← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
INSIDE the U.S. Intelligence Community with John Cardillo
00:58:33
Loading summary
Transcript111 lines
- [00:02]
A
Today, we're pulling back the curtain on some of the most explosive and controversial topics of our time with investigative journalist John Cardillo. He's a former NYPD police officer turned fearless truth seeker. John's built a reputation for tackling the stories that others simply won't touch.
- [00:22]
B
All I'm saying is the protocols that were deployed that day, the day the guy died, are very, very unusual for a guy in his job, doing the work he was doing, who had expressed concerns about his company, about his employer.
- [00:38]
A
He's exposing corruption. He speaks truth to power with unflinching intensity. Where's Jeffrey Epstein's client list? Why has it remained hidden from the public?
- [00:47]
B
Jeffrey Epstein was a state actor. I think he was run by CIA, Mossad, and possibly other allied intelligence services.
- [00:56]
A
Are there deeper forces at play behind the Diddy rumors? And if so, what are they? He'll expose the media blackout on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Who buried the story? Why did the FBI get involved? And who's really calling the shots?
- [01:09]
B
Yeah, the laptop was real, and it implicated some very powerful people in some really nasty and dirty things.
- [01:15]
A
And then there's the AI whistleblower. A bombshell revelation that raises chilling questions about the future of technology, power, and control. Nothing is off limits now. Certain words will be bleeped out for reasons I'm sure you can deduce, but I'm confident that you'll be able to follow along. Let's get started. Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels. Keeping it real, Real. John Cardillo, welcome to the show. I'm not even gonna ask you how you are. I'm gonna hit you with. Given the state of the state and everything that, you know, the average person does not know, what has you most concerned at this moment?
- [01:58]
B
You know, I have this conversation often with some of our mutual friends. Jillian, we're on a text group. And for me right now, let me say Trump had a great first week. Love what he's doing with immigration. He's proving me wrong on some of my skepticism. So that's phenomenal. But the thing that worries me, tapping on my law enforcement experience and the world I've existed in since, is a low tech, asymmetrical attack. In other words, something like we saw in New Orleans, but on a more lethal scale. It could be a few bad guys with automatic weapons walking into a shopping mall or standing outside of a school. It could be car bombs just driven into crowds or vehicles driven into crowds. And the reason those scare me is unlike 9 11, they don't require a lot of chatter, a lot of planning. In some instances, there's nothing for law enforcement to interdict, to intercept. And so those are the ones that concern me. And with Trump and Homan being really, really serious about immigration and addiction and sealing the border, and we see the Marines are now on the border, I do believe there are active terror cells in the United States. I believe there are Chinese intelligence operatives. We know they're in their stations right there. They're field offices. But I believe there are other ones, excuse me, operational, that could assist these nefarious terror groups. So that if you have to ask me one thing that concerns me, that's what it is.
- [03:21]
A
You know, I did a whole episode on the border, and Dr. Phil talked all about Chinese nationals coming into the country, all with the same backpack, all with the same haircut. How did they get here? How did they get out of their country? How did they get the money to get here? The fact that they had busted Chinese police departments in our country, and it was an episode about trafficking. But then, you know, I've listened to individuals like yourself talk about the fact that there are 2 million gotaways in the country. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they are. We don't know what their intentions are. And I feel terrible painting migrants with this brush of terror attack, murder rapist, killer. But one thing I believe it was Brandon Judd who had run the border. One thing he told me was that roughly 14 million people crossed over the course of the Biden administration. If 1% of them are bad guys, that's 140,000 bad guys.
- [04:29]
B
Yeah, and you had 19 bad guys on 9 11. And remember two, Gillian. The 911 hijackers, for the most part, came in on visas. So it's not just the illegals we have to be worried about. You've got people here legally on student visas, on work visas, on these H1s with nefarious motives, with allegiances to terror groups, to the Chinese Communist Party. I mean, immigration is a real problem. One of the things we did very stupidly was we allowed the left to hijack. Two very important words for law enforcement in the intelligence community. And those words are profiling and monitoring. Profiling and monitoring work, all right? And we use it all the time. Look, I'm an Italian American guy, right? I was a cop in New York. If you're going after La Cosa Nostra, the Italian mob, use me. If I were going after a steroid ring among the elite ladies of Beverly Hills, you would be my go to infiltration agent. Seriously. But when it comes to Muslim terrorists, and we talk about deploying the same effective and proven decades proven over decades tactics and protocols, all of a sudden we're racist and xenophobic. It's moronic. And we really need to change that narrative.
- [05:41]
A
Okay, what do we do about this problem, though? Simply because you can't possibly find these people, we don't know who they are, we don't know where they are, we don't know how to. What would you do? And I understand we're deporting a bunch of people, but like you just said, it's not even necessarily those that are here illegally. How do you feel about the invasion of privacy elements of the phone is listening to you and the FISA stuff. I don't even understand this stuff, by the way. I thought maybe you could explain some of that to me. What of our privacies or what aspects of our privacy is compromised by the government and subsequently, is that good or bad, given the things you're concerned about?
