One American - Chase Geiser - 9/11, Chinese Election Interference, JFK & The Deep State | Tony Shaffer

May 28, 2021 - One American - Chase Geiser

01:02:02

9/11, Chinese Election Interference, JFK & The Deep State | Tony Shaffer | One American Podcast #5

Chase Geiser is joined by Tony Shaffer. Tony is a self-described snarky bastard, NYTs bestselling author, retired DoD Intelligence Operative, and President of The London Center For Policy Research. EPISODE LINKS: Tony's Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_S_P_O_O_K_Y Chase's Twitter: https://twitter.com/realchasegeiser PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://www.patreon.com/IAmOneAmerican

Participants

Main voices

anthony shaffer

49:57

chase geiser

10:37

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		You were aware of some 9-11 intelligence and tried to kind of push it up the ladder before 9-11 happened and nobody listened.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that because there were forces on both sides.
		And to summarize it, there was three parts of this.
		First, I was running a task force that was focused on adapting new technologies to warfighting and intelligence support.
		Let me be very clear on this.
		People tend to forget this.
		Able danger wasn't about intelligence.
		Special Operations Command uses intelligence as a enabler to do their operations.
		And, you know, Special Operations Command, they go out and kill people.
		I mean, it's kind of like, you know, I'm always surprised people don't really connect the dots here.
		It's like, yeah, we weren't doing this just to do data mining.
		Data mining was a methodology which was brand new back then.
		It's done commonly now, but remember, this is the late 90s and nobody really understood the potential of the internet.
		Some knucklehead over at the New York Times predicted that the internet would fade away, you know, never happened.
		I think it got a Nobel Peace Prize, as I recall.
		It was a very different environment.
		And so we were trying to figure out ways to do things differently.
		So that's kind of why we were involved.
		When Special Operations Command decided to pursue Al-Qaeda, they were getting nowhere with the normal intelligence support that they were being offered.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Now, was this in late 90s?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Late 90s, 99, 2000.
		And so the primary focus then was by SOCOM, how do we target a global target that's never been really targeted before?
		How do we do that?
		And we were brought in because they weren't getting anywhere.
unidentified		We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing.
		Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
		Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
		A date which will live in infamy.
		I still have a dream.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I just kind of want to talk a little bit about where you're coming from in your background, as well as where America is going.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		If you're comfortable sort of having that conversation now, all I know about you is what I've seen from your Twitter and your Wikipedia page, which I'm sure you might have some disputes about your Wikipedia.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Wikipedia is completely effed up.
		Yeah, it's like, go refer to that and it's all propaganda.
		And, you know, as a whistleblower, they put a lot of false stuff out.
		You want to echo that?
		Then you go knock yourself out.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, absolutely.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		One of my favorite is, oh, well, you lost your retirement.
		It's like, no, I'm right now working with DIA to figure out my exact starting of pay date.
		And same with the Army.
		It's like, yeah, no, I'm sorry.
unidentified		You know, sorry, you know, no, no such thing.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's just amazing.
		And of course, it's the most vicious things they want to come at you with.
		It's always amazing.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So tell me a little bit about your background and where your story starts in terms of the intelligence community.
		I want to talk a little bit about 9-11 if you're comfortable with talking about that.
		Absolutely.
		Anything you don't want to talk about is totally fine.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		I'm open to everything.
		We can talk about anything.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Okay, great.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So my understanding, and totally, correct me if I'm wrong, please, is that you were aware of some 9-11 intelligence and tried to kind of push it up the ladder before 9-11 happened and nobody listened.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that because there were forces on both sides.
		And to summarize it, there was three parts of this.
		First, I was running a task force that was focused on adapting new technologies to warfighting and intelligence support.
		Let me be very clear on this.
		People tend to forget this.
		Able danger wasn't about intelligence.
		Special Operations Command uses intelligence as a enabler to do their operations.
		And, you know, Special Operations Command, they go out and kill people.
		I mean, it's kind of like, you know, I'm always surprised people don't really connect the dots here.
		It's like, yeah, we weren't doing this just to do data mining.
		Data mining was a methodology which was brand new back then.
		It's done commonly now, but remember, this is the late 90s and nobody really understood the potential of the internet.
		Some knucklehead over at the New York Times predicted that the internet would fade away, you know, never happened.
		I think it got a Nobel Peace Prize, as I recall.
		It was a very different environment.
		And so we were trying to figure out ways to do things differently.
		So that's kind of why we were involved.
		When Special Operations Command decided to pursue al-Qaeda, they were getting nowhere with the normal intelligence support that they were being offered.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Was this in late 90s?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Late 90s, 99, 2000.
		And so the primary focus then was by SOCOM, how do we target a global target?
		that's never been really targeted before.
		How do we do that?
		And we were brought in because they weren't getting anywhere.
		They were just, they were just not, they were not getting anywhere.
		So we proposed.
		Hold on a second here.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		We proposed that the methodology we were developing for purposes of information operations be applied for purposes of supporting SOCOM and their initiative to go after bin Laden.
		That's all happened.
		And we were indeed an experimental project.
		We were doing things with data that had never been done before.
		And it was as an outgrowth of this data mining, this data consolidation and figuring out how to use it is that we discovered two of the three cells which conducted the 9-11 attacks.
		It's kind of like, hey, you're over here looking through all this stuff and all of a sudden you build an algorithm.
		The algorithm we built was based on the 93 World Trade Center bombers.
		We took and digitized all those guys.
		Again, this is all brand new back in those days.
		Nobody understood digitization.
		Nobody understood algorithms.
		This was all brand new.
		So we took and digitized the Trade Center bombers of 93, then had this reference database out there and basically said to the algorithm, go look at all these people in these terror networks and tell us if any of these people look like these guys.
		And sure enough, there emerged all the data.
		It's like, oh, yeah, no, and then we had one of the cells was the Brooklyn cell because they were the most essentially, they weren't physically in Brooklyn.
		They were most like in digitized format.
		They were most like the current, it turned out the al-Qaeda guys were most like the Brooklyn digitized profile.
		The profile matched.
		And that's where we started.
		It's like, hey, these guys are here.
		Looks like they meet the profile of al-Qaeda.
		You ought to look at them.
		And that's where the problem started because the lawyers, the Jamie Gorellik memo of pre-9-11 of the Clinton administration said, oh, we don't want intelligence information, which we are developing, shared with law enforcement.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Because they're worried about due process or is that puts up the issue?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Some other dilemmas.
		And so what does SOCOM do?
		What is SOCOM supposed to do if they can't pass something to law enforcement?
