so, and i don't, i don't know, like, i don't even know that people that are in the know, have maybe like a fraction of the information, right? because these things are so the top secret goes beyond, you know, above and beyond top, secret right to and, and so it's very difficult to know who knows what we've heard this every few years . it comes off, it goes away. i don't know, maybe it's a distraction. i don't know anything with the, with the timing shown. and the timing is always you have to pay attention to a timeframe like we're in where there's no nasa i was discussing the d f o is you. you've obviously got the, the ongoing investigation and what they now call you a piece. and then this report that, that there's actually objects, you know, physical craft and on objects that are of extra transfer of origin that, that the government has possession of. it's important to understand that there's 2 sides to this one is yes to we need to recognize this as reality. ok, so as, as, as humans, we have to grasp this concept. but there's also the potential that some people are, you know, are sort of, would suggest there's a paranoid angle, which is,

are they trying to use the u. f o. phenomenon as a way of getting more power of utilizing that they talk about is like a big deal in invasion. right? usually these technologies are half off. they are just about wrapping up this house program here a lot for most going on the international thanks for sharing us in a well, in joining us with their company here, we've actually with more, that'll be in about 28 minutes from the look forward to talking to you all, that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings accept. we're so shorter to conflict with the 1st law show alignment of the patient. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence. the point obviously is to create a trust rather than fit the various job. i mean with

artificial intelligence. we have so many with the in the a robot must protect this phone. existence was on the ukraine's long anticipated counter offensive housing deidre gunn. but it's not off to a good start. this does not bode well for the camp regime. and more importantly, it is a testament to the effectiveness of nato. ukraine is failing. and so it was made the

hundreds of thousands of employees have come and gone from the likes of the c i a and the state department. most of them were never relevant. even fewer have remained relevant after leaving government employment. our next guest has remained relevant that hasn't been without controversy. he is not one to tell the washington swells what they want to hear, but he is earned a place in the mix of voices commenting on contemporary intelligence and foreign policy issues. for more than the past 2 decades, i'm john kerry onto welcome to the whistle blowers the . 2 2 2 2 2 2 larry johnson is not the typical c i. officer. after spending 4 years at c, i a headquarters working in analysis, he transferred to the state department where he became a deputy director in the office of the counterterrorism coordinator. he later left government service to found a successful consulting firm. he's also known for

a daily blog and which he offers insights, sometimes biting and controversial insights into current events. and that is what makes larry johnson interesting and keeps him relevant. he's not afraid to criticize some of the most powerful people in washington. he's not afraid to be wrong. johnson has made some bad calls in the past, but he keeps pushing, and he keeps writing, and he keeps himself relevant in the dog eat dog world. that is washington dc. larry johnson, welcome to the show. we're happy to have you. thanks john. to tell us a little bit about your career, you started off at the c, i a 1st going through operational and paramilitary training and then moving into analysis, you were there for a relatively short period of time. 4 years before moving over to the state department. what exactly did you do with the c i a and why did you make the move to the state department? i. i was not a happy camper. i. i really didn't enjoy my time the 1st year in the career for any

problems. a lot of fun. we got to see all aspects of the agency and i was fortunate that i got to work on the ascii on task force. this is during the height of, for us support for the scan, rumbles against the soviets. then i got to work on the central american task force . we've been transition for backwards. i started my on elliptical career as the 100 animals, which at the time was one of the top 5 foreign policy issues for the reagan administration . which meant that i was originally writing for the p b, the national intelligence daily. well, it was, it was, i didn't discover, but there are a lot of animals out at c, i a who go through 3 or 4 years and their career without ever writing for the presidential daily. brief. uh, by contrast i was likely to probably to article so we started this uh that was sort of interesting. my transition to state where it came because of the in terrible management at c. i is the best way to put it. i had a new branch, cheap,

mary mccarthy. she came out of an african background. she had 0 experience with central america. i lived in central america, i spoke spanish, and we, i was asked to provide the front office us list the relevant cables every morning. remember, this is, this is back in ancient times when we dealt with paper. it was non electronic. so i would call through it on $500.00 pages. so overnight traffic come up with a select group of messages. so i thought the front office should be aware of and 2nd, for unbeknownst me, mary mccarthy was doing the same thing except she did not know what she was looking at. and so she was subbing some of the most outrageous outland it's pieces for well, i didn't later discover cuz it was only when i went in for my performance appraisal report that they said, well, we got, we didn't promote you. even though i was in the top 10 percent of and less in terms of current production and,

