February 8, 2025 • 24 mins
Is political influence silencing the FBI's core mission? Join us for an eye-opening conversation with Frank, a former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI, as we confront the unsettling reality of political forces shaping the course of national security. We scrutinize the potential consequences of dismissing agents involved in pivotal cases like January 6th and Mar-a-Lago, while exploring the friction between field agents and senior ranks within the agency. This episode also highlights an acting assistant director's steadfast commitment to his constitutional oath amidst these turbulent times.
The broader implications are vast, from the possible weakening of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to the challenges posed by influential figures like Emil Bove and Elon Musk. Frank and I examine the effects of Musk's international connections and speculate on the motives behind recent legal actions affecting the FBI. We reflect on the urgent need for transparency and accountability, questioning the challenges of prosecuting federal leaders and the potential erosion of the rule of law in the U.S. Delve into ongoing investigations and contemplate what these developments mean for democracy today.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter https://wwwJackHopkinsNow.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Okay, Frank, welcome.
We've known each other for alittle bit now I'm going to get
cut right to the chase.
It's bad, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think it's probably the worst I've seen
since I've been out of theBureau and doing NBC News now
for seven years.
This is, you know, this isbeyond personal.
This is about national security.
You know that it's always beenabout national security.
For me, the politics of it aresecondary.
We're at a junction here wherethe nation is less secure than
(00:35):
it was a week ago, a month ago,and the notion that you can
wholesale dismiss FBI agentsbecause they did their job,
because the President of theUnited States doesn't like what
they did, is really problematicfor the rule of law in democracy
.
The idea of the White Housecontrolling the FBI and the DOJ
(00:58):
and the heads of those agencies,which appear now to be sailing
through confirmation, is a clearand present danger to the
United States.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
As many of the listeners will know, you were
the former assistant director ofcounterintelligence with the
FBI.
Is what's going on now, keepingyou up at night?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
It is.
It's occupying my thought, atleast during my waking hours,
and it's causing all of us inand out of the Bureau to be
constantly talking with eachother about what this means,
moving forward, what it meansright now, the idea that field
agents you know it's funny,you've been in the military and
(01:43):
there was always a tensionbetween the senior ranks right
and the quote unquote work for aliving.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Right right.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Well, that's always been the case and the Bureau,
even though, of course, it's thesame agents that go up the
ranks and fill the senior ranks.
People seem to forget that.
So the attitude you know upuntil the past couple of days in
the field has been well, abunch of suits got walked out of
headquarters.
It's not good, but we'll keepour head down and do our job.
(02:12):
Somewhere between four and sixthousand agents touched these
January six cases, plus theTrump related Mar-a-Lago case,
the the overturn of the electioncase in DC, and that they have
to sit there and fill out a formdescribing their role in those
(02:34):
cases, which now, by the way,has been.
It's been reported thatheadquarters has decided that
they have to turn that list over.
There had been great resistance.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
I saw that.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
By the acting assistant director, which I find
fascinating, because Trumpapproved him.
He's allegedly a Trump guy whohappens to be a career FBI agent
.
There he is sitting on theseventh floor and now they
picked the wrong guy becausethis guy's like hey, I may be a
(03:05):
conservative but I'm an americanright and I took an oath to
protect, preserve and defend theconstitution.
And you know the guy happens tobe during a time in his career
he was the commander of thehostage rescue team.
So this is a guy that's aspecial ops team that sure goes
through the door with a gunpoint, not caring who's on the other
side.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
You know they got the wrong guy if they thought he
was going to roll over.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
This guy is cut from a different piece of cloth.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it's ironic because, right,Kash Patel's been saying, oh,
we need to get the door kickersback in the FBI.
Well, you got one.
Right, you got one right, Gotone right.
The head of the New York fieldoffice, the largest field office
in the Bureau, similarly sent amessage to his entire office
(03:54):
saying hey, I'm digging in wherewe've got our.
We've got a fight going on, sothis is quite a drama really,
but it's not a movie, it's thereal thing.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That's the thing.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Do you know who these agents are, most of them who
are now threatened with beingfired in the field, who worked
the Jan 6 cases?
It should be no surprise thatthe majority of those agents are
assigned to JTTS, jointTerrorism Task Forces.
Why is that important?
You get rid of the agents onthe JTTS in every field office
and you're leaving us wide openat any given time in this
country.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
And Frank, let me pause you right there.
Is it possible that that is thegoal to leave us wide open?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, it's clear to me that the goal is to destroy
the institution, not this ideaof oh, we have disruptors, we
have change agents.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I've been a change agent in the FBI.
I've been a disruptor.
