Patriot Targeted for Political Beliefs - Thomas Speciale

On today’s episode of Briefing with the Chief, I will be joined by Thomas Speciale a National Security Contractor who was targeted for his political beliefs by the FBI. This targeting also included an effort to separate him from his position in the National Guard. Thomas has engaged in a multi years struggle too clear his name and maintain viable employment. During his struggle we was defamed and he sued. One of the targets of his lawsuit is the campaign of the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger.
Spanberger is involved in a hotly contested race with Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears. Spanberger was compelled to give a deposition in the defamation case and tried to suppress its release before election day.
This should be a very interesting show. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Good after and this is briefly with the Chief. I'm
your host, Patrick Jordan here on Cadre at dB dot com,
that is Cadre at Radio. You can find us every
Wednesday at five pm Eastern Standard Time on Cadre's Rumble channel,
their Facebook page, and their Twitter feed. And if you
can't watch us, you can always download the KJRE at
dB dot com radio app and listen to us live.
And of course it can't watch us, listen to us live,

(01:11):
you can go to a briefing with the Chief CAJRE
Briefing with the Chief, go to my show, go to
the show's and hosts tab, and you can find all
the audio versions of my show and my Buyerph Patriate
there at KJDB dot com. Briefing with the Chief. And
you know, you can find me on Twitter. I you know,
I talk about all kinds of stuff on Twitter. I've
moved past just my my roots in law enforcement and
a pulk policy nerd, and so I talk about a

(01:33):
lot of stuff on Twitter, particularly our governor, who is
just I can't figure out which one's dumber, Pritzker or Newsom.
I mean, they're they're in a race to be the
dumbest governor in the United States, and they're both neck
and neck, so to speak. And so I talk about
those guys all the time, and I do go on
Spaces and that's where I met my next next guest,

(01:54):
Tom especially, and we're gonna we're gonna talk about what's
going on Texas for spring. We bring our guest on here,
but I go on uh uh, Walter Kurt's political theater Spaces.
It's runs and runs Monday Friday. It's a nine pm
Eastern Standard time to twelve o'clock at night. So for
me it's a little more bearable because I'm on the

(02:15):
West coast, so it's six to nine for me, and
I jump up there and I talk quite a bit
whenever they're dock in law enforcement stuff. They treat me
with a great deal of respect and deference, Charlie and
and his co host, and I, you know, our Walter
and his co host, and I greatly appre appreciate it
and uh and so you can catch me on Twitter
like almost every night, and you can also catch me,

(02:36):
like I said, every Wednesday here at five pm Easterner
Standard time at kjadv dot com. Now we are going
to talk about what's going on in Texas? First, just
another day and another leftist shooting. It just seems like
this is it. It's become a pattern that is undeniable. Yet,
what I noticed today in the coverage of this particular case,
what happens if a white, white, white suprema sturret extremists

(02:58):
on the right side does some violence, then you know,
the Democrats ring their hang and talk about, you know,
right away, extremism. We got to do something about it.
It's a threat to our democracy. However, when the left
commits some violence, and there's been a lot of it,
they immediately resort to, particularly if it involves a handgun
or a rifle, they immediately resort to the we have

(03:22):
to do with gun controlled. They will not address the
pattern of violence on the left, the emergency emerging violence
on the left. And we're going to get a little
bit that today, but before we do, we got to
talk about what actually went on in Texas today. And
you know, they had a shooting at an ice facility today,
another one in Texas, because they just had one a

(03:43):
few weeks ago, and actually in July, and I read
that transcript. There's a lot of similarities. But this shooting
happened at six thirty this morning Central time, and somebody
from an elevated position opened up, open up on a
van that was carrying federal agents because it wasn't ICE agents.
It was actually some federal partners who were working with ICE,

(04:05):
and they had detainees in this van as well, and
this guy opened up on them and he hit three
of the detainees, didn't hit any of the federal officers,
killing two and seriously injuring one. So I mean, so
here who got a left this one? He kills ICE
agents and he can't even do that. He's a complete
failure at that as well. Uh. And it was indiscriminate
shooting in the van, like I said, killed two detained

(04:26):
and critically urged one. The FBI is on scene and
they're they're handling it as a targeted shooting, and some
of the materity left behind indicated that there's clearly anti
ICE and anti ICE shooting. And so let's let's let's
let's roll with the clip that I have on this
just to introduce the subject.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
We do want to pivot to some breaking news right now.
As we were getting reports of an active shooter down
in Dallas, Texas, and we're following it very closely along
with our partners at Foxford Dallas. I do believe they
have live coverage right now. The situation, let's take a.

Speaker 3 (05:00):
Look, you know, will not take that, you know, necessarily
for granted in the sense that they sometimes there are
multiple shooters. Sometimes this is a coerced event, and so
by virtue that they have to rule those things out.
But I would say that probably or in no likelihood.

Speaker 4 (05:17):
The threat is over.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
Nevertheless, they're going to have to do their due diligence
to ensure that there isn't any other threat showing up
anytime soon.

Speaker 5 (05:27):
This really close to Parkland Hospital. I just look ut,
Southwestern at this point does not have any like shelter
in place warning or anything like that. So to me,
that sounds like a good sign that they maybe feel
like at least at the hospitals least some of these
businesses close by, that they aren't spreading out this, you know,
like a shelter in place warning at this time.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
Right, So that must mean that they have intelligence and
information on the ground that there isn't anyone else flean
away from the scene that could actually post a threat
to the immediate area.

Speaker 4 (06:00):
You're right.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
However, you know, once again they have to clear the scene.
They have to ensure that crime analysis shows up and
that you know, the crime scene folks, or they're doing
their duviligence, and then at the same time the victims
are attended to. So this is going to take hours,
not necessarily minutes to clear the scene.

Speaker 5 (06:15):
I'm probably key that they're right near the hospitals too.

Speaker 4 (06:18):
I think that's right. You know, hopefully we'll help us victim.

Speaker 6 (06:21):
Anyways, Alex Stelle Carmen, well, appreciate your time this morning.

