let's get into a little bit ofwhat she's saying and what she
believes is going on here, Kindof warning, and again explain
who she is.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Mark, a little bit.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
She's a former intelligence official as well.
Speaker 4 (15:55):
She's very well dialed in.
She's a targeter.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Yeah, she's a targeter, which is this is what
she does.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
That's like the NFL of intelligence officials.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
What do you mean?
She's a targeter.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Explain that she's the one that identifies the
whereabouts of the appropriatetargets for our special forces
operators, drone operators whathave you, people, that we take
out?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
She picks them.
Basically, she's a picker.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
She picks them and she finds them Okay.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So let's listen to what she says about the type of
attack, and I think what's soscary about this is the case she
is making is we are not readyfor what's about to occur, and
this is what she says about it.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Walk up to a building with a suicide vest on the
United States.
Americans don't understand this.
Al Qaeda knows this right.
So this is new and innovative,especially now.
You don't have to walk upsideof the building, you can walk in
the building because of theadvancement of the vest.
The other thing is in theUnited States we haven't had
Fideian attackers.
Advancement of the vest.
The other thing is in theUnited States we haven't had
Fideian attackers.
So the concept is the terroristfights to the death.
So he's not exactly a suicidebomber, but he will fight till
(17:04):
either all of us are dead or allof his people are dead.
We think it's going to be aswarming attack, right, multiple
different attacks at one timeacross multiple cities.
We think there will be suicidebombers, just because some of
the attackers went throughsuicide bomber training and they
have these vests.
And then we think there's theseFideian attackers who will
carry on until they're killed.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
You just rephrase that.
So these guys are trained andthey are going to fight until
they're killed.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
Yes, and that matters right.
So I was watching this videoand it was a suicide bombing in
Kabul years ago.
The bomber blew up and theneveryone starts moving in.
The first responders move inRight, and then another guy
walks in and blows up.
We know this is a tactic, butif Americans don't understand
this is a tactic and don'tunderstand these attackers are
going to fight to the death.
Think about that.
(17:43):
Battles going on, the attackersurrenders, he might have the
suicide vest.
You know we let our guard down.
That man came to die.
Right, he's going to fight tillhe dies or you die.
So we can't let her.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
So you know, we played that for you last episode
too, and there's a couple morethat she has, but the fact is
that what she's warning is thatwe're just not prepared for
what's headed our way.
Does that sound like that's oneof your biggest fears, too?
Sure.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
It resonates with me.
That sounds like that's one ofyour biggest fears too.
Sure, it resonates with me.
One of the fears that she has,that she's expressed either in
that video or another podcast,was an October 7th massacre
style attack here in the UnitedStates.
And if that's one of the fighttill you die type of terrorist
(18:32):
attacks, the damage fromsomething like that is
cataclysmic.
I mean, imagine just a dozenISIS or Al-Qaeda terrorists,
fully equipped, many, you know,30 different, 30 round magazines
taking out a mall, a sportingevent, Marines taking out a mall
, a sporting event.
(18:53):
You name it mass casualty eventlike we've never seen before.
And then you add to that if shesays that we have 1,000, maybe
it's twice that in terms offighters that we have from ISIS
(19:14):
and al-Qaeda that are herebecause this last administration
decided to just let them comeon in.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Imagine 100 fighters, fully equipped.
So you spent a lot of time onthe federal side with the FBI,
knowing how they investigatethings.
What do you think they'retrying to do now, knowing that
you've looked into that world alittle bit?
If you're them, what do youthink they're trying to
accomplish right now to be ableto figure out how to handle this
?
Are they doing anything?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Not like they were after 9-11.
A lot of the training.
This is what I understand fromtalking to a lot of my agents
and hearing their frustration alot of the training that went
into the identifying kind oflike what she does, identifying
proper targets identifyingsuspicious types of
organizations.
(19:57):
Developing the kinds ofrelationships with mosques to
address Islamic jihadism orIslamic terrorists, jihadists
apparently hasn't been donesince the latter part of the
Mueller years, and that isbecause they're just kind of
(20:22):
gone woke, I guess, in manyrespects.
And then you saw the drift fromdealing with Islamic terrorism
into this myth that they triedto force feed us over the last
four years of white supremacy.
The intelligence analysts tellus now that white supremacy is
the greatest threat.
Schellenberger had a great posttoday on Twitter completely
debunking that, and so what theyshould be doing now is
(20:47):
relearning all of the thingsthat the agents had to learn
right after 9-11, because therewas a shift in the FBI after
9-11.
It was no longer about being acrime fighter.