I'm shaking things up.
This is destruction.
And so then, the question is,you know, are they too dumb to
realize that these agents areassigned to JTTS and will be
incredibly vulnerable?
Or you know which, by the way Ialways tend?
My philosophy of life is alwaysassume incompetence versus
(05:17):
malintent Right.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Particularly with Trump.
So stupidity over strategy anyday.
But the fact that smart peopleare going along with this like
the guy who's calling the shotson this right now is Emil Bove,
who is the acting deputyattorney general, who was a
criminal defense attorney forTrump the guy's not stupid.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
He's doing this.
So when you ask the question,is this a deliberate strategy to
leave our country less secure?
I don't know, I don't know, Idon't, and why.
Why Would you want a terrorattack on your watch?
I don't understand it.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
There is no clear logic to what's going on.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Revenge.
Revenge seems to be the motiveand there's never logic attached
to revenge.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Right, no, no, that's purely emotional, right.
I've got questions from somepeople on social media.
That are some pretty goodquestions.
The one I asked why wasn't ElonMusk identified as a flaming
hot national security threat bythe CIA or FBI in the last two
(06:33):
years?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
well, we know he is now uh, sure yeah, I, I don't, I
I can't speak for cia, but I Iwell, I you know, I know what
they do for a living and I'veworked with them.
But in terms of the bureau, you, you've got a guy who has
become a us citizen, although I,I will point out and he denies
it, we have to say he denies itthat he was out of status for a
(06:58):
period when he first came to theUnited States.
He came here allegedly on astudent visa.
He at some point quit hisacademics and and went to work.
That would have required a workvisa so he was out of status,
but that's neither here northere um what.
What is far more troubling isthat this individual was allowed
to get government contracts yeswithout fully vetting who he's
(07:21):
attached to and what he's about.
That's clear to me, and thefact that we've had, today,
confirmation that he does have atop-secret clearance and that
he's been designatedquote-unquote a special
government employee whatever thehell that is tells us he's
gotten way out ahead of theintelligence community.
And so we should be demandinganswers about his reportedly
(07:45):
repeated, frequent contacts withVladimir Putin.
Now you could say well, he's aninternational businessman, of
course he's talking to heads ofstate, he's got amazing
technology Okay, that's great.
But should he have a top-secretclearance, you know, should we?
Should a guy talking to Putinregularly be embedded in the
United States government,attaching servers to Treasury
(08:06):
servers, opm servers?
Do you know that he has aSpaceX employee on the seventh
floor of FBI headquarters rightnow embedded?
This employee, this, this guy,an Elon Musk guy or gal, I'm not
sure has a blue badge.
That means he's quote, unquotean employee.
He's not, but he can walkeverywhere he wants at FBI
(08:29):
headquarters with that bluebadge.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Another question for you, Frank has there ever been
an FBI playbook for when thethreat comes from the president
or the presidency?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
The playbook has always been two things wrong
with this entire scenario.
One we've always operated evenour founding fathers operated on
an assumption that thepresident would probably do
right by America, would probablyhave America's best interest at
heart.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
That's a huge mistake .
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Number two the playbook at the FBI is
everything.
Everything will work out if youfollow these guidelines.
You know we have the rule oflaw, we have grand juries, we
have prosecutors, we have judges.
Have the rule of law, we havegrand juries, we have
prosecutors, we have judges.
If you do these things in theplaybook, it'll all work out in
(09:24):
the end.
Well, clearly, clearly, thathas not worked and my days of
telling people that it's allgoing to get better are over.
I can no longer say that atthis point in history.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I can't.
And, frank, I think that's whatwe need now.
We need people like you, whoare willing to come out and
deliver the blunt truth, becauseI don't think we can even
anticipate a way forwardpersonally or collectively,
unless we are willing to facethe truth, and to face it.
We have to have somebody giveit to us.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Yeah, I have to tell you I am encouraged by the kind
of pushback we're seeing as am Iin in certain uh in the
leadership, the actingleadership and, by the way,
throughout the leadership of thefield offices.
We're seeing this and, and thisis breaking even as we speak,
that the agents association hasfiled uh for a federal
(10:16):
injunction to stop, to cease anddesist even the provision of
the list of thousands of agentssaying that it is nothing more
than an attempt at retributionand unlawful dismissal, and
second lawsuit filed today thisjust in a class-action lawsuit
has been filed with nine namedagents representing a class of
(10:42):
thousands of agents.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Fantastic.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Similarly seeking injunctive relief in federal
court to cease and desist eventhe provision of the list of
names, let alone the firings.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
And is this the kind of thing that we need to see
everywhere, in every agency?