- [06:29]
B
Well, look, I think we saw over the last several years ironclad proof, irrefutable proof, admissions from the government that the NSA was illegally spying on Americans. The Director of National Intelligence prior to Trump's administration, Jim Clapper, admitted that he lied under oath to Congress and that the NSA was illegally spying on Americans. He was never indicted for that. He should have been on those 1001 federal statute, 1001 false statements to an official body or law enforcement. He should have been prosecuted on that. But you asked an important question as what? What can we do that won't infringe on liberties? One of the most effective programs in the history of law enforcement was what we called the CI Mosque program in the nypd. It was the confidential informant program where they would infiltrate mosques or areas around mosques, mosques known to be radical, not any mosque, but mosques that were known to recruit terrorists, fundraise for terrorists. And the interesting thing about that program, and I can explain it in a broad sense without revealing anything classified or compromising any operational security. There wasn't a religious test on that program, Gillian. What would happen was the nypd, the detectives at the particular unit, I won't say which unit it was that run that program, would look at arrest reports from the previous evening or evening before, and they would look at nationalities, people arrested from nations of terror concern. At the time I was there, 34 nations of terror concern. Right. And then they would look at the offense they were arrested for. Well, if it was a quadruple homicide, you can't flip them as a CIA and cut a deal. But if it was a drug offense, a low level theft offense, you could convert them to an asset, to a confidential informant, get them a break on the charges. And that program yielded actionable intelligence. It saved thousands of lives. And in New York, the moronic de Blasio administration did away with it. I've been very critical of the FBI, but the one thing they did right, they kept their version in place. And that program saves lives. And it doesn't compromise anybody's constitutional rights. It works with proven, constitutionally sound methods. And like I said, it saves lives. So there are plenty of things we can do without the gross overreach of the NSA listening to every phone call and watching this in real time as you and I sit here, you know.
- [08:53]
A
Because that's the argument to our invasion of privacy or having our privacy invaded is we want security, but you want total privacy and anonymity. It's a trade off. And if you're telling me that to protect my children and intervene should some lunatic show up at their school, you're gonna listen to my phone calls. I'll have you listen to my phone calls. That said, I find it to be outrageous. But that's the tool or the card that they play, the hand that they play when they do such things. What would be the reason, outside of going after terrorists, that you would listen to the average soccer mom's phone call? And, John, here's what I also don't get. How are you, you know, you don't think much of it because there's what, 350 million Americans, something like that, and 8 billion people. So you're thinking, oh, I'm a needle in a haystack. What do they care? And yet our phones are doing. Our phones are watching us. Our phones are reading our eyeballs. They're reading our family's eyeballs. And here we go, we search and. And then another individual that I had had on recently was telling me that the most valuable resource of the future is going to be information. And that's, you know, he who controls the AI, controls all the information and how the information flows. So what would be the reason that they would feel the need to listen to a soccer mom's phone call? Or am I? Am I? Is.
- [10:31]
B
You're right. Look at. And we saw the reason, right? We saw why the nefarious actors in government use these extrajudicial means, these extra constitutional means to surveil us. We saw this when parents spoke up about the WOKE agenda at school. Board meetings. And the FBI started knocking on their door holding folders of their Facebook posts, of their posts on Twitter now X of their Instagram posts. That's why it's when government weaponizes against its citizens, which it did under the Obama administration, and then it went into overdrive with afterburners on during the Biden administration. We saw the grossest overreach of government weaponization against citizens that I think has ever happened in the history of the United States. You know, what's his name, J. Edgar Hoover got a bad rap. He was looking at known figures, what the Biden administration did, what his intelligence, law enforcement. Look, I think Christopher Wray should be in handcuffs. I think Merrick Garland should be in handcuffs. I think Biden's entire cabinet to a large degree should be in handcuffs for the extra constitutional things, the infringements on Americans privacy and rights. Why would they do it? Because when you disagreed with their woke agenda, they were able in real time to send gun and badge carriers to your door to intimidate you. It's pretty scary. And people need to wake up and realize how bad it got and how bad it could have been had Kamala won.
- [11:55]
A
I actually had no idea that happened. I know that's happening in the UK that.
- [12:00]
B
No, it's happening here.
- [12:02]
A
The. Hold on, John. You're trying to tell me that the FBI is showing up at a parent's door with a file over a Facebook post?
- [12:11]
B
Absolutely. You could find that. It's open source. I'll give you a better one. So I spoke to two. I won't say where they were because these aren't big teams. I spoke to two different people on FBI, jttf, Joint Terrorism Task Forces. And what these are, they're in pretty much every major city or region in America. And they're comprised of FBI agents, local police, state troopers, other federal agencies. And they work hand in hand. The local Police are called TFOs, for the most part, task force officers, because they know their city. Right. Better than the FBI will. And if there's a DEA agent or a US Marshal on that task force. And so they're deputized as federal marshals. They can fly with their firearms across lines. And I spoke to two. One FBI agent and one a tfo, a detective who was a task force officer. Both of them, they were in two different regions of the country. One in the northeast, one in the southwest. And when all the stuff was going down with the J6 defendants, but we were still seeing the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots. Jillian, I spoke to both of them. And both of them had the same frustration. They didn't know each other. They were operating about 1800 miles apart. And the frustration was they were being asked to go knock on the doors of people who weren't even in D.C. on January 6th for their Facebook posts. But when they said, well, wait a second, we also have a ton of leads on Antifa and BLM members who burnt cities down, they were admonished and told, leave it alone. And if you ask these questions again, you're gonna be kicked off the task force and your career's gonna be ruined. Go knock on the door about the Facebook posts. So if you talk to anybody, you talk to guys like Steve Friend and Kyle Seraphim, the whistleblowers, they will tell you this same exact story from man and woman, man and woman, man and woman in different parts of the country who don't know each other, all working those same cases. That's how bad it was under Biden.
- [14:05]
A
You've mentioned the FBI a couple times now, John. I know nothing about your world. Nothing. So start there. Take me to the beginning. Give me the one on one here. What am I concerned about? Cuz you look at the FBI and I'm thinking, to catch a killer, you know, go get the serial killer guy and put him in jail. Thank you, Jodie Foster. It puts the lotion in the basket. That is my knowledge of the FBI. And I would seemingly not want to live in a world without them. I have some greater understanding that something's wrong there simply because of the Hunter Biden laptop. But I don't really get it and I don't understand what happened. So I'm just gonna hand you the ball here.
- [14:55]
B
Okay?
- [14:55]
A
Go.