Where a crime happened, youinvestigate it and then you get
a prosecutor who prosecutes itand that person who committed
the crime pays for that crimethrough the judicial process.
(21:09):
Completely different world now,at least after 9-11, for a good
dozen years.
And that is the prevention ofthese types of events.
How you prevent those types ofevents requires an enormous
amount of intelligence andinserting yourself into those
(21:29):
communities, developingresources, friends, confidential
sources, things like that, butnot only here.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
right, afghanistan plays into this too, doesn't it
100%?
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Well, of course it does because, just like Sarah
talks about, we're paying them$80 million a week directly to
the Taliban, the Taliban we'resending the.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Taliban money.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Supposedly under what the guys that were taking care
of widows Humanitarian,humanitarian aid or something.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
They claim they're fighting ISIS or fighting
al-Qaeda.
It's all junk.
They're all together.
The Taliban is al-Qaeda,al-qaeda is the Taliban, and
they're both ISIS.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
And the reason this matters is because these are
effectively training grounds forpeople that can end up coming
over here and doing what so manyof us feared that they could
For a good couple dozendifferent terrorist groups in
Afghanistan.
It is a terror mecca.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
And we are literally funding it.
We created it.
So not only did we create theopportunity for the Taliban to
become the terror entrepreneursof the world again, but we
finance it.
So we're providing materialsupport to terrorism.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
And then you and I, as taxpayers, and then we open
the border and this very realpossibility.
Some people that were trainedthere with our money are now
here.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
No, they're here.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
They're here.
And the thing is it's reallyfrightening that I don't think
people understand is when wepull out of Afghanistan and the
way that we did pull out ofAfghanistan, you know we were
supposed to you know Biden madeall these promises that he we
were still going to have eyesand ears over there, we were
still going to be payingattention, we were still going
to have our, you know, afoothold over there.
We were looking after the womenover there.
All all of that's gone.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, you mean there's no over the horizon?
We don't have this.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Let me give you an analogy on that.
So the Turo app is under somescrutiny right now, right, and
one of the complaints thatterror experts are talking about
is when you go, you're at theairport and you go rent a car,
you've got to see somebody.
You go and you give them yourdriver's license and your credit
card and you have aninteraction With this Turo app.
(23:31):
There's no interaction.
Okay, yeah, have an interactionwith this Turo app.
There's no interaction.
Okay, interactions like thisgive you a sense of what kind of
person that is.
Whether they're agitated,stressed, it might be something
else going on.
You know and you can inquireabout that.
Same thing with terrorinvestigations or any
investigation.
You want to get your eyes onthem.
You want to communicate withpeople.
You want to be able to insertyourself into that community.
(23:55):
We're gone.
We can't develop the kind ofintelligence human intelligence
that we were able to get, had weat least kept some kind of.
Bagram or some kind of presencethere, some kind of
counterterrorism presence there?
Speaker 2 (24:12):
So do you think then that, knowing where we are in
all of this, that most likelybecause you have, you know,
you're a Marine as well, so youlook at where this whole thing
is is are we going to have towhat's the solution here?
Go back in?
We're going to have to go backafter ISIS.
Who do you, who do you go afterin this situation, if we know
that ISIS has effectivelyreconstituted itself To some
(24:33):
degree?
We are funding what's happeningin Afghanistan to the degree
that we don't have any oversightover the money once it leaves
us.
So what do you do then?
If you're Trump and you look atthis, how are you going to pull
this and rein this back in?
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Trump annihilated ISIS in Syria and Iraq last time
he was in.
Well, you remember that phrase.
You know we go after them there, so we don't have to do it here
.
Unfortunately, I think we'reprobably going to have to be
doing both.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I mean going after them here and there.
In the clip that I heardyesterday and I don't know if we
have it or not, but the clipwhere Sarah talks about, you
know, these vests that areuntraceable, you can walk
through anything, you can walkthrough a metal detector, you
can get on an airplane with them, and she was warning schools
and saying schools in Americabetter start really wising up.
They're a real security threatat this point.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Yeah, it's a great point.
So let's go to clip eight.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
I think this could be Sean Ryan paraphrasing her, but
it's exactly what you'retalking about.
Let's just listen to clip eight, real quickly.
We've been warning about what'shappening for damn near a year
now.
Sarah first came on I believeit was October of 2023 was her
first interview and nobody tookit seriously.
Now we have the New Orleansattack, we have Iranian missiles
(25:56):
, we have these invisible bombs.
Do you know about the invisiblebombs?
So now these terroristorganizations have developed
invisible bombs that will getthrough metal detectors, any
kind of screening device that'sout there, and they brag about
this.
