Speaker 1: 0:01

Okay, Frank, welcome. We've known each other for a little bit now I'm going to get cut right to the chase. It's bad, isn't it?

Speaker 2: 0:10

Yeah, I think it's probably the worst I've seen since I've been out of the Bureau and doing NBC News now for seven years. This is, you know, this is beyond personal. This is about national security. You know that it's always been about national security. For me, the politics of it are secondary. We're at a junction here where the nation is less secure than it was a week ago, a month ago, and the notion that you can wholesale dismiss FBI agents because they did their job, because the President of the United States doesn't like what they did, is really problematic for the rule of law in democracy. The idea of the White House controlling the FBI and the DOJ and the heads of those agencies, which appear now to be sailing through confirmation, is a clear and present danger to the United States.

Speaker 1: 1:10

As many of the listeners will know, you were the former assistant director of counterintelligence with the FBI. Is what's going on now, keeping you up at night?

Speaker 2: 1:22

It is. It's occupying my thought, at least during my waking hours, and it's causing all of us in and out of the Bureau to be constantly talking with each other about what this means, moving forward, what it means right now, the idea that field agents you know it's funny, you've been in the military and there was always a tension between the senior ranks right and the quote unquote work for a living.

Speaker 1: 1:50

Right right.

Speaker 2: 1:51

Well, that's always been the case and the Bureau, even though, of course, it's the same agents that go up the ranks and fill the senior ranks. People seem to forget that. So the attitude you know up until the past couple of days in the field has been well, a bunch of suits got walked out of headquarters. It's not good, but we'll keep our head down and do our job. Somewhere between four and six thousand agents touched these January six cases, plus the Trump related Mar-a-Lago case, the the overturn of the election case in DC, and that they have to sit there and fill out a form describing their role in those cases, which now, by the way, has been. It's been reported that headquarters has decided that they have to turn that list over. There had been great resistance.

Speaker 1: 2:44

I saw that.

Speaker 2: 2:45

By the acting assistant director, which I find fascinating, because Trump approved him. He's allegedly a Trump guy who happens to be a career FBI agent. There he is sitting on the seventh floor and now they picked the wrong guy because this guy's like hey, I may be a conservative but I'm an american right and I took an oath to protect, preserve and defend the constitution. And you know the guy happens to be during a time in his career he was the commander of the hostage rescue team.

Speaker 2: 3:18

So this is a guy that's a special ops team that sure goes through the door with a gunpoint, not caring who's on the other side.

Speaker 1: 3:26

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 3:27

You know they got the wrong guy if they thought he was going to roll over.

Speaker 1: 3:30

This guy is cut from a different piece of cloth.

Speaker 2: 3:33

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's ironic because, right, Kash Patel's been saying, oh, we need to get the door kickers back in the FBI. Well, you got one. Right, you got one right, Got one right. The head of the New York field office, the largest field office in the Bureau, similarly sent a message to his entire office saying hey, I'm digging in where we've got our. We've got a fight going on, so this is quite a drama really, but it's not a movie, it's the real thing.

Speaker 1: 4:05

That's the thing.

Speaker 2: 4:16

Do you know who these agents are, most of them who are now threatened with being fired in the field, who worked the Jan 6 cases? It should be no surprise that the majority of those agents are assigned to JTTS, joint Terrorism Task Forces. Why is that important? You get rid of the agents on the JTTS in every field office and you're leaving us wide open at any given time in this country.

Speaker 1: 4:35

And Frank, let me pause you right there. Is it possible that that is the goal to leave us wide open?

Speaker 2: 4:44

Well, it's clear to me that the goal is to destroy the institution, not this idea of oh, we have disruptors, we have change agents.

Speaker 1: 4:54

Sure.

Speaker 2: 4:54

I've been a change agent in the FBI. I've been a disruptor. I'm shaking things up. This is destruction. And so then, the question is, you know, are they too dumb to realize that these agents are assigned to JTTS and will be incredibly vulnerable? Or you know which, by the way I always tend? My philosophy of life is always assume incompetence versus malintent Right.

Speaker 1: 5:19

Sure.

Speaker 2: 5:19

Particularly with Trump. So stupidity over strategy any day. But the fact that smart people are going along with this like the guy who's calling the shots on this right now is Emil Bove, who is the acting deputy attorney general, who was a criminal defense attorney for Trump the guy's not stupid.

Speaker 1: 5:41

Right.

