Ep 101 | Ric Grenell Knows Too Much & This Is Why He Prays to God | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Only Murders in the Building, season five.

The hit Hulu original is back.

The Nightbuster died.

He was talking with a smobster.

Was he killed in a hit?

We need to go face to face with the mob.

Get ready for a season.

Ongiono signore.

This is how I die.

You can't refuse.

You're gonna save the day, like you always do, by being smart, sharp, and almost always find mistakes.

The Hulu Original series: Only Murders in the Building, premieres September 9th, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers.

Terms apply.

New episodes Tuesdays.

You know how the Biden administration has been bragging that they're the first to appoint an openly gay cabinet member?

Well, it's not true.

It's not true.

And it wasn't Obama either.

As much as the left hates it, the first president to appoint an openly gay cabinet member was Donald Trump.

Today's guest is that person.

I have been trying to get an interview with him for a very long time.

I don't know if we're going to be able to get to half of the things I want to talk talk to him about.

The first openly gay cabinet member in the United States history

is a guy that

it cannot be reduced to that.

His accomplishments are astounding.

The guy has a master's degree in public administration from Harvard.

After that, he began his political career, and it has been a roller coaster ride.

Shortly after the 9-11 terror attacks, he got his first confidential briefing in 2001.

He landed a position with the Bush administration as a State Department spokesman to the United Nations.

He remains the longest-serving U.S.

spokesman at the United Nations in New York.

From there, he founded an international media consultancy.

All the while, he was a Fox News contributor with articles and editorials just to almost every major outlet.

After that, he was a foreign policy spokesperson for Mitt Romney and his presidential campaign, making him the first openly gay spokesperson for a Republican presidential candidate.

Then he had a cancer scare.

He beat it, and it didn't slow him down because a few years later, Trump appointed him as the U.S.

ambassador to Germany, where he did remarkable things, ruffled a lot of feathers, and the left was terrified.

How could the first openly gay ambassador be a Republican?

Imagine their terror when Donald Trump appointed him Director of National Intelligence, Acting, making him the top intelligence official in the country.

Since leaving office, he has hinted at a bid for governor of California and taken over LGBT outreach for the Republican National Committee.

The left will never admit it.

But today's guest has done a lot of good for LGBT people.

And he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder.

He's remarkable.

He has completely shattered so many myths that the left has touted.

But unlike the left, his goal is not activism.

The left didn't like it when he called Trump the strongest ally that gay Americans ever had in the White House.

Today's guest is more than how he identifies himself.

And while he has done a lot for

his fellow LGBT,

it's because he's done an incredible amount for all Americans.

All Americans.

He has accomplished good for.

Today's podcast, Richard Grinnell.

Rick, I have wanted to talk to you for I don't know how long.

Welcome to the podcast.

Well, thanks for having me.

I'm honored.

I love these long formats.

Yeah.

It's a pleasure.

So,

I've got a bazillion questions for you on I don't know how many fronts, but I have to start with the one thing that if I don't ask you,

everyone is going to say, How did you not ask him?

You know what it is, right?

Harry and Megan?

No, and it's actually not about California.

I want to know, you are the DNI.

Tell me everything you know about aliens.

Oh, so here's something really interesting.

I

asked for that briefing when I was head of DNI because that's the number one question actually that you get from the public.

And I wanted to be able to say that, you know, I looked at everything we have and I looked at all of the data.

You know, it's a little bit like what is the definition of is

because everybody has in their mind what

it means to have life on another planet or an alien or and so I always say to people definitely UFOs exist

but remember the definition.

It's an unidentified flying object and we don't know what it is and it's flying.

So the

but the the latest videos that the Pentagon have confirmed that these ships are doing crazy things,

and then you're getting the, what do they call it, the new patents that the Navy verified, but they're really sketchy, you don't even know.

Is that technology that we think someone else may have or that we have and we're not saying it?

Or

is it do we think it's otherworldly?

So the one thing that I'll say is

the

United States of America and our

great technologists are at the forefront.

So you can rest assured that we are winning.

I think there's a concern when it comes to the

outer space, satellites, that there are some other countries, I'll keep it at that, that are making a lot of progress and beginning to muscle their way into areas that cause great concern for us as the leader.

And that was the idea of Space Force.

I think that you should always remember that what President Trump was presented in terms of intelligence and technology and kind of the current situation.

I have been in the room multiple times when he's been presented as to this is where we are in terms of being the leader on this technology.

This is who's coming close.

And every single time, I mean,

he was a president that literally would say, that's a little bit too close for my comfort.

Let's beef it up.

Let's do more.

Let's make sure we're out front.

So it's a long answer to say we're still out front, and you don't see everything that the intelligence community sees in terms of satellite technology.

