Commercial Announcer 2 (6:06)

Confronting high credit card debt can feel scary. But the good news is if you owe $10,000 or more in credit card debt, financial relief options are now available. National Debt Relief is currently offering debt relief designed to reduce what you owe, fast tracking your way to being debt free. If you qualify for debt relief, you may be able to pay back significantly less than what you owe and save thousands of dollars. Imagine only paying one low monthly program payment you can afford and saving money as you become debt free. National Debt Relief has already helped bring debt relief to over 550,000 US consumers, earning thousands of five star reviews and an A rating with the Better Business Bureau. You're stronger than your credit card debt. Take the first step and visit nationaldebtrelief.com to see what debt relief you qualify for. That's National Debt Relief.com Daylight Saving Time hits and boom.

Commercial Announcer 1 (6:57)

You've lost an hour of sleep. Most of us just hope to catch up, but what if you could magically gain it back and then some good news. It's not magic, it's Coop sleep goods and they're transforming the way you sleep. Whether you toss and turn, wake up sore or sleep overheated, their pillows are designed to solve it. And right now during sleep week you can get up to 40% off site wide, including their best selling pillows. We all have our own sleeping quirks, so whether you're on your side, back or somewhere in between, you can customize the height and firmness by adding or removing fill. Plus Coop offers a 100 night better sleep guarantee so you can try it risk free. Better Sleep starts with Coop Shop. Their Sleep week sale now through March 16th. To save up to 40% site wide, visit coopsleepgoods.com comedy that's C O O P sleepgoods.com comedy all right, so excited

Emily (7:51)

to be joined tonight by Brian Dean Wright. He's a former CIA ops officer and he's host of the Wright Report, which I highly recommend you all check out. Brian, thank you so much for being here.

Brian Dean Wright (8:01)

It's great to be here. Congratulations. Great show. Look at you go. Love it.

Emily (8:06)

Well, it's so good to talk to you in the midst of this insane news cycle. Wild.

Brian Dean Wright (8:11)

Yeah.

Emily (8:12)

And for your purposes, I mean, do you get. This is a very random question, but as I just mentioned, former CIA ops officer, people who listen to your show know that do you ever get like, fomo now that you're out, do you watch some of this stuff go down and you're like, man, if I were there.

Brian Dean Wright (8:29)

Yeah, of course. Yeah. I mean, look, once you become an intel officer, you know, I started when I was, let's see, 24, so I was a pretty young guy when I went in. So that was, you know, pushing 20 plus years ago. So, yeah, when I see a lot of ops go down abroad or like, I see something, I'm like, I think that's an intel up right there. I'm like, oh, boy. But I wouldn't give me back. So, yeah, yeah, there's a little. Be a little, little part of me that wishes I could be back inside doing good work. But that's all right. I'm here with you. That's good.

Emily (8:55)

I was going to say, you're here on After Party, which is, I'm sure, very similar to Special.

Brian Dean Wright (9:00)

It's pretty much the same thing. Yeah.

Emily (9:02)

It's just like you right now you are in Doha and this is.

Brian Dean Wright (9:08)

You're my asset. I'm going to start debriefing. I'm going to send you to Iran. Let's go through the crypto process. We're going to pay you that. We're going to actually, you had teed something up that's really. Which is how do people communicate when you're inside of Iran and there's some really interesting old school, like Morse code, like stuff that's floating around there on shortwave radio right now trying to talk. We're not really sure exactly what that is. We can talk about that. Maybe Iran is trying to signal its terror networks abroad to start killing people, blowing stuff up. Maybe it's a CIA working inside of Iran telling its assets to get going. So there is all kinds of stuff in this news cycle that's below the headlines that's really, really interesting and very impactful for people's in ways that you might not even know.

Emily (9:53)

Oh, my gosh. You just made me even more excited to dive into this. So let's start with some big news from Donald Trump's Florida press conference just this evening. So here are a couple of big clips from that, like the headline type clips. This is S1. We'll start with this. Nope, we're queuing it up. Live audience

Brian Dean Wright (10:22)

want me to do my best prompt impression. I can just say something. The war to run. I'm winning. Nobody else can beat me. It's amazing.

Emily (10:30)

The best CIA. Let's try S3. Let's see if this works. Okay. We don't have. Okay, so basically let's actually. We'll get to the SOTs in just one second. I want to. Since this goes with exactly what we were just talking about. I was going to ask you about this anyway, but you kind of teased it, so let's dive right into it. Al Monitor reported. This is F3. The headline here. CIA, Mossad bolster Iran's Kurds as US Israel seek to Ignite Military Revolt. And this question that we were actually just going to play Trump answering is about how long the war goes. And we have this. Let's go with S1. This is a clip of Trump from this evening.

Donald Trump (11:12)

The Navy is gone. It's all lying at the bottom of the ocean. 46 ships. Can you believe it? In fact, I got a little upset with our people. I said, what quality of ship? Excellent, sir, Top of the line. I said, why did we just capture the ship? We're going to use it. Why did we sink them? He said, it's more fun to sink them. He said that's they like sinking them better. They say it's safer to sink them. I guess it's probably true, but think of it. We knocked out 46. It actually took three and a half days. Their terrorist leaders are gone or counting down the minutes until they will be gone. Think of it. We had leaders and they're gone. Then we had new leaders and they're gone. And now nobody has any idea who the people are that are going to be the head of the country and will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.

Emily (12:06)

Okay, Brian, Nobody knows, but there's some public indication that there's a CIA op with the Kurds, although that's also been disputed, which is interesting. Before I get your reaction, let's roll S3 here, too. On Iran. You called it an excursion. You said it would be over soon.

Commercial Announcer 1 (12:23)

Are you thinking this week it will be over days?

Donald Trump (12:26)

I think so.

Emily (12:27)

Okay.

Donald Trump (12:27)

And with respect, very soon, look, everything they have is gone, including their leadership. In fact, they have two levels of leadership, and even actually, as it turns out, more than that. But two levels of leadership are gone. Most people have never even heard about the leaders that they're talking about. So it's obviously been very, very powerful, very effective.

Emily (12:50)

This is a really important point, Brian, because the intelligence that the USA appears to this apparently was CIA communicating to Israel the location of the Ayatollah, who obviously was killed, it seems, because of that intelligence. And as you're looking at this from your vantage point, how much of this seems like grand strategy and how much of this seems like, well, the intelligence was you take out the Ayatollah, what comes next? We'll figure it out. The Kurds. How are you analyzing what happened from the outside here?

Brian Dean Wright (13:26)

Yeah. So let's start with the beginning of how they were able to find the Ayatollah. You know, there's some really incredible operations going on inside of the CIA and with inside of Mossad. What they're able to do was crack cameras throughout the city of Tehran, and they were able to watch the bodyguards that they believed that were responsible for protecting the Ayatollah and other regime officials, and they would watch them going from their homes to different locations throughout Tehran. That's how they were able to understand exactly where Ayatollah would be on any particular day. So the pattern of life information was able to get hacked by the CIA, by Mossad, and that's how we were able to know where everybody was gathering that Saturday morning, and we could then take them out. It just so happened that the. That meeting happened that morning and that day. The plan was not for everybody to be there at one time. And that's why the President, the CIA, gave that material to the Israelis and said, look, if you want to take these guys out, let's do it. It was a big op, and I think it changed a lot of planning. I don't think that we had any indications that it was. Everybody was going to be gathered that morning. And so it was a shot that we took that took out the ayatollah, a lot of the regime leadership, which is great. But as the President said, like, who comes second, who comes third? Well, we just wiped everybody out. The CIA and others at the Pentagon were counting on who was going to take over after the Ayatollah. Well, we killed everybody or the Israelis did in that strike. So now we have the real great change of who comes Next, not just for the Ayatollah, which obviously the Khomeini's son has been chosen now, but then also future leadership within what's called the irgc, which is the regime's main military that supports it. So there was just. The point is, from the average American's perspective, like, why should we care about that? Well, you got to negotiate with somebody to end a war. And when you wipe out all of your leadership, like, who do you talk to? You don't know. And Trump kind of jokes about it, but it really, really is serious when you try to look at an off ramp to how do you end this war now that the price of oil is going from like 80 to 120 barrel dollars a barrel down back to 80, it's really wild. It's very intense. A lot of people's lives are impacted by this. So that CIA op is a great op. We're able to find the Ayatollah, a lot of the regime leadership and unfortunately we took out a lot of people that we thought would be the number two or number three, our preferred choices. So that's why that particular op mattered.

Emily (15:37)

And on that point, I'm curious with Trump saying it could be over very soon, I mean, that could mean a lot of different things. How much does our ability to, I mean, Colin Powell had famously the you break it, you buy it, maximum. So it's contrasting, I think, in a lot of people's minds with Venezuela, where nothing was entirely broken. There was a very, very different, not so much customary quote, regime change operation in Venezuela. And is from your perspective, I mean, we're looking at these reports of the Kurds that we just had up on the screen with El Monitor. Khomeini's son is an IRGC guy. He was serving the IRGC, I think, in the 80s. How much of this depends on our ability to piece together some alternative to the irgc or to turn Khomeini son into Delsey Rodriguez, which seems laughable. Do we have to put it back together again with CIA boots on the ground, or is there a way to just kind of let Khamenei's son take over and hope for the best?

