July 25, 2023 • 64 mins
Matt Laslo, veteran congressional reporter for WIRED, Raw Story, fmr. VICE, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Professor at Johns Hopkins University, steps into the Vault!
Matt has been breaking story after story regarding tomorrow's UAP hearing, so on the eve of the event, he joins me to speak about what he's found out; what he's hearing rumblings on; and how he thinks it may all go down.
The post Ep. #126 – Matt Laslo on Talking to Congress about, and Reporting on, UAP/UFOs first appeared on The Black Vault.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Greenewald (00:32):
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and takingthis journey inside the black
vault with me. I'm your host,John Greenewald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault.com.And we are on the eve of the
much anticipated UAP hearing.Now joining me today and I'm
excited about this interview, isinvestigative journalist and
professor at at John Hopkins,Matt Laszlo. Matt, thank you so
(00:57):
much for taking the time out ofyour day. I know you've been
incredibly busy. But thank youfor joining us. Thanks for
having me. Absolutely. And thereason why I'm looking forward
to this, and I told you this offthe air, but I want to tell you
on as well, is I have a lot ofrespect for those that actually
get out into the field. Theytalk to people, they do their
own journalism, which isactually pretty rare nowadays,
(01:18):
simply because most people theysit in a chair, I call it copy
and paste journalism, they takesomebody else's work. They
fumble around the words a littlebit and they call it their own.
But you're in the field, you aretalking to Congressman senators,
talking about the UA period, UAPhearing and beyond. But before
we get into that, I want to backup a little bit. It's your first
(01:39):
time on the show, hopefully,you'll come back. But give
everybody a little bit ofbackground about your, your
work, and what is it exactlythat you cover?
Matt Laslo (01:49):
So I've been covering Congress now 17 years
for the contributor at VICE VICENews tonight. Rolling Stone
Playboy, currently contributorat Wired Magazine and raw story.
So I like to write for the funones, I guess, that historically
I've covered Congress for abunch of local NPR stations and,
(02:13):
you know, regional outlets. SoI'm also a board member of the
regional Reporters Association.
Yeah, then I've been teaching atJohns Hopkins for since 2016. I
teach on history, the mediahistory of rhetoric, but with an
eye towards how politiciansrhetoric has kind of adapted
(02:34):
with new mediums over time. Soyeah, I kind of love covering
Congress, because I get a studylawmaker lawmakers and all that
in real time. But I guess, takea few steps back. I come at
Congress when I say I interviewliars for a living. So even
(02:58):
though I know congress, I kindof see through them. And I think
they many of them kind of knowit. So that's where I started
this new venture, ask apoll.com. And especially knowing
you know, because I'm a mediaprof and studying just the gross
numbers. When I think trust inthe media now, according to
(03:23):
Gallup, it's, like 50% ofAmericans don't even distrust
the media, they think reportersare actually actively lying to
them. Which is where I came upwith the idea of basketball,
because I want to put the peoplein the driver's seat. So we call
it the people power press corps.So you all send your questions
(03:45):
in become a part of ourcommunity dialogue. And then I
take those questions directly tolawmakers. Which I'm hoping
we'll read some of you all thedeep rooted cynicism that's in
me, because I work with thepress corps, and I can't say
many of them have impressed meover the years. Some have, but
(04:07):
yeah, I think I've avoidedbecoming a swamp creature, but
always with your help. And thenwith the help of the bands I
hang out with, I used to coverentertainment in the past life.
John Greenewald (04:20):
Okay, and what So then with all of that
background, what got you toUFOs?
Matt Laslo (04:26):
So that's weird. This one at the start of this
Congress. Remember, we had allthese balloons floating over
America. And then after theyshot down that Chinese spy
balloon? Well, within a span ofthree days, the Air Force shot
down three objects. And I guessthere's one in Alaska that we
(04:46):
still don't know what it is,which had been pressing senators
Murkowski and Sullivan on to seeif they were going to request
actual video that shoot downfrom the Pentagon because I know
they've been briefed on it. Butso That's where the press corps
me included, you know, startedlooking into this book very
(05:07):
broadly, just that UAPs. Butthen David Gresh, hit like
symbol, and seeing lawmakersreact to him, What especially
one of our first interviews wasMarco Rubio, the Vice Chair of
the Senate IntelligenceCommittee. And what he said is,
(05:31):
you know, we get a ton of thesewhistleblowers, you know, and
have over the years since he'sbeen here in Washington, but he
said this was the first one thatwas vetted by the Inspector
General, deemed important anddeemed parts verifiable, or
verified. And so seeing Rubioand others reactions to his
(05:56):
claims, and especially what wokeup Congress, while David gross
claims there's recovered craft,that the US government has, you
know, that one will be able tohopefully either see the graph
or not, you know, that oneshould be fairly easy to verify
if we get through all theselayers of classification and
(06:19):
government secrecy, but thesecond claim of grush, that the
government had all these saps orSpecial Access Programs, that it
kept hidden from Congress, well,that me as a congressional
junkie that made my hair standup. And I knew that was
something that I could take toevery single lawmaker and say,
(06:40):
Hey, this whistleblower who theinspector general, that it
didn't says and threw onCongress's lap, he says the
federal government is lying toyou, you know about these saps.
And so many lawmakers stillhaven't looked into David
grudge. But I'm stillconfronting all of them with
(07:01):
that claim. You know, so part ofit is coming from that
congressional Institutionalistsangle. And knowing that this
Congress, like the pastCongress, and the one before it,
Congress these days, just seeds,most all of their power to the
executive branch. And, again,professor and a congressional
(07:22):
junkie. And so this issue forone, like, what, the year two
years ago, even like predatingthe first congressional hearing,
50 years on this, even afterthat hearing, if you would ask
lawmakers about UFOs or UAPs,you know, they'd laughing You
know, they make a joke out ofit. Not so in this Congress. And
(07:44):
so, there's this interestingwindow that opened, and yeah, I
was there. And I had asked apoll.com lined up. So especially
once I did a Wired magazinepiece on, you know, kind of
putting grush in what we call aconspiratorial Congress, you
(08:07):
know, some people, you know, theconspiracies in this Congress
run the gamut. Who would we seetestify last week in the house?
RFK, Jr. etc. And so, afterthat, you know, I got a lot of
pushback from the UFO community,because of the piece was a
little more snarky, but that'sbecause it was, you know,
(08:28):
putting a mirror up to thiscongress and kind of asking a
question, Will this Congress betaken seriously, even if they do
uncover craft or something likethat? And so, yeah, got a front
row seat and seeing you all yourenergy, your knowledge, saying,
hey, ask these questions. Youdidn't ask this. But then also
(08:50):
seeing the reaction to, youknow, Laszlo snark aside, were
like, I think I interviewed sixor eight lawmakers. Usually for
a feature, I'll interview 15 to20 lawmakers, only eight or 10
make the piece. Sometimes that'sbeen 50. Senators every once in
a while. And so yeah, seeing theenergy from the community, and
(09:15):
seeing some members of Congressreally take it seriously. But
others just brush it off. Thatjust left me with more
questions.
John Greenewald (09:25):
Before we get into the specifics of exactly
who you spoke with. Youmentioned a couple already. But
what do you think has changedfrom this Congress to those
past? You mentioned David grush.Is it all hinging on that one
whistleblower, or obviously theUFO conversation has really went
into overdrive in the last fiveand a half years or so? What
(09:46):
what do you feel has changedthat put this kind of on the
docket so to speak?
Matt Laslo (09:51):
Well, there's this interesting notion of whether
lawmakers are supposed to leadtheir constituents or whether
they're supposed to be Read bytheir constituents and it's, you
know, kind of both and, but sothis one lawmakers do tend to be
way behind on many issues fromtheir constituents. But I think
(10:12):
the polls are now like 65% or soof Americans are now. I forget
the exact language, but theybelieve that there's life out
there beyond us. And I thinkpart of that stems from, you
know, us being in this newtechnological era with
smartphones or seeing a lot morethings that aren't easily
(10:36):
explained away. And so yeah,Congress in the last one started
looking into this. And I'mcurious, and I want to circle
back with those lawmakers. ButI'm curious if that was because
of increased pressure from theirconstituents. But you definitely
have more lawmakers in thisCongress, who are open to the
(10:59):
idea of extraterrestrial beingsout there, and it and then even
you couple that with what we'reseeing right now come in from
the James Webb Space Telescope.And so like, our very limited
finite understanding of thingsjust got a lot bigger, if still
(11:22):
very limited. And, you know,every week, it seems we're
learning new things about thesolar system from the James Webb
Space Telescope. So as oursmartphones are collecting more
here on Earth, James Webb iscollecting more out there in the
nether regions. And I think it'skind of this perfect combo.
(11:42):
Well, and then you throw grush,into the mix, boom, that's the
perfect combo. For that's three,so not a
John Greenewald (11:50):
perfect trio. So those that you've talked to,
I know that you've talked toCongressman timbre Chet of
Tennessee, let's let's startthere, because he's leading the
charge with this hearingtomorrow. And arguably, he is
the absolute most vocal about aconspiracy and cover up months
ago, I was surprised to see himretweet one of my tweets about
(12:14):
UFOs. Now it's becoming a littlebit more common for him to do
that. But just straight outcalling it a cover up. I was
surprised by that, because notevery day were sitting Congress,
congressman or Congresswomantweet stuff like that. And
again, now it's becoming morefrequent. So let's start with
him. What is your experiencebeen with him? And as somebody
who has covered Congress for solong? What are you What is your
(12:37):
reaction to his feelings aboutUAP and the importance of this,
this cover up that he wants tohighlight
Matt Laslo (12:43):
her chats this super interesting guy, if you listen
to some of the audio that weposted, we posted, I think,
maybe two interviews with him onAsk a poll.com. And in the
middle of the interview, youknow, he'll stop three, four
times, because all of theselawmakers, Republicans and
Democrats are stopping him tosay hello. In the last one, I
(13:06):
think it was. Congressman, JesseJackson, who I didn't even know
was a congressman, I'm fromIllinois, but it's Reverend
Reverend Jesse Jackson, son,perchance, a Republican from
Tennessee. And so to hearJackson like, stopped him and
for chat said, Hey, thank you somuch for checking on me when I
(13:27):
was sick, and then said, hey,when you're down, you better
come down into the south, I wantto treat you to some good old
southern barbecue. I was justlike, why? You just don't see
that kind of bipartisanship inthis Congress. And I think a big
part of that is just the jovial,genteel nature of Bridgette, you
(13:50):
know, he's always crackingjokes. He's got this light side
to him, that is reallyappreciated in the building
where, you know, where,historically there was a caning
in the building. Now there's,you know, digital death threats
flying between the parties. Andso he stands out for that. Who
(14:13):
had a alone with his thoughts onUAPs and UFOs. And so, it's
interesting now to see, youknow, as the hearing day
approaches, and last week aftertheir big press conference, you
know, you started hearing a lotmore of the mainstream reporters
(14:33):
hop on the issue, kind oflooking for looking for
something to embarrass themwith? I forget the questions
they were asking. But onereporter was, Well, I think they
were just asking straight up,you know, about aliens or
whatever. And not asking aboutDavid grush. You know, and you
(14:56):
can kind of tell I'm curiousabout grush And what he knows
when I hate the term gotchajournalism or whatever, but the
questions felt leading in adishonest way. And so it's going
to be interesting to see how herchat and Congresswoman and
appalling Aluna how they handlethis. There's also a couple of
(15:18):
Democrats who were going to beat the hearing who are, you
know, fully on board with this.And so it's it'll be
interesting. You know, theinterview I, we dropped last
night on ask a poll was withoversight chair James Comer. And
(15:39):
I can't tell like he told me,yeah, I haven't even looked into
David grosses claims at all. Andhe said, I can't tell if he's
trying to wash his hands of thisand say, Hey, this is all on for
Chet and Luna. Or if he thinksthere's a there there, you can
(16:00):
tell that, you know, Burrteccomplained last week, about
different staffers from theintelligence community, whether
that staffers from Congress fromthe Intel Committee, I don't
know. But he was complainingthat there's just been all this
pressure on this hearing, andthat people were getting cold
(16:21):
feet. And so when the lightsclick on tomorrow, with, you
know, the media from around theglobe. In attendance, it'll,
it'll be interesting to see forWarren, the case for Chet moon
and make, and that the witnessesobviously make. And it's gonna
(16:46):
be interesting to see how themedia responds to that. Now, it
seems like the dynamics here,like with many dynamics in
Congress, or that the Senateinvestigations are currently a
little more trusted. Even whatComey himself told me, because,
(17:07):
you know, I asked him aboutthese charges that, you know, go
these far right, Freedom Caucuspeople are running this hearing.