I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

Let's talk about technology because as director of national intelligence,

you saw everything.

And from all accounts of people that I trust, you were really solid in that role.

And I worry about

our,

how can I word this?

I'm big into technology.

I'm big into AI, AGI, and ASI.

And I am really concerned who, you know, we know whoever gets AGI

first

is going to probably rule the world and maybe for a very long time.

And you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

And I used to feel like I want America to be able to have that, but now I don't trust our own government as much as I used to.

In fact, I'm really skeptical of our government.

Are we close?

Is anybody close to AGI?

So I want to go back to the fact that I love these long formats.

So thank you for this question because it's a really good topic that we should have more conversations on.

And you just don't get this when you've got like, you've got four minutes and there's a producer in your ear saying, wrap it up.

And I'm like, I haven't even gotten to the point yet.

I know the feel.

Yeah, and so I'm so relaxed and it feels good.

So let me just go back a little bit.

When I was ambassador to Germany, and by all accounts, you know, the media kept saying, oh, he's Trump's guy in Europe.

And so many problems came to me as kind of Trump's guy in Europe.

And I would put Kosovo and Serbia.

The reason I became the envoy there is because both of them, both of the presidents of Kosovo and Serbia came to me to say, you know, we're not getting enough attention.

Can we get your help?

And so a lot of different problems came my way and I would bring them to the president.

I would put the Chinese technology in that category, especially on Huawei.

And I

many times would speak to the president about how Chinese technology and intelligence

were kind of clashing.

And since I was getting a daily intelligence briefing and would spend a lot of time going into these issues on what the Europeans were doing with the Chinese, I would bring these issues to the president pretty regularly.

He would call

and want to kind of bounce things off.

I became one of the leaders on Huawei,

I would say anti-Huawei, and telling

our European allies not to use that technology because I was very comfortable with President Trump telling me we're not going to be able to share intelligence if they use this system.

I think our allies,

let me just say in Europe, I think our European allies totally understand the danger.

For instance, the German intelligence services will warn German travelers, whether you're business or personal travel, doing business or personal travel to China.

The German intelligence services warns you not to bring your phone into China.

Now, if our European allies are warning their own people, don't bring your phone into China, it's because they steal data.

So we have European allies who absolutely understand that, but a country like Germany, which is the largest economy in Europe, also has the pressure of the BMWs, the VWs, the Domlers, the world's car leader, who need a new

market.

And they want to be in China.

And so

they are constantly, they were pushing back on me to say, we don't want to use Huawei.

We don't want to use the Chinese technology, technology, but what's the alternative?

And so I would go back to the American government and say, guys, this is pretty empty when we're pushing

countries to not accept the Huawei technology.

We need to have an alternative, and we don't.

That is a long answer to say we got behind the eight ball.

on technology during the Obama presidency because we allowed government agencies to think that you could engage with China and still kind of make progress on your market and protect our intelligence.

And I don't think you can do both.

So there's this new idea, and I think it's a bipartisan view, actually.

I don't think it's a partisan thing.

There's this new idea developing that companies, American companies, need to choose.

Either they're going to work for DOD and they're going to be at the forefront of developing these incredible technologies for America America and for U.S.

national security.

Or you're going to do what the Chinese want you to do, which is to form a joint partnership with a Chinese firm, which is under obligations of the Communist Chinese Party to turn over the data at any point that they want it.

So the idea that Apple or Domler or

take any company.

I mean, we had national security meetings on chip makers who were trying to cut deals with Chinese companies that we knew were working with the Chinese government.

I don't think that we should allow, and this is a big statement, maybe I'm making a little news here,

I don't think that we should allow U.S.

companies who form joint partnerships with

China or Chinese companies to have

U.S.

national security contracts.

I don't think you can do both.

And I think it's really dangerous to think that you can do both.

I agree with you.

I'm not for tariffs.

I just don't believe I'm a free market guy.

But I was on vacation when I saw the Huawei announcement.

And

I think I was alone, and I think I applauded when I heard it.

I was grateful that somebody understood the coming technology because I don't think

people either don't get it on how rapidly things are going to change.

I mean, all aspects of our lives are going to change.

And how rapidly we could become

a

China in all that that means if we're not paying attention to technology.

And

I put it.

You said it best just a little bit ago.

You said you can't put it back in the bottle.

You can't.

You can't.

So can I go back to the

AGI or

AI question?

Is anybody close?

You don't have to tell, you know, obviously, but is anybody close?

When do we think

Kurzweil says 2030?

Some people say we're closer.

Some people will say we're never going to get there.

Are we close to any kind of artificial general intelligence?