		Are they supposed to just sit there and say, oh, these terrorists are in the United States, but no big deal?
		Think about this.
		Like, what are you supposed to do if you can't pass it to law enforcement?
unidentified		Right.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		And was there concern that it was going to be a violation of due process?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		That was one of the dilemmas, which has never to this day been resolved.
		There were options that people don't want me talking about.
		And I won't, but you can probably figure it out.
		You guys in the media are pretty smart.
		And then the other aspect of this is after the fact the attacks happen, what happened?
		Why wasn't this information passed to the right authorities?
		It's a legitimate question.
		And that was how my involvement started.
		I was part of the intelligence team to develop the capabilities.
		I was running some of the operations to help inform Special Operations Command.
		I was actually at times a reservist working for Special Operations Command because I was in reserve status back then.
		So that's how Able Danger all started.
		It was about this advanced project to facilitate SOCOM identifying and targeting al-Qaeda.
		And then because of restrictions, we didn't stop 9-11.
		After the fact, I went and reported to the oversight officials to include the 9-11 Commission, Phil Zelikow, hey, we identified these guys and nobody let us do anything about it.
		And that's why it became so controversial to this day.
		And nobody can still answer to anybody why Able Danger was shut down in January of 2000.
		It's a mystery.
		So do you think that's, that's the best way I think I can summarize it all without getting really deep in the details of what happened?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That makes sense.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the reason that there was reluctance to share intelligence information with law enforcement was that there were any sort of concerns about due process or, you know, how can we actually bring charges or get warrants for these people just because their profile matches, you know, known terrorists?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Well, the answer is EO 12333 provides you clear and compelling guidelines on how to do that by the fact that if you or I came up in a legitimate investigation as a direct link to a terrorist organization, you're a fair game.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Even before the Patriot Act?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Oh, yeah.
		You can look at EO 12333 now, and it actually says a U.S. citizen is presumed to not, you know, I can't, like right now, I could not necessarily easily lie to you about if I, if, okay, let me strike.
		Let me frame this correctly.
unidentified		Sure.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		If I were an active military case officer and I wanted you to help me do something regarding a foreign threat, I'd have to show my badge and say, hey, I'm Tony Schaefer.
		I'm a clandestine guy.
		I need you to help me do an investigation.
		That's what, because you're a citizen.
		I can't spy on you.
		We're looking at bad guys and you're not presumed of having broken any law.
		The moment that you have a link, a viable link, a credible link to a terrorist or a foreign intelligence service, I can lie to you.
		I can pretend that I'm Chris Stryker, which is my alias in another operation.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's a cool alias, superhero.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I know.
		It's a whole nother story on that.
		Anyway, so I can say then, hey, XYZ, I don't have to tell him U.S. intelligence.
		I could say I'm undercover with the XYZ bottle washers incorporated or something, and then start investigating you.
		So that's where it was even before 9-11.
		That was available to us as intelligence officers, and it was totally legal.
		So that's what we were saying.
		It's like, hey, these guys, they're foreign nationals.
		Well, the argument was, well, they're here legally.
		I don't care if they're here legally or not.
		But the presumption was if they're here legally, they have the status of a U.S. citizen.
		There's no legal predicate for that.
		It was just, oh, this is our decision.
		This is our policy.
		There's no law that backs it up.
		But that's what we were forced to live with.
		It's like, these guys are here on green cards.
		You can't look at them.
		Why?
		Well, you're a citizens.
		Yeah, but if you even treat them like that, if you go by EO12333, if we can find a credible link between them and a terrorist or foreign intelligence organization, we can still look at them.
		And they wouldn't let us do that.
		During those days, they were so restrictive, they over-interpreted the restriction and said, well, we don't agree.
		You can't look at them at all.
		Or they put on us very severe restrictions regarding you have to do something within 30 days or take them out of the database.
		That's how severe it was.
		And I would argue those misinterpretations of law were the results of policies which were to look the other way.
		Now, whether that meant that they were supporting the 9-11 attacks or not, I don't know.
		But I'm just telling you, there was a vast misinterpretation, over-interpretation of policy saying, yeah, these guys have terrorist links, but don't look at them.
		Somebody had to make that decision.
		And we know that there were DOD lawyers that were involved in that decision.
		And that's where a lot of the roads we've been able to trace back to so far go.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So I know, obviously, that there's no way that you can know for sure, but if you were to speculate, is your best guess that for some reason the United States wanted 9-11 to happen?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You know, if you'd asked me that question back in 2003, I would give you a no.
		There's no way any sworn officer of the United States or politician would ever encourage that level of death and destruction.
		And now here I am in 2021, having seen what's happened over the past 10 years, like there's no doubt that someone would have been open to selling out the.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's speculation that Pearl Harbor was something that we allowed to happen in order to get into World War II.
		I don't know if that's true or not.
		I just know that there's some.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, you can go to the International Spy Museum and there is a very clear, one of the foreign intelligence assets, a poll was trying to tell Hoover that the attacks were coming with great credit.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so no, I mean, Hoover refused to tell FDR about that.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Interesting.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no, I mean, this is what you're saying is absolutely correct.
		There was evidence.
		And by the way, Hoover didn't want to share the information with Roosevelt because he considered this source a, oh, he's a womanizer and drunk.
		Okay.
		Well, you know, it doesn't change the fact that he may be factually correct.
unidentified		Right.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		It's an ad hominem fallacy.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		And I see a lot of that going on here.
		We who came forward and tried to say this were attacked vigorously.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		It was you and four others, right?
		That's what Wikipedia says.
		So who knows if it's true.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So, but the funny thing is, and again, the people who did the 9-11 invest, people who did the actual investigation of my issue have come forward and said, John Crane, he's come on record.
		He filed, get this, talk about irony, John Crane, who was the lead investigator in 2005, he investigated my claims.
		He was the lead investigator.
		He did the report.
		He came out three years ago and said, oh, we sent Schaefer up.
		He told the truth and we went after him.
		We verified what he said within the first 30 days.
		And then we spent the next six months burying him.
		He said, if we get the affidavit, he files a complaint with the intelligence community.
		The same time Venman does his report.
		Oh, they put Venmans at the top.
		Oh, this is Ukraine.
		We got to go after and frame the president.
		The intelligence community has yet to this day to act on John Crane's credible allegation saying, yeah, Schaefer's told the truth, and we need to validate what Schaefer said.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So after 9-11 happened in the days and weeks that more information became public about finding passports outside of the recognition.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, remember within 48 hours, they listed all these individuals, their address, all that within 48 hours.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		And so what was your personal feeling at that?
		Were you like, holy shit?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		No, it's like we knew.
