Video Summary
John Kiriakou blew the whistle on the CIA's enhanced interrogation (torture) program and served 23 months in federal prison.
He argues the CIA operates with insufficient oversight and has publicly called for abolishing the agency.
Kiriakou suspects Jeffrey Epstein acted as a Mossad access agent and believes Israeli influence pushed U.S. hawkishness toward Iran.
He accepted work with Russian state media only after securing editorial freedom and condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Kiriakou warns about the CIA’s entanglement with tech (e.g., In‑Q‑Tel) and the ethical risks of AI in warfare and surveillance.
He argues the agency lacks meaningful oversight, has a history of abuses (including torture), and that U.S. intelligence could be consolidated like in other countries to reduce secrecy and impunity.
After going public he was investigated, charged for disclosing classified information, and ultimately served 23 months in federal prison before resuming public commentary.
He endorses the consensus that torture is ineffective and criticizes how the CIA manipulated interrogation reports to fit narratives.
Kiriakou says he believes Epstein acted as a Mossad access agent—an intermediary providing access to influential targets rather than a recruited spy.
Kiriakou says he accepted work only after securing editorial freedom; he publicly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and insisted on the ability to speak openly.
He warns the CIA’s venture relationships (e.g., In‑Q‑Tel) and tech contracts blur public/private lines, enabling surveillance, AI‑driven targeting, and reduced accountability.
"The CIA will ruin a person whose politics they don't like so that he can never work again."
"My guest today has a life story straight out of a Hollywood movie."
"I wish I could say that I left on principle."
"I was the only person who was ever kind to Abu Zubaydah."
"The CIA filed a crimes report against me, telling the FBI that they believed I had committed espionage."
"The torturers themselves and their bosses who ordered them to torture never saw a day inside prison."
"As of today, you stand by the consensus position that torture doesn't work. It doesn't work."
The conversation reveals a significant critique of the CIA's handling of intelligence, particularly surrounding torture practices. The speaker notes that the agency retyped reports from external sources, such as Ali's, to fit their narrative, emphasizing a troubling relationship between methods of gathering information and ethical standards.
Acknowledging the moral and legal issues, the speaker asserts that torture is ineffective, reinforcing a widespread consensus within intelligence circles.
"I was in Dubai during a business trip, and my niece called me and said, 'Uncle John, you're exploding on TikTok.'"
John Kiriakou shares his unexpected rise to online fame, describing a pivotal moment when he realized his influence had grown significantly. His niece's call highlighted his viral presence on TikTok, leading to representation by the Creative Artists Agency, highlighting the shift from a secretive past to a public persona.
A humorous observation is made about the irony of moving from the CIA to becoming a TikTok sensation, illustrating Kiriakou's transformation and adaptation to new media.
"They're confused by the competing media narratives... and they're looking for somebody just to speak in plain English and tell them the truth."
Kiriakou discusses the audience's desire for clarity amidst conflicting media narratives, revealing that many individuals seek straightforward, honest information regarding complex geopolitical issues. This need for truth spans a wide demographic, predominantly younger men aged 15 to 30.
He contrasts this audience’s interests with traditional narratives, indicating a significant gap in effective communication from mainstream media.
"I don't want to go back to prison, but I've gotten all my stories cleared."
Kiriakou addresses the tightrope he walks when sharing details from his CIA past. Despite having cleared many of his stories for public consumption, he acknowledges the constraints imposed by classified information.
He emphasizes that while he can share numerous experiences, some information remains restricted and potentially explosive, hinting at the darker aspects of intelligence practices.
"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence really are not oversight committees; they're cheerleading committees."
Kiriakou expresses his strong belief that the CIA operates without adequate oversight, noting that this concern dates back decades. He argues that significant reforms were made during the Carter administration but were abandoned, particularly after events like Iran-Contra.
The discussion highlights the evolution of the CIA's role, particularly in the context of the War on Terror, where its infamous practices became central to U.S. national security strategy, a shift seen as problematic by Kiriakou.
"Yes, I'm on record as saying that I think the CIA should be shut down."
Kiriakou boldly states his position on the future of the CIA, advocating for its abolition. He reflects on the excess of intelligence agencies in the U.S., highlighting that most countries operate with a single agency.
He suggests a political movement could arise from this belief, emphasizing a growing public demand for reform and accountability in intelligence operations.
"We bombed the place in the middle of the night because we didn't want there to be a massive loss of life."
The speaker recounts a memorable incident involving the firing of cruise missiles into Iraqi Intelligence headquarters, leading to the death of a janitor, which has haunted them for years.
Despite the intention to minimize casualties, the loss of innocent lives, like that of the janitor, deeply affected them and highlighted the moral complexities of military decisions.
The narrative contrasts the sentiment of guilt surrounding individual lives with the numbness that comes with larger operations, setting a troubling tone for the discussion on military ethics.
"I believe Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad access agent."
