Ep 386 | The CIA Is a Lawless Agency | Guest: Sen. Rand Paul

Summary

Kibbe on Liberty – Ep 386 | The CIA Is a Lawless Agency Guest: Sen. Rand Paul Date: May 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Kibbe on Liberty dives into the controversial role of the CIA, government transparency, and accountability regarding the origins of COVID-19. Libertarian host Matt Kibbe welcomes Senator Rand Paul to discuss recent whistleblower testimony, Anthony Fauci's influence, the perils of secret government power, U.S. involvement with Chinese labs, and potential reforms to prevent history from repeating. They reflect on challenges of congressional oversight, the ongoing battle for transparency, and the dangers unaccountable agencies pose to American democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Government Power vs. Accountability

• Who's in Charge?
  [00:00, 24:16]
  Rand Paul raises the fundamental question: “Who's in charge here? You know, are the people through the representatives in charge, or are the intelligence agencies more powerful than Congress?”
  The episode opens and closes with this theme, illustrating the core concern that intelligence agencies (the “zombie machine”) operate above congressional oversight.

2. COVID-19 Origins and the Intelligence Community

• CIA Whistleblower testimony
  [01:19 – 03:03]
  Senator Paul explains that early CIA scientific analysis overwhelmingly pointed to a lab leak from Wuhan, but Anthony Fauci's intervention led to a public denial. Fauci's “power, even in the CIA,” is compared to that of J. Edgar Hoover, due to his longevity and control.

  • Quote (Paul, 01:19): “It was extraordinary that from the very beginning, the CIA scientists that were hired to look at this said it looked like it came from the lab.”
  • Quote (Paul, 03:03): “The shocking thing was... how much power Anthony Fauci had, even in the CIA. This isn't the NIH, this is the CIA...”

• Blocking Oversight
  [03:47 – 05:29]
  Even with unanimous legislation to declassify COVID intelligence, agencies like the CIA sidestep compliance, giving what Paul calls a “non-response response” to congressional requests.

3. The Fauci/Agency Dynamic & Conflicts of Interest

• Entwinement of Science, Secret Projects, and Self-Preservation
  [05:57 – 08:30]
  Paul asserts that many government scientists involved in COVID research were also informants or paid by intelligence agencies, citing Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric as examples. Agencies didn't collude in a “sexy” conspiracy but acted through a “convergence of interests”—protecting themselves from repercussions for gain-of-function research.
  • Quote (Paul, 05:57): “Everywhere I looked, I found intel agencies… They're all spies.”
  • On publishing and suppressing scientific claims: “Maybe you shouldn’t put your name on here. We really need the appearance of independence with this letter.” (citing Daszak to Baric, ~07:00)

4. US Collaboration with China & Biolab Risks

• Military Connections and Risks of Gain-of-Function
  [09:11 – 12:03]
  Paul discusses U.S. and Chinese scientists’ ties to the military and how lax oversight led to dangerous collaborations, such as providing genetically modified mice to Wuhan. He explains how these practices risk “humanizing” animal viruses and thus, increasing the potential for pandemics.
  • “Many of these are military labs in China... Many of them have direct relationship to the military.” (11:05)

5. CIA’s Motives—What’s Hidden?

• Coverups and Secret Research
  [12:37 – 14:29]
  The conversation pivots to the possibility that U.S. agencies engage in the same dangerous viral research as China, justified by the need to “keep up.” Paul expresses skepticism agencies would ever be transparent, noting Intelligence Committees are usually composed of compliant members.
  • “You don't ever get on the Intelligence Committee unless you're a rubber stamp for the intelligence community.” (13:40)

6. Transparency Hurdles & The Pardon Issue

• Justice Department and Subpoenas
  [14:29 – 16:18]
  Paul describes difficulties compelling testimony or documents, even from those like Tulsi Gabbard who respond to subpoenas, versus agencies like the CIA that stonewall.

• Fauci’s Pardon
  [15:56 – 18:28]
  Paul discusses how President Biden issued a blanket pardon for Fauci, possibly shielding him from consequences for “unnamed crimes,” calling it “unprecedented.”

  • Quote (Paul, 16:18): “I don't know of any besides Hunter Biden. I don't know anybody else who's ever been pardoned for unnamed crimes.”

• Destruction of Records
  [16:54 – 18:28]
  Fauci’s alleged instructions to destroy emails are likened to “the mafia more than scientists in our government.” Paul suggests that those involved may testify due to legal pressure and betrayal by Fauci.

7. The Futility of Real Oversight

• Compelling Testimony & Data Collection
  [18:28 – 21:27]
  Paul describes the challenge of compelling testimony without dragging processes through courts, but notes some progress in retrieving phone and email data related to pandemic response and the destruction of records.