Just what you outlined?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yes, yes, People, you know I don't want people to
think that I'm throwing out thewhole system and I think it's
completely gone.
I don't.
I think enough of this.
You know, someone said someonesmarter than me said you don't
need a machine to battle amachine, you just need a handful
of sand to shut down a machine.
And that handful of sand isgoing to be the kind of
(11:23):
resistance and pushback thatoccurs with multiple lawsuits.
We've already seen a federaljudge, by the way a Reagan
appointee recently said,regarding Trump attempting to do
away with birthrightcitizenship.
What was his ruling?
This is the most blatant,unconstitutional case that's
ever appeared before me.
Right, Of course, you're acitizen if you're born in the US
.
It's in the Constitution.
(11:44):
So this is going to havetremendous resistance and at
some point, Trump, the bully, isgoing to back off.
He has to pick his battles, andpicking a battle of USAID or
closing the Department ofEducation or closing the FBI.
He can't win all of those andthat's the approach we have to
(12:05):
take.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Another question when federal law enforcement
Congress, the Attorney General,the President, commit federal
crimes, violate ethics rules,what person or agency can indict
or prosecute?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Here's the problem.
So unfortunately it's become arhetorical question.
We know the answer.
Judge Aileen Cannon has prettymuch tried to dismiss the
approach that needs to be taken.
The answer to the question ofwho would come after the
president right now would besome truly independent counsel,
special prosecutor.
(12:46):
Who's going to name that person?
Not Pam Bondi for sure, but youknow, there we are.
Aileen Cannon has dismissed theMar-a-Lago case, why the
special counsel wasunconstitutionally appointed,
Really.
So that's already beingappealed and I think she's going
(13:07):
to lose that.
But it's done.
That case is over.
And, far more importantly, whotoday is going to appoint a
special counsel in the Trumpadministration?
The Trump administration Numbertwo, you have to look to
Congress.
We're in a place now whereTrump owns the Congress, the
Supreme Court, the House, theSenate, the White House.
So if there's hopes thatsomehow Congress can call
(13:31):
hearings and subpoena people,well, who?
The Republicans who are incharge?
You know we saw the vote todayfor Robert Kennedy as HHS
secretary.
It was 14 to 13 Republicansagainst Democrats.
You're going to see thateverywhere, and so the idea of
an impeachment or or hearings.
(13:53):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Are you familiar with the raid that took place in
November, just after theelection of Alfie Oaks in
Florida?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Negative.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Alfie was, I think, a multimillionaire, I think the.
I won't name the store, butowns a grocery chain, I believe.
Anyway, dcis, the IRS and otherfederal agencies were involved
with that and it's been reportedthat Ivan Raiklin was there at
(14:29):
the time of the raid.
Now, interestingly enough and Iwrote an article on this last
night what's interesting to me,dcis I look at the IGs that
Trump is fired and of course theIG in charge of DCIS is among
(14:52):
those that were fired.
So effectively that case goesaway and I guess it goes without
saying.
Trump is president now, so ofcourse anything that might lead
to him goes away, correct?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, sadly, that's.
The other thing we haven't eventalked about I'm glad you
brought that up is that we'renow looking at cases being
dismissed and dropped at the DOJlevel.
So, for example, a formermember of Congress who had a
corruption case opened on him isit Kansas, is it Oklahoma?
Somewhere in what they callflyover country his case has
(15:28):
been dropped.
He's a friend of Trump, ericAdams, the mayor of New York,
who immediately flew toMar-a-Lago upon Trump winning
the election and he kissed thering.
He's a Democrat, but he's nowsuddenly very valuable as mayor
of New York to Trump.
And what's been reported in themedia DOJ is considering
dropping the corruption caseagainst Mayor Adams.
(15:48):
So replicate this throughoutthe country and now throw in the
possibility that, since Trumpseems to be friends with
Vladimir Putin, are we going toever work a Russian
counterintelligence case again?
Do we care if we brief theWhite House on a Russian
espionage case?
Is he going to say close it.
That's where we are.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Right and I should point out too Right.
That's where we are Right and Ishould point out too, at least
(16:32):
the latest information I canfind Alfie Oaks has still not
been charged, but it does showstill an open investigation.
And again it comes back to and Iknow we don't have time to
debate this right now it comesback to me on so many people and
with so many cases, puteverything that's happening the
blame on him.
But clearly there were thingsthat he could have directed,
(16:59):
that he could have okayed, thatwould have made a difference in
what we are experiencing now, ifonly to have kind of thrown
sand, like you said, into the tothe, to the uh cogs, yes, is
this something that you haveconfidence that we can, can get
(17:23):
over in, in the remaining peoplewho are left, that could be the
heroes?