Brian Dean Wright (16:51)

That's the million dollar question that a lot of people are asking. So look, let's start with your, your main point, which is that the President, I think the Pentagon were believing that this operation in Iran could be somewhat similar to Venezuela. We take out, you know, 80% of the regime leadership, we lead the top person in charge and they'll be our puppet that's really the Venezuela model. What's very different about Venezuela as compared to Iran? Venezuela is pretty much one country with one group of people, one ethnicity, one religion, not a lot a long history of other nations around it, you know, invading. So that was that experience. It is, although Venezuela's a pretty good sized country. But the point is it's not historically as complex religiously, ethnically, and the rest of it. Iran, on the other hand, thousands of years of different competing empires and religions and ethnic groups and all the rest of it, it is a hornet's nest of a mess to try to get into. With about 60% of the Iranian people Persian, you've got about 20% who are Kurds, another 10% or so Azeris, and then in the far eas part of the country, people called the Baluch. So it's a. It's a really challenging place to try to govern. And in years gone by, not only does the current regime understand that, but you've got the different previous the Shahs and then the other families that came before him. So I think this idea that I've heard from the White House, that somehow this is going to be the same as Venezuela or similar, it's like, no, that's crazy. So the Kurds, of course, from the northwestern part of the country got to really understand that the Kurds are not just this monolith. They are represented by all kinds of different sorts of people. There's the Syrian Kurds, there's the Iraqi Kurds, there's the Iranian Kurds. And then within each group there are sub tribes and sub and clans and families. And some of them are super, super far left. They're Marxist, they're communist. Some of them are much more capitalist. So when you talk about, like, are we going to arm some of the Kurds? Well, which Kurds are we talking about? And then can you actually control those people? Because maybe today you're gonna, you're gonna find the Kurds, they're from Iran, that are hunkered down in Iraq right now. So you're going to give them a bunch of weapons. Are they really going to be the proxy force that you want? Are they really going to stay true to what your tasking is, or are they going to go sort of off reservation, to use that on PC term? And I think that that's one of the great challenges of any proxy force that the CIA has used over the years is how long do they stick with you. It's a very transactional relationship.

Emily (19:06)

So the CIA was, I was going to say Tulsi Gabbard, who's now in charge of the dni. She's the Director of National Intelligence. So she's literally in charge of national intelligence. Intelligence famously is very critical that we ended up via the CIA funding both sides of the Syrian civil war because of the way that situation transpired. And I just have a hard time looking at the situation again totally from the outside and expecting things to go differently. I don't know, is my cynicism misplaced?

Donald Trump (19:38)

No.

Brian Dean Wright (19:38)

I think that you're looking at the last 25 years of US history in the region. You're sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan. That hasn't worked out well. We look at Libya has not worked out well. Syria has not worked out well. And I think if you really dig into some of the Afghanistan experience, we try to work with some of the tribal leaders on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan along the Duran line, and that did not work out well either. So we've got about 25 plus years of it not going so well. So your cynicism is completely well placed in my view. And that's why when I first started hearing the president, others talking about using the Kurds, I'm like, no, no, don't do it.

Emily (20:14)

Yeah, that was really a reaction. That's super interesting.

Brian Dean Wright (20:16)

For sure, for sure. Look, the agency has told, and I can tell you this with high confidence, the agency, through Director Ratcliffe at the CIA told President Trump as well as some of our Arab partners has said, look, this is not the right group of people to work with. We don't have them fully vetted. We have some historical relationships with some of the Iraqi Kurds, definitely with the Syrian Kurds who don't like us anymore. And it's just, it's going to be a mess. So it's going to complicate things, especially as the Turks, the government of Turkey and Ankara, it's like, do not work with them. Iraq government, Baghdad, do not work with them. So it's just going to get really, really complicated really quickly. And I think that the president very wisely did a U turn is like, all right, we're not going to work with the Kurds. It's just going to make things a lot more complicated. And as you teed up perfectly in today's presser, he said or emphasized a lot more focus on just the nuclear mission. Let's go after the loose nuke material, let's go after those scientists, let's maybe go after the delivery systems, those icbm, those long range missiles, but let's keep that mission really tight, really narrow, and let's focus on that stuff because per Gallup polling, 80% of Americans say it's good to focus on trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world. So that's something that the president politically would be very smart to do a U turn on, get away from the regime change stuff, turn that over to the Israelis and the Arabs, let him focus on the nuclear mission. Makes a lot more sense.

Emily (21:33)

Now. This question of boots on the ground often calls to mind the images of, you know, ground troops, army, etc. And Marines. How much of that could possibly be is CIA? I'm asking this question like a dummy because. No, not at all. I mean, it's. I think it seems fairly obvious to me that there are CIA operations happening in Iran right now. But I guess the question is assets versus agents versus right. Like explain to us what's like.

Brian Dean Wright (22:08)

Yeah, so look, I think what you're seeing is a lot what happened in Ukraine. So we went in both of the CIA and we went in with Special Forces and we set up bases throughout Ukraine and we fought the Russians. We were providing targeting intelligence to the Ukrainians to better kill Russians. So that's what we did in Ukraine. And I think that that's what we're doing here as well in Iran is that we're sending in probably. I don't know if it's CIA officers necessarily, but definitely our assets, the people that a guy like me would have recruited, we would then put them inside of Iran to do different things like targeted packaging, putting together like pattern of life behavior. We want to kill somebody or we want to blow up a facility. What do the guards get there? How long do they stay at their post? At what time do they take breaks? How long do those breaks last? Who are those people? At what point are there no guards? What are the narrow opportunities to, to exfil or infiltrate, say a special Forces person going to grab nuclear material, all that kind of information, Those kind of asset networks, those are absolutely inside of Iran right now. We're collecting that intelligence and that then allows us boots on the ground, but not an invasion force. We're talking about like a very small number, 15, 20, 25 guys, probably from Delta Force. They've got a specific group of guys that go after loose nuke material. So it would be those guys that, once we have that good intel, the Mossad, the Israelis have brilliant networks inside of Iran as well. We collect that information at probably facilities like ones called Isfahan, other ones in the Tanz but the one at Isfahan is probably where most of the material is at. Not buried and entombed under dozens and dozens of feet, but maybe just a handful of feet. That nuclear material that's enriched to about 60%, it's in containers about the size of a big scuba air tube. So that's what, you know, what you're looking to figure out is what kind of security is around that. To then with the CIA networks, Mossad networks. Then you're sending in your boots on the ground. Those are the Special Forces guys, the Delta guys. They're going in with whatever period of time they think they're going to need to dig that stuff up that's in a shallow grave, as it were, grab it and then get out. Either destroy it there on site, or probably more likely you're going to send into helicopters, grab those guys and then get them out with material.

Emily (24:20)

And that's so interesting. What is the feasibility? I mean, obviously again, we're talking on a podcast here, but the feasibility of our current military readiness preparation. I mean, again, the Venezuela operation went swimmingly from the strategy perspective of the admin. So the feasibility of recovering nuclear material enriched 60%. From your vantage point, how likely feasible of a goal is that?

Brian Dean Wright (24:50)

Yeah. So look, there are sites that we know are a pretty high confidence that we know where that nuclear material is at and we know the depth at which it's buried. The stuff that's really entombed. I don't think we're super concerned about that. We want to keep a watch on that with both on the ground intel networks as well as satellite imagery. So that part I think is less concerning for the administration. I think what's more concerning is that stuff that isn't quite buried as deeply, or maybe we've got a collapsed tunnel, you know, whatever number of feet, and the Iranians can get back in there relatively quickly. That's the part that the administration, the CIA and the Pentagon are worried about. And that's what Delta would go in and do. Have those guys done that work before? They have, but we really, praise God, have not had a ton of loose nuke issues to worry about. And so Delta might have to dust off their boots a little bit with this particular mission, but they can do it. This is what they trained to do. This is what the CIA does. They have networks on the ground to find this intel to then inform the mission. But look, it's a high, it's a high risk situation. Anytime that you're gonna have boots on the ground for any extended period of time, which you would probably need to have a fair number of hours, maybe longer, even potentially days. You're gonna need to control that turf to a certain degree. It just really depends on the amount of material, how deep it's buried and how long it's gonna take to get that out. Based on that, you're gonna have to make some big decisions about how long to deploy guys and how much of that turf you're really gonna need to control. And I think what I'm hearing from the president is, is that we're going to need some guys on the ground for more than just like an hour or less. We're probably going to need them there for a substantially longer period of time, which means that you're going to have to keep up this campaign. Even though we didn't say today we're not going to do it for a lot longer, I think you're going to have to keep it up for a while to really create some space in these areas like Ispahan to deploy our guys. It's either that or you get a new set of leaders in Tehran, whichever ones are alive today, and then they agree to give up some of this material and let inspectors go in there and do proper job to find this material and get it out when I

Emily (26:41)

just wanted to go back to that point. Before we wrap up this segment, I wonder what perspective you could share with us on intelligence sharing between Mossad, Israeli intelligence in general, CIA, American intelligence in general. Because the point you were making earlier about what could. I was also just generally curious. I'm kind of grafting two questions together here. What you made of the first week where there it was, it wasn't exactly the Bay of Pigs, but you have this idea where there's, there's air cover and there isn't no obvious counter. There is no obvious counter revolution. You don't have everyone rising up in the streets, seizing power from the IRGC and the like. So I guess the two parts of the question are one, do you sense an intelligence failure that we thought something would materialize that didn't? Was it our hand being forced to. And then the second part of the question is what's the intelligence sharing like and how important is that going to be going forward?