• “Risky Research Review Act” Proposal
  [20:52 – 22:32]
  Paul presents his legislation for an independent commission to oversee gain-of-function research, composed of unbiased scientists without government grants or conflicts of interest.

  • The predecessor, P3CO, is criticized as ineffective and designed to permit Fauci to evade constraints.

8. The Definition Game & Executive vs. Legislative Controls

• Limits of Executive Orders
  [21:27 – 22:32]
  Paul points out that bans on gain-of-function research (like the Trump executive order) are insufficient without independent enforcement, since future appointees could redefine or ignore rules.

• Fauci’s Successors
  [22:32 – 23:51]
  Paul quips about “creating a new Anthony Fauci in a lab,” noting an entrenched network of “minions” and conflicts of interest like Fauci’s wife heading ethics reviews.

9. CIA Pushback & The Dangers of Secret Power

• CIA Denies Congressional Oversight
  [23:51 – 27:26]
  The CIA’s spokesperson, during Paul’s hearing, publicly dismisses the Senate’s inquiry as “political theater.” Paul describes this as emblematic of agencies seeing themselves above elected government, referencing historical CIA overreaches (e.g., spying on Senate investigations, destruction of evidence from Church Committee/MKUltra) and the never-ending struggle for transparency.

  • Quote (Paul, 24:16): “If the intel agencies are more powerful than Congress, that's a very dangerous situation. It means we live in a lawless society with secret agents, and secret agencies can do whatever they will.”

• Opaque Classification
  [27:26 – 29:29]
  Paul outlines systemic abuse of classification to hide information, the obstruction of staff access, and the practical impossibility of genuine oversight if Congress cannot share findings with the public.

10. Can Democracy Prevail?

• Classified Power vs. Democratic Oversight
  [30:10 – 31:55]
  Paul: “One of the biggest dangers to democracy... is secret power, is intelligence agencies... whether or not Americans can have their data placed in a big, huge database without a judge's warrant.”
  • He pushes for more accountability with ongoing work to pass the “Risky Research Review Act” and a “Royalties Bill,” compelling government scientists to declare pharma payments.

11. Will the Public Fall for Pandemic Panic Again?

• Learning from the Past
  [31:55 – 35:35]
  Paul warns of the “pandemic industrial complex” ready to repeat lockdowns/mask mandates, urging Americans to remember failed policies and the distortion of science by authorities. He argues for voluntary, informed approaches, recognizing the vital role of natural immunity and affordable treatments like steroids.
  • Quote (Paul, 32:25): “We have to keep helping people to remember the past when they were forbidden from going to restaurants, gyms, churches... what Anthony Fauci said really wasn't based in science.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Power and Cover-up:
  “No one had to tell them to lie. No one had to tell them to cover up. They covered up to cover their own ass.” (Paul, 06:40)
• On Conspiracy vs. Interest Convergence:
  “George Carlin said you don't need to have a conspiracy to explain something or where interests converge.” (Paul, 01:52)
• On CIA Response:
  “They just kind of laugh and look the other way, send us letters after three months, which they call it, we call it non response response.” (Paul, 04:07)
• On Congressional Oversight:
  “You don't ever get on the Intelligence Committee unless you're a rubber stamp for the intelligence community.” (Paul, 13:40)
• On the Pardon:
  “It's unprecedented. I don't know of any besides Hunter Biden. I don't know anybody else who's ever been pardoned for unnamed crimes.” (Paul, 16:18)
• On Scientific Conflict of Interest:
  “Everybody's conflicted there. You can't do that... You can't make a ruling on your own experiments.” (Paul, 20:55)
• On Remembering Pandemic Errors:
  “Helping them to remember that what Anthony Fauci said really wasn't based in science, that six feet of distance didn't make any... really wasn't based in science, that masks don't really stop respiratory viruses.” (Paul, 32:25)

---

Timestamps of Major Segments

• 00:00 – Opening theme: Who’s actually in charge; overview of the problem
• 01:19 – CIA whistleblower & Fauci’s overriding of scientific consensus
• 03:47 – Failure of agencies to comply with declassification law
• 05:57 – Intelligence agency entanglements in pandemic science and cover-ups
• 09:11 – US collaboration with Chinese military-controlled labs and research dangers
• 12:37 – CIA’s incentives to cover up the lab-leak and secret research
• 15:56 – Fauci, perjury, and unprecedented blanket pardon
• 18:28 – Problems compelling testimony and obtaining evidence
• 20:52 – Proposals for independent gain-of-function research oversight
• 23:51 – CIA public pushback against Senate oversight
• 27:26 – History of CIA evading accountability, MKUltra, and classification abuse
• 30:10 – The danger of secret power to democracy
• 31:55 – Will the public submit to new pandemic restrictions?
• 35:35 – Episode wrap-up, practical lessons for responding to pandemics

---

Conclusion

Senator Rand Paul and Matt Kibbe argue that the unchecked power of intelligence agencies, illustrated by ongoing evasions and past misconduct, threatens foundational accountability in American democracy. Paul's call for transparent, independent oversight—both in pandemic science and spy agency activities—frames the episode as a clarion call against government secrecy and bureaucratic self-protection. The episode suggests vigilance is crucial to preventing history from repeating, both in public health crises and in the ongoing expansion of clandestine state power.