And now we just did a twitterspaces with sarah adams and they
(26:16):
are now bragging that.
That what we know about theinvisible bomb.
It's now even more advancedthan it was before, so that
means they can get this intostadiums, they can get this into
airports, they can get thispretty much anywhere they want,
because you cannot detect it.
That's scary.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Yeah, great.
So that gets back to your pointon schools.
Yeah, she talked about schools.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
The clip I heard about was she said you know, our
schools need to wise up ontheir security measures and be
looking at things like that,because we have some easy
targets and we're trying to lookout for every everyone kind of
attitude that Americansnaturally have, I think, kind of
a hospitality kind ofpersonality.
We also don't grow up withsuicide bombers, you know, in
(27:01):
the middle of a market, likethat's not our, that's not our
culture, and she's basicallysaying listen, we got to wise up
and wake up because these folksare coming after us and what do
you think they're going to do?
These driving things like whathappened in New Orleans, they've
been happening across Europebecause they cause great havoc
and a lot of damage in a reallyquick amount of time.
(27:21):
So I just think, you know, Ihope we're doing something and I
would love to hear if there's,you know, any news on the drones
, because that's a sidebar issue.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
I feel like there's no news on the drones.
There's just nothing.
Nothing Other than that theoryon the Littlesburger thing,
which we don't know.
If any of that's true, that'snot even news.
Yeah, no one's even talkingabout that.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
Nobody will talk about it, and that's why I'm
grateful for podcasts.
It's amazing what we're gettingfrom alternative media now.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
Yeah, and let's talk about that because you mentioned
the point.
If there are a thousandfighters in this country right
now, people that are here to dous harm, as a prosecutor and as
an investigator who's been inthe middle of these things, if
there's going to be somecoordinated attack, do you think
we have the wherewithal to havesome ability to understand
(28:13):
what's happening before ithappens?
Or are you concerned that theycould do something?
You know October 7th size here.
If they're in the country rightnow, Do we not have any
tentacles into theircommunication to be able to know
what's happening?
It seems to me that's a biggroup.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
So the way we used to do it is we had relationships.
The FBI was really good atdeveloping relationships in the
communities like you just talkedabout.
So problem is, I don't thinkthey have the same kind of
source development, confidentialsource development that they
used to have.
But you don't plan that kind ofmassive attack without these
(28:53):
Right, massive attack withoutthese right.
So if we're able to use youknow this might be controversial
, but you know I am one of thoseprosecutors who sees the need
for the kind of electronicsurveillance that people
complain about it can be thatone tool that we can use to
prevent harm.
If that's how we're going to useit and let's say we just decide
(29:14):
, trump decides or the DOJdecides, we're not worried about
prosecution.
We need to prevent an October7th in this country we can deal
with some kind of prosecution if, for example, we I don't know
if it would ever happen this waydomestically, but if I were
calling the shots I would allowit.
(29:35):
And that is the unlawfulinterception of electronic and
wire communications, becauseonce we key in on one subject,
we'll get them all.
We'll get them all Anyonecommunicating once we have one.
I think it's just a given.
(29:59):
Take my word for it that we'llget them all.
If we miss one or two, so be it.
But if there's a vast plan, ifthere's an insidious plan to
execute, like she says, I keepbringing up the October 7th
because that's what I fear themost.
I fear that the most becauseit's such an easy thing to
(30:20):
execute and the response timefrom local law enforcement is
what it would be negligible.
I mean.
Imagine APD or the Sheriff'sDepartment trying to respond to
100 fighters On October 7th.
It was thousands of fightersRight, thousands of Hamas
(30:42):
fighters.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
Well, and they said.
My understanding of that isthat they were really Israel was
really concentrating on otherareas outside, like they weren't
as focused on what they thoughtHamas was going to do.
I think they were, like, reallyplanning the Hezbollah attack.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Well, yeah, because Hezbollah is an adversary.
That more directly fits intoall the information in which
they gather.
They're a normal, and you sawhow deeply they penetrated
Hezbollah right they were theyknew exactly what Hezbollah was
doing, but Hamas was much moreof a rudimentary crude operation
(31:15):
, which is it's an intelligencefailure.
Speaker 4 (31:18):
I mean, I love Israel and I'm a big supporter of
Israel, but that is anintelligence failure the October
7th massacre was a failure onthe part of Israeli intelligence
.
It can never happen again and weneed to make sure it doesn't
happen here.
One of the ways to do it is, Iguarantee you, on the intel side
, not the law enforcement side,I'm talking CIA, nsa.
(31:41):
They already know who some keyfigures are.