So

what I will say, because we do get into

kind of TS stuff,

I would say that you can have total confidence that the American entrepreneurs and technologists are at the forefront and understand what needs to be done.

That hasn't always been the case.

And in certain markets, we're not at the total front, but we now have an understanding that we can't be caught

like we were on 5G.

I'll give you an example.

So

there's an artificial intelligence company called Clearview

and in full disclosure I do some work for them.

I help them.

They are the leading US artificial intelligence facial recognition company.

Their competitor is a Chinese firm called Face Plus.

And the Chinese sell their facial recognition technology to other countries with no strings attached.

So you can use it.

You can say you're using it for law enforcement, but then you can do reckless things with it.

And it can be very dangerous.

Like what reckless things could you do with it?

Give me an example.

Well, if it's in the hands of an individual, you can start scanning a crowd and

just picking up people who aren't committing crimes, and you can use it for your own information or leverage.

And there's a zillion things that you could do with that.

The Chinese are selling this technology and I

have been raising this from

long before I started working with any U.S.

companies that this is a real concern because like Huawei, like TikTok, where we lost out on TikTok.

We need to have American companies that American legislators and American tax dollars support in some way so that we don't get behind.

We're the responsible version of many of these technologies if we don't get left behind.

And so a company like Clearview, which was, I think,

really pushed on many issues from the left to say this is a reckless

technology.

I think that has changed now.

When even the left sees that China is so irresponsible with many of these technologies, they want a responsible version.

And so there's a bipartisan support now to make sure that on technology we don't get behind and that China doesn't beat us.

Because when China does beat us and they sell to the rest of the world, it's a reckless version that will be abused.

So,

see, every time I go to the airport, I stand in line and I look at that clear view where there's no lines and I'm like, no.

That's a different company, FYI.

Oh, it is?

It is?

Yeah,

that's a different company.

All right.

So what does the company do?

But I see, but

they're doing something

that's interesting.

So

they also have

the airport.

Right.

They are

recognizing your iris and

saying you are who you are.

And I look at that and

I think, I remember the days when we wouldn't give anybody our fingerprint and now we're just like, ah, Apple, go ahead and take it.

Now you're getting to the IRIS scan.

And when we talk about things, I mean, I think you were talking about a public-private partnership with some of these tech companies.

And

that

bothers me.

That scares me because we're supposed to view government like a fire.

If it's out of control, it burns everything down and we all die.

We have to make sure that we control it.

And I'm not sure, and you would know because you live through it, I'm not sure our government is in control.

Yeah, look, I think that's a really good question.

And I'm not sure I was talking about public-private partnerships as much as I was talking about joint ventures with China

and making sure that the U.S.

government does things.

And it's not really

a a check or

corporate welfare, so to speak, to American companies, but to just make sure that they support the technology and understand that we're the better version.

And I don't mean anything specific like a check, but I do mean

recognizing, say, on a foreign policy level at the State Department or in our intelligence agencies, that we make clear to our allies that there are certain versions of technology that the Chinese push that are irresponsible.

And, you know, we need our European allies and for any Western ally to understand that they do have a responsibility to make sure that technology doesn't overtake the situation and it's out of control because technology can be reckless and I think government is there to say this is the non-reckless version and responsible nations should support that non-reckless version.

So

help me out because

I really am trying to figure out Silicon Valley, friend or foe, and all indications are foe at this point.

How do you convince those companies when you just use the example of, let's just say, for an example, BMW and Daimler, they need that market of China.

How do you talk to these companies that also need the market of China and have already demonstrated that they'll do really insidious stuff and help China?

Yeah, we're talking about Apple.

It's such a great question.

I think that you just hit the heart of what the balance is.

I actually think in life, the answer to every question is always balance, right?

It's not black and white, but we read in color in the middle.

It's a difficult question, but it's one of the reasons why why I think we should be able to take a firm stance that American companies who decide to work in China and China demands that you have a Chinese partner, and so now you're suddenly, that's their back door, that's how they get in is the Chinese companies have to turn over the data to the Communist Party.

So if an American company forms a joint partnership with a Chinese company, then I believe they're going down the path of an expanded market.

Great, go do that.

You are going to now have to live and die by the sword of expanding your market into communist China.

And I'm not somebody who would say you can't do that.

I just think you have to be honest about what you're doing.

And when you do that,

I think that you should not be able to then also supply sensitive U.S.

national security technology.

I don't think that you can separate them.

So pick your path.

What do you want to do?

Do you want to go down the path of

having a great market and make a lot of money in China and in other places?

And you can find your moral line,

but you won't get to also then pretend like you can have a Chinese wall against that information to

bid on

U.S.

national security contracts.

I think that that's okay to make that decision.

Currently, we're not making that decision.