Transcript

[A]

Well, it sort of begs the question, who's in charge here? You know, are the people through the representatives in charge, or are the intelligence agencies more powerful than Congress? If the intel agencies are more powerful than Congress, that's a very dangerous situation. It means we live in a lawless society with secret agents, and secret agencies can do whatever they will.

[B]

Welcome to kibbe on liberty. Senator, thank you for doing this.

[A]

Glad to.

[B]

It's been a busy 48 hours for you. You had a big hearing yesterday in Homeland Security where you had a CIA whistleblower tell us from his perspective what actually happened within the CIA back when you were trying to get answers about the origins of COVID What were the big findings for you?

[A]

To us, it was extraordinary that from the very beginning, the CIA scientists that were hired to look at this said it looked like it came from the lab. All of the evidence seemed to point towards that this was a lab leak, in all likelihood accidental, but that it came from the lab in Wuhan, China. And yet they were being overruled by people. Specifically, the whistleblower said that Anthony Fauci came in 2020 and they had a 90 day period in which all the intel was going through the National Intelligence Center. They were going to come up with a conclusion of what everybody was thinking that Anthony Fauci was brought in and basically they took his opinion over all their scientists. And their scientists were nearly unanimous. It was like six out of seven of the scientists that were experts in this field all said it came from the lab. Anthony Fauci comes in and says no. But the one question they never ask, and this is the real sort of conspiracy, and people say, what is the conspiracy? Is it people rubbing their hands together and making money? Were they all in a cabal? It's not really as sexy as that. It's more that they have the same convergence of interests. George Carlin said you don't need to have a conspiracy to explain something or where interests converge. And the interest is basically covering their tracks because they funded this dangerous research. It was a serious mistake in judgment, maybe one of the worst mistakes in judgment of the last century. To fund dangerous gain of function research in Wuhan. They fund it. Now this virus takes off. So what do they do for the next several years? Even people who didn't know each other, they're all doing the same thing. We don't want anything to link us to funding this, and so we'll just deny that it was gain of function. So I think the shocking thing was that how much power Anthony Fauci had, even in the CIA. This isn't the nih, this is the CIA that Anthony Fauci is influencing.

[B]

It strikes me that it's, I mean, it's kind of a red pill or a black pill, depending on how you want to interpret it, that the chairman of the Homeland Security Senate Homeland Security Committee is getting to this day, roadblocked at every step of the way. And in. The story that our whistleblower talked about yesterday was basically this thing is a machine within itself that's completely unaccountable to the public and certainly elected officials who have a responsibility to oversee that stuff. And it's kind of like a zombie machine. It's not like one guy conspiring. It's all of them acting in concert.

[A]

And I think this has been going on for a long, long time, generations. But what makes it so extraordinary this time is Congress actually passed a law. We passed a law unanimously. It almost never happens. A law of real impact. We said to the administration, declassify all of the information with regard to Covid. And the Biden administration sent us a five page letter. Senator Hawley put that up, a five page letter, oh, this is it. Which is just an insult, a slap in the face. So we have a specific law saying declassify it. I'm in charge of the investigation. I've been asking and asking. It's like pulling teeth for all the agencies, but particularly the CIA. They just kind of laugh and look the other way, send us letters after three months, which they call it, we call it non response response. You know, they respond with a bunch of gobbledygook, but they don't give you any information. There's no reason why all of the intelligence agencies that studied this issue could remove if they had a special source somewhere that gave it to them. You remove that, you have no mention of that. But you discuss the science and what the scientists did, what their discussion was, what their conclusions were. And then the real question then is, well, if they were all concluding it was a lab, how come publicly everybody's still saying it's from nature? How come you get this really prominent article that Anthony Fauci just says, oh, I found this article that says it came from nature. And it's like, but he didn't tell anybody. He commissioned the article, helped write it and helped to edit it. And then he's commissioning and writing the intel reports. I mean, talk about power. I mean, the only thing comparable to Anthony Fauci would probably be J. Edgar Hoover, probably with the longevity and the amount of power that he accumulated.

[B]

Part of my investigation has been driven on this theory that Anthony Fauci specifically. But the government response to COVID 19 wasn't so much a public health response. And he's not really a public health official, but he's entwined with Homeland Security, DoD, and apparently the CIA. Why is the CIA even involved? And where did Fauci get all that power?

