A (0:00)

Have you been. Are you familiar with an FBI agent named Lynn De Vecchio? No. Okay. He was indicted for murder. More for murders because he worked. I think more of your guys than my guys have been indicted for murder. Absolutely. Because we were criminals. But the FBI is supposed to be upstanding citizens that took an oath to protect people, your organization. You guys violated your oath or you were criminals. Right? You can't. We were criminals. You can't compare us to the. If you compare us to the FBI. We were in a lot of trou. From Jubilee Media, this is the Surrounded podcast where one brave soul faces a room full of disagreers. In the center of the circle today is the former crime boss Michael Francese. And he will be facing 20 cops. Michael will debate them one on one until they are voted out by their peers and replaced by someone new. Let's get into it. This time of year, everyone talks about going dry, but at Athletic Brewing Co. We're skipping that because we prefer going athletic, which isn't dry at all. From crisp goldens to hoppy IPAs, limited releases, in between, you'll find something that fits your style. Every single non alcoholic brew is packed with flavor and the same craft experience you love. So yeah, you could call it dry, but there's really nothing dry about it. Find your new favorite near beer@athletic brewing.com Athletic Brewing Co. Fit for all times. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer hi, I'm Michael Francis. I'm a former copper regime in the Colombo family in New York, one of the five New York mafia families. And today I'm surrounded by 20 cops. All right, my first surrounded claim is undercover sting operations often manufacture crime. So you believe that undercover operations create crime? Absolutely. Let's talk about the word entrapment. So entrapment means that law enforcement officers are inducing a reasonable person who is not predisposed to a crime to commit a crime. Well, what do you mean a reasonable person? Not in my experience. The undercover operations were either an undercover law enforcement person or somebody, a confidential informant that was put into that situation. That's not A fine, upstanding person. Normally the undercover agent. Absolutely. But not that other person. So I've worked undercover. I've worked undercover in multiple situations. You're fine, upstanding person. Thank you. I appreciate that. And looking at it from that perspective, if I was doing a prostitution sting, walking the streets, then people weren't predisposed to committing crime. They could keep driving or keep walking right by me. Correct. So the fact that I and my law enforcement agency created an arena for someone to make a decision does not mean that I manufactured crime for them. I did not force them to commit crime. They made that final decision. I agree with that. And I believe that undercover sting operations are necessary, you know, to catch criminal people that you suspect of being criminals. However, there are situations that I'm very familiar with where they will use another criminal. Okay. To go into that. Become a confidential informant, and he will help to manufacture a crime by getting people to say things that they wouldn't have ordinarily said. Put them in a situation, bring them a criminal activity of some, and put them into it. So. Yeah. Because they don't know what this other person is doing. I'll give you an example. Michael Francis. We know he's an organized crime guy. We got. Our informants told us that. But we haven't been able to catch him in a crime. So let's send somebody in there and see if they can create something to put him involved in, and then we have our crime that's done. It is. But sending someone in, like a confidential informant, there's also a lot of controls that are on the law enforcement side. So whether that person is wired or there is an infiltration of a law enforcement officer on, you know, as part of the act, they're still not causing crime to be manufactured. It's all being done rightfully by the suspect. I can't agree with that. I cannot. When you wire up a confidential informant and that informant brings criminal activity to that other person because that's the person that's the subject of the sting operation. That's entrapment as far as I'm concerned. Because that wouldn't have happened if your confidential informant didn't go in and manufacture that crime. They're bringing him the crime. He's part of that criminal activity. Understood. But if you didn't want to commit that crime, you wouldn't have to. You could walk away. You could be like, you know what? I don't want to. I don't want to do this robbery tonight. I don't want to put Something I don't want to put a, you know, amount of money on someone's head. I can just walk away. Absolutely. And if you do, you're not entrapped. But if you do it, then you are entrapped. And that's what the confidential informant is supposed to do, entrap you. I understand what you're saying, but you just made my argument. So if you could walk away from that, and if you walk away from that, it's not entrapment. You're not getting involved in the criminal activity where if you stay involved in it, you were prepared, predisposed to move forward with that crime regardless. So it's not entrapment either. Well, I disagree with that. I think you said it would have never happened if you didn't put. If law enforcement didn't put their CI in there to try to entrap that guy, then there would have been no crime. But if the person they were trying to entrap, let's say it's you, if you were going in with a clean conscience, not wanting to commit crime at all, then it wouldn't matter who they put in there. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because you're still creating the crime. Law enforcement is creating the crime through their confidential informant. Because it would have never happened if that confidential informant, if he never met him, then there would be no crime. So the confidential informant comes in saying, I want to do XYZ crime. You can still walk away. You can. And then there's no entrapment. But there wouldn't have been anything at all if your guy didn't come in. He wouldn't have had to refuse anything because there wouldn't have been anything refused. You're saying you would never have committed a crime, no matter what it was, if there wasn't a confidential informant that came in. But here's what I'm saying. Then get him for that crime. Then the government didn't push that. The government didn't create it. The government didn't manufacture it. He did it on his own. You have every right to get him at that point. The government provided an opportunity, and the person can decide whether or not to take that opportunity. That's correct. That's correct. But let me ask you a question. There's somebody here, he's broke. He's got no money. No money at all. Never committed a crime in his life. Innocent guy, okay? Can't put food on his table. You don't like that guy. You know what I don't like Him. I don't know what to do. He's not a criminal. But I'm going to send somebody in there and give him some incentive. I'm going to send somebody in there to talk to this guy, to tell him, listen, I have this jewelry store that we can rob. Don't worry about it. Inside job. Nobody's going to know anything. Okay, but come with me. We'll do it now. You can put food on the table. So you created a crime. You manufactured a crime for a guy that never was in trouble in his life. He may never have been trouble in his life, but if he wasn't already thinking that he could get away with that crime or commit that crime, he would say, no, you can't get. You can't lock somebody up for what they think I may think of committing. I may want to rob Brink's truck, but I'm not going to do it, of course, so you can't get mad at me for what I'm thinking. But if he doesn't move forward with robbing that jewelry store, then there's no credit. You don't understand. You didn't understand what I said. You didn't like that guy. He wasn't a criminal. You just didn't like him. Yeah, but I can't do anything about it. But I'm law enforcement. I have a tool. I have a weapon. I have a CI. I'm gonna send him in there. I'm gonna bait this guy into committing a crime. I love that. You think there's enough time and staff to be able to screw people over in the world of organized crime. Okay? They got all the money, all the resources. Let me tell you something. During my time in organized crime, we had 750 made guys that comprised all five families. We had 1400 agents, two agents to every one guy. They have plenty of time. That's what they get paid for. They have plenty of time, and they put a lot of effort into it, and they put a lot of guys. They destroyed my former life. They have all the time in the world when they want to. I'm not saying you do or anybody else in this room. I'm telling you my experience. And let me tell you something. I had a lot more respect at that time for police. They were doing their job. I understand that. People say to me, michael, now, you know, you got to hate the police. I said, no, I don't hate the police. I have a wife. I have five daughters. I have grandkids. When they walk down the street, I want the police to protect them. I support the police, but I don't support the underhanded stuff that was done and that continues to be done. I'm sorry. I think to defund the police movement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm totally against that, But I'm totally against law enforcement using tactics and weapons to get people that they shouldn't be doing. They have to play by the rules, period, or we have anarchy. You're right. And they do play by the rules. No, they don't. Because providing a criminal opportunity does not force someone to commit a crime. And if that person is getting lured into the crime because they don't have enough mental fortitude to say no to something that's not law enforcement. Lock somebody up for their mentality. But if they move forward, they have to commit the crime. If and if the confidential informant gets them to move forward and commit the crime, did they manufacture that crime? Then? Yes or no? Absolutely not. There was no crime until law enforcement put the guy there to make the crime. And the person they wanted to arrest could have said no. I understand. But there would have been nothing to say no to if the government didn't put that crime in front of them. So they manufactured it. There was no crime before that. Okay, pause. You've been voted out with the majority. Please return to your seats. New York. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. We're both New York guys. We're adults, right? We make our own decisions. Correct. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 99.999 of undercover stings aren't just us being like, John Doe. You want to shot off shotgun. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's not how it is. I agree. We already probably have dirt on you in some facet, right? Oh, you think you do? Yeah, either way, sure. Fair. All right. Fair. Fine. So we're gonna set up a 20 man team, audio, video, all this stuff just for a random dude. No. Right. That's my point. No, but what's the difference? Let's say. Let's put out a name that everybody knows. Let's say it's John Gotti. We know that John Gotti is the boss of the Gambino family. We'd love to see him in jail, but we don't know what he's doing at this point, so we have to figure it out. So let's get a confidential informant, okay? Wire him up or do whatever it is that you do and put him with John Gotti and Try to bait John Gotti into doing something, whatever it might be, so that we can get something on him. Tell me you're not manufacturing that. No, no, no. He's still in the crime family. He's still running the mob. It doesn't matter. Being in the crime family is not a crime. Sure, yeah, I understand that. No, for sure. Yeah. But if you still put a CIA in the room with him, he's like, hey, boss, you want to commit murder today? He's gonna be like, actually, now we're gonna pass on that. Like, no, he's still gonna do the crimes he's doing now. We just have an inside guide to wire that up. But you don't know that. You don't know that. That's the point of the undercover sting. Exactly. But you're manufacturing that particular crime. You are creating that if he's done so some. No one's gonna tell the boss of the Gotti, the crime family to say what he's gonna do. You don't. You're not understanding. There still was no crime. You're creating a particular crime by bringing that confidential informant in into him and giving him a situation, a criminal situation that you're hoping he bites into. If there was no confidential informant, there's no crime. So you manufactured that situation. You can do anything. He could easily be like, we're not doing that today. He can, right? He can say no. But I'm going to say the same thing that I said to that young lady. He wouldn't have to say no if you didn't manufacture something for him to say no to him. I wouldn't say yes. This is like. This is a circle. It doesn't matter. No, no. Because the question is, do confidential informants manufacture crimes? The answer is yes. You're just agreeing with me because, yes, he's bringing a criminal situation to John Gotti that didn't exist before. If another criminal came to me and said, michael, let's do this crime together, and I did it. Okay? I did it. But if the government sent that guy in there, then the government is manufacturing no, because you still have free will. And you could be like, no, but it doesn't matter. You're right. But there would be no crime if the government didn't make that happen. But you're bringing that crime to saying yes. And again, we would already have something on you or think we have something on you. You're not sure. You're not a random person. My point doesn't matter if you're random or not. Everybody has the same rights. Yeah. If you're a. If you're alleged to be a criminal, but you didn't commit a crime, you still have rights as an American citizen. Sure. So it doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter what you suppose, doesn't matter. You could say, yeah, John Gotti is doing a million different things. We don't know what they are, but let's get somebody to do something so that we do know what it is. You're manufacturing that crime. It didn't exist before. Pause. You've been voted. All right. Nice meeting you, fellow New Yorker. Thank you. Hi, how are you? I'm well. How are you? Good. I love that you brought up the Gambino family one, because there was more to it than, I guess, was just discussed before. Right. So we talk about Joey V. Joey's the one who took them down. He was pulled over, and he was in possession of a large amount of cocaine. Right. So that's how he was located. And then I think the word that you're using, manufacturing. I kind of understand where you're coming from. You're saying that we're being a part of something that is criminal. So therefore, we're helping to manufacture. Manufacture it. When in reality, what it is, is we're going in there, and so we talk about one of the captains of the Gambino family who had a construction company, racketeering, fraud, all of those things. You know, tax evasion, all the things. So when we're sending in an informant, we're looking for those things. We're not necessarily committing a crime. Also alongside the people who are already engaged in criminal activity, you're not committing the crime, but you're manufacturing the crime. But if we're finding evidence by utilizing an undercover detective or a corroborating witness, we're not engaging in criminal activity. We're locating criminal activity that's already in place. Or by bringing that confidential informant in, you manufacturing it, as far as I'm concerned, Because it didn't. It wasn't there before this particular informant brought it to the alleged defendant or perpetrator, let's put it that way. Okay, so let's use your example. I pull somebody over, and we're gonna go into narcotics. We're not even gonna necessarily talk about organized crime in a Mafia family. But I pull over somebody, and I pull them over, and they're like, man, I can't go to jail. Again. I can't go to jail. And we know that they're a lower level, you know, Holder or maybe even a seller. And we want the big person. There's already a relationship there where criminal activities are occurring. Otherwise, we're not getting someone in the door. Right. So if I pulled somebody over from your family or your ex family, and I. I was a Colombo guy, by the way, but I was very familiar with the Gambino. No, I know. I'm pretty familiar with the Gambino family. I'm a Jersey girl, by the way, But I could tell. Straightforward. Hell, yeah. So what I'm saying is, if I'm building a corroborating witness or a confidential informant and I utilize that person into an investigation, there's already a relationship there. Based on the corporate activity that's happened. There's already things that they're bringing to the table to make sure that I understand their why, as whether or not I can even use them. Right. Reliable or not, Nobody's reliable fully. So I need other things to show me that I'm going to be able to have the evidence to move forward. So I'm not always asking somebody to commit a crime with somebody in order to be a part of a manufacturing or whatever crime. I'm looking for the evidence, whether it's going in there and it's looking at your books or sitting in on a dinner where there's conversations being had that can corroborate the information that we believe we already have. It's not gonna be like, hey, I know. And you used Gotti as the example. So I know that Gotti's the boss. I'm not gonna, like, just manufacture something. I'm gonna start doing surveillance. I'm gonna watch criminal activity take place. I'm gonna utilize that to build probable cause. Yeah. You're bringing together the totality of the tools that you have, the weapons that you have to investigate this crime. Correct. Nothing wrong with that. I get it. I mean, but that's what a CI or an undercover is gonna help me do as well. After those things that I just talked to you about are starting to form, or at least that's how an investigation goes in Jersey that I've been a part of, we're utilizing all those things to come together and then use that CI to go in and witness criminal activity that's already taking place in a criminal environment. It's not something we're already manufacturing. Let me give you an example. I was a subject of an undercover operation. It was me and Don King. Okay? The government was trying to allege and prove that organized crime was involved in professional boxing. So they had an undercover informant and an FBI agent that went undercover and they were with me for eight or nine months. Now, I was not involved in this organized crime, being involved in professional boxing, but I was a target. They believed that they can get to me to try to prove their case. It never happened. I was never involved in it. But for eight months they tried to get me involved in criminal activity and infiltrate me and Don King. They tried to get me to get Don King to take a bribe and all this kind of stuff. We didn't go for it and the investigation went down. If they would have got me to go along with it, they manufactured it. They were trying to look to get you to fit the crime that they wanted because they couldn't get you somewhere else. Correct. I can understand where your point is coming from. You're saying that we're manufacturing the crime by bringing you in and building that relationship. But again, to go back, you still say yes or no to it. We're giving you the opportunity to say yes or no and you're saying you said no. Yeah, but I would have had nothing to say no to if the government didn't try to trap me into it. They actually tried to lay a trap for me to get involved and they didn't. So you're saying the criminal justice system worked for you? I guess, because that's what it is, right? It's a justice system for criminals. You could say I got lucky. I got whatever. I didn't bite, you know, But I almost did. I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm not that brilliant. I almost did, but I didn't. But I would have had nothing to say no to if they didn't manufacture the crime. Okay, pause. We're out of time. Okay. If you understand my point. I do, I do. I don't agree, but I understand. That's okay. You understand? Thank you. My next surrounding claim is that law enforcement believes it's okay to violate the law in order to arrest the lawbreakers. I want to start with a question. How many cases, as a law enforcement officer, have you worked? Have I worked as a law enforcement? Yes. None. Okay. My point is you don't know the ins and outs from our perspective of how much work, time, time away from our family, effort to get a good case that's going to stick. You think we want to mess all that work up by breaking the law? I mean, you would understand that that would seem very foolish, right? No, not if your name is John Gotti. Sonny Francis. Michael Francis. Fat Tony Salerno. Joe Colombo. No, I don't think that's unreasonable. That law enforcement would break the law in order to catch somebody that they think is a name like that? I've seen it happen. In what ways have you seen it happen? By suborning perjury? By holding back exculpatory material at a trial? By FBI agents? Coercing people into testifying. Coercing people into going undercover against people. I've seen that my whole life. And listen, I mean, we can't speak on definites, right? Like, I've always taught my kids anything that. Use any sentence that you start with, like everyone, all, nobody, never. The next thing you say is going to be a lie. Okay, so are there cops that have broken the law, jeopardizing cases that they have worked very, very hard for? Of course. Thank you. But you just made my point. No, I know, but. But it's not. It's not definite, right? And I would say that the vast majority, the vast majority of police officers, they're not doing that because of the amount, the amount of work. But of course, we can agree that it does happen. There's too many. There's too many people, too many variables for it to say it never happens. I don't think that's the claim. The claim makes it seem more like it happens more than it does not happen. And that's just absolutely wrong. I think it depends upon who the targets are. Certain law enforcement people build their careers on the names of people that they go after. Certainly with John Gotti, certainly with my dad, Sonny Francis. To me, with me, to a certain extent, you have to admit that big names give people in law enforcement an incentive to work a little bit harder to bring them down. Because you get rewarded for that. Because what comes with those big names? A reward if you convict them. Many victims, Right. A reward if you convict them. Yes or no? A reward. A reward for a job well done for anybody. But big names equal many victims. I think that's the point that we're missing here. Because a local street dealer, you know, may affect 20, 30, 50, 100 lives, right? But John Gotti is affecting hundreds. Would John Gotti affect the same amount of people and, you know, same amount of victims as the lower level guy in the family? Probably not, right? There's a reason why John Gotti became the boss, right? Let me tell you something. Most of the time, the informants that are going against the big guys, they're the ones that are doing most of the crime. I think to stick to the point at hand, to Say that no police officer has ever broken the law, jeopardizing their case. That would be foolish. I would never say that. Right. Because, again, there's too many variables. But the way that the claim states makes it seem almost like it's common practice. It's just not true. Let me make it clear right now. I hope to believe that most law enforcement people are on the level. I have many friends in law enforcement. Now. The guy that was trying to put me away forever on that undercover sting operation became one of my best friends. Now he's back in New York. Joe Spinelli was the head of the FBI. Good guy. There was a mutual respect there. Mutual respect? Yes. He came after me, did it the right way. Listen, we told people all the time, FBI agents, you come and get me. Get me. Just don't frame me and don't harass my family. That's it. Because we're not going to do that to you. Don't do it to us. So I believe. I want to believe that my. Most people in law enforcement are straight up and they do their job. Yes, but come on. You said it and you know it. There's many times, depending upon who that person is, that they will violate the law or they will stretch because it puts, you know, a feather in their cap. They get promoted, whatever. And I know so many people, they convict this guy, they become a federal judge the next day. Come on. It happens. Not all the time, but absolutely, it does. Pause. You've been voted out. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Well, you've told us a little bit about yourself. I'll tell you a little bit about me. I spent 23 years as an FBI agent, all in Los Angeles. So I have no personal experience of working in New York as an agent, and I never worked organized crime. Do you know Scott Garriola? Yeah. Yeah, very well. Good friend? Yeah, very good. I was married to a cop for many years. Lapd. I've known hundreds of police officers and worked with hundreds and agents. And your general statement is that law enforcement believes. It's a pretty broad statement. It's okay to break the law to get the lawbreaker. And I disagree with that. You're describing an FBI that I don't recognize. I'm not going to argue with your experience, but in the Bureau, have you been paying attention to the FBI today? I have been. Okay. Do you Do. Will you agree that they've been breaking the law? No. Do you want to agree to that? Today's. Well, not today. The FBI of the last administration has not Been breaking the law, doing things that they shouldn't be doing. No, I disagree with you vehemently on that. The last. The Biden administration. FBI, you say, has been totally above board. Comey has been totally above board. I am not going to go into some broad political. I'm not being broad, I'm being factual. You believe that James Comey has not broken the law. Has not been. You think he's been an honest and upright and law abiding FBI agent? I think James Comey was a good director of the FBI while he was the director. I think he operated with integrity and honor. We disagree. And he was widely respected while he was director. Do I think he may have made some mistakes of judgment along the way? Yes, I could say that. Why did he allow Hillary Clinton to smash her. No. Excuse me, I would have went to jail for that and so would everybody in this room. Why would he allow Hillary Clinton to smash all of her computers and everything that she had information on and not indict her for obstruction of justice? My understanding of that case is that she was not indicted because they could not prove proof of criminal intent. Now, earlier today, she admitted that they whitewashed her computers and everything else. All the information that she had in there, she broke her phones and everything else. She admitted to it. She did it. Your argument earlier is that law enforcement will break the law to break law breakers to catch lawbreakers. That's not my experience. My experience of the FBI is for every investigative technique. I had to get approval at every step of the way. Let's take a trash cover for the audience. A trash cover is when law enforcement picks up the trash that somebody puts out on the street. I don't need a search warrant for that. But the FBI requires that I get approval from my supervisor in writing and articulate why I'm going to conduct this operation, what's the purpose of it, and then I have to document the results. Are you familiar with an FBI agent named Lynn Di Vecchio? No. Okay. He was indicted for murder. More for murders because you worked. I think more your guys than my guys have been indicted for murder. Absolutely. Because we were criminals. But the FBI is supposed to be citizens that took an oath to protect people. But we were criminals. I'll admit to that. We didn't take an oath to abide by the law at all. But FBI agents do. And I'm not saying I want to make it clear. I'm not saying this. I'm not throwing a blanket over everybody. Of course you are. No, I'm Not. There are a lot of good. You just make a broad statement that the FBI committed crimes during the Biden administration. They. Comey committed crimes. James Comey did. James Comey did. 100%. He did. James Comey absolutely did. I don't throw a blanket over everybody. Absolutely not. But there were certain FBI agents that did not uphold the law. I get that. Now let's wind this back. That's all I needed to hear. You have a certain view of the Comey years and that period. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to argue that with you. But I am here to tell you from my perspective, from my personal experience as an agent, that we want to get the bad guy. Yes. But we don't think it's okay to break the law and do bad things. To do it. Now, can there be a problem? Absolutely. I know of cases where officers and agents and. Or to use an example of the FBI, we had a situation where someone in the lab was maybe shading his. His or her analysis to favor the prosecutor. Allow me to finish. I listened to you very patiently. So there is absolutely a risk that anyone in law enforcement could lose sight of their ethics and their values. And that is very much the responsibility of the agency and the leadership and the management to create the culture that says no. To go to one of the points you made earlier. Hey, you. You don't mind getting caught if you're caught when law enforcement plays by the rules. What I'm trying to tell you is that as an agent, your friend Scott Garriola. Great guy. Great guy. He played by the rules. The agents that I have worked with played by the rules. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Okay. Are there mistakes of judgment? Allow me to finish. Yes. I understand where you're going, but I have a very important question. Are you. Can you sit there and tell me that you have 100% belief that no agent will violate the law or do something unscrupulous to catch a lawbreaker? That would be an absurd statement to. To make. I'm asking you a question. You're saying that in your experience. No. Every agent that takes that oath abides by the oath. 100. What I am telling you. Yes, the FBI, like any other organization, every law enforcement, your organization. You guys violated your oath or you wouldn't be here. Right. You can't. We were criminals. You can't compare. If you compare us to the FBI. Not comparing. A lot of trouble. I'm not comparing. What I'm talking about is human nature. Are there human beings that Are imperfect. Of course they are. It's no great debating point to say. Stop. It's no great debating point to say, oh, you guys. You had this guy who did this. Of course, that's not the question. I asked you a simple question. Do you believe that every FBI agent in the bureau does things 100% ethically, all the time, and they will not stretch it in order to catch a perpetrator? Yes or no? Yes or no? That is. That is the way that question is framed. It's yes or no. It is. There's no way anybody could answer why I believe every agent is perfect. Why not? I can tell you people in my organization that violated certain things. They did it. That they didn't do it. And I'll tell you if you ask me what I can speak to. What I can speak to is what I was taught in the academy. I can assume, speak to the standards my supervisors held me to. I can speak to how my management behaved. I can speak to the attitude of the agents I worked with in theory. Are there. I have known. You never heard of any agent that violated their ethical. Of course I have. I work for one. Well, that's it. I had a supervisor who had an improper relationship with an informant and it caused a lot of damage. Okay. So to say. That is to say, wow, we have to hire human beings for this job. No kidding. It's just what I said. There are certain agencies that will violate their efforts to catch the law. Breaking the thing that I want you to listen to, as I've listened to you and I want the audience to hear, is that the organization that I work for, which is made up of thousands of human beings who have all the flaws of every. Every person. But the organizational culture that I was raised in, that I served, put a premium on integrity and doing the right thing. Are there agents that. And I believe. Yeah, okay, I believe you. I think that you're sincere in that regard. But can I ask you a question? Why is it that everyone, all of America practically has no trust in the FBI right now? No trust in our government agencies? Many people have lied to Americans about the FBI and about its actions. They've watched the FBI. They have mischaracterized, They've observed. There's a different not people lying. They've observed the FBI. Let me tell you now. I like Cash Patel and Dan Bongino. I know him. Very ethical, Good guy with integrity. I'm so happy that he's the deputy director of the FBI because he. He has integrity. I can't Say that for the last people and all of America, a good portion of America believes the same thing because of their actions. Actually, I think it's because they're being lied to frequently by figures in the media. By who? Well, you're doing it right? No, I'm not lying, sir. I'm telling you the truth based upon my experience. What do you know about the Clinton case? You've recited a bunch of factually incorrect statements. They're not incorrect. Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me how I'm wrong about Hillary Clinton. You're representing that somehow the FBI knew that she'd obstructed justice. If we could have. If we could have proven criminal intent, an intent to violate the law, she would have been charged. You're meaning to tell me that it's the same reason why other people aren't. You mean to tell me in the Biden administration, they would have went after Hillary Clinton, Biden would have allowed the FBI, and Comey would have went after Hillary Clinton. You have a belief about the. The FBI and the Department of Justice that somehow the Biden administration was dictating to the FBI what to do? Absolutely not. The Bureau of Politics, The Bureau became too political on a national level. I'm not. On a local level, maybe not here in la. I disagree with that. I believe that that has been alleged repeatedly till it's an urban legend that people believe the FBI has been politicized during the Biden administration. I wish they weren't. Comey was totally politicized. Absolutely. What they did to. Look, let me tell you this. I'm not, you know, Donald Trump, I think he's a good president, and I want him there, because the last one would have been a disaster. America would have been. I don't know where we would have been right now, but. But I'll tell you right now, okay? There's no question that Comey was politicized to do what they did to that man, to do what they did to Trump. Come on. I disagree with you. Really, I do. Okay, pause. Okay, you got it. So let me ask you this. What got Gotti? Got what got him Got what got him got what got him got. Well, the main. I mean, you want to go to the main witness against Gotti, who was Sammy Gravano. What got him got, though? Clarify. The mouth. Oh, the mouth. Oh, no doubt about it. Right. I absolutely agree with that wire. Right? Yes. Okay. So in order to get that wire, you know, certain steps we have to go through. Yes. Right. A judge has to sign off on that. Right. So you have to have all this stuff in place before you even attempt, okay. To go in that house for you attempt to climb up that pole before you attempt to go and put an. Inform a confidential informant in it. Most of that stuff has to be laid out in. A good judge is not going to sign any of that. He's going to look at that and say, what has this CI done and what do a bad judge do? He'll just sign it. Right. Because you have good. Bad judges. Right. But most of the time, there's a. There's a big trail, there's smoke, there's fire. Right. 