Maybe get them to coordinatewith FBI in a more meaningful
way than they already do andstart hitting those phones.
That's what I would do.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
Now remind me remember the whole big law that
came out right after 9-11, wherewe had all the Patriot.
Act.
Speaker 5 (32:02):
The.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Patriot Act and all that?
Has that died out?
Are we still allowed to betapping phones and listening in
and all that?
Do you know where that stands?
Speaker 4 (32:08):
No, it keeps getting renewed and that's the big
controversial part about it, butit's a tool that works.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Right, because if you're tracking one word or two
words, it's, I mean I'm sorrySiri, word or two words.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I'm sorry Siri's listening to me anyway, trying
to sell me stuff no matter whatI'm doing, siri is a big spy.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Yeah, exactly, my phone just lit up.
Yeah, exactly right.
So they're listening to usanyway.
So I'm like.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
I mean, one side is look, I've got nothing to hide,
but the other side is we'reAmericans, we like our privacy
Right and you don't want to becaught up.
So there's two different kindsof wires.
I did many, many, many manyTitle III's, which is just a
normal wiretap of a criminalorganization, and only a handful
of FISA's, which is the foreignsurveillance.
(32:53):
You know, in the field we don'tdo a ton of those, do lots and
lots and lots of Title III's.
Um, now, the foreign side isyou can target somebody
domestically, but there has tobe.
There's a.
It's very complicated, butthere's a foreign.
It's attenuated through, youknow, foreign contacts.
So the person here might betalking to somebody in in um,
gaza or or uh, somebody withHezbollah or something like that
(33:16):
?
Um and then, uh, you know the.
There's also all sorts of legalissues involved with how you
manage a FISA versus a Title III, but we have the tools.
They do use these.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Everybody's using them.
Speaker 4 (33:32):
They're using them, and so setting aside the need to
send somebody to prison mightbe a way to get very, very
active on the intel side toprevent harm and you know, yeah,
no, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
It's just an idea, I mean it's, it's probably Patriot
Act and really yeah, what we'retalking about is the difference
here between trying to stop anattack and trying to put someone
in jail for a certain thing.
I understand Well, and alsolike money too.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
Money's got to be involved in all this.
I mean, all this costs money.
So it's like I was listening tothis.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
It's such a good point.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
You know I was listening to this.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Tracking money.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
Tracking money and apparently there was a.
There's an organization thatwas in Texas that was funding
the guy I can't remember theguy's name Fort Hood when he
went and attacked.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Fort Hood.
But it took them, I think 18,but it took them, I think, 18
months to track that money backto that nonprofit organization
that was funding Hamas at thesame time in Texas, and this is
something over time they shouldhave a decent idea of the
infrastructure on.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
It's like the money, these guys are doing this.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
Well, don't?
We have to report $600 transferthat we send to our kids.
Speaker 3 (34:34):
now I mean seriously, I'm like they're on us, like
you know, white on rice withtaxes.
So I just think, if you've gotthis, obviously this takes a lot
of funding.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I think, yeah, to some degree, but but but not in
the.
In the broad sense it doesn't.
Though.
I mean, that's what makes thisso difficult is because it is so
disparate and it is so crude inmany ways, and that's what
makes it so dangerous it's thecar, thing, no it's the car
thing too right.
I you kill 80 people in Germany.
Why?
Because you just take a truckand go plowing through them.
It's the more crude they are,the more successful they are.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
It seems that way now .
Speaker 2 (35:09):
Because the more digital you go, the more we
track you.
Speaker 4 (35:12):
They love to run people down.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
That is their thing.
Yeah, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
So now, that everybody's freaking out, that's
listening to us and thinkingthat we're totally not safe.
I mean, honestly, there's gotto be more at work in CIA and
FBI and all the secret agenciesthat we all kind of don't know
anything about.
But we think that we do.
We hope, right, that they'reactually tracking these guys
like that.
We're not just big one, bigopen waiting target, correct.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
No, we're a big open waiting target.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
Oh good, you've really calmed us all down.
Jeez, here we go.
Okay, holy cow.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
But you know why that is.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
Because we've had a wide open border.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
There's no way to track it.
No.
Speaker 4 (35:54):
I think you guys and your audience might be able to
check this, but I did read.
I believe I read within thelast few hours.
There were some people arrestedin San Diego who trained in the
al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
Right.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
Holy.
What did they cross our border?
Speaker 4 (36:11):
And they crossed our border illegally.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
Okay, so what do you recommend them?
If you're sitting at homeyou're listening to this going,
oh my gosh, what do you do?
What do you recommend forpeople Right now, if I said what
should I do?