- [14:55]
B
So the FBI, right, was created back in the 1930s when we had big organized crime and bank robbery problems. And we really didn't have a national, excuse me, a national, a cohesive national law enforcement agency to go after these people. Because they were going from state to state, right? The guys in the Midwest were bouncing state to state. Al Capone had Chicago, but he had guys in Ohio and in Wisconsin and in Minnesota, and the same with the New York mob and bank robbery crews, et cetera. So at the time, it made sense. The FBI did their job, they went after bad guys. Well, around the time of Hoover, they started realizing, we've got a big budget, we've got a very broad mission, we're very powerful, and we don't really have a lot of parameters because there's this image about us that we're the premier law enforcement in the United. Law enforcement agency in the United States. And we're so specifically chosen, and the acceptance rates are so low and the bar to become an agent is so high. Just trust us. You can trust us. That began to erode the ability to trust them. But what we saw since the Obama administration has been particularly troubling because the FBI of the 1930s would never have envisioned the national Security branch of the FBI today. Now, this is a part of the FBI that most people don't know exists, right? Like you say, everybody knows the Behavioral Sciences unit. Everybody loves them. They're the really talented. Typically, they have PhDs in psychology. In psychology, even though they've got the gun in the badge. And they're really good at catching serial killers. And everybody is going to celebrate that, right? Me and you and everybody else. Because it's a really good job. They're the best in the world. They do it well. That's okay. But then you get things. You get to a place a little more sinister. This is where guys like Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok and all of these people who illegally spied on Trump the first time around worked. And that's at the nsb, the National Security Branch of the FBI, which runs like its own internal CIA. Now, they say their job is counterintelligence, right? They're the spy catchers in the United States. They have tremendous power. Those FISA warrants you talked about, so that's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You go to a FISA court, which is a secret court, when you need a secret warrant, because, look, you couldn't walk into John Gotti's social club and say, hey, John Gotti, we're gonna bug your social club. So you go and get a Title 3 FISA warrant, you go to the secret court, and the way it's supposed to work is there's an FBI agent or agents and a federal Prosecutor, an Assistant U.S. attorney, or attorneys in front of the judge, and they have to show really compelling and convincing evidence to get this secret warrant. And we do this for spies. And if we think somebody, maybe a Chinese spy who's working at a particular company or a university, we are able to obtain these warrants in concept, in theory.
- [17:46]
A
Yeah, it makes great sense to me. I'm like, well, that's awesome. Why are we against that?
- [17:50]
B
But we found out the abuse. It really didn't take a robust dossier on the individual. All it really took was an FBI agent and an AUSA saying, yeah, we've got probable cause writing up pretty flimsy 302s, their reports, pretty flimsy narratives. And the judges essentially were rubber stamping these things. And people were surveilled who were not supposed to be surveilled, but even worse, and I won't get into the weeds, but there are certain protocols where people intercepted on those wires who are determined to have nothing to do with the case. Well, that wire is supposed to be turned off or that individual's information purged. That wasn't happening either. So the abuses were so egregious, and it's really disturbing that the full breadth of them never came to light, because if they did, I think the American public would be horrified. Then you have a director like Chris Wray. See, Comey was kind of a looming doofus. He wanted to please everybody. He went against Trump, he went against Hillary. Yeah, Chris Wray's a smart guy. And that was a really bad decision on Trump's part. But this is where Trump didn't really understand DC his first time around. Okay. Chris Wray was recommended by Chris Christie because when he left doj, he was in private practice. He was Chris Christie's lawyer with the Bridgegate scandal in New Jersey.
- [19:09]
A
Yes, I knew that.
- [19:12]
B
Right. Had Trump's people done five minutes of due diligence? And this is the one that makes me want to break things against the wall. I think you and I have the same temper with stuff like this, so feel my pain. Speak for yourself.
- [19:23]
A
This was the one.
- [19:24]
B
This was the one that really pissed me off. And Trump's people dropped the ball. Cuz had they done five minutes of research, they would have realized that Christopher Wray had come up with and was very close with Andrew Weissman, Mueller's number two, who was prosecuting Trump and trying to prosecute his family. At the time Trump hired Chris Wray, many of us were screaming and yelling, but nobody listened. And Chris Wray was installed in the FBI and he fully weaponized that agency against anybody who wasn't spewing the narrative of the farthest left faction of the Democratic Party. What has happened inside, I say all the time, the FBI needs an exorcism. It's a demons at this point. I don't know how you repair that agency. But now the FBI, I call them a sea of generalists, an agency of generalists and a sea of specialists. Because for narcotics, we have dea, they're the best. For terrorism, we have Homeland Security, hsi, Homeland Security investigations. So the FBI is becoming less and less needed and more of a solution in search of a problem, you know, but for, excuse me, behavioral sciences, going after serial killers and things like that. So in a nutshell, without wasting three hours, which we could do, that's the real problem with the FBI. It's way too powerful, way too out of control, way too politically weaponized on behalf of the left with little to no oversight.
- [20:50]
A
Wow. And obviously way too generalized, which I didn't even realize.
- [20:56]
B
We didn't have the. We didn't have the DEA. We didn't have Homeland Security. Homeland Security is a post 911 construction. The DEA was created in the early 70s. It was federal Bureau of Narcotics prior to that. They worked hand in hand with the Bureau, but now the Bureau will step into DEA drug cases. And there's the other thing people don't realize, just to take the glory. And they've probably allowed more cartel bosses to go free by stepping into these cases and screwing them up and they put in prison.
- [21:22]
A
So given that, talk to me about the Hunter Biden laptop situation. I have heard people on the left and they have said, no, it's not what you think. I just interviewed Jessica Tarlov and she's like, biden wasn't even in office. He didn't even have the ability to influence the FBI at that time. It was only for a short period of time where they held it to investigate it. But then I've heard the people on the right, and they're like, no, no, like 40 something. FBI agents went to legacy media, social media networks, said it was all Russian disinformation despite the fact that they knew it was true. Is that the situation? And who would have instructed such a thing if in fact Biden was not in a position of power at that time? He wasn't elected.
- [22:14]
B
That's the question, right? Capital T, H, A. So Tarlov is dead wrong. And I'll say it flat out. And Jessica, you can reach out to me on X if you want to debate me on this, but you're dead wrong. The Bureau. Well, let me say this first. Ask yourself. I wish I had come on with you before Tarleton.