Brian Dean Wright (27:40)

Yeah. So let me tackle the first question. I don't think it was an intelligence failure. I think what the CIA, in fact, I know what the agency told the White House, the National Security Council is look, there is nobody that's rising up in part because the regime for 20 plus 30, actually, what, 40 years now has squelched any kind of rebellion and they have killed lots of people. In fact, in the past six weeks or so, we're talking about 10 to 40 plus thousand people were killed by the regime. Plus the average person doesn't have weaponry, isn't not able to organize themselves. So I don't think anybody had any kind of belief that there would be this sort of organic uprising. So that's the first piece. I don't think there was an intel failure there at all. Had there been something that would have been the incredible part of like where did these proxy forces inside Tehran come from? We have no idea. As for the intelligent sharing, and this gets to some of the allegation that is Israel leading this is Netanyahu kind of pulling Trump by the nose to get us involved in this. And look, from an intel sharing perspective, from it, from a nation perspective, different countries have different goals and different interests. I can tell you, working with the British, who are supposed to be our number one ally and are supposed to be our best friends. Right. You know, 60 plus years ago when we were thinking about whether we should get involved in the Second World War, Churchill set up a propaganda arm inside the United States in New York to convince FDR and the United States, American people to join the war. So from that till about 10 years ago, I had a British intel officer, a gal like she was a honey pot. She was like, brian, why don't you come over to the UK and we'll hang out. You're so handsome. I'm like, okay, lady, I know the

Emily (29:12)

one British woman with good teeth.

Brian Dean Wright (29:13)

They're like, oh, I'm tempted and I'm flattered, but the answer is no. But look, the point is any foreign nation has interests and they will try to manipulate the United States to get what they want. The British do it, the French do it, and you still work with them. In fact, we do ops on occasion with the Chinese and the Russians even still. So with that sort of context, you have to appreciate and understand that Israel is not going to be any different. Israel also uses honey pots. And I can tell you that from another personal perspective, they will send very, very pretty girls to sit next to you on an airplane and try to squeeze you in information. So all nations do it. Is Netanyahu trying to do that with us in this war to try to get more or bigger change out of Iran? I would be shocked if the answer were no. Of course, I would imagine he is. And he's going to try to make the case with Trump that why it's in America's interest to do that. But I think what the president is now saying, what I heard him say in his presser tonight is, look, we have to get back to this focus on the nukes and the missile, the delivery systems. That is a defensible position for him. It might not be whether Israelis or Netanyahu wants. And that's okay because we have very good intel sharing with Mossad. Not everything. And sometimes when you share intel, it's not to just inform, it's also to influence. So the Israelis may share intel with us. It's really good. But the whole point is like to get us to do something. So you have to be really careful. If you're a CIA director or you're a president, you have to really understand that nations intend to both influence you and inform you. That includes with your intel sharing. And you got to be really careful to make sure you stay focused on your particular country's mission. Because any country, from the Brits to the Chinese to yes, the Israelis will try to pull you off if you're not real careful.

Emily (30:47)

Oh my goodness, this is fascinating. Brian Dean Wright is going to be with us on the other side of this break, so we'll be right back. Stick around. Have you dabbled in investing here and there, but haven't been happy with how things are going? Stash helps turn good intentions into consistent progress. Stash isn't just another investing app. It's a registered investment advisor that combines automated investing with expert personalized guidance so you don't have to worry about gambling or figuring it out on your own. Stash is simple, smart and stress free. Choose from personalized investments. Let Stash's award winning smart portfolio do the work for you or pick a combo of both. Stash is there to guide you every step of the way. Don't let your money sit around. Put it to work with Stash. Go to get get.stash.com Emily to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures. That's get.stash.com Emily get.stash.com Emily paid non client endorsement Not a guarantee nor representative of all clients. Smart portfolios are discretionary managed accounts and subject to additional fees. See the Advisory Agreement and Deposit Account Agreement for details. Investment Advisory Services offered by Stash Investments LLC and SEC registered investment advisor investing involves risk

Commercial Announcer 1 (32:16)

day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance. Support is ready whenever you reach. Reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly. Because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either. Do you have $10,000 or more in credit card debt? Maybe you're even barely getting by making minimum payments. With credit card debt hitting record highs, National Debt Relief offers real debt relief solutions for people struggling to keep up. These options may reduce a large portion of credit card debt for those who qualify. You don't need to declare bankruptcy, and you may be able to pay back less than you owe, regardless of your credit. National Debt Relief has already reduced the credit card debt for more than 550,000 consumers. So don't wait. If you owe 10, 20, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, you can now take advantage of this financial debt relief as the cost of living increases. To find out how much you could save, Visit National Debt Relief.com. that's NationalDebtRelief.com not gonna lie.

Emily (33:33)

Now that we're back with Brian Dean Wright, host of the Wright Report, former CIA officer. I opened a second beer during the commercial break and it exploded all over me. So, Brian, I hope you're having a better experience with whatever's in your mug.

Brian Dean Wright (33:46)

You know what? Thank you. It's water. Because I'm a TED roller and I spent most of my years at the Agency drinking, drinking too much. So my liver is recovering. But I appreciate a beer exploding. I've had some fun experiences out in the field with beer. Some Arabs, they're naughty, naughty people. Since we're talking about the Arabs. Bunch of luscious. Anyway, you brought it up, but I digress. But I digress. You should go to the Middle East. They would love you. They drink secretly. It's fine.

Emily (34:11)

They like the beer over there. I would think they would be more into spirits.

Brian Dean Wright (34:15)

Well, it's. It's all the above. It's all the sinning. They just do it in private. Yeah, no, you know, the drinking, the hookers and the gambling. It's just. They just do it in private, I'm telling you.

Emily (34:23)

So that has to be odd in a place like Iran. Just I'm on a tangent now where you don't. Especially because there's been this, like, weird softening of like, the morality police over the last year, like, just sensing out the situation in a country where it is religiously diverse and it, I mean, that just has to Be incredibly mind melding to try. Like you gotta be in a pretzel trying to figure out what to do and when.

Brian Dean Wright (34:52)

Yeah. You know, one of the huge drug trades that's going on in the Middle east right now is a drug called Captagon. You know, there's this official veneer of the Middle east that's very pious and that's certainly true of the royal families and a lot of people in public, but behind closed doors, there's a ton of cocaine going on all throughout the country. Captagon is huge. And you've got a ton of people who travel to Europe and party there. It's. Look, and I can tell you, I don't know how many Arab diplomats that I hang, that I hung out with or worked with that were like big boozers and big gamblers and they had more mistresses than you could shake a stick at. And they were. I don't even want to go into the radar stuff. It gets real nasty real quick. Terrible things for my country.

Emily (35:34)

Well, you probably saw the Sultan Suleim emails in the Epstein files where he's making wildly awful color jokes. It's an Emirati. Wildly off color jokes.

Brian Dean Wright (35:43)

Not just jokes. Not just jokes. Those people are dirty. They're right dirty, mama, let me tell you.

Emily (35:47)

So that rang true to you?

Brian Dean Wright (35:49)

Oh, yeah, yeah. No, it's. Let me just tell you, I. I want. And I'll keep this PG13. I went to an Arab diplomat's house and I walked in there and he was doing like a Skype session kind of deal with a Kuwaiti princess. And I'm not going to tell you specific details, but there weren't a lot of clothes involved on either side of the camera. And I walk in and I'm like, just keep bringing on the black label whiskey. This is what I'm doing for my country right now. Everybody owes me America. You're welcome. This is awful. Yeah, so look, it's all these societies abroad. They've got the veneer of what they want you to believe about who they are, but then underneath that, there are different kinds of real life. It's like Real Housewives of the Middle east and all the dirty stuff that happens behind the scenes. Anyway, so next Bravo show, you've heard of it.

