Bombshell! FBI Colluded With Ukraine Intelligence To Silence Americans!
In a shocking new report released by the US House Judiciary Committee, it is alleged that the FBI passed Ukrainian intelligence requests to US social media that certain accounts be silenced for "Russian disinformation." Many of the accounts were Americans exercising their First Amendment right to disagree with US government policy. Also today: Biden rejects Congressional calls for oversight on massive US wealth transfer to Ukraine.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Doing well.
Good, excellent.
Doing well.
Excellent.
But we're going to talk about conspiracies.
Yes.
But we won't call it a conspiracy.
You know, we're just going to talk about policy, what's going on in the world.
And, you know, I hate to say this, but I want to bring up the subject of the FBI again.
I want to know if it's being reformed and they've turned over a new leaf and that we should feel comfortable that they will protect our national security.
And I was searching for that, but I came across an article that maybe I was going to find something.
But guess what?
I found out it's worse than I ever dreamed.
The opposite.
The FBI.
And I mentioned to you a little while ago, what would it be like if somebody actually said, why don't we get rid of the FBI?
Wouldn't this be a calamity?
Would our country be better off without an FBI?
Do you think we could still have security?
Well, I think we could.
I think the military, you know, in national defense, there'd be a way for, you know, finding out what's going on.
Somebody said that you could find out more if you just have a lot of people, and you probably know a little bit about this.
If they just talk to people in a normal fashion, didn't have bribes and didn't have spies and read newspapers and listen to the radio and listen to the people who are talking.
And you probably could get more, well, it would probably be more reliable.
But no, in a way, I bet you people who are drawn to this are really inspired by the intrigue of all this.
But we want to talk a little bit about that, the intrigue, and try to figure out what's going on.
But we're finding out that the FBI is more involved than we quite thought in a slightly different way of how the people at the FBI are working with the Ukrainians.
And of course, most people who are up on this realize that we participated with NATO and NATO started a war with Russia.
Russia did not invade NATO.
So anyway, the FBI has their goals to promote NATO's position.
But then you have this whole thing about the politics here at home.
Who did what?
Who colluded with the Russians?
And it's been going on for years and years.
And now it's still going on.
And the FBI works very closely, as we find out, with the Ukrainians.
And maybe the Ukrainians, I don't know, could they be smarter or do they know exactly what they're doing?
That the Ukrainians' positions are actually flowing into the FBI and ending up on our social media.
Of course, a lot of people know now that the FBI worked directly with social media.
But now they're just throwing in another one where there's another government getting in the middle of this and telling the FBI what the sense.
That's getting pretty messy.
That's why it's real hard.
See, I don't believe much that all of a sudden you can reform the FBI.
You can get better people.
There are better people.
There will be some improvements.
But it's the principle behind the FBI and how it's been corrupted.
You know, from its earliest days, you know, Jay or Hoover wasn't, you know, the greatest patriot we ever had.
And they've lived up to that tradition.
So this to me is just more of the same.
I think it's worse than maybe I expected.
But I'm not surprised, really, that the governments and the propagandists in Ukraine are either openly knowing exactly what they're doing or they're able to manipulate the FBI.
And the goal is, though, the big picture, I would say, is all this manipulation and evil going on to undermine the First Amendment, which should be protected for the American people and which I think is being undermined.
And we have been sucked into this because, well, we have to do it for national defense.
But the truth is it's being done for the military-industrial complex.
Yeah, no, that's a good point, the attack on the First Amendment.
And, you know, there's probably not much to cheer about the Republicans retaking the House because in most places they're just as bad.
But this is actually, I think, one of the bright spots, which is we're getting a lot more information out of House Oversight and Judiciary Committee on just how deeply the weaponization and corruption of the FBI goes.
You know, we know they manipulated the elections.
That's a fact, you know, with regard to the Hunter Biden, with regard to the social media.
We know they manipulated what we could learn about COVID.
We know now that they're manipulating this.
And here's what we're talking about.
This is a CNN.
And we've talked about other things that have come out.
But this is a new one.
This came out yesterday.
CNN, actually came out yesterday.
New House Judiciary Report claims FBI worked with Ukrainian agency to remove verified social media accounts.
Now that is a very euphemistic headline.
If we could rewrite that in English, we would say that the FBI colluded with Ukrainian intelligence to silence American citizens who held incorrect, quote-unquote, views about Biden's policy on Ukraine.
And here's why I say that.
If we can look at the next clip, this is exactly what they said.
This is the CNN article.
Now they talk about a flawed effort.