- [22:30]
A
I know, I was just saying that. I was like, damn it, I wish I had interviewed John because he would know this stuff.
- [22:36]
B
I know.
- [22:36]
A
I knew it was wrong, but I didn't know the answer because I've heard you talk about it and people like you. But the problem is when you're not an expert, you kind of walk away going, okay, that was totally effed up and that can't happen again. That makes me not trust the Biden administration or the people behind it, but you don't retain it in such a way that you can regurgitate it accurately. It's just not what I do anyway, so go.
- [23:02]
B
I'll say this. And for anybody in our world who's listening, who might interview Jessica or someone on the left or a Dem spokesperson, why did Joe Biden backdate his pardons to 2014? And I'll tell you why he did that. Because 2014 was the year Hunter Biden took his board seat with Burisma in Ukraine. It was the year all of the financial corruption started. So the Hunter Biden laptop absolutely was valid. We know that now. We know the 51 intelligence officials flat out lied to the American people on behalf of Biden. Thankfully, Trump stripped all their security clearances and he pulled a bunch of their security details. The right move. And we now know that Joe Biden's brother was pardoned. We know his brother was the conduit and the go between. But the most important piece of this is the FBI had that laptop. They knew it was valid. They lied. They flat out lied to the American people. And Joe Biden confirmed that lie when he backdated the pardons for everybody involved with his family business dealings and what might have been on that laptop, including Anthony Fauci. He backdated all Those pardons to 2014, the year Hunter went on Burisma's board. You don't have to be a trained investigator, you don't have to be an investigative journalist. Anybody with common sense can see exactly what went on there. So when you put it all together, it builds a better than circumstantial case that the Biden laptop wasn't only valid and wasn't only real, which we know it was now, but that it implicated some very powerful people in names, you know, And I don't think Biden could have pardoned them all without a massive scandal that would have toppled the Democratic Party. So he pardoned the ones closest to him. You asked another good question. Biden's mental faculties weren't there. So who was pulling the strings? Right.
- [24:58]
A
Right.
- [24:58]
B
I think Barack Obama was in the mix there. I think Susan Rice was in the mix there. I think the big lobbies, Lloyd Austin and the military industrial complex, they have made billions upon billions in Ukraine. You know, Gillian, about a year ago, Elon Musk put out a great tweet. It went unnoticed. And he said, why are only the biggest defense contractors being paid with American funds going to Ukraine? And the mid level ones are not? Well, he was right. I looked into it. And it was all of Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense's buddies. Right. All of the companies he worked with. He sat on the board of one. He. He was contemporaries with all the power players and C suite execs at the other. They were getting paid. No one else was. Where is the rest of that money? We've given Ukraine more money. Most people don't know this metric. We've given Ukraine more money than Russia's entire military gdp and they keep asking for more. Where the hell is it going? So, yeah, the laptop was real. And it implicated some very powerful people and some really nasty and dirty things.
- [26:01]
A
You know, I knew about Fauci's pardon back to 2014.
- [26:05]
B
Yeah.
- [26:06]
A
And the reason that I was able to determine for that was because that's the year that he put bioweapons labs in Ukraine.
- [26:16]
B
Yep.
- [26:16]
A
And that.
- [26:17]
B
Ukraine. Yep.
- [26:19]
A
Wow. God damn. I also knew that BlackRock had the contract to rebuild Ukraine, and they were the top controllers of some of these massive defense contractors. Did you happen to see. Lex Fridman just did an interview with Zelensky, and Zelensky actually said. And I couldn't believe it. He's like, we didn't get that money that went to all these companies that gave us weapons we're not holding.
- [26:48]
B
I don't believe them.
- [26:49]
A
You don't believe him? Interesting. Okay. Really?
- [26:53]
B
I think he got. I listen. I think he got. I've always said this about Zelensky. You can read my ex history. I call Zelenskyy and Putin, the Crips and the Bloods. One is blue, one is red. Their flags reflect it. They're both gangsters. They're two gangs fighting it out. And we were idiots who picked the side. Zelensky made a lot of money off of this. But more disgracefully, the American taxpayer got fleeced for hundreds of billions of dollars. And look, this is what they wanted. Gillian, you just said it, right? They wanted a shadow Marshall Plan. Right? The plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, where American companies made a lot of money and our economy was booming. Well, they wanted it in Ukraine, but only for a few select companies in the shadows that were friends of the Biden administration. I mean, it's as dirty as it gets. It doesn't get any more corrupt than this.
- [27:41]
A
You know, we were at a dinner party where we first met. I'm leaving names out of it for this point forward just to protect.
- [27:47]
B
You're going to tell them about our Illuminati party with some of the most powerful.
- [27:51]
A
I'm Leaving names out of it to protect. Protect the innocent here. But we were all talking, and I had said, who's they? You know, it's like, well, they want this, they want that. And I was like, who is this proverbial?
- [28:05]
B
You did ask that.
- [28:06]
A
I remember that it was the proverbial they. And one of the individuals in our group said, whoever has the Epstein client list. And I thought, like, this is a ton of fun, but I feel like I'm playing Clue, you know, like, who shot Mr. So and so in the laboratory? Or whatever. But where? Who does have this list, John? Like, at what point? Where's the list? And I did see Eric Weinstein talk about this on the Modern Wisdom podcast a couple years. It was years and a half ago, where he suggested that maybe the guy was like a CIA operative or something. Like, where's the fund that he supposedly started to invest money? Where did he get this money from? Nobody has any information about this guy. Really? Is this nuts? Like, what is your thought about Epstein on the client list?
