November 3, 2025 • 41 mins
The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET.
Brad is first joined by CNN Military Analyst Cedric Leighton.
Col. Leighton (USAF-Ret.) provides his expert analysis on President Trump restarting U.S. nuclear weapons testing for the first time in 33 years.
They also discuss Trump and Pete Hegseth's missile attacks on fishing boats in foreign waters, the President's East Asia trip, a potential trade deal with China, and more.
Brad is then joined by New York Times investigative reporter Kenneth P. Vogel.
The two discuss Ken's new book, "DEVILS' ADVOCATES: The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the Payrolls of Corrupt Foreign Interest."
The book shines a spotlight on one of the most shadowy and impactful industries in U.S. politics—the foreign influence business. Drawing on exclusive sources, thousands of documents, and on-the-ground reporting, Vogel pulls back the curtain on this billion-dollar business that spans the partisan spectrum and secretly shapes U.S. foreign policy, while often flouting American values like human rights and democracy.
Col. Cedric Leighton is the Founder and President of Cedric Leighton Associates, a strategic risk and leadership consultancy serving global companies and organizations. He founded the company in 2010, after serving in the US Air Force for 27 years as an Intelligence Officer and attaining the rank of Colonel. His website is www.CedricLeighton.com and his handle on BlueSky is @CedricLeighton. bsky.social.
You can purchase Ken's new book, "DEVILS' ADVOCATES," here.
His handle on Blue Sky is @kenvogel.bsky.social.
Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.'
He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.
Brad is first joined by CNN Military Analyst Cedric Leighton.
Col. Leighton (USAF-Ret.) provides his expert analysis on President Trump restarting U.S. nuclear weapons testing for the first time in 33 years.
They also discuss Trump and Pete Hegseth's missile attacks on fishing boats in foreign waters, the President's East Asia trip, a potential trade deal with China, and more.
Brad is then joined by New York Times investigative reporter Kenneth P. Vogel.
The two discuss Ken's new book, "DEVILS' ADVOCATES: The Hidden Story of Rudy Giuliani, Hunter Biden, and the Washington Insiders on the Payrolls of Corrupt Foreign Interest."
The book shines a spotlight on one of the most shadowy and impactful industries in U.S. politics—the foreign influence business. Drawing on exclusive sources, thousands of documents, and on-the-ground reporting, Vogel pulls back the curtain on this billion-dollar business that spans the partisan spectrum and secretly shapes U.S. foreign policy, while often flouting American values like human rights and democracy.
Col. Cedric Leighton is the Founder and President of Cedric Leighton Associates, a strategic risk and leadership consultancy serving global companies and organizations. He founded the company in 2010, after serving in the US Air Force for 27 years as an Intelligence Officer and attaining the rank of Colonel. His website is www.CedricLeighton.com and his handle on BlueSky is @CedricLeighton. bsky.social.
You can purchase Ken's new book, "DEVILS' ADVOCATES," here.
His handle on Blue Sky is @kenvogel.bsky.social.
Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.'
He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Leslie Marshall Show, A true democracy in talk radio
of for and by you, the people, live.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
From our nation's capital. It's Deadline d C with Brad
Bannon today on Deadline DC, I will blaze a trail
through the hot, thick fog of confusion and that created
by Donald Trump and his loyal followers who call him King.
(00:52):
I'm Brad Bannon, the host of Deadline d C with
Brad Bannon. I'm a national democratic and progressive strategist, a
political analysts for the Times of India TV network, and
a weekly columnist to the Hill in Washington, DC to
get my take on Donald Trump's imperial presidency. You can
(01:16):
read my column in The Hill at muckrack dot com.
Front Slash Brad Bannon mondays on Deadline DC, I talked
to the people and players behind the politics and policies
that drive our great nation forward or at least keep
it from going backwards. During Trump two point zero, It's
(01:37):
National Security Monday on Deadline d DC Today. In the
first half hour, CNN military analysts Cedric Layton, Colonel US
Air Force retired, joins me to discuss Trump's request to
start nuclear testing and other hotspot international issues. Then, in
(02:01):
the second half hour, Pen Vogel of the Reporter for
New York Times joins us to discuss his great new book,
The Devil's Advocates before we start with our first guests.
So we're going to play this clip that appeared on
sixty Minutes last night. Donald Trump, being interviewed by Nora
(02:23):
Donald explained his decision to start nuclear testing again.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Our before your meeting with President She. You posted on
social media that you instructed the quote Department of War
to start testing our nuclear weapons immediately.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
What did you mean, Well, we have more nuclear weapons
in any other country, and I think we should do
something about denuclearization. And I did actually discuss that with
both President Putin and President she We have enough nuclear
weapons to blow up the world one hundred and fifty times.
Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons, and we'll have
(03:00):
a lot. They have some, They have quite a bit.
But well, because you have to see how they work,
you know, you do have to. And the reason I'm
saying testing is because Russia and now said they were
going to be doing a test. If you notice North
Korea's testing constantly, other countries are testing. We're the only
country that doesn't test, and I want to be I
don't want to be the only country that doesn't test.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That was, of course, Donald Trump talking to noro'donald last
night on sixty minutes. Our guest in this half hour
is Cedric Layton, CNN military analyst and usare for Colonel
us therefore retired Colonel Layton. Welcome back to Deadline DC
with Brad Bannon Bright.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
It's great to be back with you. Thanks so much
for having me.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Okay, let's start out with this one. Your reaction to
President Trump's call on sixty minutes last night for resumption
of US testing of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Well, there is a lot to unpack, even in that
particular aspect of national security issues. For one thing, Russia
actually has more nuclear warheads than we do. They have
somewhere around forty three hundred or so. We've got thirty
seven hundred, and the Chinese are third with maybe as
many as six hundred, and they're rapidly increasing their arsenal.
(04:17):
But the other part of this is that the Russians,
when they were the Soviet Union, stop testing nuclear testing
of actual nuclear weapons in nineteen ninety. Two years later,
we stopped nuclear testing in nineteen ninety two, and then
the Chinese and the French stopped in nineteen ninety six.
(04:39):
The North Koreans did their last test in twenty seventeen.
So basically, as far as we know, unless there's some
classified information that's different, no country is conducting nuclear weapons
test using actual nuclear weapons right now.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, Well, that's again something that may be. Yeah, the
president doesn't have full command of the facts, which wouldn't
be the first Nie. Let me ask you, colonel about
something I meant to ask the last time we had
you on and I forgot. What do you think? What's
(05:14):
your reaction to listening to the president's interview? Remind me
of this? What do you think about the name change
and the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
Well, that's actually not a legal name change because Congress
would have to approve it. So the Department of War
was the title that was used by basically the army
component during the first part of our nation's history, from
the Constitution all the way down to the end of
(05:48):
World War Two. In nineteen forty seven, with the National
Security Act that was passed in that year, the name
not only was changed to the Department of Defense, but
it also amalgamated not only the Army and the Air Force,
but also the Navy, Marine Corps, and then future forces
like the Space Force into a broad military organization. And
(06:14):
so the only organization that can change legally change the
name of the Department of Defense is Congress. They would
have to actually pass an act, pass a bill that
would allow for that name change. If they do that,
then that's one thing. But right now it is not
a legally binding change of name. And in fact, when
(06:34):
you look at the documentation from the President and Secretary
of Defense, it's very clear that they are using it
for cosmetic purposes. But we are basically the only country
now that has what they would call a Department of War.