No, it was a very successful effort.
But here's what they say.
The FBI participated in a flawed effort to stop Russian disinformation at the behest of a Ukrainian intelligence agency that instead ensnared authentic American accounts, even a verified Russian-language U.S. State Department account, the House Judiciary Committee alleges.
The FBI did not properly vet social media accounts that one of Ukraine's main intelligence agencies, the SBU, flagged as spreading Russian disinformation.
So here's what it means.
And some of that was passed to Meta, which is Facebook for review.
So here's what it means, again, in plain language.
They're acting like it was like, oh, they kind of messed up a little bit.
They were a little too overambitious.
But what they did, Dr. Paul, is the Ukrainians, regardless of how you feel about Ukraine, Ukraine is at war and information is a sphere of warfare.
There's no question about it.
They are a combatant with Russia.
So they have all the incentive in the world to overemphasize, to do also exaggerate and what have you.
So the Ukrainians were sending the FBI social media accounts.
This guy's spreading disinformation.
This guy's spreading disinformation.
This is Russian disinformation.
And the FBI was then sending that to Facebook and Google and other places.
And the implication, I think, when you get a letter from the FBI saying Joe Blow is putting out Russian disinformation, you're going to feel intimidated at his company and you may act on it.
The question is, and I didn't see it answered in this or any other, did the FBI reveal to Meta, to Facebook, to the others?
Now, this is coming from Ukrainian intelligence, but we're just letting you know.
That's a big question.
But whatever the case, the idea that our FBI is colluding with a foreign intelligence service to silence American citizens, that is chilling.
Has it struck you that this is rather strange that we're talking about this and we're basing it on an article in CNN?
And I would have to say that we have to keep an open mind about getting information from CNN.
I think there's been bits of pieces popping up with CNN.
I happen to listen to Michael Schmerkonish, and he makes a sincere effort, you know, to try to get a balanced approach.
So I think there's more information coming out.
But just the first sentence in this article I find interesting.
The FBI participated in a flawed effort to stop Russian disinformation at the behest of a Ukrainian intelligence, which you've been talking about.
But see, if the old CNN, I don't think you'd have gotten that much balance in something like this.
So I mean, this is a long way from getting excited.
But, you know, we don't even get overly excited by some of our hawkish friends on television.
And for some reason, the real cancellation is the true libertarian position of non-intervention.
That's the one that you don't want to have it.
So if you just ask for, and we'll talk about this in a minute, just ask for more details about what's happening, like good accounting, you know, you don't get much support.
Yeah.
Well, we know for a fact, you know, through the whole Russia Gate disaster fiasco, that, quote, spreading Russian disinformation is a euphemism for saying things I don't want to hear.
You know, if you're a war hawk, if you're a neocon, I don't want to hear that, like when we say that there was a coup in 2014 that the U.S. was behind to overthrow the government.
That's Russian disinformation.
You know, it's objectively true, but it's Russian disinformation.
So the question that I think even we at the Liberty Report would have would be: what if the Ukrainians, Ukrainian intelligence, said these guys are not on board with our war?
Therefore, we're going to tell the FBI, you've got to silence, you've got to get these guys silenced.
And the FBI then passes on to YouTube, to Facebook.
I don't know that it happened, but it certainly could because we take a different view of foreign policy on Ukraine and everywhere else.
It's consistent, but they don't like it, so they pass it on.
Then the FBI sends a note to Zuckerberg: hey, these guys are bad guys.
I do know that the Ron Paul Institute's Facebook account is severely tightened.
They've even told us we will no longer recommend your page.
They do all sorts of things to destroy our viewership.
So maybe that did happen.
It'd be interesting to know.
Actually, there's less threat to us because we're not on a daily receiving end of money.
You know, there's a lot of money that flows into all the big companies, and there's a lot of regulations.
Of course, they get to us through regulations and other things.
So the ones that are dependent on government money and contracts and this sort of thing, and the regulations, once the government's involved in owning it, that's why the answer to so much of this is property ownership and staying away from the government.
The government's supposed to protect us, not use what they put out there and say, well, if you don't do as we say, we're going to withdraw it.
And that, of course, is how you build the military industrial complex because they say that a bunch of people in the military and industrial complex have brainwashed themselves, but we're the ones who truly defend this country.
And you have to have weapons to defend it.
And that's why we're always safe and secure and we never get into useless war.
Oh, I forgot.
I think that's happened once or twice.
So you're saying we should be happy that we operate on a shoestring here, right?
There's no way to corrupt us.