- [28:57]
B
Yeah, no, I don't. I don't think Weinstein and people like him, I think they're pulling the right thread. So, look, I firmly believe. And one thing people who follow me know, I have always mocked conspiracy theories. Right? And one of the reasons that you and I hit it off when we first met is that you were just asking the right common sense questions. You know, I firmly believe Jeffrey Epstein was a state actor. I think he was run by CIA, Mossad, and possibly other allied intelligence services, maybe some of the five eyes nations. Our allied five eyes nations. Britain, Germany, Australia, et cetera. Because he lived a lifestyle that was way over budget for the amount of money and assets he had when he died. So that was number one.
- [29:40]
A
Okay.
- [29:40]
B
Number two, the people he was able to interface with as a guy who wound up in finance. Now, I've spoken to some pretty top tier bankers, hedge fund managers, corporate bankers, guys who run lending portfolios in the billions. They're not writing your million and a half dollar home loan. They're floating 100, 200 million a billion dollars lines of credit to the blue chip corporations that you interface with every day. None of these people ever interface with Jeff Epstein. They're perplexed as to how this guy became such a power player because he was never considered a massive name in finance. Bernie Madoff was. Right. Bernie Madoff was somebody everybody knew. He either sat on or chaired every board in the financial insecurities industry. They knew of him, but nobody knew him.
- [30:29]
A
We all know Jamie Dimon like we all know Jamie Dimon.
- [30:32]
B
Right, right, right, right. Bill Ackman and David Sacks and all these guys, all of these names, you know, but nobody ever knew Jeff Epstein. And so it lended credibility to the fact that he was a state actor, that he was put out there in play by governments. I believe ours, I believe Israel and a few others, to compromise not just nefarious actors, but politicians on whom they needed leverage. Now, what we've learned over the years is that Robert Maxwell, his sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell's dad, was most likely a Mossad asset. He was killed on his yacht years back. Right. And everybody. Now, the conventional wisdom in law enforcement and the intelligence community is that was a Mossad hit. That's the prevailing primary wisdom. Others say, well, maybe it was a foreign intelligence service, possibly the name of the boat, coincidentally, was the lady Ghislaine. And then his daughter goes and becomes Epstein's sidekick. And Epstein is operating a lot like her dad, who now it's common knowledge that he was a. He was an intelligence asset. I think when you start to connect those dots, it becomes pretty evident. So who has the book? Well, Chris Wray has the book. Merrick Garland has the book. The agency, CIA has the book. Director of National Intelligence's office most certainly has the book. And I'm sure some foreign intelligence services have the book. And the fact that it hasn't been released tells you the caliber of the names in that book. Right. It would destabilize the world, it's literally, if it was released.
- [31:59]
A
But you've got. John, you've got some. I mean, listen, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew. I mean, you got some. It doesn't really get bigger than that. So that's my point.
- [32:14]
B
That's it.
- [32:14]
A
So is the reason they're not releasing it. So we're not confirming it. It's just speculation at this point because there are also tapes. The guy had cameras all over the place. I just. What I can't understand, and I'm wondering if you could explain this is. So much of what we hear nowadays is like, exactly what they want you to know. Even the alien thing is just to the point where, I mean, not to sound like a jerk, but the guy, Luis Elizondo, he's obviously very intelligent, he's incredibly well spoken, and he clearly works for the Pentagon. But to be fair, in what capacity? I'm a whistleblower. No, you're not. You're saying exactly what they've allowed you to say. You've made that very clear. I'm not allowed to tell you that. Well, I am allowed to tell you this. I did write a book. It's like he's literally spoon feeding us exactly what they told him he can spoon feed us. And then to the point where you're like, well, where is proof of life? Show me the bodies. I'm going to show you this little bit of footage that's 20 something years old that I'm allowed to show you. And even though I'm a whistleblower and I couldn't take it any longer, I still have security clearance. Like, what the.
- [33:24]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah, John. And it go. I'm half and half. I'm half and half on the UFO thing. Yeah.
- [33:31]
A
Because the same game, though, it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, there's something here. And then you're like, okay, show me the money.
- [33:36]
B
Well, maybe it's that they're showing us shiny things. They want us to look that way to deflect our attention from what's really happening over here. With the Epstein book and the weaponized. Let me tell you why I'm skeptical of it.
- [33:46]
A
Go.
- [33:47]
B
People can't inherently keep secrets. That's how we know Robert Maxwell was a foreign intelligence asset. That's how we can infer Jeff Epstein was. That's how we know that the FBI was weaponized under Chris Wray. But like you say, any stories about UFOs, they're very controlled. They're all the same narrative.
- [34:05]
A
Yes.
- [34:05]
B
So I really don't know what to think on that one. I mean, big part of me, Gillian believes that a lot of. There's no doubt that F18 pilots saw that Tic Tac UFO. Right. We know that. Right. It's been released. I know a couple of fighter pilots, they've seen things up there, but even they lean toward. It's probably one of our DARPA projects or a skunk works project. Probably something we're developing. Got to remember something. Americans only found out about the Stealth fighter, the F117AMost Americans, those who consume the news like a normal person. During the 1989 invasion of Panama. The plane was operational since 1978. The aviation buffs and the military buffs would get glimpses of it. The people who staked out all the facilities. But we didn't have the Internet back then. Right. So it wasn't that prevalent.
- [34:54]
A
That's right.
- [34:54]
B
Well, technology advances at an exponential pace, so you can only imagine what we don't know we have operational right now. Right. We see our F35s and our B2 stealths being upgraded. But imagine what we've developed that no one, even those in the regular Air Force don't know about. And so 25% of me kind of wants it to be aliens because it would be fun, it would be cool. But 75% of me is like, I think it's some advanced technologies we developed.
- [35:24]
A
I definitely kind of feel the exact same way you do. And I find it very strange that I'm being spoon fed information that's supposedly from whistleblowers, but it's obviously confusing. Controlled and fully managed and orchestrated. And that's exactly how the Epstein list feels. And now the Diddy thing feels the exact same. Oh, Diddy and tons of video. And it goes back decades. And where are the videos then you staged these raids and who's. Why are there no arrests? Oh, we're super worried about this celebrity. We're super that celebrities. Oh, LeBron. Oh, Ashton Kutcher. Where are your breasts? Is this the same game? Like, they're never going to tell you because they constantly have their finger on that individual and they can manipulate them in whatever fashion they choose to as long as they hold that over their head. I mean, that doesn't sound like a jerk, but who cares about LeBron James? Why do you need LeBron James under your thumb?