[A]

So when I wrote the book the Great Covid Cover up, everywhere I looked, I found intel agencies. You look at Jeremy Farrar, he's head of something called welcome Trust over in England. Well, it's Burroughs Welcome. It's a big pharmaceutical company. The family left a big trust. They fund a lot of grants. It's a private organization. The head of it is a former head of the MI5. Everywhere you look, there are these people in and out of the spook community. They're all spies. We started looking at the scientists, and we find out many of them work for the government. They don't release this, but we found out in our investigation Peter Daszak and Ralph Baric both were informants for the intelligence agency. They get paid to do this. And they were both commissioned to give their opinion on where they think the virus came from. Well, these two guys were the longstanding collaborators with Dr. Shi and Wuhan. They had worked on the gain of function experiments that may have led to Covid and were asking them their opinion. So once again, it's the conspiracy. No one had to tell them to lie. No one had to tell them to cover up. They covered up to cover their own ass. Basically, they were involved with this research. If the research led to the pandemic, they share responsibility. So what is their conclusion gonna be? Came from nature. You know, goes back to that whole spring of 2020. There's a letter to Lancet, and this is where you really see the culpability of these people. Ralph Barak and Peter Daszak organized the letter. And the letter's to say, these people are nuts. They're conspiracy theorists who say it came from a lab. But in the email exchanges back and forth, we have Ralph Barrick, the coronavirus scientist from UNC who's been working with them in Wuhan. We have him saying, hey. Or Peter Dasak says to him, ralph, maybe you shouldn't put your name on here. We really need the appearance of independence with this letter. But that is the circle of government scientists, you know, that are basically hired by the government that are giving us back information, but they have a conflict of interest. We also have other scientists, the ones who wrote the Proximal Origins article that Fauci commissioned and edited. At least one of them, got a $9 million grant. We have him on the phone saying, oh, my goodness, it looks like it was genetically engineered. Looks like we've got a virus that could have come from a laboratory. And three days later he's working on a paper to say definitively it couldn't have come from the lab. And a month or two later, he gets a $9 million grant.

[B]

One of the things that. I had a conversation with Matt Ridley, who has been sort of doggedly pursuing a lot of the same storylines that you have, and he talked a lot about the Chinese angle. And this came up yesterday with your whistleblower basically suggesting that because our agencies are collaborating with Chinese labs that inevitably are controlled and perhaps even owned by the Chinese government, that there's a real potential leak there, if you will, that we're exposing ourselves to some other country's hostile agenda.

[A]

Yeah. As we investigate the different Chinese scientists, we find that most of them have a military association. In fact, it's hard. You're not going to be a star Chinese scientist unless you're a member of the party, usually, and often you're a member of the military. So they tried to develop a vaccine early on, and they end up having a vaccine by February of 2020. And everybody's like, how can you get a vaccine in two weeks? And everybody looks at how long it takes to do the studies, at least three months. That's what we think. They knew back in October that this virus had started, or they had been working on a virus that got out. They knew exactly what the virus was once this thing started. All probably still an accident. I don't think they'd do this to themselves. But the guy who develops the vaccine is a guy named General Zoe Usin. So he's a general. I mean, the military is intimately involved in this. So for us to trust them and to give them money. And one of the big mistakes early on was Ralph Barrick at UNC said, I'll collaborate with you, I'll help you. And they said, well, we need mice that have human lungs. It's not exactly human lungs. They have lungs that express human receptors. They've been. Genetically, they're a chimera. They're a hybrid of a mouse and a human. And the human part is they express human receptors on the lung cells because they want to see will influenza and these respiratory viruses infect them. But he gave them that and they didn't have it. And one Way you can create a really bad virus to infect humans is you take an animal virus that doesn't infect humans. You infect a bunch of mice that have humanized lungs, and not much will happen. But maybe one mouse gets sick, and there's one variety, and it's a mutation, it's a random thing. But then you select for that. You find the one mouse. You have a thousand mice, only one mouse got sick. You take the virus because it's probably a mutation. You culture it again, you send it back through, this time maybe five gets sick. And so what you do is you just keep running it back through and you're humanizing the virus. That's incredibly dangerous. I mean, we're safe because most animal viruses don't infect us. They're evolved to infect humans. And there's no real evolutionary pressure to infect a human. It's an accident, but you can push it in the lab, and that's what we are doing. Many of these are military labs in China. Many of them have direct relationship to the military. It's been a mistake in the testimony yesterday, and I don't know if this was written or oral. We're still working on getting the written. Turned out is that there was a conclusion by the whistleblower that there's been no oversight of this for 20 years. And that was kind of apparent when Fauci was interviewed by the House. The House committee that looked into this. He acted like, well, I don't know what's going on over there. Do you check after a year? Have you ever been to their labs? I don't know. It seemed to be like we just give them money and. Huge mistake. Huge mistake.