Speaker 4 (06:24):
We're gonna take a quick think here. We'll be right back. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
So we go another day, another shooting, and this one
involving another leftist. Now, if you remember back in July,
there were ten Antifa members that shot up an ice
facility there and shot a police officer from the Ovado
Police Department shot him in the naki. Fortunately he survived.
And they they actually were committing some minor crimes vandalism

(06:49):
to draw the ice eight inside of his attention for
to silly, so these people weren't armed to draw them out.
And then people were laying in, laying back in the
woods to shoot at them with Air fifteen and a hand
guns and they did. They opened up twenty to thirty rounds.
These guys, fortunately not on the ice agents were hit.
Obviously the police officer hit, but he called in some
backup and they end up catching those guys. I read

(07:09):
the indictment and I looked at what was going on
this guy today. So the shooter here today is Joshua
Jane ja h n Sho has picture. He's twenty nine
years old. He's got a full head of hair.

Speaker 7 (07:21):
Here.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
He's a white dude, and he's got it looks like
he still got a little bit of a chubby face them.
Do you get his picture, Amanda, Joshua There, No, not
that one. The picture of Joshua. All right, we got
to cycle through this picture of Joshua. He is the shooter.
He's Joshua Jane And I guess not. Okay, Well, he's
twenty nine years old, he's a white dude. And in

(07:41):
addition to his picture, there was some ammunition left behind,
and on the ammunition it said anti ice. Do you
have a picture of the ammunition that you could throw
up there? Maybe not? No, Amanda, I think we're crossing,
we're mixing things up here. So anyways, this ammunition, it
looks like thirty odd six and it's got one of

(08:01):
the casings on this thirty add sixth round, says anti
Ice and one of the other things that came out.
And I got this from Laura Loomer's website. I don't
know if we're going to be able to put it
on here, but it is a picture that Joshua used
on his Facebook page. It is a picture of the
inglorious there's Joshua. Now see if you got the bullets

(08:23):
you can throw up there and there's the bullets, and
it says basically, it says, it looks like a clip
that probably slides into a magazine five rounds and then
and then use a bolt action rifle that slides the
rounds into the chamber. Maybe our next guest can help
us out on that. I'm not big on rifles. That
was shotguns and handguns when I worked. But on his

(08:45):
Facebook page he used a picture and in his glorious exposition, comrade,
and it's a picture of what I would It's maybe
a Russian officer with the Russian cap on and an
AK forty seven thumbs up and the hammer and the
sick in the background. So that's what strongly indicate that
Joshua is on the left and he's motivated by this

(09:07):
leftist ideology online. I'm sure there's going to be a
lot more in depth investigation of that. But the thing
about this particular shooting and the shooting in July is
I've just read the transcript yesterday. I was reading a
lot of stuff yesterday because I was reading Tamas' stuff,
and yesterday when I read the transcript, they had fight
the Oligarchy. There you go, Amanda, fight the aligarchy again

(09:27):
right on the material in the cars of the ten
suspects who shot up the ICE center in July. And
also they had anarchist stuff, and anarchist stuff is very
similar to communism stuff. It's it's anti government, it's anti capitalism,
which is what a communist is anti capitalism as well. Right,
So these guys are symbiotic in their motivations, the guy

(09:53):
Joshua and the folks last week. But it's not just
the shooting of these these ICE facilities. Obviously, we had
the shooting of Charlie Kirk, we had the shooting of
a couple of children by trans trans Transfista whatever they
say that and up in Minnesota and then at Tennessee,
and we have numerous incidents of antifa and leftists, leftist

(10:17):
affiliated folks shooting and engaging in violent behavior. And this
is this is the thing about this. This is the
night after Gavin Newsom called ice the ICE represented the
enforcement arm, arm of an authoritarian government. Now, if one
of you guys probably don't remember, you know, after after

(10:41):
Ferguson and after well it was after Ferguson, BLM was
marching all over the place, and in the city of
Dallas where this happened. Uh, the Dallas police were escorting
a b l M protest and some knucklehead with a
rifle killed five Dallas police officers. So this, this leftist
violence is going on for twelve years and it's been

(11:03):
ignored by the left. Immediately they go to the oh,
we need to get rid of all guns guns when
it comes to a leftist violence. But like I said,
when it comes to violence from the right, oh, we
have extremists that we need to deal with. And that
was policy under the Biden administration. When you look at
his National security plan, for his national security strategy for
dealing with homeland terrorism, our terrorism, homegrown terrorism. That's what

(11:26):
he was focused on. He was focused on the people
in the right. Thomas is going to talk about that
in just a little bit, but that's what he was
focused on. He wasn't focused on the real threat. The
real threat, in my opinion, was internal for these leftists
and external. It was okay, so that's what's going on. Well,
let's I can get going on and ran out of
this stuff, but let's let's bring up our next guest
because I want to ask him about this, this particular

(11:48):
shooting and Antifa. Thomas, Welcome to the show.

Speaker 7 (11:52):
It's thanks for thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
We've been We've been planning this for a while. We
just haven't been able to connect. So I'm glad we're
doing it.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
It's a journey election season of Virginia because we're going
to get into that a little bit, right, But can
you give me a little bit of your background so
that our audience on the radio and the podcast know
who you are.

Speaker 4 (12:09):
Well.

Speaker 7 (12:10):
I've been in the military since nineteen eighty seven, between
the active duty and the Army reserves. I've got about
six moss in the military. Everything from MP Field artillery,
ford observers, SSY OP infantry, and then ultimately an interrogator
and human technician. And that's where I'm at right now.
I'm serving as an Army Reserve Chief warrant officer human tech,

(12:34):
but on the intel side, as a government employee or
on active duty orders for the government. I've worked counter terrorism,
counter domestic terrorism, and Paul mill analysis, political military analysis
as well, in particular focused on the Iranian threat stream
as well as the al Qaeda threat stream in years

(12:57):
past and then most recent, I did a stint working
for Toulsa Gabbard at the d and I I went
in as a senior advisor and did a deep dive
into all of the counterintelligence apparatus of the United States
government to put together some recommendations for the President on
changes to the counterintelligence community.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
Well, first of all, thank you for your service. I'll
let you know, although I didn't serve, my son in
law is currently in he's in special ops and I
won't say where he's act because they that's all secret stuff.
But I do appreciate your service there and and service
to our government. Now, I wanted to before we get
into your story, let's let's talk about Well, well, we'll
go with Antifa first, since I let that you want

(13:38):
to comment on what went on in Dallas today and
the emerging threatment Antifa to our country.

Speaker 7 (13:45):
I like to let these things sort of evolve a
little bit when I'm outside of the intelligence apparatus, because
I don't have any particular insight on on a on
a on a on a classified.

Speaker 4 (13:57):
Side or a law enforcement side.

