Intelligence Agencies Analyzed ~ Conversation With X-Leftist Investigative Journalist | GRTC E238 Recorded 18 March 2024

Hi friends, Gene Valentino, and welcome to another episode of Gene Valentino’s Grassroots TruthCast. You know, we try to grab people from various walks of life, as I’ve mentioned before. And my guest here, off my right shoulder, is Matt Wolfson. He’s an investigative journalist.

He’s originally from the Midwest, but he resides for the many past few years in, uh, In Miami, Miami, Florida, where he has done some great journalistic work. Uh, he’s a one heck of a good investigator and I had the privilege of meeting him at CPAC, uh, in, um, in, uh, the National Harbor area of Washington, D. C.

about a month ago. We’re going to be talking today about some serious issues involving the deep state. We’re going to get Matt’s take on a few issues involving the deep state. Welcome aboard, Matt. Thanks very much, Gene. It’s great to be here. And we’re going to do that with Matt Wolfson right after this message.

​

Mike Lindell, free promo code, “GeneV”: [00:01:00] To celebrate the new year, we’re having the biggest sale ever on Overstock clearance and brand new products. For example, save 60% on our goose down comforters, the best comforters ever. They go perfectly with our MyPillow bedsheets and duvet Covers save 25% on our brand new kitchen towels. They’re made with the same technology as our famous My Towels.

Our initial quantities are extremely low, so get them now before they go. Our seasonal flannel sheets are finally in! You save up to 50 percent and they sell out fast every year, so order now! They’re truly the best flannel sheets you’ll ever sleep on! Or save up to 80 percent on all our clearance items!

And this is where it gets even better! For a limited time, your entire order ships absolutely free. So go to MyPillow. com or call the number on your screen. Use that promo code to get deep discounts on all MyPillow products. And for a limited time, your order ships absolutely [00:02:00] free. ​

Hi friends. Welcome back to Grassroots TruthCast and my guest, Matt Wolfson, investigative journalist. Matt, we’ve had a lot of time to chat over the past few weeks since we first met.

The thing I like most interesting about you Is that you were, you were, uh, ex leftist, as you self proclaim, an ex leftist investigative journalist. I dare not say any more unless you explain that. Would you explain that? Well, sure. The, the, The idea was given to me by a conservative friend of mine who I’d known for many years, and it’s sort of, we’d known each other when I was on the other side, and by ex leftist it really means, and I think he knew this, I wouldn’t have thought it, you know, it’s a proclamation, and you know, ideal and very specific facts, but Once he told me, and I, you should, you should identify this, so I thought, yeah, that’s probably right, because for many years, 12 to 15 years, I was in the [00:03:00] institutions, you know, national universities, working for, you know, people at the nexus of think tanks, universities, corporations, finance, you know, writing, ghost writing, you know, editing capacity, uh, what we call, I suppose, centrists, you know, centrist Democrats.

I was always a little more populist. You know, I come from the Midwest. I liked the Tea Party when it first started. On the other hand, I thought and think until President Trump, it had too many corporate influences involved. So I was sort of for the, I was sort of for the private sector union, the little guys, civil liberties, you know, the way the left Yeah.

Okay. But what was the trigger? What was the triggering event that got where you said to me at CPAC, I needed to, I needed to change to becoming more Republican and more conservative. And what did that, when did you do it? And why did you do it? Um, beginning at the end of, at the beginning of 2020. With COVID, with Build Back Better, when I saw that [00:04:00] everybody who I, who were leftists or, you know, centrist liberals who believed in civil liberties and a little guy and, you know, my body, my choice, that went out the window, you know, civil liberties were abrogated.

You know, vaccines were now mandatory, and they wanted to push far harder and further than ended up happening, thanks to a conservative Supreme Court who stopped them. You know, people who said they cared about the deficit, you know, Clinton era Democrats, suddenly they’re all behind Build Back Better. It didn’t make sense to me.

What I saw is people who I thought had principles operating based on interests, not principles. I thought these were objective analysts using their education to, you know, really think things through. I was a believer in the institutions. Uh, you know, smart sentence. Yeah, I mean, we all have our different opinions and different centers of influence and I tried, as long as the conversation is responsible and balanced and not inflammatory or hurtful, I’d like to have [00:05:00] conversations from people with all walks of life.

We’re going to have an Israeli defense. Forces expert on in a week or two from inside the Gaza Strip. We’ve had people from all walks of life on the show. I care less about whether you’re Republican or Democrat. I care less about whether you’re conservative or liberal. I care more about whether you defend this nation and the principles related to this nation.

And if I’m not seeing it correctly, I’m gonna count on you to kind of give me an insight that I might be missing. Now let’s do that constructively, in a friendly way, that leads to a learning experience for both of us. And that’s, I think, the beauty of a democratic, excuse me, a constitutional republic working within a democracy.

We have so much ground to cover with you as an investigative journalist, but the one that Tipped me off when we were in [00:06:00] Washington DC together at the CPAC convention is the issue of the Spies Who Lied. Folks, this is what we’re going to spend our time talking with Matt about. Here’s the front page. Of the New York Post dated March 19th, 2021, the spies who lied and in the center next to the word lie are the two guys in particular, uh, John Brennan and James Clapper.