		It's like, you know, to me, the fact that they published within 48 hours, now, I don't know how much time you spent actually in law enforcement or working on this issue.
		And that doesn't happen, especially something this complicated.
		You don't have all these guys listed out by name and addresses in less than a week because you got to validate.
		But no, they had these guys.
		Oh, yeah, here they are.
		And so it just reinforced what I said is like, yeah, we were tracking these guys.
		We, you know, we'd identified these guys by sell where they were at.
		And so my presumption was we're going to go out and kill these guys immediately.
		And I believed from day one then, it's like, yeah, we probably were going to go after and do this pretty quick.
		And then the more and more the time went by and I was being told that, no, we didn't know this was coming.
		It's like, no, that's not true.
		We did know.
		I mean, we were working behind the scenes.
		And my issue was, you know, I'm a black operations guy.
		I'm in career cover.
		And I didn't have any contacts with the media.
		I mean, at the time, no offense, I thought media folks were like poisonous.
		Like, I don't want to talk to them.
unidentified		They are.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I don't consider myself a media person, but I guess I am because I make a podcast, but I'm not paid by any corporations.
unidentified		Yeah.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So anyway, so that's what the point is.
		The point is like, yeah, we, you know, we, I didn't want to talk to the media because, you know, I'm still undercover.
		I want to go after the bad guys.
		As a matter of fact, I was undercover in Afghanistan when I talked to Phil Zelikow.
		I was out, you know, there's a book out there called Operation Dark Heart where I cover all this.
		I, you know, I kind of outline the fact that we were all as a team disappointed, but we wanted to get back into the fight and do something to win.
		And so it wasn't even like we were all a bunch of nerdy wells complaining.
		It's like, no, we were already back engaged going after these guys when we commander Scott Philpott, who became Captain Scott Philpot, went separately to the 9-11 Commission with the permission of Pete Schumaker, General Schumaker, who was commander of SOCOM.
		He went and talked to him.
		And I went in Afghanistan and talked to the 9-11 Commission with the train of command permission as well.
		So it wasn't like we started screaming, oh, you know, we know, we reinvigorated ourselves to go fight.
		And then when the opportunity presented itself, it's like, hey, by the way, you know, did you guys investigate Able Danger?
		That's, that was how it all happened.
		And that's why it was kind of, it didn't happen right away right after 9-11.
		It happened incidental to our being asked the question, what do you know about the 9-11 failures?
		And we answered him honestly.
		It's like, well, this is what we know.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So was it that we knew 9-11 was going to happen ahead of time, or was it more so that we just knew the people involved were a problem?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't, it could be both.
		It could be both because we knew for a fact that the people were going to be a problem because they were here and they were doing up to no good.
		And we had the Africa bombings already under our belt.
		In 99 and October 99, we had the coal attack, Captain Kurt Lippold.
		So it's like, yeah, we know something's on, something's going on.
		And the attitude at the time of DOD and the intelligence community largely was al-Qaeda makes far too much money here fundraising.
		They would never dare to come here and bite the hand that feeds them.
		That was the attitude.
		And that was the same attitude that was derived from The Pentagon and intelligence communities dealings with the IRA, with the Irish Republic and Army.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Satitude we have with China.
		They make way too much money off of us.
		Why would they ever hurt us?
		You hear that all the time.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		All the time.
		And it's fallacious.
		It's stupid.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, the CCP doesn't care how much money its people make.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		We do.
unidentified		Yeah.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		It's like, yeah, no, it's stupid.
		But that was the same attitude.
		Oh, they'll never do this.
		I was called in to a meeting one time by a senior executive service guy.
		My unit, Stratus Ivy, had multiple, multiple task forces.
		We were a special mission task force and we had smaller teams within it.
		One of the teams was supporting compartmented DOD, Black operations relating to technology.
		And it's called enabling, enabling is the term, enabling operations, sports NSA.
		Anyway, I get called in by the guy and he says, why are you doing all this Able Danger stuff?
		Because there's a credible terror threat and we're working with the tiered units, you know, the special operations, SOCOM folks, JSOC folks.
		Well, this is a waste of time.
		It's like, what do you mean?
		It's a waste of time.
		Well, they'll never come here.
		You know, this is like 99.
		It's like they'll, Al-Qaeda will never dare come and attack the United States.
		You're wasting your time on this.
		And I basically had to say, I'm sorry, I disagree with you.
		We're continuing.
		This is something that I, as the unit chief, feel is important enough to pursue.
		And I got in a lot of trouble there because, you know, I pissed off the Office of Secretary of Defense and said, I basically kind of said politely, yeah, F you, we're going to do it anyway.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Agree to disagree.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I agree to disagree.
		We're pursuing this.
		And so about one-third of my unit's resources, we weren't large.
		I mean, just to let you know, my unit was at max, probably about 20 people doing a global mission.
		And I was augmented with it by another 10 to 15 reservists on call.
		So imagine a small unit doing global operations.
		And that's what we were doing.
		And we were literally at the cutting edge.
		And but so, yeah, one-third of my resources being devoted to this really pissed off the other folks.
		It was kind of like, no, I mean, they've attacked us in Africa.
		The chances are pretty good based on the evidence we have here.
		They're going to do something.
		And they didn't like that.
		And obviously, DOD after the fact, I think, has tried to cover this up far more because of embarrassment and their refusal to accept what we knew rather than anything relating to trying to fix things.
		It's all about the fact that they don't like being embarrassed, I believe.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So, so what was what was that like going through that?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Surreal.
		It was very surreal.
		I mean, I still think back on it now.
		It was very much like a movie.
		I mean, it was just as bad as it gets in any drama where you know that you were right and you see the failure.
		You can't miss the failure.
		One of my friends is Bernie Carrick, and I feel terrible about what Bernie had to go through regarding 9-11.
		I mean, we've spoken about this like Bernie, you know, and they tried to set Bernie against me one time on the Donny Deutsch show back years ago.
		We spoke about that.
		I said, Look, Bernie, I was, you know, I'm sorry that they put you in a position to try to have to face off against me.
		But, you know, we've come to understand what happened.
		And Don Rumsfeld, I spoke to Don Rumsfeld about this.
		I said, Don, you know, we were sitting together in the Fox green room one day, and I look over at the former SecDef and I said, you know, for all with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, there's an issue between us.
		And he looked over and smiled.
		He says, Yeah, Tony, Abel Danger.
		He knew.
		And he looked at me and says, Why is that?
		Talk about surreal.
		I said, Well, with all, I think they lied to you.
		They lied to you.
		Look, I told the exact truth and I laid out what I knew.
		And he sat there and looked at me very stone-faced.