[B]

So you introduced me to Dr. Richard Ebright, and I asked him this question, and he really didn't want to answer it. He kind of demurred. But my question is, if China is actively covering up the things that they know, and the CIA and other federal agencies are actively covering up that they know that this is coming from a lab that affects our public health response. And we went down this rabbit hole of lockdowns and things.

[A]

It definitely does. But it also leads to another question. What is the incentive for the CIA to cover up that there was a Chinese involvement that came from the lab? Now, for Anthony Fauci, he funded the lab, so that's his incentive not to. For Dr. Baric and Dr. Daszak, they were involved with funding the lab. Also, why is the CIA worried about links to the Chinese lab? Unless maybe there's other experiments that we don't know about. So this is the one thing we've been trying to get out of the CIA. Are there classified experiments that are gain of function experiments where you're creating viruses more dangerous? And what we get is a roundabout answer. We've had people come in and testify to us and talk to us privately who say, well, we should do any research that the Chinese are doing. So if we, if we discover a spy tells us the Chinese is weaponizing coronavirus, we should. Or if they're weaponizing Ebola, we should, in order to know how to counteract it, of course we're not going to use it because. Because we're good people. But just the develop of these weapons, these weaponized viruses, is very dangerous. And so do I suspect that we've been doing it in our intelligence agencies? Yes. Do I suspect there are scientists that work directly for them? Yes. Will these agencies ever tell us no. The only way they ever would is if we ever got a president who wanted to disrupt and give us his knowledge, he could force it. Or she or the other way would be getting people on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate or the House who, who are interested in transparency and checking this power. Unfortunately, it's the opposite. You don't ever get on the Intelligence Committee unless you're a rubber stamp for the intelligence community. There are a few exceptions. Ron Wyden, I would say, is an exception. But virtually everybody else who's ever been on intel is somebody whose job is to block people like me or you or the public from finding out the truth.

[B]

You haven't been getting much responsiveness from the Justice Department. Department, I take. But you're also working, I believe, with Tulsi Gabbard, who is pursuing a lot of truth on this, including where are these biolabs? Are there biolabs in Ukraine? Are there biolabs in China, other places? I guess those are two separate questions. Are you collaborating with Tulsi Gabbard and do you think there's progress promise there?

[A]

I wouldn't say collaborating. I don't want to get her in trouble at all, because it isn't. We have sent subpoenas to her and to the CIA. We also sent them to hhs, to Robert Kennedy. We also sent them to Kristi Noem. And I think Kristi Noem, Robert Kennedy, Jay Bhattacharya and Tulsi Gabbard have been responsive to the legal and lawful subpoenas that we have sent them. She may be doing her own investigation. I'm not privy to that. So I can't say, oh, we work together in a room trying to, to figure this out. But I do appreciate her obeying the law and trying to find the truth. And I think she is an honest broker. I think she's done a great job and I hope she'll remain there.

[B]

Yeah. Do you think that the Department of Justice will ever do anything? I believe your hearing landed one day after the supposed five year statute of limitations on when Fauci perjured himself to you. Do you think the lied.

[A]

Well, you know the statute of limitations. He lied again in July, so there's another lie a couple months later that you could use. The biggest problem I think is the pardon. You know, the president Biden's auto pen pardoned him and with that pardon, it was a blanket pardon for any crime he might have committed over a 10 year period. Now I think there are legal questions, but the only way you get legal answers is you got to.

[B]

This is kind of unprecedented.

[A]

Yes, it's unprecedented. I don't know of any besides Hunter Biden. I don't know anybody else who's ever been pardoned for unnamed crimes. I don't even. I don't think it's possible. Could a court rule that you can't pardon people for unnamed crimes, that it's not specific enough of a pardon and limit the president's power. I think it could. I think it'd be one of the most important cases we get that would actually limit this power. Now there's no guarantee the court would agree with me, but I think it's worth a try. And I think most people I talk to in the Internet chatter would like to see something tried basically to see if we could get justice here. So I think he could be tried on the perjury charge, lying to Congress, but I think also he can be charged and has broken the law with destroying government email and telling others to destroy email. He would send emails to like Francis Collins and say, read this and destroy it. We have this guy, David Morenz who worked for him for 20 years has been indicted now with two unnamed co conspirators and we have notes from Marinz to people saying, hey, if you need information on this, send it to me. Don't go directly to Fauci. We got to protect him. Send it to me and I can take it over by paper or I can tell him orally or I can talk to him on the phone, but we don't want a paper trail which sounds kind of more like the mafia than scientists in our government. Now There is some hope that Marin's facing a significant time in jail, would decide to tell the truth. The other reason I think he might be encouraged to tell the truth is Fauci completely threw him under the bus. When Fauci was asked about David Morenz, who'd worked for him for 20 years, he said, hardly knew him. He worked in another building. He wasn't important enough to come to our directors meeting, our weekly meeting. And I think if I were the guy that had been faithful servant for 20 years, I'd be a little annoyed at that. And if I were facing five years in prison for trying to protect this guy, and I'm 70 years old and this might be towards the end of my life, I think I'd tell the truth. I think there is a truth. I think that he did ferry information to Fauci that's not provable. Would only be provable with his testimony. I don't know that he'll ever testify, but he is indicted, so maybe there's a chance.