And these 51 people signed a document that said around that time that. The Hunter Biden computer and everything on it was a Russian hoax, that it really wasn’t real. End of the story real quick. It was real. The evidence is on the computer. There’s been copies floating around somewhere that are being talked about.[00:07:00]

And, uh, so what gets 51 key bureaucrats within the CIA and other divisions of government Uh, to sign off on a document saying it was a hoax, what was the motivation? Ergo, Mr. Brennan, head of the CIA, and Mr. Clapper, NIS. Well, the motivation in my view, Gene, goes to exactly what you were just saying and what these people have betrayed, which is, we all want free and open debate, but you can only have free and open debate when people are using words and education and information to go for what they think is truth, rather than to clearly advance their own interests.

And if you look, and I’m talking about publicly available information, and I’m not much of one for psychology, because you can’t prove it. But publicly available information you can prove, and, you know, just on a random look at, you know, the 10 to 12, of [00:08:00] these, of these signatories of this letter, these people are tied not only to the intelligence agencies.

that make up what President Trump would call the deep state, e. g., you know, the administrative state funding via public debt, you know, indebting our children to fund intelligence services, defense agencies, but also more importantly, because they’re all former intelligence officials, they’re funding, they’re relying on the defense contractors who the D.

1. D., the C. I. A., you know, et cetera, are contracting with. So they not only owe their careers to these institutions, They owe their current financial stability to these institutions and President Trump, and I’m not even talking, I mean, as you said, we’re not talking even politically here. President Trump, if you look at his policies by the end of his first term, was a threat to that.

President Trump wanted to withdraw from foreign entanglements. President Trump wanted, in crucial ways, to defund the deep state. Their interests in his, to [00:09:00] some extent, I hate to say this because I work with words for a living, I have for 15 years, words don’t matter when it comes to this. Words are just weapons because he is threatening powerful vested interests.

And these people will misuse words, will misuse language to defend those interests. And that’s what we see with the Hunter Biden laptop. So, so the smoking gun arrives, right? We have a situation where, uh, there must have been an intention within government. The first time, well, I take that back. It’s probably not the first time, but it’s the first blatant time I’ve seen where government has intervened.

And, going back to the media to create a narrative, explain the narrative you believe government created and how it, the misinformation got out there. Well, the [00:10:00] narrative it created was, this again goes to the manipulation of language by people who are supposed to be objective, you know, tellers of truth about our, our defense capabilities about foreign threats.

It hinges on a word in the letter, Jane. And the word in the letter is intelligence operations. Now, intelligence operations are what they said this letter was part of. They said that we think based on our collective experience, we don’t have proof. This has all the earmarks of a Russian, um, information operation.

The headline to the letter that was leaked by John Brennan’s assistant to Politico, to Natasha Bertrand, the headline of the letter said, you know, these ex spies say that it’s Russian disinformation. They never said disinformation, Gene, and that matters a great deal, and the reason is this. Disinformation, for anybody who actually practices, you know, the trade of intelligence, disinformation is false information.[00:11:00]

Information operations are information wars to hurt an enemy or manipulate an enemy based on information that could be true or could be false. Let me add one more wrinkle to this, Gene. Many of the signatories, at least four or five, said afterwards that it was their understanding when they signed this letter that both they and most of the signatories thought that the Hunter Biden laptop was true information.

They didn’t think it was disinformation. They thought it was an information operation where Russia was using actual information, which is more effective, they say, because it’s not easily, you know, exposed as fiction. Hunter Biden’s laptop was true, it’s just Russia was using it to benefit itself. Now, Gene, this was nowhere in the letter.

Now, if you and I, I mean, I think I’ve been in eighth grade, you know, a little more recently than you have, but I mean, if you write an essay and you don’t define a [00:12:00] key term, it can be a brilliant essay, but your teacher is probably, if she’s worth her salt, she’s going to mark you down. Because you’re not defining a key term.

They did the equivalent of writing an eight paragraph essay and they didn’t define what information operation is. And that’s especially curious, Gene, because one of them actually said, you know, when this sort of broke and there was controversy, he says, well, no one who’s lived and watched in Thomas Finger, who used to be at the State Department, he said, oh, I think that this is actually in retrospect, you know, I thought when I signed it, this is the Hunter Biden laptop is real.

Russia’s just using it. It’s not disinformation. It’s an information operation. But you know, the media distorted this. They said disinformation, and that’s no surprise. We all know, if you’ve been in Washington for a period of time, which he has, you know the media does this. So this begs the question, Gene, at least this is my question.

Why did they not clearly say the way any eighth grader would be taught in an expository essay to say, We believe this is an information operation that benefits Russia. That [00:13:00] means that in our collective experience, the Hunter Biden laptop information, the information on the laptop may be and likely is true and that it likely benefits Russia.

Now that would be a genuine service to citizens. You would be saying, look, in our experience, this may be or is likely true and it also may benefit this foreign enemy. That’s actually giving information. They didn’t say that. They didn’t define information operation and then they let the media run with Russian disinformation.

So everybody’s thinking that this is false information propagated by Russia. Yeah, my concern, Matt, is it’s a chicken and egg here. I can see where Russia is giggling on the sideline because of the advantage they’ve been given to perpetrating a fraud they may not be author to, is what you’re really trying to [00:14:00] say.

