Unnamed CIA sources say firings will cause treason (02-25-2025--Hour3)

[00:00:04] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to 3 on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalendershow.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support.

[00:00:28] So I admit I did not see this story at CNN yesterday headline, How Trump's Government Cutting Moves Risk Exposing the CIA's Secrets.

[00:00:44] It sounds very scary. That's very concerning. My gosh, why is Donald Trump trying to de-secure our secrets at the CIA? It's very odd. Well, let's read a write-up by Beth Brelge. She is at The Federalist. She is an elections correspondent and an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.

[00:01:14] She says, brace yourself as the propaganda press tries to stop President Donald Trump from culling cooperation. Sorry. That's corruption. Culling corruption. A slight difference.

[00:01:30] So the press is attempting to stop Trump from rooting out corruption within the deep state. Expect quote-unquote news stories screaming about ordinary budget and staff cuts that would happen in any bloated private business, but under Trump will be described as unfair or even dangerous. And then she takes aim at this CNN story.

[00:01:58] She says the short report required four CNN writers. Katie Bo Lillis, Phil Mattingly, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen. By the way, Katie Bo Lillis was involved in a story that led to a defamation trial where a jury found CNN was literally fake news. So that is not a fireable offense, apparently.

[00:02:29] So exposing CIA secrets sounds very dangerous. So just how much danger are we in? Let's continue reading. Well, in the CNN piece, here's what it says. Quote, As the CIA weighs staff cuts, current and former intelligence officials say that mass firings could offer a rich recruitment opportunity for foreign intelligence services like China or Russia,

[00:02:58] who may seek to exploit financially vulnerable or resentful former employees. So the CIA, so we can't fire anybody at the CIA because if we do, they will go work for enemy countries, intelligence agencies. That's the, that's the story angle here. That's the argument that's coming from the CIA. Oh, sorry, CNN. No,

[00:03:28] actually CIA. Right. You know, look, CNN is a cutout for the intelligence agencies. agencies for various people that work inside of these agencies. They want something to go out to the public. They do so through CNN. They do it through NBC. They do it through, you know, Isikoff is a good one. They are a whole bunch of people that are,

[00:03:53] that are used to push out narratives that intelligence operatives or agencies want pushed out to us. And so this is coming from the CIA. You will actually, if you fire any of us, we're basically going to go sell what we know to China, which is a bizarre admission. Like, wait a minute. If that's the case, why are we still paying you?

[00:04:22] Why are you here? We shouldn't give you any new secrets. Definitely. You shouldn't be having any kind of clearances. I give it. If you're saying that people's allegiance to America doesn't count for anything, like all the work that you've been doing for all these years, and now you've been laid off. Now you're going to go run to China or Russia and sell what you know and face espionage charges. I mean, that's the other thing you're like.

[00:04:52] You realize if we catch you. And we try you for treason, like you could be put to death for this. You realize that, right? The piece goes on that on the CIA seventh floor, home to top leadership, some officers are also quietly discussing how mass firings and the buyouts that are already offered to staff,

[00:05:17] how these risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service. In fact, these conversations are so quiet, right? That they're quietly discussing all of this stuff and it is being discussed so quietly that CNN could report on them.

[00:05:47] So is this a threat? Is this a threat from the CIA? That's what they're saying, right? That's what it sounds like to me. It's a threat. Don't fire me. Keep paying me. I will keep extorting you to keep my job, right? Or else I go to Russia and I tell them everything that I know. I go to China. I work to undermine national security. I sell top secret information. So that's a threat.

[00:06:17] It's extortion. That's the story the CIA thinks is the best spin in the wake of attempts to downsize the CIA footprint. Your response. Your response. I mean, I just like, just step back and think about this. Your response to cutting government waste, fraud, and abuse. Your response to a right sizing, to a reduction in force.

[00:06:44] Your response to potentially having positions cut is to threaten the American public. with espionage. All right. Again, bold strategy. We'll see if it works. Is CNN actually reporting here that Trump should keep everybody employed because if he doesn't, then the CIA is going to spill secrets to our enemies? That's what it sounds like.