What do we do about this?
Are there places you wouldavoid?
Are there things you wouldavoid?
Is there any advice you cangive?
Speaker 4 (36:35):
I'll give American advice.
You need to be armed in placesthat you can, in our state, get
your concealed carry permit.
Don't ever become an easytarget to these people.
So if somebody's coming at usin an October 7th type of attack
(36:56):
, all it would take is a fewarmed citizens to counteract
that while we're waiting for anofficial response.
But I am not willing, and Idon't think any American should
be eager, to change the way welive.
Head on a swivel right advice Iever got when I was a baby
(37:20):
prosecutor, 30 years ago or sowas.
I went to a gang conference andone of the officers talked
about how every time he stops ata stoplight, his head goes to
the left, to the right andrearview mirror.
Every single time, everystoplight, every stop sign, not
just looking for traffic, butwhat's going on on my left,
(37:40):
what's going on my right.
But the reality is we do haveto be more alert because of what
this last administration did tous.
Yeah, okay, even if what?
10%, 5% of those who crossedthe border have not just
terrorism on their mind, but thegangs that we're getting from
(38:00):
Venezuela and Colombia andelsewhere and even China.
there are some people here whowant to do us harm, and one of
the other things that'shappening now, even in our
community, are these homeinvasions all over the country
right now, typically Venezuelangangs.
(38:21):
You got to be ready for that.
Don't be a willing victim.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
in my opinion, Do you think our government doesn't
tell us as much just becausethey don't want to panic people?
I mean, like to me the dronething.
I thought from the beginningthat if this is something that
is not from us, they're notgoing to tell us that because
they don't want to like risepanic when actually, you know, I
don't know, is that wrong?
I mean, I think about theChinese balloon that just you
(38:47):
know, went across our countryand we're like, yeah, we should
shoot that down.
Yeah, we should shoot that down.
Oh, let's not.
Well, we will.
Eventually, let's let it crossall the way across the United
States before we take that thingout.
So I look at these drones andI'm like, why are we not taking
these things down?
Like there must be a reason.
This is just my rational, likethis is the way I think.
Speaker 4 (39:07):
One of the sheriffs that tried to at least put their
drones up to check it out.
It took off so fast theycouldn't drive it.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
They couldn't get it Exactly.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
So I don't know the answer to that.
I probably subscribe to theSean Ryan advice on the
government and we don't trustanything they say anymore, right
, wow, um, so yeah, I, I, thedrones are a mystery.
But, uh, when you start havingpeople tell you I mean, some of
them are probably aircraft themisidentifications are happening
, no doubt about it.
(39:35):
But there's also a realityhappening and that is that there
are unidentified objects in thesky, yeah, and our government
isn't telling us what they are.
I have assumed from thebeginning it's ours, right?
Speaker 2 (39:48):
right, I would have thought too.
You know, that's kind of what Iwas thinking, and it's a
classified operation of somekind, right?
Speaker 4 (39:53):
and then you saw the other theory that, uh, they
might be um looking for anuclear material, material of
some kind?
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to sense that or whatever
it is.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
If they can sense it.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
Okay, okay.
So going back to this guy inVegas, right, cause somebody
brought up one of our guests orone of our viewers brought up
the fact that they thoughtthere's no way this was really a
terrorist attack, because thisguy knew ammunitions, he was
obviously military, he picked acar that he knew would not hurt
other people if it exploded, butyet he didn't go and privately
(40:26):
commit suicide.
He wanted to make a scene, hewanted to raise the alarm bell,
so to speak, and he did it in away of not really wanting to
hurt other people.
Now I don't necessarily agreewith that, because I think you
blew up a car Like you didn'treally know exactly what was
going to go down, right, and ifsomebody would happen to be
walking by, I mean he wasalready dead.
So like he shot himself andthen, however many time ticked
(40:48):
by before that car detonated,you know.
But it's an interesting theorythat was this guy just trying to
get attention for whatinformation he knew that he was
like, hey, I'm not going to justgo and kill myself.
Speaker 2 (41:04):
I need to do this and get your attention to wake up
and pay, let me.
Let me ask you one thing onthat, though, because I I'm
worried now what we're dealingwith here, now that we've kind
of seen that potentially the guythat was on Sean Ryan's podcast
maybe that's true, maybe itisn't you know.
You have the other letters thatthat that the Vegas PD has put
out, and you start to look atall this and go are we looking
at a psyop here?
Yeah, I don't know I don't know.
(41:25):
Who knows?
what he said and what's reallytrue and what isn't.
Speaker 4 (41:28):
Right, so are the notes in his phone.
