All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2024 - Jimmy Dore Show
59:30
20240415_TJDS_20240415_Podcast_-_41424_3.37PM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Come see us on tour.
Gonna be in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, Cortland, New York, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, El Paso, Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Vancouver, British Columbia.
First show sold out.
Denver, Colorado, Ashland, Virginia, Athens, Georgia, and Minneapolis.
We're coming back to Minneapolis.
We couldn't get tickets last time.
There'll be some available this time.
We're doing two shows.
Go to jimmydoor.com for a link for all those tickets.
This is the Jimmy Door show.
Who's calling?
Rusty!
Commander-in-Chief, your old buddy, President Joe Biden.
Oh, wow.
And I mean old.
See, see what I'm doing the self-deprecating humor thing.
I'm so old.
But, you know, not really.
I see.
When did that start?
Well, our campaign's been pivoting in a few important ways.
I'm not sure if you've noticed or not.
And yeah, one of them is me making fun of my own age instead of letting other people do it, taking ownership of how I'm the butt of the joke.
So it deflects from my obvious age-related defects when the joke is about how I remember the Civil War.
Ah, I see.
I see.
That's the power of humor, Russ.
And do you find this is working for you?
Fucking A-right it is.
Have you seen the latest polls?
Yeah.
Russell, for the first time in his campaign, the majority of major polling shows me leading Donald Trump in the popular vote by a variety of margins.
But still struggling in the key battleground states.
Yeah, well, that's not what I called to fucking talk about, Russell.
We're building momentum here, our campaign, and we'll get where we need to when we need to.
So, okay, so you're so you're crediting self-deprecating humor with your rise in the polls.
Oh, no, not just that.
Honestly, that's secondary.
The primary driving factor is me promising to do things that I am absolutely never going to do.
I see, I see.
And the crazy thing is, the voters know it.
I still really don't know how it works.
I have an odd relationship with the Democratic voting base, to say the least.
I guess there's just no explaining the Biden magic.
Can you be more specific?
Anything for you, Rusty.
Well, first, guess who all of a sudden is now promising abortion rights will be codified into law?
We could have done it long ago, but Joey B is out there saying he will undo what Trump did to abortion this country.
And Joey B absolutely cannot do that.
That promise is stillborn.
Day one.
Oh, right.
Yeah.
We have a Republican majority in the House, for Christ's sakes.
We got the dad from Footloose as the Speaker of the House.
It might as well promise that NASA will rebuild the air.
We'll build the actual fully functional starship enterprise just to get the nerd vote.
Yeah, but then you'd lose the Star Wars vote.
Millennium Falcon 2.
Fuck it.
I'll promise every goddamn thing.
Goddamn anything.
Also, though, come on.
Like the Star Wars nerds wouldn't vote for me if I were going to build the enterprise.
Literally, who would not want to see that?
Okay, that is the one thing that might get me to vote for you.
Fair enough.
So, yeah, I promise all the abortion stuff, and people are just reminded the Democratic brand is pro-abortion rights, and Trump is anti-it's enough for people whose main issue is that to forget about all the horrible shit I'm doing and then come around.
People are coming around, Russell.
That's what this is about.
So, what else are you promising besides a Millennium Falcon?
Forgiving student loan debt, or at least working on a plan to forgive student loan debt.
And who knows how long that could take, Wink Wink.
And there's another prong to this strategy.
That's a hell of a prong, if I may say so, Russ.
And what is that prong?
Russ, that prong is this.
I told someone the other day I was looking into a way that I could shut down the border with Mexico with executive action, which immediately makes me look tougher on the border than anyone.
Yes, very unexpected.
Now, the answer is I probably can't.
But again, I said we were looking into extreme measures at the border.
And that's what matters.
Moderates will hear that.
And maybe people down near the border who previously think I'm too liberal, they hear my tough border talk and think, hold on, this guy can be a huge asshole like me, too.
Genius.
How about you, Russell?
What is it that you want?
Well, let's start with Medicare for all.
Old Joe Biden would have said, come on, man, get real.
But new old Joe Biden is going to say, you know what?
We have a task force working on looking into that right now.
What else?
I'm feeling generous.
I want a pony.
You got it, my friend.
There's a pony with your name on it at the pony farm.
Now do I have your vote?
Absolutely not.
No.
No.
Oh, well, like P.T. Barnum said, you can't please all the people all the time.
I did my best here.
But what matters is I swing uncommitted voters back to my fold by exploiting their fears of a second Trump campaign and making completely unrealistic promises.
I look at my role as president as sort of similar to an absentee father.
Christmas is going to be great this year, buddy.
I promise.
That's why I love this job so much.
All right.
Until next time, everybody gets a pony.
All right.
Yay ponies.
Establishment media sets of art and spiding.
So good luck.
Bullshit we can't afford.
Why is fomenting this?
Watch and see as the jet golf.
The median speeds and jumps the medium.
And hits them head on.
It's the Jimmy Tore Show.
I want to bring in our first guest.
Lee Fong is an award-winning investigative journalist who has written for The Intercept, The Nation, Think Progress, and Republic Report.
He currently publishes his investigative work at a Substack newsletter, which you can subscribe to at LeeFong.com.
Hey, Lee, thanks for coming on.
Hey, thanks for having me.
So, you wrote this article.
This is interesting because I'm involved in it.
Smearing pro-peace voices.
And so what's going on is, well, here's America is funding taxpayer dollars are funding these pro-war outlets.
One of them is Vox Ukraine.