[00:07:13] And what Beth Breljie says is if that is the case, these are exactly the employees that we should fire. So how about that? How about we do like some mock firings? You fire people, and then you surveil them for a while. And if they, they have any read, you know, any outreach, then, then you can nail them. And then if they don't have any outreach, then you could bring them back on board, you know, like a probationary period or something. I don't know. Within the same piece,

[00:07:42] CNN ridiculously makes it sound as if valued model intelligence employees are going to get the ax and that those same employees have loose lips and are ripe for the picking. So which is it, CNN? Right. Which is it? Like this is it. This is another kind of permutation or it's a spin on the, there are no bad teachers argument. That's what it sounds like, right? Like we should pay all the teachers more money. Like,

[00:08:12] okay, but I don't want to pay the bad ones. The same amount as the really good ones. So I want to pay the really good ones, a lot of money. How about that? Well, no, we can't possibly determine that. Okay. Well then I'm not going to pay everybody. So it's the same kind of deal where it's like, Hey, you know, if you fire a bunch of people, then they're going to go sell our secrets and stuff. It's like, okay, well let's fire those. Like, well, you know what I mean? Not all of them, but, uh, okay, well let's fire the ones that would sell the secrets. Well, we can't know which ones those are. So we might as well keep everybody, right?

[00:08:39] This is not a logical argument. The media want you to be worried because the media is worried. This is a profound point. Again, this is, uh, Beth Breljee at the federalist.com. If Trump cleans house, it will destroy a lot of their business model at these news organizations, right?

[00:09:08] CNN and others have exploited unethical leaking of deep state actors, deep state sources, treating these whispers as gospel and then amplifying those aims of the, the whisperers through high profile, quote unquote, news stories, right? This is how color revolutions are aided. This is how intelligence agencies operate. They put these,

[00:09:38] and they have people like this, you know, this is one of the things that, um, that Doge is exposing USAID, um, um, is one example of it, but, and the, you know, funding of people in news organizations. And they're essentially cutouts for the CIA or for, uh, uh, was it, uh, DIA, right? The various military intelligence,

[00:10:04] whatever you got people that are on staff at news organizations that you can give them information and they will publish it. Um, and they will never question your motive in handing off this super secret information, particularly when it comes to Donald Trump. And that's how we, uh, that's what we saw. And it's how we saw it for four years, actually longer, right? Eight years. Um, since Trump came down the golden escalator, right? That's what we have witnessed.

[00:10:34] The use of cutouts by our intelligence agencies. They've weaponized it against us. All right. If you're listening to this show, you know, I try to keep up with all sorts of current events and I know you do too. And you've probably heard me say, get your news from multiple sources. Why? Well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with ground news. It's an app and it's a website and it combines news from around the world in one place. So you can compare coverage and verify information.

[00:11:03] You can check it out at check.ground.news slash Pete. I put the link in the podcast description too. I started using ground news a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom the blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself, check.ground.news slash Pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get 15% off any subscribers.

[00:11:34] I use the vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports ground news as they make the media landscape more transparent. Okay. Yeah. I'll circle back to it. I'll passaki back to this after the bottom of the hour news. I got to finish this piece though at the Federalist by Beth Breljee. All right. So according to the piece here,

[00:12:00] the media want you to be worried about any layoffs at the CIA because the media is worried. The media is worried because they rely on leaking from the CIA in order to plant stories. Right. That's what they are interested in. They want their sources to keep their jobs and the sources are telling them, you know, if they fire a bunch of people, they've,

[00:12:27] the concern is that they just go and sell this stuff to the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians. Like, if you don't keep us on the payroll, we're going to go commit some treason. Right. Like that's the argument. Okay. If Trump fires their sources, it's harder for them to collude with the intelligence community to craft any propaganda to sell then to us. Right.

[00:12:54] She then looks at a sentence in the CNN piece that says, the administration's efforts to cut the workforce and audit spending at the CIA and elsewhere threatened to jeopardize some of the government's most sensitive work, current and former U.S. officials familiar with internal deliberations say. Okay. So that she, she picks apart this sentence.

[00:13:20] The phrase threatened to jeopardize some of the government's most sensitive work says that's a fantasy. Or a not so subtle threat from Intel personnel whose partisan loyalties outweigh their love of country. It has not happened yet. But still it is packaged as quote news. This is a big beef of mine too. Like this is just speculation. This is just, you know, this could happen.

