October 17, 2025 • 54 mins
A hawk who preached secrecy now stands accused of mishandling it. We open with the Bolton indictment—18 counts, thousands of pages, and a century-old Espionage Act stretched to fit modern data—and ask a hard question: can selective prosecution and real accountability coexist? We walk through the legal thresholds, the political optics, and the five flashpoints likely to define the case, from pre-trial classification fights to the quiet calculus of a plea.
From there, we pivot to Richmond, where Virginia’s attorney general race turned on a single set of violent texts. Jay Jones apologized. Jason Meyers pressed the advantage. Instead of policy, the debate became a referendum on character, forgiveness, and the limits of private speech for public office. Drawing on Virginia’s long memory—Northam, Allen, Wilder—we explore how scandal lands differently depending on narrative, tribe, and timing, and why independents in a purple state often serve as the moral jury.
Then we pull back the curtain at the Pentagon. A new policy demanded pre-approved reporting and barred even unclassified “unauthorized” information. Nearly every major outlet refused, and the Pentagon press corps dissolved for the first time since 1943. We explain why true defense reporting depends on on-the-record statements, background briefings, and off-the-record context that corrects official spin—and how gag rules don’t protect national security so much as they protect narratives. Transparency is strength; enforced silence is not.
Across these threads—Bolton’s charges, a state race with national stakes, and a historic press walkout—the theme is consistent: power resists scrutiny, and trust collapses when standards bend for the well-connected. If laws apply up the ladder, if voters set clear lines, and if the press can question without pre-clearance, legitimacy recovers. If not, we normalize secrecy, spin, and resignation. Hear the stakes, not the slogans. Subscribe, share with a friend, and tell us: where should the line be drawn?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:46):
Welcome to the Darrow McLean Show.
Let's get into the show, so herewe are again.
Another week in America, anotherhigh-ranking official in
handcuffs or at least in theheadlines.
This time, it's John Bolton.
Yes, that John Bolton.
The mustache hawk, the man whomade bomb Iran sound like a
foreign policy strategy, the onewho strutted through the
corridors of the Bushadministration pushing war, then
(01:06):
circled back under Trump asnational security advisor.
The man who, for decades, toldthe world that he, above anyone
else, knew how to protectAmerica's secrets.
And now, he's the one accused ofmishandling them.
A federal grand jury in Marylandindicted Bolton on 18 criminal
counts, eight for unlawfullytransmitting national defense
information, and ten forunlawfully holding onto
classified documents he had nobusiness keeping.
(01:28):
And we're not talking aboutdoodles or dinner menus here.
The indictment says federalagents seized thousands of pages
some marked top secret from hishome and office.
Files tied to weapon systems,intelligence sources, foreign
adversary plans.
The kind of material that if youor I walked out of a government
building with it, we'd be in anorange jumpsuit before dinner.
Each count carries up to tenyears.
Do the math, Bolton, age 76,could be looking at a life
(01:50):
sentence.
The skeleton in the flesh now,that's the skeleton.
But skeletons are clean, almostclinical.
The flesh is where the storylives.
This indictment reads like acautionary tale about ego.
Bolton allegedly kept diary-likenotes, more than a thousand
pages, and even sent some torelatives over private email
accounts.
Imagine that a man who sat atthe highest table of national
(02:12):
security casually shipping offgovernment secrets like they
were Christmas letters.
And to make it worse.
Prosecutors say some of thoseaccounts were hacked.
If that holds up in court, itisn't just sloppy.
It's reckless.
But let's not pretend this issimply about carelessness.
Bolton is a smart man.
Too smart to accidentally walkoff with boxes of top secret
(02:33):
material, which means either hethought the rules didn't apply
to him, or he was trying topreserve his legacy, his
receipts, his leverage.
Politics masquerading as justiceor justice done right.
And here's where the air getsmurky, because Bolton wasn't
just any bureaucrat.
He became one of Donald Trump'sloudest critics after leaving
the White House.
His book, his interviews, histestimony, all of it was
(02:53):
designed to paint Trump asunfit, unhinged, unsafe.
So when the Trump led JusticeDepartment turns around and
slaps Bolton with an indictment,you gotta pause.
You gotta ask, is this justice?
Or is this revenge served cold?
History doesn't help.
The DOJ under Trump has indictedJames Comey.
It has gone after Leticia James,the New York AG who dared
(03:14):
prosecute Trump's empire.
It has threatened others in thesame orbit.
So when Bolton's name comes up,it doesn't smell like
coincidence.
It smells like strategy, likeintimidation.
But that doesn't mean Bolton isinnocent.
Both things can be true.
A man can mishandle secrets, astrisk be prosecuted selectively
for political reasons.
That's the uncomfortable spacewe're sitting in right now.
The double standards questionhere's the broader tension.
(03:35):
How do we treat powersfavorites?
When lower-level militaryanalysts leak classified
information, they're brandedtraitors.
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden,reality winner each faced harsh
punishment or exile.
But when the powerful do it,when ex-presidents stash nuclear
plans at a golf club, or whennational security advisors ship
notes to relatives, suddenly wehear talk about
overclassification, gray areas,nuanced defenses, that double
(03:58):
standard is poison.
Because the public sees it,feels it, and concludes what
many of us already suspect.
Justice isn't blind.
It peeks through the blindfoldto see who's standing in front
of it.
The Espionage Act and theprecedent, let's dig into the
law for a minute.
Prosecutors are leaning on theEspionage Act of 1917, a law
originally meant to stop spiesduring World War I.
Over a century later, it's beingstretched and twisted to cover
(04:20):
laptop hard drives, emailservers, and diaries.
The Act doesn't require proofthat Bolton sold secrets to a
foreign power, just that hewillfully retained them without
authorization.
That's a low bar.
Which is why civil libertarianson the left and the right are
nervous.
Every time the governmentbroadens this law, it opens the
door for the next official, thenext journalist, even the next
(04:40):
whistleblower to be draggedunder it.
So ask yourself, do we want thisprecedent?
Do we want espionage actindictments to become routine
weapons in political wars?
Because once you normalize it,you can't put the genie back in
the bottle.
The human factor Bolton is nosaint.
He has spent his careercheerleading wars that kill
thousands of American soldiersand tens of thousands of
civilians abroad.
He has brushed asideinternational law when it suited
(05:02):
him.
He once said the UN building inNew York could lose ten stories
and nobody would notice.
This is a man who believed ruleswere for other people.
And maybe that's the mostAmerican part of this story, the
arrogance of power.
The idea that the rules areoptional if you sit high enough
on the ladder.
Bolton's downfall, if it comes,will not just be about illegal
technicality.
It will be about hubris.
(05:22):
The same hubris that has stainedso many careers before his what
to watch so what happens next.
Here are the five flashpointsI'm watching.
Why pre-trial battles.
Bolton's lawyers will fighttooth and nail over classified
evidence.
Expect motions about what can berevealed, what stays hidden.
Two, the defense strategy.
Will Bolton lee hard on thepolitical retaliation angle?
(05:45):
Almost certainly.
And with Trump as the backdrop,that argument will resonate with
millions.
3.
Leaks.
Don't be surprised if bits ofthe C's documents drip out into
the press.
Washington leaks like a sievewhen power is on a line.
4.
Judge and jury.
Who presides over this case?
That matters.
A strict judge could box Boltonin.
(06:05):
A cautious one might bend towardnational security claims.
5.
The plea question.
These cases rarely go to trial.
The government doesn't wantsensitive evidence aired in open
court.
Bolton doesn't want to riskdying in prison.
So will there be a deal?
Why this matters beyond Bolton,let's zoom out.
Because the Bolton indictmentisn't just about Bolton.
(06:26):
It's about what kind of republicwe want to be.
Do we want to live in a countrywhere officials at the highest
level are untouchable?
Or one where justice actuallyreaches the loftiest offices.
It's about how we handlesecrecy.
Our government classifiesmillions of documents every
year, many unnecessarily.
But once they're stamped topsecret, they become weapons.
Against whistleblowers, againstenemies, against political
(06:47):
opponents.
It's about trust.
If the public believesindictments are just political
vendettas, then faith in thesystem crumbles even further.
If the public believes elitescan mishandle secrets with
impunity, then faith crumblestoo.
Either way, legitimacy bleedsout.
In the end, this case is amirror.
It reflects us back toourselves.
It asks, do we truly believe inaccountability?
(07:09):
Or is that just a slogan we dustoff when convenient?
If Bolton broke the law, heshould face consequences not
because he's Bolton, but becauseStrisku endangers national
security should.
If this is political revenge,then it's a disgrace not because
Bolton is a saint, but becauseweaponized justice corrodes the
republic faster than any foreignadversary ever could.
So here's the paradox.
Whether you cheer or jeer thisindictment, the real verdict
(07:30):
will not come from thecourtroom.
It will come from Stristeris'respond.
Do demand fairness.
Do we resist double standards?
Do we stop excusing our sidewhile crucifying the other?
Because if we don't, thenBolton's case won't be an
anomaly.
It will be a template.
And the next name and the oneafter that will remind us that
in a republic, drifting towarddecay, no one's secrets stay
(07:51):
safe and no one's power lastsforever.
Maybe that's the lesson here.
The higher you rise, the heavierthe fall.
And when your mustache is theonly part of your legacy, people
remember kindly you've alreadylost.
This week it happened again.
Richmond hosted the only debatebetween Attorney General Jason
Meyers, the Republicanincumbent, and former delegate
Jay Jones, the Democratchallenger.
(08:12):
Attorney General debates inVirginia are quiet affairs.
They don't move the nationalconversation.
But this year, the stakes areenormous and the spotlight is
harsh because Jay Jones iscarrying a scandal into this
race that simply won't die.
Back in 2022, Jones sent textmessages where he suggested
shooting then House Speaker ToddGilbert, a Republican.
(08:35):
They weren't policy arguments.
They weren't jokes that landedwrong.
They were violent words fromsomeone who wanted to be
Virginia's top law enforcementofficer.
And now, in 2025, those wordshave come back like a ghost at
the banquet.
Thursday's debate wasn't aboutopioid settlements, sentencing
(08:55):
reform or consumer protection,all the usual AG talking points.
It was about those texts.
Jones opened by apologizing,admitting it was reckless,
immature, and wrong.
He tied it to youthful failings,even referenced to careless
driving charge the same year.
He tried to do a politician'salways trying to scandal,
(09:15):
apologize fast, apologize hard,and then pivot to policy.
But Meyers didn't let him.
He hammered the text as proof ofcharacter.
He cast Jones as fundamentallyunfit.
And if you watch closely, youcould see the strategy stay
calm, look steady, and let Jonesdrown in his own baggage.
Here's where the weight ofhistory presses down.
(09:37):
Because Virginia has a striskrecord of political scandals
that don't stay confined to theold dominion, they ripple across
the nation.