And Vox Ukraine did a bunch of these videos.
I'm in one of them.
Look, there it is.
And these are in Ukrainian.
There's a Russell brand.
I think that's the ex-CIA guy.
I can't think of his name.
But anyway, they're doing a bunch of them.
So you wrote an article about this.
U.S. taxpayers' dollars are flowing to outlets such as New Voice of Ukraine, Vox Ukraine, Detector Media, the Institute of Mass Information, the public broadcasting company of Ukraine, and many others.
Some of the smutties come from the 44.1 million billion in civilian needs foreign aid committed to Ukraine.
So now here's a little bit of the video they did on me.
I'll just play a little bit of it.
So I like how she says my name.
But she's saying that, first of all, she says, here, if you read, I have it translated.
She says, Jimmy, do we turn her down for a second?
Jimmy Dorr is a stand-up comedian, political commentator, podcaster, and simply a conspiracy theorist, i.e., a person who believes in conspiracy theories and tends to believe that behind events or situations, there are hidden motives that may not be apparent or obvious to others.
Yeah, that's called life.
That's called everything.
It's hilarious.
That's like the that is the most favorable definition of a conspiracy theorist I've ever heard in my life.
That is, that's exactly what we do here.
We find the hidden motives.
We get to what's really happening.
You know, when they tell you that it's safe and effective, we actually look into it.
When they tell you that, you know, we're going to bomb Iran, Iraq, because they have weapons of mass destruction.
We actually look into that.
Turns out that was a big conspiracy.
So here's what they say.
And then they try to discredit me by saying that I talked about microchips and vaccines against the coronavirus, and I never did that.
And the reason why they don't show that clip is because I never did that.
What I did show is that the head of Pfizer said they are putting their own microchips in pills that they are giving people.
And he said, imagine the compliance.
That's what really caught my eye.
But anyway, and so they're saying we distorted him saying that.
Well, we didn't.
So this is the kind of stuff.
Another conspiracy theory promoted my door.
First of all, Dorr with one R. That's a different R. That's the different comedian.
It's a guy out of Boston or something like that.
He's big on conspiracy theorists, the other Jimmy Dorr.
I only deal in conspiracy facts.
So here we go.
The Syrian government did not attack with chemical weapons.
The opposition held city of King Shikun in Syria, where a large number of civilians died.
So they're still pushing that lie that Assad gassed his own people.
So these are the kind of, this is the propaganda that U.S. taxpayers' money is being used for, right?
They're sending it to Vox, you know, that garbage news outlet.
Now it's Vox Ukraine.
And so it goes on and on, but at least they got an attractive lady to say it.
And I think she's showing a little cleavage, which is nice.
While the funding is officially billed as an ambitious program to develop high-quality independent news programs, counter malign Russian influence, and modernize Ukraine's archaic media laws, the new sites, in many cases, have promoted aggressive messages that stray from traditional journalistic practices to promote the Ukrainian government's official positions and delegitimize its critics.
So that's exactly what your taxpayers are being used for.
Vox Ukraine has released highly produced videos attacking the credibility of American opposition voices, including Jeffrey Sachs, Mersheimer, and Glenn Greenwald.
Detector Media, one of the most influential media watchdog groups, similarly produces a flow of social media and posts branding American critics of the war as part of a Russian disinformation.
That's what everybody does.
And not only Vox Ukraine, but everybody from Vox Ukraine to Joe Biden to Rokana.
Anybody who hasn't says the truth about what's happening in Ukraine, they say it's Russian disinformation.
You're working for the Russians.
Just like if you question weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they said you were working for Assad.
Same thing with Libya, same thing with Syria.
It never stops.
And so this is the exact same thing they're doing.
But the thing is, you're paying for it.
It's not only dissident voices targeted by the USAID AID-funded groups.
Detector Media went after the New York Times after a news report about hundreds of Ukrainians in the Battle of Avdivga who were captured and missing.
The Ukrainian fact-check site offered little terms in little in terms of rebuttal.
So they didn't have any facts to give you.
What did they do?
They just said they just labeled it as disinformation.
The New Voice of Ukraine quoted a Ukrainian official describing the Time story as a Russian psyop.
That's all they do.
So guess, but here's even more.
The New Voice of Ukraine syndicates syndicates with Yahoo news.
Vox Ukraine is a fact-checking partner with Meta.
That's Facebook.
So now you know why all my old Hollywood friends hate me because they go on Facebook and they see my videos up on Facebook that are accurate.
And then Meta teams up with a propaganda firm like this or a Bill Gates-funded propaganda fact-checking organization or somebody like Snopes, who the head of Snopes had to resign because he got caught being a serial plagiarist.
And then they say I'm spreading misinformation, but of course that's just propaganda.
And then so that's there to discredit me and it works With a lot of people.
Not everybody, thank God.
So Detector Media has similarly led a consortium of nonprofit groups pressuring social media platforms to aggressively remove content critical.
So that's what they do.
I had a couple of videos taken down on YouTube.
Facebook has demonetized me.
They've banned everything except completely kicked us off of Facebook.
Congress is now weighing a new supplemental funding measure with approximately 60 billion earmarked for the war in Ukraine.
A small portion of the emergency spending package is devoted to continued USAID programming in the country, but far less.
So here's another thing.
They always talk about how Russia is shutting down their journalists, but what gets less attention is how the Ukraine government's cracked down on its independent and opposition media, a push aided by the U.S.-backed network of anti-disinformation groups.