Lots of companies are dealing with China and having joint ventures and then also pretending that they can supply this sensitive U.S.

national security technology, and I don't believe that they can.

Well, I think it's the same decision that we didn't make.

Companies like IBM.

We didn't make them make that decision in World War II, and they assisted with their punch card system, even sending repairmen to the death camps to repair those new computers.

And they were working both sides.

And now, with the way technology is,

you know, it's not good.

The most nefarious will win in the end because of the technology.

I do want to leave our viewers with one thing just to say that on this subject is that there are companies like Oracle who just do that.

There's no rule, but Oracle has taken a strong stance to say we're going to supply U.S.

national security technology and they're not going to be in China.

I think that there are companies that just morally say I can't do it.

I don't know about you, but I feel like I'm either always looking at a screen or somebody I'm with is always looking at a screen and I hate it.

So whether you're an avid news watcher or in serious need of distraction, unplugging yourself is easier said than done.

One of my favorite ways is to rest my eyes and use my ears because that gives me the content I'm itching for.

By putting in my wireless Raycon earbuds and listening to something great, whether I am going into work or whether I'm painting or just hanging out.

If you're catching up on your favorite news podcast,

binging on an audio book, powering through your workout with a pumped-up playlist, a pair of raycons in your ears makes all the difference.

There's no dangling wires.

There are these stupid white stems that come out of your ears.

And they are half the price of Apple.

And they're stylish.

They fit in your ears.

They don't always fall out when you're running.

Not that I would know what that's like, but

Apple always fell out of my ears, but I have enormous ears.

But Raycons are built to perform anywhere, anytime.

Water, sweat-resistant,

Bluetooth that pairs quickly and seamlessly.

And they come in all different sizes.

I mean, you have the little rubber things that you just put on, so they stick in your ears, no matter if you have, you know, the big dumbo ears like me or little teeny cute ears.

You can unplug for a while with Raycon.

Go to Raycon.com, 15% off all their products for you.

All you have to do is just go to buyraycon.com/slash Glenn.

Buyraycon.com slash Glenn.

You'll get 15% off your entire Raycon

I was talking to the author of the book, Freedom's Forge, and he studied,

and it's a great book.

I recommend it to you if you're into history.

It is

how

industry went to work for the federal government after the bombing, or after 1939, the invasion into Poland.

We knew we were behind.

FDR was against the build-up of war, against war.

And he saw the writing on the wall and realized we have got to go.

And it was people who disagreed with FDR, people that really FDR had gone after in the Great Depression, but

they all came together and we were producing liberty ships and airplanes unlike anybody else.

And he asked me, because he didn't have an answer, and I don't have an answer either: could we even do that in today's America?

Would the corporations rally around and say, this is a common enemy of freedom, and we have to win this?

Asking that question makes me sad

because

it really should not have to be asked.

You should know it.

We are the greatest country.

We are the greatest country in the world.

I've traveled the world, and I can tell you we are not perfect.

But what makes us the greatest country is that we know we're not perfect and we immediately try to figure out a way to get better.

And I think we're going through something right now where we're realizing that the last 20 years, we've been on a slide and we haven't done what many warned before us, which was that each generation has to fight to make sure that America is great.

We are always one generation away from losing that.

Roughly 250 years marks the completion of every great civilization.

They've lasted roughly 250 years, and they've always imploded not from a massive war attacking them, but from the inside.

And I think that what

I want to do is be very hopeful that in this time,

I believe that we are seeing the mistakes of the last 20 years in the, say for instance, in the education system.

The Wall Street Journal has done a good job of highlighting Chinese

academics

who work for the Chinese Communist Party and who have infiltrated into our academic institutions.

I have to say that I think that our academic institutions, institutions of higher learning, are really the ground zero problem.

It's why organizations like Turning Point that Charlie Kirk does is an amazing organization because they recognize, look, we got to go in on these college campuses and we got to fight because we're losing that battle.

And it's also why I think in Northern California, San Francisco area, you've got not only Gavin Newsom, but Nancy Pelosi and Eric Swalwell, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein.

They've all been caught doing pro-China stuff, every one of them.

And you ask yourself why, and it's because the Chinese spies and the Chinese Communist Party infiltrated institutions in San Francisco a long time ago.

I know that's a controversial statement, and people are going to not like it, but it is true.

Well,

I believe Donald Trump passed a or had an executive order drawn up about our institutions and not doing business with these Chinese educational partnerships that have really infiltrated our universities.

And Joe Biden came in, and one of the first things he did was reverse that.

Do we have,

I mean,

I would hate to be you in some ways to have the knowledge and the insight that you have and not be able to talk about it

because I feel that way, and I don't have any inside information.

We just have our own research.