90% of the time. So what got him in trouble was he couldn't shut up. That's true. Right. And that's what gets most of crime bosses in trouble. Well, not the chin. Okay, how do you. How did he go down? Huh? How did he go down? Me? Yeah. How'd you go down? Never on a wire tape. Never on a wire? No. Okay, so your mind. How did you go down? How did I go down? Can you say that? I didn't comment. Okay, well, was this informant. Did he face you in court one time? He did, and I was acquitted. Yeah. Okay. He testified. Yeah. All right, so how did you get acquitted? What did they. What did they say? The informant didn't or didn't? He lied. Okay, my point from before. So your attorney got. Got you off, right? He didn't get me off. I was innocent. So he lied. What did he lie? But what did he lie about? What do you understand? He lied about the facts that they were trying to prove against me that were ridiculous, and the jury saw through it, and I got acquitted. Again. I'm not throwing a blanket over every person in law enforcement. What I'm saying is, in certain situations, I believe law enforcement thinks it's okay to violate the law to catch a lawbreaker because, well, you know, we can't get him for what he didn't do. So let's try to manufacture something or get him something that we can pin on him. Well, you say manufacture, you've been voted out by the majority. Okay. Do you believe it's possible to operate in law enforcement without breaking any laws? I would hope so. Okay. All right, so take this situation, for example. Say we get a. We get an Amber Alert put across for a car that has a kidnapped young girl in it. Correct. A police officer is going down the street and he sees this car. Correct. Is that breaking the law if you run through a red light? Yes. Okay, so the Police officer should stop at the red light while that car drives off with the kid? Absolutely not. Okay, so you're telling me that you would hope that law enforcement can operate without breaking any laws, but you're telling me now that he should break that law to go get that girl. Law enforcement. I've seen law enforcement. Are you allowed to go through a red light as a law enforcement? Yes, you are. If you cut your lights, well, you're not breaking the law. Okay, so I'm not breaking the law. It's still a law, and in my opinion, I think law. But you're not breaking the law because you're allowed to go through a red light, so you're not breaking the law. Okay, so we're, we're, we're setting laws out and I would hope that you would go through bankruptcy because you're saying laws in general, because that would still be a law, just like speeding is a law. What I'm saying is that law enforcement in most cases. Now I'm going to tell you something. My daughter in a car, I don't care what law you broke. I don't care what you did to get to her, because it's personal. Obvious it's personal. Okay? So I understand that and I would hope that you would do that. Okay? But that's a different case. What I'm saying is I believe that many in law enforcement, and again, it always depends upon the situation, think it's okay, this is a bad guy. We can't get him for what we did. So we can manufacture or bring something around him so that we can put him in jail. And I think law enforcement does that. I don't even know if I. In some cases, I disagree with it. If I knew that the guy was a serial killer and I can't get the guy and I had to do something to make him make a mistake, so I can't. I would definitely do it. Right, but I'm a criminal at times. I'm not anymore, but I was back then. Okay, I would definitely do it. You're not supposed to do that, but I wouldn't be mad if you did. Now, let me just ask you a question. Let's be totally honest. Do you believe that in some situations it's okay for law enforcement to break the law in order to go after lawbreakers? Law enforcement should be able to break laws in a controlled environment to do things that other people can't. There's no reason we're there. Just like running the red light, just like catching somebody going 100 miles an hour over the speed limit because you were speaking specifically on just entrapment and setting people up with stings. But see my point in that is that you're not breaking the law. If you're legally allowed to do it, then you're not a lawbreaker. You're allowed to go past the red light, you're allowed to speed. There's a reason we're out of time. Okay? And I agree with that, by the way. You should be allowed to do that. Thank you. My new year, new me. Cute. But how about New year, new money? With Experian, you can actually take control of your finances. Check your FICO score, find ways to save and get matched with credit card offers giving you time to power through those New Year's goals. You know you're gonna crush start the year off right. Download the Experian app based on FICO scoring model offers an approval, not guaranteed. Eligibility requirements and terms apply subject to credit check which may impact your credit scores. Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details. Experian it's the final chapter of the college football player. It comes down to this. Miami's unmatched grit and tenacity through the postseason has led them home the national title. Now within reach, they are confident. They are battle tested. Undefeated Indiana, led by Chris Signetti and Heisman winner Fernando Mendoza have the chance to take home their first title and claim college football immortality. The most remarkable turnaround in the history of college football. The College Football Playoff national championship. Presented by AT&T Monday at 7:30pm Eastern on ESPN and the ESPN app. Next surrounded claim is that law enforcement often measures success by arrests and not by safer streets. So I'm from Houston, Texas. I'm big on, you know, DWI Dre, so most of the time I don't answer calls at all. My work is driven off of stats arrest. So for you to make that kind of claim is very, you know, misleading and dangerous because most of the time I'm putting my life at risk to stop impaired drivers, drunk drivers. So which means if I see somebody driving, you know, wrong way, I'm probably going to put myself in harm's way to, you know, stop their driver so that somebody doesn't get hit or killed. So I don't believe in your claim. Do you have any, any experience in that at all? Well, again, you know, my experience comes from a different place. You know, being in the world of organized crime, growing up in that, being a subject of, of several arrests and investigations and watching Others also in that world, there's. There's no question that people, you know, not safer streets that they're concerned about, they're concerned about the arrest and what it brings to them personally. So would you say, would you say making arrests with your own organized crime is different from me making arrests from dwi? Yeah. So what makes that difference if we're still making arrests on bad guys? It's just different crimes. Well, again, you know, it goes back to the totality of this situation. You're not manufacturing a crime, you're not targeting. You know, let me tell you the difference with organized crime, okay? You, you just pointed it out. You go after the lawbreaker because you're watching them violate the law, drunken driver or whatever, right? Okay. So you go after the person that's committing the crime, but a crime has been committed in organized crime. They go after the person and hope that they commit a crime or wait for them to commit a crime because they think that they're a lawbreaker. You're not watching this guy for a few months thinking he might be a drunk driver and then waiting for him to get in the car drunk. Right? You're not doing that? That's not what I'm doing. No. He's drunk driving and you're going after him. Correct. Because he's committing a crime at that moment. That's okay. That's what you're supposed to do. It's a different investigation. Pause and vote it out. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I completely disagree with you. I think most people that go into law enforcement, enforcement, federal, state, local, are good, decent, honorable people. We agree. Who put their life on the line every single day for the American people. In this country, I don't think that people are focused on stats, quotas, arrests, you name it. I hear that you keep mentioning this point about people getting promoted because of the amount of arrests that they make. I doubt that happens now in modern day law enforcement. When I first started on the streets, I was making $15 an hour. It didn't matter to me about how many arrests I made. It was about whether or not I made it home safe at night. So based on the premise that you just mentioned, I completely disagree with you 100%. And I agree in part on what you said, that most people come into law enforcement to do the right thing. But what level of law enforcement are you involved in? I was in county level law enforcement and a county level. Meaning that who are the perpetrators of crimes that you usually go after? Be anybody. Could be anybody. Anybody. Okay. You should be in a different world. You should be in a world where they're going after high level people. You mean to tell me that high level people being arrested, charged, convicted, big name people don't mean anything to the people that arrest and convict them? I've arrested big name people, but I think a lot of times when I think the level that you're trying to speak at, you're trying to speak at a federal level. Right? That's what I assume you're saying. Like the high name cases, the big drug lords and those type of arrests. But these people didn't plant those guys to go make an arrest just based on their name. They had probable cause, they had a reason. Reason to go after these people. Even when you make those type of arrests, it don't automatically equate to a promotion or some type of accolade. Not automatically, but in often cases it not. Not automatically. I disagree with that as well. I think again, my premise is that 90% of law enforcement officers across the board don't go into profession to make arrests. They don't have the resources or the time to sit there and count how many arrests that they're making. You know who. Do you know who John Gleason was? A federal prosecutor. I'm not familiar with him. He prosecuted John Gotti, got a conviction. What happened to him? You love John Gotti, don't you? No. Everybody knows him. So he may as well talk about. I can talk about a lot of guys. But he prosecuted John Gotti and convicted him. What happened to him after that, I don't know. But let's get back to the court. Appointed a federal judge. Okay, Right after that. You think he didn't know that? You think he wasn't promised that? You think that he. Come on, you have to admit that when you get these high level prosecutions and convictions and that it's a feather in your cap and you're looking for a promotion. And many times it happens. I disagree again. I think most people are out there doing their job and putting their life on the line. You can't get people to even get into law enforcement nowadays. It is absolutely squeezed dry. People don't want to go into the career of law enforcement anymore. If they do, they're going to get a big promotion. No, you know, now you're right. Because the way leadership treats law enforcement today, they should be ashamed of themselves. Well, it's the criminals. It's people that were doing stuff like you were doing that drains the resources in law enforcement. Absolutely. No, it's these woke. WOKE leaders that don't give a damn about the police. And that's why the police are leaving because they don't stand behind them. Because you arrest a criminal in New York, you've been arrested 18 times and the next morning you're out on no bail. I get arrested for a. For a money crime and I'm in there with a million dollar bail and no bail at all. So that's why the cops are. I understand that if I was a, who would want to be a cop right now? You're arresting criminals 20 times. You got people committing crimes 18 times and getting out on jail and going murdering. And that's exactly why not