and are producing research papers and considered an excellent briefer. so we didn't promote you because quote, we have questions about the integrity of your analysis. at that point, i was like that cartoon character, roger rabbit, you know, where the eye is completely bogged out of the head. and i discover what it happened is they will get a different traffic from mary mccarthy. and what i was said before. and so i asked him, i would just upfront, why didn't you call me in the very 1st day that you noticed? so why did you let this go on for over a month without pointing out that she didn't know what she was doing without giving me a chance to explain why i was doing what i was do. so at that point and the, the person who was the deputy in the office at the time, carmen medina, you may have run across to, of some point because later she was there, she was elevated up the chain of command, you know, incompetence rises to the population. there uh i was brought up. i was curious like

like this, this group of incompetence. if this is how they're going to operate, i don't want to be part of it. and then i received an offer. i couldn't refuse and bass that or busby. we've just been named as the corporate coordinator for counterterrorism state department. previously, he'd been the special envoy for the central american peace process and i have regularly briefed him. and so he liked me. he understood that i was confident. and so he asked me to come work for him and state. uh, the only way i could do that was to move as a schedule the contractor. but uh frankly, i was still furious with what the agency had done and, and mind you. but the last 6 months of the c, i a i received 2 exceptional performance of works. i mean that it shows you just how completely disconnected from reality. they are on the one hand, they say i'm an exceptional performer and then all the other heavy got questions about the integrity of my analysis. and they don't have the courage or the

integrity the comment come from me about it and say, why are we, why are you giving us different information than mary mccarthy? and i could tell them very simply because steve edgar and does not know what she's doing. when you got to the state department, you were immediately put into important work in counter terrorism. i know that you were part of a of a very serious terrorism investigation. i believe that was the pen m 103 attack that must have been rewarding work. but you chose to leave what led to that decision? the reason i ask is that you almost immediately became a critic of us counterterrorism policy. can you explain why? when i write the state my, my duties were basically i was the deputy director in charge of the anti terrorism assistance training program. i was in charge of the policies on transportation security, both aviation and baron fine, and then providing support for the military special operations and my very 1st

within 3 weeks of arriving, we deployed at the time what was considered a top secret team, the emergency support team to el salvador, because salvador rollers at quote, taken members of delta force hostage. now, what actually happened was the role as it storm this hotel, not realizing there was a delta force element inside that hotel. and the delta guys are on the teeth and, and i was the salvador grill is realized what they were up against, the side of what's better, not to attack the back door. nonetheless, we deployed this uh, this interagency team that consisted of f, b i c, i a state department communicators and state department officials to all salvador along with a j sock as well deployed. it's, it's contingent and i ended up writing the, the 1st what was called the logistics cable, which ironically ends up. and it was continuing to be used for that particular mission 20 years later on. so i was there for 4 years and 1993 my my

contract that scheduled the contractor was coming due and the decision of the incoming clinton administration was we can downsize on, on the terrorism front. and so my job went away and i became, at that point, the contractor almost immediately after leaving government. larry, you begin appearing as a pundit on television shows a new shows around the united states in which you gave commentary. you were prescient in 1998 when you warned americans about osama bin lot and you said that been logged in, quote, was consumed by hatred and craziness. if not confronted, he would continue to terrorize americans around the world. he has no compunction about killing women and children. he's a complete gala terry and his murderous attitude on quote. but you took some heat in 2001 when you published

a piece in the new york times in which you argue that terrorism was not the biggest challenge that the us faced. and that terrorism should not be portrayed that way. why the change in your analysis? well, it's one thing to recognize that there is, are terrorist threats out there? and there are particular individuals or groups that can carry out those attacks. but then you've got to put it in perspective. it is not an excess dental truck by any measure. in fact, terrorism basically by definition, is the actions of individuals who are weak. we do not have the ability to confront on a military base as a nation. they have to, you know, be more circumspect. and frankly, it's more and taking just a part of what i was reacting to and seen at the time is that terrorism was being trumpeted in a way to get it replaced, replaced the soviet threat economy trip. you know, previously we had justified massive defense spending because we had to stop the

spread of international communism. don't you know? well, once rochelle, what sort of the soviet union went away and rushed here to emerge much weaker. all of a sudden that rationale no longer held up. and you had all these the fact that the defense contractors clamoring for, hey, how are we going to get said? where are we going to get paid at law? behold terrorism, the gifts a kept on giving the the advance of $911.00. good luck to just complete 180 degree. turn in what the united states that i know right after the bush administration came at the end of january, 2001. richard clark can prepare to very detailed memo, laid out what needed to be done to deal with the threat that was close by al qaeda . and it was a real threat. it was not manufactured. it was, it was genuine,