		He just said, You know, Tony, this wasn't the only thing they lied to me about.
		So take that for what it is.
		And since then, Don and I have been very friendly.
		He's been trying, he actually has spoken highly of me in public.
		So that's a huge change.
		So I don't know if he was, you know, buffaloed himself.
		Remember, he was the only guy of the old Bush folks who didn't go against Trump.
		Just saying, there's a clue there.
		He wasn't, it was the only guy of the old Bush folks who didn't go in and try to go against President Trump and some of the other folks when they all went against him.
		So I'm not sure if Don has had an awakening, much like other Secretary of Defense's perhaps do after they get out and have some time to think about it.
		But I'm just telling you that going through and seeing the failure and then seeing the cover-up to that level, it's been, it was very surreal.
		It's very frustrating because it's like I'm sitting there.
		It's like, I'm just telling you what I know.
		And you can go back and check.
		I have never went past my story.
		I work very hard to not comment on other aspects of the Evil Danger or 9-11 issues beyond my direct knowledge.
		Because I've been asked, well, what about XYZ?
		It's like, I don't know.
		I wasn't there.
		What about NORAD?
		What about X?
		Like, I don't know.
		I can only tell you what I know about my factual understanding of my experience.
		I can't deviate from that.
		But it was very frustrating to see the entire, not entire defense establishment, Army stuck with me as long as they could, to see that there was a great effort by the Defense and Intelligence Destiny to basically come after me and destroy me with the interest of trying to prevent proper oversight and fixing the issues that happened.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So having experienced what you did, what are your thoughts about what happened with Snowden?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a mixed bag.
		I've been a critic of Snowden.
		Don't get me wrong.
		Sure.
		And I was very clear about my belief that the method he took was not helpful because I feel I've seen some of the information he provided to foreign threats, foreign, and he compromised.
		I don't want to get into specifics.
		He compromised some of the things I worked to establish regarding capability.
		So I'm not happy about that.
		I understand his frustration based on what happened to me.
		It's like you go down the path of trying to tell the truth.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		You think he had good intentions?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I think he had good intentions.
		I'll give him that.
		And I've said the same thing about Assange.
		Like, you know, I've met Julian Assange, and I told him at the time I thought he was making mistakes about how he was approaching it.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So I feel terrible about what's happening to him, but I do too.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		No, look, I think it's all a setup.
		I think they set him up.
		I mean, come on, between you and me, you have consensual sex with girls, and then it's statutory rape and all this other stuff.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Basically, anytime there's a public accusation of sexual assault, I believe all women until I hear them on CNN.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's kind of my philosophy.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		That's a good thing.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's a good point.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		But I mean, the guy had, you know, this is the thing I hate about the left.
		It's not even the entire left because there's people like Tulsi Gabbard who are completely good people who really want the truth.
		It's the progressives.
		It's this like, I don't even know what to tell it because people, I don't know what it is because a lot of my friends on the left that I'm still friends with, Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbert, they see what's going on as a danger.
		And I'm not one who believes Assange should have been locked up.
		He should be heard.
		But I knew the path he was going down was going to result in bad things because of the progressives, because of the Hillary Clintons, Bill Clintons, the Joe Bidens.
		They are not traditional liberal.
		They are not liberals or progressives.
		And even some of the conservatives have went after him.
		I don't consider myself a neocon, but the neocons seem to be in that ball of hate that they've all kind of formed together to do what they're doing now.
		And I feel bad about Assange as well.
		And I think Assange should have his day in court, whatever.
		I don't think he's guilty of the things he's been accused of.
		I think he got information and put it out there as best he could.
		I think his organization, WikiLeaks, has been badly maligned for the same reasons.
		And some of his enemies are my enemies.
		Some of Snowden's enemies are my enemies.
		And I think the issue becomes what price do you have to pay to simply state the objective truth as you best understand it without drawing the wrath of those in power who don't want to acknowledge the fact that they're part of a cover-up, part of a plot, or part of something that has no interest in basically helping the American people or those people of the world.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I was surprised that President Trump didn't pardon Assange.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Me too.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I'm disappointed in a lot of things in the last six months of the Trump administration.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I feel the same way.
		I was a big Trump supporter because I'm a populist and he was the only candidate that was like America first.
		And that was, even though no matter what I disagree with him on, I could always come home to the populism.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So I'm with you.
		I've actually said on BBC and other networks, I'm not sure if you've seen it.
		It's like I've said that the Trump, the folks who follow Trump is much more populist than they are conservative.
		Blue collar support, the idea of having good jobs, tariffs if you need them, the idea that we want to preserve our initiative for our people.
		Look, who could be against good, they always talk about raising the minimum wage.
		Well, what if you flood the market with cheap labor by allowing unmitigated, unregulated immigration?
		Even Bernie Sanders at one point understood, you don't want that because you destroy the very people you're trying to support regarding good wages.
		Why do you do that?
		So, this is where I think people who don't pay attention don't understand.
		Like, no, Trump is for you American workers.
		He is for you all having good careers and good money.
		And the things that the left now represents, the progressive left now represents, undermine the very interest of the blue collar workers you're all supposed to be supporting.
		And this is one of the things I've not understood why people can't get past the mean tweets.
		Yes, he had mean tweets, but he was actually doing the things which I think most people would recognize benefits the American worker.
		And it's been very frustrating.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So, well, and it's really interesting to me with the whole Trump phenomena in that, you know, the media has always been biased in this country, especially the last, the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st century.
		But I didn't realize until election night, 2016, when Trump won, because I was certain he was going to just get his ass kicked.
		And I voted for him.
		And I was like, he's going to lose, but I got to vote for him.
		I was in Tennessee at the time.
		And when he won, it occurred to me, I was like, wow, the media didn't just get it wrong.
		They lied.
unidentified		Yeah.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Because Hillary was supposed to win by such a great margin.
		And the fact that she didn't, it was like, oh my God, they were just lying to try to help.
		And ever since then, it's been terrifying to me, but obvious to me that the corporate media is not media anymore.
		It's propaganda.
		They're pushing right now that the reason gas prices are up are because of unprecedented demand.
unidentified		I'm like, shut down the Keystone pipeline.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Like, come on.
		What the hell do you think it is?
		And so where is this propaganda coming from?
		And what are we supposed to do about it?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So this is where the Able Danger questions and your current question kind of come together.
		It is all about the people in power wanting to maintain power no matter what it takes.
		And then using, they've been able to co-opt the U.S. media to the point of where the media will say and do anything they wanted to.
		And I learned that the hard way during my thing when, you know, I was in with Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
		And Wolf said, Tony, these are the five things we've been told about you, which we're not going to go with because we can't prove them.