Even as Washington's efforts to censor information at home is drawing greater scrutiny, its support of Ukraine's effort reflects the increasingly global reach of the American government's propaganda arms.
So get this.
So what do they consider when they consider what is disinformation or misinformation, and they want to pressure social media to censor it?
Well, in response to questions about the U.S.-backed anti-disinformation groups in Ukraine targeting Americans, the U.S. State Department provided a statement saying it defines disinformation as, quote, false or misleading information that is deliberately created or spread with the intent to deceive or mislead.
Okay, that almost seems fair.
It added, we accept there may be other interpretations or definition.
Oh, really?
Wait till you find out what those other ones are.
And we do not censor, of course, independent organizations into adopting our definition.
The length of the report defines disinformation as not only false or misleading content, but also verifiable information, which they say is unbalanced or skewed, amplifies or exaggerates certain elements for effect, or uses emotive or inflammatory language to achieve effects which fit within existing Kremlin narratives, aims, or activities.
So in other words, factual information with emotional language that simply overlaps with anything remotely connected to Russia viewpoints is considered disinformation, according to the U.S.-backed consulting firm, helping to guide the efforts of Ukrainian think tanks and media.
And so let me bring in Lee.
Now, Lee, this is quite an article, and it's really, it's a great read.
Everybody should check it out.
There's a lot of information that I don't have time to share on the show.
But what is your reaction to learning all this information?
Well, I'm not shocked.
You know, I've written about disinformation and these kind of speech wars in the domestic context that oftentimes the U.S. government and powerful interest groups have sought to control the flow of information and discourse by creating NGOs and other third parties or working with academic third parties to create kind of a criteria for disinformation and misinformation, which are very powerful terms now.
And through those appendages, they censor dissenting speech, critical speech.
They use that kind of to force compliance in the discourse.
So in that context, I'm not surprised.
But this is interesting because there is a wider debate here in the West and the U.S. about the authoritarian nature of Russia, that Russia has cracked down on journalists and independent media.
They've arrested journalists.
And that's true.
That's a gigantic controversy that I'm concerned with.
But there hasn't been scrutiny on these draconian moves by Ukraine that the Ukrainian government through President Zelensky has banned opposition media, has arrested journalists, has really cracked down on free speech and free expression in that country.
And as I kind of peeled back the layers looking at USAID and other contracts, I mean, it really startled me to see the level of U.S. involvement in this crackdown on free speech and on independent media.
And beyond that, there's an additional layer here that you just described that unlike similar contractors worked for USAID in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
We were very involved in making Iraqi newspapers and magazines and websites.
And same thing with Afghanistan.
But what's unique here is that a lot of the Ukrainian think tanks and media are very influential for shaping the discourse back at home.
They're publishing English language content.
They're working with Facebook to censor social media.
And they're actually affecting potentially American foreign policy because they're going after critics like yourself, like John Mearsheimer, like Glenn Greenwald.
These are very prominent voices, some of the only voices that are really critical of the mainstream narrative around NATO, around this U.S. involvement in the war.
And so it kind of creates a vicious feedback loop of the American taxpayer money is going to groups that are censoring Americans who are dissidents on this war.
Yeah, that's the amazing part to me is that these people are the ones who are, anybody who calls themselves a fact checker or a professional fact checker, they're not.
Okay.
Those are just people who are being funded by a billionaire or a government somewhere to lie to you and to squelch the truth, right?
So as I was talking with Russell last night, people like you, people like Glenn Greenwald, the Gray Zone, this show, we're the new, what Rolling Stone used to be in the 60s.
That's what we are today, right?
And so I just want to show a few more examples of what they consider to be misinformation.
All you have to do is say that Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a proxy war against Russia.
That's considered that that will be flagged.
They will pressure social media sites to take that down.
Ukraine's government has also worked with U.S. government officials and others to censor its American critics.
One prominent example, Aaron Mate, friend of the show, Aaron Mate, a frequent guest host of the show.
He's an independent journalist who has criticized U.S. policy regarding Ukraine and other outlets.
So, can you tell us what they did with Aaron Mate?
I mean, this is incredible.
They did quite a lot with Aaron Mate, but one example is that the FBI works very closely with the Ukrainian top intelligence agency, SBU, the Secret Service of Ukraine.
In the first few weeks of the war, Russia's invasion, the Ukrainian Secret Service forwarded a list of problematic social media accounts of people they accused of being Russian propagandists or involved in Russian disinformation to the FBI, which used its kind of in-house contacts with the major social media firms, including Twitter, to go after even American journalists.
One of them was Aaron Mate, who was incredibly credible, very thorough journalists who has really spoken out against the mainstream narrative on a lot of these foreign policy issues.
In addition to that, in fact, Aaron Mate has won awards for his meticulous debunking of American propaganda.
The biggest award he got was about around Russia Gate.
And it was, in fact, that's the words they used, his meticulous debunking of Russia Gate.
So he's thorough, he's accurate.
No one's ever been able to say anything Aaron Mate has printed has been incorrect or propaganda, but go ahead.
Well, just in terms of the power dynamic at play here, none of this is transparent.
We know this because Twitter changed ownership and we had some leaks.
But this is the type of thing that apparently has been going on for a long time, that the FBI has been used as a proxy for various third parties, including the Secret Service of Ukraine, to crack down on its critics, including Americans.
Mate, the former head of the Zinc network or former official with the Zinc network who helped organize these anti-disinformation think tanks and watchdog groups.
He's just a few months after this attempt through the FBI to censor Mate.