and it was significant and that they were a hed international organized efforts. but that was rejected. it was ignored. they're supposed to be an inter agency meeting, chaired up the national security council on combating terrorism that ceased. and the bush administration was there voting its efforts at the time to promote in building a missile defense system and know that was in that summer. i believe that no george w bush exit. yeah. type ballistic missile tree. and that was important because the united states has planning at the time to try to develop and tie ballistic missile systems that would, would frankly post a threat to russia. but then came 911. i know there are a lot of conspiracy throws out there that it says that the united states is quite good at all. but that's not the case of this was, this was

a pure example of the combination of bureaucratic and competence, arrogance hubris. and then the bush administration immediately pivoted and made combating terrorism, the number one priority, and then anything that was done to come by, anybody who was supporting terrorism in any way, but it became target. and it's just, you know, united states policy at that point. what completely off the rails. so i would note that in november of like 2000 november 7th, i believe was a precise date. milton bear with me, the former chief, the station and the pack and stand up round the asked in war this latter years. and i will put together an offer yet, and that off with a note of that whoever was the next president because it was still a dispute where there was going to be al gore or george w bush that they needed to deal with 2 specific threats. it might look nea,

who had been behind the bombing, so the marine barracks in the us, embassies and be rude in the mid eighties. and also, i'm a big lot. no, i challenge anybody to go back to november of 2000 and find anybody else that was say, hey, you need to be prepared to deal with osama lot. so when i wrote that off, we had in the summer of 2001 i was so no, he doesn't believe that terrorism says right. now, i believe, i don't believe terrorism is the greatest threat we face it is, it is, has to be put in the context is the threat that needs to be dealt with. but we don't need to exaggerate that. and it really became sort of a cultural to be a public width and used to just apply a lot of very and my view, i'd say very and, and, and the legal policies. you have always been outspoken in your opposition to the manipulation of intelligence and intelligence analysis for political purposes. this

tailoring of intelligence was especially agreed yes. during the george w bush administration. and then vice president dick cheney and his senior staff were famous for cherry picking intelligence reports that fit their personal ideologies that led you to be an outspoken critic of the iraq war. and of the c eyes response to the rock war. tell us about that. i'm members, i'm is, i was sitting at the nixon center with patrick lang and joe wilson among others charles, crowd timer. so it was quite a mix of personalities. uh and, uh, this was in january of, uh, 2003. and at the time that was the 1st time i met joe wilson. i didn't realize joe was married to my former c. i a classmate, valerie plame. oh. and so, and then no time did you ever go, hey, my wife was a secret agent, you know? none of that never came up, but we all sort of puzzling about for the us government must really have some top

secret intelligence they're not revealing. because none of this makes sense about a rock. and then is it a folded? i had a conversation with one of our mutual friends, fulton, and fulton, that the time was on the national intelligence council. and he, he passed on me. he says there, hey, there is no evidence to this. and so at that point, i began speaking out and i'm, i was recorded on national public radio, but michelle norris, i believe in may criticizing, said that there was no justification for this page. i, i work with a interesting is previous 6 months prior to back in november of 2002 i appeared on the handling and called show at that time i was uh, fox news and i was getting paid, you know, $1000.00 a week, which is pretty sweet deal and i was asked if the route about the united states

going into or walk. and i said united states was not in a position to fight to from. ready or that we should not invade iraq. well, i was been subsequently not asked to come back on any of the shows, even though they continue to pay me. and i found out later that roger ailes specifically had set down work that i was not to be put back on here. because basically what i was saying, he thought was worse. so that's where i learned that speaking out can have some consequences, financial and otherwise. but the, you know, i wouldn't change we're speaking with former c, i a and state department officer larry johnson. stay with us. we'll take a short break and come right back the

same wrong. just to see if house and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will support, we choose to look for common ground, the the

the welcome back to the whistle blowers. i'm john carrie onto we're speaking with former c i a and state department officer, larry johnson. larry, thanks again for being with us. larry, i think you surprised a lot of people with your criticism of the obama administration that many saw being as harsh as your criticism of the bush administration. brock obama was certainly no friends to whistle blowers and he surrounded himself with a lot of bad people from the c i a. is that what your objection was to obama, or was it something deeper as well? the early days i was just just looking at his prior associations with, you know, convicted terrorist with bill errors, the people associated with the weather underground. i mean, he was,

he was deliberately hiding his pass and it was, you know, the, the image that he betrayed and presented to the american public was not consistent with his background. i mean, you know, for example, what i pointed out that he was adopted by an indignation man. so low, so towel. and uh, actually i've tried to gain access to those adoption records in indonesia and i had a friend of mine and retired a f, b. i hosted rescue team guy who was actually over in indonesia during training at the time. and he went in to try to, you know, he got with some of his buddies there and they tried to access that material which had already done all being cleaned out, cleaned up by who john brennan, so brand new, they've been active out, working to help a burnish uh brock obama is image, but you know, a bomb a like, like bush, they're both draughts and that it actually in the internet. some aspects. i think