		But I'm just letting you know there's a whisper campaign to undermine you.
		That's a big lesson.
		Now, the only reason Wolf didn't go against me at the time, because my attorney was kind of friends with him, but otherwise they would have come after me even harder.
		Think about that.
		Now, and think about the fact that Wolf acknowledged, yeah, normal circumstance, we'd screw you.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		But because, you know, and I didn't understand the context of that admission at the moment, but it's like, I look back on it now.
		It's like, oh, so you guys are ready to really, you know, you're not, you're only going to lie a little bit here.
		We're not going to go all the way.
		But that, so that's, this is 2005.
		Think about where we're at now and what's at stake.
		So it's only gotten worse.
		And so the answer is you cannot trust corporate media because corporate media has decided that they are a wholesale extension of whoever is in the, and it's not even whoever's in power.
		They never supported Trump.
		It's all about this loose configuration of, again, the progressives and neocons who have decided we know better than you, and we're just going to try to maintain power no matter what.
		And they'll like cheat, steal, I would argue, even murder if they don't get their way.
		And that's, that's where we're at right now.
		And people like you, people like me who politically, we may not agree on everything, but I think we agree that we should all focus on objective truth.
		We should all focus on those things which are need to be addressed to benefit the American people.
		And these other folks don't do that.
		And I think that's where there's a great danger.
		I know this is a long way of answering your question.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		No, I really appreciate it.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		The other thing that I recognized over the, to your point regarding this 2016 election and what happened after, I went on a record on March 6th and said, this Russia collusion narrative, it's a hoax.
		I went on, I was on Fox, you know, because the president had tweeted, oh my God, they were targeting me in Trump Tower.
		And so Fox News sent a car and said, hey, would you come talk about this?
		I was driving in.
		I was talking to my sources.
		Like, hey, is it what?
		It's like, yeah, no, this is what happened.
		So I went on the air ahead of everybody else and said, no, we're going to come to find the Russian collusion narrative was a complete hoax.
		And I said this on the 6th, I think it was the 6th of March, 2017.
		And I was the problem.
		It's like, oh, my gosh, Schaefer's off the reservation.
		So my point is, is like, I'm an intelligence officer.
		I said what my sources were telling me based on what they were directly been given.
		And it turned out to be completely correct.
		But my point is, somebody in the media was decided to make it up.
		And they were taking, they were saying, well, we're talking to high-level anonymous sources.
		The anonymous sources, in my belief, were Comey, Brennan, Clapper, because who else has that kind of power to convince someone in the media to go with a single source?
		And the other thing, everybody kept saying, well, these people were leaking.
		No, they weren't leaking.
		They were lying.
		They were lying.
		That's why you can't use the espionage to go after them now because they were lying.
		They weren't actually leaking classified information in the media.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		They were making it up.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So how do you legally go after someone who basically says, I lied?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I didn't leak anything because I didn't break a law.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		It's not illegal.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You didn't break the law.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Think about that for a second.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		They got away with this because that's treason, man, in my opinion.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		But you can't get them on treason because they were, oh, we're just lying.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		We're just lying.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That is just, oh, that is terrible.
unidentified		Terrible.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		But the me, but the people, even our side didn't think about how evil that is.
		It's because, you know, everybody, oh, we want Durham to go get these guys.
		Yeah, you know, you're probably going to get him on some stuff.
		But on the big things of treason, of all these other things, it's like, yeah, we were just lying.
		And it's like, we didn't leak anything.
		So that's how.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I'm just so glad that he found out he was fired by seeing the news.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That was awesome.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		A quick story.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I was in the White House when the president fired Comey.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		No kidding.
		Oh, let me tell you the story.
		Take your time.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So I'm sitting there on the couch in the West Wing with KT McFarlane and Howie Kurtz.
		Kurtz is there from Fox.
		And KT's there.
		And I'm there to meet with Sean Spicer because I'm doing some stuff.
		I was working on a series called Chain of Command.
		Nat Geo's chain of command.
		It's out there.
		You guys can Google it.
		Anyway, so I'm over to coordinate some of the potential shooting with the White House for the series, for the TV series, for Nat Geo.
		So I'm wearing my media hat.
		So I'm sitting there and all of a sudden, you know, Katie and I are just talking.
		And all of a sudden, I see Rance Priebus running down the hall.
		Blast, running down the hall.
		It's past us.
		And I look over at KT and it's like, hmm, that's something you don't see every day.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's awesome.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		And so, so I'm sitting there and then someone comes out and says, oh, Colonel Schaefer, you know, something's going on.
		You know, Sean's, Sean Spicer, Sean's going to be pulled into this for a while.
		He's not going to be able to see that.
		They'll have to reschedule.
		But would you like to see Vice President Pence instead?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's awesome.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I'm not joking.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So they sent to shuffle me off to talk to Vice President Pence.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's awesome.
unidentified		So what's you can check my social media and get some pictures on?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I believe you.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So, so, but no, I mean, it's like, I guess Trump just decided I'm done with Comey.
		And see, Trump should have done more of that.
		He didn't do that enough because those sorts of things really disrupted the other side's ability to do what they were doing against him.
		Because as you and I both know, now Comey was completely in on this other plot.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So if we're going to get into conspiracy territory at all, which I think we're already there, but I don't think conspiracy since it's all true.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		It's factual.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, yeah, well, it could be a conspiracy can be true as long as people conspire, right?
		So if we're going to talk about election manipulation, it seems to me, and I could be just totally full of shit.
		So forgive me if I am.
		But it seems to me that if there's any evidence for foreign interference in elections, it's COVID-19 in China this past year.
		I mean, it seems to me that the lab leak hypothesis is the most reasonable explanation of what happened with this virus because it is incredibly rare for a virus to be both lethal and viral to the degree that it was out of nowhere.
		And there's no evidence that it's infecting animals, right?
		It's only humans because the gain of function research would be the best explanation.
		And if it's obvious that China was hyping the fear around it by all the videos they released of people collapsing, you know, really early on during this whole COVID thing, they had subway videos of people in China just spontaneously collapsing that we know now is not a symptom or side effect of COVID at all, right?
		But it was alarming.
		And it seems to me that they were just, they were pushing the whole thing to try to screw Trump.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So if you just look at the facts, you know, I'm an intelligence officer.
		So we sure, you know, law enforcement has, they want to basically have, you know, basically a factual case to go through.
		We have indicators.
		We intelligence look for indicators.
		And the indicators you just outlined indicate to us that China was up to something.
		If you, I mean, it's it's not a conspiracy if you just say Wuhan was being funded by NIH to do certain research.