The speaker has been characterized as someone who attempts to debunk or confirm conspiracy theories about high-profile individuals, notably mentioning Jeffrey Epstein's ties to multiple governments, including Israel.
They assert that Epstein acted as an intermediary or access agent, which differs from being a recruited spy, suggesting he had connections with powerful individuals that allowed others to gather sensitive information.
Epstein's efforts to make contacts with various intelligence agencies, including attempts to meet directly with Russian officials, indicate his ambition to be deeply involved in global intelligence affairs.
"We do not allow the Israelis into the building."
The speaker reflects on their interactions with Mossad during their career at the CIA, sharing anecdotes about typical Israeli tactics in intelligence sharing.
They describe a specific incident where an Israeli officer attempted to recruit them during a briefing, which illustrates the persistent nature of recruitment efforts by foreign agencies.
The speaker's discomfort with Israeli intelligence led them to focus on partnerships with Arab countries, emphasizing a clear division in their professional relationships.
"They don't care about civilian casualties. They'll just blow the entire place up."
The speaker discusses Israel's approach to military operations, underscoring a readiness to inflict significant collateral damage in pursuit of specific targets without regard for civilian lives.
This prompts an examination of the United States' close relationship with Israel, questioning the ethics and accountability within such partnership dynamics.
The mention of AIPAC's influence in American politics raises discussions about lobbying and foreign relations, exposing complexities in how foreign interests interact with national policy.
"I don't understand why everybody else has to register as a foreign agent, even if you're not a foreign agent."
The speaker questions the inconsistency in lobbying laws, highlighting that he was required to register as a foreign lobbyist for a minor contract, while AIPAC is able to spend millions in U.S. elections without similar obligations.
This raises concerns about lobbying activities favoring foreign interests over American ones, suggesting a growing skepticism among Americans about the narratives surrounding foreign influence in domestic politics.
"That resolution is not going to happen. AIPAC objected."
A personal anecdote reveals how AIPAC's influence impacted a proposed non-binding resolution to honor a former CIA agent.
Despite its benign nature, AIPAC's objection effectively squashed the initiative, showcasing the significant political power that pro-Israel lobbying groups wield in the U.S. legislative process.
"Absolutely, yes. The Iranians were no threat to the United States."
The speaker firmly asserts that the motivation for war with Iran was influenced by Israeli pressure rather than an actual threat posed by Iran itself.
He reflects on the history of requests from various Israeli prime ministers to take military action against Iran, indicating a long-standing desire for U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern policy.
"Yeah, call me crazy. I was totally wrong."
In retrospect, the speaker acknowledges his miscalculation regarding Donald Trump's potential for promoting peace with Iran.
Initial optimism about Trump's unorthodox approach quickly turned to disillusionment as he engaged in military actions across multiple nations.
"In a rare moment in U.S. history, the U.S. intelligence community did not even bother to manufacture consent for this war."
The discussion highlights the lack of a comprehensive intelligence case utilized to justify military action against Iran, contrasting typical scenarios where intelligence support is manufactured for military interventions.
It emphasizes a troubling trend where military decisions are made without the backing of standard intelligence assessments, indicating a shift in the procedural norms of U.S. foreign policy decision-making.
"The American embargo extends to food. We have to eat what we grow, and this is squash season."
The discussion begins with a personal anecdote about a person in Cuba who is fed up with eating squash due to the limitations imposed by the American embargo. This highlights the stringent food shortages faced by Cubans, which are exacerbated by external political pressures.
The speaker expresses concern about the future of Cuba, predicting it could become similar to Venezuela, suggesting a lack of resilience and willingness among the populace to fight for change.
"I believe that they do, and I believe that they use it against Americans, especially those who protest in front of the Israeli embassy."
The conversation shifts to the use of sophisticated spy technology by Israel, and the belief that it is utilized against American citizens, particularly activists and dissenters.
The speaker discusses the troubling ethics surrounding AI in warfare, mentioning how Israel reportedly employs AI for targeted killings with minimal human oversight, raising grave concerns regarding accountability and collateral damage.
"I’m deeply worried that the CIA received a waiver after the 9/11 attacks to create a quasi-independent venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel."
Attention is drawn to the partnership between the CIA and tech companies, exemplified by In-Q-Tel, which was founded to leverage innovation in technology for intelligence purposes.
The discussion reveals fears regarding the increasing influence of tech giants within government operations, particularly their roles in military contracts and data handling, which may blur lines between private enterprise and state power.
"I call myself a leftist libertarian."
The discussion transitions to the speaker's political views, where they identify as a leftist libertarian, a classification that challenges traditional political dichotomies.
The speaker elaborates on their political experiences within the CIA and reflects on their past affiliations, stating that despite their leftist leanings, they are open to collaborating with individuals across the political spectrum for specific issues, even those considered contentious.
"You have not told people to vote for a man who says a black man should be lynched."
The discussion revolves around the political endorsements made by the former CIA agent, specifically regarding James Fishback. It's clarified that the agent did not endorse him, despite his assistant's Twitter endorsement, leading to a need for a retraction.