- [36:22]
B
Well, I don't think it's him, right? I think it's the. I think it's the company's like Nike and others that have a trillion dollars collectively into this guy's brand. They're probably the ones saying, hold off. And some of the bankers on those lists have major investments of these companies and they're like, hold off. And then the rest of it is probably foo foo friends of Obama who are saying, wait a second, hold off. Because there are some big names there. Look, lot of money. A lot of power and money with Epstein, right? And also a tremendous amount of power and brand money at those Diddy parties. Imagine if that list came out, what it would do to sponsorships for most of your major artists. Music artists, sports figures, movie stars, Hollywood producers. I mean, it could conceivably collapse the movie and music industry as we know it. Billion, hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars evaporating in revenue, in brand value if these names came out. So I think there's a massive financial incentive to keep that Diddy list quiet.
- [37:26]
A
I did not even think about that. How deep do you think the corruption in Washington goes? Like, who? I'm sorry, was it Christopher Wray? Forgive me. I saw something and it was like Former FBI director. Was it Christopher Wright braggs that he withheld things from Trump?
- [37:43]
B
Was it could have been Ray or Comey, one of the two.
- [37:48]
A
Are they how, how much power does the CIA, the FBI, how much national security, nia, whatever the hell, nhs, nsa, nsa. Thank you. I'm like, this is just not. We can talk about, you know, food and fitness, but this stuff is just like another universe to me. How much power do these guys have? A lot of power. So much so that they can just decide what they want to tell the President of the United States. Like how deep does this corruption actually go and who pulls their strings? If it's not the President of the.
- [38:22]
B
Fricking United States, it's the globalist actors with the money. Right? Everything comes back to money. So you ask a great question. So can the say CIA, the FBI, what have you, the intelligence community and federal law enforcement, can they really subvert the will of the President? It's really easy. And here's why it's easy. Say they don't want to tell the President something and the Attorney General orders them to do so and they show up at the Attorney General's office with a photo of him and his 24 year old girlfriend or boyfriend that his wife doesn't know about, or they do the same to the White House Chief of Staff, or they know that the U.S. attorney from X district flaked the collar, flaked his son's arrest with a kilo of cocaine and got him out of it. And they're holding that over his head. So what happens? It's not overt. These people, those, and I'm not implying this happened with any ag. These are all hypotheticals. But these people will then go to the president and say, Mr. President, we reviewed it, there's nothing there. Don't even worry about it. They're not hiding anything. We'll be on top of it. And they'll go to somebody very close to the President, somebody the President trusts or a governor trusts or the AG trust, depending on who the authority is doing the asking. And that person, they'll have that person compromised where they'll lose everything. They'll lose their family, they'll lose every dime they have, they'll lose their reputation, they'll never work again in politics or the private sector because they have dossiers on all of us, you and I, I mean, from my old life. I've been fingerprinted God knows how many times. My biometrics are all over the place. You've been on air for God, how Many years. I mean, you look 16 and a half, but you've been on air for a long time. But 20, 20 years, believe me. They've got dose, right? They've got dossiers on us. And with most people, there's not a lot of negative to use, but the higher up the ladder you go, the chances are you stepped on a lot of toes and maybe crossed some lines. And it's very, very easy to compromise people and keep things in the dark. Really easy. Easier than many people would believe.
- [40:30]
A
Tell me what you think or what role you think AI will play in compromising people. And what I mean is, at what point do you even. A video comes out of me saying the N word? I'm like, that is just not me. That's not real. Or a photo of me doing cocaine off of a rhinoceros horn. My point is, I can't really think right now of a ton I've done that. Somebody could be like, look what you did. I would have said a few things that were politically incorrect. Or, who knows? I might have pissed off a few of the wrong people. But it would be very difficult for you to find, like, nothing that Jillian did, a heroin did. Like, you're never gonna find it. It just doesn't exist. But can this shit be faked?
- [41:20]
B
Yeah. Hell yeah, it can be faked. And, you know, it doesn't have to be that egregious, right? It just has to be something that turns off your sponsor and then something else that turns off your next sponsor and your next sponsor, and then the networks that'll carry your podcast. It's a slow drip in many cases. If they want to destroy you, AI is very dangerous. Because I don't really trust the people creating AI to properly police AI. I think these people are inherently transhumanists. Some are post humanists.
- [41:55]
A
Wait, now I gotta get my pen because I gotta take notes. What the hell do you mean transhumanists and post humanist?
- [42:00]
B
Like, the simplest explanation is like Elon's neuralink, the fusion of man and machine to make us smarter. You know, we go back to the 70s, the bionic man, Colonel Steve Austin, right? That would have been transhumanism in a primitive form. Now it's neuro enhancements, neuralink, intelligent prosthetics, you know, for people who lost limbs. So many of our veterans, enabling them to perform almost back at their peak performance level. And so these things all in the abstract seem, wow, this is all great, but, man, you could really turn those things. You could turn that switch and use Them for really nefarious purposes. And the people behind this, the post humanists, they scare me. And they exist in Silicon Valley. They believe humans are dumb and irrelevant and machines should run everything, which is really kind of purpose defeating. But when you dig into it, it gets kind of scary. Go down that rabbit hole. These people exist, they have billions of dollars and it's very concerning how much power and access they're going to have to government.
- [42:58]
A
Okay. I mean, you've said of Sam Altman that you think he's sinister.
- [43:05]
B
Yeah.
- [43:05]
A
You're not alone in that. I mean, Elon Musk, very clearly. But the thing with Elon, it's so easy to just want to make this guy the best human in the planet. I mean, this man has so much power and so much access that God forbid one day, you know, he turned into Dr. Evil, we'd be effed.