Speaker 7 (13:59):
But I think, I think that what we're seeing here
is a metastatization of leftist violence because ultimately they are
getting fame and attention out of out of carrying out
these you know, these attempted assassinations or these attacks, and
you know you're you're not going to.

Speaker 4 (14:20):
Hear it from very many people.

Speaker 7 (14:21):
But there's to me, there's a nuance when we start
talking about domestic terrorism. I don't first of all, I
really really abhor the word terrorism because most of it
is just criminal violence, and most of the actors mode
the vast majority of the actors are just lonely losers
that have nothing going on in their life and they

(14:42):
want to be famous, and they have fallen into the
grips of a violent ideology and they think that that
gives them purpose, but they're not actually In order for
it to actually be terrorism, uh. In my mind, as
somebody who's looked at it very closely, there has to
be like an actual possibility of it changing some political

(15:07):
you know, having some political impact. They like to claim
themselves as terrorists, but the truth of the matter is
most of emerges uh in sell violence, involuntarily celibate violence,
mental health.

Speaker 4 (15:20):
A lot of it is mental health.

Speaker 7 (15:22):
I think in particular with the trans uh, with the
trans community. Uh, there's a lot of mental health concerns, anxiety, depression,
suicidal ideation, the medications that they're on that cause these
kinds of suicidal ideation. And you know, one a small
percentage of people who commit suicide actually, and I spent

(15:42):
several years studying the suicide of an epidemic.

Speaker 4 (15:44):
In the United States, A small.

Speaker 7 (15:46):
Percentage of those that commit suicide are actually going to
carry out homicidal suicidal events because they figure they can punish.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
Their their their their their.

Speaker 7 (15:55):
Uh, the people that tormented them in some way, uh
before they before they kill themselves.

Speaker 4 (16:01):
And it's a small small percentage of them.

Speaker 7 (16:05):
Most people don't even really have a comprehension of the
you know, one point six to two million suicide or
suicide attempts we have in the country, and these ones
we see on TV are just suicides.

Speaker 4 (16:16):
I mean, they really are suicides.

Speaker 7 (16:18):
They're basically purposeless lives that want to claim to fame
and they've fallen, you know, into these violent ideologies to
give them an excuse to be violent.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
Okay, a couple of things out of that. First of all,
I'm glad to hear you recognize that there is an
epidemic of suicides in this country. It's something I've been
tracked over about six years. I really it's exhausting that
our public policy makers aren't addressing it because it mostly
involves men, and I think that's one of the reasons
why they're not addressing it. It's not the preferred category

(16:55):
of people you want to help these days. And it's
very frustrating because when you start, they just had a
couple of suicides, A couple guys hung themselves in Louisiana,
and they tried to paint it as you know, lynchings,
and of course I and of course they jumped on
the band awagon in my comments, where you know, you
missed an opportunity to talk about the real injustice, and
the real injustice was our failure to deal with suicide

(17:15):
involving men and recognizing that, uh, there is a problem,
Uh that men are men are suffering right now and
we're ignoring it. Whether it's suicide rates or overdose death
rates or dying on the streets for homelessness, it's there,
and we refuse to address it because in my mind,
to a great degree, men are disposable in this country
and we're and we're refusing to address that. And Okay,

(17:38):
I'll get off my platform on that one. But the
second one, so Antifa, you know, I would I would
agree with you that there a certain number of them
are disenchantized and they just and they get abused and
used by these causes. But there is some interconnectedness between
the cells, is the way I see it. I'll give
your heads up. In addition to doing cop work, I
went to Naval postgraduate school out in Monterey for the

(17:59):
Center for Homeland Defense Security, and it got some briefings
on how cells operate and all that stuff, how to
defeat cells and all that stuff, and so I loved it. It
was a great It was great course, but it opened
to my eyes to how different different different groups organize
themselves to be successful. And when you look at Antifa,
when I look at them from twenty years ago, when
they used to call themselves anarchists and they rebranded themselves

(18:21):
to sound better, it was just pretty localized. You had
them in la you had them in Seattle. But it
started to grow. And I think the Internet allows for
a certain kount of interconnectedness and in cooperation and coordination,
which then takes it out of the realm of.

Speaker 4 (18:37):
Yeah, it's not just the cooperation and coordination, chief.

Speaker 7 (18:39):
I think that what has happened is is that these
isolated individuals, many of them isolated, are able to connect online,
these to other isolated individuals or other small groups of individuals.
It allows them to essentially marinate, marinate in their own

(19:00):
marinate in their own violent ideology. And so they think
that they're in some in some way, they think they're
connected to some larger community or some larger thing, and
in reality it's not. And so, and yes, they do
then coordinate, they do, you know, they they all those
other things happen as But I think that that's a.

Speaker 4 (19:20):
Derivative of.

Speaker 7 (19:24):
That's a derivative of them reaching out to connect to
people that are also like minded, and so then they
sort of they sort of radicalize each other into violence,
because otherwise they would have no purpose in existence at all.

Speaker 4 (19:38):
Except for their their ten they're ten.

Speaker 7 (19:41):
You know, cuckoo for cocoa puff friends that all think
that all think that they're gonna save humanity by going
and shooting up some ice agents.

Speaker 4 (19:49):
You know, they in reality.

Speaker 7 (19:51):
Like I said, these are just groups of people that
are really desperately suffering from essentially essentially a lack of
purpose in their life. And they've called they've they've glommed
onto this, you know, this radical ideology. And yes, the
communication that occurs and the coordination that occurs and the
planning occurs. But but that's why I say that it's

(20:14):
it's it's first, you have to have a propensity to
be vulnerable to that now before before you're going to
act on it, whether or not you're inspired by a
particular group or not.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Okay, So and here you got Elias Rodriguez. He shot
he killed the two people in DC, the two Jewish folks,
and he was at times connected with what they would
call more legitimate organizations. And here's here and here's my
problem with the left. The left needs to recognize that
this is happening and happening on their side of the
political spectrum, and those I don't want to say mainstream
agitation groups, but that you know, there are there's a

(20:46):
little more mainstream where their civil disperience is accepted in
our society. But these guys cross across the boundaries and
there is interconnected with and they're not calling them out.
I mean, John Fetterman is, but most of the mainstream
Democrats folks are not calling them out. And that's a problem.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
Yeah, No, you're right, No, you're right.

Speaker 7 (21:04):
Yeah, And that's the only And then because they're not
calling them out, that's part of the problem as well,
because then the ones that are crazy, they all think
that there must be some legitimacy to what they believe,
because the people that should be calling them out and saying, listen,
don't be violent. You're suffering from anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation.