But my concern is that there is A, uh, whatever media manipulation there was, it came from government. It came from a deep state cabal. Correct me if I’m wrong, that’s why we’re having this discussion. It came from a deep state cabal of actors that hated Donald Trump and were at all cost going to make sure he didn’t get re elected.

Yes or no? Uh, sort of. Go ahead. I would describe it differently. I, you know, I met, not these people directly, but people like this, people who know these people. Many of them are perfectly nice folks, and I’m not even sure they hate Trump. They don’t want to lose money, funding, and status. And they are willing to do what is necessary, in my view.

I can’t prove it. I can’t look into their mind. But if you look at their actions, they’re willing to do [00:15:00] Trump represents a threat to all of those. Okay, okay, time out right there. Isn’t that analogous to what Anthony Fauci was in the middle of with, uh, getting, uh, support to his, uh, papers on the vaccine from, uh, medical scientists who weren’t totally on board, but knew they’d be out of business and retiring if they didn’t go along with, uh, Anthony Fauci’s narrative?

Gene, I haven’t, I think you’re, it’s likely that you’re right based on what I’ve read cursorily. I have not gone into that enough to say, I mean, I base everything on Okay, I jumped on you to another topic and I didn’t mean to. I was just saying there seems to be a pattern in government where you, uh, get along to go along.

Well, in this case, to an extreme, you get along to protect your career and maybe whatever it takes you through to retirement. But in the case of the 51 act, uh, people who signed into this letter initiated by [00:16:00] who, uh, Brennan or Clapper? Morrell. Morrell wrote the letter and how did it proceed? Morrell wrote the letter along with his assistant, uh, Mark, he has a long Greek name, um, Mark Polymeropoulos, Mark Polymeropoulos.

Both of them are former CIA agents. Morrell was rumored around Washington to be the top choice for CIA director. Progressives derailed his nomination after Biden won because he’d been involved in Iraq and torture and that kind of stuff. Morrell, with polymorpholus, wrote the letter. He testified to Jim Jordan’s committee that he did it, he didn’t say it was caused by it, he said he did it after a conversation with Antony Blinken, who’s now Secretary of State, and was Deputy, uh, National Security Advisor to Joe Biden when Biden was Vice President for a number of years.

Well, my concern, my concern is that who [00:17:00] was, who was Creating the threat, or the mandate, that 51 people sign into this. Where did that mandate come from? It came, as much as I can tell, from what’s been released from the House, uh, from Jim Jordan’s House Committee, who interviewed some of these people.

Morale circulated it to many of the signatories after drafting it with Polly Merkulis. The signatory signed on, and John Brennan’s assistant John Brennan, was one of the signatories. His assistant leaked to Politico Tony Blinken in Morell’s testimony. It was after a conversation with Blinken talking about Russian disinformation, that he started to cer that, that Morell came up with the idea.

Now, he didn’t say, and, and the Democrats are very insistent on this. He didn’t say that Blinken made him do it. He just said it was after a conversation with Blink. Well, you know, whether these [00:18:00] guys are saying they got pushed to do it, or it was a cocktail at six o’clock after work, and uh, they, a wink in a, a wink of the eye, and hey, why don’t you just handle this, and uh, you know, these, These requests for a conspiratorial setup against Trump can come in many fashions.

The biggest one that’s right under our nose though, and you as an investigative reporter, it must jump out at you. What the hell is the CIA doing con uh, moving the media to a narrative that this was a Russian hoax? Well, gene this, and this is the thing that people really, I, I’ve written about this extensively.

Now this is something people really don’t know. I think the, the, the, the CIA has been doing this for 50 years. They’ve been doing this since Watergate. I mean, the Watergate was based on intelligence leaks. To [00:19:00] reporters eager for a scoop from agencies that Richard Nixon was trying to centralize under his control.

Reporters for the last 50 years have been essentially in many ways stenographers for anonymous sources in power in Washington. This is just the latest and worst because the threat to the to Washington itself and its power is greatest with Trump. This is the latest in a long line, a long line. It’s amazing to me in your comment just now about long line, why Donald Trump did not release the, um, the Warren Commission, uh, information regarding the Kennedy assassination as well.

There’s that, uh, might it have been that Trump, the same guy who might have tried to protect the wrongdoing of the CIA, finds now that what the hell was I worrying about protecting the CIA for when they had it at a, um, had a, uh, intent to go after me and [00:20:00] take me down. That’s the analogy. I mean, I, I think that if Trump gets in for a second term, you know, you’d mentioned this before, and I think you’re dead right, that the intelligence agencies are aware that he’s not going to give them much order, that he’s going to want to make things transparent, both, excuse me, in our history and, and currently.

That aren’t transparent, and I think that represents a real threat. And I think, you know, whether, yeah. Yeah, timeout right there. Might that have been the motivation for the intelligence agencies? This is where I was going. Might that have been the motivation for the intelligence agencies to take Trump down?

In this case, manipulating the media to do so. I think that’s one of the motivations. I would say at the time, I think Trump is sharp and rightfully so in the last couple years. My own view at the time is they didn’t want the funding cut off. They’re all at the trough of the military industrial complex and they know Trump’s going to cut off the funding and Clinton or Biden [00:21:00] won’t.