We were doing work on Hunter Biden two and a half, three years ago, and

there is no doubt in my mind that this is a family bought and paid for by Chinese operatives.

Do you feel that way?

Yeah,

there's no question.

Let me first just say, I don't think that you can be the director of national intelligence or the acting director of national intelligence or maybe

the head of

I was going to say the CIA, but

maybe that's not true, but President of the United States or Vice President of the United States and not believe in God.

Because

after you see this information, you quickly just realize, okay, we are humans and we have to look to the Creator for the solutions because this is pretty overwhelming.

The information that you do see

does create sleepless nights.

There's no question about that.

And thank God that every morning there are new mercies that I can give up control to the Creator.

So let me start by saying that.

On

a specific question.

Thank you for saying that, by the way.

You don't hear that enough sincerely.

And we'll get into this later.

You had a crisis of faith, and I just love the resolution of it.

So we'll talk about that later, but go ahead.

On the specific issue of the Hunter Biden laptop, I

and I have to be careful here,

I

was very troubled the two or three weeks before before the election in November 2020

when

50 former intelligence officials signed a letter and released it publicly designed to

tell the public what they believe.

And the letter said that we shouldn't look at Hunter Biden's laptop because it was Russian disinformation.

And I want to be clear about something, is that those 50 former intelligence officials never, ever, ever saw any report on that.

There was nothing.

They didn't have any classified information.

They didn't have any extra information that the public didn't have.

Nothing.

And yet they went out and they said that that was

Russian disinformation.

They did that before an election to say don't look at that Hunter Biden laptop.

Now,

separate from that,

and I'm not accusing them of being being part of China's plan.

Right.

But separate from that, that is the exact Chinese line.

What Beijing wants you to do is keep looking at these phony Russian narratives.

Right.

Because they have their spies all over our politicians.

And we have had so many defensive briefings for politicians

who were caught basically,

most of them, and this is an important point, most of them not knowing

that they were caught in this strategy,

but were nevertheless caught, and we had to tell them what was going on.

And my point in saying this is that China is a crisis, Russia is a problem.

And the crisis at hand

is being ignored, and the excuse many times is Russian disinformation.

Let's talk about,

you know, a guy who, I think, kind of played your role before the collapse of the Soviet Union in some ways.

He was

an intelligence chief.

He said the United States, he came out and said this openly, I think in 1998 or 99, that the United States was about to go into a moral and financial collapse.

and

that Americans would start to be pitted against each other, and we would break up into five or six regions.

And I remember specifically

reading this back in the 90s and talking about it at the time.

And now here we are, and you're hearing much of the same kind of talk here in our own country of breaking up and being at each other's throat.

There's a moral collapse.

There's a collapse of faith in everything.

What do you make?

I mean, you came on the scene really with Bush and you saw 9-11 and what happened there.

Where are we now?

What is happening to us in the last even 12 months?

What's happened to us?

Where are we headed?

Yeah, it's a really good question.

And let me just start with a little bit of hope and positive message.

Because I think what the question you're asking is very serious and very heavy and can maybe be viewed

as

giving people

hope.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So

in this last election,

you have never seen more first and second generation Americans supporting conservatives like you just saw.

It was something that I think that in my lifetime I've really wanted to see as a president be more like Ronald Reagan in that he appealed to the working class, right?

We called them Reagan Democrats at the time.

And regular working class union members, middle-class Americans, were voting for the Republican.

And then we went through this period where we just became the party of the old rich white guy.

And

I think that

what President Trump did was radically transform that.

I went to a lot of the rallies, the Trump rallies, and when you look out across that crowd, it was America.

It was white, black, every color, every ethnicity.

It was amazing.

And

one of the reasons why I jumped on and supported President Trump the way I did was because of that.

Because I saw it as real America.

And

so I leave with that hope of the future is better for the conservative movement because we are transforming the party and it's becoming a party of real America.

What conservatives lost and therefore I think is the problem of America right now

are those Americans that have been here for a very long time, whose families have been around for a very long time, and they're really comfortable in America.

They've probably done really well and they have the system that works for them and they have become

very vocal

in favor of identity politics because of their guilt and because they support this cancel culture.

They are creating and teaching children a sense that

America isn't good and you got to change it dramatically and you got to, you know, upend the entire system.

And I think that

that goes to the heart of who we are.

Most people in this country really love America.

Most people in Washington, D.C.

don't like America, and they want to change it.

And it's this, you see it in foreign policy where Donald Trump said America first.

And everybody said that's racist.

Everybody in Washington, I should say.

And

I see, I spent eight years at the UN, you know, 193 countries, I see every country, every single one,

doing what's best for them.

They're not worried about other countries.