So the notes in his phone aredifferent than the letter.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
Very different style.
They're written in a verydifferent style.
Okay, explain that.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
What's the difference ?
But also different content.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
Yeah, oh very good Explain that.
Yeah, so the letter here.
I would go ahead and throw upthat letter.
So this is off his phone, okay,yeah, and so he discusses a
variety of issues here In more.
Some of it's political, some ofit's you know, and it's your
garden variety, sort of.
Our government's going to hellin a handbasket.
Ok, now the letter that theytalked about on the Ryan podcast
(42:03):
is this letter this isgovernment secrets.
Yeah, Like this is hey, wecommitted war crimes.
Hey, by the way, those areChinese drones.
And so this is two totally itseems like it's two totally
different people.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
And what did the Vegas police share the notes on
the guy's phone, or something?
Speaker 2 (42:20):
They shared the notes on the guy's phone.
Police share the notes on theguy's phone or they shared the
notes on the guy's phone.
However, ella let.
Speaking of them, let's go toclip two.
The fbi was asked was the emailthat was sent to shoemake?
Was that from?
From the email, the differentemail talking about the, the uh,
the chinese drones?
(42:40):
And everything else is thatfrom him?
Speaker 6 (42:43):
listen to what law enforcement in vegas says about
this yeah, so, in terms of theso-called manifesto that's
circling or circulating online,uh, we have strong evidence to
suggest that it was, uh, thesubject that wrote it, but we
haven't conclusively proven thatyet.
That evidence relates to otherevidence that we're finding,
that we're able to compare thatlead us to believe it was, in
(43:06):
fact, him who sent it.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
So they're saying wait a minute, it may be true.
Speaker 3 (43:10):
And I guess I don't understand why it's in again.
Maybe this guy's a big liarthat got on Sean Ryan and this,
this intelligence officer, but Iguess I don't get what, why he
would do this and then be.
Is he still?
Is he still currently anintelligence?
Speaker 2 (43:24):
officer.
No, no, no, no, no, okay somaybe he's got a.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
I don't know.
Is he clout chasing or whatever?
Yeah, I don't know.
Maybe he's trying to like makea name for himself.
I'm not really sure, right, butI just think you wouldn't tell
you wouldn't?
As somebody who protectedgovernment secrets, it'd be odd,
I think, to me to get a letterthat's revealing government
secrets and then you're outthere sharing those even if
you're retired.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
But a lot of his information has been more
critical, so it's hard to sayOkay.
Speaker 4 (43:50):
I just find it interesting that the letters do
not link together At all.
They just don't.
No they don't.
On this day he complained aboutthis, and on this day, the very
next day, he complained aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
Yeah and yeah, totally different subject matter
.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
There's no continuity , none From the former.
Speaker 3 (44:07):
But what we've learned really is he's not
really a terrorist, he's notreally a homegrown terrorist?
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Oh no, no, no, Not at all.
He's a war fighter.
Not at all.
Speaker 4 (44:15):
The act itself was.
It may not be an act of terrorfrom a legal definition, but it
terrorized.
Right and there were a goodhalf a dozen injured.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Right.
Speaker 4 (44:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no very true, and thankfully it
wasn't worse, I guess because ofthe truck.
Whether he intended that or not, I really don't know.
But I mean he had tanks ofgasoline in the vehicle.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I mean, the thing blew up pretty significantly,
not just fireworks.
Speaker 3 (44:41):
There were tanks of gasoline in there, yeah, so I
think he wanted to do moredamage.
No, doubt.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
But.
But the question becomes what?
What is this?
And the reality is we may neverknow.
Right, I mean the reality ifwe're going off past.
You know, performance from fromintelligence.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
we're never, we're not going to know.
I mean, they're not telling uswho, the guy that tried to shoot
Trump initially, the guy thatfired.
We know nothing about that guyZero.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Okay, let's do a couple more things to get you
out of here.
We don't want to belabor.
I appreciate your time, and soa couple other quick things.
Albuquerque, where we are rightnow I don't know if you've seen
, I know you keep an eye onthings and what's going on here
with crime and with what'shappening on our streets.
There are plenty of people outthere who say what do we do?
So from a guy in yourperspective, what do we do to
(45:29):
get crime under control in thiscity?
Speaker 4 (45:32):
The same thing that I would tell you a thousand times
over, and I've told you before,is we've got to get extremely
aggressive with two things.
One we got to deal with that nobail situation.
Right.
If you're a violent offender,you should be presumed to be
detained.
Your detention should be apresumption of detention if
you're a violent offender,meaning you stay in jail while
(45:53):
you wait for your trial.