That I think is the real, and the media relies on all these guys for anonymous sources to sell copy. So they’re in the picture too. That I, that would be, I, Gene, I, I only claim what I know. I can support. I think you may be right. I just, I haven’t gotten into that enough. Folks, we’re talking with Matt Wolfson out of Miami, Florida.

He’s an investigative journalist. I like saying it, but I don’t know if he does. A liberal Democrat turned Republican conservative, and the motivation is not so much conservative as it is unowned. I see Matt as an investigative journalist who stands on his own merits and worries more about the credibility of the story and less about the Alignment with the others.

And for that you should be commended, Matt. That’s a big issue. But to that point, Matt, what is motivating the media, the intelligence agencies now that, [00:22:00] um, that, uh, to, what are they going to do from your point of view to prevent Trump from getting reelected? And that is a bit, Gene, that is a bit, I have a number of thoughts.

That, that is a bigger question than I feel I can go into right now. There are historical, I mean, my background, by the way, is history, you know, at an undergraduate and graduate level, and a lot of the work I’ve done has been related to recent history. There are precedents, and I think they’re both very, very sneaky.

I mean, one of the reasons I wanted to emphasize this sort of semantic distinction between disinformation and information operations, this is the way these people operate. They’re very specific. They’ve been trained to be very specific to use language as a weapon. And I think there’s going to be a lot of that going on.

I think, I think there’s going to be a lot of likely mobilizing of protests that are peaceful, but are they fully peaceful? You know, I’m unwilling to speculate more than that, but [00:23:00] certainly that’s one of the things I’m working on, and hopefully I’ll have something out in the next month or two about it, because I do have very definite ideas, and there are precedents going back to FDR and Lincoln for how this was done, by the way, historically grounded precedents that liberal and left historians have written about for years.

Okay, then what is the smoking gun analogy to, uh, to the Biden campaign? How do you relate the history of intelligence and its misuse within the administrations of government? Uh, you mentioned going back to, uh, uh, to maybe Obama and, and Biden. I, I would submit going way back, um, Uh, to, uh, the early days of the, uh, formation of the FBI.

And, uh, I, I think there’s a pattern over time as to how much they’re going to try to control, to basically control more than the narrative, to control the elected official. And what is your investigation showing now about the, um, smoking gun related to the Biden [00:24:00] campaign? Are you talking about the, the, the Hunter Biden, the letter, or?

Yes. Yes. Well, I, I don’t know if I can talk about a smoking gun. I can say that all of these people have interests that Joe Biden is going to protect more than President Trump is. I can say that, you know, for example, all of these people have interests that are interconnected with each other. For example.

John Brennan, whose assistant leaked this to Natasha Bertrand at Politico, John Brennan is now on the board of a defense intelligence, one of those consultancy founded by Tony Blinken, who was the original impetus for the letter. So that’s one example. Natasha Bertrand, the political reporter to whom Brennan’s assistant leaked this, was one of the main pushers.

She was actually criticizing in the Washington Post, of all places, for pushing the Russia collusion, the Trump collusion with Russia. storyline far beyond available facts. You know, these people all have a definite [00:25:00] interest. And so I don’t know if there’s one smoking gun so much as a number of connections that clearly show that they had an interest in promoting a view of what was going on that was at odds with At least to some extent with what was going on.

You know, we, uh, we, uh, all I see is a continued momentum of, um, what I referred to affectionately as Geno’s three D’s divert, deflect, and distract. It seems to be the narrative within the Democrat party and how to deal with, with, with, uh, the Republicans and now Trump in particular, for example, divert, defect, deflect and distract.

What are we talking about on the, uh, fake news, uh, media out there today? We’re talking about a bloodbath that allegedly was, is what Trump was quoted saying, related to a specific series of events with China as it relates to auto [00:26:00] manufacturing. I don’t think, I know he was not referring to a mass annihilation in any form.

of Human Life, which is the narrative the folks from your former camp were, um, were espousing as 20 minutes before airtime today. I just, I just can’t get over why the narrative continues in different circles, in different ways, through different actors, through different people. Uh, the one you have opened up, I think, is the, to me, the, uh, near term, Serious one that has, uh, has been a springboard for a lot of conversation.

And that is the, um, uh, Russia collusion hoax, as it pertains to that letter signed by 51 people in the government. Um, including Brennan and, uh, [00:27:00] Clapper. My concern at this moment is that the narrative continues into, uh, the Democrats don’t have anything. They simply don’t have anything on Trump and they’re only going after the most egregious things they can find to, to influence the less informed, unlike you, to, um, steer the path on the future of this guy down a, down a, a, a channel or a path.

That is so reprehensible and devoid of common sense. You have to be out of your mind and simply, uh, part of this Stockholm syndrome where you gotta feel the need to just get along even though you’re being abused. I don’t understand why they have gone so far, um, with the bloodbath narrative. Now that’s a jump on you again.

I’m just [00:28:00] concerned. I’m just concerned. As to where you got, here’s what we’re not talking about. Joe Biden, where’s his narrative on anything? That’s yes. I mean, and I think that, I mean, I’ll give you a perfect example because it actually relates to the Hunter Biden thing. I haven’t looked into the bloodbath.