We don't have any money.
But I still emphasize the fact that the First Amendment isn't encouraged in the issue of property rights.
Like immigration should be couched in the right of owner and property, you know, and property rights.
Because if more land was owned by individuals, that you would control who comes and goes.
And I've used it as an analogy.
What if 100 of us ended up on an island?
We all believed in the libertarian principles.
You wouldn't need a government to protect the border.
That's true.
Because you'd have to do everything with a voluntary agreement.
Everything has to be voluntary.
Exactly.
Well, let's move ahead.
And I want to skip the next one because I don't want to repeat myself or ourselves on this.
But go to the next one in the emails cited in the committee, if you can.
I don't know if we can go to that next one.
Skip one and go to the next one.
There we go.
Thank you.
So in the emails cited in the committee's report, the FBI agents do not at any point demand that social media content be taken down.
Instead, the FBI agents pass the information on from the SBU, which is Ukrainian intelligence, and ask the social media platforms to review the counts and take action they deem appropriate.
That's like saying the IRS doesn't demand that you pay them, but they suggest that you pay your taxes, right?
You get a letter, if you're a company and you get a letter from the FBI saying, you know, X, Y, and Z. Chances are you're not going to say, ah, this is the FBI.
Just throw it away junk mail.
It has the implied weight of the U.S. president attached to it.
That's the whole point.
Like intimidation.
Intimidation.
Exactly.
The one other last one, if we can't, this is just a finer point on it.
The report also alleges, if we can put that next one up, it also alleges that the FBI transmitted SBU censorship requests for content on Google and YouTube.
The committee, they interviewed a senior employee on Google's cybersecurity team who identified was deluged with various requests for the removal of content following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That means translating to actual English is that legitimate American accounts that have an opinion different than the Biden administration about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, regardless of what that is, they have a First Amendment right to express.
And here comes the FBI saying, oh, no, you don't.
We decide what you Americans can say or not.
We have the guns.
Yeah, we have the guns.
We don't have the guns.
We just institutionalize these places.
We're not supposed to have guns.
Like all guns.
So there is a gun.
But ordinarily, governments, everybody knows they have guns if necessary to come in.
You obey or not.
So that's the opposite of what a libertarian society should be all about.
But we'll keep fighting the battle.
Revelations Keep Coming00:10:27
Hopefully these revelations keep coming out.
You know, they should.
Well, let's move on because this is interesting.
And this is something we've been talking about for a while.
If you go about that next one, this is from Yahoo News, but it's available elsewhere.
They're doing the NDAA.
They're trying to finish the military spending for next year.
And there is an amendment there to put in an independent inspector general to look over the money.
And we've talked about this a lot.
We've talked about John Sopko, who was the Afghanistan Inspector General, who did a terrific job looking at the money and showing where it went astray.
Well, here's the Yahoo.
The White House wants Ukraine inspector general out of defense bill.
They do not want, and Senator Paul talked about this from the very beginning.
Okay, you guys, you have your money, but we need someone to look over it.
And if you put this next one on, This is the last part.
So the Ukraine Inspector General is one of the several provisions in fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that the White House in an Office of Management and Budget Statement on the bill told Congress it wants removed.
No independent Inspector General.
You know, I like audits.
If you haven't noticed the audit is very important, but it's sad that that's where the real problem, the real problem is that so much of this spending exists.
You know, if we weren't doing so much, if you didn't have a Federal Reserve running the world with reserve currency and burning up these deficits and all, you wouldn't have to have the audit.
And so I got criticized once by a person that generally agreed with me.
He says, you talk too much about the audit.
You have to talk about getting rid of the Fed.
Well, I talk about that too.
But they say if you, if, and my argument, and the same way with the military, if you get a chance to audit, you find out who's cheating, stealing, and what they're doing.
And maybe, maybe the policy will reflect how foolish some of this stuff is.
And, I mean, we don't audit the Fed, but we don't audit the Pentagon.
We don't even, even when this extra stuff comes, the president has the last word.
Yeah, yeah.
Unfortunately.
Exactly.
Well, if we go ahead one, and Matt Gates we occasionally praise, and he deserves it on this because he was the one who put the language in to create the Ukraine Inspector General when the Housing Services Committee marked it up in June.
They eventually voted 58 to 1 to advance the bill to the House floor.
The House's defense spending bill, which the APROPES Committee advanced 34 to 24 in June, over Democratic objections would fund the Ukraine Inspector General.
And forward one more, because I talk a lot about John Sopko.