He was the former official with the Zinc network was speaking at a conference and basically just openly saying that he'd like to censor Matei, that it's irresponsible for YouTube to host journalists like Russell Brand and like Aaron Mate and others.
And so most of this is going on underground behind closed doors, but occasionally they're saying it out in the open.
So when you talk about the Zinc network, so let me just show people.
Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, the USAID dispensed emergency grants to its media partners, partly through this thing called the Zinc Network.
That's a contractor based in London that has been accused of setting up covert public relation campaigns on behalf of the British government, right?
And so you're talking about this guy named Burley, right?
And so he.
Almost Burley, yeah.
Yeah.
And so he made public.
He made statements saying that he thinks that media platforms need to be more responsible and take more responsibility regarding what content they allow.
And in fact, here's a quote: he said, even I saw Russell Brand, who has a huge following on YouTube, was interviewing a journalist called Aaron Mate on his channel.
And he said, it's incredibly irresponsible for YouTube and other social media companies to continue to host these people.
So they want to just shut down U.S. and any, first of all, any voice, but especially United States journalists that were using U.S. money, and they're just saying it right out in the open.
That's kind of the crazy part, right?
Yeah, I mean, I just, I'm kind of surprised by this because, you know, what drew me into journalism was the war in Iraq in 2003, seeing how much the traditional media, the legacy media, the big newspapers and broadcast television outlets were in lockstep with the Bush administration and driving the narrative for war.
I thought the internet and social media would provide the necessary alternatives to question the foreign policy orthodoxy.
In some cases, that's true, but in other cases, it's not.
We've seen this kind of corralling of the internet that most major media relies on three or four social media platforms, video streaming sites.
A lot of those have intricate links with the government.
And they've done a very good job at marginalizing and really keeping dissenting views out of the public.
And, you know, just in terms of how the machinery works, consulting firms like Zinc Network mobilize these networks of NGOs and fact-checking organizations.
Zinc Network, funded by the British government, funded by the State Department and U.S. military.
They're helping set the discourse.
They're working with this huge network of groups that are pressuring the social media platforms to remove dissenting speech and presenting the NATO viewpoint as the only acceptable viewpoint.
And we all remember that mental case, Nina Jankowicz.
Remember when Biden appointed this, she's going to be his czar of disinformation.
And then we did just, everybody just took a little peek into her background.
And it turned out she's a full-blown mental case.
Well, she actually works for the Zinc, well, for that Burley guy.
She's a registered foreign lobbyist for Ross Burley's UK-based Center for Information Resilience.
I mean, these are such Orwellian terms.
It's amazing.
And so, but they're also these organizations supported by the U.S. government.
They're also silencing critics, not only here in the United States, but inside Ukraine, correct?
Yeah, that's right.
You know, there's been a lot of changes to media law, a lot of very big policy efforts in Ukraine to silence the opposition over accusations of inappropriate Russian influence or Russian disinformation.
Even preceding the current war, in 2021, Zelensky shut down three major television channels.
He accused them of being tied to the Russian government, tied to his opposition in parliament, that were too close to The Russian government.
This was criticized roundly by independent reporters, even by the UN.
The United Nations put out a statement saying there's massive restrictions on free speech and free expression in Ukraine.
And some of the most problematic examples were these closures of television channels associated with the political opposition.
Well, where does Zelensky find journalistic cover for these types of actions?
There are a number of think tanks and watchdog groups and media outlets that are funded by the NED, by U.S. State Department, by USAID, American money that provide them cover.
They put out reports and press statements saying that Zelensky is doing the right thing.
This is what all Western governments do.
This is important for the fight against disinformation.
And continuing through the war, after the war started, there were much more draconian steps.
A big law in the end of 2022, the on-media law, that officially bans hate speech and disinformation, but also gives a board controlled by Zelensky the unilateral power to ban any media, including online media, without a court order.
Now, again, independent journalists, journalists from around the world criticize this law.
But where did Zelensky and the Ukrainian government find cover to say, okay, this is actually supported by civil society and local journalists?
Again, it's the same constellation of USAID, American-funded think tanks, media outlets, and watchdog groups.
They put out statements.
They lobbied the media.
They were out in front giving Zelensky cover to pass these laws.
Well, here's another one of those media inner news, right, that you've been just talking about.
These organizations that give internews is a significant pillar in USAID's $35 million Ukraine media program.
Other European governments and private sector donors led by billionaires like Pierre Omidar.
Now, where do I know that name from?
Because he's the guy who owns the intercept, which is why the intercept, everything, just like when you read the New York Times or Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, you have to read the Intercept the same way.
There might be some information in there, but you have to turn it sideways and you have to look it up and you have to, they're all being biased because this guy's a big propagandist.
And that's why the people who work for the intercept currently can't tell you the truth about Russia Gate, can't tell you the truth about Ukraine war, couldn't tell you the truth about Syria.
And so here they are back.
That's why the Intercept is garbage now.
And mostly, some good work, but mostly garbage.
They're not as good as this show.
I'll tell you that.
No, they're not.
Anyway, so they won't do this story, led by billionaire Pierre Omidar via the Omidar Network and George Soros via the International Renaissance Foundation.
They have financed the network of media and activists working with the U.S. AID groups.
And you talked about this on-media law that they passed in Ukraine, which it's again, we just saw it in Scotland.
They're using, so the new thing is to hate speech, right?
So in the United States, I explained to people that all they have to do is because we repealed habeas corpus, or Barack Obama, thank you.
And so now all they have to do is say you're a terrorist and they don't have to give you a speedy trial or even charge you with anything.