you. It's not the. It's not the cops. I don't blame the cops for not wanting to be there anymore because these WOKE leadership are destroying our police departments. You would be. Let's get back to the premise because I actually agree with a lot of things that you said, but you actually proved my point that when. When police officers or law enforcement agents are making arrests, these people are doing it not for the accolades, not for the glory because there's not much in it unless you're at the federal level and you got decades of experience in it making a six figure check. So again, your premise saying that we are looking for accolades or trying to make arrests to get promotions is completely false. Is wrong. It's not false. It is. It's absolutely false. Most of these local guys that are working these roads, working these streets, they have the each and every day we go out there, we put our life on the line. I didn't go out there for quotas or to make an amount of dwrs. In fact, most law enforcement officers are actually afraid to go hands on. They're afraid to apprehend subject. They're afraid to deal with people like you. It's not a game. This is not funny. They're not afraid to deal with us. Absolutely. A lot of people are afraid to us. Let me tell you something. We are an officer's dream. You arrest us, we put our hands on, we go to court and that's it. Okay? That's it. Look, we're not running this. We're not running away from you. I don't know what you're capable of. No, no, no, no. I'm telling you, we are a law enforcement's dream. We don't fight back, we don't do anything. We go to court and we go to jail. We don't profile. We treat everybody the same as that Way, we don't know what you're capable of. No, no, no, you're wrong about that, bro. I'm right about that. No, you're wrong about that. I'm right about that. You're out here in LA for. You got to go back in New York or Chicago or places like that. You'll see a whole different atmosphere. And let me tell you something. I agree with you with the police. I agree. I am on the side of the police in that regard. But there are certain levels of law enforcement that go for the names and go for the promotion. There's no question about it. You can't disagree. It's happened. Pause. You've been voted out by the majority. Please return to your seat. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Am I going to talk about Hillary Clinton? John Gotti? So, unfortunately for us, I do think that your arrest record is a direct reflection of your work ethic. I think that you can take one guy on the street and you can say, this guy made 100 arrests this year. And from an internal perspective, you say, man, that dude shows up, he busts his ass and works really hard. That sounds terrible to the public that I'm out there arresting X amount of people. I probably look ruthless and unforgiven, giving or whatever you want to say. But if you take the same guy on my squad who's made five arrests this year, what do you think they say about that guy? He's lazy. Yeah. You know, he's sitting under a tree. If you drive past that guy in the public, you say, this is what my tax dollars are going for. So I feel like we can't win no matter what. But if not by the arrest record, you know, you could judge off other things, but I mean, what else would you. How else would they. You know, I think the difference is here because my experience is mostly on the federal level. And when you're dealing with organized crime, it's a whole different ball game. It really is. It's a different kind of street crime. Okay, let me tell you something. During the golden years of the mob, from the late 40s right through the mid-80s, when the RICO act went crazy and put everybody in jail, Those were the golden years of the mob. New York Times, New York Post, Daily News, Long Island Press, Newsday. Something about the mob every single day again. Gotti, Fat Tony, Joe Colombo, they're all bigger than life. You mean to tell me that people don't go after these guys, okay, because they know it's a big feather in their cap? It's human nature. Of course they do. I'm not saying it happens on every level. I'm certainly not saying it happens on law. I would hope that you make a lot of arrests for criminals out there. It's sickening to me when I look back and I see guys that were arrested 17, 18, 19 times and then come back out on the street and murder somebody. It's horrific. I don't even understand. I can't even comprehend it. Okay, That's a different kind of crime. But when you go on a bigger level, a federal level, and they go after these big politicians and they go after organized crime guys and guys with big names, of course they're going to get promotions. And of course force that's in their head. So what does that cause them to do? In my world, it causes them to stretch. Hey, I got to get this guy. This means a lot to me. So it's only normal. Do you, I mean, do you not. You keep referencing like the big names and the cases and things that you went through and respectfully, do you not see like, I don't know, more body cameras and there's cameras everywhere. Standards have changed, methods have changed. Do you not think all these things, things have changed for the better? Not saying it's perfect. I see the videos and things like you are referencing. I still see it. I understand I'm going to be perfect. But at the same time, do you still think those things are happening like the way that they used to, at the level that they used to? Yes. You do? Yeah, I, unfortunately, look, I think that a certain level of government was corrupt during my time. I can't even comprehend the level of corruption that I see now. Not at your level. Not at police force. I'm not saying that at all. Okay. I'm saying in the higher levels, FBI. It's shameful what the FBI has become. In my opinion. They were. There were certain sectors of it that weren't good during my time. But what I see now. Pause. You've been voted out by the majority. Thank you. Thank you. So you've introduced yourself. I'll introduce myself. So I have worked organized crime. I have investigated very, very big name people north of the border. Some of probably your allies, some, probably your, your enemies or whatnot. I take offense when you say that organized crime enforcement officers like myself on a federal level get promotions because you know what I got after investigating some very high level people, names that I'm not even going to share. I got a pat on the back, a destroyed relationship with my Ex. Hours upon hours of. Of reviewing search warrants just to prepare for the case that leads into my personal time. I don't even have a personal life. I didn't have a personal life for two years and another case. So when you say that, oh, yeah, everyone gets promoted or everyone. Not everyone. I didn't say that. Not everyone. Okay. I said it gives incentive to those. I never got an incentive. I did not know I was going to get promoted, nor did my team members. I didn't even know if I was going to get this guy to be begin with. All I had was this idea of knowing that, you know, what, if I get the drugs, I get the guns off the street, maybe 10, 15 kids get to live. I really didn't care if that, of course, everyone was to get the bad guy. But sometimes that doesn't happen. And you've admitted it. Sometimes that doesn't happen. I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna destroy my career doing something illegal when I know I can get the drugs and the guns off the street and save 15 people. So when you say that people get promoted off this, not true at all. What they do get. What they do get is years and years of. Of therapy and having to rebuild their entire life. Not always. That's why I left organized crime, because it destroyed my life. I no longer do that because it absolutely destroyed my life. So I never got an. I never got a promotion. I never got this massive. And incentive. All I got was another case to work on. Well, in part I agree with you, Joe Pistone. You know, Donnie Brasco, after everything that he did, you know, I think they gave him a $500 check afterwards, and then he left the FBI. Okay, but talk about a guy like Andrew Weissman. Andrew Weissman, prosecutor, federal prosecutor who framed people. And I got absolute proof. I don't say this out of turn. Framed people, put people in jail, innocently suborned perjury, worked with an FBI agent that was involved in murder, covered up crimes that go so deep it would make your hair stand on end. And what does he get? He gets a promotion. A promotion. A promotion. And his final promotion was being the lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation against Trump after he put so many people. He was overturned nine to nothing by the Supreme Court court in a case that he did. And he keeps getting promoted, promoted and promoted. He gets all of these big deals, and he does. I mean, all I'm saying is it happens. It happens more than you might think. Unfortunately, it didn't happen for you. But there are A lot of prosecutors out there, especially in Department of Justice prosecutors that go after the big names and they get promotions as a result. Even if they lose the case at times, they get promotions. But this guy, Andrew Weissman, do me a favor, look him up. Terrible guy. Put so many innocent people in jail, destroyed their lives. Right, but you're talking about a lawyer. Okay, I believe the statement. Well, he's long. He's. He's a prosecutor. Okay, I'm talking about cops. I, I agree with you with cops. As a cop, I'm not going to bend the rules. I'm not going to manufacture crime. I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna put someone in a position where, as you mentioned, fabricate or manufacture crime. We don't fabricate crime, nor do we manufacture crime. We had that argument already. Right, but you brought it back. I'm talking from my level, from working in organized crime. There's a lot of checks. You mean to tell me that you're saying to me that nobody in law enforcement ever manufactured a crime by putting a confidential informant in front of somebody to create a crime that never existed? That's manufacturing the crime. Pause. Sorry. You can. Voted out by the majority. Okay, thank you. So with respect to your claim, you're talking about focusing more on arrest rather than safer streets, correct? Many times, depending upon the situation. Yes, of course. So with respect to the audience, for the most part, they don't care about the federal level. They care about walking around the streets on here. You said you have daughters, correct? 