Speaker 4 (21:25):
You need to get on your meds, you know, because
they're silent.

Speaker 7 (21:29):
Those people think that they're legitimized, so they you know,
I'll give you a couple of really great examples that
just happened today. You know, Newsom said, you know, he's
fearful of violence. He's fearful of violence for some reason.
And I'm like, this is emotions, and he's like Ice
is acting like Gustapa. Well, that's demonizing the federal law enforcement.

(21:50):
And so he's essentially enabling the ideology of these cuckoo
for cocopuff people that are potentially violent and he knows it.
He's not stupid, but he's trying to get elected, okay,
and there's enough. Only they're they're they're they're they're on
the left spectrum of things, but they haven't they're not
pulling triggers. But he knows he's appealing to that. And

(22:10):
let me give you a really great example. Abigail Spamberger
out here in Virginia. Abigail Spamberger literally just said today,
now listen to this, let your rage fuel you, like.

Speaker 4 (22:24):
But she didn't say to do what like. She didn't
say for what or for what for what?

Speaker 7 (22:30):
Say let your rage fuel you and express your opinion.
She didn't say, let your rage fuel you and go
to the polls and vote. She didn't say, let your
rage fuel you and get educated about the Constitution.

Speaker 4 (22:44):
She didn't say that.

Speaker 7 (22:45):
She is saying, let your rage fuel you and leaving
it hanging out there. And essentially what that is doing
is that is she they know what they're doing because
these leftists, these leftists all believe in uh, they're they're
so deep in their emotions that they that they're ill

(23:06):
they're illogical, you know, like they get confronted about men
and women's sports and they can't just say, yeah, no,
full grown man should be beating up a woman on on.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
In a sporting event. Okay, and you know what, am
I gonna do?

Speaker 7 (23:20):
Have a whole team of transgender volleyball players decimate every
single female volleyball team. It's asinine, but they they believe
these things. And the funny thing is, here's the real
here's the real evil part of this is that they
know they're not stupid. They know how detrimental it is,

(23:43):
they know how evil it is.

Speaker 4 (23:44):
They are choosing to be evil on this. They are
choosing that instead.

Speaker 7 (23:51):
Of saying, yeah, that's just retarded, We're not doing that.
You know, we're not gonna have women being just decimated
in every sport by throwing in a few transgender men
to steal every award in every you know, in every event, like,
we're not doing that, but they'll promote it all day longer,

(24:15):
come up with some kind of crazy excuse for why,
you know, this is how people feel and this is
how it's going to be.

Speaker 4 (24:21):
You know that's not true. I'll use it.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
I'll use a different term. When you did dehumanize ice,
they humanize law enforce, They humanize their opponents. And you know,
and I was listening back in the early two thousands,
I was handling some war demonstrations out here, and so
I was trying to understand the Black Block because we
were dealing with them a lot. And so I read
an interview one of their leaders and one of the
questions is why do you target law enforcement? Their blue

(24:44):
collar they're like us, Well, because they're the guard dogs
for the rich. When they say things like that, they're
dehumanizing who you are and what you're doing, so it's
easy to target you. And they do that over and
over again. Black Lives Matter did. It's a law enforcement
and this is where the portrayal of the Democratic Party
to law enforcement after or when Black Lives Matter hit
the scene was one of the reasons that radicalized me
to speak out. Uh even when it was uncomfortable at

(25:07):
work and other places. I did it because it was
what I thing, do We're gonna pivot here? I got
to get you know, it's just been out there and
in tellingence thing that al Qaida is a threat. Now,
I've always known and I always felt it was a threat.
I was disappointed to bide administration pivoted inward instead of
focusing out or to what the real threats were. You
can you give us like a two minute where are
we at with al Qaida in the US? Your thoughts?

Speaker 7 (25:30):
Well, they're still here, Uh, but they're standing in the sidelines,
I believe watching us tear each other apart at this point.
What they're going to do is they're going to prey
on these vulnerable communities and they're going to radicalize them,
and they'll do it as part of the you know,
part of the leftist you know, Charlie Kirk actually said

(25:50):
something I thought was really really profound. He said that
the that the the woke fascist left is going to
join forces with uh Islam and basically destroy Western civilization
and you know, to work to destroy Western civilization. I
think that's a really profound statement, and I think that
it's absolutely true, even though they are completely in opposition

(26:13):
to each other. There isn't anything that the left believes
in that Islam believes in, but they will prey on them,
and they're better at it, you know, Islam, the Muslims,
the Islamic militants are extremely good at this.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
They know how to do it.

Speaker 7 (26:28):
You know, Leftist governments know how to do it, like
the Chinese and the Russians. But most of these kids
that are running around and these and these you know
whack a doodle leftists, you know Karen's, they're they're like
the same kind of thing.

Speaker 4 (26:41):
They're basically just ignorant and being preyed upon, and.

Speaker 7 (26:45):
They don't understand how vulnerable they are to basically being
preyed upon on their emotions. So I don't think al
Qaida in itself as much as much as a threat
right now, except as an enabler and a promoter of
I do think, you know, the Iranians are still out there.

Speaker 4 (27:01):
The Iranians would love to take a take a take
a shot at at at the at the president or anybody.
So they're still out there.

Speaker 7 (27:08):
Uh, my feeling is our biggest threat remains. And I've
said this for years and really Trump was the first
one to really really start calling it out. And that
is is we've got to pivot towards China, and we've
got to get ready for taking on China because right now,
what they're doing is what the Chinese are doing, through
fentanyl and through you know, enabling these gangs to come

(27:30):
in and promoting these leftist ideologies. They're doing that because
they know what weakens us. They they're they're they're basically
enabling us to destroy ourselves. And that's what the Chinese
are doing, and ultimately the Russians, and they learned how
to do it from the Russians, and the Russians are
still doing it. So the threats are many, and that

(27:51):
is why we've got to uh, you know, I would
say that the the the the poltice, the ointment against
all this is staying in our constitution, protecting our protecting
our rights, because our rights will always protect us from
all of these enemies. That's one of the reasons that
I have such a problem with when we throw around

(28:12):
the domestic terrorism term. I don't want the left calling
us domestic terrorists, and I don't want us calling them
domestic terrorists because they really aren't. Most of these people
that are committing any of these things are just criminal
assholes that are just using the ideology as an excuse
so that they.

Speaker 4 (28:29):
Can be a criminal.