The conversation highlights the serious concerns about Fishback's controversial statements, including his remarks on race and ethnicity, suggesting that those endorsements are highly problematic.
Acknowledging the complicated nature of political clips, it's noted that such snippets can misrepresent a person's overall stance, cautioning viewers to be wary of taking them at face value.
"You have to draw the line."
The former CIA agent emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticisms of Israel and anti-Semitism, highlighting that some individuals may use pro-Palestinian rhetoric as a smokescreen for broader prejudices against Jewish people.
He reflects on the complexities within political movements, mentioning how some individuals may rally behind Fishback due to his criticisms of AIPAC, despite underlying anti-Semitic attitudes present in those who support him.
The agent recognizes the necessity of maintaining personal integrity and choosing allies wisely within the political landscape.
"From CIA agent to cameo guy. I love it."
The agent shares his transition from a CIA operative to a media personality, taking on cameo appearances following his public recognition, while also rejecting offers associated with controversial figures.
He emphasizes that he has turned down any requests for endorsements related to extremists, maintaining his moral stance despite the temptations of fame and financial gain associated with media opportunities.
Acknowledging the challenges he faced in finding work post-incarceration, he describes the difficulties as a convicted felon, noting the irony of being viewed as unhirable due to his earlier career choices.
"The Russians came to me and offered me a radio show. I turned it down."
The agent recounts the moment he was approached by Russian state media but initially rejected the offer due to concerns over editorial freedom. He later accepted only under the condition that he could speak freely about any topic, including criticisms against the Russian government.
On the first day of his new role, he publicly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlighting his commitment to independent commentary.
He discusses the moral implications of being a former CIA agent working for a state-controlled outlet, asserting that what was more concerning is the destruction of a person's career due to differing political views rather than his choice to work in Russian media.
"He's the most compromised president of all time."
The discussion shifts to Donald Trump's unusual communication habits, especially his propensity to answer unknown international calls, raising concerns about security and possible surveillance by foreign intelligence agencies.
The agent draws a parallel between Trump's casual approach to communication and the serious repercussions that could arise from such behavior, questioning how this doesn't receive the same level of scrutiny as past political controversies.
He reflects on the peculiar relationship Trump maintains with autocratic leaders, suggesting an admiration towards them, which further complicates his position during global diplomatic interactions.
"I would love to have a pardon."
The agent admits to being softer on Trump than he might have been otherwise, expressing his desire for a presidential pardon as a significant motivation to engage with the former administration.
He recounts an encounter with Rudy Giuliani regarding the pardon process, illustrating the surprising events that unfolded during their meeting.
The agent's candidness about his motivations provides insight into the complexities of political relationships and the often personal stakes that influence public discourse.
"I'll never have $2 million. Even if I did, why would I spend $2 million to recover a $700,000 pen?"
The discussion revolves around a proposed $2 million payment mentioned by Rudy Giuliani concerning a pardon. The former CIA agent dismisses the idea, expressing disbelief at spending such an exorbitant amount for something that is valued much lower.
It highlights the absurdity of the situation and the agent's financial limitations, further emphasizing the skepticism surrounding the transaction.
"Giuliani forgot that we took a picture together at that meeting."
The former CIA agent recounts a conflicting narrative where Giuliani claims to have no recollection of a meeting they attended together.
To counter Giuliani's assertion, the agent mentions providing photographic evidence to the New York Times, demonstrating the contradictions in Giuliani's statements.
"I think he is stubborn enough and arrogant enough that if they were to threaten him with holding something over his head, he would lash out at them."
The conversation shifts to Donald Trump's use of private communications, with the agent expressing concern over the potential for surveillance by various agencies.
The agent rejects the idea that Trump's actions are driven by blackmail from foreign entities, suggesting instead that Trump’s personality would lead him to react aggressively to such threats.
"I think that the person that I'm probably closest to ideologically is Ro Khanna."
The former CIA agent discusses his political preferences, naming Congressman Ro Khanna as someone who aligns with his beliefs, contrasting him with other prominent Democrats who he views as aligned with the establishment.
He expresses his admiration for Khanna's genuine convictions, asserting that many other politicians are simply tied to the status quo and not representative of true change.
"I'm on record as calling for the dismantling of the CIA. It's redundant."
In response to a question about whether a young follower should join the CIA, the agent advocates for a critical approach towards the agency, suggesting reform from within rather than external criticism.
He acknowledges the improbability of the CIA being dismantled and advises potential recruits to leverage their positions to enact positive change, even at significant personal risk, which he affirms he would be willing to take again.
"I realized no books had ever been written about Washington, D.C. cemeteries."
The former CIA agent shares his pivot to writing about historical cemeteries in Washington, D.C., following a decade of focusing on CIA-related subjects.
He explains the motivation behind his upcoming book, "Remains of the Day," and mentions another work in progress, indicating a broadening of his literary themes beyond espionage.