I mean, Chancellor Merkel is a great leader for Germany.

You know, she's buying Russian gas.

She's not paying her NATO bill.

They've got a surplus.

Think about that.

They've got a surplus.

And they have almost 50,000 troops, American troops there when you count the rotational troops.

So why have a big defense?

Why spend money in defense?

They've got an opera on every corner.

They've got massive infrastructure programs.

Their highways and roads are amazing.

They fund all sorts of free health care, free college programs.

So

I should blame her.

And I've actually.

Why should we be paying for that?

Why at this point,

why should we be all over the world?

We shouldn't be, but it goes back to my point about

what's happening in Washington Washington is a whole bunch of people

who love consensus.

They love the global world.

Joe Biden, absolutely, his entire life of 40-plus years in politics, knows world leaders.

They probably have his cell phone, and he's been talking to them, and he knows their birthday, and he can remember when their daughter got married.

And so that's his crowd.

And when that's your crowd, and you care about that, you don't want them to say bad things about you.

You want to give them the ability to water down our policy so that it's consensus.

Now, I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but consensus should never be the goal.

The goal is for our American policy to be potent and protect Americans.

And we utilize consensus as a tactic when needed, but if

all foreign policy was to have an American show up and say, this is our policy, and a German diplomat show up and say, this is our policy, and then we meet in the middle,

that, to me, can be done by a third grader.

You don't need really good diplomats to go in.

The art of diplomacy is to have somebody at that table who says, no, no, we're not backing down.

This is the policy that's good for us, and here's why it's good for you.

And to convince them that our policy is good for them.

In many cases, it is, actually.

And then let me just on this subject finish with this point.

I have never been, and I have been in tens of thousands of diplomatic meetings.

I've never been in a single one where the other side doesn't ask America to do something and it's usually paying for something.

And so the idea that they're not asking us to help them

is laughable.

Of course they are.

And when we show up and we say, this is what we think you should do,

it's very rare that we ask others to do something and it always leaks and then it's always America is leveraging its power against so-and-so.

And so I think we need diplomats who just say, no, this is our policy.

And

by the way, that's our job is to push American policy.

But I think that's, I mean, it was really refreshing.

Because I think common sense in America says, you know what, we've been doing for the last hundred years is not working.

You know, hey, we don't torture, but we'll ghost plane you over to Saudi Arabia, you know, or to Egypt, where they'll interrogate you and use every tactic.

Getting involved in everybody's war, trying to, I don't know, trying to be dad at the table all the time, it doesn't work.

And it seems to make things much worse.

Where, you know, we had countries, you know, we had Germany painting the crossing of the Delaware, and we had France giving us the Statue of Liberty.

Now everybody hates us because we're in their stuff and in their faces all the time.

And I think

people know that and they know this isn't working, but the State Department doesn't care.

And I don't even think, I think we got close to a place with Trump where They didn't even care.

I don't even think, I shouldn't say close.

We arrived for the first time that I am am aware of at a place to where the establishment or deep state, if you will, the State Department didn't give a flying crap who the president was.

They were just going to do their thing.

That can't stand.

We should do a whole hour on the State Department.

Oh, I would love to.

I could go on and on and on.

I think that the place is ripe for transformation.

I have spent 11 years there, and I love it.

I have to say that.

And I love the people there.

But they should all be escorted.

I'm not saying everybody is a problem.

They should fire everyone and start over.

It's just a nightmare.

So I need to go on record here and say I don't think everybody should be fired and start over.

But I do think that we need transformational

change at the State Department.

And why that way?

I've written on this.

It's a boring subject for many, but I have written on this and thrown out some ideas of how to transform the State Department.

I think our embassies should become many

USA-branded institutions.

I don't think that we should have, we call them political officers, but they're anything but political.

The political officers at the State Department who are employed around the world will go into each country that they're assigned and they will go to the conventions of the local parties and then come back and write long reports on who did what and this political analysis of the situation.

I think it's a waste because most of that you can read in the newspaper two or three days later.

You don't need a cable for that.

And yet we spend a lot of money.

to employ these Foreign Service officers to go do that in most every country.

They bring their families, we pay for

their housing and their kids' schooling.

It's a very expensive endeavor.

And many Foreign Service officers like to live overseas.

They enjoy it, and it's more lucrative than coming home and having to pay for your apartment in Washington, D.C.

So we have a problem, and Condi actually, Condi Rice, tried to solve this by asking people to go to more danger posts.

I think that our European embassies should drastically shrink.

We don't need big, huge imprints in places where we have great relations

unless we need

to create more U.S.

jobs and we need our Foreign Service officers to be more business-centric and trying to deliver on jobs.

I think the system that is, the current system that was created many years ago is archaic and it's not useful.