Or is the intimidation and fearof Trump and I guess let me be
more specific the people who,not necessarily in leadership
positions, but just regularagents in the FBI or just
regular agents in whateveragency what's your confidence
(17:48):
level?
That the people that in theback of your mind, I think that
guy might be, I think she mightbe?
What's the fear factor going todo?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Well, I wish I were more optimistic, jack.
I think there's a couple ofthoughts so all going on
simultaneously and multiplethings can be true at the same
time.
Number one the people who maynot be heroes but will throw
sand in the machine.
We're already seeing them.
We're already seeing the classaction lawsuits throughout the
government agencies happening.
(18:21):
Clogging the courts, gettingrulings against what Trump is
trying to do to our democracy isgoing to help tremendously, and
I think those people I meanjust little little things that
aren't so little.
Think about the nine FBI agentswho said okay, you got to have,
you got to have some real namesat the top of a lawsuit for a
(18:41):
class action lawsuit.
Okay, I'll be one of thoseagents that puts my name on
there.
That's a hero, right there.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
That is a hero.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Yeah, the head of the New York office that stands up
and says and I have no ideawhether he's eligible for
retirement or not and says tohis agents I'm digging it, we
were in for a fight, same as theacting director right now,
brian Driscoll, telling, tellingEmil Bove to F off when the
list was demanded.
Now the list is due today.
(19:12):
The list is due today and itappears that the general counsel
of the FBI and this is, by theway, very debatable made a
ruling that he thinks this is alawful order for the names and
that you could be handing DOJ aninsubordination case if you
refuse to fill out the form andsubmit it right.
(19:33):
So that's where we are rightnow.
So little heroes.
Big hero, singular, no, nope.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Another question.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I talked about multiple theories, so sand in
the machine, little heroes.
I talked about multipletheories, so sand in the machine
, little heroes.
Number two that things may haveto collapse and get horribly
worse before they get better.
Number three, in terms of abrighter story the midterms are
coming and we've got to fightlike hell to get
democracy-loving people in inthe midterms.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Absolutely, and I posted this last night, so it's
not that the two are mutuallyexclusive, but would you agree
with me that if we don't dealwith this fire in front of us
right now, there will be nomidterms?
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yes, I am convinced, because Trump is emulating Putin
and Xi and, to some degree, kimJong-un, that his design, his
vision is to eliminate free andfair elections period Absolutely
.
And you know to go back to yourcomments on Merrick Garland, it
was that failure to see theraging fire and to assume that
(20:46):
we've got to play by all therules and worry about optics and
perceptions.
We'll be accused of weaponizingthe government.
Yeah, huge, huge mistake.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
One last question I know you've got to go in a
minute.
If reports are accurate, manyelected officials are being
unduly influenced by threats ofviolence against themselves and
family members.
Do you think there is anyrecourse other than a large
group going very public withdetents?
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Ah, now I like this question because I like it, I
think if people had theintestinal fortitude, for
example in the House and theSenate, to say here's what
happened to me when I suggestedI might not vote for this
nominee, right?
Um, we've seen it in joni ernsta, by the way, a sexual assault
victim yes who voted, whononetheless voted for pete?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
right right.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Um, we saw what happened in in plain sight.
They they started elon muskpaid for ads in her home state
to destroy her, and sheapparently didn't have the guts
to say I don't care if I'm notelected.
I'm not voting for this idiot,susan Collins, similarly saying
you know, I think I will votefor Tulsi Gabbard or, you know,
(22:03):
cassidy, today a doctor, amedical doctor.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Saying you know, I guess I will vote for Bobby
Kennedy.
Yes, if we get those people tocome out publicly and tell us
the threats that were made todestroy them or their family.
Yes, that could really be whatturns some of the Republican
Party around.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
You know, frank, I may not be the sharpest knife in
the drawer, but you know Iwasn't born yesterday and we
know Donald Trump.
We know Donald Trump's historyand we know we are looking at
very irrational decisions.
Like you said with Dr Cassidy,one has to assume there are
(22:49):
threats of violence going on.
It would be veryuncharacteristic of Donald Trump
and his administration or whosurrounds him, if there were not
.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Yeah, and, by the way , while I think that's probably
accurate, we don't even have togo all the way to threats of
violence.
We go to, you're compromisedand we have the dirt on you.
That's very much like Donald.
We can open a case on you.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
And let's face it, frank, you are a
counterintelligence guy.
You know there's dirt oneverybody right.
I mean there's dirt.