You know, they're loonies, thatthat that comer is like, hey,
Chuck Schumer just moved a UAPbill. So even comer himself was
saying, hey, it's not just us.It's not just the friends, right
(17:29):
members. And so Bridgette, says,take it back to him. He's
interesting, because he's not. Iwouldn't say he's intellectually
respected or maybe anyillogically respected by the
other side of the aisle. Youknow, this is a hyper, hyper
(17:50):
partisan Congress. Butcollegially, you know, they love
him. And so there is an innatetrust they have with him because
he's been genuine, you know. Andso it'll be really interesting
to see how he threads thatneedle. And this does make me
(18:13):
want to talk to him talking tohim. Later today, before we go
live tonight, with dropping somemore of our exclusive
interviews, I'm now curious howbro chat first got into this
issue, you know, withCongresswoman Lena, or Luna, she
was Air Force, you know. And soI haven't talked to her about
(18:36):
now she got into it. But youknow, you can see what a lot of
the videos coming out are thenewer ones that the government
has been releasing, even in thelast hearing couple of years
ago, who that's Air Forcefootage. And so yeah, thanks for
the question for Mr. Burchett.I'll circle back once the
answers.
John Greenewald (18:56):
Yeah, no. And I'm glad you did. Maybe I'll
throw this out to you if itsparks another question, because
I posted this on social media,but I want to bring it up to
you. I very much am lookingforward to the hearing tomorrow.
I want to see what's going on.And we'll talk about whether or
not they made the rightdecisions in your mind on the
witnesses that they did show didchoose. But that being said, the
(19:18):
pushback that the ramp up tothis, especially in the last
week has been fascinating forsomebody like me to watch,
because I've been in and aroundthis field for a long time. I
deal with all governmentsecrets. But UFOs has always had
kind of a special place in myheart just for a personal
fascination, reason, noexperience of my own, but it's
(19:39):
just a curiosity. And the rampup to this has seen Burchett
have these push backs from NASAwhen he said NASA backed out of
tomorrow's hearing. And thenNASA to my surprise, which I
don't see often anyway, withthis topic responded to a friend
of mine, Dan Warren, so props tohim who was the question, why
(20:01):
did you back out? And NASAcompletely said no, we didn't.
That I think it was DavidSpergel, who was invited, but
declined, which is kind ofunderstandable if they don't
want to get entwined with thethe whistleblower talk, I mean,
I can understand that from fromtheir perspective. They're also
not dealing with classifiedinformation much in NASA anyway.
(20:22):
So it's, to me it's a faultyscientific study anyway. But
that's a different show. Butpushback from NASA, and then
push back from Eglin to whereEglin put out the statement that
said, Well, they're just notcleared to, to hear the
information. So when you hearBurchett, and Congresswoman
Luna, say, we were denied accessand got in a fight with the
(20:43):
general, that base fires backand says, Hey, wait a minute,
you guys aren't even cleared. SoI'm not saying who's right or
wrong. All I'm saying is it's sofascinating to see play out. And
I want to know, what thecongressmen and Congresswoman
are, are essentially going to dowith that, because that's
challenging their credibility inan open forum. What are your
thoughts on that? What are yourthoughts on the pushback? Do you
(21:04):
think it's all just part of thecover up? Do you think it's
political grandstanding? Is itboth?
Matt Laslo (21:10):
This is the curious one. And it's, you know, so I'm
a congressional reporter, youknow, I go to the White House a
couple times a year, but it's awaste of my time, a man of the
people, or something like that,you know, like, the access we
get in Congress, and I know theinstitution. And that's where a
(21:32):
reporter like me, is going tonaturally have to rely on
reporting from, you know, peopleat the Pentagon who are sourced
their people who are sourced atNASA. And because right now, I
guess I don't have a good answerto that. Because I do not see,
you know, in my 17 years, Ican't remember an agency like
(21:56):
NASA, really stepping in it, youknow, and calling a congressman
a liar. Publicly like that. Soeven, I did a triple take last
week, and I'm still in the midstof that triple take it, and
(22:16):
especially with NASA coming outso strong there. Well, now just
per chat, or Luna, say, hey, wewant to follow up hearing.
Because it seems like you guyswant to talk, you know, you
know, maybe they don't have muchto say maybe they do. And so
that's that one was curious. Tome. I'm seeing like when
(22:40):
Bridgette told me last week,that the staffers were getting
more involved and that theywere, you know, you started to
hear more of the Whispercampaigns, you know, trying to
discredit the investigation inthe house, not so much
discrediting the lawmakers, butyou'll probably hear it more
(23:02):
will well know. There'll becouched in the terms of AVS to
Freedom Caucus, folks. Whereasthese issues don't really have
much to do with that, you know,Freedom Caucus is supposed to be
focused on fiscal issues andstuff like that. And then seeing
some of those other Democrats upthere and including Senator
(23:22):
Kirsten Gillibrand. She's beenreally pushing forward with the
investigation in the Senate. Andsame with Rubio over there. And
so this one doesn't cut acrossthose normal political lines.
But in the lead up to thishearing, it kind of in the past
week, it's felt like it's thenormal partisanship, you know,
(23:46):
Biden administration, you know,Pooh poohing anything coming
from these two fringe rate.Lawmakers. When you take a step
back and in reality, no, it'snot to fringe lawmakers. A lot
of lawmakers in this Congresshave a lot of questions and the
(24:07):
Pentagon, NASA had not beenforthcoming with them in the
past, at least in a satisfactoryway to many lawmakers. So I get
the pushback from thoseagencies. But show us your
cards.
John Greenewald (24:23):
Yeah, and, and this is we can move on from from
our chat after this. But But onelast kind of thing when when
he's coming out with these verybold claims. And I posted
myself, I mean, I've followedthe Air Force's connection to
this literally for 2627 yearsnow. Just drilling in through
FOIA, especially with thatmilitary branch. What I consider
(24:46):
this massive cover up about thetopic, but at the top of the
show, and I'm paraphrasingbecause I don't remember your
exact quote, you said that youhad that you essentially
interview professional liars.That's how you said it right. So
with That's a journalist. What'sthat?
Matt Laslo (25:03):
Say I interviewed buyers for living
John Greenewald (25:06):
liars for a living. So with that being said,
from, from a journaliststandpoint and your experience,
you look at these essentiallywarring factions at this point,
you know, it's a war of words,but, but they're butting heads
like this in a public forum onTwitter, for the most part, how
(25:26):
do you know really? who tobelieve? Do you push the
military brands to show theircards? Do you push the
politicians to maybe step up alittle bit more and say, hey,
look, NASA fired back at you toshow us how they backed out? Did
they confirm? And then say, youknow, what, never mind or did
somebody intervene? The one thatI'm stuck on is is Bridget's
claim about the Pentagon givingpushback on witnesses that and
(25:52):
correct me if I'm wrong, I tookaway from that, that he had
other people that he wanted toappear, the Pentagon pushed
back, they they essentially lostthose one or two, or however
many people but have gravesforever. And Grusha at this
point. So again, correct me ifI'm wrong, but I'm most
intrigued by that. Who do you asa journalist push back on the
(26:13):
hardest to try and show theircards and kind of prove what's
being said?
Matt Laslo (26:18):
All of them. Whether it's the agencies who are, you
know, they're they have theirfiefdoms and more money, and
they want to protect. Whatbecause it's power play, you
know, even though we're seeingthis with classified
information, you know, whoeverhas most secrets or whatever,
(26:40):
you know, there's power thatcomes with that. This one's
interesting, because I don't,you know, the interview we put
out last night with comer. Hekind of again, washed his hands
of it and said, Oh, I thinkprojets now gotten everyone he
wanted, when, like a month ago,comer told me that two witnesses
(27:05):
who per chat wanted, didn't passhis committee's, you know, more
political background check. Andso I'm still a little confused
on this one as to whetherBurchett has everything he
wants? Because it doesn't seemlike he does, but then you have
(27:25):
chair comer saying, you know,head of the whole Oversight
Committee, saying, Yeah, youknow, we gave him every one he
wanted it one interesting thingwhen I was first getting into
this, just like a month ago, Iheard her chat on. Steve Bannon
is the war room, talking aboutoh, and what he said then stood
(27:49):
out to me, because he said, hisfeeling was that him and Luna
only have one shot on this. Andso he made it seem like, at
least initially, they were justgranted one hearing on this. And
so that's, you know, all yourmarbles. We'll see how tomorrow
goes. Because just knowing howthe public is hungry for
(28:13):
answers. And even what playingthis tonight on our live
listening session, but AdamSchiff, you know, he got booted
off the Senate and her party gotbooted off the House
Intelligence Committee. But sohe hasn't really been able to
look into grush. But he's stillgot big questions about these
(28:36):
phenomenon. And you know, he wasjust the head of the House
Intelligence Committee. So thefact that he's curious, he had
all this classified information,but still has questions and not
answers. That makes me thinkthat Pentagon people in those
(28:58):
communities aren't beingforthcoming. Now, whether that's
a National Security claim, orwhatever, or whether it's
actually them, covering thisstuff up and keeping it secret
from Congress. It seems likethis Congress is really set on
(29:18):
putting a period of putting afine point on that debate. So
that at least by the end ofthis, we'll know, it seems we'll
know where the secrets are. Andhopefully, they'll be public by
then. You know, because it seemslike right now in Congress,
there's a couple of differentfull court presses are going on.
(29:41):
Senate side House side, but thenalso Intelligence Committee and
armed services committeesexploring it and so intelligence
committee is going to bedifferent than Armed Services
Committee. Armed Services ismore focused on war and the
Pentagon On an machinery of war,all that stuff. And so,
(30:04):
Intelligence Committee, theyhave a broader portfolio, they
also know a lot more secrets,and are also held to a higher
standard. They know a lot ofstuff that they're not allowed
to tell us. And so that's againwhy Senator Gillibrand is an
interesting one to watch,because she's on both the Armed
(30:25):
Services Committee and theSenate Intelligence Committee.
So she's kind of got a foot inboth worlds.
John Greenewald (30:32):
Did it surprise you at all that, and you
mentioned comer, he kind ofwashed his hands of it that
these lawmakers don't have moreof a clue. I know some of them
do and follow it pretty closely.But when you talk about the
claims of David grush, you aretalking about humanity altering
world changing information, thatwould have an impact not only on
(30:55):
our knowledge about our place inthe universe, but so much more.
I mean, the implications areabsolutely staggering. So does
it surprise you that more aren'tleading the charge?
Matt Laslo (31:12):
Yes, and no. It's rare that you see, you know,
lawmakers kind of have theirfiefdoms, you know, some might
be tax long. So they're going tobe on the Ways and Means
Committee, you know, you're afarmer boom and serve on the
Agriculture Committee. You havea lot, it kind of annoys us in
(31:36):
the press corps. Because youhave a lot of lawmakers who it
almost feels like, they putblinders on just so they don't
have to talk to us, you know,whether it's about what former
President Trump is doing overhere, or, you know, whether it's
what Hunter Biden's doing overhere, you know, so they, some
(31:57):
lawmakers really stay in theirlanes. But again, that's why
this issue
stood out to me, because hey, Ithink it's Rubio who says, you
know, either he's got eithergrush was given bad information,
or
pardon my French, but Wake thefuck up. Like, these are seismic
(32:18):
claims. And the fact that theInspector General, vetted them,
sent them to Congress, that putsthem at another level, where?