5. Would you feel safe if they walked around the streets here in LA now? Yes. In L. A? No. No. So then what? To use a safer street or how do you achieve a safer street? Well, I think that leadership has to give law enforcement the tools and the weapons that they need to keep the streets safe. I think that's their primary goal. All right, Keep the streets safe. Right. And so with respect to that, though, to get safer streets, you have to eliminate the crime elements, correct? Yes. And the only way to do that really, is to arrest people. Because once you arrest them and if the court system actually did their job, they'd be put in jail. Yes. So just like, you know, if you actually took it to trial, you would have been away for a long time. That's how you achieve a safer street, you know, to actually wouldn't have been safe. By putting me away for a long time. I'm sorry. I've been out for 30 some odd years now, and the streets have been pretty safe. So it's okay. But I would actually push back and I actually think for at least temporarily, it was a little bit safer once you got arrested because, you know, it's safer. I mean, I was stealing tax money. That's all I was doing. But going back to your argument, I think, you know, in order. Let's talk about somebody else. John Gotti. In order to achieve safer streets, you have to limit the criminal element. You have to arrest criminals. I agree with that. All I'm saying is that there are times, depending upon the situation and who this subject is, the alleged perpetrator, that people will stretch because they know it's a feather in their cap and they'll get promotions. And I can document that. I can tell you where it's happened. Right. But I mean, you know, if you do arrest, let's say, you know, going to the fed level, you rest somebody who's a big name, of course they're going to get accolades for. It's just like the high level executive, you know, lands big contract. They're going to get a bonus. I mean that's. And that can give them more incentive to, you know, not, not so much the crime they're committing, but the fact that it's that person committing the crime. Then do you feel like it's, you know, obviously you mentioned, you know, they're going to stretch things just to get that accolade. Then do you feel like humans in general are going to do whatever it takes to get that accolade? Some law enforcement. But on law enforcement level, they're not supposed to do that. No, and I don't think they will just because they will. They've done it. And unfortunately, and that's an unfortunate part of our law enforcement system. And I think, you know, clarify. I think this is more on a prosecutorial level, it's more political at that point. We're not talking about, you know, a lot of the. Look, I don't know what it is. I mean, if you make 100 arrests or you make 30 arrests, you know, what's the difference to you guy? I don't know that, you know, we've been voted out by the majority. Thank you. Okay, so a couple of things. It is breaking the law, running a red light. But you're saying that it's okay for us to break the law. Did I get that right? Well, let me get clear on this. If you have a suspect that has broken the law. Let's go. John Gotti. Sorry, interrupt. I'm chasing John Gotti. I'm an FBI agent. I got like Are you an FBI agent? No, I'm not. Okay, but what I'm saying. Because you keep saying so. I just want to, I want to get something very clear. Sure. Okay, let's get clear here. And words have meanings. You're saying at the federal level, hey, you know what, if you arrest John Gotti or some big name, you're going to get promoted, right? You're going to cut corners, you're going to stretch whatever it is to do that. But hey, the DUI guy. No. So essentially what you're saying is that it's self serving on my part. Yes. Okay, but is it self serving on the DUI driver? Yes or no? If you arrest the DUI driver, probably not. Okay, so that sounds a little contradictory. Not at all. You're making my point. No. Well, because I'm making your point. But you're contradicting what you're saying because you're saying things at a 30,000 foot level where the difference to law enforcement, there's a big difference. You still take an oath to do the same thing, Right? I understand the law. What I'm trying to tell you is that it's not self serving on either level. You keep talking about levels. Is there corruption? Yes. Is there self serving people who want to promote? Yes. But for you to sit. Well, that's not what you're saying. No, it's not. What am I saying? Where's the bs? But tell me. No, no, no. I'm going to tell you. Tell me exactly what I'm saying. What you're saying. You're being a little contradictory. You say, hey, you know what? At the federal level, if it's John Gotti or something so big, then you know. Know what? You're doing it for self serving reasons. But for the DUI guy, I'm not. I'm here to tell you whether you're doing it for self serving reasons or not, it doesn't matter. And by the way, if I'm chasing John Gotti, FBI, and we know, we got him, we got all the PC, we got everything that we've been working for five years and I'm running a red light, guess what? I broke the law. Me, as an FBI agent, local, state. So then, so then a cop following you while you're fighting, following while you as a police officer is going after somebody that broke the law. Yes. And you go through the red light to catch him. Yes. A cop behind you can pull you over and give you a ticket. No, wait, wait. Yes. So they, they, yes, they can. Yes. Okay. I Didn't know that. The other gentleman said that you weren't breaking. Hold on a second. Words have meaning. Which is it? We're saying, which is it? Did you. Was he wrong? Let me finish. Was your. Was your partner there or whatever? It's not your partner. I'm not saying that you're contemplative. Was he wrong? Well, he said that you. It's. It's not. Not illegal for a police officer to go run a red light to catch a perpetrator. That's what I'm saying. I can bring. Hold on. Is it legal or illegal? Well, it's. Is it illegal or illegal? You can run a rent. You can't. You cannot. Even when you're. Even when you're pursuing a perpetrator that just committed a crime? Correct. It's. No, what I'm saying is that he was wrong. Hold on a second. Go talk to him. He was wrong about him. Go ahead. Just listen to my point. Okay, but who's wrong and who's right? Is he wrong? He said it was okay to. You're not breaking the law when you run a red light. That's what he said. Is he wrong or right? He is right, because. Okay, hold on a second. Let me finish. There are rules of the road that we're immune by. I totally agree with that. All right, so that it's illegal for you to. Chasing guns. But I broke the law. But he said it was legal. You're allowed to break the law. So then it's not breaking the law. So then I go to court, and then, you know, the. I'm working undercover and I run a red. And then all of a sudden, the black and white pulls me over and says, hey, you ran a red. You were going after John. They didn't know who you are. Okay, well, this. When you go to court and you say, I was a cop and I was pursuing a perpetrator, they're going say, get out. Let's keep a perspective. You're right. I'm on a black and white, and I'm running the red. Okay. And I'm. And you're saying, yeah, hey, you know what he said? I can do that. I agree. No, he said that. I didn't say it. I. Everybody here can agree with me. That's not the point. I broke the law by running the red. All right, can we get him over here? Because he's mistaken. No, he's not mistaken. Well, one of you are. I'm immune from the rules of the road. Well, then you're not Breaking the law. Totally disagree. You're not. You're missing my point. Well, what is your point? I broke the law. Well, not according to him. You just said you're immune. We're going back and forth. You just said you're immune from breaking the law. Immunity means you didn't break the law when you go to court. No, no, no, no, no. You go to court and they give you immunity for anything that you might have committed. Correct. Okay, so you didn't. You didn't. You're okay then. Okay, when I go to court, like two months later. But I'm saying I broke the law right when it happened. Not according to him. Okay, got that. Thank you. My final surrounded claim is that paid informants are rarely reliable. How many times did you actually discover that informants were working against you? And how do you actually think that informants work? From my side of the table? I've been to trial five times. I've been through three separate trials with my dad. I've never seen a paid informant get on the stand, put his left hand on the Bible, swear to tell the truth, and then lie through his teeth. Every single time. Every single time. Every single time. Who worked the investigations against you? FBI, FBI, local police, Suffolk County, Nassau County, Florida. Same thing. When you worked at federal level, there was no cooperative information or evidence that was ever submitted with that informant? No, I didn't say that. Well, you said every. Every. That means all the time and all the time. Every time. That's correct. Unless it wasn't every time. No, it was every time. And I've never seen them. Listen, you can mix the truth with a lie, but I've never seen them get on the stand, left hand on the Bible, right hand, swear to tell the truth and lie. So we're co mingling lies with truth? Sure. So it's not straight out lies. You're saying that they misrepresented or they flat out lied? I'm saying they lied. So did you ever have yourself on a recording, for example, with an informant? Oh, yeah. 83 times. That memorialization of that recording. Was that truthful or was that a lie? Well, they couldn't use the 83 times that they had me on tape, they couldn't use it to indict me. Was that one case? That was one case. What about the other four cases? Never on tape, never had a wiretap, had wire taps, but never able to use anything against me. For indictment or during trial. For indictment. They were never able to use those wires to implicate me in A crime. Did you understand now, looking back on it, the federal rules for using informants with an FBI agent? The federal rule? The federal rules. Explain it to me. I will explain it to you. So everything we do with an informant has to be corroborated in some fashion. We're not just going to throw evidence based upon pure and simple testimony of an informant. If that's happening, then you're dealing with an amateur. Let me tell you something. You're dealing with guys on the street who will do. Many of them will do anything for money. And what you mean to tell me is that when you're paying this informant, you're not giving him incentive to lie? Let me tell you. No, let me back this up. I was indicted for a huge fraud case in the gasoline business. My partner was with me. We created this scheme to defraud the government. He was a paid informant. They paid him $2.5 million of stolen gas tax money to be a witness against. Who did that case? Feds, FBI? FBI did the case. So that two and a half million dollars was paid. How was it? Through seizure. They didn't seize any money. As far as. They didn't seize any money from me. Okay. They paid him two and a half million dollars. And you were not convicted on that case? I took a plea, yeah. Why'd you take a plea? Long story. Because I took a plea because I knew that my former life was falling apart. The RICO act was devastating to many people. I had just beaten a RICO case brought on by Rudy Giuliani. And I knew that the life was in trouble. I had a 14 agency task force assigned to bring me down. And I knew that I wasn't long for that life because I had such a target. I was arrested 18 times and had seven indictments after all these cases. Let me ask you, Michael, were you guilty of crimes? Yeah, I was guilty of crimes, yeah. Okay, so what does that have to do with it? Was I guilty of the crime? Excuse me? Was I guilty of the crime that they indicted me on? The one time that I took a plea, yes. The other five times, no. All right, we're going into a different area here, but let's talk about the paid informants. In my experience, paid informants. And I'm going to. This even pertains to my brother. I saw my brother get on a stand and testify against my father. My brother was a paid informant. And as I sat there and watched him, I know he lied. If my own brother will lie against his father. Okay. Which is a very extreme situation. I am telling you, okay, I know guys on the street. That's where I grew up. I know guys. You give them money, you give them incentive. And listen, it's a bad system. It's a bad system. I'm not saying you don't use informants. I understand you have to use informants. But to pay informants, I can give you so many cases where guys are doing time because of paid informants. Because these guys get up there and lie, they have incentive to lie at your trial. Pause. You've been voted out by the majority. Please return to your seat. Thank you. In my experience, paid informants are reliable. And I say that in a sense of everything we do in law enforcement, we have to check and verify. So when an informant comes to us, we're not going and knocking down Francis door and taking him away. Right? There's a structure and things we have to follow in order to ensure that the information not only that's presented is accurate, but we also take into account why is he coming forward with this information. And you have to understand, we don't get to pick witnesses. Right? You guys provide those for us. You know, an honest man is not going to come and say, hey, I'm a part of this family and we're doing wrong, and I want