I was, I was prepping for this and you know, one, one too many, I guess. I mean, nonsense. I mean, I haven’t looked into it, so I can’t talk about it with any sort of facticity. But, one of the signatories of this letter, Jeremy Bash, was in the CIA, and he was in the Obama White House, and he’s very well respected in Washington, he’s a lawyer, he signed the letter, he went on NBC, said it was a Russian information operation, et cetera, you know, the host said, oh, it’s disinformation, Bash didn’t correct him, you know, Bash’s ex wife is Dana Bash, who’s a major reporter at CNN.

Now, the minute I found this out, I tend to look into backgrounds because these networks exist quietly, and you can sort of suss out a lot by knowing who knows who. You know, [00:29:00] cocktail parties unfortunately have way more influence than one might think, or phone conversations between friends. Um, Dana Bash was interviewing Nancy Pelosi after the State of the Union, and she, they were talking about, um, illegal immigration.

And she said, well, what did you think Joe Biden said about illegal immigration? And Pelosi said, I just couldn’t believe it. She said, she says, well, he should have said unauthorized. Anyways, and back, and this is a, this is what we would consider, you know, educated person. She’s done this a long time, an investigative reporter, purportedly, you know, an anchor.

You know, she says, well, what I was going to ask about was what you thought of, you know, the issue or his response. But wait a minute, what do you mean by unauthorized? She allows Pelosi to steer this into something completely meaningless. I mean, this is a completely meaningless distinction. Unauthorized.

Illegal. You know, she allows Pelosi, this is purportedly a hardened reporter, and she’s allowing Pelosi. to steer the terms of the conversation. And it’s not, Gene, I don’t [00:30:00] think, because it’s Stockholm Syndrome or being abused, I think this is obvious self interest. She wants Pelosi to come back on her show.

She wants a scoop from inside Pelosi’s office. Time out, time out right there. Does she want Pelosi back on her show or does she want the bigger deep state initiative, initiated in this case by the CIA, to be able to have a basis for the continuation of this false narrative? I can’t say. I think people don’t tend All right, now time out.

You’re the investigative reporter. Yeah. You have had conversations, I presume, with CIA operatives, and you’ve had information come to you on what the motivation was behind some of this. Well, I’m actually quite careful. I mean, I base everything on publicly available information. I don’t use sources except in very rare circumstances.

And there are always people on the ground affected by terrible policies. I don’t talk to people, I mean, in the work I do now, I spent a number of years with people in and [00:31:00] near and inside the structures, but I don’t talk to people now. I want to base everything on what’s publicly verifiable. And I’m also very careful talking about motivation because, Gene, I can’t prove it.

I can’t prove what’s in somebody’s mind. What I can prove, Is there connections and their actions off those connections? And I can prove it’s a fact. You know, Nancy Pelosi regularly appears on CNN or MSNBC. You know, it’s a fact that they get more ratings when they get high profile names on there. It’s a fact that Dana Bash is acting far more agreeable to Nancy Pelosi in this steering away from, you know, The issue of immigration, too, is should it be unauthorized or illegal?

You know, she’s being far more deferential than any, you know, I think journalists should be when they’re interviewing a person in power. Well, yeah. To me, that’s it. Well, then it’s a fact that, um, they have moved, the CIA has moved to transmitting a false narrative to the public. Oh, [00:32:00] yeah. I mean, you mentioned three key names earlier, and if they’re controlling the narrative, I’m trying to figure out why the rest of them signed on to something they didn’t have the ability to verify.

Well, because they’re part of this, I mean, they’re on these corporate boards, too. You know, they’re part of this world. They benefit from all these things. They may trust the people in this world, they probably do, I don’t know, but I know they benefit from the same structures of the deep state that President Trump wants to dismantle or curtail.

I mean that’s, excuse me, that’s the most I can say. You know, a number of people who are quite powerful, they’re very nice, you know? I’m not sure they hate anybody, but they’re after their own interests. Well, okay, we’ve talked about, uh, we’ve talked about a complete conspiracy and a misuse of the media, and then we’ve talked about a cover up by the CIA, uh, and um, [00:33:00] And some of these people in the deep state who signed off, these spies who lie, as the New York Post headline said.

So where does the investigation go from here and what happens? Is there any chance for any possible charges against these folks? You know, I’m not a lawyer. Um, I, I’m not a lawyer and, and I can’t say, All I can talk about is information that I think might be worth probing more. Now, I don’t know what the, beyond what’s been released, what the House committee, Jim Jordan’s committee is doing, but what I find interesting is the conversation between Antony Blinken and Michael Morell.

There are a bunch of versions, but what seems clear that everybody could agree on is that it was after this conversation and based on this conversation that Morell Organize this letter. I’d like to know more about that conversation. Okay, for the public’s benefit, uh, Anthony Blinken we know as Secretary of State.

Morell is whom? Morell is a former CIA official who was on deck before progressives derailed his nomination to be the [00:34:00] CIA director in a Biden administration. He was rumored to be the main guy in the months long leading up to the election. He would have known he was under selection. So when Blinken, who’s a key guy connected to Biden over 20 years, calls him, I mean, there’s a subtext that people aren’t saying, but they know it.

I mean, if you want to talk about motivation, you know, an obvious motivation for morale going along with Blinken’s, he wants to be CIA direct. Seems pretty, you know, can’t prove it, but it’s logical. If that is the case, I don’t understand why that’s not in the news. Why isn’t that in the news? That is Uh, if we’re talking motivation, motivation is not just when you don’t pull as a reporter motivation out of the box and use it to indict a president and then never bring it up when it comes to the CIA staffers who are hiding the conspiracy, not to mention the media.