Yeah, maybe it has surprised mea little bit to see I mean, cuz
you were going to talk about it.But Congress is about to be gone
(32:39):
after this week, for the wholemonth of August. So one thing
I've been doing is trying tointerview every United States
senator on UAPs. who oppose andDavid grush, in particular, so
I've now talked over 60% ofsenators, and the vast majority
of them seem totally unaware, itseems like I'm kind of the first
(33:00):
person to mention it to them, orthey had heard about it, but
hadn't really looked into it.Now, the people, hopefully by
the end of this week, I'll havewell, hopefully, I'll have all
the senators, but I only havetwo members left on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, stillthe interviewer looking for you,
Michael Bennett, and DianneFeinstein. But
John Greenewald (33:23):
the solid fans of this show, so you're in your
good shot.
Matt Laslo (33:28):
Oh, and so I'm curious, because some members in
the Senate IntelligenceCommittee, who was it? Why one
can equipped but he's like,Well, if I knew that I couldn't
tell you could have been TELUSor one of them. Who had so it's,
it's interesting. And with someof the Senate Intel members, you
(33:48):
kind of get the feeling thatthey know some things that
they're not allowed to tell us.So I'm curious if pressure
builds on them on the broaderintelligence community, where,
you know, if pressure builds onCongress from the public,
(34:11):
Congress is going to keepdemanding more and more answers.
And so there might be thingsthat are classified now, that
may become unclassified in thenear future. And I'm curious how
this one plays out. Because eventhough you have many lawmakers
playing ostrich, you know,tossing their head in the sand.
(34:34):
You got some of the mostpowerful lawmakers, especially
in the Senate, investigatingthis and so we'll see there's
definitely a clash going onhere. Between the intel
community and your congress.
John Greenewald (34:51):
Going backwards, I think you said it
was a comer interview where hesaid that they kind of had one
shot was that comer that saidthat
Matt Laslo (35:00):
Burchett said it to Steve Bannon. But he made it
seem like that was coming fromcomer slash coming from Speaker
McCarthy.
John Greenewald (35:09):
Gotcha. So they have like one shot to kind of
prove this if they're going todevote more time in the future
with that,
Matt Laslo (35:16):
and that's for this Congress. And, again, that's
where like if they hit home runor you know, get a triple
tomorrow, we might see anotherone. Especially looking at those
poll numbers 65% of the Americanpeople have? Well, I think they
(35:37):
have an answer, but you know,they want to know more.
John Greenewald (35:41):
Now, I want to say real quick, just to make
sure that those on the audioversion of this know, you've
said your website a few times,I've flashed it on screen for
those watching on YouTube. Butit's ask a poll.com that spelled
a SKAPO l.com. So make sureyou've got the one L in there.
And there's tons of of articleshere to read. And the one thing
(36:05):
I haven't mentioned is a lot ofthese are exclusive just to your
reporting, you're not parrotingfrom the the other news
agencies, you are the onegetting these recordings, you're
putting them online. So again,kudos to you for that. So back
to the witnesses for tomorrow,if it is that one shot? Do you
feel with everything that you'vedone and writing the articles
(36:27):
that are on your website? And somany exclusives, you're
obviously doing your homework?Is this a setup for a potential
home run? Or do you feel thereshould have been other people in
the hot seat, even thosecurrently in government that may
have given them more of thathome run versus a base hit?
Matt Laslo (36:47):
And this is where this one's interesting. And I'm
a journalist and 2023. Mythoughts don't matter. If
anything I get in the way
that this one's super curious.Because, again, you have the
Senate and the Houseinvestigations. Not quite I
(37:13):
mean, they're going in tandem,but not together. No, they're
going parallel, but not intandem. And so it seems like the
house their investigation ismuch broader. And Congresswoman
Luna, she tells me that, youknow, she hopes this hearing
presents to the American peopleprove that there is life out
(37:35):
there beyond Earth. Now, youwouldn't hear any senators say
that. You might have somesenators kind of thinking that.
And so it's interesting that thehouse, their case is going to be
broader. Your team, it seemslike they're going to give a
little more history into pastgovernment programs, exploring
(38:03):
UFOs and whatnot. And somepeople are asking us that ask a
poll like hey, oh, just forchatting them Do they have any
plan to subpoena? The people whocorroborate David grush, the
whistleblower story? Well,Senator Gillibrand in the
(38:25):
Intelligence Committee in theSenate, her investigation would
actually go through the ArmedServices Committee, where she's
the chairwoman of one of thesubcommittee's overseeing this.
Well, she's told me that shewants to hear grush and the
other people named in that firststory by the debrief were
(38:46):
crushed came out. That one willbe interesting. And that's
actually my question forGillibrand tonight or this week.
I'm curious if she's got a planfor hearing, and if she still
wants to crush and the otherpeople mentioned in that article
(39:06):
that seem to corroborate hisstory. Now, it seems like what
we have in the house tomorrow isgrush. And not so much people
corroborating his story. Butcorroborating the broader story,
you know, and so that's where Ithink having a divided Congress
is great.
John Greenewald (39:27):
Yeah, I can agree with that. Just to clarify
with this, the those named inthe debrief article, is she
going for the ones that weretruly feeding grush the
information, or there were twothat were mentioned in the
debrief Article One wasanonymous, but went through or
(39:48):
was listed with a pseudonym. Ithink that was Jonathan Gray,
but that was that was a falsename. And then the other one, I
think the last name was Nell Iforget the first name but that
being said, was she talkingabout Then, or was she talking
about truly getting to the rootof where grush heard about the
non human craft and the nonhuman dead pilots that he
(40:14):
referenced?
Matt Laslo (40:16):
The way I read it? And again, I'll circle back with
her? That's a great question.The way I read it was, she
wanted those people immediatelytied to grush. And mentioned in
the article, or who spoke in thearticle, and corroborated his
story. But then, you know, ifCongress does its job, you know,
(40:37):
you keep pulling threads. And soI think, the way I understood it
was, hey, once we get him, youknow, if we don't see anything,
and you know, and we getverifiable good testimony from
these folks, then hey, we wantto keep going. And I think
that's where I could see it,broadening out, but I think
(41:00):
jeweler Brandon them want tostart with, you know, just start
small with what you can prove,and then slowly build your case
and work, work your way out fromthere. But I'm not a senator. So
there's a lot of stuff that I'mnot privy to.
John Greenewald (41:15):
No, no. And I appreciate your your your
expertise and feedback on it,because we're all kind of
learning together, about howthis is playing out. And the one
thing that concerns me issomething actually that you that
you really just briefly touchedon. But as they they start
small, and they kind of youknow, branch out more and more.
(41:36):
What worries me is that thereare term limits to the senators
and politicians both term limitsas Max as they can go. But also
they may get voted out. Withthat being said, what my worry
is, is this takes forever withanything government related
takes forever. But with withpoliticians, you know, they want
to do these hearings, and thensix months, a year, year and a
(41:59):
half later, they'll do anotherone. It worries me that the
people that really are thedriving force here, they could
be gone by that. And you losethat, that that motivation to do
this. So how much if any, howmuch does that impact all this?
Matt Laslo (42:16):
I hear that 100% And this we're I'm constantly
playing devil's advocate, but oncounter to that could be paid.
Harry Reid's been gone from theSenate for a long time. But what
we saw last week with Schumerand Gillibrand young in rounds,
and you know, that six group,well, they push through and got
(42:39):
included in the National DefenseAuthorization Act, or NDAA. They
got included in that. A measurethat Harry Reid, you know, very
much close to his heart, youknow, a bill demanding,
basically, full transparency, itseems on UAPs, their chosen
(43:01):
term. And so that's where, oh,in Chuck Schumer, the majority
leader, his office told me that,you know, the inspiration for
that measure wasn't David grushinspiration for that was Harry
Reid, you know, in his legacy.And so that's where sometimes
you do see members pass thebaton. Sometimes that's within
(43:23):
their delegation, but honestly,I haven't seen yet Jackie Rosen.
She, the senator, one of thesenators from Nevada, and then
Catherine Cortez Masto. Neitherof them were really too familiar
with crush Rosen, at the end ofour interview, or later that
day, she found in she goes,Well, now that you alerted me to
(43:44):
this gruff guy, she goes, I'mgonna have some interesting
reading tonight when I get home.And so that's where sometimes
you see that baton passed withina delegation or, you know, if a
Democrat passes the seat to aDemocrat, or vice versa,
Republican to a Republican, butthen also, you see it just not
within state delegations.Sometimes there's someone else
(44:06):
in Congress who maybe wanted tobe at the forefront of the
issue. But maybe right now,they're a freshman lawmaker, and
they're kind of waiting to seewhat happens in tomorrow's
hearing. And so that's where Ihear you and you Yeah, you raise
a good point on why to be alittle pessimistic. Because the
people who are out in front ofthis issue are louder and seem
(44:28):
more knowledgeable than we'veseen in the past.
But then maybe there's a littlehope for optimism that they can
share that wealth, for lack of abetter term.
John Greenewald (44:40):
The one thing that I wanted to ask you just
again, because you're on theground there. The last UAP
hearing with the Senate andKirsten Gillibrand was obviously
there the whole time. There wasone other senator a third had
shown up asked a question thenleft. I was really let down at
one It appeared to be to thegeneral public, a lack of
(45:02):
interest. There was rumors, butI mean, we can't confirm it. At
least the general public can'tat this point that more people
showed up to the classifiedbriefing that happened right
prior. And that's, that's finefor the classified hearing. And
that's fine. But if they trulyare the voice of the people, I
would hope that they would wantto show up at the public
hearing, get as much informationfor for their constituents as
(45:26):
possible. So with that said,what's the rumblings on who's
going to show tomorrow? Like, Imean, are a lot of people
telling you that should beshowing up are going to show up?
Have you? Have you even exploredthat at all?
Matt Laslo (45:40):
haven't totally explored it, but the house tends
to be different, and even fortomorrow, sounds like I
confirmed, you know, the chair,James Comer told me that he
plans to be there because hewants to learn about the issue.
And comer gave them the hugemassive oversight hearing room,
(46:03):
even though it's a subcommitteeinvestigating this, they're
getting the big hearing room,which makes me think, you know,
especially with all the camerasthat are going to be there and
all the media from across theUS, but then across the globe,
you would think that manymembers would want to come for
(46:24):
that. But also, that's just kindof the nature of the house and
how they work. The Senate. Theyjust historically, and even
today, they tend to respond lessquickly to what the people are
thinking, you know, part of thatit's the way the Founders
(46:45):
intended it giving them six yearterms. Which, you know, one
could argue, oh, they'rebecoming experts on the issues
under their purview, which wouldhelp for this issue with some of
those folks on these committees.But I'm curious if you didn't
hold that same hearing. today.If you wouldn't have a fuller,
(47:09):
or at least more people come inand sit on that Dyess. Because
remember, just two years ago,this was so novel and new hadn't
been done in 50 years. And soyeah, most news outlets were
leading with, you know, notfunny X file jokes, you know,
(47:33):
jokes that they thought werefunny that no one else did. And
so that's where you're startingto see the issue taken more
seriously in Congress, but thenalso outside of it. And I am
kind of intrigued on how youknow, what the headlines are,
(47:54):
after tomorrow's hearing. And Ithink that could have a pretty
big impact on what the Senatedoes, or how many people would
show up to publicly attachedtheir name to this. Yeah. And
we'll see, I think that's onethat only time will tell. And I
think, you know, even though themedia, the press corps isn't
(48:16):
going to be up on the Dyess. Ithink we play a pretty big role
in this. And I think Thus far,we've largely done a disservice.
John Greenewald (48:26):
This may be a real dumb question. I just don't
know the answer. Is there a listor is it publicized on what
media outlets are approved toattend? Because because there is
an approval process? Right. Notreally,
Matt Laslo (48:40):
like So technically, I have my own Bureau, the Lazlo
congressional Bureau LCB. So Ijust emailed and asked to RSVP
share. suspicious package. Oh,I'll clear. So yeah, I haven't
(49:00):
heard back from them yet. Butglad that suspicious package is
cleaned up. And so we'll see.Even like my usual thing, I
don't even want to be inside thehearing room. All like listen to
it. But then I started
John Greenewald (49:16):
Did you say you do want to be or don't want to
be? I don't want to be
Matt Laslo (49:19):
I stand in the hallway listening to it on C
span. And then when lawmakersleave, that's when I asked them
in 21 questions as follow ups totheir questions for the
witnesses. Yeah, that's whatI've been doing for 17 years and
John Greenewald (49:34):
you just made the UFO community happy that's
camping out as we speak outsideof the room, hoping to get a
seat because there's a lot ofrumors that they're not even
going to get a seat but so yeah,I'm kind of surprised to hear
that you stay out in thehallway. But now I totally
understand why. So we don'tknow.