to come forth. We're dealing with people who either have been shunned or voted out of the family or however that works, or they've been. They feel like they deserve the promotion. Didn't get it. So we understand the intention that's coming in. However, the information they're providing, we have to take into account. And then a lot of times that information checks out. And some things don't. And when they don't, we have a system in place that is courts and laws and policies and regulations that kind of weeds that. That stuff out. Right? If I take incomplete and lazy case to court, it may get thrown out. That not only puts a stain on me, that puts a stain on my department and everybody in this room who's taken an oath to protect and to serve. Do you deal with organized crime? Not where I'm at now. Paid informants I've dealt with on the street level to get local neighborhood guys and people who've come from across states. That's where my limit lies. But that being said, in my experience, it's worked out all right. Well, let me tell you this. You know, you just laid out the way it's supposed to be. You go back to New York and you deal with the feds and organized Crime, you're in a whole different world. Okay, These paid informants don't come to you normally. They get in trouble and they get put in a room and they said, you're facing life in prison on a racketeering act or you want to sit down and talk with us, we'll give you money, we'll put you in the witness protection program. Help us out. See what happened in my life? I'll tell you very simple. The fear of retaliation from our own people, from the boss. You screw up, you're going to get killed, you're going to get in trouble. Well, that fear was transferred to the government when the RICO act came out. Because now guys are going away for life and they're getting whatever asset, if they had any assets taken away. So now you stick them in a room and you say, hey, you're going to cooperate with us. You're going to wire yourself up, you're going to do what you got to do. We'll pay you money because you don't have to worry about the guy you're talking about. We're putting him away for life. When you put that incentive in front of a paid informant, trust me, they're going to go along with you and they'll get on the stand and they'll lie and they'll do whatever they have to do. And I will say this, I can tell you straight out that the government needs knows that many of these informants are lying and they don't care. As long as they win their case, they don't care. Now, I'm not, I'm not saying that's you. No, I'll have to disagree. This is my experience. I'll have to. I can't negate your experience, but you can disagree. But I'm telling you, I've been through it. The bad apple doesn't define a bad orchard. Okay, so how are these informants getting in the rooms? Again, we don't get in trouble, but we're not making people get in trouble. These informants are putting themselves in positions. Absolutely. And we're just providing, we're providing the avenue to be able to now be a part of that situation. Right. Because the best way to get, and you can understand this, the best way to get into that life is we need someone on the inside to bring us in. I understand that, but the point is, is paying these guys, giving them incentive to lie. And it absolutely is. There's no question about it. It can. But given that checks and balances, that the government has the laws, if they are being paid to lie. Our case gets thrown out. If that's simply what's coming on, it doesn't happen. Absolutely. You said it yourself. No, it happened in your case. They paid to. They got paid, they lied. And someone probably didn't present it to the best of their. You want me to tell you about the other hundred guys that are doing time because of that in my particular case, you know, they were weak cases. I'm going to be honest with you. Okay. But you want me to tell you about the hundreds of other guys that are in jail because of lying paid informants. So I have no merit this up. There was no merit. I didn't say there was no merit. I said they're lying paid informants. Can I ask you a question? Absolutely. If these are. If these are great witnesses and they're there to tell the truth and just really, why do you have to pay them at all? I'm not saying they're great witnesses. I'm saying why do you have to pay them at all? Because they get paid if they're telling the truth and helping law enforcement. Because you guys operate with money. You weaponize it. We use the same tactic because that's how people respond sometimes. You don't have. And I've used witnesses that don't get paid. I've used witnesses that have get paid. Well, then that's good. But they don't have that incentive, at least from being paid. But let me tell you something. In the mob life, we're not paying these guys. They're paying. They're making their own money and they're paying. Nobody hands anybody anything in that life. You got to be your own person. But money rules. Money rules of life. Right. Or you wouldn't be doing it. That the incentive is money. You weaponize money. Not you. But it's weaponized and it's an incentive for them. Right. Why do that? Because they're getting something in return. There's a something that's been an opportunity provided to them. But why do you have to pay them at all? We don't have to. That's not the case for everybody. Why do you. I can't speak on why they were paid in your case. I know, but I can. They were paid till they were paid because they. They were given incentive to become witnesses. They pay them and that incentive makes them lie. Trust me on that. But let's look at. Let's look at the. The bigger picture, right? Informants have gone a long way to help us with organized crime. I agree with Informants. Question is, why do you have to pay them? Tell them they're going to understand. Oh, you know, I want to clear my conscience. I want to do the right thing. Yeah, right. You're getting paid. You're not only getting paid, but you're going to do less time. You're going to cooperate with us. We'll put your family in a witness protection program. We'll give you money, anything that you want. Don't worry about it. And you tell me that's not incentive to lie when these guys are facing big time, that's an incentive for lies. A whole different thing. You've been voted out by the majority. Please return to your seat. Thanks a lot. Thank you. From New York, right? Yeah. So we both know, okay. I dealt with paid informants before, throughout my career. My thing is this. Both you and I know. You know, it's like Darwinism. It's survival of the fittest. You know, who can survive in that. In that world. Right? Both you and I know. A CI is a CI is a CI is a CI. First thing I did when I dealt with a CI was hand them a gift. Okay? To let them know that my life's on the line. Your life's on the line. We're both built into this together. But you already said it. You know, I don't think it's the paid part that's the issue. The issue? I think what you're getting at is the system, the system itself and how the system operates. Paid informants. Yeah. You know what? It all comes down to a person's personal freedom. If we're in the same family and we're dealing with the same issues, you know, you're no better than I am. I'm no better than your youth are. You know what? I want my freedom. I want to be able to enjoy my life. If I'm going to get paid in my freedom and I'm going to tell the truth. You know what's wrong with that? Incentive, if you're going to tell the truth. But it's the money that gives them incentive to lie also. Look, there's two things that they want. They want money and they want their freedom. I've seen so many guys get to understand, oh, it changed my life. And. And I'm okay. And, you know, the mob was bad to me. And all of this. Listen, we get in there, we take an oath. We take an oath. We know exactly the life you chose. We know exactly what the penalties are. Look, I walked away from that life. I had a contract on my life, they wanted to kill me. But I understood I violated my oath by walking away and talking about it. I can't get mad at them. I did what I said I wasn't going to do. I violated my oath. So. So I understand that. But some of these witnesses get on and say, I'm a good person now and they treated me wrong and they didn't do this. And they're going to get up and they're going to lie and they're going to do whatever the heck they have to do to save themselves, and they're going to keep it going as long as they could. They don't become choir boys when they become witnesses. They're the same guys that were on the street lying and stealing and doing all of that. Now, they're supposed to be good guys. Nonsense. There are a lot of good people in government, but there are a lot of people that will stretch the truth to get what the heck they want. And they'll use witnesses and they'll pay them and they'll do whatever they need to do. I've witnessed it my whole life. My father did 50 years on a crime he didn't commit. I'll take it to my grave. Every one of the informants lied. We gave him lie detector tests afterwards. Okay. Proved they lied at the trial. They were paid informants. They were all a bunch of junkies. We can never get the conviction overturned. My dad did 40 on that 50 for a crime he didn't commit. Was he a mob guy? Yeah. Did he do other things? Yeah, but. Get him for what he did. Get the guy for what he did. Pause. We're out of time on this claim. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Michael will now choose someone from the outer circle to come back to the center to debate a claim of their choosing. Okay. I chose Heather for the final debate because I think she held her own in the discussion that we had. You didn't win, but you held your own. I mean, that's debatable, right? Yes. Just like everything today, my surrounded claim is that the Mafia culture glorifies or promotes men to be successful only through fear and intimidation. Okay, so what you're saying is that men that were involved in the Mafia are really not smart. They really don't know anything but fear. And that's how they earn money. That's how they become successful within that life. If you take the element of fear away, we're all a bunch of dummies. That's absolutely not what I said. Okay. What I said is that your power is legitimized through intimidation and fear. And that if you took those away, you wouldn't actually have the so called respect that you think that you have. Right? We earlier you were talking about promotions and all these things. The Mafia does the same thing. I mean, how do you think John Gotti got promoted? Right? He killed Castellano. Right? So it's all about the actions that you're taking to get there. It's through fear and intimidation. I'm not saying that you're not smart. No part of my statement said that any of you were dumb at all. I just think I, and I'm probably gonna have to hear about this if someone takes this the wrong way. Hitler, right, the way he led was fear, intimidation, pulling people in. And then they didn't know if they were coming in to meet him, whether or not they were going to get killed or whether or not they were going to get like a pat on the back. So what I'm saying is that it's not about servant leadership when it comes to the Mafia. It's not about the leadership components that we as law enforcement should be pushing for right now, which is that human aspect, the humility behind leadership. It's about fear and intimidation when it comes to the Mafia. Don't you think that fear plays an element in almost any walk of life? If you're in government, if you make a mistake, well, the fear is that you can lose your job. If you're in corporate America, you make a mistake, the fear is you can lose your job. Now when you get to the mob, well, it's a little bit more serious because the consequences are more severe because there is this big aura about the Mafia that you don't do the right thing, you're going to get killed. Okay, is that always so? Of course not. It's not the case at all. There are plenty of people in that life that never had to resort