Emily (36:39)

Well, on that note, let's talk about Havana Syndrome, which if people don't follow this closely, it is and has been a source of enormous controversy among the kind of CIA skeptical crowd and the maybe more establishment defense policy crowd, but also actually within apparently the CIA itself. It seems 60 minutes dropped a 27, 27 minute, not quite 60, 27 minute expose investigation based on years of reporting into Havana Syndrome. On Sunday evening, some big highlights. Scott Pelley said one of the things that makes Havana Syndrome, which is of course, if again, people haven't been following this, you have people in the US intelligence community saying that they feel intense pains, tinnitus, like their head is in a vise. And the suspicion is that this has been done, as the CBS report said, by literal microwaves, like in, in the air, via an estate actor. Obviously with the Havana Syndrome name you can take guesses at some of the suspects. But in the CBS report they say that Russians have been doing this research for decades. Decades ago, the CIA believed it was unlikely. This is again, according to CBS News in 60 Minutes. At the time, the CIA dismissed it as not possible. But here's what one former CIA officer told CBS in the package last night. This is going to be S7.

Brian Dean Wright (38:13)

I remember feeling, you know, that this is so unusual. I'd been shot at in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd been in physical danger, but this was terrifying. He was treated for vertigo, migraines, loss of vision and trouble with memory and concentration. Disabled, he retired later in 2023. His own agency was among those that concluded it is very unlikely that he and the others were attacked by an adversary, which of course to me is a betrayal because CIA is supposed to be about putting people first and they did not. Are you saying this is a cover up? This is a massive CIA cover up. And I'll say, I say this with great regret. It's an organization that I loved. I believe in the mission. I was really good at this job. To this day, I want to see the CIA operate in a strong and effective manner.

Emily (39:07)

He alleges that the CIA covered it up for fear that would come from a state actor having this capability. Now, Brian, you know this as well as I do. People who are skeptics of the CIA, longtime skeptics of the CIA, laugh at Havana Syndrome. They're like, okay, you gotta be kidding me. It sounds like a way to gin up militarism or hostility toward Cuba or Russia. And so they dismiss it and say, oh, these poor CIA officers, they're making up these sob stories. Haha. On the other hand, this guy is saying, no, it was actually the CIA who covered up the existence of Havana Syndrome. So what the hell is going on here?

Brian Dean Wright (39:48)

So let's just step back and I will tell you up front on a personal perspective or personal history. A friend of mine Died about three or four years ago. And one of the things that she suffered from, she believed that she was attacked by one of these directed energy weapons. And it was, it was part of what drove her ultimate ailments that took her alive. So this is a personal issue, but I also can be a little bit, I guess have a bit of distance from this. And let's just start here. Directed energy weapons, there's nothing new about them. There's nothing new about the suggestion that we should create these and use them. The idea, of course, is whether it be a laser, whether it be microwave, whether it be sound waves, whatever it is, you create this and you direct that energy towards an adversary or even towards a crowd. And you make their body heat, you make the, you know, tinnitus, you make them feel uncomfortable. They just want to get out of the way. You can do that with different kinds of directed energy. The challenge historically in terms of an engineering perspective with these weapons is they have to have a lot, a lot of power to drive that energy, to create that energy, to make it consistent. So over the years it's been one of these ideas of like, maybe someday we can do this. But the size of the energy we're talking about, like a truck or in some cases depending on the weapon and what you're trying to fire around, it would need to be the size of a small building. So the concern of some folks out there who are like, I was in this, my car, I was in a house, you would have to have a really, really big energy supply to really hurt someone inside of that building or that car. And so I think from an engineering perspective, that's why there was a bias initially, I think, towards people saying that this kind of directed energy weapon is highly unlikely. It's not to say, per the CIA report, that these people aren't suffering from things, but that a directive energy weapon probably isn't it. And one of the earliest victims came from Havana in Cuba. So that's why they call it Havana Syndrome. Now, whether that was the Cubans doing it or the Russians or the Chinese or others, we didn't really know, but that's the underlying issue or concern. So then about four years ago, three years ago, from my understanding, there was an offer on the black market of some Russian affiliated people who said that we can give you, we can sell you a weapon that is basically a backpack like weapon, that's a directed energy weapon and we bought it. There's an element within the US Government who does that and they bought it and they've been testing it because it was a really surprise that that could be miniaturized and then utilized in that way. It's been reverse engineered. And my understanding is that it's, it's legitimate. And so that would suggest that the Russians have had this weapon for some period of time, that they had a technological leap in a way that we didn't appreciate, and that some of these people, I don't know what number of percentage, but a certain number of these people at the CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon have been injured by these directed energy weapons. And it's probably the Russians. It could also be a Russian gun for hire who is being paid under the table by Russian intel or an ex wife or who knows? But they're going on the dark web and they're organizing these things. So the bigger point that now that thing Trump has called one of the weapons, allegedly the discombobulator, using it in, in Venezuela during the raid in Tico Maduro, that we've been able to reverse engineer that and then use that as our own weapon. Not from a lethal perspective, but it has caused, when we landed, it caused when people started bleeding from their nostrils and terrible headaches and all the rest of it. It didn't kill them, but it disabled them for a short period of time. You know, that's a potential good use, as it were, of a directed energy weapon. But I think that that technology is a little bit new and if it goes sideways, it can really hurt people and damage them. And so I think the clip that you played at the CIA officer is probably reflective of somebody who got hit by that. I believe he was in Moscow at the time when he got hit by it, and he was a guinea pig by the Russians to see if this could work. And if it did, you know, they were very angry at the Biden administration for what they were doing in Ukraine, which is we were providing intel to kill the Russians. Our CIA was working with Special Forces in Ukraine to kill Russian generals and Russian soldiers. So all's fair in love and war from their perspective, taking out some of our CIA guys or Pentagon guys with a direct to energy weapon to make them suffer. They don't care. I mean, you got to remember early on in the war in Ukraine, we brought down a plane that had over 100 men, over 100 Russian men on it and a fair number of generals. So it's. This war has been very costly from Russia's perspective, and they're more than happy to get back at us. So I think that that's the broader context of this directed energy weapon concern issue. It's real. It's been under engineering sort of the radar for many, many years. It looks like the Russians beat us to it, looks like we're reverse engineering it. And I think that that requires probably the Trump administration to declassify what we know so that we can help these people who've been impacted by. By it, people who are still with us. My friend is not, you know, how much of her death was caused by it, I don't still know to this day. But it's real. And I think Cavanaugh Syndrome. I've gone from a bit more of a skeptic around the underlying engineering for it to with this discovery, I'm a lot more keen to say we need to declassify what we know and be honest with our people who've been hurt.

Emily (44:52)

That's exactly what I was going to ask next because here you have the CBS News report that is posting Maduro raid. Were these reports from Cuban soldiers? I believe it was the Cuban report that was going absolutely viral at the time, explaining or explaining the experience of what sounded exactly like others reports of Havana Syndrome. And so why would the CIA continue to not just come clean when CBS News is saying, hey, we're running a big 60 Minutes package on this, it's based on our reporting going back years and years. Is it help. Help us understand, reading between the lines from the outside here, Brian, why the CIA doesn't want people to know it has this capability, or at least not in a news report, it doesn't want to confirm it?

Brian Dean Wright (45:40)

Well, I think you start getting back to this issue of at what point was that weapon secured by this Russian black or gray arms dealer? What are those intel networks that we use to get in front of those people and what degree are we going to burn those networks that are quite important in other operations that might be a part of it? I think that you then have to weigh like, what are the pros and the cons of revealing that network to letting everybody know that there actually is this kind of weapon. And then the fact that we've reverse engineered and we're using it in the discombobulator, at least in one case or one example, like that starts to get me to some classified capabilities too, that if we were to go to war with, let's say, China, we wouldn't necessarily want them to know that we have that weapon.

Commercial Announcer 2 (46:22)

Weapon.

Brian Dean Wright (46:22)

We would want that to be our secret weapon that we would bring to a war and knock them out, that they could otherwise be prepared for if we declassified it now and started talking about it now. So I think that there could be some reasonable explanations for why they're not talking about it. But if you're going to believe that and think that's possible, you got to believe that your leadership at the CIA or the ODNI or the White House are really going to do the right thing and they're going to keep self classified for the right reasons. And I think what this country has seen for the past 10 years is a lot of us don't really trust the CIA anymore. We don't trust the odni, we don't trust the nsa, we don't trust the FBI. And for good reason. Class Fire Hurricanes started with no predicate. The CIA involved in some of the most horrible attacks on this country and you're in its own.

Emily (47:07)

It's a circular predicate.