They can lock you up with indefinite detention.
And these hate crimes, now they, so for instance, you can be called a terrorist if they say you're spreading misinformation.
That's considered a cyber terrorist.
So now you don't get any rights anymore.
Now they can just throw, and now they're doing hate crimes.
So that's the new thing.
If they say that you're saying something that stirs up bad feelings against a group of what a protected group that, and of course, that's all intentionally vague.
It's all left up to the interpretation of the government, which gives them a tool to silence and get rid of anybody who's their critic and telling the truth.
And that's what the on-media law did.
And same thing's happening in Ukraine, right?
And these are the people pushing that, giving cover for it.
And here, I just want to show you this, our last slide.
The Columbia Journalism Review has chronicled the precarious situation independent journalists face in today's Ukraine.
In January, a pair of thugs went to the home of Yuri Nikolaev, a prominent investigative journalist who has uncovered scandals involving military catering contracts, of all things.
The men tried to break down his door and, according to his mother, who was home, called him a provocateur and a traitor.
But it's much worse than that.
Can you expand on some of that stuff that they're doing to journalists inside Ukraine?
Well, they're just being hounded by thugs and supposedly also the SBU, the intelligence agency.
Some of these investigative journalists who are questioning the military contracts, questioning corruption, and the Zelensky government, questioning a lot of the big policy choices he's made, whether on the battlefield or in terms of domestic politics, they've noticed on security cameras by their homes that they see these men basically following them, tracking them to their homes.
They've identified some as actually working for the intelligence, the domestic intelligence agencies.
So the apparatus of the state is being used against independent journalists.
And it's very likely that some of these thugs, you know, random people who are sending threats or actually showing up to attack journalists are also tied in with the government or government interests.
So it's, you know, if you look at the USAID contracts or the big reports from the State Department, you know, they basically make the case that it's only Russia that's wiped out media freedom.
Ukraine is a bastion for Western values and democracy.
But the actual experience of journalists who are questioning the government, who are actually dissidents, is very different from what these reports claim in terms of the facts on the ground.
And so, you know, when you hear the propaganda that you have to, democracy's on the ballot and you have to vote for a certain political party, meaning the Democrats, to save democracy, that's just more disinformation and lies because they're the same people funding these anti-democratic, anti-journalists, anti-free press, and they're using your own tax dollars against their own people.
The enemy of the American people is in fact USAID, is in fact your own Congress and your own State Department and Joe Biden.
These people are not on our side.
These people are on the sides of corporations, weapons manufacturers, oil companies, and other giant corporations.
Again, we don't live.
Your democracy was stolen from you decades and decades ago.
It didn't happen on January 6th.
So, do you, what do you, when you, you know, reading your piece, it was really amazing and eye-opening.
And, you know, you really connect the dots on how this works.
Does it, do you have any hope left for the United States as an idea?
I mean, I do.
I mean, I feel like it's a mix.
USAID, and we might disagree here, and the U.S. government broadly in terms of foreign policy does some good, but it also does some bad and just deserves a lot of scrutiny.
You know, I just hate seeing, as a journalist, as a citizen, to see this like bandwagon effect where when there's a war, when there's a conflict, when there's this kind of rush for emergency solutions, whether it's the pandemic or any of these other conflicts abroad, we see the suppression of free speech and free debate.
We don't see questioning of big bureaucracies or billionaires or corporate interests.
And here, I'm just trying to balance the scales because the more I look into this, I want to do a lot of follow-ups.
The more I kind of peel back the layers of the onion, the more I find that it's very troubling in terms of what we're doing in Ukraine.
Yeah, I mean, you make the point.
Well, I'll make the point that everything we accuse Russia of doing is we're doing.
The United States government is doing, Ukraine is doing, and I would say maybe even more so.
So this, so that's why it always, you know, it gave me a chuckle when people would say, boy, that Putin, he's a thug, though, Jimmy.
You gotta, you gotta believe Putin's a thug.
I'm like, oh, yeah, remember when he killed a million people in Iraq, then went and turned Libya, the most successful country in Africa, into a failed state and bombed their water supply, and then did Syria for it so we could put a pipeline through, did 20 years of occupation.
Putin didn't do any of that.
The United States is doing that.
The United States is the world's terrorist.
And nobody even comes close to our body count.
Nobody even comes close to the countries we've overthrown, invaded, and undermined and displaced people.
And right now, we're occupying a third of Syria, which is right next to Ukraine.
And nobody ever talked, that ever comes up in the U.S. media.
Isn't that weird?
And which third of that country do you think that we're occupying?
It's the part with the oil.
That's the part.
And so it's weird that it never comes up.
Everything that you see the media claim other countries are doing, especially Russia, the United States are doing probably 10 times worse.
That's my commentary.
I don't want to put it in.
I would just say it's not mutually exclusive.
The U.S. has done a lot of wrong, done a lot of, you know, arguably the term evil could be applied.
So has Russia.
I mean, epox on both houses.
I feel like, you know, it's probably my viewpoint on this whole debate.
Yeah, okay.
I'll give you, they're all bad actors, but no one comes close to our body count, right?
You can't disagree with that, can you?
In terms of broad numbers of people killed by foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years, no, the U.S. has killed more.
Yes, not even close.
Well, Lee, I really appreciate you coming on.
Everybody should check out this article and check out your sub stack.
You do great work over there.
I appreciate you making time for us today.
Anything else you'd like to add before we say goodbye?
No, I just really appreciate the invitation.