Speaker 2: 5:43

He's doing this. So when you ask the question, is this a deliberate strategy to leave our country less secure? I don't know, I don't know, I don't, and why. Why Would you want a terror attack on your watch? I don't understand it.

Speaker 1: 6:01

There is no clear logic to what's going on.

Speaker 2: 6:05

Revenge. Revenge seems to be the motive and there's never logic attached to revenge.

Speaker 1: 6:10

Right, no, no, that's purely emotional, right. I've got questions from some people on social media. That are some pretty good questions. The one I asked why wasn't Elon Musk identified as a flaming hot national security threat by the CIA or FBI in the last two years?

Speaker 2: 6:37

well, we know he is now uh, sure yeah, I, I don't, I I can't speak for cia, but I I well, I you know, I know what they do for a living and I've worked with them. But in terms of the bureau, you, you've got a guy who has become a us citizen, although I, I will point out and he denies it, we have to say he denies it that he was out of status for a period when he first came to the United States. He came here allegedly on a student visa. He at some point quit his academics and and went to work. That would have required a work visa so he was out of status, but that's neither here nor there um what.

Speaker 2: 7:11

What is far more troubling is that this individual was allowed to get government contracts yes without fully vetting who he's attached to and what he's about. That's clear to me, and the fact that we've had, today, confirmation that he does have a top-secret clearance and that he's been designated quote-unquote a special government employee whatever the hell that is tells us he's gotten way out ahead of the intelligence community.

Speaker 2: 7:41

And so we should be demanding answers about his reportedly repeated, frequent contacts with Vladimir Putin. Now you could say well, he's an international businessman, of course he's talking to heads of state, he's got amazing technology Okay, that's great. But should he have a top-secret clearance, you know, should we? Should a guy talking to Putin regularly be embedded in the United States government, attaching servers to Treasury servers, opm servers? Do you know that he has a SpaceX employee on the seventh floor of FBI headquarters right now embedded? This employee, this, this guy, an Elon Musk guy or gal, I'm not sure has a blue badge. That means he's quote, unquote an employee. He's not, but he can walk everywhere he wants at FBI headquarters with that blue badge.

Speaker 1: 8:32

Another question for you, Frank has there ever been an FBI playbook for when the threat comes from the president or the presidency?

Speaker 2: 8:43

The playbook has always been two things wrong with this entire scenario. One we've always operated even our founding fathers operated on an assumption that the president would probably do right by America, would probably have America's best interest at heart.

Speaker 1: 9:01

That's a huge mistake.

Speaker 2: 9:02

Number two the playbook at the FBI is everything. Everything will work out if you follow these guidelines. You know we have the rule of law, we have grand juries, we have prosecutors, we have judges. Have the rule of law, we have grand juries, we have prosecutors, we have judges. If you do these things in the playbook, it'll all work out in the end. Well, clearly, clearly, that has not worked and my days of telling people that it's all going to get better are over. I can no longer say that at this point in history.

Speaker 1: 9:35

I can't. And, frank, I think that's what we need now. We need people like you, who are willing to come out and deliver the blunt truth, because I don't think we can even anticipate a way forward personally or collectively, unless we are willing to face the truth, and to face it. We have to have somebody give it to us.

Speaker 2: 9:54

Yeah, I have to tell you I am encouraged by the kind of pushback we're seeing as am I in in certain uh in the leadership, the acting leadership and, by the way, throughout the leadership of the field offices. We're seeing this and, and this is breaking even as we speak, that the agents association has filed uh for a federal injunction to stop, to cease and desist even the provision of the list of thousands of agents saying that it is nothing more than an attempt at retribution and unlawful dismissal, and second lawsuit filed today this just in a class-action lawsuit has been filed with nine named agents representing a class of thousands of agents.

Speaker 1: 10:44

Fantastic.

Speaker 2: 10:44

Similarly seeking injunctive relief in federal court to cease and desist even the provision of the list of names, let alone the firings.

Speaker 1: 10:53

And is this the kind of thing that we need to see everywhere, in every agency? Just what you outlined?

Speaker 2: 11:01

Yes, yes, People, you know I don't want people to think that I'm throwing out the whole system and I think it's completely gone. I don't. I think enough of this. You know, someone said someone smarter than me said you don't need a machine to battle a machine, you just need a handful of sand to shut down a machine. And that handful of sand is going to be the kind of resistance and pushback that occurs with multiple lawsuits. We've already seen a federal judge, by the way a Reagan appointee recently said, regarding Trump attempting to do away with birthright citizenship. What was his ruling? This is the most blatant, unconstitutional case that's ever appeared before me. Right, Of course, you're a citizen if you're born in the US. It's in the Constitution. So this is going to have tremendous resistance and at some point, Trump, the bully, is going to back off. He has to pick his battles, and picking a battle of USAID or closing the Department of Education or closing the FBI. He can't win all of those and that's the approach we have to take.