Unfortunately, we're justconstantly releasing the same
offenders over and over and overagain, which then bleeds to the
other issue.
I'm sorry, I had pneumonia, somy voice is kind of gone.
The other issue is what no bailhas created in our city and
(46:15):
that's this crisis of repeatviolent offenders.
The recidivism in this state,not just Albuquerque is
cataclysmic.
So how do you deal with that?
You use the federal government,through the FBI, dea, etc.
All of the agencies that canaddress those types of offenses,
and you target that demographicso aggressively that it creates
(46:40):
a natural response that fromyour aggressive law enforcement
activities it will hopefullycreate a situation in the city
where repeat violent offenders,if they're out, decide to go
elsewhere, right.
Speaker 2 (46:57):
Yeah, you make it uncomfortable for them.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
You got to make crime illegal again.
Is what I'm saying?
Yep, okay, and you thinkfederal.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
We need federal help to do that.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
We do now?
Oh, because the hammer is somuch bigger, right.
Speaker 4 (47:09):
It can be bigger.
But not just that there is apresumption of detention in
federal court for violentoffenses.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
Do we have enough prosecutors?
Speaker 4 (47:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:19):
We do yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (47:20):
I don't think that's an issue.
Okay, now we may need more,excuse me.
We may need more moving forward, because I think this next
administration, with theno-tolerance policies that it's
going to bring from the federalside, there's going to be many,
many, many more cases in federalcourt, especially immigration
(47:42):
cases.
Speaker 2 (47:43):
Well, in talking about that, what is your take on
what you see?
We played a lot of sound fromHomans saying look, we're going
to come in, we're going first,after the criminals.
If you're advising the Trumpadministration saying, how do
you handle the first six monthsof the new administration, who
are you going after and how areyou doing it in a way that you
(48:04):
not only will do what needs tobe done, but you're going to
keep public support while you'redoing it?
Speaker 4 (48:07):
That's fairly easy because there's generally public
support for targeting those whohurt other people, right?
I don't think there will be anyissue with that.
So if they're going, afterpeople, you know, criminal
aliens essentially who havecommitted any variety of crime,
but they're specializing, if youwill, on violent crime, drug
(48:29):
trafficking, firearms offenses,gang activity, things like that.
Nobody's going to have aproblem with that.
And you set up task forces,multi-agency task forces, to go
after them and you getaggressive with that task forces
to go after them.
And, and you get aggressivewith that, okay, the um, the
other thing that, uh, you dothen is you can layer it down to
to the less violent offenses,um, and then get a task force to
(48:52):
go after them, because goingafter violent offenders is
itself very, very dangerous well, and that's, and that's
important too.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
If you have city cooperation whatever city that
is, if they allow you to go intothe jails, it's a lot easier to
do it there than in thecommunity.
Speaker 4 (49:07):
They're not, these cities, these so-called
sanctuary cities are not lettingthem do it.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
And they've already come out and so they're not
going to help with the Trumpadministration of this.
So that is terrifying to me.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
What will happen and it has happened is not only are
agents' lives at risk as aconsequence of that, somebody is
going to get hurt, maybe, evenworse, innocent people that are
in the community, so it could bepeople in the community, it
could be the agents, it could bethe defendant himself, yep,
which is completely avoidable byjust allowing them to come into
(49:38):
the prison and walk them out.
Yep, be done, yeah, thecoordination.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
part of this is so easy and it's so nakedly
political and put so many otherpeople at danger.
Anybody who advocates for thesesort of things should be
ashamed, and they really should.
So I want to play one morepiece of sound, then we'll get
everybody's kind of predictionon where we go, since we're, you
know, kind of new year showhere.
Speaker 3 (50:03):
This has been a bit of a downer.
Watch yourself, look out forinvisible bombs yourself, yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:07):
So speaking of that, and I'm not going to pick the
mood up with this particular onebut uh so this is one other
little clip from from the SeanRyan show where he talks about
what's coming our way this yearand what you could do.
It's clip nine this year andwhat you could do.
Speaker 7 (50:25):
It's clip nine.
So what I basically want to sayis it's going to be a bloody
2025.
I think that's very obvious.
And so, for those of you thatare looking for something to do,
and and if, if, if finally cometo the realization that our
government is failing us, here'swhat you need to do you need to
get with your local communities.
(50:45):
You need to especially schools.
Schools are very vulnerable, nomatter how many active shooters
we have in the schools, theinfrastructure that's been put
in, which is minimal to none alot of schools still have none.