When you want it, it's there.
And guess who would want itmore than anybody?
Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
And, by the way, when it's not there, you can
manufacture it.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
True, true.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
All it takes is a rumor for a senator to be ruined
.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Absolutely, my friend .
I can't thank you enough.
I know you've got to go on.
You're going to be on the newsshortly.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for what you did.
Talk to you soon.
Thank you, Frank.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Take care Jack.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Stay well, bye-bye, bye.
Okay, Frank, welcome.
We've known each other for alittle bit now I'm going to get
cut right to the chase.
It's bad, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think it's probably the worst I've seen
since I've been out of theBureau and doing NBC News now
for seven years.
This is, you know, this isbeyond personal.
This is about national security.
You know that it's always beenabout national security.
For me, the politics of it aresecondary.
We're at a junction here wherethe nation is less secure than
(00:35):
it was a week ago, a month ago,and the notion that you can
wholesale dismiss FBI agentsbecause they did their job,
because the President of theUnited States doesn't like what
they did, is really problematicfor the rule of law in democracy
.
The idea of the White Housecontrolling the FBI and the DOJ
(00:58):
and the heads of those agencies,which appear now to be sailing
through confirmation, is a clearand present danger to the
United States.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
As many of the listeners will know, you were
the former assistant director ofcounterintelligence with the
FBI.
Is what's going on now, keepingyou up at night?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
It is.
It's occupying my thought, atleast during my waking hours,
and it's causing all of us inand out of the Bureau to be
constantly talking with eachother about what this means,
moving forward, what it meansright now, the idea that field
agents you know it's funny,you've been in the military and
(01:43):
there was always a tensionbetween the senior ranks right
and the quote unquote work for aliving.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Right right.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Well, that's always been the case and the Bureau,
even though, of course, it's thesame agents that go up the
ranks and fill the senior ranks.
People seem to forget that.
So the attitude you know upuntil the past couple of days in
the field has been well, abunch of suits got walked out of
headquarters.
It's not good, but we'll keepour head down and do our job.
(02:12):
Somewhere between four and sixthousand agents touched these
January six cases, plus theTrump related Mar-a-Lago case,
the the overturn of the electioncase in DC, and that they have
to sit there and fill out a formdescribing their role in those
(02:34):
cases, which now, by the way,has been.
It's been reported thatheadquarters has decided that
they have to turn that list over.
There had been great resistance.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
I saw that.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
By the acting assistant director, which I find
fascinating, because Trumpapproved him.
He's allegedly a Trump guy whohappens to be a career FBI agent
.
There he is sitting on theseventh floor and now they
picked the wrong guy becausethis guy's like hey, I may be a
(03:05):
conservative but I'm an americanright and I took an oath to
protect, preserve and defend theconstitution.
And you know the guy happens tobe during a time in his career
he was the commander of thehostage rescue team.
So this is a guy that's aspecial ops team that sure goes
through the door with a gunpoint, not caring who's on the other
side.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
You know they got the wrong guy if they thought he
was going to roll over.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
This guy is cut from a different piece of cloth.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it's ironic because, right,Kash Patel's been saying, oh,
we need to get the door kickersback in the FBI.
Well, you got one.
Right, you got one right, Gotone right.
The head of the New York fieldoffice, the largest field office
in the Bureau, similarly sent amessage to his entire office
(03:54):
saying hey, I'm digging in wherewe've got our.
We've got a fight going on, sothis is quite a drama really,
but it's not a movie, it's thereal thing.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That's the thing.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Do you know who these agents are, most of them who
are now threatened with beingfired in the field, who worked
the Jan 6 cases?
It should be no surprise thatthe majority of those agents are
assigned to JTTS, jointTerrorism Task Forces.
Why is that important?
You get rid of the agents onthe JTTS in every field office
and you're leaving us wide openat any given time in this
country.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
And Frank, let me pause you right there.
Is it possible that that is thegoal to leave us wide open?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well, it's clear to me that the goal is to destroy
the institution, not this ideaof oh, we have disruptors, we
have change agents.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I've been a change agent in the FBI.
I've been a disruptor.
I'm shaking things up.
This is destruction.
And so then, the question is,you know, are they too dumb to
realize that these agents areassigned to JTTS and will be
incredibly vulnerable?
Or you know which, by the way Ialways tend?
My philosophy of life is alwaysassume incompetence versus
(05:17):
malintent Right.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Particularly with Trump.
So stupidity over strategy anyday.
But the fact that smart peopleare going along with this like
the guy who's calling the shotson this right now is Emil Bove,
who is the acting deputyattorney general, who was a
criminal defense attorney forTrump the guy's not stupid.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
He's doing this.