Speaker 1: 12:06

Another question when federal law enforcement Congress, the Attorney General, the President, commit federal crimes, violate ethics rules, what person or agency can indict or prosecute?

Speaker 2: 12:25

Here's the problem.

Speaker 2: 12:27

So unfortunately it's become a rhetorical question. We know the answer. Judge Aileen Cannon has pretty much tried to dismiss the approach that needs to be taken. The answer to the question of who would come after the president right now would be some truly independent counsel, special prosecutor. Who's going to name that person? Not Pam Bondi for sure, but you know, there we are. Aileen Cannon has dismissed the Mar-a-Lago case, why the special counsel was unconstitutionally appointed, Really. So that's already being appealed and I think she's going to lose that. But it's done. That case is over.

Speaker 2: 13:10

And, far more importantly, who today is going to appoint a special counsel in the Trump administration? The Trump administration Number two, you have to look to Congress. We're in a place now where Trump owns the Congress, the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, the White House. So if there's hopes that somehow Congress can call hearings and subpoena people, well, who? The Republicans who are in charge? You know we saw the vote today for Robert Kennedy as HHS secretary. It was 14 to 13 Republicans against Democrats. You're going to see that everywhere, and so the idea of an impeachment or or hearings. Good luck with that.

Speaker 1: 13:56

Are you familiar with the raid that took place in November, just after the election of Alfie Oaks in Florida?

Speaker 2: 14:04

Negative.

Speaker 1: 14:06

Alfie was, I think, a multimillionaire, I think the. I won't name the store, but owns a grocery chain, I believe. Anyway, dcis, the IRS and other federal agencies were involved with that and it's been reported that Ivan Raiklin was there at the time of the raid. Now, interestingly enough and I wrote an article on this last night what's interesting to me, dcis I look at the IGs that Trump is fired and of course the IG in charge of DCIS is among those that were fired. So effectively that case goes away and I guess it goes without saying. Trump is president now, so of course anything that might lead to him goes away, correct?

Speaker 2: 15:06

Yeah, sadly, that's. The other thing we haven't even talked about I'm glad you brought that up is that we're now looking at cases being dismissed and dropped at the DOJ level. So, for example, a former member of Congress who had a corruption case opened on him is it Kansas, is it Oklahoma? Somewhere in what they call flyover country his case has been dropped. He's a friend of Trump, eric Adams, the mayor of New York, who immediately flew to Mar-a-Lago upon Trump winning the election and he kissed the ring. He's a Democrat, but he's now suddenly very valuable as mayor of New York to Trump. And what's been reported in the media DOJ is considering dropping the corruption case against Mayor Adams. So replicate this throughout the country and now throw in the possibility that, since Trump seems to be friends with Vladimir Putin, are we going to ever work a Russian counterintelligence case again? Do we care if we brief the White House on a Russian espionage case? Is he going to say close it. That's where we are.

Speaker 1: 16:06

Right and I should point out too Right.

Speaker 1: 16:09

That's where we are Right and I should point out too, at least the latest information I can find Alfie Oaks has still not been charged, but it does show still an open investigation.

Speaker 1: 16:41

And again it comes back to and I know we don't have time to debate this right now it comes back to me on so many people and with so many cases, put everything that's happening the blame on him. But clearly there were things that he could have directed, that he could have okayed, that would have made a difference in what we are experiencing now, if only to have kind of thrown sand, like you said, into the to the, to the uh cogs, yes, is this something that you have confidence that we can, can get over in, in the remaining people who are left, that could be the heroes? Or is the intimidation and fear of Trump and I guess let me be more specific the people who, not necessarily in leadership positions, but just regular agents in the FBI or just regular agents in whatever agency what's your confidence level? That the people that in the back of your mind, I think that guy might be, I think she might be? What's the fear factor going to do?