Matt Laslo (49:51):
I'll pop in and I'll take some notes because I'm a
feature writer. So I always takenotes like what color ties folks
are wearing, you know Get apicture when the witnesses come
in and then kind of get apicture of the media frenzy. Get
a sense of it. Yeah, I I'msitting in a seat, neutered for
(50:14):
lack of a better term. You know,I got my microphone, I want to
use that.
John Greenewald (50:18):
No, that's That's seriously commendable.
That's, that's awesome. That'sawesome to hear. With
Matt Laslo (50:26):
C span makes it happen, because then I can hear
them.
John Greenewald (50:29):
Yeah, yeah. And for those who don't know, if you
don't watch C span, they're alsobroadcasting. And I'm gonna put
it in the show notes link below.Not only will Matt's website be
in there, and some of thearticles that we've touched on,
there's tons of stuff though,please go check out his website,
ask a poll.com. You can see iton your screen there. If you're
listening to the audio, it's asK pol.com. And again, check out
(50:52):
all of his exclusives because hereally has been killing it
lately. So I I'm gonna, thiswill probably be one of the last
questions here as we round thirdon the interview, and I want you
back in the field rather thantalking to me, because it's an
important day. Tomorrow,obviously, we're on the eve of
it. So get as much as you canout there. But I think Matt, the
journalists probably wouldn'twant to answer this. But Matt,
(51:15):
my friend now, what do youexpect tomorrow? What's your
prediction on when you'relistening on C span in the
hallway? What do you think'sgoing to happen during the
hearing? And what do you thinkthe immediate reaction is going
to be to the general public?
Matt Laslo (51:30):
I in this even includes Professor Laszlo. I
gave up on all predictions whenDonald Trump won the GOP primary
in 2016. I come from a family ofconservatives. And I'm like,
Well, I got that one wrong. Andso we'll see I definitely
(51:52):
expecting a lot of snark, fromsome members of the media. We're
already starting to see that onthe Twitter's or exes, or
whatever, we're calling it thesedays. Yeah. Social media, we're
starting to see that. Um, Idefinitely expect Luna in her
chat to come out. Very preparedto make a definitive argument.
(52:19):
Now. We'll see if they can backit up. And the question for that
is, how much are they allowed toback it up? You know, because we
hear about the briefing, theygot that they had to demand down
in Florida, where, you know, Macaids, and then they say, you
know, and Luna and Bridgettethey say they saw videos are
(52:43):
whatever of craft that could notbe human according to their
knowledge. I'm so curious, arewe the American people going to
be allowed to see any newfootage or anything like that?
Or are they going to behampered? In how much of the
case they can actually bring tothe American people, you know,
and so, with that, I just don'tknow, they're going to
(53:05):
definitely push the envelope in.In his they're going to want to
release as much as they can.Now, the game might be rigged
from the get go. So well, you
John Greenewald (53:22):
know, just to add to that, I mean, my two
cents if it's even worth that, Iwouldn't expect any type of
visuals whatsoever, because,sadly, Congress is not a release
authority. You need somebodylike a Kirkpatrick or somebody
in there that can spearhead thatthat release authority movement
to get a new video out there.But
Matt Laslo (53:42):
true. This is 2023. Congress doesn't have a hearing
without a visual aid and somekind. So yeah, we're enough.
Maybe the replay the old videos,we'll see. But even this week,
you know, clicking around,there's a lot of footage out
(54:02):
there that I don't think theAmerican public has seen, you
know, we might have seen it.Some of it in the last hearing.
We might, personally you me andothers, and UFO Twitter
community, we might have seenit, but that's where I'm curious
how much the actual Americanpublic and seen on this and so
(54:25):
who knows, pop your popcorn ifyou got it,
John Greenewald (54:27):
but yeah, no, that's exactly right. And the I
know I said last question, butif I can just throw in one more.
Do you have you heard rumblingsthat and before I asked this, we
haven't really talked about itand I want to stress the
importance of the two witnesses.We keep talking about grush but
obviously Ryan Graves and DavidFraser are both important voices
(54:48):
in this. I don't have anythingbad about the bad to say about
their testimony. I think it'sgreat to get it on the record. I
don't expect anything new fromthem only because they have done
their rounds of mediainterviews, and so on and so
forth. But I want to make surethat I add that into the show
because we haven't reallytouched on them at all. Their
voice is incredibly important.
Matt Laslo (55:09):
See, I'm a reporter. So the question to you, are you
Did it surprise you to see thosetwo witnesses alongside Gresh?
John Greenewald (55:17):
Or did? Yeah.
Matt Laslo (55:19):
Right. Why is that?
John Greenewald (55:20):
So, and again, this has to be prefaced with
their voices are incrediblyimportant. Yeah. However, for
those who have paid attention,and even just a small amount of
attention, both individuals havedone their rounds on media
interviews, I don't thinkthere's really any reason to
doubt them. I don't think thatthere's any reason that they
have to be under oath, butrather maybe submitted
(55:43):
statements to support what Ifelt should be a more of a
bigger hearing grush, I don'thave a big what's the right word
I'm looking for, like, like, abig problem with I don't know if
that's the right way to say it.Not that I have a problem with
the other two, but we've heardit and I think that if they are
(56:04):
going for the home run, I wouldhave loved to have seen, you
know, again, grush, but bring insomebody else that's supporting
him that that that told him theinformation. And let me just
quickly say, why the dotserreview process of of grush, who
approved the, at least we're ledto believe this approved him
(56:26):
speaking about dead non humanpilots about non human craft,
and everything that he says weare led to believe that he
cleared it with Doctor, that'snot an endorsement, but rather
that there's no classifiedinformation there. So then bring
somebody in who had thatfirsthand. You know, I saw that
(56:46):
that non human dead body or Iwork next door to whatever the
story is, and I'm not trying tomake light of it, but like,
whatever it fill in the blank,that's who I would have liked to
have seen. So again, not takingaway from David forever, or Ryan
Graves. They're awesomeindividuals. I'm glad that their
voices and faiths are out there,and they need to be. But I think
(57:07):
with a hearing like this, andyou nailed it, that this is what
you heard anyway. So whereverthe true source of this should
be a home run, that nails that,and I feel that this issue
deserves at that home run theGrand Slam. And it's not that
those two individuals won't giveit. It's just they won't get
anything new. And I'll close thethought with this a lot of the
(57:30):
rebuttal that I keep seeing tothat, because I have voice that
opinion here in the last week orso. The rebuttal is we have to
start somewhere. We have to wehave to build a base and branch
out from that. My response tothat, if I may, is that we have
been there. We have built thefoundation now for a couple of
years. It started in 2021. Withthe UAP report. We know pilots
(57:55):
are seeing them and militarytraining exercises and military
operation areas that informationthat foundation is there, no one
can can refute that. So it'sgreat that Ryan Graves and David
favor are there and their voiceis in the mix. Don't get me
wrong. But we're reinforcingsomething that we already
(58:16):
established in 2021. We need totake that next step, hit those
people that grush was talking tohit even grush under oath with a
few more pointed questions, andgo from there. But that's what
I've liked to see not to go offon a tangent. This is about you
mad I'm not me. That's myreaction.
Matt Laslo (58:36):
And this is where to take it back to to be questioned
for years. But this is wheremaybe it was six. But it'll be
interesting. Because again, wehave the Senate side. And so I'm
curious. I mean, we're gonna askfor chat now. I'm curious what
their calculation was, andwhether they were thinking, Oh,
hey, let's paint the broaderpicture of grush there, and then
(59:01):
when the Senate has theirhearing, you know, they'll
connect the dots more especiallywith Luna which she was telling
me made it seem like she reallywanted to get the American
people more up to speed on someof these conversations that are
probably settled in UFO Twitterfor lack of a better term. And
(59:23):
so who knows a lot of times wethink all these steps for
lawmakers and then it turns outlike Nope, this is what they
did. You know, these are thepeople who read time. So
John Greenewald (59:39):
you could absolutely be right that they're
trying to lay the foundation andand inform the American people I
think maybe I'm in the not tosay it's the right or wrong
mindset but more in the mindsetthat they've had they meaning
the American people have hadtheir chance to pay attention to
the 25,000 news articles. Andand news broke podcasts and, you
(01:00:02):
know, going a little bit broaderwith the podcasts and stuff like
that. But I mean, mainstreammedia has covered this a lot.
For me, I'm in that mindsetthat, hey, if you're not paying
attention yet, then you'reprobably just not paying
attention, you know, let's moveon, for those that have paid
attention. Because if there issomething to Grusha his claims,
if there's something to that,let's not give the foundation
(01:00:25):
yet again, about pilot seeingthis, that foundation is laid,
let's drive this home. Andthat's, that's where I'm at. We
can only hope
Matt Laslo (01:00:35):
grush, for lack of a better terms, the shiny objects
of the day, because he's theshiny frickin object. You know,
and I think they have a lot todeal with just with him and his
claims. But, hey, I'm not amember of Congress is I don't
want to be for one. But also, Idon't think I could ever get
enough people to vote for me. SoI got no dog in this. But just
John Greenewald (01:00:57):
I bet I bet there's at least one or two
watching this video thatabsolutely would vote for you.
So Joking aside, though I Mysincere compliments for your
journalism, for going out therefor getting the story for not
sitting at your desk and justkind of writing whatever. So
much respect for that, man, Ireally do appreciate your angle
(01:01:19):
and you pushing for answers. Butobviously your time today. So
thank you for that.
Matt Laslo (01:01:25):
I've been talking about seven miles a day chasing
these lawmakers. They're only inlike three days this week, and
then they're gone on next month.So
John Greenewald (01:01:33):
they're pulling the heavy work week again,
Matt Laslo (01:01:36):
talking about like 5060 interviews a day, this
topic and then others as well.Oh, in all those interviews with
the senators, they're going toslowly or a certain point, it
will be a waterfall, but they'regoing to start dropping very
regularly, once Congress leavesfor the month of month of
August. So stay tuned. Yourlawmakers should be on the list.
John Greenewald (01:01:59):
Ask a poll.com is the website Matt Laszlo is
the investigative journalist andProfessor extraordinaire. I want
to make sure that we plug thistonight if you are watching the
premiere of this on theblackfalds channel, make sure
that shortly after on Matt'sdiscord correct. So you can get
more information on this on hiswebsite. But on your discord
(01:02:23):
channel. Give everybody arundown. So they will come from
this interview to you overthere. What are you going to be
doing? Yeah,
Matt Laslo (01:02:32):
we're going to be we're calling them listening
sessions. But again, because Ihave all these raw interviews,
you know, raw exclusiveinterviews with so many members
of Congress. It it's easierbecause I have a day job writing
for a handful of magazines andwhatnot. I'm like, oh, it's
easier in real time just to playsome of the new audio live for
(01:02:56):
you all. And so Congressmantimbre Chet is promised me an
exclusive today. If you're gonnahappen at tonight's house, vote
at 630. Or give me a call. Sowe're gonna have fresh stuff
from him and from some of thesequestions, and then also gonna
play some fresh, never beforeheard Adam Schiff tape, and then
(01:03:19):
also Senator Mike rounds. Peoplehad questions about why. What
was the term they use? 19 timesand Schumer's? UAP. Bill, non
human intelligence, humanintelligence. Yeah. So we have
one of Schumer's co authors,Senator Mike rounds explaining
why they use the term nonhumanintelligence, which to give a
(01:03:41):
tease on it, he says doesencompass AI?
John Greenewald (01:03:47):
That's awesome. That's very, very cool. Well,
I'm gonna definitely try andtune in myself to that. Make
sure you check out the websiteagain, ask a poll.com. You'll be
able to see all the detailsabout joining that discord
channel and the live chattonight. Matt, thank you again
for your time. Get out thereinto the field. Get some more
audio for all of us, becausewe're, we're lapping it up, man.
We really do appreciate it.