I think he's, I've never met him, but I have a lot of admiration for him because he has a lot of the right enemies, including the people who make a lot of money off war.
But this is from another article.
It says, John Sopko, the independent inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction, warned in February, and we talked about this when he warned, that strong safeguards were needed to prevent corruption from undermining Washington's aid packages for Ukraine.
Failure to learn from U.S. mistakes in Afghanistan, where much aid was diverted or stolen, could lead to a repeat in Ukraine, he said.
And here's a quote.
You're going to get corrupt elements, not only a Ukraine or host government, but also U.S. government contractors or other third-party contractors to steal the money.
So the question is, if that's the case, and this guy's an expert, why wouldn't you just want someone to have an eye on it for the American people?
Well, there's ulterior motives, you know.
And I think we get a hint of what the ulterior motives are.
They don't want to know the facts of where it's going because in the end, the Pentagon said in June a $6.2 billion accounting error, and they don't know where the money went.
Yeah, yeah.
So, and Biden's the one now that says, but maybe, what did he do with all that money?
I thought they only dealt in a million.
This money is missing, and it's an error.
It's a minor thing.
So that was another reason why they thought they could raise the national debt limit.
Oh, we fund this extra money.
They probably just ran the presses overnight, you know.
They were going to do it.
But that's what they're doing.
They don't want, it is the issue of truth.
They don't want to hear the truth.
They don't want the truth about what if you do ABC that you're going to get this.
And if you pretend you're going to run the world on printed press money and that you have an empire that will last forever, you know, the truth is it doesn't happen that way.
How about how many stories were told when we were getting to go ready to go into Afghanistan?
You know, they said, well, what does the history show about that?
Nobody's ever conquered them.
Well, let's do it anyway.
Let's do it anyway.
And we always took credit.
At least we fooled the Russians and the Soviets.
We played games with them, and they went in there, and we helped his enemies who turned out to be the Taliban and ran the Russians.
So we had to leave a vacuum.
We had to be there.
So they're not interested in audits and understanding and the consequences of policy.
And I always like to go back the one step.
Yeah, we have to do all this stuff.
We have to watch for all the criminality, the stealing, and all this dumb stuff.
But the whole thing is, it's better to know what the basic principle is.
The basic principle in foreign policy would be non-interventionism.
The basic principle of monetary policy would be honest money.
You know, not complicated at all.
But they don't want to have that because the people, this has been this way all throughout history.
There's a certain group of people who get control of the money.
And then they get control of the power and the politics of it.
And unfortunately, it's an epidemic right now.
And the people are losing out.
And that's why we're seeing the fighting in the streets and all.
But as I like to say, there's some positive things.
More people are realizing what's happening.
And let's hope we see some more positive things happen this election.
Absolutely.
Now, your point about that $6.2 billion, I would say that's exhibit A as to why we need an inspector general, an independent one.
Oh, our accounting error, we should billion one else.
Okay, that's fine.
If that happened, okay, we'll take your word for it.
But don't you think you should have someone to catch these things before?
So anyway, well, our last one, I don't, I didn't do a clip for it.
I apologize, but we just wanted to follow up on yesterday's show about the cluster bombs and that one you have over there.
That's Matt Gates over there to your left.
Now, he has said that he's going to co-sponsor a Democrat lead-sponsored bill to deny the cluster bombs from being sent to Ukraine.
Yeah, and there's a lot of symbolism here, but in reality, once again, there's some practical things there because it is true that these things linger and more innocent people die.
But my argument was that's what war is all about.
War is about killing.
And I don't think there's, especially the bigger the war, the less concern they have for citizens and places.
Used to be, oh, we will only bomb the factories that build the tanks and the airplanes.
Well, it doesn't end up that way.
But this is symbolism, but it's one that sort of drags them out.
So when it's so bad, people think, well, you know, this is true.
This is terrible, you know, that people are totally innocent.
Well, if you look at it, I think the number of people who are totally innocent are very, very high in percentages.
The people who are guilty are the people who orchestrate war.
And there's way too many of those.
And then the next group are the people who get sucked into it by saying, oh, they're right.
You know, you have to borrow money and do whatever because it's national security.
If they don't deal with national security, I heard that story after 9-11.
They said, you can't worry about liberty now because it's so dangerous.
And so that took a whole week to pass the Patriot Act.
And I think that's still around, if I'm not mistaken.
For sure.
Well, this sounds great on the surface that he's going to join with Democrats to sponsor this.
And sure, this bipartisan opposition to escalation is important.