So when you ask the question,is this a deliberate strategy to
leave our country less secure?
I don't know, I don't know, Idon't, and why.
Why Would you want a terrorattack on your watch?
I don't understand it.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
There is no clear logic to what's going on.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Revenge.
Revenge seems to be the motiveand there's never logic attached
to revenge.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Right, no, no, that's purely emotional, right.
I've got questions from somepeople on social media.
That are some pretty goodquestions.
The one I asked why wasn't ElonMusk identified as a flaming
hot national security threat bythe CIA or FBI in the last two
(06:33):
years?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
well, we know he is now uh, sure yeah, I, I don't, I
I can't speak for cia, but I Iwell, I you know, I know what
they do for a living and I'veworked with them.
But in terms of the bureau, you, you've got a guy who has
become a us citizen, although I,I will point out and he denies
it, we have to say he denies itthat he was out of status for a
(06:58):
period when he first came to theUnited States.
He came here allegedly on astudent visa.
He at some point quit hisacademics and and went to work.
That would have required a workvisa so he was out of status,
but that's neither here northere um what.
What is far more troubling isthat this individual was allowed
to get government contracts yeswithout fully vetting who he's
(07:21):
attached to and what he's about.
That's clear to me, and thefact that we've had, today,
confirmation that he does have atop-secret clearance and that
he's been designatedquote-unquote a special
government employee whatever thehell that is tells us he's
gotten way out ahead of theintelligence community.
And so we should be demandinganswers about his reportedly
(07:45):
repeated, frequent contacts withVladimir Putin.
Now you could say well, he's aninternational businessman, of
course he's talking to heads ofstate, he's got amazing
technology Okay, that's great.
But should he have a top-secretclearance, you know, should we?
Should a guy talking to Putinregularly be embedded in the
United States government,attaching servers to Treasury
(08:06):
servers, opm servers?
Do you know that he has aSpaceX employee on the seventh
floor of FBI headquarters rightnow embedded?
This employee, this, this guy,an Elon Musk guy or gal, I'm not
sure has a blue badge.
That means he's quote, unquotean employee.
He's not, but he can walkeverywhere he wants at FBI
(08:29):
headquarters with that bluebadge.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Another question for you, Frank has there ever been
an FBI playbook for when thethreat comes from the president
or the presidency?
Speaker 2 (08:43):
The playbook has always been two things wrong
with this entire scenario.
One we've always operated evenour founding fathers operated on
an assumption that thepresident would probably do
right by America, would probablyhave America's best interest at
heart.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
That's a huge mistake .
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Number two the playbook at the FBI is
everything.
Everything will work out if youfollow these guidelines.
You know we have the rule oflaw, we have grand juries, we
have prosecutors, we have judges.
Have the rule of law, we havegrand juries, we have
prosecutors, we have judges.
If you do these things in theplaybook, it'll all work out in
(09:24):
the end.
Well, clearly, clearly, thathas not worked and my days of
telling people that it's allgoing to get better are over.
I can no longer say that atthis point in history.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I can't.
And, frank, I think that's whatwe need now.
We need people like you, whoare willing to come out and
deliver the blunt truth, becauseI don't think we can even
anticipate a way forwardpersonally or collectively,
unless we are willing to facethe truth, and to face it.
We have to have somebody giveit to us.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Yeah, I have to tell you I am encouraged by the kind
of pushback we're seeing as am Iin in certain uh in the
leadership, the actingleadership and, by the way,
throughout the leadership of thefield offices.
We're seeing this and, and thisis breaking even as we speak,
that the agents association hasfiled uh for a federal
(10:16):
injunction to stop, to cease anddesist even the provision of
the list of thousands of agentssaying that it is nothing more
than an attempt at retributionand unlawful dismissal, and
second lawsuit filed today thisjust in a class-action lawsuit
has been filed with nine namedagents representing a class of
(10:42):
thousands of agents.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Fantastic.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Similarly seeking injunctive relief in federal
court to cease and desist eventhe provision of the list of
names, let alone the firings.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
And is this the kind of thing that we need to see
everywhere, in every agency?
Just what you outlined?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yes, yes, People, you know I don't want people to
think that I'm throwing out thewhole system and I think it's
completely gone.
I don't.
I think enough of this.
You know, someone said someonesmarter than me said you don't
need a machine to battle amachine, you just need a handful
of sand to shut down a machine.
And that handful of sand isgoing to be the kind of
(11:23):
resistance and pushback thatoccurs with multiple lawsuits.