Ralph Northam 2019, theDemocratic governor, nearly lost
his office when a yearbook photosurfaced showing him in either
blackface or a clan robe.
For weeks, Virginia was the buttof national jokes, the subject
of oaths on race andaccountability.
(10:00):
Northam survived, but only aftera prolonged apology tour and a
heavy pivot to racial equitypolicy.
The lesson.
Scandals can be survived, butthey scar you.
(10:26):
Wilder's story is complicated, abreakthrough figure whose
integrity was often underscrutiny.
Virginia voters were remindedthat history making doesn't
inoculate you from scandal.
George Allen, 2006.
The Republican senator wascruising toward re-election
until a single word macaquetorched his campaign.
That slur, caught on camera,ignited a firestorm about race,
(10:51):
culture, and who Allen reallywas.
He lost that race, and with it,his shot at the presidency.
The lesson?
One slip, one moment cancollapse a career.
Now Jay Jones enters that samelineage.
His violent texts sit alongsideblackface photos, racial slurs,
ethical shadows, differentcontroversies.
(11:12):
Same question.
How much grace do Virginiavoters extend when scandal
erupts?
The double standard offorgiveness, here's the harder
truth.
We forgive differently dependingon who's talking.
Northam?
Survive because Democratsrallied and voters decided
policy mattered more than ayearbook photo.
Alan.
Crash because the macaca momentfit too neatly into a narrative
(11:34):
about arrogance and racism.
Wilder.
Endured but never withoutsuspicion.
So what about Jones?
He's a young black Democrat.
His scandalous violent rhetoric,something Democrats usually pin
on Republicans.
Republicans say, look, he'sunfit.
Democrats counter, he apologize.
Let's move forward.
(11:54):
But forgiveness is a politicalcalculation, not a moral one.
If Jones were running in a deepblue state, maybe the apology
would land.
But Virginia Virginia's purple.
Which means independents andsuburban moderates decide the
race.
And independents tend not to beforgiving when violence enters
the story.
(12:15):
The fourth, what this says aboutus, the bigger issue isn't Jay
Jones, it's us.
Our political culture hasnormalized violent talk.
From Trump saying he could shootsomeone on Fifth Avenue to
online threats against judgesand members of Congress, the
language of violence has seepedinto mainstream politics.
And each time we shrug a littlemore, Jones's texts force a
(12:39):
confrontation.
Do we draw a line in Virginia?
Do we say no, you don't get tobe attorney general if you once
joked about shooting yourpolitical rival?
Or do we say we're all human, weall make mistakes, let's look
past it?
That's the choice voters face.
Not Mayers' platform versusJones's platform.
But whether words spoken inprivate disqualify you from
(13:00):
holding power in public, VAnational implications, why does
this matter outside Virginia?
Because the country is watching.
Republicans will say if Joneswins, Democrats have no
standard.
They'll hammer that message inswing states.
Democrats will say if Jonesloses it proves the GOP can
weaponize personal failings toerase policy debates.
(13:21):
They'll claim hypocrisy,pointing to Trump's endless
scandals.
Either way, this down ballotrace becomes national
ammunition.
VI lessons from the past,warnings for the future look at
the patterns Tris Northamsurvived by shifting to racial
equity policy.
Driskallen lost because hisscandal confirmed the worst
suspicions about him.
Wilder's legacy remains mixedbecause suspicion never left.
(13:44):
Jones is standing at that samefork in the road.
If he can redefine himselfthrough humility and a broader
policy vision, he may survive.
If not, Mayers will coast tore-election, and Jones will be
remembered not as a rising starbut as the man who texted his
career away.
Closing Reflection Virginia'sMirror Virginia has always been
(14:04):
a mirror for America, the cradleof presidents, the site of
massive resistance, the testingground for what the South
becomes after the civil rightsera.
Now, in 2025, the mirror showsus something uncomfortable.
Our tolerance for politicalviolence, our double standards
and forgiveness, our hunger forscandal, and our selective
(14:25):
memory.
If Virginians forgive Jones, itsignals that apologies and
growth still count in ourpolitical life.
If they don't, it signals thatsome lines can't be crossed.
Either way, the verdict willecho far beyond Richmond.
The lesson from Northam Allen,Wilder, and now Jones is this in
Virginia scandal neverdisappears.
It lingers, it shapes legacies,and it forces voters to wrestle
(14:49):
with what matters most morality,redemption, or raw partisan
advantage.
And that, my friends, is why arace for attorney general has
(16:51):
become one of the most importantstories in American politics
this year.
SPEAKER_05 (16:55):
On the historic trip of Middle East peace, which uh
our generation of veterans neverdreamed would be possible.
So you would think that thePentagon press corps of all
press corps would be front andcenter across the board on
wanting to give credit to thepresident for forging this kind
of peace.
And instead, what they want totalk about is a policy about
(17:17):
that, which simply says maybethe policy should look like the
White House or other militaryinstallations where you have to
wear a badge that identifiesthat you're pressed, or you
can't just roam anywhere youwant.
It used to be, Mr.
President, the press could goanywhere, pretty much anywhere
in the Pentagon.
SPEAKER_09 (17:36):
I covered the Pentagon for six and a half
years.
I covered the White House forfour years.
I covered the Pentagon when youwere there.
And um we knew not to you don'twalk into the tank.
Uh and the classified areas areoff limits.
Um we obviously were alwaystrying to get the story from
different elements, and therewas a freedom, but everybody had
(17:56):
badges with them.
At the White House, I neverwalked into the Oval Office with
a situation we're on.
Um, these are stipulations thatessentially are changing the
dynamic about how to getinformation and how they
disseminate information.
SPEAKER_02 (18:11):
Yeah, I mean, uh, it it doesn't seem like the whole
story is being told to ourviewers here.
What they're really doing, theywant to spoon feed information
to the journalists, and thatwould be their story.
That's not journalism.
Journalism is going out andfinding the story and giving all
the facts to support it.
And that no one's gonna walk inand bang on the door of a
(18:34):
four-star general or or seniorcivilian policy leader in the
Pentagon.
I never had that, but I did havejournalists chasing a story of
something that was going on inthe Army.
You know, those things arelegitimate.
And if anything, what wouldfrustrate us sometimes is we
didn't teach it to it.
I mean something bad ishappening, and we're getting our
(18:54):
act together to do it, andsometimes, you know, well, let's
wait a couple of days before weuh talk about that, and you guys
are on it.
SPEAKER_09 (19:02):
And that's journalism.
And we know the stipulationsabout classified information,
and if there are leaks or thereare situations, there are
investigations many times thatlead to that.
But in the day-to-day, formilitary families for military,
us being in the Pentagon isusually an asset.
SPEAKER_02 (19:20):
Yeah, I I have never ever seen it.
I mean, when I was a four-stargeneral, I insisted that all our
new brigadier generals give aclass a few days on what the
role of the media is in anAmerican democracy.
These are often new generals.
And then I would I wanted themto practice and give interviews
and how to deal with therealities of it because they
(19:41):
have they have all theseincredible warfighting skill
sets, but dealing with the mediaisn't one of them.
And so the education of them wasvery important to me too that
they would welcome and don't seethe media as something to be
intimidated by.
See the media as your conduit tothe American people.
And that's how I always saw itand believed in supporting it.
(20:03):
There were times when storieswere done that make me flinch a
little bit.
Yeah, but that's usually becausewe had done something, it wasn't
as good as we should have doneit.
SPEAKER_09 (20:12):
Well, we're all standing in solidarity, almost
all of us, and um we hope thatchanges.
We'll see where this policygoes.
SPEAKER_04 (20:19):
Now, for the record, that was four-star general Jack
Keane and Fox News anchor BrettBaer, a former Pentagon
correspondent, as uh rememberthis is Fox News now, as they
blasted the Defense Department'snew media restrictions on
(20:43):
Tuesday night on Fox News,calling them a threat to press
freedom.
The policy introduced by DefenseSecretary Pete Hex, who
ironically himself is a formerFox News anchor, requires
journalists with the PentagonCredential Society pledge not to
(21:05):
obtain or use any unapproved orauthorized unauthorized
material, even if theinformation is unclassified.
So let me say this in frankterms.
(21:27):
What PKZ is trying to do is makethe United States press behave
like the press in North Korea.
He is trying to get journaliststo be state media.
That in the United States ofAmerica is inappropriate.
(21:50):
It is in fact so inappropriatethat now the Pentagon no longer
has a press corps for the firsttime in United States history.
Let me say that one more time.
The Pentagon no longer has apress corps for the first time
(22:12):
in United States history becausefollowing the new restrictive
rules imposed by the DefenseSecretary Pete Hexek, the
Pentagon Press Course has devoldissolved as of October 15,
2025.
Major news outlets, includingFox News, the Associated Press,
Rutters, MPR, CNN, and the NewYork Times refused to sign the
(22:39):
new policy, which they arguedthreatened the core of
journalistic uh principles andthe First Amendment rights of
the press.
So the journalists returnedtheir access badges and vacated
their workplaces inside thebuilding, making it the first
time since the Pentagon openedin 1943 that no major news
(23:04):
organizations have beenaccredited to cover the military
headquarters.
The only organization remainingwas the people who have now
decided that they will be thepropaganda network for the
Pentagon, the OAN.
So here's the deal.
(23:25):
And I do plan to do a uhmonologue about this and write a
subsec article about this.
But as it stands, the Pentagontried to force Americans,
American journalists to sign apolicy stating they would only
publish articles that wereapproved beforehand by the
(23:50):
Pentagon.
And these are the organizationsthat rejected the Pentagon's
requirements.
And listen to the diversity inthis so you can hear how
ridiculous it is.
The the the organizations thatrejected the Pentagon's
requirements are ABC News, Airand Space Force magazine, Al
(24:11):
Jazeera, Al Monitor, AviationWeek, ASEO, Bloomberg News,
Breaking Defense, C4IRS, NET,CBS News, CNN, Defense Daily,
Defense News, Defense One,Federal Times, Fox News,
(24:36):
Hufferton Post, Military Times,MSNBC, Newsmax, NBC News, MPR,
PBS NewsHour, Political, RealClear Politics, Rutter, Task and
Purpose, USNI News, WTOP News,The Associated Press, The
(24:58):
Atlantic, The Daily Center, TheEconomist, The Financial Times,
The Guardian, The Hill, The NewYork Times, The Wall Street
Journal, The Washington Post,The The Examiner, The Washington
Examiner, The Washington Times,the one News Organization that
(25:20):
said we will take marchingorders from the Pentagon and
report everything the Pentagonsays uncritically, and as we
write our articles, first givethem to the Pentagon for
approval, was the organizationknown as One American News.
(25:41):
What a shame.
SPEAKER_08 (25:42):
Pentagon, uh, so that you and I can uh go off on
this one.
This this this has been drivingme crazy.
And uh Ryan, you and I both haveexperience.
It's good to be joined by anactual former Pentagon
correspondent here.