		Fauci's acknowledged that.
		The Chinese are up to no good.
		One of the questions I got early on from Epic Times, I hope you don't mind me mentioning epic times.
unidentified		Nope.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I like an interview where they said, hey, this is what all the things you just said they were seeing.
		It's like, is this possible?
		It's like, oh, yeah.
		And I did an on-air interview saying every nation on earth who has a significant population and military researches biological warfare, either for purposes of defense or in some cases, offense.
		So in most cases, offensive use will result in your own damage, but some may not be worried about that.
		And I outline how China would probably very likely be doing a lot of this.
		I'm a subject matter expert, but it's like, oh, no, no, that's fake news.
		Like, no, I'm giving you a professional opinion based on doing this for 30 plus years.
		And everything you just outlined is like, yeah, there's something, there's something there.
		We need to investigate that.
		And I don't believe for a minute bats in a market was the source for this.
		That doesn't make any sense.
		Gee, were people French kissing bats?
		Were they like, you know, how would that happen?
		You know, there has to be a vector of infection.
		And it turns out now, supposedly these droplets are the vector.
		So unless you were like in close quarters in a closet with a bat, breathing what his, you know, it's like it didn't make any sense.
		So this is where the whole thing required investigation.
		And I think if you look at the messaging, the way the Chinese Communist Party tried to deny this initially, to this day, they're trying to deny that they're the source.
		The way the research in the Wuhan lab was denied, they destroyed the market.
		Oh, we don't want to let you investigate.
		We have to destroy the market.
		All these things indicate there was a plot.
		And then when you allow the idea that it came here and they immediately started using this against Trump, this was very clearly, I think, if it wasn't a key component initially to defeat Trump, the left figured out how to incorporate it in their thinking immediately and use it as a weaponized method of undermining Trump pretty much from day one.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, it terrorized the economy, obviously, and it opened the door for changing all the election protocols at the time.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		And I was, you know, and I was testifying up to that point.
		And I'm an election security expert based on looking at foreign threat.
		And I testified in Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania multiple times.
		I was interfacing with Ron DeSantis staff on this issue.
		And we were more focused up until COVID on making sure that paper ballots, risk-limiting audits, stopping digitization from becoming vulnerable to being hacked by a foreign threat.
		And it turns out we should have been looking internally, not at foreigners, but I believe there was hacking.
		I believe that the Dominion is dishonest.
		I believe that there were mass ballot fraud occurred.
		Look, I investigated this.
		I found one guy who moved a vehicle of 162,000 curated ballots from Beth Page, New York, to Central Pennsylvania.
		By the way, a guy named Bill Barr called me and said, oh, you need to give that investigation up.
		You need to turn it over to the FBI.
		Once the FBI got it, we never heard anything again.
unidentified		Just saying.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Saying?
		Sounds familiar, right?
		Just saying.
		Sounds like a motif in your career.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		When's the last time you ever had Bill Barr, the attorney general, calling a private citizen saying, oh, you need to stop?
		Think about that for a second.
		I talked to Ken Cuccinelli, former attorney general of Virginia, about that.
		I said, Ken, just two weeks ago, I was like, have you ever heard of the Attorney General of the United States calling a private citizen saying, you need to give this up?
		Think about that.
		The Attorney General.
		You don't feel threatened?
		Yeah, not a staff member, not a FBI agent, the Attorney General himself.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Think about that.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So how does that phone call go?
		Like he calls and says, hey, Tony, how are you doing?
		And you're like, oh, hey, yes.
		Like, hey, what's going on?
unidentified		How are the kids?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I got a lot of people.
unidentified		Hey, Tony.
unidentified		All of a sudden, he's like, hey, Tony, Bill Barr.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		What's going on?
		I swear to God.
		I swear to God, there's probably a recording out there somewhere of it.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, the NSA certainly has it.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Tony.
		Hey, Tony, Bill Barr.
		How's it going?
		What's going on?
		That's how it started.
		I am not joking.
unidentified		That's so funny.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So I told you, it looks like it's like being in a freaking movie some days, you know, for God's sake.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's why I wore the Ray-Bans today because one of my favorite movies is The Good Shepherd with Matt Damon about and he wears the ray-band.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I was like, am I going to have an intelligence conversation?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		That's great.
		I got a pair of those too.
		And I wear when I want to look like the Kiefer Sutherland character in, what was that?
		The series that got canceled recently where he was playing the president.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that was what's it called?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		The line of people that are designated survivors.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Designated survivor.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they had those in that.
unidentified		So I figure, okay, I'll take a look for that look sometimes.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so how far, how far down the list are you?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		That's a good question.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I know I'm on a couple lists, but I don't know where I'm at on this list.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Have you ever thought about running for office?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You know, I've been asked to think about that a couple of times, and I've learned a lot from watching several friends of mine run for office.
		One of my close friends is Sergio de la Pena.
		He just ran for governor here in Virginia for the Republican ticket.
		He didn't win, but I learned a lot from watching him.
		I've had some wonderful friends who are great retail politicians.
		I've tried to learn from the late Walter Jones, what Representative Jones from North Carolina, a great, masterful man.
		I've worked very closely with a couple of folks, Louie Gomer.
		I love Louie.
		And I've tried to learn from him some of the things that are required to be a good advocate for the truth and still be a good retail politician.
		And there's a way of doing it.
		I wouldn't do it the way AOC does it, but I think there are politicians who can actually create a national movement at the same time, really serve the interests of their people.
		And so I would not run for office unless I knew I could actually be a good steward of the people I'm representing.
		And I don't want to go out there and represent people who don't, who I would have a hard time representing.
		I just say that I could not go into AOC's district and represent them.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I would be clashing with them constantly.
		So if there's ever a match between where I'm living and the people I would represent, and they would ask me to go for, I would absolutely do that.
		I would, you know, but I've seen too many politicians show up on Capitol Hill and just surrender to the momentum of the sludge.
		You've probably watched the House of Cards.
		Of course, the Frank, the Frank Underwood character, I push the sludge through.
		Man, that is so true.
		I don't want to become part of that sludge factory.
		And so if I could emulate one of the legislatures, legislators that I've worked with, then I would be honored to think about that.
		But otherwise, I don't think I'd want to do it.
		I'm not sure if that's a good answer or not.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, that is a good answer.
		And the thing that's interesting to me about it is it seems like there's a lot of ways that you can be more effective than being a politician, right?
		People think tanks.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So I think I like to believe we're trying to be effective.
unidentified		So yeah, yeah.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		But yeah, a lot of people think that the only way to make things happen in this country is to actually hold a formal power, but there's informal authority, right?