We've already seen a federaljudge, by the way a Reagan
appointee recently said,regarding Trump attempting to do
away with birthrightcitizenship.
What was his ruling?
This is the most blatant,unconstitutional case that's
ever appeared before me.
Right, Of course, you're acitizen if you're born in the US
.
It's in the Constitution.
(11:44):
So this is going to havetremendous resistance and at
some point, Trump, the bully, isgoing to back off.
He has to pick his battles, andpicking a battle of USAID or
closing the Department ofEducation or closing the FBI.
He can't win all of those andthat's the approach we have to
(12:05):
take.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Another question when federal law enforcement
Congress, the Attorney General,the President, commit federal
crimes, violate ethics rules,what person or agency can indict
or prosecute?
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Here's the problem.
So unfortunately it's become arhetorical question.
We know the answer.
Judge Aileen Cannon has prettymuch tried to dismiss the
approach that needs to be taken.
The answer to the question ofwho would come after the
president right now would besome truly independent counsel,
special prosecutor.
(12:46):
Who's going to name that person?
Not Pam Bondi for sure, but youknow, there we are.
Aileen Cannon has dismissed theMar-a-Lago case, why the
special counsel wasunconstitutionally appointed,
Really.
So that's already beingappealed and I think she's going
(13:07):
to lose that.
But it's done.
That case is over.
And, far more importantly, whotoday is going to appoint a
special counsel in the Trumpadministration?
The Trump administration Numbertwo, you have to look to
Congress.
We're in a place now whereTrump owns the Congress, the
Supreme Court, the House, theSenate, the White House.
So if there's hopes thatsomehow Congress can call
(13:31):
hearings and subpoena people,well, who?
The Republicans who are incharge?
You know we saw the vote todayfor Robert Kennedy as HHS
secretary.
It was 14 to 13 Republicansagainst Democrats.
You're going to see thateverywhere, and so the idea of
an impeachment or or hearings.
(13:53):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Are you familiar with the raid that took place in
November, just after theelection of Alfie Oaks in
Florida?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Negative.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Alfie was, I think, a multimillionaire, I think the.
I won't name the store, butowns a grocery chain, I believe.
Anyway, dcis, the IRS and otherfederal agencies were involved
with that and it's been reportedthat Ivan Raiklin was there at
(14:29):
the time of the raid.
Now, interestingly enough and Iwrote an article on this last
night what's interesting to me,dcis I look at the IGs that
Trump is fired and of course theIG in charge of DCIS is among
(14:52):
those that were fired.
So effectively that case goesaway and I guess it goes without
saying.
Trump is president now, so ofcourse anything that might lead
to him goes away, correct?
Speaker 2 (15:06):
Yeah, sadly, that's.
The other thing we haven't eventalked about I'm glad you
brought that up is that we'renow looking at cases being
dismissed and dropped at the DOJlevel.
So, for example, a formermember of Congress who had a
corruption case opened on him isit Kansas, is it Oklahoma?
Somewhere in what they callflyover country his case has
(15:28):
been dropped.
He's a friend of Trump, ericAdams, the mayor of New York,
who immediately flew toMar-a-Lago upon Trump winning
the election and he kissed thering.
He's a Democrat, but he's nowsuddenly very valuable as mayor
of New York to Trump.
And what's been reported in themedia DOJ is considering
dropping the corruption caseagainst Mayor Adams.
(15:48):
So replicate this throughoutthe country and now throw in the
possibility that, since Trumpseems to be friends with
Vladimir Putin, are we going toever work a Russian
counterintelligence case again?
Do we care if we brief theWhite House on a Russian
espionage case?
Is he going to say close it.
That's where we are.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
Right and I should point out too Right.
That's where we are Right and Ishould point out too, at least
(16:32):
the latest information I canfind Alfie Oaks has still not
been charged, but it does showstill an open investigation.
And again it comes back to and Iknow we don't have time to
debate this right now it comesback to me on so many people and
with so many cases, puteverything that's happening the
blame on him.
But clearly there were thingsthat he could have directed,
(16:59):
that he could have okayed, thatwould have made a difference in
what we are experiencing now, ifonly to have kind of thrown
sand, like you said, into the tothe, to the uh cogs, yes, is
this something that you haveconfidence that we can, can get
(17:23):
over in, in the remaining peoplewho are left, that could be the
heroes?
Or is the intimidation and fearof Trump and I guess let me be
more specific the people who,not necessarily in leadership
positions, but just regularagents in the FBI or just
regular agents in whateveragency what's your confidence
(17:48):
level?
That the people that in theback of your mind, I think that
guy might be, I think she mightbe?