But I also recall something that you've always made a very, very strong point about, which is that In the area of warfighting, the president has broad constitutional authority.
So you could say, well, it really is not within Congress's authority to tell the president how to fight a war.
But I think the response to that, maybe I'm overthinking this, but the response would be there is no declared war.
So are they, I mean, this is a question I wanted to ask you: do you think they're overstepping their bounds, telling him you can't give him these kinds of weapons?
Or do you think the fact that there has been no declaration or authorization would trump that?
Well, I think yesterday I alluded to the fact that they used words to distort things.
And what was the first thing that UN did?
They got us into a war in Korea.
So, and I make fun of it because it is, well, call it something else.
Call it a police action.
No, they're not official wars.
They're unofficial.
And even, I think it was Grover Cleveland that the Congress said that you have to go to war against Spain.
I don't remember the year exactly, but it was the end of the last century.
And they said to go to war.
No, Grover Cleveland said, well, you, Congress saying, we get to declare the war.
He says, yes, but I declare when the troops go.
So I thought it was really neat to point it out because, in a way, the power of the purse, that's what does sometimes happen.
It's going to happen again because eventually we run out of purchasing power.
And that's how, you know, it got so expensive.
Congress, well, expensive politically, the 60s were horrible financially and all this.
Demonstrations Against Violence00:02:36
And they finally, the people rose up against it.
That's why we had the demonstrations.
That's why, you know, the demonstrations, hopefully they remain nonviolent.
Unfortunately, right now they're getting more violent because people are more determined.
But the people, COVID, you can find out some demonstrations that were very, very positive and had good results.
At the same time, the propaganda just gets more aggressive.
And they're claiming that, well, what was the other one?
They had a college poll, and they said that 40% are radical left-leaning people.
Holy man, where do these numbers come from?
So I just have a little more confidence and like to urge people to do what they think is necessary to promote truth rather than accepting all the nihilistic viewpoints.
Well, you can't know truth.
Let's do whatever we want.
And the people who win are the ones with the most power and are the most convinced that there is no guilt.
There is no reason to feel guilty.
And the vicious criminal gets to that point.
I don't feel guilty.
And they just carry on at the same process.
But I think that's been around for a long time.
But that doesn't mean that we haven't had some good ups and bad downs.
There's a lot of good things that have been accomplished.
And a lot of people refer this to the great things that have happened.
If you can blind your eyes to some of the bad things, is Western civilization.
Just think of what's going on in Western civilization.
Unfortunately, though, the two exists, and there's always some bad people and bad stuff out there.
Bad actors.
Well, I'm going to close if you put that very last clip on by reminding our viewers some of the topics that you hear on the program on the Liberty Report.
We will be discussing on September 2nd in the Dolus Airport area, Easy In and Out if you don't want to go into DC.
We are going to have some whistleblowers talking about the weaponization of the FBI.
It's a hot topic, and you're going to want to hear what they have to say.
So get your tickets.
I will put a link when the show's over in the description, and I'll pin one in the comments later on so that you can get those tickets, get the Early Bird Special for the month of July, and save a little bit of money and come see us in September.
Collective Rights and Safety Concerns00:02:07
Dr. Paul, up to you.
Very good.
And I'm going to finish by just re-emphasizing a point that a few of us have made for a few years now going on, and that is to be aware of the dangers of having the security being the most important thing ever, being safe.
That's not the purpose of government.
Government can't make us safe.
If they want to be, it would be like a radical Soviet system.
They'll tell you what you can eat and when you can exercise and what you can read, the whole works, but they'll make you safe.
And they'll always use that safety, but they use national security as being safe, and therefore it justifies us to print money, run up debt, draft people, all the horrors that lead to war.
And that is a problem.
Safety is something that it should be the personal responsibility.
That doesn't mean that you can't get together voluntarily, but it doesn't mean you should turn it over to the United Nations and obey what the United Nations has to make us safe.
But safety is something that should be very close to home.
And the founders understood this.
And I think maybe that was one of the reasons that they gave us the Second Amendment, the ultimate protection against the people who want to come in.
And I think right now what we're lacking, both the issue and the argument about immigration, is the fact that we have lost that whole idea that property and ownership of land can take care of problems like this.
Because if we all lived on a, or a small number of people lived on a libertarian island, there would be no mass immigration.
The people who own it, you know, and this would be different.
Collective rights is a vicious thing that happens because all you have to do is get two or three or four groups of collectivists together and they become the dictatorship of the majority.
And that is not what Liberty is all about.
And the founders understood that issue very, very clearly.