And yeah, check out the substack.
I rely on independent-minded supporters and subscriptions.
So really appreciate it.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydoorcompany.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
Okay, so get this.
So this Play People Sound Investigations, they did a sound investigation, and they got this guy who's a for he works for the CIA.
And so listen to what happened.
Watch this.
Gavin O'Blenis is a contracting officer at the CIA.
O'Glenis worked for the FBI in 2021 and 2022 in the San Diego office, moved on to Homeland Security where he conducted asylum interviews at the southern border and now works for the CIA managing multi-million dollar contracts across government agencies and private sector vendors.
I work for label kind of job.
I say intelligence, what do you think?
CIA?
Yep.
You work for the CIA.
I do.
Okay, well, move over Austin Powers.
This guy probably is the single worst secret agent in the history of deep cover espionage.
Jesus Christ.
Did they accidentally swap his cyanide pillow with sodium pentathol?
Yeah, I hear he wrote the nuclear codes on the back of a napkin at the end.
There's no chance that the guy you're talking to might have a secret camera, right?
Jesus Christ.
Is spy school now an online course for fuck's sake?
Listen.
When a fellow is trying to get laid, he'll say all kinds of things.
That's what it sounds like.
Yep.
So here we go.
So watch the things he says.
That's incredible.
Contracting officer.
Amazing.
So I deal a lot with like different agencies.
We're contracting with like director of national intelligence to do stuff.
We do Navy, Army.
Really.
I just, FBI.
I used to work for the FBI.
So I threw the FBI at me.
They're like, Pierre, you used to work there.
Why do they call a contract?
Because I do the contract.
I do all the legal contracts.
Ply out to vendors and evaluate them.
That's all the agency.
Good for you.
I like the bureau, too.
The bureau was a lot of fun.
I got to do a lot of cool stuff with the bureau.
I was the guy in the back of the truck in the band.
O'Blennis spoke to an undercover sound investigations reporter about his work experience involving near entrapment and his employers' involvement with political commentator Alex Jones's legal battles.
So here comes the good part.
Here's the juicy part.
Bureau is able to progress far enough to be able to put co-lifers in jail whenever they want.
Yeah.
You think that's on the agenda?
We can, we can kind of put anywhere in jail if you know what to do.
How?
You set him up.
You can put anybody in jail if you know what to do.
How?
We set him up.
I don't know.
Does that make you think of a kidnapping of a certain governor?
There were 11 guys in a van and nine of them were FBI.
You remember that?
So they do that stuff all the time.
January 6th, same thing.
We set him up.
Well, here he goes.
He's got more to say.
You create the situation to where they have no choice but to act on their impulse.
At once they act on that impulse.
Then we call that entrapment.
It's a fine line.
It's a fine line.
That's just a.
I like it.
It's a fine line.
How he wiggles his heads back and forth.
Does the Bureau practice entrapment a lot?
We get really close.
Not officially.
No.
We get as close as we can.
We get as close as we can to it without doing it.
So they can entrap some of these co-lifers into doing things that they don't.
Yeah.
We call it a nudge.
A nudge.
A nudge.
Sometimes you just got to get a quick rope just to see what happens, right?
How does that happen?
You put a post out there or you have some fake profile say something that triggers that.
We know it's going to trigger them.
Like, we already know your history.
If we're to that point, we already know everything about it.
So we're like, oh, this is this one.
Sometimes you like the fuse and just wait for it to follow.
Right?
Like a railing.
Like a oh.
So when a rally happens, sometimes the bureau behind it.
Yeah, sometimes.
Nothing with putting out a fake social media thing to like really get people mad.
So the intelligence communities are putting out fake social media posts.
I thought that made you a terrorist.
Spreading dangerous misinformation.
They're spreading.
And they're doing it to incite people on purpose.
That's the point of them doing it.
Huh.
This is what they did in Newberg.
And the judge released the removal.
Newberg, there were four guys after 9-11.
Oh, that's right.
The FBI just manipulated these petty criminals into planning terrorist plots that they were not seriously going to do.
They were talking shit.
And the judge actually released them and exoriated the FBI and called the FBI the main conspirator.
That's right.
I remember that.
Sometimes it's fake.
It's embellished a little bit.
He would be like a big influencer.
You're an influencer that you're after you.
Like a.
I don't know.
Like.
I don't even know these names, like a Fox News person or like a Tucker Carlson.
Oh, I'm sure he's a Fox News.
Right.
Well, not only is Tucker Carlson on the radar, but we know they were surveilling his texts and using it against him.
The NSA.
We know that.
Well, Glenn, when we interviewed him, I asked him this question because, you know, we were talking about Assange.
Glenn Greenwald, you mean?
Yeah, Glenn Greenwald.
We were talking about Assange and we were talking about Steve Donzinger, the lawyer who sued Chevron, whose life has just been completely destroyed.
And I said, hey, Glenn, if you are an effective dissident, if you are an effective activist, can you still be free, really?
Or are they going to destroy you?
And he said, no.
He said, if you really get to them, they will destroy you.
I mean, look what they did.
Look what they did to Russell Brand.
And all he did was have a YouTube show that got popular.
Yep.
Oh, hang on.
Hang on.
A really good-looking movie star had a lot of crazy sex with a lot of women.
I'd never have imagined that.
I never would have thought.
I never would have thought that.
Oh, some of them were not happy that it didn't evolve into something more.
You know, I mean, we can't say for sure what happened there, but somebody.
Well, we can say this is that none of the all those people were anonymous.