What's the fear factor going todo?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Well, I wish I were more optimistic, jack.
I think there's a couple ofthoughts so all going on
simultaneously and multiplethings can be true at the same
time.
Number one the people who maynot be heroes but will throw
sand in the machine.
We're already seeing them.
We're already seeing the classaction lawsuits throughout the
government agencies happening.
(18:21):
Clogging the courts, gettingrulings against what Trump is
trying to do to our democracy isgoing to help tremendously, and
I think those people I meanjust little little things that
aren't so little.
Think about the nine FBI agentswho said okay, you got to have,
you got to have some real namesat the top of a lawsuit for a
(18:41):
class action lawsuit.
Okay, I'll be one of thoseagents that puts my name on
there.
That's a hero, right there.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
That is a hero.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Yeah, the head of the New York office that stands up
and says and I have no ideawhether he's eligible for
retirement or not and says tohis agents I'm digging it, we
were in for a fight, same as theacting director right now,
brian Driscoll, telling, tellingEmil Bove to F off when the
list was demanded.
Now the list is due today.
(19:12):
The list is due today and itappears that the general counsel
of the FBI and this is, by theway, very debatable made a
ruling that he thinks this is alawful order for the names and
that you could be handing DOJ aninsubordination case if you
refuse to fill out the form andsubmit it right.
(19:33):
So that's where we are rightnow.
So little heroes.
Big hero, singular, no, nope.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Another question.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
I talked about multiple theories, so sand in
the machine, little heroes.
I talked about multipletheories, so sand in the machine
, little heroes.
Number two that things may haveto collapse and get horribly
worse before they get better.
Number three, in terms of abrighter story the midterms are
coming and we've got to fightlike hell to get
democracy-loving people in inthe midterms.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Absolutely, and I posted this last night, so it's
not that the two are mutuallyexclusive, but would you agree
with me that if we don't dealwith this fire in front of us
right now, there will be nomidterms?
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yes, I am convinced, because Trump is emulating Putin
and Xi and, to some degree, kimJong-un, that his design, his
vision is to eliminate free andfair elections period Absolutely
.
And you know to go back to yourcomments on Merrick Garland, it
was that failure to see theraging fire and to assume that
(20:46):
we've got to play by all therules and worry about optics and
perceptions.
We'll be accused of weaponizingthe government.
Yeah, huge, huge mistake.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
One last question I know you've got to go in a
minute.
If reports are accurate, manyelected officials are being
unduly influenced by threats ofviolence against themselves and
family members.
Do you think there is anyrecourse other than a large
group going very public withdetents?
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Ah, now I like this question because I like it, I
think if people had theintestinal fortitude, for
example in the House and theSenate, to say here's what
happened to me when I suggestedI might not vote for this
nominee, right?
Um, we've seen it in joni ernsta, by the way, a sexual assault
victim yes who voted, whononetheless voted for pete?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
right right.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Um, we saw what happened in in plain sight.
They they started elon muskpaid for ads in her home state
to destroy her, and sheapparently didn't have the guts
to say I don't care if I'm notelected.
I'm not voting for this idiot,susan Collins, similarly saying
you know, I think I will votefor Tulsi Gabbard or, you know,
(22:03):
cassidy, today a doctor, amedical doctor.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Saying you know, I guess I will vote for Bobby
Kennedy.
Yes, if we get those people tocome out publicly and tell us
the threats that were made todestroy them or their family.
Yes, that could really be whatturns some of the Republican
Party around.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
You know, frank, I may not be the sharpest knife in
the drawer, but you know Iwasn't born yesterday and we
know Donald Trump.
We know Donald Trump's historyand we know we are looking at
very irrational decisions.
Like you said with Dr Cassidy,one has to assume there are
(22:49):
threats of violence going on.
It would be veryuncharacteristic of Donald Trump
and his administration or whosurrounds him, if there were not
.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Yeah, and, by the way , while I think that's probably
accurate, we don't even have togo all the way to threats of
violence.
We go to, you're compromisedand we have the dirt on you.
That's very much like Donald.
We can open a case on you.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
And let's face it, frank, you are a
counterintelligence guy.
You know there's dirt oneverybody right.
I mean there's dirt.
When you want it, it's there.
And guess who would want itmore than anybody?
Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
And, by the way, when it's not there, you can
manufacture it.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
True, true.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
All it takes is a rumor for a senator to be ruined
.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Absolutely, my friend .
I can't thank you enough.
I know you've got to go on.
You're going to be on the newsshortly.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you for what you did.
Talk to you soon.
Thank you, Frank.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Take care Jack.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Stay well, bye-bye, bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.