Matt Laslo (01:04:09):
I take orders. Yes, sir.
John Greenewald (01:04:12):
Very good, Matt. Thanks again. And thank
you all for listening andwatching. This is John
Greenewald, Jr, signing off, andwe'll see you next time.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you
so much for tuning in and takingthis journey inside the black
vault with me. I'm your host,John Greenewald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault.com.And we are on the eve of the
much anticipated UAP hearing.Now joining me today and I'm
excited about this interview, isinvestigative journalist and
professor at at John Hopkins,Matt Laszlo. Matt, thank you so
(00:57):
much for taking the time out ofyour day. I know you've been
incredibly busy. But thank youfor joining us. Thanks for
having me. Absolutely. And thereason why I'm looking forward
to this, and I told you this offthe air, but I want to tell you
on as well, is I have a lot ofrespect for those that actually
get out into the field. Theytalk to people, they do their
own journalism, which isactually pretty rare nowadays,
(01:18):
simply because most people theysit in a chair, I call it copy
and paste journalism, they takesomebody else's work. They
fumble around the words a littlebit and they call it their own.
But you're in the field, you aretalking to Congressman senators,
talking about the UA period, UAPhearing and beyond. But before
we get into that, I want to backup a little bit. It's your first
(01:39):
time on the show, hopefully,you'll come back. But give
everybody a little bit ofbackground about your, your
work, and what is it exactlythat you cover?
Matt Laslo (01:49):
So I've been covering Congress now 17 years
for the contributor at VICE VICENews tonight. Rolling Stone
Playboy, currently contributorat Wired Magazine and raw story.
So I like to write for the funones, I guess, that historically
I've covered Congress for abunch of local NPR stations and,
(02:13):
you know, regional outlets. SoI'm also a board member of the
regional Reporters Association.
Yeah, then I've been teaching atJohns Hopkins for since 2016. I
teach on history, the mediahistory of rhetoric, but with an
eye towards how politiciansrhetoric has kind of adapted
(02:34):
with new mediums over time. Soyeah, I kind of love covering
Congress, because I get a studylawmaker lawmakers and all that
in real time. But I guess, takea few steps back. I come at
Congress when I say I interviewliars for a living. So even
(02:58):
though I know congress, I kindof see through them. And I think
they many of them kind of knowit. So that's where I started
this new venture, ask apoll.com. And especially knowing
you know, because I'm a mediaprof and studying just the gross
numbers. When I think trust inthe media now, according to
(03:23):
Gallup, it's, like 50% ofAmericans don't even distrust
the media, they think reportersare actually actively lying to
them. Which is where I came upwith the idea of basketball,
because I want to put the peoplein the driver's seat. So we call
it the people power press corps.So you all send your questions
(03:45):
in become a part of ourcommunity dialogue. And then I
take those questions directly tolawmakers. Which I'm hoping
we'll read some of you all thedeep rooted cynicism that's in
me, because I work with thepress corps, and I can't say
many of them have impressed meover the years. Some have, but
(04:07):
yeah, I think I've avoidedbecoming a swamp creature, but
always with your help. And thenwith the help of the bands I
hang out with, I used to coverentertainment in the past life.
John Greenewald (04:20):
Okay, and what So then with all of that
background, what got you toUFOs?
Matt Laslo (04:26):
So that's weird. This one at the start of this
Congress. Remember, we had allthese balloons floating over
America. And then after theyshot down that Chinese spy
balloon? Well, within a span ofthree days, the Air Force shot
down three objects. And I guessthere's one in Alaska that we
(04:46):
still don't know what it is,which had been pressing senators
Murkowski and Sullivan on to seeif they were going to request
actual video that shoot downfrom the Pentagon because I know
they've been briefed on it. Butso That's where the press corps
me included, you know, startedlooking into this book very
(05:07):
broadly, just that UAPs. Butthen David Gresh, hit like
symbol, and seeing lawmakersreact to him, What especially
one of our first interviews wasMarco Rubio, the Vice Chair of
the Senate IntelligenceCommittee. And what he said is,
(05:31):
you know, we get a ton of thesewhistleblowers, you know, and
have over the years since he'sbeen here in Washington, but he
said this was the first one thatwas vetted by the Inspector
General, deemed important anddeemed parts verifiable, or
verified. And so seeing Rubioand others reactions to his
(05:56):
claims, and especially what wokeup Congress, while David gross
claims there's recovered craft,that the US government has, you
know, that one will be able tohopefully either see the graph
or not, you know, that oneshould be fairly easy to verify
if we get through all theselayers of classification and
(06:19):
government secrecy, but thesecond claim of grush, that the
government had all these saps orSpecial Access Programs, that it
kept hidden from Congress, well,that me as a congressional
junkie that made my hair standup. And I knew that was
something that I could take toevery single lawmaker and say,
(06:40):
Hey, this whistleblower who theinspector general, that it
didn't says and threw onCongress's lap, he says the
federal government is lying toyou, you know about these saps.
And so many lawmakers stillhaven't looked into David
grudge. But I'm stillconfronting all of them with
(07:01):
that claim. You know, so part ofit is coming from that
congressional Institutionalistsangle. And knowing that this
Congress, like the pastCongress, and the one before it,
Congress these days, just seeds,most all of their power to the
executive branch. And, again,professor and a congressional
(07:22):
junkie. And so this issue forone, like, what, the year two
years ago, even like predatingthe first congressional hearing,
50 years on this, even afterthat hearing, if you would ask
lawmakers about UFOs or UAPs,you know, they'd laughing You
know, they make a joke out ofit. Not so in this Congress. And
(07:44):
so, there's this interestingwindow that opened, and yeah, I
was there. And I had asked apoll.com lined up. So especially
once I did a Wired magazinepiece on, you know, kind of
putting grush in what we call aconspiratorial Congress, you
(08:07):
know, some people, you know, theconspiracies in this Congress
run the gamut. Who would we seetestify last week in the house?
RFK, Jr. etc. And so, afterthat, you know, I got a lot of
pushback from the UFO community,because of the piece was a
little more snarky, but that'sbecause it was, you know,
(08:28):
putting a mirror up to thiscongress and kind of asking a
question, Will this Congress betaken seriously, even if they do
uncover craft or something likethat? And so, yeah, got a front
row seat and seeing you all yourenergy, your knowledge, saying,
hey, ask these questions. Youdidn't ask this. But then also
(08:50):
seeing the reaction to, youknow, Laszlo snark aside, were
like, I think I interviewed sixor eight lawmakers. Usually for
a feature, I'll interview 15 to20 lawmakers, only eight or 10
make the piece. Sometimes that'sbeen 50. Senators every once in
a while. And so yeah, seeing theenergy from the community, and
(09:15):
seeing some members of Congressreally take it seriously. But
others just brush it off. Thatjust left me with more
questions.
John Greenewald (09:25):
Before we get into the specifics of exactly
who you spoke with. Youmentioned a couple already. But
what do you think has changedfrom this Congress to those
past? You mentioned David grush.Is it all hinging on that one
whistleblower, or obviously theUFO conversation has really went
into overdrive in the last fiveand a half years or so? What
(09:46):
what do you feel has changedthat put this kind of on the
docket so to speak?
Matt Laslo (09:51):
Well, there's this interesting notion of whether
lawmakers are supposed to leadtheir constituents or whether
they're supposed to be Read bytheir constituents and it's, you
know, kind of both and, but sothis one lawmakers do tend to be
way behind on many issues fromtheir constituents. But I think
(10:12):
the polls are now like 65% or soof Americans are now. I forget
the exact language, but theybelieve that there's life out
there beyond us. And I thinkpart of that stems from, you
know, us being in this newtechnological era with
smartphones or seeing a lot morethings that aren't easily
(10:36):
explained away. And so yeah,Congress in the last one started
looking into this. And I'mcurious, and I want to circle
back with those lawmakers. ButI'm curious if that was because
of increased pressure from theirconstituents. But you definitely
have more lawmakers in thisCongress, who are open to the
(10:59):
idea of extraterrestrial beingsout there, and it and then even
you couple that with what we'reseeing right now come in from
the James Webb Space Telescope.And so like, our very limited
finite understanding of thingsjust got a lot bigger, if still
(11:22):
very limited. And, you know,every week, it seems we're
learning new things about thesolar system from the James Webb
Space Telescope. So as oursmartphones are collecting more
here on Earth, James Webb iscollecting more out there in the
nether regions. And I think it'skind of this perfect combo.
(11:42):
Well, and then you throw grush,into the mix, boom, that's the
perfect combo. For that's three,so not a
John Greenewald (11:50):
perfect trio. So those that you've talked to,
I know that you've talked toCongressman timbre Chet of
Tennessee, let's let's startthere, because he's leading the
charge with this hearingtomorrow. And arguably, he is
the absolute most vocal about aconspiracy and cover up months
ago, I was surprised to see himretweet one of my tweets about
(12:14):
UFOs. Now it's becoming a littlebit more common for him to do
that. But just straight outcalling it a cover up. I was
surprised by that, because notevery day were sitting Congress,
congressman or Congresswomantweet stuff like that. And
again, now it's becoming morefrequent. So let's start with
him. What is your experiencebeen with him? And as somebody
who has covered Congress for solong? What are you What is your
(12:37):
reaction to his feelings aboutUAP and the importance of this,
this cover up that he wants tohighlight
Matt Laslo (12:43):
her chats this super interesting guy, if you listen
to some of the audio that weposted, we posted, I think,
maybe two interviews with him onAsk a poll.com. And in the
middle of the interview, youknow, he'll stop three, four
times, because all of theselawmakers, Republicans and
Democrats are stopping him tosay hello. In the last one, I
(13:06):
think it was. Congressman, JesseJackson, who I didn't even know
was a congressman, I'm fromIllinois, but it's Reverend
Reverend Jesse Jackson, son,perchance, a Republican from
Tennessee. And so to hearJackson like, stopped him and
for chat said, Hey, thank you somuch for checking on me when I
(13:27):
was sick, and then said, hey,when you're down, you better
come down into the south, I wantto treat you to some good old
southern barbecue. I was justlike, why? You just don't see
that kind of bipartisanship inthis Congress. And I think a big
part of that is just the jovial,genteel nature of Bridgette, you
(13:50):
know, he's always crackingjokes. He's got this light side
to him, that is reallyappreciated in the building
where, you know, where,historically there was a caning
in the building. Now there's,you know, digital death threats
flying between the parties. Andso he stands out for that. Who
(14:13):
had a alone with his thoughts onUAPs and UFOs. And so, it's
interesting now to see, youknow, as the hearing day
approaches, and last week aftertheir big press conference, you
know, you started hearing a lotmore of the mainstream reporters
(14:33):
hop on the issue, kind oflooking for looking for
something to embarrass themwith? I forget the questions
they were asking. But onereporter was, Well, I think they
were just asking straight up,you know, about aliens or
whatever. And not asking aboutDavid grush. You know, and you
(14:56):
can kind of tell I'm curiousabout grush And what he knows
when I hate the term gotchajournalism or whatever, but the
questions felt leading in adishonest way. And so it's going
to be interesting to see how herchat and Congresswoman and
appalling Aluna how they handlethis. There's also a couple of
(15:18):
Democrats who were going to beat the hearing who are, you
know, fully on board with this.And so it's it'll be
interesting. You know, theinterview I, we dropped last
night on ask a poll was withoversight chair James Comer. And
(15:39):
I can't tell like he told me,yeah, I haven't even looked into
David grosses claims at all. Andhe said, I can't tell if he's
trying to wash his hands of thisand say, Hey, this is all on for
Chet and Luna. Or if he thinksthere's a there there, you can
(16:00):
tell that, you know, Burrteccomplained last week, about
different staffers from theintelligence community, whether
that staffers from Congress fromthe Intel Committee, I don't
know. But he was complainingthat there's just been all this
pressure on this hearing, andthat people were getting cold
(16:21):
feet. And so when the lightsclick on tomorrow, with, you
know, the media from around theglobe. In attendance, it'll,
it'll be interesting to see forWarren, the case for Chet moon
and make, and that the witnessesobviously make. And it's gonna
(16:46):
be interesting to see how themedia responds to that. Now, it
seems like the dynamics here,like with many dynamics in
Congress, or that the Senateinvestigations are currently a
little more trusted. Even whatComey himself told me, because,
(17:07):
you know, I asked him aboutthese charges that, you know, go
these far right, Freedom Caucuspeople are running this hearing.