Thank you, thank you, a formerPentagon correspondent.
Uh one of my proudest moments,my first actual uh reporting
job.
So here's what's kept currentlyhappening.
Pete Heggseth and his personallawyer, who he has hired now at
(26:05):
the Pentagon.
SPEAKER_06 (26:06):
Who is sometimes suing the Pentagon?
Who is sometimes suing thePentagon?
Like people understand that?
Yeah.
Um Pete Heggseth's personallawyer is suing the Pentagon by
working.
Also working at the Pentagon.
At the Pentagon.
Okay.
SPEAKER_08 (26:17):
Um so that guy, the guy who defended him uh in rape
accusations and other whatever.
Um who knows uh what happened.
Uh that guy and P Hex Edith haveconcocted new press requirements
at the Pentagon, where anycorrespondent who works at the
Pentagon has to be forced tosign a 21-page document.
(26:39):
That 21-page document, let's putthis up here on the screen,
requires a couple of things.
It's more complicated, but thisis distilled from the Pentagon
quote.
Number one, the press no longerroams free.
Number three, or number two, thepress must wear a visible badge.
Number three, credentialed pressno longer are permitted to
select criminal acts.
(27:01):
Let's go through these claimsone by one, because this makes
sense if you're an idiot andyou've never been inside of the
Pentagon.
All right.
Number one, as I as I literallyused to cover the Pentagon, you
do not roam free in thePentagon, okay?
Believe it or not.
It is one of the most securebuildings in the world.
I used to cover the White House.
The White House is 10 times lesssecure.
(27:22):
I could quite literally walkinto the high, like big parts of
the West Wing as a reporterwithout ever being accosted,
just over asked to open thedoor.
If that literally opened thedoor, I could walk right up into
the upper press area of the WestWing and be 20 feet away from
the Oval Office without beingasked or looked at a scan.
(27:43):
So we can buy away from surface.
Yeah.
And so that's the first one,roam-free.
By roam-free, what he means isthat you enter the building, you
go through, again, more securityat the Pentagon than you do to
even enter the White House.
You walk past a food court, aCVS.
It's like a mini building downthere.
It's like a city.
There's like a T-Mobile store,there's a huge food court, they
(28:04):
have like a bunch of gift shopsand stuff because people are
spending so much time there,there's all this stuff to do,
uh, you know, for all the staff.
And then you walk down a hallwayand you go to the press area.
Every single door is locked andit's key controlled.
You cannot go into anyclassified area.
I spent a lot of time, I neveronce was able to go into a
(28:24):
classified area.
The theory that he said is like,oh, well, some general could be
walking down the hallway and getaccosted by a drug.
Didn't see it happen once.
Not once.
Once did I see it happen.
SPEAKER_07 (28:35):
The general can just keep walking.
SPEAKER_08 (28:36):
Also, the general can be walking.
Nobody asked him to answer.
Okay.
Uh number two, a press must wearvisible badge.
Okay, uh, can we put D5 up hereon the screen?
I dug up this old photo of mineuh of my old badge.
Okay.
There it is.
That badge, yes, I know.
Forgive my forgive the dressshirt.
It was before I knew some of therules.
(28:57):
I think it works.
No, forget, forgive me.
Whatever.
That's my old badge, which I hadto wear uh around my neck with
one of my little lanyardseverywhere that I went.
Everywhere that I went.
You can see very clearly thebadge in front of you, the
Pentagon press branded badge.
Everybody, by the way, knew whothe press was.
(29:21):
Yeah, yeah, a little star in themiddle of the uh the Pentagon
thing.
But here's the point we alreadyhad to wear a badge.
That is the badge from nineyears ago, because you can see
it expired in August of 2017.
So I got I must have gotten itsometime in August of 2016.
So that's what the badge lookedlike whenever we were rowing
around with a Pentagon.
Keep in mind this is underBarack Obama, and eventually I
(29:41):
used that badge under the newpresident Donald Trump.
All right.
So that was the Pentagon policythat was in place underneath.
Now, the third thing that heclaims, and this is where you
and I can really go off, isquote, credentialed press are no
longer permitted to solicitcriminal acts.
What he means by that is that bysigning this document, you have
to commit, you will not solicitor publish classified
(30:06):
information.
And in fact, they go evenfurther.
It doesn't just apply toclassified information, because
he's making a team that does, italso applies to unclassified
information.
So effectively, what PHF issaying is you cannot enter and
cover this building if you donot print exactly what we tell
you to do.
(30:27):
That is literally what he issaying.
Now, let's explain, because Iactually got attacked for this.
I said soliciting, encouragingpeople to leak is part of the
job.
People took that as encouragingpeople to leak classified
information.
First of all, yes, that is partof the job.
And if you have it, send itover.
We'd love to know.
Do you like speaking rehears?
Or do you like that?
Yeah, do you like realinformation or not?
Um, but second, encouragingpeople to leak also falls in the
(30:49):
category of the Pentagon makesan announcement.
You and I hit up people, orsometimes they hit us up, and I
go, what's really going on here?
They'll go, yeah, man, it'sbullshit.
You know, this, this, and this.
And you go, oh, okay, can I citethat on background?
That is not classified at all.
Usually it's aboutclarification, some background
information, some behind thescenes.
He doesn't even want that to bereported because that would
(31:12):
report on the chaos that's inthe building for Mr.
Hegstead.
And the what galls me about thisare the lies.
The lie that the pet the pressjust roams for you all over the
building.
Bullshit.
Literally doesn't happen.
I'm telling you it doesn'thappen.
It's just a cover.
Uh, number two, we didn't wear abadge.
I just showed it to you.
I had to wear it around my neckevery place that we went.
Couldn't even enter the buildingwithout it, literally.
(31:32):
Um, number three, solicitinformation.
What he would even, and I didthis all the time.
So here's it, I'm I know I'm inthe weeds and I apologize, but
the lack of transparency aroundthis is what causes people to
take this type of bullshitseriously.
So what will happen is let'stake this Venezuela thing in the
old days when I would cover it,especially ISIS.
They would call us in and theywould say, we just hit a boat,
(31:55):
you know, or we just hit an oilrefinery by ISIS.
We'd say, okay, and they providean on-the-record statement,
which is the official version.
Then they would go on backgroundwhere we could not cite them
directly, and we would say,okay, so what happened here?
And they're like, well, here'show we got the information, and
we got this and that.
And then we would ask follow-upquestions.
And then sometimes what you dois if you're a good Pentagon
(32:17):
correspondent, you've gotsources in Iraq or something
like that.
And you call them and you'relike, hey man, like here's what
the Pentagon is saying.
And they're like, oh, that'stotal bullshit.
Actually, it did this.
And so then what you do, by theway, that would be considered a
criminal act or illicitlycriminal.
And then what you do is you goback to them and you go, hey
man, I just spoke to peoplefamiliar with the strike.
They're saying what you'resaying is wrong.
(32:37):
They said it was a right part.
They said Right, exactly.
It was a win part.
Or they said it was 50 killed asopposed to 500, right?
And this happens all the time.
This is the standard part of thejob.
And they go, Yeah, you know,yeah, you got me, right?
And and and that most of thetime is what it was.
Or they would scream at you,which I also got uh quite a bit
when I was down there.
(32:58):
That's the job of quotesoliciting information.
They don't even want that.
And so they've created thiswhole brew haha where they're
trying to convince people thatit's like a criminal act to
solicit clarification.
This is a$1 trillion budget.
And the worst part is, Ryan, iseven covering it, it's very hard
(33:19):
to not be a stenographer becausethey so limit your access that
they make it nearly impossibleto print anything, which doesn't
come from official channel.
Unless you're really good atyour job, really, really, really
good, almost everything is gonnacome through some official
channel, which I would argueworks to their benefit.
Because the truth is, most ofthe people who cover the
(33:40):
Pentagon are the most neoconpeople in the world.
If you think about BarbaraStarr, Glenn Greenwald used to
joke that she was the Pentagon'sreporter at CNN, not the CNN's
reporter at the Pentagon.
Or uh, what's that woman's name?
Jennifer from Fox News, who'slike always just repeating the
pro-war with Iran line.
(34:01):
They love having those people inthe building because they have
they repeat their talkingpoints, they get sources, right?
It's it's not like they're evenall that antagonistic, not
nearly enough for my purposes.
So, yeah, I mean, all of itsettles Ryan on this idea that
soliciting classifiedinformation is a crime.
First, no, it's not.
It's actually not.
But and and if somebody leaksyou classified information,
(34:22):
that's on them.
But even more so, this is thisis really bad because this is
the first time since 1943 thatthere will not be a
preponderance of journalistsinside of that building or
reporting on the Pentagonbecause they refused to sign
their ridiculous agreement.
SPEAKER_07 (34:37):
Is it still only one America?
SPEAKER_08 (34:39):
It's only one America News.
SPEAKER_07 (34:40):
So the Washington Examiner said no.
My former employer, the DailyCaller, Daily Collar said no,
Washington Times.
Fox News said no, Fox News.
Pete Heggseth's former employer,Fox News.
So and your proximate point thatthis is about covering up the
chaos that is like bubblingunderneath uh Pete Heggseth's
leadership is key, becausethat's that's why specifically
(35:02):
they're doing it here.
On the classified documents andclassified information, I even
take a more um expansive view onthat.
I was interviewing DanielEllsberg about this once, and he
made the point he's like it,it's not he's like it's not
settled law that it's a criminalact to leak, even to leak
classified information.
It's like the First Amendmentdoes not have a carve out for
(35:25):
government employees.
Now, you can fire a governmentemployee, you can sanction them,
you can tell them they couldnever work for the government
again.
But his argument is if you are agovernment employee and you see
the government committing acriminal act, your First
Amendment right is to speakabout that and is to share
information about that.
(35:46):
Now, you could imagine carveouts or you say, well, treat
well, treat he said treason isdifferent.
If you sell governmentinformation, yeah, that's a
whole other to a foreigncountry.
That's not a that's not a FirstAmendment protected activity.
If you if if it's notnewsworthy, it's not criminal,
and it's and you're just umleaking like nuclear codes or
whatever, like you could hewould say like that does not
(36:09):
have First Amendmentprotections.
But newsworthy information thatthe public has a right to know
is not even a criminal act.
So even if you don't believe inthat expansive of an
interpretation, the idea thatit's a criminal act for a
journalist to call a source andsay, what do you know about this
airstrike?
Where the Pentagon claims theykilled 75 insurgents.
SPEAKER_08 (36:31):
And I did this every day when I covered the building.
And you that's the other funnything.
These people, they hate evenbeing questioned their official
bullshit narrative.
I literally got screaming.
He called me a shit stirringfuck face.
This was a full bird colonel,which at the time I was like 24.
I was scared, right?
I'm talking about a frankly fat,overweight, full bird colonel
(36:56):
with, you know, he's got thewhat is it called?
The oak leaf busters in that?