[00:13:48] Then everybody runs around as if it's a fait accompli, as if it did happen, but it didn't happen. See, if something did happen, that would be news. Because something happened. It's not news. If you're just making predictions, that's gambling. The source of the speculation, current and former U.S. officials familiar with internal deliberation. So they had four CNN reporters on this and they could not find a quotable source, right? Nobody to go on the record to say that.

[00:14:17] The four reporters attributed information in their story 18 different times. They cited attribution 18 times. And of the 18, only one had a name. Joseph Gieli, the fiscal services deputy commissioner for transformation and modernization. That's the one person quoted. Everybody else was a source familiar with the matter,

[00:14:47] current and former U.S. officials familiar with internal deliberations, a senior career treasury department official, some officers, sources familiar with the matter, former intelligence officials, said one former CIA officer speaking hypothetically. One of these people said, one U.S. official said, this person said, former officials noted, current and former officials familiar with the episode, the first official said, another U.S. official sympathetic to Trump's efforts,

[00:15:17] some current and former officials, one source familiar with the matter, former treasury officials, and then one named guy. That's not journalism. Okay? That's not journalism. I don't know what this, this is why I call it journalism-ing. Because it's, it's like journalism adjacent. Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina, just a quick drive up the mountain. And Cabins of Asheville is your connection.

[00:15:47] Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you, where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter. Nestled within the breathtaking 14,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, it's the perfect balance of seclusion

[00:16:16] and proximity to all the local attractions. With hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi-Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch, choose from 13 cabins, six cottages, two villas, and a great lodge with 11 king-sized bedrooms, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion. And they have pet-friendly accommodations. Call or text 828-367-7068 or check out all there is to offer

[00:16:46] at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. Got a message from Russ. He says, as a former TSBI holder, I think that's probably like, oh no, I'm sorry, this is from Fish Crazy. Fish Crazy says, he was a, he or she, he or she, I don't know. A former TSBI holder, I feel like that's like some sort of top secret clearance maybe.

[00:17:16] You signed a declination upon receiving your clearance and it plainly states on the first paragraph, you will not divulge anything to a foreign entity or persons working for a foreign government. Friendly or not, it's punishable by imprisonment. You cannot talk about your job, not even to your wife. Right. But this is the narrative that the CIA and these Intel officials are pushing out to us

[00:17:46] and the media is amplifying because the media is trying to protect their sources that feed them all of the propaganda that allows them to claim that they've got some inside scoop on how bad Donald Trump is and how he paid some hookers to pee on a bed in Moscow, like that kind of stuff. By the way, some of the people in the Intel community I feel like should get fired. Like the people that were on the NSA secret sex chat list.

[00:18:15] Oh yeah, have you heard about this? Yeah, this is a doozy. The intelligence community is one of the most powerful parts of the American national security apparatus. In theory, at least, it works tirelessly to keep the nation safe. But according to internal documents obtained by Christopher Rufo and Hannah Grossman at the City Journal, some Intel agency employees have another on-the-job priority, sex chats.

[00:18:45] We have cultivated sources within the National Security Agency, so there's Rufo admitting that he's basically spying on the NSA, which is quite a quite a turnabout. One current employee and one former employee who provided chat logs from the NSA's Intel Link messaging program. According to an NSA press official, quote, all NSA employees sign agreements stating

[00:19:15] that publishing non-mission-related material on Intel Link, so it's like an internal chat board, okay? And you're only supposed to be using it for mission-related things, okay? You're not supposed to be posting stuff like, you know, good morning, hoping everybody has a great day today. None of that crap, right? I don't want it either, by the way, in my messages. But this is not the purpose of this board.

[00:19:43] And they sign an agreement that says they will not use it for anything non-mission-related and a violation will result in disciplinary action. Nonetheless, these logs dating back two years are lurid, featuring wide-ranging discussions of sex, kink, polyamory, and even castration. I have read the messages so you don't have to.