No other country, even the Russians or the Chinese, neither
one of them call it a Department of war.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, let's you know. It seems to me the you know,
the president now, even though you're right it is legal,
only Congress can change the name. The president's referring to
it as the Department of War, and it reflects a
very militaristic attitude on behalf of the Trump administration. Uh,
(07:18):
we're bombing fishing boats that are supposedly and there's no
proof of this drug cartel boats in the Caribbean and
the Pacific. The President's talking about airstrikes in Nigeria. Uh,
it just seems to me, and you know, correct me
if I'm wrong that the Trump administration is itching for
(07:40):
a fight or war.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
What do you Yeah, certainly a very bellicosed posture. And
you know, and it's it's basically global in terms of
it's uh, you know, it's it's a reach. But yeah,
the the way this is unfolding is not normal, you know,
it's basic. Since the end of the Second World War,
(08:03):
we have done some aggressive things around the world, but
all of them have been preceded by some kind of consultation,
at least with Congress. In many cases actual action on
the part of Congress. The declarations of war basically stopped
with the one that we did in World War Two
in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But be
(08:26):
that as it may, there's always been up until this point,
consultation with Congress on the use of military force in
certain areas. And even if it's just consulting with the
so called Gang of Eight, the most powerful members of Congress,
the ones that are designated for these kinds of discussions.
That is something that President Trump is not doing, and
(08:46):
we're going to find ourselves in some very legally tricky
waters very fast if they continue with these kinds of policies.
It is not normal. It is, you know, when you
look at the Venezuela situation, also not the correct way
to proceed with something like that. They're using basically a
sledgehammer approach to things that require a much more surgical approach.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Okay, I remember a few weeks ago. The US military
is divided up to area commands across the world. A
few weeks ago, the admiral in charge of the Southern Command,
which includes the Caribbean and Latin American South America, resigned.
(09:32):
Was that because of the attacks on the fishing boats.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
I think it probably was. I don't know for certain,
but his early retirement was unusual, to say the least.
I mean, it's always possible that there's some personal issue
that the admeral might have, but that's highly unlikely by
the time you get to the three and four star level,
and he was a four star. That is something that
(09:58):
you know, most of these people have long ago resigned
themselves to serving as opposed to letting family issues take
control of their lives. So having said that, it looks
to me as if Admiral Halsey was in essence being
told to either get on board or resign, in other words,
(10:20):
early retire in order to for Hegseth and Company to
move ahead with their operations in and around Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
The Trump administration claims the fishing boots are sinking, and
there are quite a few of them. Now you read
about one s story about one every couple of days. Now.
They say they're sinking them because they're being used by
drug cartels. You were, Oh, we're going to go to
(10:51):
break that. We'll be right back with our guests. Colonel
Cedric Layton, USA for US retired right after this break
will be back. Welcome back to Deadline DC with Brad Bannon,
and a special welcome back to our radio listeners. If
you're listening to us on the radio and you would
like to watch us, there are all sorts of ways
(11:14):
to do that. You can watch us at Twitter dot com,
front Slash Bradbannon, at Facebook dot com front Slash, Deadline
DC with Brad Bannon, front Slash videos, or on YouTube
at YouTube dot com at Deadline DC. Our guest in
(11:38):
this half hour is Cedric Leyton, military analysts for CNN. Cedric,
let's do us now. I want to ask you about
Africa and the recently President Trump has talked about the
possibility of airstrikes again in Nigeria, where there's a civil
(12:03):
war raging. There is also a civil war raging in Mali.
What's going on in those two countries in Africa?
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Yeah, it's quite quite extensive. So let's take Nigeria first, Brad. So, basically,
we've had a long standing insurgency that involves a group
known as Bokoharam, and Bokoharam is basically an Islamist group
that attacks targets primarily in northern Nigeria, and they seek
to terrorize the population in northern Nigeria. The majority of
(12:34):
the population is actually Muslim, so the people that are
victims of these attacks are actually majority Muslim. There are
obviously Christians who have been killed and wounded in these attacks.
So there are some Christians who in Nigeria who've been
attacked by Bokoharam and that is certainly a result of
(12:55):
terrorist actions. Nigeria is a complicated place. It does have
a democratically elected government after many years of military rule.
The military is trying very hard to control the terrorist
activities of Focohat Almond other groups like that. But basically,
what you're talking about is a country that is divided
(13:16):
about fifty to fifty between Islamic adherents, Muslim Adheerians and Christians.
So the talk that President Trump has made about going
in there is really counterproductive because what you want to
do in a case like this is you want to
work with the government like the Nigerian government. I help
(13:38):
them eradicate the terrorist infiltrators that are attacking churches and
schools and killing and kidnapping people. And that's one of
the big things that they've done there. So this is
the very least a counterproductive thing. Now moving to the
country of Mali. Mali is northwest of Nigeria on the map,
(14:00):
the capital of Bamacle, which has about four million people
in it. That's about a quarter or so the size
of the population of the entire country. It has now
been surrounded by many of the terrorist groups that have
been fighting an insurgency there for many years. The government
(14:21):
is being propped up now by the Russians. The Russians, though,
have proven ineffective in actually protecting the government. A few
years ago, France was also in Mali. They were trying
to counter the terrorist activities by the al Qaeda affiliated
groups there, but they were kicked out of the country
during a military coup and that resulted in US also
(14:45):
leaving Mali. So the Russians came in to fill the void.
But what they're not doing is they're not protecting the
government and military government from these terrorist groups, which are
as I mentioned, al Qaeda affiliated. So now what we're
seeing is massive fuel shortages in Babaco. People are basically
hunkering down for a siege, and there's every expectation that
(15:09):
we are going to see the first al Qaeda affiliated country,
in other words, a country that is run by an
al Qaida affiliated group. We're if this is not reversed,
and it looks like it's not going to be.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Okay, let's turn to areas we've had several discussions about
over the years. First, really status update, what is going
on in Gaza right now?
Speaker 5 (15:34):
So Gaza is there is basically a ceasefire that's kind
of holding, but there have been situations where the Israelis
have gone in and attacked Hamas elements what they think
are Hamas elements in Gaza City and other places. Hamas
has turned over another set of remains yesterday, and the
(15:56):
Israelis are examining whether or not those remains are actually hostages,
Israeli hostages that died in captivity. They have still not
turned over all of the remains of those hostages. They
say that they haven't been able to find some of them.
There is a lot of speculation that that might not
be actually true, but right now that's kind of where
(16:18):
we're at. Countries around Gaza who have been involved with
the Gaza peace process, like Egypt. Indonesia is also involved,
even though they're further away. Jordan, Qatar and others are
working toured establishing a permanent peace mechanism there. We don't
(16:40):
have an international stabilization force as they're calling it, of
neutral troops that would go between AMAS fighters and the
Israeli defense forces. So right now, the Israelis have withdrawn
to about fifty three percent of Gazan territory. The rest
is being controlled facto by AMAS for the most part,
(17:02):
but there are other elements out there as well, and
we have a semi truce at the moment, but it's
in danger of collapsing because the final elements are not
in place at the moment.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Okay. And finally, like Goza, we haven't heard much in
the news lately about Ukraine. How are the Ukrainians doing
resisting Russian invaders.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
Well, it's getting tough for the Ukrainians. There's a battle
raging in the town of Pokrovsk, which is on the
Eastern Front. It's basically the lynchpin of a line of
fortifications that the Ukrainians have in the Donetsk region, which
is a goal of pin. Putin basically wants to control
the entire Donietsk region. It controls about seventy percent of it.
(17:54):
Right now, thirty percent is still being controlled by the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians have put up a massive resistance. They have
also struck targets deep inside Russia using indigenous produced missiles,
and that is a significant thing that they've been able
to do there. Their drones as well have been quite
active and one of the things they've done is kind
(18:14):
of as a payback for what the Russians have done
in attacking the Ukrainian critical energy structure, their critical infrastructure.
That is an area where the Ukrainians are paying that
back by hitting Russia's energy sector, and that's resulted in
about a twenty percent fuel shortage. Twenty percent of Russia's
refining capacity has actually been taken out by Ukrainian missile
(18:39):
and drone attacks. So that's why you see long lines
at Russian gas stations, and that of course is a
big deal, not only for their war effort, but for
their economy as well.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
President Zolensky of Ukraine was in DC a couple or
a few weeks ago, and at that meeting, Donald Trump
told Zelenski that they weren't going to give up Tomahawk missiles.