Brian Dean Wright (47:09)

Yeah. You know, we should now trust the CIA because Ratcliffe's in charge. That's a really tough sell. I mean, I'm a former CIA guy and I can admit that that's a really hard sell. I think for reasonable people to say, let's just get the benefit of the doubt. The CIA now, it's not like that anymore. I think good people can ask really tough questions and say, yeah, we just don't trust you. So until I think there's different kind of leadership and more time of CIA re establishing trust, you're going to have to probably declassify a lot more stuff

Emily (47:36)

that makes me think, I know we can put this up on the screen of this big Matt Taibbi report over at Racket. He has all of his reporters working on this. Seemingly they, they appear to have a cache of FBI, no pun intended, a cache of FBI documents that they're going through. They say in this headline exclusive, the FBI secret stash finally uncovered. And actually in this big article where Taibi is talking about how we are likely to get more disclosures from what Cash Patel, FBI Director, has discovered at the FBI in terms of secret files that were intentionally kept away that he has confirmed the FBI has confirmed to Taibi and the Racket team are in existence. Matt asked Seymour Hersh for his take on this and Hirsch obviously led to the Church Committee and the great disclosures of the CIA. I mean the epic disclosures of the CIA that are literally hundreds of pages long, read in some cases like they're Le Carre, because they literally were. These guys were all writing spy novels. It's an amazing thing that CIA guys do when they get out of the agency. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or they write like really, like thinly veiled versions of their memoirs through fiction.

Brian Dean Wright (48:53)

Incredible.

Emily (48:55)

But on that note, it feels like we're entering a period of disclosure. I mean, the fact that Tulsi Gabbard's at odni, the fact that Kash Patel, people who were piecing together Crossfire Hurricane skeptically are now in the government and confirming, you know, big stashes like apparently what the FBI has of secret files that rival the crown jewels that Hersh reported on that led to the church Committee, that led to us starting to understand MKUltra and ever another secret things. I wonder, I mean, there are a lot of different directions. Maybe I just, I want to get your reaction to what apparently is this big stash of FBI files, Brian. But I'm kind of thinking about it through this lens of is it getting much, much harder in the age of partisanship and new technology to keep things secret? Because remember when buzzfeed just published the whole dossier that Christopher Steele was shopping around? Like, it just, it seems as though we're coming towards something very different than the era the CIA and the FBI grew up in.

Brian Dean Wright (50:00)

Now, look, there was a guy that worked, a CIA ops officer and he worked for the Soviets. He was a treasonous spy and he worked for the Soviets. He was caught. The FBI later investigated him and caught him. And his name was Aldrich Ames. He recently died back in January after spending many, many years in prison. When he was caught, though, back in the, in the 90s, they asked him, why did you do it, Aldrich? Why'd you work for the Russians, the Soviets at the time? And he responded by saying, because I know what is best for America's national security and I want to act on it. I want to do what I want. So there's a great example of what motivates somebody to decide to leak secrets or work against U.S. interests. And I think that we've seen that over the past 10 years or so in a different way, in a partisan way. You've got a lot of these guys like John Brennan or others who got the FBI, James Comey, who they think they know what's best for the United States and for national security. Security. And they're going to act on that. They're going to use their powers, they're going to use their information to cook the books on intel and to leak that information as they did to the Washington Post, the New York Times and others. And they're going to create this propaganda campaign to destroy President Trump in 2016 and 2017 and then throughout his entire first term. That's exactly what they did with Class Fire Hurricane, this document called the ica, which assessed the degree to which the Russians were helping Trump and all that. So we have this evidence. It's not even a question now. It's not a conspiracy. We know what. What Comey and Brennan and Clapper and other guys did. And it's a partisanship that has now taken over the CIA and FBI. And it's not just the leadership, because we have new leaders now, but we hired a lot of people during that era. We hired a lot of partisans, and those are within the bureau and the doj, too, by the way, as well as the agency and others. You might remember that infamous CIA recruitment ad under the Biden era that had said that she was. I think it was. What was it? Not bipolar. It was some mental issue. She also said she was intersectional and all these things that weren't focused on the mission. She never actually talked about working for the American people, but she was part of the CIA's recruitment ad. And you should come to the agency, bring in your whole self. Well, I don't want to see your whole self. I just want you to come do the work. Yeah. I don't want your partisanship. I don't want to know what intersectional is. That sounds like a sofa. Like, whatever, I don't care. Just like, come do the work. And so I think that that's the really fair reaction that a lot of people have in this new era for the past 10 years. And that is the CIA is not what I thought it was. It's not the part of the nonpartisan agency that it needs to be. And that's what good leadership needs to bring to the agency again into the intelligence community. Because the President really does need high confidence, good quality intelligence to make good, smart decisions, which it's really hard to do that and trust that. If you think that the whole place is full of bunch of these partisans that we've seen over the past 10 years, and that's great danger, that the US makes bad decisions because we don't trust the intel guys anymore, that's a bad deal.

Emily (52:50)

Is it possible to disrupt the machine? I mean, that's one of the things I think when I look at. Listen, I'm still very skeptical about the story we're getting told on the January 6th pipe bombs. I'm still skeptical of what the FBI has said about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Meaning, were there other. Is there information that they're slow walking for a reason. Or is there information about, for example, the people who seem to telegraph they knew something on social media in the kind of Internet community of trans identifying people? I don't even know the particulars because we haven't gotten enough public information about it yet. But there did seem to be potentially some online knowledge in the Tyler Robinson Friend Group. And, and that's not to open up this can of worms. It's just to ask, you know, I think some people look at a Cash Patel or they look at a John Ratcliffe or a Tulsi Gabbard and they say, this is, we were promised significant reforms. And I wonder if the machine is just ultimately too powerful to prevent because, I mean, even we're talking about Crossfire Hurricane. Well, the freaking FISA courts were part of the church committee reforms. Like we were supposed to have those as a protection against the abuses that the church committee uncovered. And they're still being abused.

Brian Dean Wright (54:05)

Klein Smith lied on the, the visa application to continue the surveillance. Right. Yeah, no, it's, I'm with you. So look, here's the thing at the agency over. If I were a king for a day there and I, I could go back, I would say over the past 15 years, I want to look at everybody that we've hired in what's called the Directorate of of Analysis and Director of Operations. And I want to, I want a team dedicated to look at every single one of those employees. And I want to understand, are they there for the right reasons, Are they there for the mission? And you can look at the hiring individuals involved, what's called the hrs, which is the HR components, and you can look at some of those careers and you can see who's been promoted. You can go through. And I'm sure the opposition would call that, you know, a witch hunt. But what we're really looking for are people who are there for the wrong reasons. And I think you can find that there's a great audit trail of all this. You know, one of the things the agency does well is document everything and computer, you know, save everything for decades. So it's all there, why these people were hired, you know, whether they were there because of DEI or the rest of it. And I think that you can smoke out a lot of those people and I think you can clean up a lot of it. But I would say to you that I think that a generation of Americans who saw the Crossfire Hurricane stuff were really paying attention, are still going to be skeptical and it's going to Take a series of leaders over the years, doing good things on behalf of the American people and just keeping quiet, not getting involved in the world of politics, and really addressing this statement that was made by Schumer, if you might remember, in January 2017 when he said to Trump that he's an idiot for going up against the intelligence community because he had six ways to Sunday to get back at them. That remains, to me, one of the most outrageous things that has been said over the past 10 years, and that is a Senate majority leader saying that the CIA and intel community have six ways to Sunday to control America's leaders. Oh, I mean, that kind of seems like a big deal. Why are we not talking about that? Like, you know, so if that's real. And Schumer was real honest, and I think he was like, yeah, we gotta. We gotta love to clean up. It's gonna take years. And until then, I think cynicism is appropriate.

Emily (56:08)

Let's talk about New York City, because on the Upper east side, outside of Gracie Mansion, there was a wild, wild scene. Actually, we have video of this. There was a. Just for a little bit of background here. I think this was Saturday, Sunday. Over the weekend, there was a. Yeah, it was Saturday. There was a right wing fringe type demonstration, and then there were counter protesters. But let's take a look at S8 here. This is a video of a suspect throwing a bomb over a protester named Walter Masterson. We were born and raised in New York and we want everyone here to stay in New York. You don't get to come from outside and then tell everyone else.

Donald Trump (56:53)

There you go.

Emily (57:01)

All right. Now we also.

Brian Dean Wright (57:02)

The indigenous drum there, isn't that great? You know, right?