[B]

You, as a chairman of Homeland Security, are you able to compel Anthony Fauci to testify anew?

[A]

We have been communicating with him for over a year now. The, the song and dance is this, and I know people are frustrated. I see the online chat. You're not doing anything. How come you're not bringing him in? To get stuff from him, you have to have a cooperative arrangement. You know, you can compel it, but then they. You just come to a standstill in court. So we have gotten more data from him. We've gotten phone data from him, We've gotten more email data from him, and we've gotten stuff from NIH as well. And we have all of that data. And the biggest thing probably that's come from it is he destroyed emails and told others to destroy emails. Now his counter argument would be, oh, that wasn't really government business. I think he loses that argument because it's talking about coronavirus. It's is talking about the pandemic. It's government business. You know, we have gotten more information and there's more to come. You know, we're, we're. We have a bunch that we want to release, and we'll probably release more next week. They wanted to release some yesterday, and I told them it was too much stuff. We had plenty. Just with a whistleblower, let's, you know, parse some things out. But the main thing is destruction of records is. And I think the other thing is not really sort of a criminal matter. It's a problem of governments, the conflict of interest. And so we talked about a little bit of what the reform is and what's the lesson we learned from it. So we have legislation called the Risky Review, the Risky Research Review act, and that would set up a presidential commission. And the people on the commission would be many scientists, maybe some national security people, but none of them would be paid grants. They can't be a member of government in another department because what was happening is the people reviewing and making decisions would be people waiting on a grant approval from Dr. Fauci. That's a conflict. Everybody's conflicted there. You can't do that. So this would be a commission by the President. They'd have like five year terms and you try to pick people with some expertise. And then they'd go through and we list the different viruses that are dangerous or potentially dangerous and anything that smells of gain of function, they would review and have the ability to stop. They would have real power. They would have power to go and get it and go and stop it. The previous committee was called P3CO, did not have the power to go get anything. It had only the power to look at what was given. It was given four projects to look at in like an eight year period. So it wasn't a very good commission commission. And it was sort of written by Anthony Fauci. He wrote all the rules for things to allow him to evade it. And so I think that's part of the answer. So scientists that are not paid for by government, scientists that are not involved in the experiments that were actually, they can't. You can't make a ruling on your own experiments. That's essentially what's been going on.

[B]

So the Trump executive order effectively prohibiting gain of function research is not enough. We would need legislation to protect us.

[A]

The main reason you need enough. I think they sincerely are trying to enforce that. And I think there's been a crackdown. I can't attest to all the classified stuff because they won't let me see it. But I think there has, there is less gain of function going on than there was. If there is, if there is any going on, it's a lot less. It doesn't work forever though, because what if the next administration is a Democrat AOC and she appoints Anthony Fauci's clone, who's 30 years younger, and now we've got a new Anthony Fauci and all he has to say is we don't do gain of function. And that experiment you're worried about is not gain of Function. So you play a definitions game, and if you just define things away or partial words, you can have a ban on gain of function and still just do things, just not call it gain of function. So that's why you need an independent council, and it needs to be something that has the power to enforce.

[B]

Do you think they're creating a new Anthony Fauci in a lab as we speak?

[A]

Maybe. I think the real problem is he was there for so long that there were many, many of his minions. I mean, dozens and dozens of people scattered throughout the scientific community that are all his people, basically. But I do think the Trump administration has done a good job of trying to push those people away. One story was, you know, his wife was head of ethics. So if there was an if he had to say, oh, do you have a conflict because of your, you know, patents or your royalties? Who did he go ask, you know, to see? Is there a conflict? Hey, honey, can you come in here for a minute? Do I have any conflicts? Are my royalties a conflict? No, honey, you're fine. I mean, but to get rid of her because it's hard to fire people. I heard this story. I read this in the paper. I think somewhere they reassigned her to Nome, Alaska, and she decided to retire at that point. But that's what it took to finally get rid of her, too. But I think they have tried. Jay Bhattacharya is great. He has really been shed some light and really is an honest broker who wants the best things for the country. And this is the first time we've had somebody outside the sycophant class. Everybody else has been a sycophant, either to big pharma or to big government or both. Really.