What is a Tomahawk missile and why does Ukraine want them?
Speaker 5 (19:05):
So? The Ukrainians want the tomahawks because they can reach
a lot further and there are quite a few of
them in our arsenal. Trump made the argument that we
don't have enough and need to keep them for our
own purposes. That's not true. The Defense Department has said
we have enough that we can give the Ukrainians, but
Trump says, you probably won't be giving the Ukrainians dismissile.
It has a range of up to fifteen hundred miles.
(19:28):
There are other variants that have shorter range, but what
that means is they can hold all of Russia at risk,
almost all of Russia.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
And that's Incarnel Layton, thanks for joining us. I'm sorry
for cruturing you, but we're at the end of half hour.
Thank you very much for joining us today, and I'm
sure we'll invite you back soon because there's plenty to
talk about. Stay tuned for more of Deadline D. You
see our guests in the second half hours, Ken Vogel,
(19:58):
reporter in New York Times, talking about his great new book,
The Devil's Advocate. Welcome back to Deadline DC with Brad Bannon.
(20:20):
Our guest in this half hour is New York Times
reporter Ken Vogel, who is the author of a great
new book called The Devil's Advocate about Washington insiders lobbying
for corrupt foreign countries. But before we get to Ken,
we're going to play this clip from sixty minutes where
(20:43):
Nora O'Donnell interviews the president's son in lawd Jared Kushner
and his foreign policy advisor Mike Whittakoff.
Speaker 6 (20:53):
So you have both done a lot of business with
the Gulf States, billions and billions of doc worth of business,
and you've done some of the business. Wow, this negotiation
has gone on, and that has raised some issues of conflict,
I mean, some blurring of a line between what you're
(21:15):
doing in terms of foreign policy and benefiting financially from
what's going on.
Speaker 7 (21:22):
So, first of all, Leslie, nobody's pointed out any instances
where Steve or I have pursued any policies or done
anything that have not been in the interests of America.
Number Two, your reception. But we can't spend our time
focused on perception as much as we have to focus
on the facts. We're here to do good. These are
impossible tasks, and because this is important, I've volunteered my
(21:44):
time to help the President and Steve try to make progress.
But Steve nor I will be involved in awarding contracts
or figuring out who does business you know in Gaza
after Well.
Speaker 6 (21:55):
From my standpoint, Leslie, I'm not in business anymore, but
your family is.
Speaker 8 (22:00):
But I've divested.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Like Jared, I receive no salary and I pay all
my own expenses.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
This has become an.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Issue what people call conflicts of interest Steve and I
call experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world.
If Steve and I didn't have these deep relationships, the
deal that we were able to help get done that
freed these hostages would not occurred.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Okay. That was the President's son in law Jered Kusher
and the President's foreign policy advisor Steve Whittakoff, our guests
in this half hour of Deadline DC with Brad Bannon
to talk about his great new book, The Devil's Advocates.
Is Ken Vogel, a reporter for New York Times. Welcome
(22:45):
to Deadline DC. Ken, Thanks for joining us today.
Speaker 8 (22:48):
Hey, it's great to be with you, Brad.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Okay, you heard that clip we played with Jared Kushner
and Steve Whittakoff. Conflict of interest? A conflict of interest
or trusted experience? What's your take?
Speaker 8 (23:05):
It's probably a little bit of both.
Speaker 9 (23:06):
I Mean, he's got a point there in that they
have these high level relationships because of the business that
they do, but they also have, at least Kusher's case,
have some of the business because of the ties to
the administration. Certainly the first administration where Kushner was a
point person on Middle East, on Middle East issues, and
(23:27):
you know there too, he had some real accomplishments to
his credit, including the Abraham Accords, but were not for
his work inside the administration, he wouldn't have been able
to get almost certainly would not have been able to
reap a two billion dollar investment from the Saudi Sovereign
Wealth Fund almost as soon as he left the first
Trump administration and hung out his shingle with this private
(23:51):
equity firm, Affinity Partners, that was able to collect like
huge sums from a number of governments that he did
do that he did do official US business with. In
other words, like was it point person on his father
in law's foreign policy during the first administration and the
subsequent administration.
Speaker 8 (24:10):
So like, you know, is it desirable to have.
Speaker 9 (24:14):
People who have relationships that can help them negotiate things
that are in the best interest of the United States
and in this case the world, certainly the Middle East?
Speaker 8 (24:24):
Yes?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
Is it is it desirable that they have that they
have business interests that raise questions about on whose behalf
they're acting? No, it certainly isn't. And certainly in the
first administration we had examples of Jared Kushner doing things.
To his point about everything that he's done has been
in the interest of the US, I don't know. I
mean during the first administration he was he was like
(24:47):
NBS's point person.
Speaker 8 (24:48):
This is Mohammed bin Salman, the.
Speaker 9 (24:50):
Crown Prince of Saudi the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia,
who ordered the killing in this member of US based
journalists for the Washingington Post, Jamal Kashoji.
Speaker 8 (25:01):
After that, Christner was it.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Was sort of smoothing relations between this brutal, authoritarian, murderous
leader and the United States government. Is that in the
best interest in the US? I mean, you have to
ask yourself that, but clearly it does blur the lines.
And I think during the second Trump administration we've seen
really an unprecedented blurring the lines between the business interests
(25:26):
of the people in the president's inner circle and even
the president himself and the business of US foreign policy.
And that's in large part what my book is about.
It's not just about traditional lobbying. It's about it's about
these business interests and the way that foreign regimes, foreign companies,
foreign leaders around the world see a way to navigate Washington,
(25:51):
d C. And get something out of the US government
by essentially throwing huge sums of money at well connected Americans.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Uh. First of all, I want to wreck. I just
finished or reading Ken's book, and I recommend it highly.
I think you can see the book over my shoulder
there the Devil's Advocates. I found it a fascinating book, Ken,
but I felt like I needed to take a shower
after I finished reading it. Uh, it's really the seemy
(26:25):
underside of US foreign policy. I was shocked about the
huge sums of money that American DC insiders are getting
to lobby for federal uh uh for foreign governments, many
whom are corrupt in warlike uh, you know, and I
(26:46):
was thinking that expression, uh cleaner than purer than Caesar's wife,
that doesn't certainly apply here. Are there any federal laws
that should regulate what's going on? Because the money, the corruption,
(27:06):
the give backs, it's really very unseemly.
Speaker 8 (27:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (27:11):
I mean a lot of this stuff is occurring within
the bounds of US law. There's some stuff that certainly
tests the limits. Obviously, Paul Maniford and some other high
profile figures found that out the hard way during the
first Trump administration when they were prosecuted for violent part
for violating these laws. And then Paul Maniford's case went
to jail before he was pardoned by Trump and is
(27:34):
now back out doing some of the same stuff that
he was doing before he found himself crosswise.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
With the law.
Speaker 9 (27:40):
But those two laws, there are two main laws that
essentially regulate and in some ways restrict what can be
done in this sort of foreign influence space. One is
the Foreign Agents Registration Act that basically requires anyone who
any one who is doing political like political activity it's
(28:02):
called so this would include lobbying, but also public relations
work in the United States on behalf of foreign political
entities to include you know, uh, politically connected companies, political parties, politicians,
government officials. And then there is the second law, the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is intended to prevent US
(28:26):
people or US companies from bribing foreign officials or from
you know, engaging and sort of corrupt as the as
the name suggests, corrupt practices around the world.
Speaker 8 (28:37):
Well, it's quite notable.
Speaker 9 (28:39):
I talked about the distinction between the first Trump administration
and this Trump administration and how in this Trump administration
it seems to be even more anything goes on.
Speaker 8 (28:48):
This front.