He's like 58, and he's dressingme down because I was like, hey,
I have a source telling me thatwhat you said is incorrect.
And they try to intimidate youlike thugs.
Like that's what they do.
Like full metal jet.
Yeah, it's like uh, it's a riteof passage, actually, to
journalists, as learning how tohow to how to deal with getting
(37:18):
screamed at.
When I talk to journalismclasses, I I tell that story
because I go, one day you'regonna be in that position.
And they try to exploit yourposition in your youth, and you
have to internally, it's weirdgetting yelled at.
But my yeah, exactly.
The reason they get mad isbecause they lied to you.
That's the whole job.
The job is saying, no, you're aliar, actually, this entire
(37:38):
time.
And Ryan, you've publishedclassified information.
We published the Discord leaksover here.
The argument from Hegeseth andall those people, even though
all the Republicans werecelebrating those Discord leaks
that we published showing thatthe Biden administration was
lying about the war in Ukraineand the level of Pentagon
involvement.
Now they're like, oh, you'rethreatening national security,
like you should be prosecuted.
(37:59):
That's the argument that Obamaactually wanted to make about
journalists and Snowden.
They wanted people like Glenn togo to jail for even reporting on
that.
And that's part of the thingthat they threw um Chelsea
Manning into prison for.
I guess after eventually uhpardoning her or whatever.
But the point is that thatextraordinary view is now the
(38:21):
one at the Pentagon.
It's so crazy because they havebanned basically all journalists
from the building if they don'tagree to sign, saying that they
will basically not clear all thefuture stories with them and not
even ask for clarification ontheir official readouts.
SPEAKER_07 (38:37):
Yeah, and it's hopeful that the uh all these
organizations are pushing back.
Um, they're siding with thefourth estate, they're signing
with the First Amendment overtheir kind of ideological
affinity.
You put up um the third elementhere.
Go check out Sagar's Twitterfeed.
He's lighting these people up.
SPEAKER_08 (38:53):
Um we'll put this guy on blast.
Joel Valdez.
Joel Valdez is uh deputy presssecretary, former Matt Gates
employee over at the Pentagon.
And after one of my tweets whereI said, yes, encouraging people
to leak is literally a job, hesays, quote, we are only
enacting good policy here at thePentagon, which I replied, here
is the irony any real journalistknows.
And Ryan, you're 10 times morereal than I am.
(39:13):
And you it's 99.9% of the time.
The people who leak out reachout to you because they have an
axe to grind.
In fact, much of the time it iscalm flax.
Flack, by the way, is aWashington term for people like
Joel, who are press assistantswho don't actually know
anything, um, who are the mostdesperate to leak on background.
Those are the people, the juniorpress staffer is about 95% the
(39:37):
person who's on the other end ofthe phone.
Be like, let me offer you somestuff, context, right?
Some background and for youruse, so just to be able to, for
your, for your ability toreport.
These are the phone calls, theprotective things that we get.
And I I encourage Joel to comeout and sign a sworn affidavit
that you have never leakedinformation before.
(39:58):
And I also want you to say thatyour former boss, Matt Gates,
has also never leakedinformation before.
And that he is, in fact, not oneof those people who has every
reporter in this town on speeddial.
SPEAKER_07 (40:10):
And in fact, I'd like him to sign an affidavit
that he hasn't leaked about thisstory.
That's right.
SPEAKER_08 (40:15):
That's exactly what I think.
I guarantee you he's leakingabout this in this specific
story.
Trevor Burrus, Jr. (40:21):
Joel, I will pay you$1,000 if you can sign a
sworn affidavit saying thatyou've never leaked uh
information.
Not just classifier, anyinformation previously in your
job, including in your currentrole.
$1,000,$1,000.
Uh I'd be willing to bet.
SPEAKER_07 (40:37):
And it can go to uh if you can't take the money, uh
charity of his choice.
SPEAKER_08 (40:41):
Sure.
Charity of your choice.
Friends of the IDF.
Charity of your choice.
Okay?
Charity of your choice.
There are a lot of differentcharities.
We will take the YouTube revenuefrom this video and we will use
it to we will use it to acharity.
Yeah.
Friends of the IDF.
All you have to do is sign asworn affidavit.
That's it.
That's all you have to do.
Okay.
Um I don't know.
Anything else to say on this,Ryan?
SPEAKER_07 (41:00):
It's um No, I'm I'm glad you and Emily are both uh
punching back uh and and therest of the conservative press.
Like that's that's what has tohappen.
Because this was the wet dreamof Obama.
SPEAKER_08 (41:10):
They wanted to do it.
They tried to throw Fox down tothe White House press corps.
Um, you know, under Obama, likeI just told you, I got dressed
down for questioning some of thebullshit that they were
reporting on about ISIS at thetime.
They hated us, hated, um, youknow, at the Pentagon.
But they didn't ban it at theend of the day.
Um, and our ability to sitthere, I would argue, and
(41:30):
actually press them a littlebit, which is frankly one of the
best parts of that job, is you,in many cases, you get to just
question generals, which almostnever happens because they'll
stream in live from Baghdad.
All you have to do is just showup to the room and you can just
ask them a question.
Like I'm talking to you rightnow.
There's a microphone right abovemy head.
(41:52):
Let's say you're coming in likevia a Zoom call, and you can sit
there and lob questions at thesepeople, and most of the time,
they would not try to censoryou.
Now, in some cases, like theSecretary of Defense or any of
that, but it actually used to beone of the more open
environments where, at the veryleast, on camera, you could
question some people in power.
Now, keep in mind, press PeteHexeth secretary, has not done a
(42:12):
press conference in four monthsthere over at the Pentagon.
And the only time they do iswhen after it's the Iran strike
or something like that.
So it's not like we're losing aton, but it is a horrible
precedent.
And it is genuinely one which Ithink it's it's the most scary
because the Pentagon, that iswhere all the real shit happens,
(42:34):
right?
The trillion dollars, thestrikes, the most nefarious
parts of the federal budget, youknow, UFOs.
Like the more that they try tomake it so that it's all
stenography, we are so muchworse off.
So good thing technology exists.
And if you have classifiedinformation, send it over.
We'd love to see it, and we willpublish it.
SPEAKER_07 (42:54):
Last point I'd make is that transparency is a sign
of strength.
Yeah, I agree.
And this tin pot stuff is a signof weakness.
I totally agree with you.
SPEAKER_08 (43:01):
I uh I actually and the irony is as of this morning,
there are three stories out nowabout Pete Hagseth sidelining
lawyers about Venezuela, PeteHags' personal lawyer being part
of this whole new mediarestriction, and about how that
lawyer has some previous ties toEpstein, um, and about how this
(43:23):
paranoia is part of the reasonwhy he's being sidelined by the
White House.
People are still gonna leak.
In fact, they're probably gonnaleak more.
So by the way, yeah, if that'syou, right here.
If you have us, reach out to usboth, we'll happily publish it.
Hey, if you like that video, hitthe like button or leave a
comment below.
It really helps get the show tomore people.
SPEAKER_06 (43:41):
And if you'd like to get the full show, ad free, and
in your inbox every morning, youcan sign up at
breakingpoints.com.
SPEAKER_08 (43:47):
That's right, get the full show, help support the
future of independent media atbreakingpoints.com.
SPEAKER_04 (43:53):
It was only only a short while ago.
Only a short while ago, that ummy conservative friends were
saying if the government doesn'thave anything to hide, they
would uh like transparency.
(44:13):
Now I'm on the libertarian endof the spectrum because I'm an
anarcho-syndicalist, and so theonly way to be that in America
is to be s uh somewhere in thelibertarian perspective.
Uh I am very distrustful ofinstitutions, especially ones
(44:34):
that can be unchallenged.
And one of the most powerfulones happen to be ones that have
unlimited resources.
What's the unlimited resource,you ask?
Taxpayer money.
(44:54):
What's the the organization thatis never, never, since I've been
alive for 40 years, that is now,has never passed an audit.
This Pentagon.
(45:15):
What is the organization that aswe know of, not a conspiracy
theory, that has lost over atrillion dollars and it is
unaccounted for.
That's the Pentagon.
That is the very place that thesectef uh uh sorry, military
(45:38):
terminology, the Secretary ofDefense has said, You are only
allowed to report our officialnarrative.
That is a bunch of malarky.
And uh it should not beaccepted, tolerated, it
(46:07):
shouldn't even be teased.
These are the same same some ofthe same people who when Barack
Obama was the president of theUnited States, and targeting
Glenn Greenwald and ChelseaManning and Edit Wood Snowden
(46:28):
and uh you know they were sayingyou know, this is government
overreach.
But this is why it's importantto be consistent.
When George Bush was doing itand saying, well, if they didn't
have anything to hide, theywould just show us the emails.
(46:50):
They would just do this and dothis and do that.
And I was sitting somewherestarting to be a bit critical
because I was in New YorkConservative at the time, said
you don't know if you havesomething to hide until
somebody's looking through allof your stuff.
And that's the truth of it.
(47:11):
You let me and 25 of my friendsbust in your home and look
through your laptop and haveaccess to your hard drive, and
go over there and sift throughyour belongings, including your
underwear drawer, and go in yourbathroom and look and see what
(47:34):
you got in there, and startinterrogating your friends and
your family and your pastor, andwe will see how comfortable or
uncomfortable each individualstarts to feel.
You have the right, as a matterof fact, you have the duty to
(48:01):
question the government thatyou, my dear listeners, are
paying for.
Don't forget that.
The FBI, they work for you.
You in fact pay their salary.
(48:22):
The CIA, they work for you.
You do in fact pay their salary.
The ATF, they work for you.
You do in fact pay their salary.
As unpopular as it is to say,because it's in favor on this
side of the aisle and not infavor on that side of the aisle,
(48:45):
customs and border patrol, theywork for you.
You in fact pay their salary.
And a general an admiral theywork for you.
(49:06):
You in fact pay their salary.
Your mayor works for you.
Your governor works for you.
Your congressman works for you.
Your senator works for you.
The vice president works foryou.
(49:31):
And yes, the president of theUnited States is a
government-funded employee.
He is paid by the taxpayer, andthat means they work for you.
They are accountable to you.
(49:55):
Why would anybody want toconcede their ability to ask
questions to an unelectedbureaucrat at the Pentagon who
you pay to work for you?
In what other capacity have youever hired anyone?
(50:20):
And a prerequisite of you hiringthem was you don't get to ask
any questions.
That is a ridiculous notion.
And if they could withstand thescrutiny, then you can know
maybe just maybe that what theywere doing was legitimate.
(50:45):
So let's go to our blast fromthe intellectual past.
We heard the poem yesterday fromOscar Brown Jr., the late Oscar
Brown Jr., uh, the great poet,and we're going to go to another
poem from Oscar Brown Jr.
called The Children of Children.
Beautiful poem, one of myfavorite by Oscar Brown, The
(51:06):
Children of Children.