None of those people approached the police or the news agencies to complain about anything.
It was the exact opposite, and nothing has come from it ever since.
Not one criminal charge, not one civil case, nothing.
Nothing was pursued.
Nothing.
But now he's off YouTube.
Now, now he, well, he's still on, but they demonetize him.
They demonetize him.
And they trash his reputation, which was the point of that.
Right.
Right.
So that anything he says has, that's how you be calls it.
They put the ick on you.
The ick on you.
Exactly.
So anything you say is suspect now.
The biggest and loudest.
Like that, what was his name?
The one that said Sandy Hook didn't happen.
Alex Jones.
Yeah, so we were after him.
You are?
Are you still after him?
Why?
Because he's broke.
He got found guilty and had to pay like $100 million.
So why were you after him?
We're not anymore.
Just to get the money from him?
Yeah.
Was that court case used?
Was that a CIA?
That was the agency thing?
Well.
Actually, it was a defamation case.
So it's a civil, not governed.
Well, we were looking at all of his followers commenting, following the things that even though it's technically not our, well, not the agency, definitely, but the Bureau, for instance.
Yeah, that's not our purview.
It's a civil, it's a civil matter.
But since they got all this access to his stuff and it's there, what can we go find?
And did you find anything?
I can't tell you.
Oh, we didn't.
But so, you know, it's just kind of like, you know, realize the opportunity that you have.
So with Alex Jones, you were watching him long before anything ended up happening.
It wasn't my office, but I mean, we would have been well aware of what he was doing.
And the goal with him was what?
Just to bankrupt him?
Pretty much.
And we let the families do it.
What?
We let the families do it.
Were they encouraged to do that by the Bureau?
Like, nudge?
We don't encourage people.
But, like, We just say there's no federal statute being broken.
But you do have the option for a civil or a civil case.
It's a pretty good case.
In our opinion.
Oh, that makes so much sense.
I have a cousin who's a lawyer.
So that's a lot of these cases that are kind of encouraged by the FBI.
Yeah, like there's nothing federally, federal law we can do, but civilly.
And they did.
So the FBI was happy.
We didn't care.
We were like, oh.
Basically, the citizens did your job.
Wow.
So you can encourage a civil lawsuit.
Not encourage.
Educate.
What can you do with people like Alex Jones now?
Because he's still out there.
He's still chirping.
They still watch him.
Why?
He did what we wanted.
Which was what?
We took his money away.
We shut him up for a while.
You're never going to shut him up.
Unless you put him in prison.
He didn't do anything about prison.
Being ignorant is not a crime.
It is.
I mean, you could bring him up.
He didn't try to riot.
Like, cheetah.
He didn't encourage people to go shoot people.
He didn't.
So he didn't do it.
Additionally, O'Blenis states that he knows and works with FBI agents who were undercover in the January 6th Capitol riot, estimating about 20 field agents were there undercover.
While O'Blenis notes that they were not involved in violence, this appears to be the first submission of undercover FBI agents in attendance.
I thought you said that there were FBI agents in the crowd at J6.
There are.
There always are when there's a big protest in DC.
Just in case it gets out of hand like that.
But there wasn't even enough to turn that tie.
I mean, I'm talking maybe after 20.
You needed 1,000 to get rid of that crap.
So they had like, oh, that was just 20?
Yeah, just to go through.
Well, I like how he pretends like the FBI were there trying to discourage the crowd.
Okay.
See what I can hear, you know, that kind of thing.
Wow.
Yeah, definitely.
They needed 1,000 at least.
That's also Capitol Police jurisdiction.
They're in charge.
So that guy didn't have more on hand.
I don't know.
The Bureau didn't really want people knowing that they were in the crowd.
That would be overstepping their boundaries.
A little bit.
Do people know that?
Do people know that Pierre is in the crowd?
No, you probably never will.
You know, agents that were there?
Really?
What's the agency doing?
So there you go.
And here's Elon Musk.
Concerning.
Concerning, Elon Musk.
Concerning.
Now, this guy definitely worked to the FBI and the CIA.
How much he actually knows?
I mean, his suspect.
Like when he says there's 20 FBI guys.
Well, here is Clay.
What is this guy?
Clay Higgins.
So here he is interviewing.
I think the head of the FBI, I think.
And listen to what he says.
Does the FBI have confidential human sources?
Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters on January 6th of 2021?
Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when you're talking about the message.
Matt, finish.
About when we do and do not, and where we have and have not used confidential human sources.
But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false.
Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January the 6th prior to the doors being open?
Again, I had to be very careful.
It should be a no.
Can you not tell the American people, no?
We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol.
Gentlemen, this time has existed.
You should not.
Can't say no.
So that's all I want.
And there are hundreds of them.
Well, here's what he says.
Here's what he says.
Say that there were FBI assets in the crowd in the building beforehand and certainly outside.
What's the scale of this?
Are you talking like 10, 20?
No.
Based upon some very conservative, but like hard investigative effort evaluation of the numbers when putting together eyewitnesses and videos and affidavit statement and whistleblower statements and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where J6 defendants have been prosecuted and smart attorneys have forced admissions
by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by the judge.
So I can't share them, but I've seen them.
So real hard, objective, and conservative estimates would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at well over 200.
Over 200.
So anyway, there you go.
They targeted Alex Jones.
They give people nudge.
You can put anybody in jail you want to.
And he knows.
So that guy might not be in a position to do any of those things, that guy who was talking, but he knows about them.
He works with them.
Well, this is always the question with these.