Speaker 9 (28:49):
And part of that, I think is because one of
the very first acts of the new the new Attorney
General under Trump two point zero pam Bondi, is to
announce the decriminalization of both this Foreign Agents Registration Act
and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That means that there
will not be resources dedicated to prosecuting criminally people for
(29:15):
violating these two acts, and that I think has led
the pendulum to swing more towards this sort of deregulatory
anything goes sort of has led has led people who
engage in this in this industry to feel embolden to
kind of treat these at least the requirements, the registration
(29:37):
requirements as almost like recommendations, not mandatory. And it's important
to point out here, Brad, that Pambondi in the just months,
certainly the years before she was before she was appointed
as Attorney General, was a lobbyist who represented foreign interests
and registered under this Foreign Agency Registration Act, including represented
(30:01):
interestingly the state of cutter which of course is a
major player with the Trump administration when it comes to
foreign influence.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
And then there's the jet that the President got from
that Quita. Yes, nice neat little package isn't it. Ken.
We're going to go to a quick break here to
give our radio audience a little vacation of a couple
of minutes, but we're going to continue this interview with
Ken Vogel from the New York Times on his fascinating
(30:32):
new book, The Devil's Advocates, talking about DC insiders lobbying
for many cases corrupt foreign governments. So we'll be back
with more of Deadline DC with Brad Bannon and more
of Ken Vogel from the New York Times right after
(30:53):
this quick break, So don't go anywhere. We still have
a lot left to do and talk about. Will be
right back after this message. Oh, welcome back to our
radio listeners. I hope you enjoyed your vocation. We're back
with more of Deadline DC and our guests from New
(31:15):
York Times, Ken Vogel, and the author of a great
new book, The Devil's Advocate. Ken, let me ask you this.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
Question.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I've worked with a lot of people over the years
and politics who haven't made a lot of money, who
were in it because they want to do something for
the public good. That seems naive, I guess, But you
know the people you talk about in the book, they
just seem to be fixated with money, buying expensive multiple homes,
(31:52):
flashy cars, great wardrobes. Is that what politics is becoming
the United States?
Speaker 9 (31:58):
Well, I mean, particularly for inside, I think Brad, you
have this dynamic where the more sort of toxic the client,
the more that there is a reputational risk for the
American who is going to take on this client or
this business partner, the higher the paydays are.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
And so you see this.
Speaker 9 (32:18):
Slippery slope where there are people that get involved.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
I'm not saying they get involved for.
Speaker 9 (32:22):
The right reason necessarily, but they're getting involved and they're
representing regimes or you know, clients or companies or you know,
political parties or political leaders who are sort of aligned
with the US, you know, at least like ideologically on
on you know, key issues like democracy and human rights
(32:44):
and freedom of religion, freedom of speech. And they start
working in this realm and they realize that like this
is like even more money to be made if I
go over here represent this client who's like a little
bit less aligned and like my job then becomes convinced
Washington that this client, who may seem really bad on
some of these issues that we purport to hold deer
(33:06):
as Americans actually is not quite so bad and can
help serve US strategic interest in that part of the
world if we're willing to do business with them. And
then they go a little bit further, and they go
a little bit further, and so, you know, I think
it becomes a little bit of a self perpetuating cycle
because the further they go towards these unsavory clients, the
(33:29):
less likely they are to be able to attract more
blue chip, traditional sort of American domestic clients or barign
clients who are more aligned with the US, And so
they find themselves sort of drawn almost by magnetism to
these bigger paydays from these increasingly noxious clientele. And the
other thing that I'll say about this, Brad, is that
(33:50):
this is a bipartisan phenomena. So you see a lot
of times where there's political consultants who are in the
US align you know, we think of as align with
the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. They are aligned with them,
but they're over here and they're on TV and they're
you know, in the press, and they're vouching for their
candidate and their party as if it's like a philosophical
(34:12):
mission that they are like, that they believe in the
principles of and then they go over to Ukraine or
to the Gulf, to parts of Africa and they work
together where they set aside all their differences that they
work together on behalf of these sometimes brutal, blood stained clients.
And it's just like they set aside the ideas of
(34:33):
the blue team or the red team in favor of
the Green team. And in some ways I think makes
a little bit of a farce of like their positioning
in the US is like ideologues who are doing this
because of the mission when they are willing to set aside,
(34:54):
you know, some of the key principles if the paydays
are large enough.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Overseas well, We've talked about some Republicans. We've talked about
Jared Kushner, We've talked about Rudy Giuliani. Let's talk about
why don't you talk about Hunter, Biden and Ukraine. That's
a pretty sorry tale.
Speaker 8 (35:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (35:12):
Hunter is a great example of this. And by the way,
it wasn't just Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Hunter.
Speaker 9 (35:16):
You know, there was this fact pattern where Joe Biden
as vice president, I mean even before he was vice president.
Speaker 8 (35:23):
When you know in the Senate he really fashioned this position.
Speaker 9 (35:26):
I think like rightfully some it's not like a cynical thing,
as like a global statesman who was sort of carrying
the message of the US to either allies or would
be allies around the world that hey, you know want
you want to be in the good grace of the
United States, here are the things you have to do,
and they are the things that we talk about that
are consistent with the American ideals about you know, democracy,
(35:49):
human rights, and particularly fighting corruption.
Speaker 8 (35:53):
That was like a big thing for Joe Biden during.
Speaker 9 (35:56):
His vice presidency. He went around the world and essentially
let sure to our allies, like, you want to keep
the American funds flowing, you need to like fight you
need to clamp down on corruption in your corner of
the world. And so there are numerous places where he
was delivering this message that the US government had decided
needed to hear that message because there were corrupt governments,
(36:20):
including in Ukraine in Romania, where Hunter Biden then went
and went to work for the targets of the anti
corruption crusades that were being pushed by the US government
with his father as the sort of leader of that push.
And so this I think really highlights a mindset that
(36:40):
we see around the world that we like to think
we don't have here in the United States. You know,
particularly in the former communist world, parts of the Middle East,
parts of Africa, parts of Asia, that like there's this
sort of pay to play system in politics, where like,
if you find yourself crosswise with the government and you
want to get out of trouble or you want something
(37:02):
from the government, you want state assets, or you want
some contract or something like that, the way that you
get it is you throw a bunch of money at
either the leaders or the leader's families or the leader's cronies.
And we like to think, well, we don't that problem
doesn't exist here because we have all these laws. We
have all these rules, we have embedded in the Constitution,
the Emoluments Clause, we have ethics laws, conflicts of interest laws,
(37:25):
we have lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance disclosure laws.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
So that can't happen here. And what I found in reporting.
Speaker 9 (37:32):
This book is that because so many like other parts
of interest in other parts of the world, tried to
apply that approach to dealing with the US, that it
kind of did happen here, and it happened with folks
like Hunter Biden who were willing to take that money.
And we're willing to try at least to send this
signal to you know, domestically in those parts of the world,
(37:55):
in Romania and Ukraine and China that like, hey, this
you know client or business partner has essentially the protection
of the bidens of the US government. He was aware
that that was the signal that they wanted to send
by throwing money at him, and was, you know, essentially
a party to that sort of dynamic.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
And I remember in a part of the book where
you discuss Hunter Biden, Obama administration officials had grave concerns
about Hunter Biden's activities and his father's support for those activities.