obama was more for the next years, particularly when you look at what was done in the overthrow of governments in libya. you attempted over through the government of washer sod in syria. uh, no, my god. the rise of the, of the, of the crew and, and ukraine, which took out a duly elected president, may have been corrupt that he was still duly elected. oh no. oh, bama was involved with the overthrow of more countries or attempted over throw more government in george w bush. just can't believe that. and another of the myriad problems that many former ca officers have is with something called the publications review board. everybody who is ever worked for the c, i a even if you work there for 15 minutes, must submit every thing that he or she writes to the publications review board for clarence. the problem with the p r b is that they're highly politicized. if you

write something that's pro c, i a, you get it cleared quickly. if you're critical of the c i a, you can be bogged down in the process for years. i've certainly tangled with them. what is been your experience getting your writing cleared with the c i a have they tried to silence? you know, i've had very little, it's the only things that we presented, the repair and then i did present that off for clarence. that was, it was really fascinating. is j officers can go on any kind of television or radio and they're not required to get that pre clear. or is there any way to pre clear that kind of thing? so in other words, what you may have written in the book, you could just go in on television and set it and they couldn't have done anything about that. and then once that's out there in the transcript recorded, then you go, you know, then you're, you're free of the other thing it's been interesting is that not doing anything to

go after people writing blogs and such. and uh, i think the piece. so it's, it's just, it's a very inconsistent policy. it's really, it has not caught up with technology. it's something that's rooted back when we were dealing with typewriters. and the only a form of communication were in books and magazines, and hard copy newspapers, the whole electronic age. and so i think i really created some problems for them to leery your detractors. ready that you're a bomb thrower that you'd like to stir the pot. and you've been criticized in the past for saying that. michelle obama used a racial epithet against white people that john kerry committed a war crime in vietnam. and that the british g. c h q had tapped donald trump's phone. how do you respond to that criticism? oh, well, there are 3 different things going on there. the, the why did you take that was given to me initially by said limit hillary's

bestbuy and said, said reached out to me and said, hey, i've got this information, can you, can you check on a concert? ok. so i started asking around, i checked with 3 different people, one of them, a very respected journalist in washington, dc to add all the confirmed. yeah, we've heard that too. yeah, it's all i published out of my blog. well, the thing with bar, and in fact the, the, the obama campaign put out a, a response telling me that no, michelle had said, why did he not wife. and i thought, well, that's odd. why would you come out and say, you know, give that explanation if there was not such a take. but that was, what does it show your child care? i went back in press said bloom applies. it's subordinate this come from who's your source. and he directed me to david brock,

media matters. so what it was, you know, i got completely used and i apologize, been writing for having been used by the clinton campaign in that regard. just spread that kind of just ration of the whole thing about john kerry that was simply, i was repeating something that popped up on the, on the web, posted on my blog. it lasted for about 24 hours and i took it down to that whole john kerry is a complete read harry, the british spinal donald trump. absolutely. they did. it was, it was, as you know, the work around, see, i do not spy on american citizens, but there's nothing there says british can spy on american citizens because they do . and the close relationship between the g c h q and then it say where they've got an accident personnel that sit side by side physically and it's easy to pass information back and forth. oh, i know that was correct. i just didn't realize how extensive involvement of both

the f, b i the c i was at the top. we saw subsequently learned that this was a best, vast intelligence operation directed against donald trump. in fact, i have one of our former colleagues who was he was an s i s level still in touch with folks back in the agency. you told me that one of his friends came and told him that he'd been approached by brendan about joining what they called the trunk task force. and this was the late summer of 2015. so you know that that's the kind of activity that is completely illegal. i'd like to thank our guests, larry johnson, for taking the time to speak with us. and thanks to our viewers for joining us again today. i'd like to leave you with the words of american author and poet, audrey lord, who said, quote, i have come to believe over and over again. but what is most important to me must

be spoken. made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or mis understood, unquote. i'm john to reaku, thanks for joining us on another episode of the whistle blowers until next time. 2 2 the ukraine's long anticipated counter offensive housing deidre gunn, but it's not off to a good start. this does not bode well for the camp regime, and more importantly, it is a testament to the effectiveness of nato. ukraine is failing since those made the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the, the headlines on off the international russians. defense ministry says ukraine, unit, sabotage group blew up a key ammonia pipeline is a hot or cold region. i think there are casualties along the civilian population. the senior us official says the f b. i has been trying to silence an ongoing investigation into a potential bribery scheme involving joe biden and ukraine also in the program weapons in the dash of sanctions. as iran officially joined the