Emily (57:06)

It's a soundtrack. It's a soundtrack you didn't know you needed. Here we have this VO we can roll. This is the suspect dropping the bomb at the feet of officers. So it's exactly what it sounds like. If you're listening to this literally from Matt Van Swole on X, it's exactly what I just described. You see it happening in real time. And this is again, outside of Gracie Mansion. Obviously, the current mayor of New York, Zoramdani, is. Is Muslim. And there was a rush immediately to pin this seemingly. I shouldn't even say seemingly, because Brad Lander, former comptroller, former city council member, he already apologized for rushing to blame Islamophobia for this. But we have two New York Times headlines we can put side by side. This is F6. The original headline, Smoking jars of metal infuses thrown at Protest near mayor's house. The head the sub headline was 6 people were arrested after anti Islamic protesters led by the right wing activists Jake Lang clashed with counter protesters near Gracie Mansion. The revised headline homemade bomb throw an at protest near NYC Mayor's house. Police say the counter protester accused of throwing the bomb was one of six people arrested after a clash with anti Muslim protesters led by the right wing activist Jake Lang. Now these two suspects were arraigned today in court. This is from Bill Mulligian of Fox News who says according to the just released federal criminal complaint, after NYC terror suspect Amir Balat was arrested for throwing an IED loaded with nuts, bolts and tatp, he pledged allegiance to ISIS while in NYPD custody saying all praises due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, etc. Etc. The comments were caught on NYPD body cameras which makes sense because we also learned today from the police that a lot of the information they're now claiming about these suspects allegiance to ISIS and the motivation for the attack was actually told to US officers, meaning they likely have tape of all of this. F8 we can put on the screen the suspect's statement that was again captured on body camera. Right afterwards we can throw up the picture F9 from the new York Post of the ISIS salute being flashed by one of the suspects in this case Zoram Hamdani first comes out and points towards white supremacists. This Jake Lang guy, he says such hate has no place in New York City. My administration, he goes on to say, is closely monitoring the situation. And then as more and more information came out, it became obvious that there was something deeper happening here. Mamdani had been going on and on about white supremacy. And then as of this afternoon he posts. Amir Balat and Ibrahim Kayyumi have been charged with committing a heinous act of terrorism and proclaiming their allegiance to isis. They should be held fully accountable for their actions. We will continue to keep New Yorkers safe. We will not tolerate terrorism or violence in our city. Brian, this comes after last week's attack at a bar in Austin, Texas which could potentially, I mean it looks to me likeliest case scenario that's a lone wolf. This is obviously not alone with. You have two people, they have a suspicious travel history. From what I understand already that seems crazy. And it's a counter protest. They've apparently said they were partly inspired by the war in Iran. They said they wanted to do something allegedly worse than the Boston Marathon bombing. How volatile is the situation in cities like New York, Austin, probably Dallas, Miami, places like that right now, where potentially, I mean, do you see links in this case to something more organized with just the little information we have in the first 48 hours?

Brian Dean Wright (60:50)

Yeah, look, absolutely. There was also another attack at the US Embassy in Oslo, Norway. And what do you know about that one is that the Iranian gangs there will pay young Muslim boys or young migrant boys as young as ages 12 or 10 to kill US diplomats, Israelis, Jews, etc. Western targets. So you combine that with what happened in New York, these radicalized Muslims from not just a big town, by the way, there are communities in Pennsylvania from where they hail originally. They live in communities less than 3,000 people. So these are not necessarily communities that you're just talking about Miamis and New York's. It's everywhere. And that, I think is the real big alarm that I've been trying to ring for a fair number of years. My podcast, I think others are too. You know, if you go back right after the October 7 terror attacks in Israel, there was a poll released by an outfit called Signal, one of the top rated pollsters in this country. And they asked American Muslims, do you support what Hamas did? 60% said no. But 40% of American Muslims said that either Hamas was fully or partially justified in doing what they did on October 7th so they would find a way to justify a terror attack. Well, that's pretty alarming when you think about that. There are millions and millions of Muslims in this country and that 40% of them would justify a terror attack. That's a lot of folks. So we do have a problem here. We have a radical Islam problem. There is a crisis within Islam. It is not a religion of peace. It's a religion in crisis. And it's important to be honest about that. And I think that we've had some really wonderful leadership, actually in the Middle East. And from the Middle East, Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, very brilliant quote from about seven, eight years ago saying, look, and to paraphrase you in the west with your political correctness, you are going to allow this radical Islam to rise and it is going to be there in the west and Europe and the United States. Who is going to have a radical Islam problem? We in the Middle east won't, because we're cracking down on it and we know that it's real. But you in the west just bury your heads. And I think that that's what we saw with that first reaction by the New York Times and Zohar Mamdani and folks on the left, that Democrat Party, you Know, just continuing with this ridiculous suggestion that, you know, Islam is a religion of peace and that actually it's just Islamophobia. If you point out the fact that 40% of them would justify a terror attack. No, no, we're just being honest, and we're being honest with facts and we're being honest with reason and logic. And it's not homophobic or Islamophobic or whatever, transphobic, whatever phobic to say that that's true, because it is.

Emily (63:17)

It's definitely not transphobic.

Brian Dean Wright (63:19)

Yeah, you know what could be? It's. It's. Who knows anymore? Everything is something phobic. I don't know. So, look, it's really important, I think, to start being honest about this threat. And then you think about the southern border. Seven to 12 million people came over the border either unvetted because they were got aways or poorly vetted. You know, imagine all these individuals from around the world, let's say from Islamic or predominantly Islamic nations. To be able to vet them from just a criminal perspective, our databases had to be tied into, say, the Mauritanians or the Nigerians or the whomever's. Those databases weren't synced. We weren't connected. So we'd have the ability to vet any of those individuals on the border, even though the Biden administration was lying and saying they were. And then that you apply. On top of that, the cultural question, which is, do we want some of these people from these societies believe, like, all right, they're Muslim, but what do they believe really? Oh, they believe that, like, women and are not really fully human and we can push gays off of buildings and we don't believe in art and like, you know, sciences, kafir or whatever. Like, oh, okay, well, let's vet for that. Well, we do at embassies and consulates when we process visas, but we don't have the southern border. And now we have 7 to 12 million of these people into this country, in addition to the legal migrants who we didn't ask these questions about cultural fit. So we have quite literally tens of millions of people in this country who certainly, we could argue, don't have a cultural fit in terms of Judeo Christian

Emily (64:39)

values, like the Charlie Hesto type, like that. That's a good.

Brian Dean Wright (64:44)

Right. I mean, this whole idea, you know, Trump got a lot of heat for saying, you know, in Springfield, Missouri, of like, the dogs and the cats. They're eating the dogs and the cats. Well, you know, look, in Haiti, they do. They practice witchcraft and they do Animal sacrifice. So, you know, there was tens of thousands of Haitians in Springfield. You would assume some percentage of them practice their faith from back home. Witchcraft. Yeah, they're gonna eat them. So this isn't crazy. Like this isn't illogical. And unfortunately there have been a lot of people who have turned this into Islamophobic or whatever phobic. And it's not, it's about security, it's about cultural fit and it's about being really honest about that and being brave and saying it. Because you know, I, I don't know about everybody else, but I'm tired of being shouted down by just bringing up the truth. And that is I want an American family that's a melting pot, that when you get here from wherever, burn your ship, you ain't going home. There is no duel whatever. You're American, welcome to the family. I'm gonna give you a big hug and you're gonna be part of the family and that's it. But you're not going to maintain these foreign connections and ties to whether it be religion or whatever you're in. And I think that that's what is happening in New York is so many of us are concerned about these kids and people and adults now taking over the city. At Islamist Johoram, Madani's record as an Islamist is clear and his reaction speaks to that. And then these two terrorists out of Pennsylvania growing up in very wealthy families and communities of 2,3000 people, it just underlines the point that we have done an abysmal job as terms of leadership for our American elite. What they've done here, it's unforgivable.

Emily (66:10)

Well, in this. So one of the things that worries me a bit is I look at the record during the Bush administration of going, you had situations that almost looked like, and this would be FBI but like Whitmer kidnapping plots with random kids at mosques. And there were some cases where I look back and I'm like, well the left was right about this. And Mamdani is one of the people who grew up watching that. He talks about how he grew up watching that and whether or not he's, you know, whether or not we agree with him on the proliferation of it or anything. He's, he saw that. And I look at what he's pledged to do in terms of like, sounds to me letting off the gas a bit when it comes to investigating after we just had however many people pour in through our southern border over a three year surge period in the Biden administration. Plus like the 10 years before that, when it was relatively porous. And I'm sympathetic to the idea of respecting civil liberties and being in the. Enthusiastic and vigilant about respecting civil liberties. On the other hand, I wonder if Bush era failures are giving way to a New York City that is ultimately going to be less safe. Because there's this intentional, politically correct turning away from some very obvious situations where you could have people whose political philosophy is based on undermining, harming the United States of America took advantage of an obvious situation that you could take advantage of. I mean, I was down at the border when that, when the Biden surge was happening. You watched it. You just walk right across and disappear into the interior of the country. So it's like a perfect storm of horrible things happening for the security and the safety of the American people. How do you think about those two things? Like, is it, Is the Mamdani backlash? Does it worry you that the backlash to what happened during the Bush era for people like Zora Mamdani makes New York City less safe? How are you thinking about that?