[B]

Do you. I want to talk about the CIA spokesperson that put out this amazing press release in the middle of your hearing. I think it landed Ron Johnson actually read it there. She calls you out by name and literally attacks the committee hearing as political theater. What's going on? Like, are they allowed to just tell you to f off?

[A]

Well, it sort of begs the question, who's in charge here? You know, are the people, through the representatives, in charge, or are the intelligent agencies more powerful than Congress? If the intel agencies are more powerful than Congress, that's a very dangerous situation. It means we live in a lawless society with secret agents, and secret agencies can do whatever they will. You know, one of the things the whistleblower said is the CIA was spying on his group. That was looking into the origins. Well, how could that be legal? I thought it was illegal for the US for the CIA to spy on Americans. I would have thought if they thought they were doing something wrong, they'd have to go to a judge, get a warrant and ask the FBI to look into these people. But this isn't the first time either. You remember the torture memos? When Senator Feinstein and others were looking at the torture memos, the people that have been tortured after 9, 11 overseas in different black ops prisons, the CIA was spying on the Senate and nothing ever really came of that. Someone should have gone to jail for that. And yet everybody went, oh well, we won't do it again. And that was enough. But no, there's a real danger to having people have such great technical skills that they can eavesdrop on anything. And to have no real oversight and to have them tell me how dare you. And they said you had closed door testimony should be enough. And I was like, well, how do I provide oversight on stuff? You won't let me talk about that I have to do behind closed doors. That's not oversight. So yesterday was the beginning of real oversight. We also have his written testimony. It's been submitted to the CIA. That's our normal rules. They're supposed to go through, see if there's anything that needs to be redacted and let us release it. But we're sending them a letter today saying you need to review this or we're going to just release it. Because they don't control the legislative branch. It's the other way around. And so we've been talking with Senator Johnson and we're going to set a very short deadline for release of his written testimony. We're not releasing it because he, under his his rules, is supposed to submit it and he has. While they're petulant about we weren't informed. Well, they wanted two weeks or three weeks notice so they could put the kibosh and threaten people so we wouldn't have the hearing. We gave them notice, but we didn't give them a ton of notice. But they were notified and the written testimony was sent to them. So they knew about it. They're just unhappy. Look, they're still trying to classify the church Committee from 1975. I'm trying to read the Church Committee classified annex and they won't give it to me. They're hiding it somewhere in a room of 400 boxes that they're going to say, oh yeah, he could see it anytime he wants. We've offered for him to come over, but 400, you know, I would need 10 historians and 10 staff members to go through that many boxes and try to find it. And it probably is sitting some there with a label on that they could give it to us, but they just don't want to give it to us. And which makes us a little more curious as to what's in there, what's in the Kennedy files that they have, what's in the MK Ultra files that they are taking back now. And in all likelihood, we'll never see the light of day.

[B]

They're legally supposed to release MK Ultra? Yes.

[A]

Yeah. And I think when that started, when they were first told to release it, there was a CIA director went back and destroyed 85% of it. Right. And was that when it was. When were they first told to release it? In the 70s?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And then 15% of it's been lingering around somewhere.

[B]

I mean, it was the Church Committee,

[A]

what they told them, so 75. And so they were going to release it, and the CIA just came in and destroyed it. And that guy never was punished, never went to jail. But then 15% of it, it's been lingering around somewhere, maybe he didn't find it. And that's what's been in Tulsi Gabbard's office and apparently has been sent back to the CIA. And who knows where it goes. It's confusing where things are. They get moved around until sometimes they're not under CIA's purview, they're actually under the Senate Intelligence Committee, or sometimes they're under the archivist. And if we ask the archivist for it, then they move it to the committee. If we ask the committee for it, they move to the CIA. But involved in all of this can be years of time. I've been trying to read the classified Church Committee report, I think for two or three years, and they keep moving the ball, or they just don't answer, or they say yes, so they can publicly say we've told him he can read it. And then they make it impossible because right now they're preventing any of my staff from. From being in the room. And the thing is, is if I can get it and read it quietly and not tell you about it, not tell the public about it, what oversight happens? How does anything change if I can't tell anything about it? So the whole racket of classification needs to change. We need to declassify virtually everything. I'm all for protecting individuals. I would never mention a person's name. In fact, I tell people when I see the intelligence, I don't want to see A person's name. I don't know how we even want to know how you got this. It's not my concern. That's not my area of expertise. But if you have a report that talks about evidence you have on both sides of where the coronavirus came from and how it was manipulated, everybody should see that.