Speaker 9 (38:34):
Yeah, and so, and it's because they recognize this this
sort of I mean, the best way that you could pot,
the most charitable sort of explanation that you could put
is they would send like mixed signals to the other
parts of the world like wait a minute, we're cracking
down on corruption on the one hand, and then we're
allowing people who are in the Vice president's family to
(38:57):
be on the payroll of our business partners of the
target of this anti corruption push. And so yeah, there
were people in the Obama administration at the very high
levels who were like, Hunter needs to drop his lobbying clients,
and he did, but he went into this sort of
even more shadowy space where he was representing people as
a de facto lobbyist abroad and there were, you know,
(39:19):
US ambassadors report about one ambassador to Romania who Hunter
Biden came and visited on behalf of this oligarch who
was being prosecuted for corrupt land deal that the US
government was supporting the anti corruption initiative that this was
like a poster child of and this ambassador told you know,
(39:41):
this ambassador told people like this is bad, like Hunter
should not like Hunter is making this, like is complicating
this and making this a problem, sending mixed messages. And
there were people who wanted there were people who tried
to tell Joe Biden this, and you know, the degree
to which he heard it, I think is there's some
question about there are certainly people around him discouraged those
(40:04):
types of discourage people with those types of concerns from
bringing them to Joe Biden. This was at a particular
period when the family was going through quite a bit
of strife and tumult and tragedy with bo Biden's sickness
and ultimate death from brain cancer, and the you know,
the collapse of.
Speaker 8 (40:22):
Hunter Biden's marriage.
Speaker 9 (40:23):
So there were things going on that like people thought,
people around Joe Biden thought that like bringing these concerns
about confidence of interest with his son's work and between
his son's work and his own work as vice president
would be like too much.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
And I'm going to have to corrupt you. That's all
the time we have. Want to thank Ken Vogel from
New York Times. I definitely read, definitely recommend to read
his book, The Devil's Advocates. I also want to thank
our guests in the first half hour, CNN's military analyst
(40:59):
Cedric Late, and of course our executive producer Machermalding. Will
be back next week with more of Deadline DC
The Leslie Marshall Show, A true democracy in talk radio
of for and by you, the people, live.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
From our nation's capital. It's Deadline d C with Brad
Bannon today on Deadline DC, I will blaze a trail
through the hot, thick fog of confusion and that created
by Donald Trump and his loyal followers who call him King.
(00:52):
I'm Brad Bannon, the host of Deadline d C with
Brad Bannon. I'm a national democratic and progressive strategist, a
political analysts for the Times of India TV network, and
a weekly columnist to the Hill in Washington, DC to
get my take on Donald Trump's imperial presidency. You can
(01:16):
read my column in The Hill at muckrack dot com.
Front Slash Brad Bannon mondays on Deadline DC, I talked
to the people and players behind the politics and policies
that drive our great nation forward or at least keep
it from going backwards. During Trump two point zero, It's
(01:37):
National Security Monday on Deadline d DC Today. In the
first half hour, CNN military analysts Cedric Layton, Colonel US
Air Force retired, joins me to discuss Trump's request to
start nuclear testing and other hotspot international issues. Then, in
(02:01):
the second half hour, Pen Vogel of the Reporter for
New York Times joins us to discuss his great new book,
The Devil's Advocates before we start with our first guests.
So we're going to play this clip that appeared on
sixty Minutes last night. Donald Trump, being interviewed by Nora
(02:23):
Donald explained his decision to start nuclear testing again.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Our before your meeting with President She. You posted on
social media that you instructed the quote Department of War
to start testing our nuclear weapons immediately.
Speaker 4 (02:38):
What did you mean, Well, we have more nuclear weapons
in any other country, and I think we should do
something about denuclearization. And I did actually discuss that with
both President Putin and President she We have enough nuclear
weapons to blow up the world one hundred and fifty times.
Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons, and we'll have
(03:00):
a lot. They have some, They have quite a bit.
But well, because you have to see how they work,
you know, you do have to. And the reason I'm
saying testing is because Russia and now said they were
going to be doing a test. If you notice North
Korea's testing constantly, other countries are testing. We're the only
country that doesn't test, and I want to be I
don't want to be the only country that doesn't test.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
That was, of course, Donald Trump talking to noro'donald last
night on sixty minutes. Our guest in this half hour
is Cedric Layton, CNN military analyst and usare for Colonel
us therefore retired Colonel Layton. Welcome back to Deadline DC
with Brad Bannon Bright.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
It's great to be back with you. Thanks so much
for having me.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Okay, let's start out with this one. Your reaction to
President Trump's call on sixty minutes last night for resumption
of US testing of nuclear weapons.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Well, there is a lot to unpack, even in that
particular aspect of national security issues. For one thing, Russia
actually has more nuclear warheads than we do. They have
somewhere around forty three hundred or so. We've got thirty
seven hundred, and the Chinese are third with maybe as
many as six hundred, and they're rapidly increasing their arsenal.
(04:17):
But the other part of this is that the Russians,
when they were the Soviet Union, stop testing nuclear testing
of actual nuclear weapons in nineteen ninety. Two years later,
we stopped nuclear testing in nineteen ninety two, and then
the Chinese and the French stopped in nineteen ninety six.
(04:39):
The North Koreans did their last test in twenty seventeen.
So basically, as far as we know, unless there's some
classified information that's different, no country is conducting nuclear weapons
test using actual nuclear weapons right now.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Okay, Well, that's again something that may be. Yeah, the
president doesn't have full command of the facts, which wouldn't
be the first Nie. Let me ask you, colonel about
something I meant to ask the last time we had
you on and I forgot. What do you think? What's
(05:14):
your reaction to listening to the president's interview? Remind me
of this? What do you think about the name change
and the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
Well, that's actually not a legal name change because Congress
would have to approve it. So the Department of War
was the title that was used by basically the army
component during the first part of our nation's history, from
the Constitution all the way down to the end of
(05:48):
World War Two. In nineteen forty seven, with the National
Security Act that was passed in that year, the name
not only was changed to the Department of Defense, but
it also amalgamated not only the Army and the Air Force,
but also the Navy, Marine Corps, and then future forces
like the Space Force into a broad military organization. And
(06:14):
so the only organization that can change legally change the
name of the Department of Defense is Congress. They would
have to actually pass an act, pass a bill that
would allow for that name change. If they do that,
then that's one thing. But right now it is not
a legally binding change of name. And in fact, when
(06:34):
you look at the documentation from the President and Secretary
of Defense, it's very clear that they are using it
for cosmetic purposes. But we are basically the only country
now that has what they would call a Department of War.
No other country, even the Russians or the Chinese, neither
one of them call it a Department of war.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Okay, let's you know. It seems to me the you know,
the president now, even though you're right it is legal,
only Congress can change the name. The president's referring to
it as the Department of War, and it reflects a
very militaristic attitude on behalf of the Trump administration. Uh,
(07:18):
we're bombing fishing boats that are supposedly and there's no
proof of this drug cartel boats in the Caribbean and
the Pacific. The President's talking about airstrikes in Nigeria. Uh,
it just seems to me, and you know, correct me
if I'm wrong that the Trump administration is itching for
(07:40):
a fight or war.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
What do you Yeah, certainly a very bellicosed posture. And
you know, and it's it's basically global in terms of
it's uh, you know, it's it's a reach. But yeah,
the the way this is unfolding is not normal, you know,
it's basic. Since the end of the Second World War,
(08:03):
we have done some aggressive things around the world, but
all of them have been preceded by some kind of consultation,
at least with Congress. In many cases actual action on
the part of Congress. The declarations of war basically stopped
with the one that we did in World War Two
in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But be
(08:26):
that as it may, there's always been up until this point,
consultation with Congress on the use of military force in
certain areas. And even if it's just consulting with the
so called Gang of Eight, the most powerful members of Congress,
the ones that are designated for these kinds of discussions.
That is something that President Trump is not doing, and
(08:46):
we're going to find ourselves in some very legally tricky
waters very fast if they continue with these kinds of policies.
It is not normal. It is, you know, when you
look at the Venezuela situation, also not the correct way
to proceed with something like that. They're using basically a
sledgehammer approach to things that require a much more surgical approach.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Okay, I remember a few weeks ago. The US military
is divided up to area commands across the world. A
few weeks ago, the admiral in charge of the Southern Command,
which includes the Caribbean and Latin American South America, resigned.
(09:32):
Was that because of the attacks on the fishing boats.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
I think it probably was. I don't know for certain,
but his early retirement was unusual, to say the least.