And after this, the speaking ofhis voice, we will be seeing you
on the next episode.
A lot come more, a lot morecontent coming.
Uh you may like what I havecoming next.
See you on the next episode.
SPEAKER_01 (51:37):
The children of children, by the time they're
half-grown, have habits likerabbits and young of their own.
The children of children fromtheir mama's laps hop down to
the ground to be taken in traps.
The children of children aretrapped by dark skins to stay in
(51:57):
and play in a game no one wins.
The children of children, whilestill young and sweet, are all
damned and programmed for futuredefeat.
The children of children aretrapped by adults who fail them,
then jail them to hide theresults.
The children of children unableto cope with systems that twist
(52:21):
them and rob them of hope.
The children of children of sinand the shame keep pairing and
bearing, and who do you blame?
The children of children cry outevery day.
They beg you for rescue, andwhat do you say?
Welcome to the Darrow McLean Show.
Let's get into the show, so herewe are again.
Another week in America, anotherhigh-ranking official in
handcuffs or at least in theheadlines.
This time, it's John Bolton.
Yes, that John Bolton.
The mustache hawk, the man whomade bomb Iran sound like a
foreign policy strategy, the onewho strutted through the
corridors of the Bushadministration pushing war, then
(01:06):
circled back under Trump asnational security advisor.
The man who, for decades, toldthe world that he, above anyone
else, knew how to protectAmerica's secrets.
And now, he's the one accused ofmishandling them.
A federal grand jury in Marylandindicted Bolton on 18 criminal
counts, eight for unlawfullytransmitting national defense
information, and ten forunlawfully holding onto
classified documents he had nobusiness keeping.
(01:28):
And we're not talking aboutdoodles or dinner menus here.
The indictment says federalagents seized thousands of pages
some marked top secret from hishome and office.
Files tied to weapon systems,intelligence sources, foreign
adversary plans.
The kind of material that if youor I walked out of a government
building with it, we'd be in anorange jumpsuit before dinner.
Each count carries up to tenyears.
Do the math, Bolton, age 76,could be looking at a life
(01:50):
sentence.
The skeleton in the flesh now,that's the skeleton.
But skeletons are clean, almostclinical.
The flesh is where the storylives.
This indictment reads like acautionary tale about ego.
Bolton allegedly kept diary-likenotes, more than a thousand
pages, and even sent some torelatives over private email
accounts.
Imagine that a man who sat atthe highest table of national
(02:12):
security casually shipping offgovernment secrets like they
were Christmas letters.
And to make it worse.
Prosecutors say some of thoseaccounts were hacked.
If that holds up in court, itisn't just sloppy.
It's reckless.
But let's not pretend this issimply about carelessness.
Bolton is a smart man.
Too smart to accidentally walkoff with boxes of top secret
(02:33):
material, which means either hethought the rules didn't apply
to him, or he was trying topreserve his legacy, his
receipts, his leverage.
Politics masquerading as justiceor justice done right.
And here's where the air getsmurky, because Bolton wasn't
just any bureaucrat.
He became one of Donald Trump'sloudest critics after leaving
the White House.
His book, his interviews, histestimony, all of it was
(02:53):
designed to paint Trump asunfit, unhinged, unsafe.
So when the Trump led JusticeDepartment turns around and
slaps Bolton with an indictment,you gotta pause.
You gotta ask, is this justice?
Or is this revenge served cold?
History doesn't help.
The DOJ under Trump has indictedJames Comey.
It has gone after Leticia James,the New York AG who dared
(03:14):
prosecute Trump's empire.
It has threatened others in thesame orbit.
So when Bolton's name comes up,it doesn't smell like
coincidence.
It smells like strategy, likeintimidation.
But that doesn't mean Bolton isinnocent.
Both things can be true.
A man can mishandle secrets, astrisk be prosecuted selectively
for political reasons.
That's the uncomfortable spacewe're sitting in right now.
The double standards questionhere's the broader tension.
(03:35):
How do we treat powersfavorites?
When lower-level militaryanalysts leak classified
information, they're brandedtraitors.
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden,reality winner each faced harsh
punishment or exile.
But when the powerful do it,when ex-presidents stash nuclear
plans at a golf club, or whennational security advisors ship
notes to relatives, suddenly wehear talk about
overclassification, gray areas,nuanced defenses, that double
(03:58):
standard is poison.
Because the public sees it,feels it, and concludes what
many of us already suspect.
Justice isn't blind.
It peeks through the blindfoldto see who's standing in front
of it.
The Espionage Act and theprecedent, let's dig into the
law for a minute.
Prosecutors are leaning on theEspionage Act of 1917, a law
originally meant to stop spiesduring World War I.
Over a century later, it's beingstretched and twisted to cover
(04:20):
laptop hard drives, emailservers, and diaries.
The Act doesn't require proofthat Bolton sold secrets to a
foreign power, just that hewillfully retained them without
authorization.
That's a low bar.
Which is why civil libertarianson the left and the right are
nervous.
Every time the governmentbroadens this law, it opens the
door for the next official, thenext journalist, even the next
(04:40):
whistleblower to be draggedunder it.
So ask yourself, do we want thisprecedent?
Do we want espionage actindictments to become routine
weapons in political wars?
Because once you normalize it,you can't put the genie back in
the bottle.
The human factor Bolton is nosaint.
He has spent his careercheerleading wars that kill
thousands of American soldiersand tens of thousands of
civilians abroad.
He has brushed asideinternational law when it suited
(05:02):
him.
He once said the UN building inNew York could lose ten stories
and nobody would notice.
This is a man who believed ruleswere for other people.
And maybe that's the mostAmerican part of this story, the
arrogance of power.
The idea that the rules areoptional if you sit high enough
on the ladder.
Bolton's downfall, if it comes,will not just be about illegal
technicality.
It will be about hubris.
(05:22):
The same hubris that has stainedso many careers before his what
to watch so what happens next.
Here are the five flashpointsI'm watching.
Why pre-trial battles.
Bolton's lawyers will fighttooth and nail over classified
evidence.
Expect motions about what can berevealed, what stays hidden.
Two, the defense strategy.
Will Bolton lee hard on thepolitical retaliation angle?
(05:45):
Almost certainly.
And with Trump as the backdrop,that argument will resonate with
millions.
3.
Leaks.
Don't be surprised if bits ofthe C's documents drip out into
the press.
Washington leaks like a sievewhen power is on a line.
4.
Judge and jury.
Who presides over this case?
That matters.
A strict judge could box Boltonin.
(06:05):
A cautious one might bend towardnational security claims.
5.
The plea question.
These cases rarely go to trial.
The government doesn't wantsensitive evidence aired in open
court.
Bolton doesn't want to riskdying in prison.
So will there be a deal?
Why this matters beyond Bolton,let's zoom out.
Because the Bolton indictmentisn't just about Bolton.
(06:26):
It's about what kind of republicwe want to be.
Do we want to live in a countrywhere officials at the highest
level are untouchable?
Or one where justice actuallyreaches the loftiest offices.
It's about how we handlesecrecy.
Our government classifiesmillions of documents every
year, many unnecessarily.
But once they're stamped topsecret, they become weapons.
Against whistleblowers, againstenemies, against political
(06:47):
opponents.
It's about trust.
If the public believesindictments are just political
vendettas, then faith in thesystem crumbles even further.
If the public believes elitescan mishandle secrets with
impunity, then faith crumblestoo.
Either way, legitimacy bleedsout.
In the end, this case is amirror.
It reflects us back toourselves.
It asks, do we truly believe inaccountability?
(07:09):
Or is that just a slogan we dustoff when convenient?
If Bolton broke the law, heshould face consequences not
because he's Bolton, but becauseStrisku endangers national
security should.
If this is political revenge,then it's a disgrace not because
Bolton is a saint, but becauseweaponized justice corrodes the
republic faster than any foreignadversary ever could.
So here's the paradox.
Whether you cheer or jeer thisindictment, the real verdict
(07:30):
will not come from thecourtroom.
It will come from Stristeris'respond.
Do demand fairness.
Do we resist double standards?
Do we stop excusing our sidewhile crucifying the other?
Because if we don't, thenBolton's case won't be an
anomaly.
It will be a template.
And the next name and the oneafter that will remind us that
in a republic, drifting towarddecay, no one's secrets stay
(07:51):
safe and no one's power lastsforever.
Maybe that's the lesson here.
The higher you rise, the heavierthe fall.
And when your mustache is theonly part of your legacy, people
remember kindly you've alreadylost.
This week it happened again.
Richmond hosted the only debatebetween Attorney General Jason
Meyers, the Republicanincumbent, and former delegate
Jay Jones, the Democratchallenger.
(08:12):
Attorney General debates inVirginia are quiet affairs.
They don't move the nationalconversation.
But this year, the stakes areenormous and the spotlight is
harsh because Jay Jones iscarrying a scandal into this
race that simply won't die.
Back in 2022, Jones sent textmessages where he suggested
shooting then House Speaker ToddGilbert, a Republican.
(08:35):
They weren't policy arguments.
They weren't jokes that landedwrong.
They were violent words fromsomeone who wanted to be
Virginia's top law enforcementofficer.
And now, in 2025, those wordshave come back like a ghost at
the banquet.
Thursday's debate wasn't aboutopioid settlements, sentencing
(08:55):
reform or consumer protection,all the usual AG talking points.
It was about those texts.
Jones opened by apologizing,admitting it was reckless,
immature, and wrong.
He tied it to youthful failings,even referenced to careless
driving charge the same year.
He tried to do a politician'salways trying to scandal,
(09:15):
apologize fast, apologize hard,and then pivot to policy.
But Meyers didn't let him.
He hammered the text as proof ofcharacter.
He cast Jones as fundamentallyunfit.
And if you watch closely, youcould see the strategy stay
calm, look steady, and let Jonesdrown in his own baggage.
Here's where the weight ofhistory presses down.
(09:37):
Because Virginia has a striskrecord of political scandals
that don't stay confined to theold dominion, they ripple across
the nation.
Ralph Northam 2019, theDemocratic governor, nearly lost
his office when a yearbook photosurfaced showing him in either
blackface or a clan robe.
For weeks, Virginia was the buttof national jokes, the subject
of oaths on race andaccountability.
(10:00):
Northam survived, but only aftera prolonged apology tour and a
heavy pivot to racial equitypolicy.
The lesson.
Scandals can be survived, butthey scar you.
(10:26):
Wilder's story is complicated, abreakthrough figure whose
integrity was often underscrutiny.
Virginia voters were remindedthat history making doesn't
inoculate you from scandal.
George Allen, 2006.
The Republican senator wascruising toward re-election
until a single word macaquetorched his campaign.
That slur, caught on camera,ignited a firestorm about race,
(10:51):
culture, and who Allen reallywas.
He lost that race, and with it,his shot at the presidency.
The lesson?
One slip, one moment cancollapse a career.