I can tell you why in my view. Because Morel will be a source for these [00:35:00] reporters again. I mean, Brennan’s assistant Nick Shapiro will be a source. These reporters know that if they let these guys keep power they will keep feeding them stories, true or false, and the stories will generate news. That’s been going on for 50 years.

I mean, the intelligence agencies have, have, that was with, I mean, if we want to talk about Russiagate with Trump, they fed reporters news that the reporters didn’t question that turned out to be based on misstatements made to judges who authorized search warrants by the FBI. The whole FISA issue, I’m aware of that, but at what point, what point do, does the ball spring back the other way and say, time for some indictments for false and misinformation?

Again, I’m not a lawyer. I, these are the questions. I would look very closely at Michael Morell and Tony Blinken. I would look very closely, and I’m not sure it’s been done, I know he’s testified, at Mark Polymeropoulos, who’s a former CIA official. Uh, who work with Morrell on The Letter. [00:36:00] I’d look closely with Nick Shapiro, who’s John Brennan’s assistant.

They may have, they may have interviewed all these guys. I, I think there’s really stuff there, you know, that those would be the people I would focus on. You know, what did you know? Who did you talk to? What was the understanding? Folks, I had a great opportunity to meet this gentleman with me today, Matt Wolfson, investigative journalist.

We met at the CPAC convention, uh, last month and, uh, what an interesting, uh, individual who’s with us today talking about the investigative journalistic practices involved in getting some research for this conversation today. The deep state cabal and what’s been going on, uh, in the way they’ve controlled the narrative.

So, from your inside point of view, uh, Matt, are you seeing any possibility where, uh, future administrations may have to curtail the CIA, all, all agencies of the intelligence, uh, uh, arena, uh, and, [00:37:00] um, and some of the divisions of government that have overstepped? What’s your comment on that in general? I think if Trump or somebody later with a similar point of view gets in, sure.

Otherwise, no. I mean, we’ve seen no signs of that since 1945. You know, with, I suppose, plausible exceptions under Nixon and maybe Reagan, but we’ve seen no signs of that except Trump. I mean, it, it, it, it, he and the people around him, in my judgment, just having listened to them, again, I don’t know what they know.

They seem to know the stakes here, which is this, and this gets back to what we were saying at the beginning, In a constitutional republic, you want to have free and open debate. The people in these structures, the people who created this wording, the people who used information operation rather than disinformation, they’re not interested in using words to clarify or debate.

They’re interested in using words to keep power. And I think President Trump and the people close to him understand that. I think they understand that this isn’t about a dialogue. This is about keeping power. And you’ve got to, through legal means. [00:38:00] Which, you know, people like Russ Vought, who’s a major Trump advisor, are devising legal means to help the executive reclaim power over these institutions who answer to the executive because the executive, not these people, were elected by America, was elected by America.

That’s correct. You know, I mean, but at some point the pendulum has to swing the other way, going back even as far as J. Edgar Hoover. This has turned out to be an agency that has overstepped and misstepped. I had Russ, I had Roger Stone on recently, started off in working with the Reagan administration and then again with the Nixon administration.

And, uh, he’s got one hell of a story about how the FBI. We’re banging down his door at five in the morning down, uh, in the Fort Lauderdale area, incarcerating him. And it took Donald Trump to, uh, pardon him, to prevent him from serving time, uh, on, uh, [00:39:00] allegations that were unproven. And my concern is when will this activity stop?

Will it ha does it take It seems to me that they’ve been tried, tried to even control the election campaign and the election process. From your investigations, have you seen any manipulation of the election process? Whether you like the CIA, we’ve been focusing on the CIA, I get it, but what’s your take on the election process maybe encumbering a good elected official coming back in?

It’s too long, it’s too long of a question. I am actually working on that as we speak. I’m looking at some stuff that people are saying. Again, I use publicly verifiable information that people who are alive with these networks we’ve talked about today are saying, and I’m looking at some historical precedents and I have some ideas.

I think that’s a definite possibility that something, you know, something like that could happen. I’m working on that. [00:40:00] So it’s going to have to take, in my opinion, it’s going to have to take a tsunami, uh, to, uh, of, of, of voters coming in to overwhelm any, uh, allegations of, uh, election, uh, fraud or tampering, uh, to make sure that we have an election that brings us forward a leader and that that leader, God willing, is able to turn this situation around and make it more, uh, uh, and clean house.

Clean house from stem to stern. Uh, you know, let me tell you, I really liked Donald Trump, but here’s what it gets me about him. When he came into office the first time, he didn’t do what George Bush, he didn’t do what Obama did. He didn’t do what several did before him, including Biden. And that’s a complete shakeup and removal of republicanism within the rank and file of government.

They did a complete [00:41:00] housecleaning. Trump, on the other hand, a little bit more forgiving, a little bit more, uh, uh, friendly about it, kept some of the old bureaucrats around that, uh, came from a prior regime and did, and, and, and, and, They, in many senses, were the source of his, uh, problems with, um, misinformation and conspiratorial behavior from within the administration.