[00:20:14] They are disturbing. I cannot read them on the air. They are too graphic. I cannot read them on the air. One of the most popular chat topics, though, was male-to-female transgender surgery and how they really enjoyed all of the new pleasures of peeing. Yeah, that was one of them. They liked employees discussed hair removal, estrogen injections, and the

[00:20:44] experience of sexual pleasure. I'm using air quotes on that one. Post-castration. So when you go through with the bottom surgery, they're like, oh my gosh, this is amazing. And that's what they're talking about. In the NSA internal message boards, this is what they're talking about. This is like, do you remember? I don't know. Okay, hang on. Do you remember? It's been a while, but I'm old enough to remember this. Maybe you're not.

[00:21:14] Do you remember there was a guy running for governor of North Carolina and he had posted a bunch of really lurid things on like a porn site message board and everybody was like, why are you posting stuff on a porn site? Like, who does that? Why are people doing that? Like, and everybody, everybody was speculating as to why somebody would do this and whatever. It's kind of like that. Why are you in a, why are you in a group chat

[00:21:44] at work talking about this? Like, this would be inappropriate no matter what the, you know, whether it was heterosexual sex or homosexual sex or transgender sex, whatever it is, this doesn't belong in the workplace. Oh my gosh, these are people that hold the keys to all of the systems that spy on everybody. And this is the stuff they're talking about. I can only imagine, I can only imagine what

[00:22:14] they are using the mechanism for. According to our sources, the sex chats were legitimized as part of the NSA's commitment to, that's right, diversity, equity, and inclusion. See, you're a bigot if you don't let people talk about their trans surgery and their orgasms. See, that's very clearly the case. Activists within the agency used LGBTQ plus employee

[00:22:44] resource groups to turn their kinks and pathologies into official work duties. According to the current NSA employee, the group spent all day recruiting activists and holding meetings with titles such as privilege or ally awareness, pride, transgender community inclusion, and the like. And they did so with the full support of NSA leadership which declared that DEI was quote, not only mission critical but mission imperative. You must talk about your sex

[00:23:14] life with your coworkers. Do I have to? Can I resign from the NSA? I don't want to know this stuff. Last January, chat room members discussed their practice of polyamory or ethical non-monogamy. They also talked about orgies. And then my favorite was trying to describe a polycule, which remember this is the effective

[00:23:43] altruism guy, Sam Bankman Freed, the scam artist guy, you know, son of wealthy left-wing donors and such. Yeah, that guy, he was in a polycule. And so get this, it's a polyamorous group, one employee explained. And then he proceeded to try to explain it here. Ready? Here it goes. A is my girlfriend, and B and G are her partners. Then B and C are dating, but not C and D, nor E,

[00:24:13] F, or G with any of the others. Though there are several MWBs, metas with benefits, connections. See? This is perfectly understandable. Right? Everybody clear on what that situation is? It's unbelievable. One of the people on the chat boards refused to use pronouns he or she, even they, them. They went with it, which I think means they're not human. Again,

[00:24:43] this is NSA. A conflict is coming. These NSA chat logs suggest the presence of at least hundreds of gender activists within the intel services. What could go wrong? Actually, you know what? I am rethinking my skepticism. Some of these people in the chat group I think very well might sell secrets to the Chinese. It doesn't actually seem so far-fetched now. You know, stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things,

[00:25:12] to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of our past while transcending generations. They help us process the meaning of life, and our stories are told through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video. Started in 1997 in Mint Hill, North Carolina, it was the first company to provide this valuable service, converting images, photos, and videos into high-quality produced slideshows, videos, and albums. The trusted, talented, and dedicated team at Creative Video will go over all of the

[00:25:42] details with you to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person or mail them, they'll be ready in a week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos for rehearsal dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birthdays, or just your family stories, all told through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They are your life, told through the eyes of everyone around you and all who came before you, and they will tell others to come who you are. Visit creativevideo.com.