to fear or inattention, intimidation to get their way. Never. So even though it's an element of that life, I think it's very wrong to say that if it wasn't for the element of fear, there wouldn't be success in that life. But as far as that's concerned, if you were just, if you didn't have the fear and you didn't have that intimidation, how do you keep your power within the Mafia? Well, when you say keep your power within that life, I mean, you guys run a hierarchy just like we do. Yeah, well, it's very simple because we all take an oath. And we hold each other to a high standard. And that oath is that we realize that there are certain consequences we can pay if we violate the oath. And so the fear is a little bit more intense in that life because we agree to it. But it's not always fear that makes people rise in the ranks. There's a guy by the name of Roy demeo. Okay, he was a serial killer. Roy demeo would have been a serial killer whether he was in the Mafia or not. Mafia just gave him easier access, let's say. Okay, and there was a certain amount of fear about that guy because he was a madman, but that didn't help him rise in the ranks. He ended up getting killed as a result of that. You know, so sometimes when people fear you, it could work against you. In his case, it did. Now, I'm going to be honest with you. You know, I stayed in line because I realized if I made a mistake, I could pay for it in a severe way. So it does keep us in line in a certain way. Like I say, the consequences are more severe. But fear is an element of almost every organization or every life. Fear is an internal element, but it can also be an external element as far as leadership is concerned. And when it comes to the hierarchy and keeping that and making sure there aren't corroborating witnesses or confidential informants that come through or people that turn around and they take a plea deal and then they have a contract put in their head, that's the. That fear component that we don't utilize in law enforcement, shouldn't use in law enforcement. When you say I shouldn't use in law enforcement. So for you, that fear component was very real. That intimidation of you leaving the life. Was there, was it not? But I left. You did. And for how long were you in fear of your life? Well, let's put it this way. I knew that there could be consequences that I could face, but I also knew the life very well. So I knew what I had to do to protect myself. So I didn't live in fear. I honestly didn't. I didn't sell my former associates short. I knew what they were capable of, but I also felt that I can, you know, do my best to avoid that. But I think what you're saying is that's one of the main reasons why we succeed in that life, because of fear. And I disagree with that. Why do you disagree with it, though? Because it's not true. But you just said it was. You just said that there was fear just because you didn't have fear. Fear and intimidation was used in order to keep you in line. Because if you walked in a room, you might not walk out if you did something wrong. But if you violated the oath. Yes, but in order to succeed in that life, and you're not violating the oath. It wasn't fear that allowed me to succeed in that life. It was having an understanding of the life, knowing how to use that life to benefit me in business where I had my success. So fear didn't cause me to be a good mob guy. But do you think the head boss used fear and intimidation more than anything else? He didn't use it against me. I just knew that it was there. I didn't mean just against you. I meant the Mafia culture as a whole. Yes, it's an element of fear in that life like there is in other lives, except that the consequences are more severe. But what I'm saying is fear doesn't cause you to be a success in that life. To me, it's understanding the life and knowing how to use it to benefit you in whatever it is you're trying to do. But I will tell you this. You know, when I walked into a room sometimes to negotiate with somebody, well, that aura was there. I didn't have to say anything. They knew who I was. They knew what I represented. So maybe the fear was from the other side. You know, I better watch what I say here. Stuff like that. Yeah. So there's a bit of an intimidation factor when you walked in, into the room because of your reputation, the way you held yourself. So fear and intimidation are the basis of some of the leadership and the culture that is within the Mafia. It's not the primary driving force, but, yes, it is an element. And some people do use that. Yes, that's my claim. Sounds like you agree with me. Well, I agree in part. I'll take that. I agree in part. I agree. I mean, listen, it. You know, intimidation is something. And you said it about the fear, Right? You can be intimidating, but it's a. You can intimidate others. It doesn't mean you're intimidating. It's that. Yeah, it's that aura that you walk into the room with. Listen, the smart bosses in that life, they knew. They knew that violence and fear was destructive. You know, let me tell you something. I had a discussion with Chaz Palminteri. He saw. He wrote the movie Boxdale. He's a good friend of mine. And in the movie Bronx Tale, he's asked the question by little, is it better to be feared? Or loved. And he said, it's better to be feared in my position. And I had that discussion with Chaz afterwards. I said, chaz, you're not a member of the mob, but you were around guys. What do you think? He said, oh, Michael, it's better to be feared. I said, you're wrong. He says, why? I said, I'll tell you why. He said, when the government came out with the racketeering act and people knew that they can go away forever, lose all their assets and everything else, well, the fear of the mob, okay, was transferred to the fear of the government because the government now held all the power. And so. So many guys became informants. Many guys became informants because of that. So fear is not a great element. It's really not. It's more destructive than anything else. It can hold you in line for a part until it gets. Unless it gets transferred somewhere else. But love, you're not going to hurt somebody you love. I've seen a lot of people hurt people that they love. Well, I mean, you know. You know what I mean? Come on. Not to a level where you. All right, I surrender on that one. I surrender. You got me on that one. I surrender. Yeah. I mean, okay, but you know what I mean, not to a level where you're going to want to destroy them. I think, anyway. I hope not. Yeah. I mean, I think that our jobs. I'll put it that way. Our lifestyles mimic each other so much. Oh, absolutely. Just on different perspectives. Right. When we walk into a room on a call, we have a level of fear and we go anyway. The same as. You know what? I should have said that. You're absolutely right. Who doesn't get scared when they see a police officer? Most of the time. Yeah. So look at the element of fear that you use. But is that something that we use on purpose or is that a. It's the aura. It's there. It's the uniform. You're the police. You can arrest me, you can lock me up, you can hurt me, you can shoot me. So that culture that's been created, huh? It's that culture that's been created. You talked about the glory years of the golden years of the Mafia and being on every single newspaper headline. Well, who do you think's there now? I know. It's a shame. I don't agree with that. I disagree with that. But you know what? People should have a certain level of fear of law enforcement. That's what keeps them in line. It keeps the criminals in line in our life to A degree. It kept us in line. So what's the difference? The difference, in my opinion. Right. Is I. And I believe that I was very lucky in where I grew up. I didn't have a fear of police. They were there as the heroes. They were the ones that came to save the day. When I walk into a room and somebody goes, oh, you better behave, or I'm gonna have that police officer take you away. Like, that's not something I'm instilling in someone. That's the parent instilling that fear in their child about who we are. And I think the same has been said about your reputation and who the Mafia is. Right. After sitting here and hearing you all day, like, I feel like you and I could be best friends because. Right. But I'm not scared of you. I'm not there. There isn't a fear element on my end when it comes to you. But I do believe that your. The leadership style within the culture of the Mafia is something based on fear and intimidation. I don't believe those are the only elements, but I do believe, historically, that's where it came from. There's an element of fear in almost every walk of life. Yeah. And again, it's accentuated in the mob life. I will agree with that. But what I disagree with is it's that fear that made the life successful. There's a lot of guys in that life that if they have chose to go in the legitimate world, they would have been brilliant and very successful. Trust me. You know, no other organization has thrived like we had during that. And I'm not bragging and I'm not glorifying. I'm just telling the truth, you know, under some very serious conditions. And the ones that succeeded, they did it because of their brains and their determination. Pause. We're out of time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. That's a great question, by the way. Thank you. You know, normally, if I'm surrounded by 20 law enforcement agents, I'm under arrest. So it was nice to be able to sit and debate with them. You know, it was. It was a good experience. I think my Michael got a lot of things wrong. I think that he didn't really understand that at every level of law enforcement, I don't care what agency you work for, there are standards, procedures, and elements that we have to follow before you even build a case. He did give us immediate respect, which I thought was interesting, because I didn't expect that walking in here. I thought it was really going to be a little bit More adversarial. I grew quite frustrated at times. He claims that agents suborn perjury routinely. In my 23 years, I never saw any indication of that. You know, for him to sit there and say that there isn't that the FBI today and that there isn't corruption among the FBI, I think that was. That was poor on his part. The culture of the organization is very much rule oriented. Very much get approval and document whatever you do. He may be an agent with ethics and integrity, but he has to know that a lot of people in his department now, especially over the last four years, didn't act that way. Well, of course, if someone is successful in their field, that will advance their career. That's not in and of itself proof of corruption. There's no glamour in working organized crime. That's something that I don't think Michael understands. I think I swayed him in everything, so he ended up agreeing with me pretty well. I do think that female fear and intimidation helps you rise through the ranks of the Mafia. Arresting people who are in the mafia does not make the streets safer. Listen, our neighborhoods were the safest neighborhoods around. There was no street crime going on unless we were doing it. And we weren't doing it like that. We didn't hurt people. We help people in our community and our neighborhoods. The leaders in today's world, they rule by fear. And it should never be like that. And it goes both ways in both the mafia and in policing. You know, a lot of people think, think, you know, when we take that oath, it's an oath of silence. It's not an oath to lie, steal, kill, murder. That's not the oath. Do things like that happen? Yes, but that's not the oath that we take. So we didn't go around creating street crimes all over the place. That's not what we were involved in. We were a bit more sophisticated than that. Don't forget to subscribe to Surrounded wherever you get your podcasts so that you don't miss an episode. And if you want to watch the video version of Surrounded, subscribe to Jubilee on YouTube. Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time. 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.