		I mean, Elon Musk probably has more influence than AOC, in my opinion.
		I mean, obviously, you can't just be an Elon Musk.
		He's an anomaly.
		He's brilliant.
		But there are private sector individuals that gain so much power and influence because of what they accomplish as citizens that they can really have an impact on where our culture and our nation go, I think, in a way that politicians often can't.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I find that very true.
		And look, I um I uh and by the way, Bill Gates, boy, that the dating market, all the girls are going to be swanting to him all of a sudden.
		I mean, talk about power in person.
unidentified		Just right.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, he's incredibly attractive.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		He's got my point being is, yeah, people can, I think, influence things in a much greater degree than uh being official.
		As a matter of fact, I know generals who you will never see their name because they are just there because they wanted to be generals.
		They didn't want to do anything.
		You can get the title and do absolutely nothing and make no impact.
		And I've seen that a lot.
		So it's more about, I think, what you feel the longing, the calling to do.
		My son's a fireman.
		I always taught him, he's 26.
		I said, look, follow your dream.
		You need to do what you feel you need to do and follow that and commit yourself to being the best you can be in that field.
		And I think you'll do well.
		I think others want to do the same thing.
		Some people just do it because, oh, I want to be a general because I want to be a general.
		I want to be a congressman because I want to be a congressman.
		And they lose track of trying to actually make a significant difference.
		And I don't know if that's, I don't want to sound like I'm judging other people, but that tends to be what I see people do and not make want to make a difference.
		And I think those who want to make a difference can find a way to make a difference, no matter what they end up doing regarding titles or otherwise.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think our next steps or our best approach to solving this propaganda problem is in the United States?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Because it seems to me that it's, it's, in my opinion, it's the number one problem that we have is that people are being lied to and they're believing the lies.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		First off, people like you asking that question is very important because being a recovering alcoholic, I'm coming up in 29 years.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Congratulations.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		The first step of recovery is understanding there's a problem.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		So, so a lot of us, I think, have recognized there's a problem.
		And The issue has to be how do we then you know get people other people to ask that question.
		Um, there's people like you, there's people like I just we did an interview the day with Jeremy of the Quartering.
		Uh, his YouTube channel is critical of social media, he's a millennial.
		Uh, there's other folks, there's a number of folks on YouTube.
		Uh, Mark Dice, I was watching some of Mark Dice's stuff.
		He doesn't, he doesn't hold back.
		And the first thing I've recognized that people who ask the hard questions become the enemy of the state, the big corporate state, media state, the government state, because they don't want you asking those questions.
		So, I think the first thing is to create a network of people who are really committed to just speaking the truth and finding a way around social media if you have to, maybe even creating our own.
		I know parlor's coming up, but there's got to be Gab and some other things.
unidentified		Yeah.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		We've got to find a way to maintain our voice no matter what.
		And a lot of folks have asked me, it's like, well, you need to be off Twitter.
		You, you know, you follow me on Twitter, I think.
		So, well, you need to get on.
		It's like, no, I'm why I didn't do anything wrong.
		I'm going to put my thoughts in the face of these folks.
		And I'm attacked all the time.
		There was some guy who yesterday wished my mother had aborted me.
		You know, that's the left.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's real nice.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		That is real nice.
		But I'm just telling you, I'm not backing off of being in that environment because they need to understand they are being lied to.
		And at the same time, we need to establish this.
		And then the second thing is, to your point, we need to establish essentially a politically populist movement of left and right.
		It's like maybe, maybe it's time we give up Democrats and Republicans for now.
		Maybe we just, maybe it's time we step away and say, we're done with both sides.
		Let's figure out how we can create a populist movement to actually.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, and I think that's what Trump did because Trump drew a lot of people who used to vote blue and he created a schism in the Republican Party and that the people that support Trump are very pissed off at establishment GOP leaders right now.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		As am I. Right.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		And so I think that's what maybe we're, and I'm not sure where that is because I know people on the, you know, I think Tulsi Gabbard is more of a Trumper than that's going to get me in trouble now.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		No, I think she was more of a Republican than a lot of the Republicans.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's for damn sure.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You know, and it's kind of like, you know, so that's why they didn't vote.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		That's why the Dents hate her so much.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I could tell you a couple of stories.
		I suggested we were up in Portsmouth at the same time.
		And I texted her.
		I said, hey, do you mind if I come by your event?
		Because I was a Trump 2020 guy at the time.
		She said, no, everybody's welcome.
		And I couldn't make it.
		But I said, boy, wouldn't it be funny if you and I went over and got a picture of you and I toilet papering, TPing the tree in front of Peter Pete Buddha Judge's office.
		Wouldn't that be funny?
unidentified		And it's like, people would lose their minds because they don't have a sense of humor anymore.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I mean, right, that would have been funny, right?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Us on Instagram.
unidentified		Yeah.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		It'd be the TP party.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		The T Party.
		But you would see the humor there.
		Others would go, they would lose their minds.
		They would attack us over that.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		It's funny.
		My wife and I have, my wife's from California.
		So consequently, she has a lot of Democratic friends from childhood.
		And she was doing a, she was doing a like a FaceTime call with one of her friends that she grew up with, who's a very knowledgeable Democrat.
		And she asked, it was after one of the primary debates between the Democrats last election cycle.
		And she asked, well, if you had to choose any of the Democrats to vote for, which one would you support?
		And Kaylee, my wife, said, well, I'd support Tulsi Gabbard.
		And her friend Mara was like, who's Tulsi Gabbard?
unidentified		She didn't even know because they didn't cover her at all.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		She didn't even know what she was.
		She was one of the eight people on the stage, you know?
		It's wild.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		You know, I got in trouble with a lot of folks because I was asked, I was on Hill TV with Crystal, what's her name?
		Crystal Ball.
		Crystal Ball.
		I should remember that.
		And she asked me that question.
		It's like, how do you feel about the media censoring?
		Google, not at the debate when she went after Kamala Harris.
		Yeah.
		Google shut down her fundraising capability by basically doing some things to the database.
		I don't think it was, oh, it was accidental.
		I don't think it was accidental.
		And if you recall, she actually called out Kamala Harris for some of her lies and it got her attention.
		And so immediately upon that happening, Google shut down her ability to fundraise or get attention.
		And it was, and so I was asked about this.
		Like, she should sue Google.
		Nobody, no matter how you feel politically, big tech should never have the right to censor your First Amendment or political capability to do what you need to do.
		And that's what they did.
		They took a side.
		They supported the, I guess, Kamala or whatever she was representing and suppressed Tulsi.
		It wasn't fair.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Do you think there's hope?