- [43:25]
B
Oh, wait, dumb. We're screwed.
- [43:27]
A
I got shit in space. I got your car. I don't even have your phone.
- [43:32]
B
Guy's got his own robot army. Yeah.
- [43:34]
A
Like, whoa. Yeah. So my hope is that Elon Musk is a force of good and we haven't gotten this wrong, but he's particularly alarmed about Sam Altman.
- [43:45]
B
Yeah.
- [43:46]
A
Why is this guy such a bad guy?
- [43:49]
B
Let me, let me say this without breaching confidences. Broaching confidences. I did business with a company Sam Altman founded back around 2007, and I'd only met him is when he's first coming on the scene. He was, you know, it's almost 20 years ago. Right. So he was a guy in his mid 20s at the time. And, and I think he's 40 now. He's young. It was an early to mid 20s at the time. And I thought he was a nice guy. I met him, I think twice. He had popped into a conference room and okay, seems like a nice guy. And then a couple of the staffers there were like, don't be fooled, he's a Jekyll and Hyde. That kid has a pretty dark side to him. And then, you know, I kind of forgot about that. I forgot he existed, honestly, until he popped up on the scene with OpenAI and ChatGPT and all that. And I don't know if you've been following the case of his employee that allegedly committed suicide. I forget the guy's name.
- [44:40]
A
Indian guy, haven't. Yeah, Tucker Carlson pop up. Can you tell me about this? Actually?
- [44:46]
B
So essentially, and forgive me, I forgot the guy's name. There's a really good interview with Tucker Carlson and the Guy's mom where? And she's very methodical and very credible. And from an investigative standpoint, she runs through the crime scene and the way the police interacted with her on that day, and the coroner immediately ruling it a suicide. Now, I don't know if it was a suicide or not. The mom claims it wasn't. But, you know, parents, typically parents, family members, good friends, they always want to remember somebody in the most positive light. So her sentiment about her son, I threw out. Not out of disrespect to her, but just looking at it through an investigative eye. I said, okay, this could be driven by emotion, and she has a confirmation bias toward positivity. Any mother would, right? Any mother would. So you take that, you put it aside. But then she gets into the physical elements in the room, the serological evidence, the blood, the crime scene itself, the way police were told to not let anyone in, how long it took the coroner's van to get there, the fact that they didn't want to tell her her son was dead, and she realized he was dead when she went outside to go home and saw the coroner's van come up. It was a very atypical and unusual investigation and an immediate ruling of suicide for a guy working in a new and high profile space. I just think it demanded a much more thorough investigation than it got. And it was in a part of the country right up near Silicon Valley, where the industry has tremendous political power and can pressure the police very easily to close an investigation quickly. Now, I'm not implying this guy didn't kill himself. I don't know. I didn't examine the crime scene. I haven't seen the evidence. All I'm saying is the protocols that were deployed that day, the day the guy died, are very, very unusual for a guy in his job, doing the work he was doing, who had expressed concerns about his company, about his employer. And so I think that needs to be looked at. Is that an implication? Altman? No, absolutely not. I'm not implying Sam Altman had the guy killed or no, no, no, no. But that guy did have reservations about Altman. He told his mom, he told some other people. And so when you look at all these things, and he may have had so many reservations and known something about what was going on with AI, maybe something more nefarious, that he couldn't handle it and he did kill himself. But this needs to be investigated because too many little things are popping up around OpenAI that demand a lot more questions.
- [47:27]
A
Have you seen Marc Andreessen speak about artificial intelligence. I've seen him speak with Barry Weiss, Joe Rogan, and in these interviews he is talking about how he had some meeting and they, we're back to the, you know, whoever has the Epstein list, they told him, don't bother, you know, this tech billionaire, don't bother to do an AI startup because we're going to shut it down. There are a handful of these. We're going to control them. And he then goes on to say, well, but it's math. And they're teaching the math for AI at any university. And supposedly they said, yeah, that course is just no longer going to be available in the coming future. Is that bananas? I mean, this is not a dumb guy. This is not a particularly like, this is a very successful man. This is not like a Looney Tune. And the fact. And he seemed genuinely scared to the point that he would go on the biggest podcast in the world and talk about it.
- [48:45]
B
You took the words out of my mouth. I mean, when a guy like Andreessen is willing to go on the record about this conversation, people should be listening. Look, it's not as black ops as people think it is. Everybody hears the term deep state, right?
- [48:59]
A
Yes.
- [48:59]
B
And they think it's like the old X Files show. And this room that you go into with all these guys in leatherback chairs with cigar smoke billowing, it's really not. It's the institutional mid level bureaucrat at the Department of Labor. Right. That's the deep state. The people who have been in these institutional government jobs forever and they want nothing to change because it's an easy paycheck for the least amount of work possible. I mean, our colloquial standard of inefficiency is the dmv. Right. I mean, nobody has ever looked at government as a beacon of efficiency and profitability. And so it's much the same. You've got a few players in place that want to control AI. These companies are the ones who are either going to sponsor in the developers on H1S or if that program is curbed, which I hope it is. One place I disagree with Trump, they're the ones who are going to fund tech centers at universities. They're the ones who are going to be the VCs who fund the incubators. It's going to be very easy for them to tell a school you're going to teach this and not that. It's going to be very easy for them to tell developers you're going to code this and not that. Oh, by the way, here's your NDA, here's your non compete. If you try to go work for someone else and use this same technology or develop a competing or better one, we're going to sue you and the rest of your family into bankruptcy for generations. So it's not this, you know, cadre of super secret people from around the world in a lair. It's money, man. I mean, the players are already established. They want to control it and they've got the infrastructure now through bringing people in on visas or funding tech and incubation centers to dictate who can develop, who can emerge as a player and who can't.