We also need Foreign Service officers who are trained and comfortable to parachute into crisis situations.

For instance, on Syria,

we should not have had boots on the ground

as fast as we did, and we shouldn't have ignored the political issues.

Many of those issues were things that the Europeans should have cared more about,

our Arab allies should have cared more about.

And so, why couldn't we have diplomats that parachute into crisis situations, who go to the table and talk about solutions rather than

send U.S.

military.

We have created the world

to be very comfortable

with the United States military coming in with guns into every conflict.

and being there to solve it and to talk it through.

And everybody takes a step back because we're waiting for the Americans to come in.

And once they do, then they're in charge and they pay for everything.

And so we don't have people in other countries rising up to solve these problems because we've trained them that America is going to come in and do that.

I'll give you an example of just the peacekeeping operations at the UN.

We have some peacekeeping operations that have been going on for 50 years.

I know.

We have some peacekeeping operations at the UN that roll over every year their budget and it increases and it's more than a billion dollars, which means the American taxpayer pays 26% of that.

So two hundred and sixty million dollars every single year rolled over, getting bigger and bigger that the Americans pay for in the Congo alone.

Holy cow.

Holy cow.

Let's talk a little bit about our spy agencies.

The State Department clearly out of control.

You know, as I was doing my investigative work on the

situation in Ukraine with Biden,

it became very clear that

there was a group of American,

I don't know, operatives that were involved in that.

In the State Department level,

the DNC,

there were many moving pieces, and you couldn't quite put it all together, but it didn't seem like everybody on our side was on the up and up.

The problems with our intelligence gathering services,

is that a clean house or a radical change, or

is it not as bad as it seems it is?

We could do a whole nother hour on this one.

I know.

So I was only acting director of national intelligence for a couple of months, but one of the things that I think bothered me the most

is the whole Washington narrative about

what I was coming into.

And

the Washington narrative was Rick Rinnell has zero experience.

And what is he doing to run these spy agencies?

And there were, I don't think, anyone that was able to break out of that groupthink in Washington and say, wait a minute, his first intelligence briefing was in 2001.

He's had tens of thousands of briefings since.

He's an expert at consuming intelligence.

And he's an expert at using intelligence in a public policy-driven way with our allies.

Certainly at the UN, I used it from issues

North Korea to Iran to Iraq and Afghanistan on a weekly basis.

And then in Germany, of course,

you know, using it to

further our policy in Hezbollah on a variety of different issues in Europe.

And I think who better to come into some of these intelligence agencies than somebody who has been a consumer of the product who can know its usefulness.

And so when I came in, I was, and this was not,

it didn't leak out,

one of the rare things that I did that didn't leak out.

But I tried to put a stamp in my short time on exactly what you're saying, which is we've got to get the intelligence right, and we've got to stop the politics within intelligence.

And so,

I'll give you the example of the Russia team

is

very dramatic,

very

leaky,

extremely political,

and

will take every little piece of

unverified intelligence and immediately proscribe analytical arguments on it that I think really push the limit and are not

IC-wide views.

And that's a very important thing.

Whenever you see a leak in the New York Times or the Washington Post, which you saw a lot, I'll give you the example of Kim Jong-un is brain dead,

which went around for a very long time.

And

we were laughing because all these people that were saying, we've got intelligence, that was not an IC-wide

estimate.

I can't go into great details about that.

But the reality is, is we knew that that wasn't true.

And yet we didn't correct it because we couldn't.

And sources and methods were a part of that analysis.

But my point on the Russia team is that they leak everything and they really push the boundaries.

The China team is very slow, thoughtful, doesn't leak.

very judicious in trying to come to an analytical point.

And I think the comparative of the two is a problem.

And so I tried to make progress without having the criticism that, you know, the political appointee was beating up on the career people and changing it, which I actually think is your job to

change,

but very highly sensitive about anything, right?

So I tried to do that.

The one area that I also made some progress on is on the Israel team because I told them, it wasn't a very popular position, but I I said, you know, from the standpoint of someone who consumes intelligence, y'all get it wrong a lot of the time.

And

you're kind of burning your credibility with public policy people.

You know, let's just take, for example, you told us that there would be World War III if we moved our embassy to Jerusalem.

Right.

Not only was that not true, but I can show you the Abraham Accords, peace deals that were done when America takes a strong stance.

And so I think that we've got to do a better job on the analytical side.

And I give everybody this example.

Imagine opening up your newspaper,

your local newspaper, to the editorial section.

And there's six editorials there, but they're all nameless.

You don't know who the author is.

And so you have no idea if you're reading Dr.

Fauci or Dr.

Seuss.

You don't know if it's Max Boot

or

Glenn Beck that's giving you their opinion.