Now Jay Jones enters that samelineage.
His violent texts sit alongsideblackface photos, racial slurs,
ethical shadows, differentcontroversies.
(11:12):
Same question.
How much grace do Virginiavoters extend when scandal
erupts?
The double standard offorgiveness, here's the harder
truth.
We forgive differently dependingon who's talking.
Northam?
Survive because Democratsrallied and voters decided
policy mattered more than ayearbook photo.
Alan.
Crash because the macaca momentfit too neatly into a narrative
(11:34):
about arrogance and racism.
Wilder.
Endured but never withoutsuspicion.
So what about Jones?
He's a young black Democrat.
His scandalous violent rhetoric,something Democrats usually pin
on Republicans.
Republicans say, look, he'sunfit.
Democrats counter, he apologize.
Let's move forward.
(11:54):
But forgiveness is a politicalcalculation, not a moral one.
If Jones were running in a deepblue state, maybe the apology
would land.
But Virginia Virginia's purple.
Which means independents andsuburban moderates decide the
race.
And independents tend not to beforgiving when violence enters
the story.
(12:15):
The fourth, what this says aboutus, the bigger issue isn't Jay
Jones, it's us.
Our political culture hasnormalized violent talk.
From Trump saying he could shootsomeone on Fifth Avenue to
online threats against judgesand members of Congress, the
language of violence has seepedinto mainstream politics.
And each time we shrug a littlemore, Jones's texts force a
(12:39):
confrontation.
Do we draw a line in Virginia?
Do we say no, you don't get tobe attorney general if you once
joked about shooting yourpolitical rival?
Or do we say we're all human, weall make mistakes, let's look
past it?
That's the choice voters face.
Not Mayers' platform versusJones's platform.
But whether words spoken inprivate disqualify you from
(13:00):
holding power in public, VAnational implications, why does
this matter outside Virginia?
Because the country is watching.
Republicans will say if Joneswins, Democrats have no
standard.
They'll hammer that message inswing states.
Democrats will say if Jonesloses it proves the GOP can
weaponize personal failings toerase policy debates.
(13:21):
They'll claim hypocrisy,pointing to Trump's endless
scandals.
Either way, this down ballotrace becomes national
ammunition.
VI lessons from the past,warnings for the future look at
the patterns Tris Northamsurvived by shifting to racial
equity policy.
Driskallen lost because hisscandal confirmed the worst
suspicions about him.
Wilder's legacy remains mixedbecause suspicion never left.
(13:44):
Jones is standing at that samefork in the road.
If he can redefine himselfthrough humility and a broader
policy vision, he may survive.
If not, Mayers will coast tore-election, and Jones will be
remembered not as a rising starbut as the man who texted his
career away.
Closing Reflection Virginia'sMirror Virginia has always been
(14:04):
a mirror for America, the cradleof presidents, the site of
massive resistance, the testingground for what the South
becomes after the civil rightsera.
Now, in 2025, the mirror showsus something uncomfortable.
Our tolerance for politicalviolence, our double standards
and forgiveness, our hunger forscandal, and our selective
(14:25):
memory.
If Virginians forgive Jones, itsignals that apologies and
growth still count in ourpolitical life.
If they don't, it signals thatsome lines can't be crossed.
Either way, the verdict willecho far beyond Richmond.
The lesson from Northam Allen,Wilder, and now Jones is this in
Virginia scandal neverdisappears.
It lingers, it shapes legacies,and it forces voters to wrestle
(14:49):
with what matters most morality,redemption, or raw partisan
advantage.
And that, my friends, is why arace for attorney general has
(16:51):
become one of the most importantstories in American politics
this year.
SPEAKER_05 (16:55):
On the historic trip of Middle East peace, which uh
our generation of veterans neverdreamed would be possible.
So you would think that thePentagon press corps of all
press corps would be front andcenter across the board on
wanting to give credit to thepresident for forging this kind
of peace.
And instead, what they want totalk about is a policy about
(17:17):
that, which simply says maybethe policy should look like the
White House or other militaryinstallations where you have to
wear a badge that identifiesthat you're pressed, or you
can't just roam anywhere youwant.
It used to be, Mr.
President, the press could goanywhere, pretty much anywhere
in the Pentagon.
SPEAKER_09 (17:36):
I covered the Pentagon for six and a half
years.
I covered the White House forfour years.
I covered the Pentagon when youwere there.
And um we knew not to you don'twalk into the tank.
Uh and the classified areas areoff limits.
Um we obviously were alwaystrying to get the story from
different elements, and therewas a freedom, but everybody had
(17:56):
badges with them.
At the White House, I neverwalked into the Oval Office with
a situation we're on.
Um, these are stipulations thatessentially are changing the
dynamic about how to getinformation and how they
disseminate information.
SPEAKER_02 (18:11):
Yeah, I mean, uh, it it doesn't seem like the whole
story is being told to ourviewers here.
What they're really doing, theywant to spoon feed information
to the journalists, and thatwould be their story.
That's not journalism.
Journalism is going out andfinding the story and giving all
the facts to support it.
And that no one's gonna walk inand bang on the door of a
(18:34):
four-star general or or seniorcivilian policy leader in the
Pentagon.
I never had that, but I did havejournalists chasing a story of
something that was going on inthe Army.
You know, those things arelegitimate.
And if anything, what wouldfrustrate us sometimes is we
didn't teach it to it.
I mean something bad ishappening, and we're getting our
(18:54):
act together to do it, andsometimes, you know, well, let's
wait a couple of days before weuh talk about that, and you guys
are on it.
SPEAKER_09 (19:02):
And that's journalism.
And we know the stipulationsabout classified information,
and if there are leaks or thereare situations, there are
investigations many times thatlead to that.
But in the day-to-day, formilitary families for military,
us being in the Pentagon isusually an asset.
SPEAKER_02 (19:20):
Yeah, I I have never ever seen it.
I mean, when I was a four-stargeneral, I insisted that all our
new brigadier generals give aclass a few days on what the
role of the media is in anAmerican democracy.
These are often new generals.
And then I would I wanted themto practice and give interviews
and how to deal with therealities of it because they
(19:41):
have they have all theseincredible warfighting skill
sets, but dealing with the mediaisn't one of them.
And so the education of them wasvery important to me too that
they would welcome and don't seethe media as something to be
intimidated by.
See the media as your conduit tothe American people.
And that's how I always saw itand believed in supporting it.
(20:03):
There were times when storieswere done that make me flinch a
little bit.
Yeah, but that's usually becausewe had done something, it wasn't
as good as we should have doneit.
SPEAKER_09 (20:12):
Well, we're all standing in solidarity, almost
all of us, and um we hope thatchanges.
We'll see where this policygoes.
SPEAKER_04 (20:19):
Now, for the record, that was four-star general Jack
Keane and Fox News anchor BrettBaer, a former Pentagon
correspondent, as uh rememberthis is Fox News now, as they
blasted the Defense Department'snew media restrictions on
(20:43):
Tuesday night on Fox News,calling them a threat to press
freedom.
The policy introduced by DefenseSecretary Pete Hex, who
ironically himself is a formerFox News anchor, requires
journalists with the PentagonCredential Society pledge not to
(21:05):
obtain or use any unapproved orauthorized unauthorized
material, even if theinformation is unclassified.
So let me say this in frankterms.
(21:27):
What PKZ is trying to do is makethe United States press behave
like the press in North Korea.
He is trying to get journaliststo be state media.
That in the United States ofAmerica is inappropriate.
(21:50):
It is in fact so inappropriatethat now the Pentagon no longer
has a press corps for the firsttime in United States history.
Let me say that one more time.
The Pentagon no longer has apress corps for the first time
(22:12):
in United States history becausefollowing the new restrictive
rules imposed by the DefenseSecretary Pete Hexek, the
Pentagon Press Course has devoldissolved as of October 15,
2025.
Major news outlets, includingFox News, the Associated Press,
Rutters, MPR, CNN, and the NewYork Times refused to sign the
(22:39):
new policy, which they arguedthreatened the core of
journalistic uh principles andthe First Amendment rights of
the press.
So the journalists returnedtheir access badges and vacated
their workplaces inside thebuilding, making it the first
time since the Pentagon openedin 1943 that no major news
(23:04):
organizations have beenaccredited to cover the military
headquarters.
The only organization remainingwas the people who have now
decided that they will be thepropaganda network for the
Pentagon, the OAN.
So here's the deal.
(23:25):
And I do plan to do a uhmonologue about this and write a
subsec article about this.
But as it stands, the Pentagontried to force Americans,
American journalists to sign apolicy stating they would only
publish articles that wereapproved beforehand by the
(23:50):
Pentagon.
And these are the organizationsthat rejected the Pentagon's
requirements.
And listen to the diversity inthis so you can hear how
ridiculous it is.
The the the organizations thatrejected the Pentagon's
requirements are ABC News, Airand Space Force magazine, Al
(24:11):
Jazeera, Al Monitor, AviationWeek, ASEO, Bloomberg News,
Breaking Defense, C4IRS, NET,CBS News, CNN, Defense Daily,
Defense News, Defense One,Federal Times, Fox News,
(24:36):
Hufferton Post, Military Times,MSNBC, Newsmax, NBC News, MPR,
PBS NewsHour, Political, RealClear Politics, Rutter, Task and
Purpose, USNI News, WTOP News,The Associated Press, The
(24:58):
Atlantic, The Daily Center, TheEconomist, The Financial Times,
The Guardian, The Hill, The NewYork Times, The Wall Street
Journal, The Washington Post,The The Examiner, The Washington
Examiner, The Washington Times,the one News Organization that
(25:20):
said we will take marchingorders from the Pentagon and
report everything the Pentagonsays uncritically, and as we
write our articles, first givethem to the Pentagon for
approval, was the organizationknown as One American News.
(25:41):
What a shame.
SPEAKER_08 (25:42):
Pentagon, uh, so that you and I can uh go off on
this one.
This this this has been drivingme crazy.
And uh Ryan, you and I both haveexperience.
It's good to be joined by anactual former Pentagon
correspondent here.
Thank you, thank you, a formerPentagon correspondent.
Uh one of my proudest moments,my first actual uh reporting
job.
So here's what's kept currentlyhappening.
Pete Heggseth and his personallawyer, who he has hired now at
(26:05):
the Pentagon.
SPEAKER_06 (26:06):
Who is sometimes suing the Pentagon?
Who is sometimes suing thePentagon?
Like people understand that?
Yeah.
Um Pete Heggseth's personallawyer is suing the Pentagon by
working.
Also working at the Pentagon.
At the Pentagon.
Okay.
SPEAKER_08 (26:17):
Um so that guy, the guy who defended him uh in rape
accusations and other whatever.
Um who knows uh what happened.
Uh that guy and P Hex Edith haveconcocted new press requirements
at the Pentagon, where anycorrespondent who works at the
Pentagon has to be forced tosign a 21-page document.