[00:26:13] A couple of things have been developing during the program. First, Caroline Levitt, White House Press Secretary, she did her briefing today, made an announcement here that it's a little bit inside baseball, but it might matter a little bit, and it's going to definitely anger the media class. As you all know, for decades, a group of D.C.-based journalists, the White House Correspondents Association, has long dictated which journalists

[00:26:43] get to ask questions of the President of the United States in these most intimate spaces. Not anymore. I am proud to announce that we are going to give the power back to the people who read your papers, who watch your television shows, and who listen to your radio stations. Moving forward, the White House Press Pool will be determined by the White House Press Team. Legacy outlets who have participated in the Press Pool for decades will still be allowed to join, fear not, but we

[00:27:12] will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility. Just like we added a new media seat in this briefing room, legacy media outlets who have been here for years will still participate in the pool, but new voices are going to be welcomed in as well. As part of these changes, we will continue the rotation amongst the five major television networks to ensure the president's remarks are heard far and wide around this world.

[00:27:42] We will add additional streaming services which reach different audiences than traditional cable and broadcast. This is the ever-changing landscape of the media in the United States today. No! We will continue to rotate a print pooler who has the great responsibility of quickly transcribing the president's remarks and disseminating them to the rest of the world. And we will add outlets to the print pool rotation who have long been denied the privilege to partake in this experience but are committed to covering this White House beat.

[00:28:12] We will continue to rotate a radio pooler and add other radio hosts who have been denied access, especially local radio hosts who serve as the heartbeat of our country. We do, really. And we will add additional outlets and reporters who are well-suited to cover the news of the day and ask substantive questions of the president of the United States depending on the news he is making on that given day. I am all for it. The gatekeepers have lost control of the gate and man are they going

[00:28:42] to be, they're going to be mad. Oh yeah, they're going to be mad. Yeah, because that's all they do. Like if you want to get the credentials you got to go through these other outlets. It's kind of a bizarre thing. Look, it all went downhill as soon as they let TV in. You know, like print, you guys were there first, fine. You know, then radio got in there, the superior media and and then, you know, TV came along and just like we don't need this, you know, and but then they let him in and then it's like they just took over. So no, it's this is

[00:29:12] a good thing. This is a good thing. Like the DC press corps, they've been stiff arming all sorts of other journalists from, you know, getting access and this, I'm fine with this. Totally fine with it. Let's see. Then there's this, the House Judiciary Committee, the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, sent out a tweet. They say, new disclosure reveals that the Biden

[00:29:41] IRS leaked taxpayer information of over 405,000 Americans, including Donald Trump's. The IRS admission confirms the committee's suspicion and recent reports reports that show the scope of the leak was way broader than what the Biden administration's IRS initially led the public to believe. In May of

[00:30:10] 2024, an IRS spokesman stated that more than 70,000 taxpayers were affected. But what they have actually found now is the number is more than 405,000 taxpayers. taxpayers. It's a massive scandal, yet another massive scandal regarding the Bidens and the IRS. address. There is a follow-up to

[00:30:39] this from Phil Kirpin, who is the founder of American Commitment, and he's a syndicated columnist, and he points out that a person by the name of Chaz Littlejohn stole up to 15 years of tax returns, and this is the 400, 5,000, and sent it off to the left-wing advocacy group

[00:31:08] ProPublica. IRS repeatedly downplayed the number of victims, and Biden gave him a one-count sweetheart plea deal. At least in that plea deal, the judge in that case maxed out the sentence on the one count. I think the guy got, I think he got 15 years or something. Or no, that's 15 years of tax returns. So that's it. This is what

[00:31:37] happened in order to get Trump's tax returns, which by the way, remember what that turned into? Nothing. There wasn't anything there, remember? It was like they fought all of these fights to try to get the tax returns, and when they finally got them, there was nothing incriminating in the tax returns. And apparently most of these are businesses that were stolen and leaked to ProPublica, which then published it.

[00:32:07] Like, they published this stuff. Like, is that journalism ethics? I know, oxymoron, blah, blah, blah. But no, you're supposed to weigh the consequences of doing stuff like that, of publishing these kinds of stories. Meanwhile, we're supposed to, yeah, we're supposed to be worried about one guy on the Doge team that's using data to run through AI algorithms to find out if there's waste and fraud and abuse. I'm supposed

[00:32:37] to be worried about that when you get employees that steal 400,000 tax returns and hand them off to ProPublica? Sorry. I'm sorry. I just, I cannot generate the outrage. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecalendershow.com. Again, thank you so much for

[00:33:07] listening and don't break anything while I'm gone.