- [50:47]
A
This is unbelievably scary. And now I saw it as a public figure because it's kind of what you said. Like, we're shutting you off the network. You're taking away your endorsement deals, we're removing your ability to distribute in mainstream stores. Oh, if you think you're gonna be on your own on the web, we're gonna drive you all the way down in search. I mean, it is just they can kill you without putting a bullet in your head. And we even talked about this at our Illuminati party of like, guns are great, but when they debank you and they deplatform you, like, who cares? Good luck. Like, they're not even showing up at your door. That way ain't gonna happen. What? Sorry. And you've just mentioned that they're going to regular people's houses about their Facebook posts and regular people were canceled and did have their lives destroyed over the past 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years.
- [51:45]
B
Sure.
- [51:46]
A
What does one do? Are we getting like secret phones and shit? Like, what are we doing about this, John?
- [51:53]
B
I don't think there's much you can do at this point. I mean, unless you have access to military grade encryption, it's going to be very difficult to safeguard. That's why I kind of laugh when people say, yeah, I'm selling everything I'm moving to, you know, off the mountains of Utah, the canyons of Utah. I'm going off the grid. If you ever had a cell phone and paid an electric bill, you're not off the grid. And it's going to be almost impossible for you to be off the grid and remain off the grid. There's a point you have to go buy something, right? It's going to be really, really tough. And I think you're right. Trump's a deal maker. The upside is AI is either going to make us all very healthy and live till 200 years old or kill us all really quickly. And so it's not going to be a long, lingering process. But I do think that. I think this AI thing would have taken hold had Kamala been elected as well. And you're 100% right. Things. Everything else would have been far, far worse. And so this was a train that was never going to stop. It's like the vehicle, the car being invented, the airplane being invented. It's happening whether people want it or not. And I think it's administration and political ideology. Agnostic. God.
- [53:05]
A
Yep, I see that. Okay. Would you. Okay, Sorry. One more question. I was gonna say, would you get off of all social media and just stop? I try to tell my kids, my son looks at me like I have three heads. I'm like, honey, he'll make jokes in the car. And I'm like, I know you think it's funny, and I know you think you're just with me, but both of our phones are on right now. He looks at me like I'm nuts. I'm like, there's no way this thing isn't listening to you. There's no way. It's not profiling you. Every text you send, every. Every freaking thing you like. Every. You know, this. This China credit score thing. Do you think that happens here where, like, every party you go to, someone's got a cell phone? Every gas station there's a camera you check out at Whole Foods, you better put organic bananas, not regular bananas. If it's a fricking organic banana and don't live, put the friggin banana on the thing. You know, like, my kids think I'm insane, but I feel like somewhere something is keeping score and one day we're going to experience that dossier. Do you think that's true, or is that like, uber paranoid? And this whole, like, credit score that they have, social credit score that exists in China can never happen here.
- [54:20]
B
Oh, it's happening. It's happening. I mean, look, Gillian, when you have a second and you're with your kids, take your cell phone, call somebody and talk about a product. I don't know. I just saw the new. The new Porsche Panamera. And then go on a Facebook and see how quickly a Panamera ad pops up on your profile or a Porsche ad, or an ad for a BMW 5 Series or one of the competing models to the Panamera. See how quickly that happens? It happens all the time. So they already use the microphones and cameras on our devices to market to us. Social credit is already Happening with debanking, right? They're deciding which industries and which political ideologies are more acceptable to the institutions. And so it's happening today, and people are experiencing it every day.
- [55:10]
A
What would you do? Would you generally withdraw? See, this is the part where you and I sit here and we have these conversations and I think, you know, I'm like a little piss ant. But, I mean, Rogan's alive. As long as Rogan's alive. I'm like, they haven't killed Joe yet. You know, they haven't killed Tucker. They haven't killed Megyn Kelly. Like, they're alive. So you kind of think, you know, they're here and I'm all the way down there. I mean, I guess it's okay, but I strongly wonder.
- [55:39]
B
But you're not. You're not, though. You have a big following. You gotta do this right? You're a globally recognized brand. You have a platform. I think I'll jokingly say we gotta keep going to our Illuminati parties, like with the Wolverines and fighting the Russians and North Koreans in Red Dawn. But I think it's really imperative for people with platforms to keep speaking up, marketing themselves and growing the platforms, because sunlight's the best disinfectant. The more popular you become, the larger your platform, the louder your voice, the more difficult it is to silence you. I mean, you could do it to one or two people, but not a network. I don't mean network in the sense of a broadcast or digital network, but a network of people who coordinate their messaging and amplify the concerns. It becomes more and more difficult for the institutions and the powers that be to silence a large group and mass messaging than it is to silence one or two people operating in the shadows. Look, they tried to do it. I've never been a fan of Alex Jones. I saw the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook. I think what he said about the kids being crisis actors was absolutely reprehensible. But should it have been a billion dollars? That was also insane. And so you see how they try to do it. You know, so, I mean, I think that was insanely punitive. But you've seen the primitive way with him that they and others that canceling people because of something they texted a friend in college and canceling their nightly news show on Fox. So you see how they're doing it. And AI is going to make it easier to do. So it's incumbent upon those platforms to get as loud and as large as possible.
- [57:22]
A
John, is there anything I didn't ask you today that I should have that we should be bringing immediate attention to.
- [57:30]
B
I think we covered everything I wanted to talk about and I think when we chatted about what we were gonna talk about, this was good. I think we nailed everything people needed to hear.
- [57:39]
A
Well, we definitely gave them the top line on things and they can investigate further on your show. This is what your show is about and can you tell everybody where they can get more from you, how to follow you, so on and so forth.
- [57:54]
B
Best way to grab my content is on X, just my name oncardillo. Anything I do, any hits like this, any media all gets repurposed and pushed up there.
- [58:06]
A
You're fantastic. I'm so glad we had a chance to explore these topics together, despite the fact that they're deeply alarming. And I look forward to continuing these conversations. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
- [58:19]
B
I'd love it. Thanks Gillian. Great to talk to you.
- [58:21]
A
Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.