[B]

At this point, the final question, I know you got to go. You got a lot going on. When we spoke almost two years to this day, you were expressing a lot of frustration and also optimism that we could actually get to the bottom of this so that we ensure that it never happens again. I got to think that a lot of people, you know, people that are on your side but frustrated are watching the shenanigans at the CIA, which is now a Republican controlled, ostensibly controlled CIA is. Does democracy still work and will we get accountability so that it doesn't happen again?

[A]

One of the biggest dangers to democracy, you hear people protesting about, oh, democracy is this and that. I think executive power is a danger of democracy. But I also think secret power is. And secret power is intelligence agencies. And that's why this big fight over FISA is an important fight. Whether or not Americans can have their data placed in a big, huge database without a judge's warrant. Warrant, and then just sift through it looking for, you know, looking for the person looking for the crime, you know, with that. So I think those are two big risks that we face. And we do have to, we do have to counter that. As far as trying to prevent gain of function research from leading to another virus. I am working and trying all the time to get the Risky Research Review act put into some legislation. They likely won't give me a vote by itself, but if I can put it in something else, that's passing. So I have been talking to our leadership. You know, I do the best it can. I'm not always a reliable vote for the leadership. So I don't get everything I want. But I am trying to get them to include it in a bill this year. That and the royalties bill, where the government scientists have to reveal the royalties they get from big pharma. I've been trying to pass out unanimous, unanimously. I've gotten every Republican to agree to it unanimously. And then on the Democrat side, we've been working with several people who had problems with the bill. Two of them have gotten better. I have two left. There is a chance I can pass a royalties bill unanimously, which to me would be. It's just a reporting requirement. You say, ah, that's no big Deal. But it's a breakthrough for those of us who don't want big pharma to be influencing which vaccination vaccines get approved and whether we're forced to take them.

[B]

I lied. I have one more question. The pandemic industrial complex is ginning up the fear of another pandemic, and there's more than one. There's hantavirus and other trial balloons out there, and they're already proposing lockdowns, and they're already proposing masks, and there's rumors of vaccines being developed, and it's like groundhog day. We're trying to do this thing all over again. Will the American people fall for it again?

[A]

Well, that's why we have to keep helping people to remember the past when they were forbidden from going to restaurants, gyms, churches. Helping them to remember that what Anthony Fauci said really wasn't based in science, that 6ft of distance didn't make any, you know, really wasn't based in science, that masks don't really stop respiratory viruses. One of the other things we need to know, and there should be a discussion of this, it's not like we don't care. I care about a pandemic if something comes like, you know, the pandemic we had in 2000, but it's got a 5% death rate instead of a 1% death rate. We're talking about millions and millions of people dying. The one thing you need to understand is natural immunity. And the reason you do it is to protect people. So this last virus kill primarily older people in nursing homes. If you want to protect them even before a vaccine or even after a vaccine, the people taking care of them should be people who have recovered from the virus. So in the first two weeks of the virus, many, many people get it once they've recovered. Like, let's say I'm a big hospital chain and I have 5,000 nurses. The nurses who've recovered from COVID are. Are the ones that come back, should be working, and I should put them in the elderly units. You know, I should shuffle around. I should do anything. I should almost put people who are not nurses in there to help take care of them if they've recovered. Because that's your wall. Your wall is natural immunity. I suggested this even in taking care of the president when we had no vaccine. The president finally did get Covid, and he did okay. But when he. To protect him, I kept suggesting to his Doctors, they have 2,000 Secret Service agents, most of them young men. They go out, they go to restaurants, they all were getting. Covid put the ones who recovered in his circle. So he now has an immunity wall. Not perfect, but that those people won't be infecting him. The people around him touch, you know, touching, help him through a door, things like that, but nobody really listens. So we do need to know that natural immunity is our friend and how to use it to our advantage. The other thing is, is monoclonal antibodies, I think, had some benefit. We need to make sure there's no regulatory burden to putting them out. They should be taken voluntarily. I'm not even opposed to the vaccines either, as long as it's voluntary and we are giving people good information on it. And then the one big treatment we had cost pennies. It was the most successful treatment for really, really sick people. If you were getting ready to go on the ventilator and you're just about or you're on a ventilator, the one treatment worked better than any other treatment. Steroids, Solu Medrol, cost pennies. We've had it since the 1930s or 40s, and it was way better than everything else. Had a 37% reduction in death. And that's a real lesson. You know, that steroids are pretty good for viral illness. So the next virus can be different. You try specific things. Monoclonal antibodies will be specific. But when you're really sick, steroids, and maybe actually before you get really sick. And. And that's where some of these doctors were saying, use an inhaler. Use a steroid inhaler before you get really sick. And maybe it prevents. That's not as certain, but certainly isn't going to hurt you if you're getting a little bit sicker and your cough is getting worse. Because steroids ended up being a treatment that actually worked.

[B]

Spoken like a doctor. Thank you, Senator.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about Free the people, go to freethepeople.org.