Speaker 7 (28:31):
Very few of them are actually truly politically motivated. They
might be making a statement, but they can't actually affect
any political change. And so because of that, you know,
I have a many years ago I kind of created
a little a way to talk about it, and I
would say that there's terror tactics, and that would be
like shooting up a nightclub or shooting up a movie theater.

(28:54):
Then there's terrorst strategy, which is like when you hijack
three or four planes and you crash them into buildings
and it's a big coordinated event. And then there's terror policy,
which is like the Iranian regime over its people or
the FBI being used to terrorize the American people after
January sixth.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
That is terror policy.

Speaker 7 (29:13):
That is when you are directly trying to terrorize your
own citizens. You know, ICE isn't targeting American citizens. ICE
is targeting illegal immigrants, criminals in particular that are in
the country.

Speaker 4 (29:25):
They're not going after American citizens.

Speaker 7 (29:28):
In fact, it's the Antifa folks and the anti ice
folks that are more likely to become actual domestic terrorists
because they are actually doing what we just saw in Texas,
and we also saw the earlier shooting you were talking about.
We had ten people all working together. That's where you're
getting closer to terror strategy and you're getting closer to
somebody that's actually got an ideological motivation.

Speaker 1 (29:51):
You know, when I was doing anti terrorism stuff, you know,
I just looked at the definition of terrorism, you know,
violence to change, you know, the course of government basically
to spoil it down easy terms. But what you're saying
is you're adding a layer on there that they have
to have a credible way of changing policy. So I
have not heard it said that way, and I guess
I can support that. We're going to have pivot now.

(30:12):
I want to get into January six because that's where
we're going. Let's show the January sixth video.

Speaker 6 (30:16):
Amanda Good Afternoon, Sherman luder Milk, Ranking Member Torres, and
members of the subcommittee. It is hard to believe that
it has been almost three years since January sixth, and
we are still having congressional hearings to identify what contributed
to that tragic day. To date, there have been four
Congressional reports, along with several Inspector General and Government Accountability

(30:37):
Offics reports, and they continue to support what many of
us have suspected from the very beginning.

Speaker 4 (30:42):
January sixth was an intelligence failure.

Speaker 6 (30:45):
We rely on accurate intelligence to help us develop effective security.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
And operational plans.

Speaker 6 (30:50):
Accurate intelligence is essential as an essential factor in the
decision making process of the Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board,
and the oversight committees. We now know that significant intelligence
existed that individuals were plotting to storm the Capitol building,
target lawmakers and discussing shooting my officers, and yet no
intel agencies or units sounded the alarm. We were blindsided.

(31:14):
Intelligence failed the operations. The January sixth attack at the
Capitol was preventable. If the intelligence had been accurately reported
and the FBI and DHS had followed their policies and
established practices, I wouldn't be sitting here today.

Speaker 1 (31:29):
Okay, that's good command, because I think that it's.

Speaker 6 (31:32):
On nine to eleven and again on January six You.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Know, I've heard him a few times for our chiefs son,
and I read your entire testimony in front of the
January sixth committee. And I understand that you're advocating and
you were part of pushing for reopening this and having
another House of committee looking at it. So I want,
I greatly appreciate that. And here's what I was struck with.
And I'm kind of in a unique position. So I

(31:55):
was running a collaboration of agencies out here in LA
and we're focused on protecting critical infrastructure for terrorism. So
you know, I was a I would would have been
a customer of your Intel products look at it and
then develop a strategy that kind of thing. And we
were doing such a good job out there, they sent
me back to the Capital region to talk to all
the police agents that worked there to talk about how

(32:17):
we collaborated and communicated. Right, And so I got a
chance to talk to the Capitol police, and you know,
DC policed everybody, the people from Virginia, you know, because
they had these mutual aid agreements. When stuff like that
happens on January sixth, where they bring people in and right,
I mean January seventh. I was shocked what happened to
their plans. And when I listened to Chief Sun talk,

(32:38):
it's like they knew what was going on, and they
weren't given they weren't given the support to do their job.
These are guys who do this, what one hundred times
a year, and they failed. And alls I could think
of is why weren't they supported? Why weren't they given
the resources they were needed that they needed. And you know,
during the course of my journey doing podcasts, I ran

(32:59):
into a couple of six inadvertently I was interviewing them
about other things, and they talked about their experience. They
were at J six and I read your testimony, right,
you know, one of them says, Hey, I go, and
I approach. I'm on the lawn, I'm looking at the capitol.
He says, I'm suffering from cancer, so I really don't
want to go up there. And this guy with the
megaphone and saying go, go go, and alls he could

(33:20):
think of is why isn't he going?

Speaker 4 (33:22):
Right?

Speaker 1 (33:22):
And then I read your testimony. There's guy who's ripping
down barriers and signs and he's telling you to go go,
And same with the third guy, same thing, and the
third guy he did go, or the guy the other
guy interviewed, he did go up there on the capital
as soon as he met with the cop that said hey,
turn around. He left. They still tried to prosecute him,
but and he said, there was no no signs, no barriers,

(33:44):
no nothing. There was no violence when I was when
I was there, and alls I can think of is
we're being lied to. We are being lied to by
the J six Committee. We're not hearing all all the evidence.
Say you know, I'm a cop, so a lot of
Brady violations here. They're not given all this information to
the defendants. They used the section to go after these

(34:04):
defendants that I think, you know, these really smart lawyers
in the Justice Department, this is the Enron crime that
they used against them. I think they knew they would
oftully lose that, but they were going to leverage guilty police.
I think, you know, I'm not an idiot. You know
these guys are really smart guys. There's no way in
hell they thought they were going to win that all
the way through. That's why they did a pipeline of
all these cases through certain courts and through certain judges

(34:25):
so they can win and leverage all of these guilty
police so that they could say there's a problem with
domestroterrorism on the right and that this was insurrection. So
I mean that is my belief. And having worked I
don't know one hundred different crowd issues, both work in
the streets as a plan closed and watching the dynamics
of a crowd. I've read your testimony. I'm thinking he's

(34:47):
thinking what I'm thinking. Who pushed these crowds, Because once
you get a crowd going in a direction, it only
takes a handful of people to suggest nefarious action. And
those guys, and I've been in the crowd, I've watched
it happen, called me into commander and say they're going
to do this. You guys need to get ready. And
I've seen it happen. I've seen these the various people
stand back and watch the innocent people serves forward because

(35:10):
they're in the crowd mentality thinking it's okay because it's
January sixth, or anti war or whatever, pick pick the cause.
And so when I've heard all these different stories, I
think a big chunk of this hasn't come out. But
so go ahead, give me your thoughts on January sixth,
What actually happened on January sixth? And why are you
pushing for a reevaluation?