Speaker 2: 18:00

Well, I wish I were more optimistic, jack. I think there's a couple of thoughts so all going on simultaneously and multiple things can be true at the same time. Number one the people who may not be heroes but will throw sand in the machine. We're already seeing them. We're already seeing the class action lawsuits throughout the government agencies happening. Clogging the courts, getting rulings against what Trump is trying to do to our democracy is going to help tremendously, and I think those people I mean just little little things that aren't so little. Think about the nine FBI agents who said okay, you got to have, you got to have some real names at the top of a lawsuit for a class action lawsuit. Okay, I'll be one of those agents that puts my name on there. That's a hero, right there.

Speaker 1: 18:48

That is a hero.

Speaker 2: 18:49

Yeah, the head of the New York office that stands up and says and I have no idea whether he's eligible for retirement or not and says to his agents I'm digging it, we were in for a fight, same as the acting director right now, brian Driscoll, telling, telling Emil Bove to F off when the list was demanded. Now the list is due today. The list is due today and it appears that the general counsel of the FBI and this is, by the way, very debatable made a ruling that he thinks this is a lawful order for the names and that you could be handing DOJ an insubordination case if you refuse to fill out the form and submit it right. So that's where we are right now. So little heroes. Big hero, singular, no, nope.

Speaker 1: 19:42

Another question.

Speaker 2: 19:44

I talked about multiple theories, so sand in the machine, little heroes. I talked about multiple theories, so sand in the machine, little heroes. Number two that things may have to collapse and get horribly worse before they get better. Number three, in terms of a brighter story the midterms are coming and we've got to fight like hell to get democracy-loving people in in the midterms.

Speaker 1: 20:06

Absolutely, and I posted this last night, so it's not that the two are mutually exclusive, but would you agree with me that if we don't deal with this fire in front of us right now, there will be no midterms?

Speaker 2: 20:21

Yes, I am convinced, because Trump is emulating Putin and Xi and, to some degree, kim Jong-un, that his design, his vision is to eliminate free and fair elections period Absolutely. And you know to go back to your comments on Merrick Garland, it was that failure to see the raging fire and to assume that we've got to play by all the rules and worry about optics and perceptions. We'll be accused of weaponizing the government. Yeah, huge, huge mistake.

Speaker 1: 20:57

One last question I know you've got to go in a minute. If reports are accurate, many elected officials are being unduly influenced by threats of violence against themselves and family members. Do you think there is any recourse other than a large group going very public with detents?

Speaker 2: 21:16

Ah, now I like this question because I like it, I think if people had the intestinal fortitude, for example in the House and the Senate, to say here's what happened to me when I suggested I might not vote for this nominee, right? Um, we've seen it in joni ernst a, by the way, a sexual assault victim yes who voted, who nonetheless voted for pete?

Speaker 1: 21:39

right right.

Speaker 2: 21:40

Um, we saw what happened in in plain sight. They they started elon musk paid for ads in her home state to destroy her, and she apparently didn't have the guts to say I don't care if I'm not elected. I'm not voting for this idiot, susan Collins, similarly saying you know, I think I will vote for Tulsi Gabbard or, you know, cassidy, today a doctor, a medical doctor.

Speaker 1: 22:06

Yes.

Speaker 2: 22:10

Saying you know, I guess I will vote for Bobby Kennedy. Yes, if we get those people to come out publicly and tell us the threats that were made to destroy them or their family. Yes, that could really be what turns some of the Republican Party around.

Speaker 1: 22:26

You know, frank, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you know I wasn't born yesterday and we know Donald Trump. We know Donald Trump's history and we know we are looking at very irrational decisions. Like you said with Dr Cassidy, one has to assume there are threats of violence going on. It would be very uncharacteristic of Donald Trump and his administration or who surrounds him, if there were not.

Speaker 2: 23:02

Yeah, and, by the way, while I think that's probably accurate, we don't even have to go all the way to threats of violence. We go to, you're compromised and we have the dirt on you. That's very much like Donald. We can open a case on you.

Speaker 1: 23:19

And let's face it, frank, you are a counterintelligence guy. You know there's dirt on everybody right. I mean there's dirt. When you want it, it's there. And guess who would want it more than anybody? Donald Trump.

Speaker 2: 23:34

And, by the way, when it's not there, you can manufacture it.

Speaker 1: 23:37

True, true.

Speaker 2: 23:40

All it takes is a rumor for a senator to be ruined.

Speaker 1: 23:44

Absolutely, my friend. I can't thank you enough. I know you've got to go on. You're going to be on the news shortly. Thank you, sir. Thank you for what you did. Talk to you soon. Thank you, Frank.

Speaker 2: 23:56

Take care Jack.

Speaker 1: 23:57

Stay well, bye-bye, bye.