Came from, uh, those who had, uh, roots in Democrat oriented regimes. What do you say about that? I think Trump had a harder, had a much harder problem because essentially there were massive, I mean, Brennan to use one, Morrell to use another, McLaughlin, John McLaughlin, another CIA official. These guys served from Bush through Obama.

I mean, they were, they were, they were advising first on torture and then on drones. They’re all in the, in the uniparty, if you will, camp. So it wasn’t so hard for Obama [00:42:00] to come in and get rid of some people, keep some people who would generally keep his point of view. I mean, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, he was a holdover between administrations, Bush and Obama.

Trump was coming in actually wanting to clean this thing up, which nobody has wanted to do since Reagan, and not nearly at Trump’s level, not to the point where it threatened the defense agencies, because Reagan needed them to win the Cold War. So. Trump is doing something much, much harder, and it’s much harder to do that.

What I can say is from what I’ve read, people in think tanks, new think tanks, close to Trump are coming up with ways to, legal ways to use executive authority to get rid of many more, you know, civil servants, if you will, you know, who, who, who stopped Trump from doing what he wanted to do in the first term.

So I just think he had a much harder hill to climb. Yeah, I think this time around, um, uh, he’s learned some valuable lessons, most of which have not been expressed. Just think about it. He [00:43:00] comes in as a corporate executive, never really run for office to speak of before. The first job he gets in government is president of the United States.

He’s got a supreme background in corporate management and, uh, running, uh, things like a business. And, um, And, and all he’s, and he loses two or three senior cabinet officials including Nikki Haley, member Rex Tillerson, uh, member Mad Dog Maddox. These folks left because they didn’t tolerate his His, uh, oversight.

And maybe that’s what they left for another reason. Well, they, exactly. And one of the reasons they left, I mean, for instance, Mattis, for example, I mean, Mattis is a very sort of uniparty person. I mean, Mattis is no Mike Flynn, General Flynn. You know, Mattis, Mattis is for institutional stability. If you look at the policies he supports in the Mideast and elsewhere, he’s a not rock the boat guy.

Trump is a rock the boat guy. You know, and so they wouldn’t [00:44:00] tolerate Trump because, you know, Tillerson is, you know, Trump has a business that, you know, he knows how to put in a shower nozzle for God’s sakes. Tillerson has been a corporate executive linked to, you know, I mean, I think Exxon for a number of years, he was recommended, unless I’m mistaken, by Condi Wrights and Bob Gaye.

You know, these guys are tied to that sort of establishment that’s linked to what Trump would call the deep state, the administrative state, what it funds, the defense apparatus, you know, the defense contractors, they’re linked to all this stuff. And so they wouldn’t tolerate Trump for a simple reason. He was going against their interests, and he was determined to do so.

So he needs to find somebody, and I think people, and I think he has, who will be with him, who have his goals. Oh yeah. Well, now it’s obvious. He’s only got four more years, so if that’s the case, he knows his deadline of what to accomplish. And, uh, if that’s the case, he cannot afford any missteps. He’s gotta, in fact, based on the experiences he’s learned [00:45:00] from the first four years, I submit, uh, he’ll get ten times more done in the next four years.

Just because of his knowledge of what to do and what not to do, uh, within this, uh, crazy form of government we’re living, we’re, we’re working with. Folks, we’re with Matt Wolfson, investigative journalist, and he’s been kind enough to spend an hour with us. Matt, in the last, uh, last five minutes or so, do you want to talk up, uh, you want to summarize some of the key points that you’ve investigated or give us a tip on what you’re looking into that will be, uh, released in the future?

Yeah, well, I’m looking into actually two things, and they’re both related, and they do touch on the coming election. One is the way that human rights language, and this is a 75 year sort of trend where non profits tied to the United Nations and to the United States government, Use language of humanitarianism, human rights, universal human rights.

I’m looking at how this is being [00:46:00] used on local levels, on state levels, and with illegal immigration to take power away from the American people who allow illegal immigration and to give more power to unaccountable bureaucrats. Along with that, I’m looking into possible ways, because, you know, it’s very hard, you know, when somebody says there’s a deep state conspiracy against President Trump, or when somebody looks at a very individual example of, you know, malfeasance in the deep state, I’m trying to sort of in another piece really hit that sweet spot where you’re looking, look, let’s take some players in the State Department and elsewhere.

Let’s take some plays that they’re running that it’s publicly verifiable. Again, you can trace the money and the networks and the policies. Let’s see, based on some precedents in past American history, Where populist presidents have been opposed by Washington establishmentarians, let’s look at some ways that they may actually cleverly, subtly, using language, the way they did in this [00:47:00] letter, information operation versus disinformation.

You know, let’s look at the ways in which they may actually deny Trump presidency, or try to, in the next eight months. So, human rights language connected to border issues, Which is in turn connected to the way some of these people in Washington and the State Department and USAID, you know, Tony Blinken, Samantha Power, are trying to deny or pushing policies that I think will have the effect of working to deny President Trump the presidency again, even if he’s, he’s, even if he has a real good chance of getting it.

This to me is, um, subversion. This to me is a complicit behavior of wrongdoing that ends up being a, um, Intentional, intentional act and we’ll have to have you back to talk about where it’s coming from. I’d like to know if this is a, certainly this behavior didn’t happen overnight. [00:48:00] This behavior came from subversive behavior that goes back to the early days of J.