Speaker 4 (35:32):
It's okay, So because I know we have limited time.
I'll be quick.

Speaker 7 (35:37):
In October twenty twenty, I was serving as the senior
Intelligence Collection Strategist for domestic terrorism.

Speaker 4 (35:43):
So what that means is and I was doing that
at the d and I in the National counter Terrorism Center.

Speaker 7 (35:47):
What that means is is I had access to all
of the intelligence reporting and I also had access to
all of the intelligence collection apparatus, so I could see
the number of sources we had. I could see where
they were using overseas, looking at foreign terrorists that were
enabling domestic terrorism, et cetera.

Speaker 4 (36:06):
Right, So I could see everything.

Speaker 7 (36:08):
In October, I actually warned the FBI Domestic Terrorism Task
Force personally that we were headed into something bad that
I thought we need to be exploring potential black swan events.
A black swan event is an event that occurs in
spirals out of control. They said, we don't do false flags,
and I said, I didn't say that.

Speaker 1 (36:28):
That's that's suspicious.

Speaker 7 (36:29):
Yeah, I said black swan and they and I said,
why are you doing any red teaming? Are you getting
some guys out there to pretend like militias and you know?

Speaker 4 (36:38):
And they said, no, no, no, we don't do that.

Speaker 7 (36:41):
And I was like, well, what the hell do you
guys do then, because you're the Domestic Terrorism Task Force.

Speaker 4 (36:47):
Well, so, ultimately I was the.

Speaker 7 (36:51):
National spokesman for VETS for Trump at the time. I
took a couple of days off. I was there on
January fifth, and I was there on January sixth. And remember,
in my civilian capacity as a contry actor, I know
Russian active measures.

Speaker 4 (37:03):
I know I've studied this stuff all around the world.

Speaker 7 (37:05):
I know how Libya occurred, I know how Syria occurred,
I know how.

Speaker 4 (37:10):
Iran, the stuff in Iran occurred.

Speaker 7 (37:12):
And I believed we were vulnerable to that same sort
of operation here in the United States.

Speaker 4 (37:19):
Vulnerable.

Speaker 7 (37:19):
I didn't see any evidence of that, but I knew
that there were instigators and agitators on both sides of
this argument. There were conservative agitators that would be agitating
for a fight with the police, and there were leftist
agitators that were going to be agitating conservatives to fight
with the police.

Speaker 4 (37:35):
Right.

Speaker 7 (37:37):
And so I was out on January fifth warning everyone
i could against falling for the trap. And I actually
was successful stopping violence against the tut cops on January fifth.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
But I got to January sixth. Late.

Speaker 7 (37:48):
By the time I got to January sixth, the violence
had already occurred or had already started.

Speaker 4 (37:53):
And at that point, as.

Speaker 7 (37:54):
You you know, saw, it was just mayhem.

Speaker 4 (37:57):
It was chaos and confusion.

Speaker 7 (37:59):
But I would argue that it was chaos and confusion
on both sides.

Speaker 4 (38:03):
The Capitol Police.

Speaker 7 (38:04):
If you read all the police all the reports that
have come out from both Metro and Capitol Police, they
lost all communication basically with their police force. They lost
all communication because everybody was asking for help. They were
all running over each other. The headquarters basically just shut down.
They couldn't do anything. Once that happened, the ground commanders
started making their own decisions. And what I believe happened

(38:28):
in my own professional analysis, and I've said this, I
think I've told you this before, but I'm now doing
it on your show, and that is is here's what
I think happened. I think that sovestigators and some agitators
took advantage of the passions of the crowd.

Speaker 4 (38:42):
They also aggravated.

Speaker 7 (38:45):
The police because they were probably yelling in the faces
of the polices as well. And then all it really
takes is for one policeman or one agitator to get
into a pushing contest with a policeman, and all of
a sudden you have total chaos. Because what people have
not understood, I think, is that this was a.

Speaker 4 (39:02):
Different type of crowd.

Speaker 7 (39:04):
This was a different type of crowd than the normal
leftist anti war crowd. This there was a power dynamic,
There was a there was a there was a power
dynamic between the police and the crowd. The police were
there to protect a building. The crowd was there to
protect the country in their mind. In their mind, they

(39:26):
were there to protect the constitution. So and they were
mostly made up of and led by, in many cases,
veterans and retired law enforcement. So this makes the crowd
especially different than any other crowd of this size in
American history. I believe that so many of them were veterans,
many of them combat veterans. Almost every one of those veterans,

(39:49):
probably around that time, was a combat veteran. Many I
ran into one guy who was a tunnel rat in Vietnam.
He had to have been like eighty okay, and he
was there. So what I'm saying is is the crowd
was a different type of crowd. So when the police
lost communication and they started retal it, trying to push
the crowd back. Their only way to do so was
to cees gas the crowd. Well, I had a realization

(40:13):
actually when I was doing the J six Committee testimony,
because I said, I blurted it out to them, something like,
you know, I got hit by csgas like ten or
fifteen times, and they were stunned by that, like.

Speaker 4 (40:23):
Well, why didn't you leave? And I said, well, they
weren't targeting me, it was just everywhere.

Speaker 7 (40:29):
And then I realized I had been trained to resist
the effects of cs gas by the military, So I
wasn't a normal citizen. I was somebody who had been
trained to resist ces gas. All it really did, I
think to the crowd was piss it off. It pissed
the veterans off that the police were cs gassing them.

(40:50):
When that happened, all it takes is for one cop
to take a swing at one old lady, and you've
got five veterans in there trying to stop both the
and the woman from being hurt. Like in their mind,
they're protecting the crowd, not just fighting the police.

Speaker 6 (41:07):
Right.

Speaker 7 (41:08):
So that's why I say this is a complex dynamic.
When you talk about the type of crowd, the breakdown
of communication, and the use of cs gas, and ultimately
the left the agitators, both left hand right ended up
getting their way because the violence occurred. And ultimately we
have January sixth.

Speaker 4 (41:29):
I and I. We probably don't have time to go.

Speaker 7 (41:32):
Too deeply into it, but there were some definite plans
on the ground. We still do not have answers for
the pipe bomber.