And we talked about this a little bit when we covered the last O'Keefe video.
It's a little difficult When you're always recording these almost of necessity, these are honeypot operations.
The guy's trying to get laid.
So, how much is the guy bragging and inflating his own knowledge and his own insider-ness?
That having been said, we know of cases like the case in Newberg where we know the FBI absolutely did things like this.
There's no question.
And the Governor Whitmer, yeah, so we know they manipulate suspects and they entrap people.
Look what they've done to Julian Assange.
So, it's not even a question that they actually do this.
In terms of people in the crowd, yeah, I remember, you know, I used to drive a horse and carriage in New York.
And when you're in a crowd at Rockefeller Center or one of these main areas, we would be by like the Plaza Hotel.
You know, they were undercover cops.
You just don't know it.
Because once in a while, these drivers, a lot of them were pretty rough characters.
They'd get into a fist fight.
And all of a sudden, these people are sitting there reading newspapers.
They pull out their badges.
So you've got infiltrators around all the time, and people are just not aware of it.
So, yeah, I would say the 200 number is probably more accurate, but that guy seems a little more credible than the guy in the restaurant.
Not that that guy wasn't telling the truth, but he definitely also seemed like he's trying to get a little nookie.
These gay guys are trying to get laid.
They get the chatty Kathys.
This is Russ speaking.
How can I help you?
Hello, Russell.
This is Senator Chuck Schumer of the great state of New York.
How the hell are you?
I am doing just fine, Senator.
Thanks for asking.
What can we do for you?
Well, Russ, I just wanted to spread some good news about what the Democratic Party is doing for you.
For me in particular?
No, silly.
You as an American citizen, what it's doing for everybody.
I am all ears, Senator.
Well, Russell, I'm pleased to report that myself and Senator Booker and a few others are circulating a dear colleague letter urging our fellow senators to vote for the marijuana federal decriminalization bill that will be introduced later this month.
I see.
We'll be putting it to a vote on April 19th, just in time for 420.
420, wink, wink, know what I mean.
Hitler's birthday?
Exactly.
No, 420.
That's the marijuana holiday, isn't it?
Oh, yeah, yeah, that too.
Yes.
Okay, good.
You had me worried there for a second.
I get all this information from my young staffers, and sometimes I worry they themselves occasionally partake in said narcotic.
Anyway, we thought it would look good to get this passed on 420.
Really give us some street cred with the Youngs.
Right, okay.
And what would this bill do?
Well, basically, it says, hey, the war on drugs did not work.
So we are decriminalizing marijuana on the federal level and preparing the way for it to be a legal controlled substance and its sale a permitted but regulated commercial enterprise.
So you kids have fun and we'll simply have to find another way to overpopulate our prisons with young black and brown men.
And I'm confident we will.
So am I. Does this have any chance of actually passing, though?
Absolutely not.
We proposed almost this exact same bill two years ago and it went nowhere.
And to think now with this new Speaker of the House that it would pass with this time would be madness.
Forget it.
Well, then why at this moment are you expending effort on this lost cause?
Optics, young man.
In case you've been living under a rock in a cave, that itself is in a very isolated location.
The Democrats aren't doing very well with the Youngs these days, poll-wise.
And that is no bueno considering we have a little election thinging happening later this year.
And why is that?
Beats the hell out of me.
My young staffers inform me.
It's yada yada yada enabling a genocide to some bunch of nonsense.
But that just sounds like crazy talk to me.
But I suppose it's true.
Wonders never see so well.
Oh, well?
I mean, what are you going to do?
Young people want to have a hissy fit about 30,000 dead civilians that they don't even know in real life.
I bet they're not even Facebook friends with these people.
There's nothing you can do except try to win them back.
By stopping the ethnic cleansing that's happening right now in Gaza, for example?
That would be ridiculous.
No.
By giving lip service to another issue they care deeply about.
The right to smoke pot.
I bet they care way more about pot than Gaza.
In fact, maybe after a few tokey tokies, they'll get a little more mellow about that situation.
You really think so?
Of course.
I can see it in dorm rooms all across America.
Sitar music plays, a couple of long-haired hippies ripped from a tie-dyed bong.
Wait, wait.
This is 2024 we're talking about?
What happened to the good old days?
Anyway, they smoke their marijuana and say, hey, man, maybe what's going on in Gaza is cool after all.
Maybe it depends on how you look at it.
And the other hippie says, yeah, it really depends on how you look at it, man.
It's really sort of juvenile to call this a genocide without fully understanding every little thing that has occurred in the region since 587 BC.
Maybe we just should shut up and be groovy and vote for Biden in 2024, no matter what.
I see.
I see.
That's what will happen.
So it's very important that we be seen as pot-friendly to balance out being seen as ethnic cleansing friendly.
Even though they can see what's happening with their own eyes.
Look at your bong instead with your eyes.
Think about your bong.
That's what young people love more than anything.
They've been tricked into caring about all these non-bong issues by anti-Semites.
I'm telling you, Russell, the strategy is airtight.
Okay, if you say so.
I do say so.
This is the Democratic Party way, Making meaningless gestures to compensate for not actually doing the right thing or anything that helps anybody.
And we are going to lock this election down with the Youngs when we get this new bill passed declaring June Federal OnlyFans Content Creators Month.
Pothead degenerates are going to flock to the polls.
Mark my words.
You know, with the OnlyFans thrown in there, you might be right.
I hear it's very popular with the Youngs.
I guarantee it.
I guarantee it.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Oh, All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
▲
Export Selection