I mean, it's always possible that there's some personal issue
that the admeral might have, but that's highly unlikely by
the time you get to the three and four star level,
and he was a four star. That is something that
(09:58):
you know, most of these people have long ago resigned
themselves to serving as opposed to letting family issues take
control of their lives. So having said that, it looks
to me as if Admiral Halsey was in essence being
told to either get on board or resign, in other words,
(10:20):
early retire in order to for Hegseth and Company to
move ahead with their operations in and around Venezuela.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
The Trump administration claims the fishing boots are sinking, and
there are quite a few of them. Now you read
about one s story about one every couple of days. Now.
They say they're sinking them because they're being used by
drug cartels. You were, Oh, we're going to go to
(10:51):
break that. We'll be right back with our guests. Colonel
Cedric Layton, USA for US retired right after this break
will be back. Welcome back to Deadline DC with Brad Bannon,
and a special welcome back to our radio listeners. If
you're listening to us on the radio and you would
like to watch us, there are all sorts of ways
(11:14):
to do that. You can watch us at Twitter dot com,
front Slash Bradbannon, at Facebook dot com front Slash, Deadline
DC with Brad Bannon, front Slash videos, or on YouTube
at YouTube dot com at Deadline DC. Our guest in
(11:38):
this half hour is Cedric Leyton, military analysts for CNN. Cedric,
let's do us now. I want to ask you about
Africa and the recently President Trump has talked about the
possibility of airstrikes again in Nigeria, where there's a civil
(12:03):
war raging. There is also a civil war raging in Mali.
What's going on in those two countries in Africa?
Speaker 5 (12:12):
Yeah, it's quite quite extensive. So let's take Nigeria first, Brad. So, basically,
we've had a long standing insurgency that involves a group
known as Bokoharam, and Bokoharam is basically an Islamist group
that attacks targets primarily in northern Nigeria, and they seek
to terrorize the population in northern Nigeria. The majority of
(12:34):
the population is actually Muslim, so the people that are
victims of these attacks are actually majority Muslim. There are
obviously Christians who have been killed and wounded in these attacks.
So there are some Christians who in Nigeria who've been
attacked by Bokoharam and that is certainly a result of
(12:55):
terrorist actions. Nigeria is a complicated place. It does have
a democratically elected government after many years of military rule.
The military is trying very hard to control the terrorist
activities of Focohat Almond other groups like that. But basically,
what you're talking about is a country that is divided
(13:16):
about fifty to fifty between Islamic adherents, Muslim Adheerians and Christians.
So the talk that President Trump has made about going
in there is really counterproductive because what you want to
do in a case like this is you want to
work with the government like the Nigerian government. I help
(13:38):
them eradicate the terrorist infiltrators that are attacking churches and
schools and killing and kidnapping people. And that's one of
the big things that they've done there. So this is
the very least a counterproductive thing. Now moving to the
country of Mali. Mali is northwest of Nigeria on the map,
(14:00):
the capital of Bamacle, which has about four million people
in it. That's about a quarter or so the size
of the population of the entire country. It has now
been surrounded by many of the terrorist groups that have
been fighting an insurgency there for many years. The government
(14:21):
is being propped up now by the Russians. The Russians, though,
have proven ineffective in actually protecting the government. A few
years ago, France was also in Mali. They were trying
to counter the terrorist activities by the al Qaeda affiliated
groups there, but they were kicked out of the country
during a military coup and that resulted in US also
(14:45):
leaving Mali. So the Russians came in to fill the void.
But what they're not doing is they're not protecting the
government and military government from these terrorist groups, which are
as I mentioned, al Qaeda affiliated. So now what we're
seeing is massive fuel shortages in Babaco. People are basically
hunkering down for a siege, and there's every expectation that
(15:09):
we are going to see the first al Qaeda affiliated country,
in other words, a country that is run by an
al Qaida affiliated group. We're if this is not reversed,
and it looks like it's not going to be.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Okay, let's turn to areas we've had several discussions about
over the years. First, really status update, what is going
on in Gaza right now?
Speaker 5 (15:34):
So Gaza is there is basically a ceasefire that's kind
of holding, but there have been situations where the Israelis
have gone in and attacked Hamas elements what they think
are Hamas elements in Gaza City and other places. Hamas
has turned over another set of remains yesterday, and the
(15:56):
Israelis are examining whether or not those remains are actually hostages,
Israeli hostages that died in captivity. They have still not
turned over all of the remains of those hostages. They
say that they haven't been able to find some of them.
There is a lot of speculation that that might not
be actually true, but right now that's kind of where
(16:18):
we're at. Countries around Gaza who have been involved with
the Gaza peace process, like Egypt. Indonesia is also involved,
even though they're further away. Jordan, Qatar and others are
working toured establishing a permanent peace mechanism there. We don't
(16:40):
have an international stabilization force as they're calling it, of
neutral troops that would go between AMAS fighters and the
Israeli defense forces. So right now, the Israelis have withdrawn
to about fifty three percent of Gazan territory. The rest
is being controlled facto by AMAS for the most part,
(17:02):
but there are other elements out there as well, and
we have a semi truce at the moment, but it's
in danger of collapsing because the final elements are not
in place at the moment.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Okay. And finally, like Goza, we haven't heard much in
the news lately about Ukraine. How are the Ukrainians doing
resisting Russian invaders.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
Well, it's getting tough for the Ukrainians. There's a battle
raging in the town of Pokrovsk, which is on the
Eastern Front. It's basically the lynchpin of a line of
fortifications that the Ukrainians have in the Donetsk region, which
is a goal of pin. Putin basically wants to control
the entire Donietsk region. It controls about seventy percent of it.
(17:54):
Right now, thirty percent is still being controlled by the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians have put up a massive resistance. They have
also struck targets deep inside Russia using indigenous produced missiles,
and that is a significant thing that they've been able
to do there. Their drones as well have been quite
active and one of the things they've done is kind
(18:14):
of as a payback for what the Russians have done
in attacking the Ukrainian critical energy structure, their critical infrastructure.
That is an area where the Ukrainians are paying that
back by hitting Russia's energy sector, and that's resulted in
about a twenty percent fuel shortage. Twenty percent of Russia's
refining capacity has actually been taken out by Ukrainian missile
(18:39):
and drone attacks. So that's why you see long lines
at Russian gas stations, and that of course is a
big deal, not only for their war effort, but for
their economy as well.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
President Zolensky of Ukraine was in DC a couple or
a few weeks ago, and at that meeting, Donald Trump
told Zelenski that they weren't going to give up Tomahawk missiles.
What is a Tomahawk missile and why does Ukraine want them?
Speaker 5 (19:05):
So? The Ukrainians want the tomahawks because they can reach
a lot further and there are quite a few of
them in our arsenal. Trump made the argument that we
don't have enough and need to keep them for our
own purposes. That's not true. The Defense Department has said
we have enough that we can give the Ukrainians, but
Trump says, you probably won't be giving the Ukrainians dismissile.
It has a range of up to fifteen hundred miles.
(19:28):
There are other variants that have shorter range, but what
that means is they can hold all of Russia at risk,
almost all of Russia.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
And that's Incarnel Layton, thanks for joining us. I'm sorry
for cruturing you, but we're at the end of half hour.
Thank you very much for joining us today, and I'm
sure we'll invite you back soon because there's plenty to
talk about. Stay tuned for more of Deadline D. You
see our guests in the second half hours, Ken Vogel,
(19:58):
reporter in New York Times, talking about his great new book,
The Devil's Advocate. Welcome back to Deadline DC with Brad Bannon.
(20:20):
Our guest in this half hour is New York Times
reporter Ken Vogel, who is the author of a great
new book called The Devil's Advocate about Washington insiders lobbying
for corrupt foreign countries. But before we get to Ken,
we're going to play this clip from sixty minutes where
(20:43):
Nora O'Donnell interviews the president's son in lawd Jared Kushner
and his foreign policy advisor Mike Whittakoff.