Edgar Hoover, as I mentioned earlier. It’s evolved through administrations internally from within, but it’s come from external as well, like. George Soros and other actors out there that were funding to get elected officials, officials elected. What say you? Well, I’ll tell you something interesting about George Soros.

One of the things that’s not fully understood is that a guy like Soros from the beginning had deep ties to Washington. It was the deregulatory policies in DC in the 80s and 90s that gave Soros, I mean, he was, he was a capital management guy who’s a hedge funder, you know, That helped him make all of the money he then used to invest in his non profits.

By 1995, the Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was saying, we treat George Soros as the equivalent of a [00:49:00] foreign government. We treat him as an ally who we consult on major geopolitical issues. If I were to emphasize one thing, it’s that You know, there’s a title of a famous sociology paper, Warmaking and Statemaking is Organized Crime, something along those lines.

I read it years ago. This is all tied to Washington, the administrative state, public debt, and its outgrowths. People like Soros. are simply organisms feeding off of that. I mean, I think that is backed up by the facts, and I think that’s the most helpful way to see it, because we have to target that deep state, those administrative outgrowths, to really stop this.

You know, doing Soros, that’s not going to do any good. The source of Soros power, and it’s these policies pushed by the Washington establishment over 75 years. Well, in the earlier days, um, I’m talking now the 70s and 80s when, for example, the technology of, uh, cellular telephone was [00:50:00] in its infancy. Uh, it was, it came on the, uh, on the heels of, um, of the breakup of the AT& T’s monopoly.

It was when government stood up and went after the monopoly and broke it up. In, in comes this tidal wave of new technology called cellular telephone and the whole concept of the cellular telephone industry evolving in such a way as to create other spin off agencies and industries. Including AI, including a streaming broadcast that goes around the whole concept of cable TV, which is soon to become an obsoleted concept.

I bring these points up to complement what you’re saying, but to say that it’s going to require government. To come after the future George Soros’s, these government entities, I mean, you want to live, have eternal [00:51:00] life and live forever, it’s the founding of another Jesus Christ, become a, become a George Soros.

You seem insulated from any, uh, any oversight. And so in the early days it was right for government to say that about him, but today my concern is, They’re doing nothing about it. And that’s why I spent the time with you today on the show to talk about what government’s role was in manipulating the media, ergo as a, as a, as a way of getting to their ultimate intention, eliminating Trump.

And I think that Investigation in the future is something I will prod you about. I will try to go after you and talk more in detail on what’s being done from an investigative point of view, objectively, to assess the behavior of internal actors within government on one side of the pendulum. On the other [00:52:00] side of the pendulum, What is happening in our marketplace, in the world, in this case in media, that we’re being adversely impacted from as well through misinformation?

There are two broad comments that have a very specific and real consequence to all of us. I think that convergence is absolutely key in everything that’s likely to happen, or may happen in the next eight months, especially. I’m so glad you see it that way. I hate to let you go, Mr. Matt Wolfson. Uh, any closing comments you’d like to add to?

No, other than I really appreciate this, and thank you, but I mean, when I used to work purely as a writer and editor, the line on an editor was, a really good editor changes your language so they make it clear, or they put you in the direction, in a direction you might not otherwise fully go. And you were the one who suggested really diving in to this, to this Hunter Biden and the 51 intelligence officers response, form intelligence officers.

And so, you know, thank you for your, your, [00:53:00] your editorial work. Well, thank you. And this was beyond this, this interview. It was a real pleasure. Thank you. Like you, you know, my editorial commentary. is immersed in fact, I try to base it on fact, insight. So I run off with some internal opinions of my own. But I, if you, I try not to argue the facts or convince me that my facts are not a good, basis in my reasoning, and I’ll accept that, but I don’t see that here.

I see a perpetration of a fraud against our constitutional republic that goes back to the early days of J. Edgar Hoover. I see it morphing through different elected, uh, uh, different administrations, Republican and Democrat, over the decades. And I see a convergence of thinking now that’s, um, that’s synthesizing quickly because it has to.

It’s not that people want it to, it has to because [00:54:00] technology is forcing it to. And, uh, my only hope and prayer is that we nail it in the bud. I hope we fix our government’s one sided, lopsided, deep state, misinformation generated Commentary. Not from reporters like you and me. But from the Deep State itself putting things out, that we started the conversation with, uh, that occurred two years ago, three years ago, in the New York Post, The Spies Who Lie.

And these are all the characters who signed in on that. False document, which is the reason why Donald Trump lost the election, and why we have to prevent it from occurring again in the future. Matt Wolfson, many thanks for joining me. I’d like to say to you not goodbye, but see you later. See you later.

Thank you. And thank you everybody for joining us on another episode of Gene [00:55:00] Valentino’s Grassroots TruthCast. Matt will be back to join us again when we have another issue or initiative to uncover. And in the meantime, please subscribe and please share. And, uh, become part of our network team so that we can send you these podcasts out, uh, weekly as we record them and, uh, share them with family and friends.

We welcome that. So on that note, thanks again for joining us. See you again soon.

Narrator: Thanks for joining us for Gene Valentino’s Grassroots TruthCast. Be sure to like and subscribe, and God bless America.