(26:39):
That 21-page document, let's putthis up here on the screen,
requires a couple of things.
It's more complicated, but thisis distilled from the Pentagon
quote.
Number one, the press no longerroams free.
Number three, or number two, thepress must wear a visible badge.
Number three, credentialed pressno longer are permitted to
select criminal acts.
(27:01):
Let's go through these claimsone by one, because this makes
sense if you're an idiot andyou've never been inside of the
Pentagon.
All right.
Number one, as I as I literallyused to cover the Pentagon, you
do not roam free in thePentagon, okay?
Believe it or not.
It is one of the most securebuildings in the world.
I used to cover the White House.
The White House is 10 times lesssecure.
(27:22):
I could quite literally walkinto the high, like big parts of
the West Wing as a reporterwithout ever being accosted,
just over asked to open thedoor.
If that literally opened thedoor, I could walk right up into
the upper press area of the WestWing and be 20 feet away from
the Oval Office without beingasked or looked at a scan.
(27:43):
So we can buy away from surface.
Yeah.
And so that's the first one,roam-free.
By roam-free, what he means isthat you enter the building, you
go through, again, more securityat the Pentagon than you do to
even enter the White House.
You walk past a food court, aCVS.
It's like a mini building downthere.
It's like a city.
There's like a T-Mobile store,there's a huge food court, they
(28:04):
have like a bunch of gift shopsand stuff because people are
spending so much time there,there's all this stuff to do,
uh, you know, for all the staff.
And then you walk down a hallwayand you go to the press area.
Every single door is locked andit's key controlled.
You cannot go into anyclassified area.
I spent a lot of time, I neveronce was able to go into a
(28:24):
classified area.
The theory that he said is like,oh, well, some general could be
walking down the hallway and getaccosted by a drug.
Didn't see it happen once.
Not once.
Once did I see it happen.
SPEAKER_07 (28:35):
The general can just keep walking.
SPEAKER_08 (28:36):
Also, the general can be walking.
Nobody asked him to answer.
Okay.
Uh number two, a press must wearvisible badge.
Okay, uh, can we put D5 up hereon the screen?
I dug up this old photo of mineuh of my old badge.
Okay.
There it is.
That badge, yes, I know.
Forgive my forgive the dressshirt.
It was before I knew some of therules.
(28:57):
I think it works.
No, forget, forgive me.
Whatever.
That's my old badge, which I hadto wear uh around my neck with
one of my little lanyardseverywhere that I went.
Everywhere that I went.
You can see very clearly thebadge in front of you, the
Pentagon press branded badge.
Everybody, by the way, knew whothe press was.
(29:21):
Yeah, yeah, a little star in themiddle of the uh the Pentagon
thing.
But here's the point we alreadyhad to wear a badge.
That is the badge from nineyears ago, because you can see
it expired in August of 2017.
So I got I must have gotten itsometime in August of 2016.
So that's what the badge lookedlike whenever we were rowing
around with a Pentagon.
Keep in mind this is underBarack Obama, and eventually I
(29:41):
used that badge under the newpresident Donald Trump.
All right.
So that was the Pentagon policythat was in place underneath.
Now, the third thing that heclaims, and this is where you
and I can really go off, isquote, credentialed press are no
longer permitted to solicitcriminal acts.
What he means by that is that bysigning this document, you have
to commit, you will not solicitor publish classified
(30:06):
information.
And in fact, they go evenfurther.
It doesn't just apply toclassified information, because
he's making a team that does, italso applies to unclassified
information.
So effectively, what PHF issaying is you cannot enter and
cover this building if you donot print exactly what we tell
you to do.
(30:27):
That is literally what he issaying.
Now, let's explain, because Iactually got attacked for this.
I said soliciting, encouragingpeople to leak is part of the
job.
People took that as encouragingpeople to leak classified
information.
First of all, yes, that is partof the job.
And if you have it, send itover.
We'd love to know.
Do you like speaking rehears?
Or do you like that?
Yeah, do you like realinformation or not?
Um, but second, encouragingpeople to leak also falls in the
(30:49):
category of the Pentagon makesan announcement.
You and I hit up people, orsometimes they hit us up, and I
go, what's really going on here?
They'll go, yeah, man, it'sbullshit.
You know, this, this, and this.
And you go, oh, okay, can I citethat on background?
That is not classified at all.
Usually it's aboutclarification, some background
information, some behind thescenes.
He doesn't even want that to bereported because that would
(31:12):
report on the chaos that's inthe building for Mr.
Hegstead.
And the what galls me about thisare the lies.
The lie that the pet the pressjust roams for you all over the
building.
Bullshit.
Literally doesn't happen.
I'm telling you it doesn'thappen.
It's just a cover.
Uh, number two, we didn't wear abadge.
I just showed it to you.
I had to wear it around my neckevery place that we went.
Couldn't even enter the buildingwithout it, literally.
(31:32):
Um, number three, solicitinformation.
What he would even, and I didthis all the time.
So here's it, I'm I know I'm inthe weeds and I apologize, but
the lack of transparency aroundthis is what causes people to
take this type of bullshitseriously.
So what will happen is let'stake this Venezuela thing in the
old days when I would cover it,especially ISIS.
They would call us in and theywould say, we just hit a boat,
(31:55):
you know, or we just hit an oilrefinery by ISIS.
We'd say, okay, and they providean on-the-record statement,
which is the official version.
Then they would go on backgroundwhere we could not cite them
directly, and we would say,okay, so what happened here?
And they're like, well, here'show we got the information, and
we got this and that.
And then we would ask follow-upquestions.
And then sometimes what you dois if you're a good Pentagon
(32:17):
correspondent, you've gotsources in Iraq or something
like that.
And you call them and you'relike, hey man, like here's what
the Pentagon is saying.
And they're like, oh, that'stotal bullshit.
Actually, it did this.
And so then what you do, by theway, that would be considered a
criminal act or illicitlycriminal.
And then what you do is you goback to them and you go, hey
man, I just spoke to peoplefamiliar with the strike.
They're saying what you'resaying is wrong.
(32:37):
They said it was a right part.
They said Right, exactly.
It was a win part.
Or they said it was 50 killed asopposed to 500, right?
And this happens all the time.
This is the standard part of thejob.
And they go, Yeah, you know,yeah, you got me, right?
And and and that most of thetime is what it was.
Or they would scream at you,which I also got uh quite a bit
when I was down there.
(32:58):
That's the job of quotesoliciting information.
They don't even want that.
And so they've created thiswhole brew haha where they're
trying to convince people thatit's like a criminal act to
solicit clarification.
This is a$1 trillion budget.
And the worst part is, Ryan, iseven covering it, it's very hard
(33:19):
to not be a stenographer becausethey so limit your access that
they make it nearly impossibleto print anything, which doesn't
come from official channel.
Unless you're really good atyour job, really, really, really
good, almost everything is gonnacome through some official
channel, which I would argueworks to their benefit.
Because the truth is, most ofthe people who cover the
(33:40):
Pentagon are the most neoconpeople in the world.
If you think about BarbaraStarr, Glenn Greenwald used to
joke that she was the Pentagon'sreporter at CNN, not the CNN's
reporter at the Pentagon.
Or uh, what's that woman's name?
Jennifer from Fox News, who'slike always just repeating the
pro-war with Iran line.
(34:01):
They love having those people inthe building because they have
they repeat their talkingpoints, they get sources, right?
It's it's not like they're evenall that antagonistic, not
nearly enough for my purposes.
So, yeah, I mean, all of itsettles Ryan on this idea that
soliciting classifiedinformation is a crime.
First, no, it's not.
It's actually not.
But and and if somebody leaksyou classified information,
(34:22):
that's on them.
But even more so, this is thisis really bad because this is
the first time since 1943 thatthere will not be a
preponderance of journalistsinside of that building or
reporting on the Pentagonbecause they refused to sign
their ridiculous agreement.
SPEAKER_07 (34:37):
Is it still only one America?
SPEAKER_08 (34:39):
It's only one America News.
SPEAKER_07 (34:40):
So the Washington Examiner said no.
My former employer, the DailyCaller, Daily Collar said no,
Washington Times.
Fox News said no, Fox News.
Pete Heggseth's former employer,Fox News.
So and your proximate point thatthis is about covering up the
chaos that is like bubblingunderneath uh Pete Heggseth's
leadership is key, becausethat's that's why specifically
(35:02):
they're doing it here.
On the classified documents andclassified information, I even
take a more um expansive view onthat.
I was interviewing DanielEllsberg about this once, and he
made the point he's like it,it's not he's like it's not
settled law that it's a criminalact to leak, even to leak
classified information.
It's like the First Amendmentdoes not have a carve out for
(35:25):
government employees.
Now, you can fire a governmentemployee, you can sanction them,
you can tell them they couldnever work for the government
again.
But his argument is if you are agovernment employee and you see
the government committing acriminal act, your First
Amendment right is to speakabout that and is to share
information about that.
(35:46):
Now, you could imagine carveouts or you say, well, treat
well, treat he said treason isdifferent.
If you sell governmentinformation, yeah, that's a
whole other to a foreigncountry.
That's not a that's not a FirstAmendment protected activity.
If you if if it's notnewsworthy, it's not criminal,
and it's and you're just umleaking like nuclear codes or
whatever, like you could hewould say like that does not
(36:09):
have First Amendmentprotections.
But newsworthy information thatthe public has a right to know
is not even a criminal act.
So even if you don't believe inthat expansive of an
interpretation, the idea thatit's a criminal act for a
journalist to call a source andsay, what do you know about this
airstrike?
Where the Pentagon claims theykilled 75 insurgents.
SPEAKER_08 (36:31):
And I did this every day when I covered the building.
And you that's the other funnything.
These people, they hate evenbeing questioned their official
bullshit narrative.
I literally got screaming.
He called me a shit stirringfuck face.
This was a full bird colonel,which at the time I was like 24.
I was scared, right?
I'm talking about a frankly fat,overweight, full bird colonel
(36:56):
with, you know, he's got thewhat is it called?
The oak leaf busters in that?
He's like 58, and he's dressingme down because I was like, hey,
I have a source telling me thatwhat you said is incorrect.
And they try to intimidate youlike thugs.
Like that's what they do.
Like full metal jet.
Yeah, it's like uh, it's a riteof passage, actually, to
journalists, as learning how tohow to how to deal with getting
(37:18):
screamed at.
When I talk to journalismclasses, I I tell that story
because I go, one day you'regonna be in that position.
And they try to exploit yourposition in your youth, and you
have to internally, it's weirdgetting yelled at.
But my yeah, exactly.
The reason they get mad isbecause they lied to you.
That's the whole job.
The job is saying, no, you're aliar, actually, this entire
(37:38):
time.
And Ryan, you've publishedclassified information.
We published the Discord leaksover here.
The argument from Hegeseth andall those people, even though
all the Republicans werecelebrating those Discord leaks
that we published showing thatthe Biden administration was
lying about the war in Ukraineand the level of Pentagon
involvement.