Brian Dean Wright (68:19)

Look, there are a lot of us who grew up in the United States of America assuming a lot of things about us as a country and a people. And one of those things was we believe in the Constitution, we're a constitutional republic, that we have our various First Amendment rights, second to all the rest of them. And those are very important to being an American and embracing people from abroad. And those same laws and rules are now being used against us, to destroy us from within. And what we have seen over the past, well, good number of years, certainly under the Biden administration, we saw a pipeline into this country. First of all, they would lie on their asylum applications. We have migrant activists on the left helping them to lie on their asylum applications. Eventually, 80% of them will be turned down. But in the meantime, they get to come into the country, go into a sanctuary city or state, and they never leave. So we have this pipeline into the country now. We've got this abolished ice, which isn't just abolishing the organization, but what Democrats have said over and over again is they want to abolish the ability to deport anyone for any reason. So now what we're doing is we're importing people who hate this country, who want to throw out the Republican and throw out the Constitution, and they're being protected by the rule of law. And I will tell you, having worked abroad, what I have seen in countries where that happens is the rule of law is no longer meant to protect people or to protect the innocent, but to ensure corruption continues and to ensure that seditious behavior continues. It's a weapon to destroy, not to protect. And that's where I think that we're at right now as a country, is that the rule of law is being used by judges, by attorneys, and by people who really want to destroy the nation, to use it against the rest of us who are like, hey, you know, I might not necessarily agree with everybody or whatever, but welcome to the country. We hope you enjoy it, be part of the American family. So they're taking advantage of the goodness that a lot of us have. And by the time that we wake up to that, to wake up to the attacks, effectively to the Trojan horse that has arrived inside of the castle, I think it's going to be too late. And that's what really, really worries me about the current state of our Union.

Emily (70:14)

Right. Mass migration is a pretext, like as Keir Starmer was pitching for Digital ID is a great. Like, this is a pretext for surveillance. You create a horrifying situation, as the Biden administration did, and then you could crack down because people want security and safety, because you've just created an unsafe situation, which is just a wonderful way to go about it before you run, Brian, I did want to get your take on the transition period we seem to be entering from Kristi Noem to Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma, your border guy. Brian, you pay attention to this. You talk about it on your podcast all the time. The internal battle clearly was a tug of war. I've heard this from people. I think it's fairly obvious that they this point between Team Noem, Lewandowski, Stephen Miller and Team Holman. And Team Holman. Holman, of course, comes from the Obama administration, an institutional veteran. He wanted to do worst first, and that's what a lot of the American people would agree with Noem Lewandowski. Stephen Miller came in and said this is basically a generational mandate to do mass deportations. And a lot of people I know are kind of bummed in Washington. Not bummed, black pilled is probably the better answer. And think now this was a big victory for the homan wing, although I'm skeptical of that. I think Mark Wain Mullen is probably politically similar to Kristi Noem. And maybe will will prove to be a better leader. Less messy leader. We'll see. But from a security standpoint point, worst first is criminals. Criminals might not necessarily be spies, espionage tools. They may not even be doing espionage or spying, but they might be tools of a foreign government, whether it's China, whether it's a cartel, whether it's Russia. When I was on the border, I literally met Russians in 2021, and they had a sob story. So maybe it was true, maybe it wasn't. But they were on their way into the country, I'll tell you that. So what is the, what is the difference? I mean, how important is it? Or maybe I'm wrong. But is it important to do more than just the worst? First, give us your thoughts.

Brian Dean Wright (72:30)

So what's the worst of the worst? Like, let's define that. So one of the things that we know in a lot of states is that they don't write down or they don't document somebody's documentation and status, right? So if you get arrested, they don't ask if you're a migrant or otherwise unlawful or otherwise. So it's not documented. So how do we even determine the worst of the worst if your police officers or your sheriffs or whatever aren't even documenting that up front? We don't have the data to say, oh, this person's the worst, because they don't have no criminal record. And even if they are processed, oftentimes prosecutors will let these people, especially Thesauros, das and others, they will let these people off with lower level charges, even though they should be charged with higher. We have, the Department of Justice is now investigating that in Washington D.C. and other cities where the police chief and the mayor are downgrading crimes. So these people are actually the worst of the worst. But it's not documented up front, or the police department's downgrading crimes. The DA isn't prosecuting, letting people out of the streets. So this whole debate around worst of the worst, it's really, it's, it's, it's impossible to really determine who's the worst. The worst. You know, we can have some data that can help us along that process, but that's the fundamental issue. We don't know who's bad and who's not. And then, you know, we of course got all the people across the border. That only adds additional elements to it. So as much as I would like, you know, personally to just grab as many people as we can, understanding, appreciating that we'd like to do the surgical, careful approach, but because of what I just laid out, we got to use the chainsaw. And that's uncomfortable. It's really uncomfortable. It's sad. There are a thousand sob stories and I think that that's what I'm Seeing in a lot of the polling, which is things they, they, the American people want a lot of the unlawful migrants or illegal aliens out of the country. But it makes them sad, you know, when they see the sad videos and the people hurting. And so it's like they want the meal, but they don't want to watch the cat be raised and slaughtered and cut up. Like, don't show me how the sausage is made. I just want to eat it. Well, I think that that's, that's important politically to then understand that, you know, from Holman's perspective. Let's focus on the worst of the worst. I guess this is just a branding exercise. And then we bring up and try to educate people like, well, what is the worst of the worst? If we're not even writing down people's immigration status when we're arresting them, or we downgrade crimes or we prosecutors release them, we've got to re educate people on what even worse, the worst means. So the way that they start seeing these sad videos, they're like, well, I don't know about that guy. He says that he's got a family here, but does he really just have a family? He's not really just a snake in the grass. That's the conversation that needs to happen. Because if you don't and you leave in, you know, 5 million of the 10, let's say we deport half of what came under Biden, the Democrats are going to get in and they're going to open up the border again, and you're going to have another 10 million to come out of this country. So you will, at that point, the country's over, you're done as a nation. You're cooked. So you got to get as many people out as fast as you can.

Emily (75:13)

How intentional was the strategic abuse of American border policies during Biden from hostile foreign actors? Maybe not even hostile foreign actors. Maybe places that just found an easier route to bring people into the United States and do espionage like is is. Was that a fairly vast operation worldwide during the Biden administration? Were other foreign intelligence agencies looking at the United States and laughing at us because of our open border?

Brian Dean Wright (75:38)

Well, two things. Were they laughing at us? You bet they were. Second, were they taking advantage of it? Yes, for sure. I can tell you foreign intel agencies sent inoperative saboteurs and others into this country via the southern border, for sure. The other thing to keep in mind with the Chinese is that even if a Chinese person has a sob story and they don't want to cooperate with the Regime President Xi and his goons can still go to a Chinese person and say, look, per Chinese law and or because you know, we have your family back home, you will do what we tell you to. You're an employee with a utility company or the water company or whatever, you're going to set out this bomb, you're going to fry this system because if you don't, we're killing all of your friends back home, like your family members back home. And that's how the Chinese operate and that's what they will do. Even with these Chinese people who you might hear people in the media otherwise say, like, oh, you know, they don't want to go home. President Xi's bad and mean. Yep, he sure is. And he will use his relationships or these people's relationships back home to get what he wants. So we've got a mess across the board in terms of terrorism, in terms of saboteurs, in terms of even people who might otherwise be good, but they can be turned to be bad. And as we are seeing in places like Oslo over the week in the attack there, we've seen this in other places in the world where poor people are struggling. They will take cash to do terrible things. So you don't have to be incent in this country to do terrible things. When you've got examples in Oslo, we've got examples of Hezbollah doing this down in Argentina, paying a wedding photographer paid him cash to target Jewish interests in Argentina. So poor people will do lots of terrible things for cash. And that's not because they're poor. It's because they start to become desperate and they do really dumb things. So we've got to send a lot of people back home. We got to vet them. Once they're back at an embassy or consulate abroad, then we can talk about why we need them back here. Really? That's about labor. Do we need labor now? We've got the AI revolution. The robots are coming for everybody. So do we really need labor? I don't know about that, but that's the thoughtful conversation that we need to have about immigration as well.

Emily (77:31)

Well, we'll see where Mark Wen Mullen takes it will be following a Senate confirmation. Brian Dean Wright, host of the Right Report. It was so good to have you in the middle of this news cycle. Thank you for. You've been very generous with your time. Thank you for taking so much time to explain this to us.

Brian Dean Wright (77:46)

You're amazing and congratulations on your show and I look forward to coming back whenever.

Emily (77:49)

Oh, we would love that. Thanks so much. Brian.

Brian Dean Wright (77:51)

Awesome. Be well.

Emily (77:53)

All right, going to take another quick break and then talk about Stephen A. Smith on the other side. Everybody, everybody is talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic. It's awards show season. We've seen that on full display. These medicines work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight but not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects. That's why doctors created a weight loss supplement called called Lean and the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in Lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and then curb your appetite and cravings so that you're not as hungry. Now listen, Lean is not for the casual dieter with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Brick House Nutrition created Lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20 off and free rush shipping so you can add Lean to to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit takelean.com and enter Emily for your discount. That's promo code.