Speaker 1 (41:42):
We can find it.

Speaker 4 (41:43):
We can find a goat herder on the top of
a mountain who makes pipe bombs.

Speaker 7 (41:46):
In Afghanistan, but we can't find a guy who walked
all over DC in the middle of the night in
a hoodie with facial recognition on every corner, and we
can't figure out what vehicle he got in or just
some somehow vanishes. But he plants two pipe bombs. And
he doesn't just plant to pipe bombs, he just lays
them out in plain sight. I've studied pipe bombers, and

(42:08):
pipe bombers never lay pipe bombs out in playing side.

Speaker 1 (42:10):
Plus, if you know everybody's trained, they're trying to report
that kind of stuff. I mean, I ran transit system
that would give him. But here's the thing. So the
things I'm hoping to come out of Jay six, and
I'm sure you have many is I want to know
why did we ignore the intelligence? As chief saying that,
why did we ignore the intelligence that needs to come out?
Who made that decision?

Speaker 7 (42:28):
He says that, he says that, but I've looked at
the intelligence very closely that came out around Jay six
and there wasn't any hardcore evidence. If you go go
go read Jennifer Brown. I think her name is Jennifer Brown.
She's on my website. You can find her testimony to
the Jay sixth committee. She was the FBI senior intelligence
officer at Washington Field Office. And basically what she said,

(42:50):
Remember these testimonies weren't supposed to be made public, right, Okay.
What she says is is that there was a whole
lot of insinuation and a whole lot of accusation, but
there was nobody with a concat plan. There were a
lot of people saying, I hope something happens, maybe something
should happen, you know, maybe somebody should go in the tunnels,
maybe you know.

Speaker 4 (43:08):
But no one had.

Speaker 7 (43:10):
The intelligence did not confirm that there was an actual
plan by anyone to be violent. Okay, So That's why
I say that the there were plans to agitate the
crowd though, and I think that should have been properly
reported that.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
That's the next thing. I want to know what was
the plan on who was doing it, which I don't
think we got out of well, I don't.

Speaker 7 (43:37):
But because I think that it was very it was
individual actors. It wasn't There was no like group agenda,
like even if you look at the case for Enrique
Tario and Stuart Roadse's cases, there's no plan. In fact,
she even says the senior intel person for the FBI
says they had they had the number two person in

(43:58):
Proud Boys Confidential human they had the number two person
in oath Keeper's confidential human source. No plan of violence
by oath Keepers and Proud Boys, no plan.

Speaker 1 (44:08):
They had got three We got to shift gears here, Thomas,
you know, and I want you to go another hour
on that. Right now, Let's let's show the video of
the WinCE. I'm sorry Spamberger. It's an Abigail Spamberger, and
then we'll go right into the one with her her
cow league. Given his deposition.

Speaker 8 (44:26):
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spamberger faces a defamation lawsuit over
a twenty twenty two press release about January sixth. Thomas Special,
suing the Democratic Party of Virginia, claims the release falsely
labeled him an insurrectionist, harming his reputation. Court depositions show
Spamberger's campaign authored the statement, but she denies knowing about it,

(44:49):
raising questions about her involvement and possible harassment.

Speaker 4 (44:55):
Liar.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
Let's let's let's throw with the deposition from I guess
the former secretary for the Democratic National Back Democratic Party
of Virginia. Let's roll that one.

Speaker 4 (45:04):
Okay, So who just goes straight to the point here?

Speaker 7 (45:08):
Who approved the article that we're here to discuss the
Democrat Party of Virginia article on the January sixth insurrectionists.

Speaker 6 (45:16):
It would be the Abbigols Spamburger campaign.

Speaker 4 (45:18):
The Spamburger campaign.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
Yeah, in case you didn't hear that for a radio audience,
folks didn't hear it?

Speaker 4 (45:26):
Who? Who?

Speaker 1 (45:27):
Who authorized that? Abigail Spamburger offered it. So she just
I didn't know anything. Now, her staffer, the person answering
getting direct report from her, says yeah she did. So
let's talk about so you filed the depositional deposition. I'm
assuming your name was released in that press release, right.

Speaker 7 (45:44):
And yeah, they didn't just say I was an insurrectionist,
the definite. The defamation was they said that I was
a notable insurrectionist who attacked the US capital. And they
said that I was basically an insurrectionist, too blooded and
beat law enforcement.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
Yeah, and I read your I read your entire testimony.
None of that was alleged, it didn't happen. In fact,
you gave an interview with folks talking about peace or whatever.
Some guy interviewed you and went on air, and so
clearly that's a bold faced lie. Now, you did run
for an office in Virginia, right, I ran for.

Speaker 7 (46:16):
US Senate in the twenty nineteen in the twenty twenty primary,
basically twenty nineteen, twenty twenty primary.

Speaker 1 (46:23):
So you were somewhat of a force in Virginia. At
least you had a voice, and they were trying to
silence your voice with this by labeling you everything they
labeled you. So talk about your lawsuit and the depositions
and her desire to hire Adat from the.

Speaker 7 (46:37):
Well, okay, so I actually the press release came out
in November of twenty twenty, two. And so this is
this is twenty three months after January sixth. Okay, literally
twenty three months after January sixth, they published this article
saying that I'm because I had endorsed yes Lee Vega,

(46:57):
who was her opponent in for the congressional race. So
I had endorsed Jeslievega, who's just an incredible young, patriot
conservative woman, Okay, and I endorsed her, and so to
hurt her campaign, to hurt Yesley's campaign, they made up
this lie twenty three months after January sixth.

Speaker 4 (47:18):
And so I you know, I sued.

Speaker 7 (47:22):
The Democrat Party of Virginia because that's who it was
originally published under. But secretly, secretly, the press release had
actually been written, edited and approved by the Abigail Spamberger campaign,
and they secretly published it under the Democrat Party of
Virginia banner. And the interesting part of that is when
I asked the press secretary for Abigail because I am

(47:44):
pro seing this case, they didn't realize that I was
a I'm a professional interrogator.

Speaker 4 (47:49):
For the Army, so I know how to ask questions, right,
and so I asked. I asked the press secretary.

Speaker 7 (47:56):
I said why did you Why did you publish it
on the Democrat Party of Virginia website and not on
any Abigail Spamberg or social media.

Speaker 4 (48:05):
They did not publish it on their social media at all.

Speaker 7 (48:08):
They only published it with no author's name on the
Democrat Party.

Speaker 4 (48:14):
Of Virginia website.