You know, they're loonies, thatthat that comer is like, hey,
Chuck Schumer just moved a UAPbill. So even comer himself was
saying, hey, it's not just us.It's not just the friends, right
(17:29):
members. And so Bridgette, says,take it back to him. He's
interesting, because he's not. Iwouldn't say he's intellectually
respected or maybe anyillogically respected by the
other side of the aisle. Youknow, this is a hyper, hyper
(17:50):
partisan Congress. Butcollegially, you know, they love
him. And so there is an innatetrust they have with him because
he's been genuine, you know. Andso it'll be really interesting
to see how he threads thatneedle. And this does make me
(18:13):
want to talk to him talking tohim. Later today, before we go
live tonight, with dropping somemore of our exclusive
interviews, I'm now curious howbro chat first got into this
issue, you know, withCongresswoman Lena, or Luna, she
was Air Force, you know. And soI haven't talked to her about
(18:36):
now she got into it. But youknow, you can see what a lot of
the videos coming out are thenewer ones that the government
has been releasing, even in thelast hearing couple of years
ago, who that's Air Forcefootage. And so yeah, thanks for
the question for Mr. Burchett.I'll circle back once the
answers.
John Greenewald (18:56):
Yeah, no. And I'm glad you did. Maybe I'll
throw this out to you if itsparks another question, because
I posted this on social media,but I want to bring it up to
you. I very much am lookingforward to the hearing tomorrow.
I want to see what's going on.And we'll talk about whether or
not they made the rightdecisions in your mind on the
witnesses that they did show didchoose. But that being said, the
(19:18):
pushback that the ramp up tothis, especially in the last
week has been fascinating forsomebody like me to watch,
because I've been in and aroundthis field for a long time. I
deal with all governmentsecrets. But UFOs has always had
kind of a special place in myheart just for a personal
fascination, reason, noexperience of my own, but it's
(19:39):
just a curiosity. And the rampup to this has seen Burchett
have these push backs from NASAwhen he said NASA backed out of
tomorrow's hearing. And thenNASA to my surprise, which I
don't see often anyway, withthis topic responded to a friend
of mine, Dan Warren, so props tohim who was the question, why
(20:01):
did you back out? And NASAcompletely said no, we didn't.
That I think it was DavidSpergel, who was invited, but
declined, which is kind ofunderstandable if they don't
want to get entwined with thethe whistleblower talk, I mean,
I can understand that from fromtheir perspective. They're also
not dealing with classifiedinformation much in NASA anyway.
(20:22):
So it's, to me it's a faultyscientific study anyway. But
that's a different show. Butpushback from NASA, and then
push back from Eglin to whereEglin put out the statement that
said, Well, they're just notcleared to, to hear the
information. So when you hearBurchett, and Congresswoman
Luna, say, we were denied accessand got in a fight with the
(20:43):
general, that base fires backand says, Hey, wait a minute,
you guys aren't even cleared. SoI'm not saying who's right or
wrong. All I'm saying is it's sofascinating to see play out. And
I want to know, what thecongressmen and Congresswoman
are, are essentially going to dowith that, because that's
challenging their credibility inan open forum. What are your
thoughts on that? What are yourthoughts on the pushback? Do you
(21:04):
think it's all just part of thecover up? Do you think it's
political grandstanding? Is itboth?
Matt Laslo (21:10):
This is the curious one. And it's, you know, so I'm
a congressional reporter, youknow, I go to the White House a
couple times a year, but it's awaste of my time, a man of the
people, or something like that,you know, like, the access we
get in Congress, and I know theinstitution. And that's where a
(21:32):
reporter like me, is going tonaturally have to rely on
reporting from, you know, peopleat the Pentagon who are sourced
their people who are sourced atNASA. And because right now, I
guess I don't have a good answerto that. Because I do not see,
you know, in my 17 years, Ican't remember an agency like
(21:56):
NASA, really stepping in it, youknow, and calling a congressman
a liar. Publicly like that. Soeven, I did a triple take last
week, and I'm still in the midstof that triple take it, and
(22:16):
especially with NASA coming outso strong there. Well, now just
per chat, or Luna, say, hey, wewant to follow up hearing.
Because it seems like you guyswant to talk, you know, you
know, maybe they don't have muchto say maybe they do. And so
that's that one was curious. Tome. I'm seeing like when
(22:40):
Bridgette told me last week,that the staffers were getting
more involved and that theywere, you know, you started to
hear more of the Whispercampaigns, you know, trying to
discredit the investigation inthe house, not so much
discrediting the lawmakers, butyou'll probably hear it more
(23:02):
will well know. There'll becouched in the terms of AVS to
Freedom Caucus, folks. Whereasthese issues don't really have
much to do with that, you know,Freedom Caucus is supposed to be
focused on fiscal issues andstuff like that. And then seeing
some of those other Democrats upthere and including Senator
(23:22):
Kirsten Gillibrand. She's beenreally pushing forward with the
investigation in the Senate. Andsame with Rubio over there. And
so this one doesn't cut acrossthose normal political lines.
But in the lead up to thishearing, it kind of in the past
week, it's felt like it's thenormal partisanship, you know,
(23:46):
Biden administration, you know,Pooh poohing anything coming
from these two fringe rate.Lawmakers. When you take a step
back and in reality, no, it'snot to fringe lawmakers. A lot
of lawmakers in this Congresshave a lot of questions and the
(24:07):
Pentagon, NASA had not beenforthcoming with them in the
past, at least in a satisfactoryway to many lawmakers. So I get
the pushback from thoseagencies. But show us your
cards.
John Greenewald (24:23):
Yeah, and, and this is we can move on from from
our chat after this. But But onelast kind of thing when when
he's coming out with these verybold claims. And I posted
myself, I mean, I've followedthe Air Force's connection to
this literally for 2627 yearsnow. Just drilling in through
FOIA, especially with thatmilitary branch. What I consider
(24:46):
this massive cover up about thetopic, but at the top of the
show, and I'm paraphrasingbecause I don't remember your
exact quote, you said that youhad that you essentially
interview professional liars.That's how you said it right. So
with That's a journalist. What'sthat?
Matt Laslo (25:03):
Say I interviewed buyers for living
John Greenewald (25:06):
liars for a living. So with that being said,
from, from a journaliststandpoint and your experience,
you look at these essentiallywarring factions at this point,
you know, it's a war of words,but, but they're butting heads
like this in a public forum onTwitter, for the most part, how
(25:26):
do you know really? who tobelieve? Do you push the
military brands to show theircards? Do you push the
politicians to maybe step up alittle bit more and say, hey,
look, NASA fired back at you toshow us how they backed out? Did
they confirm? And then say, youknow, what, never mind or did
somebody intervene? The one thatI'm stuck on is is Bridget's
claim about the Pentagon givingpushback on witnesses that and
(25:52):
correct me if I'm wrong, I tookaway from that, that he had
other people that he wanted toappear, the Pentagon pushed
back, they they essentially lostthose one or two, or however
many people but have gravesforever. And Grusha at this
point. So again, correct me ifI'm wrong, but I'm most
intrigued by that. Who do you asa journalist push back on the
(26:13):
hardest to try and show theircards and kind of prove what's
being said?
Matt Laslo (26:18):
All of them. Whether it's the agencies who are, you
know, they're they have theirfiefdoms and more money, and
they want to protect. Whatbecause it's power play, you
know, even though we're seeingthis with classified
information, you know, whoeverhas most secrets or whatever,
(26:40):
you know, there's power thatcomes with that. This one's
interesting, because I don't,you know, the interview we put
out last night with comer. Hekind of again, washed his hands
of it and said, Oh, I thinkprojets now gotten everyone he
wanted, when, like a month ago,comer told me that two witnesses
(27:05):
who per chat wanted, didn't passhis committee's, you know, more
political background check. Andso I'm still a little confused
on this one as to whetherBurchett has everything he
wants? Because it doesn't seemlike he does, but then you have
(27:25):
chair comer saying, you know,head of the whole Oversight
Committee, saying, Yeah, youknow, we gave him every one he
wanted it one interesting thingwhen I was first getting into
this, just like a month ago, Iheard her chat on. Steve Bannon
is the war room, talking aboutoh, and what he said then stood
(27:49):
out to me, because he said, hisfeeling was that him and Luna
only have one shot on this. Andso he made it seem like, at
least initially, they were justgranted one hearing on this. And
so that's, you know, all yourmarbles. We'll see how tomorrow
goes. Because just knowing howthe public is hungry for
(28:13):
answers. And even what playingthis tonight on our live
listening session, but AdamSchiff, you know, he got booted
off the Senate and her party gotbooted off the House
Intelligence Committee. But sohe hasn't really been able to
look into grush. But he's stillgot big questions about these
(28:36):
phenomenon. And you know, he wasjust the head of the House
Intelligence Committee. So thefact that he's curious, he had
all this classified information,but still has questions and not
answers. That makes me thinkthat Pentagon people in those
(28:58):
communities aren't beingforthcoming. Now, whether that's
a National Security claim, orwhatever, or whether it's
actually them, covering thisstuff up and keeping it secret
from Congress. It seems likethis Congress is really set on
(29:18):
putting a period of putting afine point on that debate. So
that at least by the end ofthis, we'll know, it seems we'll
know where the secrets are. Andhopefully, they'll be public by
then. You know, because it seemslike right now in Congress,
there's a couple of differentfull court presses are going on.
(29:41):
Senate side House side, but thenalso Intelligence Committee and
armed services committeesexploring it and so intelligence
committee is going to bedifferent than Armed Services
Committee. Armed Services ismore focused on war and the
Pentagon On an machinery of war,all that stuff. And so,
(30:04):
Intelligence Committee, theyhave a broader portfolio, they
also know a lot more secrets,and are also held to a higher
standard. They know a lot ofstuff that they're not allowed
to tell us. And so that's againwhy Senator Gillibrand is an
interesting one to watch,because she's on both the Armed
(30:25):
Services Committee and theSenate Intelligence Committee.
So she's kind of got a foot inboth worlds.
John Greenewald (30:32):
Did it surprise you at all that, and you
mentioned comer, he kind ofwashed his hands of it that
these lawmakers don't have moreof a clue. I know some of them
do and follow it pretty closely.But when you talk about the
claims of David grush, you aretalking about humanity altering
world changing information, thatwould have an impact not only on
(30:55):
our knowledge about our place inthe universe, but so much more.
I mean, the implications areabsolutely staggering. So does
it surprise you that more aren'tleading the charge?
Matt Laslo (31:12):
Yes, and no. It's rare that you see, you know,
lawmakers kind of have theirfiefdoms, you know, some might
be tax long. So they're going tobe on the Ways and Means
Committee, you know, you're afarmer boom and serve on the
Agriculture Committee. You havea lot, it kind of annoys us in
(31:36):
the press corps. Because youhave a lot of lawmakers who it
almost feels like, they putblinders on just so they don't
have to talk to us, you know,whether it's about what former
President Trump is doing overhere, or, you know, whether it's
what Hunter Biden's doing overhere, you know, so they, some
(31:57):
lawmakers really stay in theirlanes. But again, that's why
this issue
stood out to me, because hey, Ithink it's Rubio who says, you
know, either he's got eithergrush was given bad information,
or
pardon my French, but Wake thefuck up. Like, these are seismic
(32:18):
claims. And the fact that theInspector General, vetted them,
sent them to Congress, that putsthem at another level, where?
Yeah, maybe it has surprised mea little bit to see I mean, cuz
you were going to talk about it.But Congress is about to be gone
(32:39):
after this week, for the wholemonth of August. So one thing
I've been doing is trying tointerview every United States
senator on UAPs. who oppose andDavid grush, in particular, so
I've now talked over 60% ofsenators, and the vast majority
of them seem totally unaware, itseems like I'm kind of the first
(33:00):
person to mention it to them, orthey had heard about it, but
hadn't really looked into it.Now, the people, hopefully by
the end of this week, I'll havewell, hopefully, I'll have all
the senators, but I only havetwo members left on the Senate
Intelligence Committee, stillthe interviewer looking for you,
Michael Bennett, and DianneFeinstein. But
John Greenewald (33:23):
the solid fans of this show, so you're in your
good shot.