Commercial Announcer 2 (78:59)

Emilyakelean.com confronting high credit card debt can feel scary. But the good news is if you owe $10,000 or more in credit card debt, financial relief options are now available. National Debt Relief is currently offering debt relief designed to reduce what you owe, fast tracking your way to being debt free. If you qualify for debt relief, you may be able to pay back significantly less than what you owe and save thousands of dollars. Imagine only paying one low monthly program payment you can afford and saving money as you become debt free. National Debt Relief has already helped bring debt relief to over 550,000 US consumers earning thousands of five star reviews and an A rating with the Better Business Bureau. You're stronger than your credit card debt. Take the first step and visit nationaldebtrelief.com to see what debt relief you qualify for. That's nationaldebtrelief.com Daylight Saving Time hits and boom. You've lost an hour of sleep. Most of us just hope to catch up. But what if you could magically gain it back and then some good news. It's not magic, it's coop sleep goods. And they're transforming the way you sleep. Whether you toss and turn, wake up sore, or sleep overheated, their pillows are designed to solve it. And right now during sleep week, you can get up to 40% off sitewide, including their best selling pillows. We all have our own sleeping quirks, so whether you're on your side, back or somewhere in between. You can customize the height and firmness by adding or removing fill. Plus, Coop offers a 100 night better sleep guarantee, so you can try it risk free. Better sleep starts with Coop Shop. Their Sleep Week sale now through March 16th. To save up to 40% sitewide, visit coopsleepgoods.com comedy that's coopsleepgoods.com Comedy.

Emily (80:48)

All right, I want to finish up with a clip that was released this evening, another benefit of doing evening shows. Sometimes clips just pop whenever because people are posting their podcast clips literally whenever. And Sean Hannity has a new podcast. He's got Stephen A. He's a radio guy, by the way, so just an interesting state of affairs. Tells you a little bit about media right off the bat. But Stephen A. Smith is his guest on tomorrow's edition of the show. And Hannity asked Stephen A. Smith how serious he is about running for president. Here's the clip that we just got that just popped on social media before we went to air.

Brian Dean Wright (81:25)

Here's my big question. Yeah, 2028 come pretty, pretty quick. Yeah. If you had to pick. I think it's all bullshit. I don't think you're running.

Donald Trump (81:38)

Am I right?

Commercial Announcer 2 (81:39)

I don't think I'm running either because I gotta give up my money.

Emily (81:41)

You don't care.

Brian Dean Wright (81:42)

You want to. I ain't giving them my money. You want a plane, Sean?

Commercial Announcer 2 (81:44)

I ain't getting my money.

Brian Dean Wright (81:44)

I got it.

Commercial Announcer 2 (81:45)

I can tell you right now, let me put that presidential aspiration bed from if I have to give up my

Brian Dean Wright (81:52)

money, it's not happening.

Emily (81:55)

All right, so is he totally joking? I don't think so. That sounded pretty serious to me. But someone should let him know that you can actually create a family company and put your children in charge of it. He even put his name on it and he could have a meme coin and he wouldn't really have to give up his money. But that's kind of interesting, right, that he would have to give up his money. Because a lot of people right now are saying it's a bridge that we've crossed. That was maybe some people see that as a cheap shot at Trump. But I do think it's one of the things that we still haven't figured out. I mean, with Hunter Biden, for example, when Joe Biden was vice president, that family sure as hell didn't give up their money. Right. There was intense lobbying efforts afoot that were used then to support Joe Biden after he left the White House and Didn't have a ton of money and was obviously engaged in selling influence, selling his status as a former vice president, potential future president. And that was good business for the entire Biden family. With Stephen A. Smith, he's saying, I don't want to give up my money, period, period. Don't want to do it. But to me, that sounded serious. And I think this is interesting for Democrats because I don't know, I mean, some of this depends on the giant unknown we won't really have an answer to because of world events in the future for a long time, which is who's the Republican nominee. Some of this depends on, you know, a black swan event like Butler, Pennsylvania, God forbid, happening again. And let's hope that doesn't happen. But you can see how that would dramatically change the landscape in ways that we can't quite anticipate and change who the Republican nominee is in ways that we can't quite anticipate. But if everything stayed the same, Stephen A. Smith would run as a Democrat. He's indicated as much before. And what you get with him is the combination of this anti establishment, anti machine sensibility with media know how. And Trump kind of had both of those things. And Smith has dabbled. I mean, even the way he responded to Hannity, it sounded like he's had serious conversations about it. I don't know why he wouldn't have had serious conversations about it. But we have record low levels of institutional trust across the board. So if Democrats don't think that a Stephen A. Smith would be competitive against, and I'm not joking, Republicans might blanch at this. A. Rubio or J.D. vance. We haven't seen Stephen A. Smith really campaign, but what we can tell is that people like hearing him talk. They like hearing him talk about politics. And he has takes that surprise people. He's extremely entertaining. And you know, there's always a lot of talk about Michelle Obama and Oprah and how they could just wipe the floor with any Republican. I don't know if that's true. They're such creatures of old media. And Stephen A. Smith is a creature of old media, but has adapted for the new media ecosystem. He knows how to go viral. He's very in touch with the new media audience. He knows that people expect and appreciate takes that are, let's just say, use the worst word in the English language, heterodox. Sometimes it's the only word that works. He understands that. He's surprising, he's unexpected, and I think Democratic voters would like him despite the fact that he's neither a cookie cutter populist or a cookie cutter establishmentarian. That's what would make everybody uncomfortable. And it was true with Donald Trump. Right? Like, this is a guy that loves business but is super protectionist. This is a guy who detests foreign wars but talks about how he's, he's always been hawkish on Iran, as we mentioned on last week's show. So. And he talked about, you know, no more dumb wars kicking the heck out of different countries. That sort of, so he's like sort of a similar figure was on Primetime Forever. And Stephen A. Smith is maybe more of a niche figure. Right. Like he didn't have the Apprentice.

Brian Dean Wright (86:17)

Right.

Emily (86:17)

But he's a very familiar face and he gives very surprising takes. Generally people believe that he believes what he's saying, which I continue to think is one of the more important characteristics of anybody running in a new media environment. Plus he doesn't have the stench of a political institution around him. So this isn't me making the case in substance for Stephen A. Smith. It's me making the case for the political power viability of Stephen A. Smith as a candidate. There are a lot of people are like, oh well, maybe this pop cultural figure, this random person could be a candidate and it's just not that easy here. He though, happens to be someone who actually has experiences that come together in a way, almost a perfect storm of characteristics that come together in a way that I think would make him a potent threat to other Democrats and potentially to a Republican nominee. One of the things that helped with Trump is people saw him as a very, very successful businessman. Stephen A. Smith doesn't have a real estate empire, at least that I'm aware of. Maybe he does behind him, but he's talking about how much money he's got now. So maybe he could convince people that he has some prowess in business and media that requires with Trump, he was able to pitch his kind of international relations right. Like he was able to pitch himself as someone who made deals with other countries and knows how to work with the elites of different countries. I think that's going to be, would be. Probably not going to be. Sounds like he's not going to run. That would be a much, much steeper climb for a Stephen A. Smith. But, but people get annoyed when I do this. But I talk about how Neil Postman had the television based epistemology in the Reagan era before that, the print based epistemology. We're in the TikTok based epistemology, the, the algorithmic social media based epistemology. Our narratives are set not by television, not by print. They are downstream of TikTok. It doesn't mean television and print aren't important, but it means that they're downstream now of a more powerful, wide reaching technology. And if Democrats think they could beat someone who's a master of that craft with aoc, do I think AOC is good at it? Yes. But Stephen A. Smith is a media native. AOC is good with social media in the same way that like in 2016 you could say like Rand Paul was good with social media. But there's a difference between being like clever as a politician and being a native. And Trump was a television native. He was a Twitter native, the Cinco de Mayo tweet alone. So Stephen A. Smith is a native of that medium and that medium is driving the conversation. It is driving the discussion with voters and the like. So I think that's something to think very, very seriously about. If you're an establishment Democrat or a populist Democrat, is there someone that you can, I'm not trying to give anyone ideas, but that you can attach an agenda to where it would be believable, authentic and powerful in that medium that would just blow everybody else out of the water. So some, some food for thought as the midterm cycle gears up and people start looking ahead to 2028. All right, that's going to do it for me this evening arrive from the Harvard campus. Where else would I be on a Monday night in March? Happy birthday. Birthday to my dad. Thanks to everybody for watching. Appreciate it. You can email me at emilyevilnarecare media.com I will go ahead and check those out for the happy hour episode we will record on Thursday to pop Friday. Get your questions in early and often as they say. Thanks so much everyone. Have a great night. Subscribe and we'll see you back here on Wednesday live at 9:00pm.

Brian Dean Wright (90:28)

Tired of the same old game night? Switch things up with Chumba casino. Play over 200 free online social casino games from classic slots in blackjack to exclusive in house favorites you won't find anywhere else. However long you got, you can play your way anytime, anywhere. Make your next chill night a little more fun with Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW group void where prohibited by log. See terms and conditions for details. 21 plus.