You better start holding yourschools accountable and you
(51:06):
better start raising hell andhaving them upgrade security, no
matter what the cost, becauseno matter what the cost is, it's
not going to amount to the lossof life that we will
potentially see throughout theUnited States.
And so, and start calling yourcongressmen, get these guys to
(51:27):
do something.
Start calling your senators.
Get these guys to do something.
They have been warned for overa year that this is coming and
nobody wants to take itseriously.
Nobody wants to take itseriously.
Speaker 2 (51:42):
Sorry this is a downer, but I just kind of feel
like we got to have thesediscussions.
Speaker 3 (51:48):
Well, I mean on a state level.
We're getting ready to go intoa January session where
supposedly crime is going to beon the docket, right.
So again, you know, just on astatewide level, can we not push
back on to our statelegislature to actually pass
bills that will fight crime andkeep criminals behind bars.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
I mean no question, it has to be done on that level.
And then federal level.
Speaker 3 (52:10):
I mean, you've got some of these guys that I think
are going to start trying to runfor governor or other things
and I'm like well, let's.
Are you doing us any favors?
But with what you're voting forto start with, are you
protecting citizens to startwith?
That's my takeaway from thatclip.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
Yeah well, I mean clearly not.
I mean we've seen thelegislature has been.
I mean, hopefully thegovernor's woken up to this
point.
The legislature still has not.
I mean that's just a fact, andso they seem to have very little
interest in toughening our lawsand doing the things necessary
to keep people safe.
I've seen no indication fromthem that that's going to change
.
Speaker 4 (52:42):
There's been some who have tried, but Bill Rehm,
right, oh sure, absolutely.
Look, republicans will do it.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Yeah, republicans will do it, but you have some of
the far left that will not, forwhatever reason.
They won't, and even whenthey're when they're a governor
of their own party stands up andsays let's get this done, their
answer is no.
Speaker 3 (53:01):
The bills are too complicated, we're not going to
do it.
Speaker 2 (53:03):
I'm like I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (53:05):
It's too hard, people .
Speaker 2 (53:06):
Yeah, it's ridiculous .
Speaker 3 (53:08):
Let's hope for let's hope for some some pushback.
Maybe there's a Democrat outthere that wants to come on our
show.
Speaker 2 (53:15):
That's in the state legislature.
That's going to fight six, Ithink.
Speaker 3 (53:20):
It would be great if they could build their influence
.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
They know who they are.
I don't want to wreck theirpolitical career by mentioning
them, because me mentioning themas a good political actor will
hurt their career.
But I will tell you, there arefive or six, and some of them
are up north and some of themare not.
But you have some ruralDemocrats as well that are good
on this stuff.
Democrats as well that are goodon this stuff.
(53:44):
But you've got a core of thesepeople, like in Albuquerque and
Santa Fe and Cruces, where theyare absolutely derelict in their
duties and they've hurt people.
Because of it.
We're now the most violentstate in the country.
Speaker 3 (53:55):
So Albuquerque is the 23rd most violent city in the
world In the world, in the worldthat just came out.
Speaker 4 (54:01):
Well, here's the reality.
If communities become safe whenyou remove the people
responsible for that communitybeing not safe from the
community, it's really verysimple and the process isn't
difficult.
It can be done at both thestate and the federal side, and
it should be done.
Hopefully we'll be playing somesmash mouth crime enforcement
(54:23):
here in the near future.
Trump has a huge opportunity.
Speaker 2 (54:27):
He does Huge opportunity.
He really does, Cause he's gotthe support of people.
If he can do it in a way thatis, you know, effective and
targeted, it will be it will bean opportunity.
Speaker 4 (54:36):
Being a victim of crime whether it be getting your
windshield smashed and thestuff in your car stolen,
everyone's of crime.
Yeah, whether it be gettingyour windshield smashed and the
stuff in your car stolen,everyone's sick of it.
Speaker 2 (54:45):
Yep no, you're across the board.
Yep no, here it is okay, we'vethanks, so the next big issue.
Uh, we'll, uh, we'll bring itback in, and you know that we
need to do like a.
You do like a fun show.
Yeah, like one of these sunriseshows this one's a pretty tough
one this one's middle of thenight, like hey man, hey man,
it's scary out there.
So but we appreciate yourhonesty and your take head on a
swivel.
All right, that's very, verytrue.
We'll see you back here.
(55:06):
Uh, this show is out and thenwe'll be back with you on Sunday
, so we look forward to that.
Speaker 1 (55:12):
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook, at noDoubt About it.
Podcast.
No doubt about it.
The no Doubt About it Podcastis a Choose Adventure Media
production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.
Speaker 2 (55:36):
There is no doubt about it.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com