Matt Laslo (33:28):
Oh, and so I'm curious, because some members in
the Senate IntelligenceCommittee, who was it? Why one
can equipped but he's like,Well, if I knew that I couldn't
tell you could have been TELUSor one of them. Who had so it's,
it's interesting. And with someof the Senate Intel members, you
(33:48):
kind of get the feeling thatthey know some things that
they're not allowed to tell us.So I'm curious if pressure
builds on them on the broaderintelligence community, where,
you know, if pressure builds onCongress from the public,
(34:11):
Congress is going to keepdemanding more and more answers.
And so there might be thingsthat are classified now, that
may become unclassified in thenear future. And I'm curious how
this one plays out. Because eventhough you have many lawmakers
playing ostrich, you know,tossing their head in the sand.
(34:34):
You got some of the mostpowerful lawmakers, especially
in the Senate, investigatingthis and so we'll see there's
definitely a clash going onhere. Between the intel
community and your congress.
John Greenewald (34:51):
Going backwards, I think you said it
was a comer interview where hesaid that they kind of had one
shot was that comer that saidthat
Matt Laslo (35:00):
Burchett said it to Steve Bannon. But he made it
seem like that was coming fromcomer slash coming from Speaker
McCarthy.
John Greenewald (35:09):
Gotcha. So they have like one shot to kind of
prove this if they're going todevote more time in the future
with that,
Matt Laslo (35:16):
and that's for this Congress. And, again, that's
where like if they hit home runor you know, get a triple
tomorrow, we might see anotherone. Especially looking at those
poll numbers 65% of the Americanpeople have? Well, I think they
(35:37):
have an answer, but you know,they want to know more.
John Greenewald (35:41):
Now, I want to say real quick, just to make
sure that those on the audioversion of this know, you've
said your website a few times,I've flashed it on screen for
those watching on YouTube. Butit's ask a poll.com that spelled
a SKAPO l.com. So make sureyou've got the one L in there.
And there's tons of of articleshere to read. And the one thing
(36:05):
I haven't mentioned is a lot ofthese are exclusive just to your
reporting, you're not parrotingfrom the the other news
agencies, you are the onegetting these recordings, you're
putting them online. So again,kudos to you for that. So back
to the witnesses for tomorrow,if it is that one shot? Do you
feel with everything that you'vedone and writing the articles
(36:27):
that are on your website? And somany exclusives, you're
obviously doing your homework?Is this a setup for a potential
home run? Or do you feel thereshould have been other people in
the hot seat, even thosecurrently in government that may
have given them more of thathome run versus a base hit?
Matt Laslo (36:47):
And this is where this one's interesting. And I'm
a journalist and 2023. Mythoughts don't matter. If
anything I get in the way
that this one's super curious.Because, again, you have the
Senate and the Houseinvestigations. Not quite I
(37:13):
mean, they're going in tandem,but not together. No, they're
going parallel, but not intandem. And so it seems like the
house their investigation ismuch broader. And Congresswoman
Luna, she tells me that, youknow, she hopes this hearing
presents to the American peopleprove that there is life out
(37:35):
there beyond Earth. Now, youwouldn't hear any senators say
that. You might have somesenators kind of thinking that.
And so it's interesting that thehouse, their case is going to be
broader. Your team, it seemslike they're going to give a
little more history into pastgovernment programs, exploring
(38:03):
UFOs and whatnot. And somepeople are asking us that ask a
poll like hey, oh, just forchatting them Do they have any
plan to subpoena? The people whocorroborate David grush, the
whistleblower story? Well,Senator Gillibrand in the
(38:25):
Intelligence Committee in theSenate, her investigation would
actually go through the ArmedServices Committee, where she's
the chairwoman of one of thesubcommittee's overseeing this.
Well, she's told me that shewants to hear grush and the
other people named in that firststory by the debrief were
(38:46):
crushed came out. That one willbe interesting. And that's
actually my question forGillibrand tonight or this week.
I'm curious if she's got a planfor hearing, and if she still
wants to crush and the otherpeople mentioned in that article
(39:06):
that seem to corroborate hisstory. Now, it seems like what
we have in the house tomorrow isgrush. And not so much people
corroborating his story. Butcorroborating the broader story,
you know, and so that's where Ithink having a divided Congress
is great.
John Greenewald (39:27):
Yeah, I can agree with that. Just to clarify
with this, the those named inthe debrief article, is she
going for the ones that weretruly feeding grush the
information, or there were twothat were mentioned in the
debrief Article One wasanonymous, but went through or
(39:48):
was listed with a pseudonym. Ithink that was Jonathan Gray,
but that was that was a falsename. And then the other one, I
think the last name was Nell Iforget the first name but that
being said, was she talkingabout Then, or was she talking
about truly getting to the rootof where grush heard about the
non human craft and the nonhuman dead pilots that he
(40:14):
referenced?
Matt Laslo (40:16):
The way I read it? And again, I'll circle back with
her? That's a great question.The way I read it was, she
wanted those people immediatelytied to grush. And mentioned in
the article, or who spoke in thearticle, and corroborated his
story. But then, you know, ifCongress does its job, you know,
(40:37):
you keep pulling threads. And soI think, the way I understood it
was, hey, once we get him, youknow, if we don't see anything,
and you know, and we getverifiable good testimony from
these folks, then hey, we wantto keep going. And I think
that's where I could see it,broadening out, but I think
(41:00):
jeweler Brandon them want tostart with, you know, just start
small with what you can prove,and then slowly build your case
and work, work your way out fromthere. But I'm not a senator. So
there's a lot of stuff that I'mnot privy to.
John Greenewald (41:15):
No, no. And I appreciate your your your
expertise and feedback on it,because we're all kind of
learning together, about howthis is playing out. And the one
thing that concerns me issomething actually that you that
you really just briefly touchedon. But as they they start
small, and they kind of youknow, branch out more and more.
(41:36):
What worries me is that thereare term limits to the senators
and politicians both term limitsas Max as they can go. But also
they may get voted out. Withthat being said, what my worry
is, is this takes forever withanything government related
takes forever. But with withpoliticians, you know, they want
to do these hearings, and thensix months, a year, year and a
(41:59):
half later, they'll do anotherone. It worries me that the
people that really are thedriving force here, they could
be gone by that. And you losethat, that that motivation to do
this. So how much if any, howmuch does that impact all this?
Matt Laslo (42:16):
I hear that 100% And this we're I'm constantly
playing devil's advocate, but oncounter to that could be paid.
Harry Reid's been gone from theSenate for a long time. But what
we saw last week with Schumerand Gillibrand young in rounds,
and you know, that six group,well, they push through and got
(42:39):
included in the National DefenseAuthorization Act, or NDAA. They
got included in that. A measurethat Harry Reid, you know, very
much close to his heart, youknow, a bill demanding,
basically, full transparency, itseems on UAPs, their chosen
(43:01):
term. And so that's where, oh,in Chuck Schumer, the majority
leader, his office told me that,you know, the inspiration for
that measure wasn't David grushinspiration for that was Harry
Reid, you know, in his legacy.And so that's where sometimes
you do see members pass thebaton. Sometimes that's within
(43:23):
their delegation, but honestly,I haven't seen yet Jackie Rosen.
She, the senator, one of thesenators from Nevada, and then
Catherine Cortez Masto. Neitherof them were really too familiar
with crush Rosen, at the end ofour interview, or later that
day, she found in she goes,Well, now that you alerted me to
(43:44):
this gruff guy, she goes, I'mgonna have some interesting
reading tonight when I get home.And so that's where sometimes
you see that baton passed withina delegation or, you know, if a
Democrat passes the seat to aDemocrat, or vice versa,
Republican to a Republican, butthen also, you see it just not
within state delegations.Sometimes there's someone else
(44:06):
in Congress who maybe wanted tobe at the forefront of the
issue. But maybe right now,they're a freshman lawmaker, and
they're kind of waiting to seewhat happens in tomorrow's
hearing. And so that's where Ihear you and you Yeah, you raise
a good point on why to be alittle pessimistic. Because the
people who are out in front ofthis issue are louder and seem
(44:28):
more knowledgeable than we'veseen in the past.
But then maybe there's a littlehope for optimism that they can
share that wealth, for lack of abetter term.
John Greenewald (44:40):
The one thing that I wanted to ask you just
again, because you're on theground there. The last UAP
hearing with the Senate andKirsten Gillibrand was obviously
there the whole time. There wasone other senator a third had
shown up asked a question thenleft. I was really let down at
one It appeared to be to thegeneral public, a lack of
(45:02):
interest. There was rumors, butI mean, we can't confirm it. At
least the general public can'tat this point that more people
showed up to the classifiedbriefing that happened right
prior. And that's, that's finefor the classified hearing. And
that's fine. But if they trulyare the voice of the people, I
would hope that they would wantto show up at the public
hearing, get as much informationfor for their constituents as
(45:26):
possible. So with that said,what's the rumblings on who's
going to show tomorrow? Like, Imean, are a lot of people
telling you that should beshowing up are going to show up?
Have you? Have you even exploredthat at all?
Matt Laslo (45:40):
haven't totally explored it, but the house tends
to be different, and even fortomorrow, sounds like I
confirmed, you know, the chair,James Comer told me that he
plans to be there because hewants to learn about the issue.
And comer gave them the hugemassive oversight hearing room,
(46:03):
even though it's a subcommitteeinvestigating this, they're
getting the big hearing room,which makes me think, you know,
especially with all the camerasthat are going to be there and
all the media from across theUS, but then across the globe,
you would think that manymembers would want to come for
(46:24):
that. But also, that's just kindof the nature of the house and
how they work. The Senate. Theyjust historically, and even
today, they tend to respond lessquickly to what the people are
thinking, you know, part of thatit's the way the Founders
(46:45):
intended it giving them six yearterms. Which, you know, one
could argue, oh, they'rebecoming experts on the issues
under their purview, which wouldhelp for this issue with some of
those folks on these committees.But I'm curious if you didn't
hold that same hearing. today.If you wouldn't have a fuller,
(47:09):
or at least more people come inand sit on that Dyess. Because
remember, just two years ago,this was so novel and new hadn't
been done in 50 years. And soyeah, most news outlets were
leading with, you know, notfunny X file jokes, you know,
(47:33):
jokes that they thought werefunny that no one else did. And
so that's where you're startingto see the issue taken more
seriously in Congress, but thenalso outside of it. And I am
kind of intrigued on how youknow, what the headlines are,
(47:54):
after tomorrow's hearing. And Ithink that could have a pretty
big impact on what the Senatedoes, or how many people would
show up to publicly attachedtheir name to this. Yeah. And
we'll see, I think that's onethat only time will tell. And I
think, you know, even though themedia, the press corps isn't
(48:16):
going to be up on the Dyess. Ithink we play a pretty big role
in this. And I think Thus far,we've largely done a disservice.
John Greenewald (48:26):
This may be a real dumb question. I just don't
know the answer. Is there a listor is it publicized on what
media outlets are approved toattend? Because because there is
an approval process? Right. Notreally,
Matt Laslo (48:40):
like So technically, I have my own Bureau, the Lazlo
congressional Bureau LCB. So Ijust emailed and asked to RSVP
share. suspicious package. Oh,I'll clear. So yeah, I haven't
(49:00):
heard back from them yet. Butglad that suspicious package is
cleaned up. And so we'll see.Even like my usual thing, I
don't even want to be inside thehearing room. All like listen to
it. But then I started
John Greenewald (49:16):
Did you say you do want to be or don't want to
be? I don't want to be
Matt Laslo (49:19):
I stand in the hallway listening to it on C
span. And then when lawmakersleave, that's when I asked them
in 21 questions as follow ups totheir questions for the
witnesses. Yeah, that's whatI've been doing for 17 years and
John Greenewald (49:34):
you just made the UFO community happy that's
camping out as we speak outsideof the room, hoping to get a
seat because there's a lot ofrumors that they're not even
going to get a seat but so yeah,I'm kind of surprised to hear
that you stay out in thehallway. But now I totally
understand why. So we don'tknow.