Now they're like, oh, you'rethreatening national security,
like you should be prosecuted.
(37:59):
That's the argument that Obamaactually wanted to make about
journalists and Snowden.
They wanted people like Glenn togo to jail for even reporting on
that.
And that's part of the thingthat they threw um Chelsea
Manning into prison for.
I guess after eventually uhpardoning her or whatever.
But the point is that thatextraordinary view is now the
(38:21):
one at the Pentagon.
It's so crazy because they havebanned basically all journalists
from the building if they don'tagree to sign, saying that they
will basically not clear all thefuture stories with them and not
even ask for clarification ontheir official readouts.
SPEAKER_07 (38:37):
Yeah, and it's hopeful that the uh all these
organizations are pushing back.
Um, they're siding with thefourth estate, they're signing
with the First Amendment overtheir kind of ideological
affinity.
You put up um the third elementhere.
Go check out Sagar's Twitterfeed.
He's lighting these people up.
SPEAKER_08 (38:53):
Um we'll put this guy on blast.
Joel Valdez.
Joel Valdez is uh deputy presssecretary, former Matt Gates
employee over at the Pentagon.
And after one of my tweets whereI said, yes, encouraging people
to leak is literally a job, hesays, quote, we are only
enacting good policy here at thePentagon, which I replied, here
is the irony any real journalistknows.
And Ryan, you're 10 times morereal than I am.
(39:13):
And you it's 99.9% of the time.
The people who leak out reachout to you because they have an
axe to grind.
In fact, much of the time it iscalm flax.
Flack, by the way, is aWashington term for people like
Joel, who are press assistantswho don't actually know
anything, um, who are the mostdesperate to leak on background.
Those are the people, the juniorpress staffer is about 95% the
(39:37):
person who's on the other end ofthe phone.
Be like, let me offer you somestuff, context, right?
Some background and for youruse, so just to be able to, for
your, for your ability toreport.
These are the phone calls, theprotective things that we get.
And I I encourage Joel to comeout and sign a sworn affidavit
that you have never leakedinformation before.
(39:58):
And I also want you to say thatyour former boss, Matt Gates,
has also never leakedinformation before.
And that he is, in fact, not oneof those people who has every
reporter in this town on speeddial.
SPEAKER_07 (40:10):
And in fact, I'd like him to sign an affidavit
that he hasn't leaked about thisstory.
That's right.
SPEAKER_08 (40:15):
That's exactly what I think.
I guarantee you he's leakingabout this in this specific
story.
Trevor Burrus, Jr. (40:21):
Joel, I will pay you$1,000 if you can sign a
sworn affidavit saying thatyou've never leaked uh
information.
Not just classifier, anyinformation previously in your
job, including in your currentrole.
$1,000,$1,000.
Uh I'd be willing to bet.
SPEAKER_07 (40:37):
And it can go to uh if you can't take the money, uh
charity of his choice.
SPEAKER_08 (40:41):
Sure.
Charity of your choice.
Friends of the IDF.
Charity of your choice.
Okay?
Charity of your choice.
There are a lot of differentcharities.
We will take the YouTube revenuefrom this video and we will use
it to we will use it to acharity.
Yeah.
Friends of the IDF.
All you have to do is sign asworn affidavit.
That's it.
That's all you have to do.
Okay.
Um I don't know.
Anything else to say on this,Ryan?
SPEAKER_07 (41:00):
It's um No, I'm I'm glad you and Emily are both uh
punching back uh and and therest of the conservative press.
Like that's that's what has tohappen.
Because this was the wet dreamof Obama.
SPEAKER_08 (41:10):
They wanted to do it.
They tried to throw Fox down tothe White House press corps.
Um, you know, under Obama, likeI just told you, I got dressed
down for questioning some of thebullshit that they were
reporting on about ISIS at thetime.
They hated us, hated, um, youknow, at the Pentagon.
But they didn't ban it at theend of the day.
Um, and our ability to sitthere, I would argue, and
(41:30):
actually press them a littlebit, which is frankly one of the
best parts of that job, is you,in many cases, you get to just
question generals, which almostnever happens because they'll
stream in live from Baghdad.
All you have to do is just showup to the room and you can just
ask them a question.
Like I'm talking to you rightnow.
There's a microphone right abovemy head.
(41:52):
Let's say you're coming in likevia a Zoom call, and you can sit
there and lob questions at thesepeople, and most of the time,
they would not try to censoryou.
Now, in some cases, like theSecretary of Defense or any of
that, but it actually used to beone of the more open
environments where, at the veryleast, on camera, you could
question some people in power.
Now, keep in mind, press PeteHexeth secretary, has not done a
(42:12):
press conference in four monthsthere over at the Pentagon.
And the only time they do iswhen after it's the Iran strike
or something like that.
So it's not like we're losing aton, but it is a horrible
precedent.
And it is genuinely one which Ithink it's it's the most scary
because the Pentagon, that iswhere all the real shit happens,
(42:34):
right?
The trillion dollars, thestrikes, the most nefarious
parts of the federal budget, youknow, UFOs.
Like the more that they try tomake it so that it's all
stenography, we are so muchworse off.
So good thing technology exists.
And if you have classifiedinformation, send it over.
We'd love to see it, and we willpublish it.
SPEAKER_07 (42:54):
Last point I'd make is that transparency is a sign
of strength.
Yeah, I agree.
And this tin pot stuff is a signof weakness.
I totally agree with you.
SPEAKER_08 (43:01):
I uh I actually and the irony is as of this morning,
there are three stories out nowabout Pete Hagseth sidelining
lawyers about Venezuela, PeteHags' personal lawyer being part
of this whole new mediarestriction, and about how that
lawyer has some previous ties toEpstein, um, and about how this
(43:23):
paranoia is part of the reasonwhy he's being sidelined by the
White House.
People are still gonna leak.
In fact, they're probably gonnaleak more.
So by the way, yeah, if that'syou, right here.
If you have us, reach out to usboth, we'll happily publish it.
Hey, if you like that video, hitthe like button or leave a
comment below.
It really helps get the show tomore people.
SPEAKER_06 (43:41):
And if you'd like to get the full show, ad free, and
in your inbox every morning, youcan sign up at
breakingpoints.com.
SPEAKER_08 (43:47):
That's right, get the full show, help support the
future of independent media atbreakingpoints.com.
SPEAKER_04 (43:53):
It was only only a short while ago.
Only a short while ago, that ummy conservative friends were
saying if the government doesn'thave anything to hide, they
would uh like transparency.
(44:13):
Now I'm on the libertarian endof the spectrum because I'm an
anarcho-syndicalist, and so theonly way to be that in America
is to be s uh somewhere in thelibertarian perspective.
Uh I am very distrustful ofinstitutions, especially ones
(44:34):
that can be unchallenged.
And one of the most powerfulones happen to be ones that have
unlimited resources.
What's the unlimited resource,you ask?
Taxpayer money.
(44:54):
What's the the organization thatis never, never, since I've been
alive for 40 years, that is now,has never passed an audit.
This Pentagon.
(45:15):
What is the organization that aswe know of, not a conspiracy
theory, that has lost over atrillion dollars and it is
unaccounted for.
That's the Pentagon.
That is the very place that thesectef uh uh sorry, military
(45:38):
terminology, the Secretary ofDefense has said, You are only
allowed to report our officialnarrative.
That is a bunch of malarky.
And uh it should not beaccepted, tolerated, it
(46:07):
shouldn't even be teased.
These are the same same some ofthe same people who when Barack
Obama was the president of theUnited States, and targeting
Glenn Greenwald and ChelseaManning and Edit Wood Snowden
(46:28):
and uh you know they were sayingyou know, this is government
overreach.
But this is why it's importantto be consistent.
When George Bush was doing itand saying, well, if they didn't
have anything to hide, theywould just show us the emails.
(46:50):
They would just do this and dothis and do that.
And I was sitting somewherestarting to be a bit critical
because I was in New YorkConservative at the time, said
you don't know if you havesomething to hide until
somebody's looking through allof your stuff.
And that's the truth of it.
(47:11):
You let me and 25 of my friendsbust in your home and look
through your laptop and haveaccess to your hard drive, and
go over there and sift throughyour belongings, including your
underwear drawer, and go in yourbathroom and look and see what
(47:34):
you got in there, and startinterrogating your friends and
your family and your pastor, andwe will see how comfortable or
uncomfortable each individualstarts to feel.
You have the right, as a matterof fact, you have the duty to
(48:01):
question the government thatyou, my dear listeners, are
paying for.
Don't forget that.
The FBI, they work for you.
You in fact pay their salary.
(48:22):
The CIA, they work for you.
You do in fact pay their salary.
The ATF, they work for you.
You do in fact pay their salary.
As unpopular as it is to say,because it's in favor on this
side of the aisle and not infavor on that side of the aisle,
(48:45):
customs and border patrol, theywork for you.
You in fact pay their salary.
And a general an admiral theywork for you.
(49:06):
You in fact pay their salary.
Your mayor works for you.
Your governor works for you.
Your congressman works for you.
Your senator works for you.
The vice president works foryou.
(49:31):
And yes, the president of theUnited States is a
government-funded employee.
He is paid by the taxpayer, andthat means they work for you.
They are accountable to you.
(49:55):
Why would anybody want toconcede their ability to ask
questions to an unelectedbureaucrat at the Pentagon who
you pay to work for you?
In what other capacity have youever hired anyone?
(50:20):
And a prerequisite of you hiringthem was you don't get to ask
any questions.
That is a ridiculous notion.
And if they could withstand thescrutiny, then you can know
maybe just maybe that what theywere doing was legitimate.
(50:45):
So let's go to our blast fromthe intellectual past.
We heard the poem yesterday fromOscar Brown Jr., the late Oscar
Brown Jr., uh, the great poet,and we're going to go to another
poem from Oscar Brown Jr.
called The Children of Children.
Beautiful poem, one of myfavorite by Oscar Brown, The
(51:06):
Children of Children.
And after this, the speaking ofhis voice, we will be seeing you
on the next episode.
A lot come more, a lot morecontent coming.
Uh you may like what I havecoming next.
See you on the next episode.
SPEAKER_01 (51:37):
The children of children, by the time they're
half-grown, have habits likerabbits and young of their own.
The children of children fromtheir mama's laps hop down to
the ground to be taken in traps.
The children of children aretrapped by dark skins to stay in
(51:57):
and play in a game no one wins.
The children of children, whilestill young and sweet, are all
damned and programmed for futuredefeat.
The children of children aretrapped by adults who fail them,
then jail them to hide theresults.
The children of children unableto cope with systems that twist
(52:21):
them and rob them of hope.
The children of children of sinand the shame keep pairing and
bearing, and who do you blame?
The children of children cry outevery day.
They beg you for rescue, andwhat do you say?
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.