		Do you think there's hope for us to win that fight against big tech?
		Because that's my biggest concern.
		I totally agree with you that networks are the key to getting initiatives done.
		And I think what's happening right now is between big tech and corporate media, they are doing everything they can to undermine any sort of populist or right-leaning ability to network and communicate with one another.
		Do you think that there's hope for us to legislate that problem away?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		If it doesn't get legislated or fixed, we will have a civil war because they're going to continue to suppress speech to the point of where those on the left are fired up and think that we're all the enemy, which we're not.
		And those on the conservative side are going to feel we don't have a voice.
		It's very dangerous.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		How close do you think we are to a civil war?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		In terms of timeline.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I think unless we get this fixed over the, by 2023, 2024, we're going to have real problems.
		We have problems now.
		Don't get me wrong.
		I'm not trying to diminish anything, but I'm just, everything is like a pressure cooker right now.
		Everything is kind of so getting so, it's more and more intense.
		And so unless you find a way to diffuse that tension, to remind the left that, no, we're not your enemy.
		There wasn't an insurrection on the 6th of January.
		People upset, paraded around, this and the other, expressed themselves, and that Antifa really is bad.
		And oh, by the way, BLM, come on.
		I'm always on talking about Chicago.
		It's like 40 people were shot yesterday.
		Where's BLM?
		Why does Black Lives Don't Matter?
		I'm just saying it's those.
		And then you'll have the media lying about this.
		Oh, no, no, no, don't look at that.
		That's not really relevant.
		But I'm just saying we've got about 18 months to fix this or get it somewhat resolved.
		And I think the midterms and 2022 will be a big indicator of where we're going.
		If Congress stays in the control of Nancy Pelosi, there's no hope.
		And I think we're on the path to real problems by 2024.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the first step of that looks like a secession from a state like Texas?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I think you're going to start seeing secession discussions from big states like Texas, Florida, and other places.
		Because it's very clear DeSantis knows what he's doing.
		He's supporting his people.
		They love him.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Well, the Cubans hate socialism.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		So he's got that going for him as well.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		And Abbott's going in the right direction.
		So I think there's a real, I don't think I've ever seen the country, I've been around a long time.
		I'm getting pretty old.
		And I've never seen the country quite so divided.
		I voted for Reagan.
		I just turned 18 in October of 80.
		And I voted for Reagan in that November.
		And I voted for Reagan because I was a conservative.
		It's like, I liked his message better than Carter.
		And it just seems to me from Carter on, they've gotten more and more extreme.
		Back in, you know, there was an old story of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan getting ready.
		You know, they just down the street here, road here in Old Town, Alexandria.
		They got together in a place called Ireland's Own and drank beer together.
		Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House and Ronald Reagan, because, you know, they could agree to disagree and still be Americans.
		You're never going to see Nancy Pelosi drinking beer with any conservative ever.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
		Well, it's funny because my wife and I had our first baby this year, our daughter.
		And we need to thank you.
		We named her Kennedy after JFK.
		And we had some family friends who are like, you know that Kennedy was a Democrat, right?
		And I was like, do you honestly think that he'd be a Democrat today?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I would not be.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		No way.
unidentified		No way.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		He was totally against any sort of deep state.
		He hated Marxism explicitly.
		And he was a populist.
		He was totally pro-American.
		And there's no way that that guy would be a Democrat today.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I'm a big admirer of JFK too.
		And I think they're going to talk about another area to delve into.
		No, I think he wanted to change.
		I think he wanted to change a number of things that folks didn't want changed.
		I think he wanted this out of Vietnam.
		We should never stay in Vietnam, talk about a good call.
		I think he was right about the space program.
		I think had he lived, I think we would have been able to do a lot more.
		My judgment is we should have spent a lot more money on developing access to the moon rather than spending on making nuclear weapons, facing him off against the Russians.
		We should have a moon base.
		We should be on our way to Mars by now.
		A lot of mistakes were made.
		And I think they were made by people whose interests were not to see the economic freedom of the American people fulfilled over the past 30, 40 years.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		What do you think the real story is with JFK's assassination?
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it was Oswald by himself.
		It was Oswald involved.
		I think he was involved.
		I'm not even sure if Oswald pulled the trigger.
		If you listen, go back and listen to the tapes and listen to what he was saying.
		I think when he was told in that press conference, go back and look at that.
		And it's like the people, he's talking about, well, I'm here.
		I'm not quite sure what's going on.
		And he said, well, you're accused of assassinating the president.
		If you just look at the expression on his face, it was just like, he just like, can't believe it.
		They set me up.
		So there's no doubt that someone shot at the president from the school books repository.
		No doubt.
		And I believe there were multiple shooters.
		I don't believe there was just one.
		So do I believe in conspiracy?
		Yeah, maybe.
		I just don't believe that Oswald, if he did act, that he acted alone.
		So I think even go back.
		I'm geezing here, but if you go back and look at Firing Line, even there was a Firing Line episode where one of the guys on the left was trying to debunk the report, the Warren Commission report.
		And what's his name?
		Bill Buckley was actually open to the debate.
		And so Mark, it was Mark something.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		I can't remember.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, there was real questions on both sides.
		Was the Warren Commission kind of a deep state cover-up?
		A lot of questions were left unanswered.
		And by the way, as you know, some of this information that was used in the commission is not going to be declassified until you and I are probably, you know, till you're in your 80s and I'm dead.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Right.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Why wouldn't you?
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Then it'll be over 100 years old and people think it's irrelevant.
unidentified		Yeah.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Well, so you got to ask yourself, why would they do that?
		Why, what's so, you know, why would you not want to just have everything out there?
		I don't know.
		It just to me, it's peculiar that if it's not classified, and I think we won the Cold War, so there's nothing there we have to worry about now regarding sources and methods.
		I don't know.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Interesting.
		Well, thank you so much for taking the time to get on with me today.
		I appreciate it.
		And this was an awesome conversation.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, thanks.
		Well, thanks for having me.
		I appreciate the opportunity to talk about all this.
		And it's good to kind of walk through and have an honest discussion.
		And I hope you continue to work to try to seek people out who are willing to just have the conversation and try to, you know, help people understand that they're not being told the truth in mainstream media and try to, you know, get people to organize or do something to just agree on objective truth.
		These are the facts.
		Let's try to work off the facts and try to make things better.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
		I am committed to it.
		And I will send you a link once this is all edited and uploaded.
		And we'll take it from there.
		Thank you so much.
anthony shaffer ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
chase geiser ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Bye-bye.
		We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing.
		Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
		Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
		A date which will live in infamy.
		I still have a dream.

▲