Speaker 6 (20:53):
So you have both done a lot of business with
the Gulf States, billions and billions of doc worth of business,
and you've done some of the business. Wow, this negotiation
has gone on, and that has raised some issues of conflict,
I mean, some blurring of a line between what you're
(21:15):
doing in terms of foreign policy and benefiting financially from
what's going on.
Speaker 7 (21:22):
So, first of all, Leslie, nobody's pointed out any instances
where Steve or I have pursued any policies or done
anything that have not been in the interests of America.
Number Two, your reception. But we can't spend our time
focused on perception as much as we have to focus
on the facts. We're here to do good. These are
impossible tasks, and because this is important, I've volunteered my
(21:44):
time to help the President and Steve try to make progress.
But Steve nor I will be involved in awarding contracts
or figuring out who does business you know in Gaza
after Well.
Speaker 6 (21:55):
From my standpoint, Leslie, I'm not in business anymore, but
your family is.
Speaker 8 (22:00):
But I've divested.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Like Jared, I receive no salary and I pay all
my own expenses.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
This has become an.
Speaker 7 (22:07):
Issue what people call conflicts of interest Steve and I
call experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world.
If Steve and I didn't have these deep relationships, the
deal that we were able to help get done that
freed these hostages would not occurred.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Okay. That was the President's son in law Jered Kusher
and the President's foreign policy advisor Steve Whittakoff, our guests
in this half hour of Deadline DC with Brad Bannon
to talk about his great new book, The Devil's Advocates.
Is Ken Vogel, a reporter for New York Times. Welcome
(22:45):
to Deadline DC. Ken, Thanks for joining us today.
Speaker 8 (22:48):
Hey, it's great to be with you, Brad.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Okay, you heard that clip we played with Jared Kushner
and Steve Whittakoff. Conflict of interest? A conflict of interest
or trusted experience? What's your take?
Speaker 8 (23:05):
It's probably a little bit of both.
Speaker 9 (23:06):
I Mean, he's got a point there in that they
have these high level relationships because of the business that
they do, but they also have, at least Kusher's case,
have some of the business because of the ties to
the administration. Certainly the first administration where Kushner was a
point person on Middle East, on Middle East issues, and
(23:27):
you know there too, he had some real accomplishments to
his credit, including the Abraham Accords, but were not for
his work inside the administration, he wouldn't have been able
to get almost certainly would not have been able to
reap a two billion dollar investment from the Saudi Sovereign
Wealth Fund almost as soon as he left the first
Trump administration and hung out his shingle with this private
(23:51):
equity firm, Affinity Partners, that was able to collect like
huge sums from a number of governments that he did
do that he did do official US business with. In
other words, like was it point person on his father
in law's foreign policy during the first administration and the
subsequent administration.
Speaker 8 (24:10):
So like, you know, is it desirable to have.
Speaker 9 (24:14):
People who have relationships that can help them negotiate things
that are in the best interest of the United States
and in this case the world, certainly the Middle East?
Speaker 8 (24:24):
Yes?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
Is it is it desirable that they have that they
have business interests that raise questions about on whose behalf
they're acting? No, it certainly isn't. And certainly in the
first administration we had examples of Jared Kushner doing things.
To his point about everything that he's done has been
in the interest of the US, I don't know. I
mean during the first administration he was he was like
(24:47):
NBS's point person.
Speaker 8 (24:48):
This is Mohammed bin Salman, the.
Speaker 9 (24:50):
Crown Prince of Saudi the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia,
who ordered the killing in this member of US based
journalists for the Washingington Post, Jamal Kashoji.
Speaker 8 (25:01):
After that, Christner was it.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Was sort of smoothing relations between this brutal, authoritarian, murderous
leader and the United States government. Is that in the
best interest in the US? I mean, you have to
ask yourself that, but clearly it does blur the lines.
And I think during the second Trump administration we've seen
really an unprecedented blurring the lines between the business interests
(25:26):
of the people in the president's inner circle and even
the president himself and the business of US foreign policy.
And that's in large part what my book is about.
It's not just about traditional lobbying. It's about it's about
these business interests and the way that foreign regimes, foreign companies,
foreign leaders around the world see a way to navigate Washington,
(25:51):
d C. And get something out of the US government
by essentially throwing huge sums of money at well connected Americans.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Uh. First of all, I want to wreck. I just
finished or reading Ken's book, and I recommend it highly.
I think you can see the book over my shoulder
there the Devil's Advocates. I found it a fascinating book, Ken,
but I felt like I needed to take a shower
after I finished reading it. Uh, it's really the seemy
(26:25):
underside of US foreign policy. I was shocked about the
huge sums of money that American DC insiders are getting
to lobby for federal uh uh for foreign governments, many
whom are corrupt in warlike uh, you know, and I
(26:46):
was thinking that expression, uh cleaner than purer than Caesar's wife,
that doesn't certainly apply here. Are there any federal laws
that should regulate what's going on? Because the money, the corruption,
(27:06):
the give backs, it's really very unseemly.
Speaker 8 (27:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (27:11):
I mean a lot of this stuff is occurring within
the bounds of US law. There's some stuff that certainly
tests the limits. Obviously, Paul Maniford and some other high
profile figures found that out the hard way during the
first Trump administration when they were prosecuted for violent part
for violating these laws. And then Paul Maniford's case went
to jail before he was pardoned by Trump and is
(27:34):
now back out doing some of the same stuff that
he was doing before he found himself crosswise.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
With the law.
Speaker 9 (27:40):
But those two laws, there are two main laws that
essentially regulate and in some ways restrict what can be
done in this sort of foreign influence space. One is
the Foreign Agents Registration Act that basically requires anyone who
any one who is doing political like political activity it's
(28:02):
called so this would include lobbying, but also public relations
work in the United States on behalf of foreign political
entities to include you know, uh, politically connected companies, political parties, politicians,
government officials. And then there is the second law, the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is intended to prevent US
(28:26):
people or US companies from bribing foreign officials or from
you know, engaging and sort of corrupt as the as
the name suggests, corrupt practices around the world.
Speaker 8 (28:37):
Well, it's quite notable.
Speaker 9 (28:39):
I talked about the distinction between the first Trump administration
and this Trump administration and how in this Trump administration
it seems to be even more anything goes on.
Speaker 8 (28:48):
This front.
Speaker 9 (28:49):
And part of that, I think is because one of
the very first acts of the new the new Attorney
General under Trump two point zero pam Bondi, is to
announce the decriminalization of both this Foreign Agents Registration Act
and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That means that there
will not be resources dedicated to prosecuting criminally people for
(29:15):
violating these two acts, and that I think has led
the pendulum to swing more towards this sort of deregulatory
anything goes sort of has led has led people who
engage in this in this industry to feel embolden to
kind of treat these at least the requirements, the registration
(29:37):
requirements as almost like recommendations, not mandatory. And it's important
to point out here, Brad, that Pambondi in the just months,
certainly the years before she was before she was appointed
as Attorney General, was a lobbyist who represented foreign interests
and registered under this Foreign Agency Registration Act, including represented
(30:01):
interestingly the state of cutter which of course is a
major player with the Trump administration when it comes to
foreign influence.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
And then there's the jet that the President got from
that Quita. Yes, nice neat little package isn't it. Ken.
We're going to go to a quick break here to
give our radio audience a little vacation of a couple
of minutes, but we're going to continue this interview with
Ken Vogel from the New York Times on his fascinating
(30:32):
new book, The Devil's Advocates, talking about DC insiders lobbying
for many cases corrupt foreign governments. So we'll be back
with more of Deadline DC with Brad Bannon and more
of Ken Vogel from the New York Times right after
(30:53):
this quick break, So don't go anywhere. We still have
a lot left to do and talk about. Will be
right back after this message. Oh, welcome back to our
radio listeners. I hope you enjoyed your vocation. We're back
with more of Deadline DC and our guests from New
(31:15):
York Times, Ken Vogel, and the author of a great
new book, The Devil's Advocate. Ken, let me ask you this.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
Question.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I've worked with a lot of people over the years
and politics who haven't made a lot of money, who
were in it because they want to do something for
the public good. That seems naive, I guess, But you
know the people you talk about in the book, they
just seem to be fixated with money, buying expensive multiple homes,
(31:52):
flashy cars, great wardrobes. Is that what politics is becoming
the United States?