Matt Laslo (49:51):
I'll pop in and I'll take some notes because I'm a
feature writer. So I always takenotes like what color ties folks
are wearing, you know Get apicture when the witnesses come
in and then kind of get apicture of the media frenzy. Get
a sense of it. Yeah, I I'msitting in a seat, neutered for
(50:14):
lack of a better term. You know,I got my microphone, I want to
use that.
John Greenewald (50:18):
No, that's That's seriously commendable.
That's, that's awesome. That'sawesome to hear. With
Matt Laslo (50:26):
C span makes it happen, because then I can hear
them.
John Greenewald (50:29):
Yeah, yeah. And for those who don't know, if you
don't watch C span, they're alsobroadcasting. And I'm gonna put
it in the show notes link below.Not only will Matt's website be
in there, and some of thearticles that we've touched on,
there's tons of stuff though,please go check out his website,
ask a poll.com. You can see iton your screen there. If you're
listening to the audio, it's asK pol.com. And again, check out
(50:52):
all of his exclusives because hereally has been killing it
lately. So I I'm gonna, thiswill probably be one of the last
questions here as we round thirdon the interview, and I want you
back in the field rather thantalking to me, because it's an
important day. Tomorrow,obviously, we're on the eve of
it. So get as much as you canout there. But I think Matt, the
journalists probably wouldn'twant to answer this. But Matt,
(51:15):
my friend now, what do youexpect tomorrow? What's your
prediction on when you'relistening on C span in the
hallway? What do you think'sgoing to happen during the
hearing? And what do you thinkthe immediate reaction is going
to be to the general public?
Matt Laslo (51:30):
I in this even includes Professor Laszlo. I
gave up on all predictions whenDonald Trump won the GOP primary
in 2016. I come from a family ofconservatives. And I'm like,
Well, I got that one wrong. Andso we'll see I definitely
(51:52):
expecting a lot of snark, fromsome members of the media. We're
already starting to see that onthe Twitter's or exes, or
whatever, we're calling it thesedays. Yeah. Social media, we're
starting to see that. Um, Idefinitely expect Luna in her
chat to come out. Very preparedto make a definitive argument.
(52:19):
Now. We'll see if they can backit up. And the question for that
is, how much are they allowed toback it up? You know, because we
hear about the briefing, theygot that they had to demand down
in Florida, where, you know, Macaids, and then they say, you
know, and Luna and Bridgettethey say they saw videos are
(52:43):
whatever of craft that could notbe human according to their
knowledge. I'm so curious, arewe the American people going to
be allowed to see any newfootage or anything like that?
Or are they going to behampered? In how much of the
case they can actually bring tothe American people, you know,
and so, with that, I just don'tknow, they're going to
(53:05):
definitely push the envelope in.In his they're going to want to
release as much as they can.Now, the game might be rigged
from the get go. So well, you
John Greenewald (53:22):
know, just to add to that, I mean, my two
cents if it's even worth that, Iwouldn't expect any type of
visuals whatsoever, because,sadly, Congress is not a release
authority. You need somebodylike a Kirkpatrick or somebody
in there that can spearhead thatthat release authority movement
to get a new video out there.But
Matt Laslo (53:42):
true. This is 2023. Congress doesn't have a hearing
without a visual aid and somekind. So yeah, we're enough.
Maybe the replay the old videos,we'll see. But even this week,
you know, clicking around,there's a lot of footage out
(54:02):
there that I don't think theAmerican public has seen, you
know, we might have seen it.Some of it in the last hearing.
We might, personally you me andothers, and UFO Twitter
community, we might have seenit, but that's where I'm curious
how much the actual Americanpublic and seen on this and so
(54:25):
who knows, pop your popcorn ifyou got it,
John Greenewald (54:27):
but yeah, no, that's exactly right. And the I
know I said last question, butif I can just throw in one more.
Do you have you heard rumblingsthat and before I asked this, we
haven't really talked about itand I want to stress the
importance of the two witnesses.We keep talking about grush but
obviously Ryan Graves and DavidFraser are both important voices
(54:48):
in this. I don't have anythingbad about the bad to say about
their testimony. I think it'sgreat to get it on the record. I
don't expect anything new fromthem only because they have done
their rounds of mediainterviews, and so on and so
forth. But I want to make surethat I add that into the show
because we haven't reallytouched on them at all. Their
voice is incredibly important.
Matt Laslo (55:09):
See, I'm a reporter. So the question to you, are you
Did it surprise you to see thosetwo witnesses alongside Gresh?
John Greenewald (55:17):
Or did? Yeah.
Matt Laslo (55:19):
Right. Why is that?
John Greenewald (55:20):
So, and again, this has to be prefaced with
their voices are incrediblyimportant. Yeah. However, for
those who have paid attention,and even just a small amount of
attention, both individuals havedone their rounds on media
interviews, I don't thinkthere's really any reason to
doubt them. I don't think thatthere's any reason that they
have to be under oath, butrather maybe submitted
(55:43):
statements to support what Ifelt should be a more of a
bigger hearing grush, I don'thave a big what's the right word
I'm looking for, like, like, abig problem with I don't know if
that's the right way to say it.Not that I have a problem with
the other two, but we've heardit and I think that if they are
(56:04):
going for the home run, I wouldhave loved to have seen, you
know, again, grush, but bring insomebody else that's supporting
him that that that told him theinformation. And let me just
quickly say, why the dotserreview process of of grush, who
approved the, at least we're ledto believe this approved him
(56:26):
speaking about dead non humanpilots about non human craft,
and everything that he says weare led to believe that he
cleared it with Doctor, that'snot an endorsement, but rather
that there's no classifiedinformation there. So then bring
somebody in who had thatfirsthand. You know, I saw that
(56:46):
that non human dead body or Iwork next door to whatever the
story is, and I'm not trying tomake light of it, but like,
whatever it fill in the blank,that's who I would have liked to
have seen. So again, not takingaway from David forever, or Ryan
Graves. They're awesomeindividuals. I'm glad that their
voices and faiths are out there,and they need to be. But I think
(57:07):
with a hearing like this, andyou nailed it, that this is what
you heard anyway. So whereverthe true source of this should
be a home run, that nails that,and I feel that this issue
deserves at that home run theGrand Slam. And it's not that
those two individuals won't giveit. It's just they won't get
anything new. And I'll close thethought with this a lot of the
(57:30):
rebuttal that I keep seeing tothat, because I have voice that
opinion here in the last week orso. The rebuttal is we have to
start somewhere. We have to wehave to build a base and branch
out from that. My response tothat, if I may, is that we have
been there. We have built thefoundation now for a couple of
years. It started in 2021. Withthe UAP report. We know pilots
(57:55):
are seeing them and militarytraining exercises and military
operation areas that informationthat foundation is there, no one
can can refute that. So it'sgreat that Ryan Graves and David
favor are there and their voiceis in the mix. Don't get me
wrong. But we're reinforcingsomething that we already
(58:16):
established in 2021. We need totake that next step, hit those
people that grush was talking tohit even grush under oath with a
few more pointed questions, andgo from there. But that's what
I've liked to see not to go offon a tangent. This is about you
mad I'm not me. That's myreaction.
Matt Laslo (58:36):
And this is where to take it back to to be questioned
for years. But this is wheremaybe it was six. But it'll be
interesting. Because again, wehave the Senate side. And so I'm
curious. I mean, we're gonna askfor chat now. I'm curious what
their calculation was, andwhether they were thinking, Oh,
hey, let's paint the broaderpicture of grush there, and then
(59:01):
when the Senate has theirhearing, you know, they'll
connect the dots more especiallywith Luna which she was telling
me made it seem like she reallywanted to get the American
people more up to speed on someof these conversations that are
probably settled in UFO Twitterfor lack of a better term. And
(59:23):
so who knows a lot of times wethink all these steps for
lawmakers and then it turns outlike Nope, this is what they
did. You know, these are thepeople who read time. So
John Greenewald (59:39):
you could absolutely be right that they're
trying to lay the foundation andand inform the American people I
think maybe I'm in the not tosay it's the right or wrong
mindset but more in the mindsetthat they've had they meaning
the American people have hadtheir chance to pay attention to
the 25,000 news articles. Andand news broke podcasts and, you
(01:00:02):
know, going a little bit broaderwith the podcasts and stuff like
that. But I mean, mainstreammedia has covered this a lot.
For me, I'm in that mindsetthat, hey, if you're not paying
attention yet, then you'reprobably just not paying
attention, you know, let's moveon, for those that have paid
attention. Because if there issomething to Grusha his claims,
if there's something to that,let's not give the foundation
(01:00:25):
yet again, about pilot seeingthis, that foundation is laid,
let's drive this home. Andthat's, that's where I'm at. We
can only hope
Matt Laslo (01:00:35):
grush, for lack of a better terms, the shiny objects
of the day, because he's theshiny frickin object. You know,
and I think they have a lot todeal with just with him and his
claims. But, hey, I'm not amember of Congress is I don't
want to be for one. But also, Idon't think I could ever get
enough people to vote for me. SoI got no dog in this. But just
John Greenewald (01:00:57):
I bet I bet there's at least one or two
watching this video thatabsolutely would vote for you.
So Joking aside, though I Mysincere compliments for your
journalism, for going out therefor getting the story for not
sitting at your desk and justkind of writing whatever. So
much respect for that, man, Ireally do appreciate your angle
(01:01:19):
and you pushing for answers. Butobviously your time today. So
thank you for that.
Matt Laslo (01:01:25):
I've been talking about seven miles a day chasing
these lawmakers. They're only inlike three days this week, and
then they're gone on next month.So
John Greenewald (01:01:33):
they're pulling the heavy work week again,
Matt Laslo (01:01:36):
talking about like 5060 interviews a day, this
topic and then others as well.Oh, in all those interviews with
the senators, they're going toslowly or a certain point, it
will be a waterfall, but they'regoing to start dropping very
regularly, once Congress leavesfor the month of month of
August. So stay tuned. Yourlawmakers should be on the list.
John Greenewald (01:01:59):
Ask a poll.com is the website Matt Laszlo is
the investigative journalist andProfessor extraordinaire. I want
to make sure that we plug thistonight if you are watching the
premiere of this on theblackfalds channel, make sure
that shortly after on Matt'sdiscord correct. So you can get
more information on this on hiswebsite. But on your discord
(01:02:23):
channel. Give everybody arundown. So they will come from
this interview to you overthere. What are you going to be
doing? Yeah,
Matt Laslo (01:02:32):
we're going to be we're calling them listening
sessions. But again, because Ihave all these raw interviews,
you know, raw exclusiveinterviews with so many members
of Congress. It it's easierbecause I have a day job writing
for a handful of magazines andwhatnot. I'm like, oh, it's
easier in real time just to playsome of the new audio live for
(01:02:56):
you all. And so Congressmantimbre Chet is promised me an
exclusive today. If you're gonnahappen at tonight's house, vote
at 630. Or give me a call. Sowe're gonna have fresh stuff
from him and from some of thesequestions, and then also gonna
play some fresh, never beforeheard Adam Schiff tape, and then
(01:03:19):
also Senator Mike rounds. Peoplehad questions about why. What
was the term they use? 19 timesand Schumer's? UAP. Bill, non
human intelligence, humanintelligence. Yeah. So we have
one of Schumer's co authors,Senator Mike rounds explaining
why they use the term nonhumanintelligence, which to give a
(01:03:41):
tease on it, he says doesencompass AI?
John Greenewald (01:03:47):
That's awesome. That's very, very cool. Well,
I'm gonna definitely try andtune in myself to that. Make
sure you check out the websiteagain, ask a poll.com. You'll be
able to see all the detailsabout joining that discord
channel and the live chattonight. Matt, thank you again
for your time. Get out thereinto the field. Get some more
audio for all of us, becausewe're, we're lapping it up, man.
We really do appreciate it.
Matt Laslo (01:04:09):
I take orders. Yes, sir.
John Greenewald (01:04:12):
Very good, Matt. Thanks again. And thank
you all for listening andwatching. This is John
Greenewald, Jr, signing off, andwe'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.