Speaker 7 (48:15):
He said, well, that's what we do when something's negative trending.
And I was like, you mean smear, you mean smear
a candidate and he was like, oh, no, oh don't.

Speaker 4 (48:25):
I don't mean smear candidate. You just do that when
it's negative trending.

Speaker 7 (48:30):
And so yeah, I found out in the first that
that actually is the deposition of Johnny Sneidel. He's the
press secretary for the Democrat Party of Virginia. He admitted
to everything. The Democrat Party of Virginia says claimed that
they had a thirty day retention policy, so they can't
they can't reproduce any of the emails from any of
the communication. But when I asked Johnny Sneidel about thirty

(48:54):
the retention policy, he said, I don't even know what
that is.

Speaker 4 (48:57):
So they're just lying. They're is basically lying, And so
I deposed I've deposed.

Speaker 7 (49:06):
Her entire Abigail Spamberger's entire campaign team at this point,
and they've all admitted to approving it or being in
a position to approve these press releases. And I've deposed
the campaign the press secretary for the Democrat Party of Virginia,
and Abigail Spamberger was forced to do a deposition in writing.

(49:27):
But they're trying to avoid that becoming public because well,
I think that it'll be damning when she has to,
because a deposition is a sworn testimony, and if she
says that she didn't know anything about it, then she's
basically throwing her entire campaign under the bus for defamation
personally on their part.

Speaker 4 (49:47):
So she knows that she can't she can't under.

Speaker 7 (49:51):
Oh, say that without without basically everybody in her campaign
probably turning against her.

Speaker 1 (49:56):
Well, plus she's involved in a tight race for governor.
This is rather is that race with whin some series
is tightened. You know, they have some controversy going on
in the schools down there as well, and she won't
she wont to cry men being women's sports and men
going in women's bathrooms either. She seems to you know,
have a mind block there that she can't say the
right thing. She's losing a sense of values. So the

(50:16):
race is tightening, and this is part of it. Right.

Speaker 7 (50:20):
I did everything I could to keep this from becoming
a political case. When I filed the initial defamation lawsuit,
I didn't even know Abigail Samberger's campaign was involved. When
I filed the defamation case against Abigail S.

Speaker 4 (50:32):
Pamberger and her.

Speaker 7 (50:33):
Team, I didn't know she was going to be running
for governor. So this all happened like she decided to
run for governor knowing that this case was out there,
and I was trying to keep it from becoming a
political case, because this is not a political case.

Speaker 4 (50:49):
This is about my reputation. You know, I ran a
Senate campaign.

Speaker 7 (50:54):
Forty five thousand Virginians voted for me in Virginia, and
she defamed me in the seventh Congressional district. She was
my own congresswoman. She was my own congresswoman who defamed me,
all to win a race, all to win a race
against yes Lee Vega. They defamed me, and I intend
to hold them accountable. I intend to hold them accountable.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Well, what we'll get on this, So let's say, Okay, yeah,
they defamed you do you have a calculated loss? I
guess is what you do? Have you lost jobs because
of this? Have been help that lost jobs?

Speaker 7 (51:26):
I've lost friends, I've it's affected my scout career with
regard to being involved with scouting, because you know, people
in scouting are not political, but some of them are
clearly probably Democrats, and saw that I was supposedly somebody
who had beaten in bloody law enforcement, Like who would
want their kid to be led by a scoutmaster who
beaten bloody law enforcement? See, they don't they don't understand

(51:48):
like there are there are you know, defamation per se
consequences that are immeasurable. I can never get those people
back until until they make a public apology with the
same number of words that they defamed me, you know.
And I think that there has to be enough of
a consequence that it sends a shockwave across the country
because ultimately that's what this is. These people will lie, cheat,

(52:13):
and steal and guess what, they will also murder you
if they don't like what you say.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
Like we saw with Charlie Kirk. Yes, as we saw
with Charlie Kirk, what.

Speaker 7 (52:23):
It is, Yeah, it absolutely is and so we've got
to hold them accountable and we can't shrink from the
you know, we've got to be We've got to have
fearless faith.

Speaker 4 (52:34):
You know.

Speaker 7 (52:34):
And that's it's been me and Jesus on the table
defending my reputation because you know, lawyers are even afraid
to go after the Democrat party here in Virginia. But
I'm not afraid to anybody because I got Jesus, and
me and Jesus are We're like, we're good.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
Yeah, Well when somebody, you know, I tell somebody I
was involved in a situation where somebody came in the
share station lobby and shot one of my guys, and
we went to take them out, and I said, you know,
I don't really worry about anything becau as long as
nobody shooting at me. I'm okay. You know, I can
you know, I'm not afraid. I can do whatever it takes.
I'm you know. And anyways, we got about a minute left, Tom,

(53:11):
and I want to give you a chance to talk
about you know, the most important I think your website
is chock full of a great information that you're not
going to see and mainstream media regarding January sixth, it
gives you a different viewpoint of what actually happened. Talk
about your website and encourage people to go there to
read it, I think is probably the next.

Speaker 7 (53:28):
Thing you can you can you can connect to me
via the website. You can find my I wrote a
inside the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Strategy Report that you can
link to that from there. But there's also an IG
complaint because I was denied a promotion to Chief War
and Officer four, and I filed an IG complaint with
the Department of the Army, and they are doing a

(53:50):
thorough investigation. I'm understanding they're investigating my command, they're investigating
Army CID, they're investigating Army counter Intelligence, they're investigating the
Military Intelligence Readiness Command.

Speaker 4 (54:01):
So there's a lot of information.

Speaker 7 (54:03):
About the weaponization of the federal government against me, as
well as information about J six from a professional intelligence
officer doing the work as opposed to just somebody on
the internet.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
Okay, we got to wrap up. Tom, Thank you for
coming to me visit us on briefing with the Chief. Hey,
next week, I'm going to have a dinosaur on the show.
I'm going to have a moderate democrat from California you
can't find those guys anywhere, but somebody's agreed to come
on my first Yeah. I thought they were extinct too.
And I saw this guy's record. He actually used to
work for RFK, and I said, hey, actually, some of
the things you believe in as a modern Republican I

(54:33):
believe in. I'm going to bring you on my show.
But that's for next week. Thank you Tom for coming
on the show. You can stick around for a quick
deep if you want, if you want, and folks, come
back next Wednesday, five pm Easter Standard time for briefing
with the Chief. I KJADB dot com. Thank you guys,