Speaker 9 (31:58):
Well, I mean, particularly for inside, I think Brad, you
have this dynamic where the more sort of toxic the client,
the more that there is a reputational risk for the
American who is going to take on this client or
this business partner, the higher the paydays are.
Speaker 8 (32:16):
And so you see this.
Speaker 9 (32:18):
Slippery slope where there are people that get involved.
Speaker 8 (32:21):
I'm not saying they get involved for.
Speaker 9 (32:22):
The right reason necessarily, but they're getting involved and they're
representing regimes or you know, clients or companies or you know,
political parties or political leaders who are sort of aligned
with the US, you know, at least like ideologically on
on you know, key issues like democracy and human rights
(32:44):
and freedom of religion, freedom of speech. And they start
working in this realm and they realize that like this
is like even more money to be made if I
go over here represent this client who's like a little
bit less aligned and like my job then becomes convinced
Washington that this client, who may seem really bad on
some of these issues that we purport to hold deer
(33:06):
as Americans actually is not quite so bad and can
help serve US strategic interest in that part of the
world if we're willing to do business with them. And
then they go a little bit further, and they go
a little bit further, and so, you know, I think
it becomes a little bit of a self perpetuating cycle
because the further they go towards these unsavory clients, the
(33:29):
less likely they are to be able to attract more
blue chip, traditional sort of American domestic clients or barign
clients who are more aligned with the US, And so
they find themselves sort of drawn almost by magnetism to
these bigger paydays from these increasingly noxious clientele. And the
other thing that I'll say about this, Brad, is that
(33:50):
this is a bipartisan phenomena. So you see a lot
of times where there's political consultants who are in the
US align you know, we think of as align with
the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. They are aligned with them,
but they're over here and they're on TV and they're
you know, in the press, and they're vouching for their
candidate and their party as if it's like a philosophical
(34:12):
mission that they are like, that they believe in the
principles of and then they go over to Ukraine or
to the Gulf, to parts of Africa and they work
together where they set aside all their differences that they
work together on behalf of these sometimes brutal, blood stained clients.
And it's just like they set aside the ideas of
(34:33):
the blue team or the red team in favor of
the Green team. And in some ways I think makes
a little bit of a farce of like their positioning
in the US is like ideologues who are doing this
because of the mission when they are willing to set aside,
(34:54):
you know, some of the key principles if the paydays
are large enough.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Overseas well, We've talked about some Republicans. We've talked about
Jared Kushner, We've talked about Rudy Giuliani. Let's talk about
why don't you talk about Hunter, Biden and Ukraine. That's
a pretty sorry tale.
Speaker 8 (35:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (35:12):
Hunter is a great example of this. And by the way,
it wasn't just Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Hunter.
Speaker 9 (35:16):
You know, there was this fact pattern where Joe Biden
as vice president, I mean even before he was vice president.
Speaker 8 (35:23):
When you know in the Senate he really fashioned this position.
Speaker 9 (35:26):
I think like rightfully some it's not like a cynical thing,
as like a global statesman who was sort of carrying
the message of the US to either allies or would
be allies around the world that hey, you know want
you want to be in the good grace of the
United States, here are the things you have to do,
and they are the things that we talk about that
are consistent with the American ideals about you know, democracy,
(35:49):
human rights, and particularly fighting corruption.
Speaker 8 (35:53):
That was like a big thing for Joe Biden during.
Speaker 9 (35:56):
His vice presidency. He went around the world and essentially
let sure to our allies, like, you want to keep
the American funds flowing, you need to like fight you
need to clamp down on corruption in your corner of
the world. And so there are numerous places where he
was delivering this message that the US government had decided
needed to hear that message because there were corrupt governments,
(36:20):
including in Ukraine in Romania, where Hunter Biden then went
and went to work for the targets of the anti
corruption crusades that were being pushed by the US government
with his father as the sort of leader of that push.
And so this I think really highlights a mindset that
(36:40):
we see around the world that we like to think
we don't have here in the United States. You know,
particularly in the former communist world, parts of the Middle East,
parts of Africa, parts of Asia, that like there's this
sort of pay to play system in politics, where like,
if you find yourself crosswise with the government and you
want to get out of trouble or you want something
(37:02):
from the government, you want state assets, or you want
some contract or something like that, the way that you
get it is you throw a bunch of money at
either the leaders or the leader's families or the leader's cronies.
And we like to think, well, we don't that problem
doesn't exist here because we have all these laws. We
have all these rules, we have embedded in the Constitution,
the Emoluments Clause, we have ethics laws, conflicts of interest laws,
(37:25):
we have lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance disclosure laws.
Speaker 8 (37:29):
So that can't happen here. And what I found in reporting.
Speaker 9 (37:32):
This book is that because so many like other parts
of interest in other parts of the world, tried to
apply that approach to dealing with the US, that it
kind of did happen here, and it happened with folks
like Hunter Biden who were willing to take that money.
And we're willing to try at least to send this
signal to you know, domestically in those parts of the world,
(37:55):
in Romania and Ukraine and China that like, hey, this
you know client or business partner has essentially the protection
of the bidens of the US government. He was aware
that that was the signal that they wanted to send
by throwing money at him, and was, you know, essentially
a party to that sort of dynamic.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
And I remember in a part of the book where
you discuss Hunter Biden, Obama administration officials had grave concerns
about Hunter Biden's activities and his father's support for those activities.
Speaker 9 (38:34):
Yeah, and so, and it's because they recognize this this
sort of I mean, the best way that you could pot,
the most charitable sort of explanation that you could put
is they would send like mixed signals to the other
parts of the world like wait a minute, we're cracking
down on corruption on the one hand, and then we're
allowing people who are in the Vice president's family to
(38:57):
be on the payroll of our business partners of the
target of this anti corruption push. And so yeah, there
were people in the Obama administration at the very high
levels who were like, Hunter needs to drop his lobbying clients,
and he did, but he went into this sort of
even more shadowy space where he was representing people as
a de facto lobbyist abroad and there were, you know,
(39:19):
US ambassadors report about one ambassador to Romania who Hunter
Biden came and visited on behalf of this oligarch who
was being prosecuted for corrupt land deal that the US
government was supporting the anti corruption initiative that this was
like a poster child of and this ambassador told you know,
(39:41):
this ambassador told people like this is bad, like Hunter
should not like Hunter is making this, like is complicating
this and making this a problem, sending mixed messages. And
there were people who wanted there were people who tried
to tell Joe Biden this, and you know, the degree
to which he heard it, I think is there's some
question about there are certainly people around him discouraged those
(40:04):
types of discourage people with those types of concerns from
bringing them to Joe Biden. This was at a particular
period when the family was going through quite a bit
of strife and tumult and tragedy with bo Biden's sickness
and ultimate death from brain cancer, and the you know,
the collapse of.
Speaker 8 (40:22):
Hunter Biden's marriage.
Speaker 9 (40:23):
So there were things going on that like people thought,
people around Joe Biden thought that like bringing these concerns
about confidence of interest with his son's work and between
his son's work and his own work as vice president
would be like too much.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
And I'm going to have to corrupt you. That's all
the time we have. Want to thank Ken Vogel from
New York Times. I definitely read, definitely recommend to read
his book, The Devil's Advocates. I also want to thank
our guests in the first half hour, CNN's military analyst
(40:59):
Cedric Late, and of course our executive producer Machermalding. Will
be back next week with more of Deadline DC
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.