And when that happens with experts in the intelligence field, it's a real problem because the analytical pieces don't have names on them and many times they cannot be

IC-wide agreements, but they're one aspect.

But the public never sees the difference.

They just immediately say, oh, this is what the intelligence community says.

I can now look at pieces and tell you, ah, well, that's one person's opinion, and there's 17 agencies, right?

When you left, you did probably the ballsiest thing, and I cheered for you.

You released the documents on the whole Russia nightmare with

Flynn and with Trump, the

collusion there.

Did you have to think twice?

Did you just release it with glee?

What went through your head

when you made that move?

So really, it's a good question.

I

came in as acting director, and I knew, you know, this is another thing that many in the public got wrong.

I knew I was temporary.

I did not want the job permanently.

I had been offered the job multiple times, and I just wasn't something that I wanted.

But when the president called me in Berlin and asked me to step in as acting director right away.

I could hear it in his voice that he needed me right away.

So I said yes.

And it was an acting job and I would be there for

the term until they got somebody confirmed.

And I knew that that might take time, but I was hoping that it would be

60 days and it turned out to be around four and a half, five months.

But

when I came in originally, I asked to see certain files and I wanted to see everything we had on the Russian collusion narrative.

So they brought me everything, and I spent the weekend and I read it all.

I looked at everything that we had, and all of the reports that were classified and not classified.

There were a lot of footnotes from reports that were classified, which was very puzzling to me of why footnotes would

have to be classified.

But I looked at everything, and then I did something on my own, which was I went to

YouTube and watched some of the public interviews on CNN and MSNBC from some of the people that testified under oath.

And I would watch the interview publicly,

and then I would read the transcript.

And it made me very sad for our country because what was said under oath in the basement of the house with a lawyer sitting next to them was fundamentally different than what they said on CNN.

And that's outrageous to me.

That's so swampy.

That's so Washington, D.C.

It means that they think that they can lie to the public.

And make no mistake, these were lies.

They can lie to the public and get away with it.

And so

I was morally outraged that this was happening in our government.

And so

I had lots of meetings and looked people in the eye and said, I'm going to declassify as much as we can.

What are you going to argue against?

And people would make these kind of

quick arguments about why not to do this.

And when I would look down and I would read it, I would say, you know, there's not a source or a method in this.

Why are you classifying this?

And ultimately, it was because, oh, it might be embarrassing information, or so-and-so messed up, or we don't want this agency to look bad.

And I thought, that's not our position.

If you recognize right now that we have a credibility crisis with the public, they don't trust us,

the only way to fix this is to come clean and to say, look, we made mistakes.

I mean, Americans are very forgiving people.

And when you come clean and you say, look, I didn't do the best thing.

We're all human and we make mistakes.

I was trying to push a bureaucracy and an agency, not a person.

to recognize that they needed to come clean.

And transparency is not political

and it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

And so I pushed hard and pushed through many of the arguments.

I did listen to the career staff when they were adamant, and when I said, Do they have a level of truth there that maybe this could be spun as a source or a method?

And so I gave in.

But most of the time, I didn't give in.

And I said, no, we're going to release this.

And then I said, let's put them on.

First, I sent a letter to Adam Schiff and I said, you own these transcripts.

You have until Thursday to release them.

Otherwise, they're going up on the DNI website.

And he released them the day that we told him that we were going to release them.

And

they all came out clean.

And they're still on the DNI website.

You can go to you, you know, people can go look at them themselves.

The problem is that the information is now out there.

You know,

the FBI

changed

information, didn't leave out, actually

reversed the information from a

positive to a negative, or one way or the other, and went to a FISA court,

lied knowingly, and there was a slap on the wrist.

I don't know, I assume you know who the whistleblower was.

Why haven't we pursued any of these people?

Why hasn't Adam Schiff been pursued?

And

anyone paid a price for what the country went through on,

I'm sorry, but I don't believe they were mistakes.

This was an intentional takedown

of the president.

There's no question it was.

There's just no question.

And

this was

developed.

with participation from some at the State Department.

You know, remember this whole dossier,

London

embassy.

You know, I'm going to try not to get in trouble.

No, anybody who's been watching me,

they know the chalkboard, they know the timeline.

You can look at the timeline, you can look and see who is in charge, and you can see what their jobs were later, and you can put all this together.

Are you concerned that some of those people are back in office now?

Susan Rice, some of these people are.

Yeah, of course.

Of course.

There's no question that this team knew

that because people warned them and they classified the comments away so that the public wouldn't see the warnings, but from the very beginning, they were warned that the Steel dossier

was

known to be being developed, the Russians knew it was being developed, and that the Russians were going to use misinformation.

And that most of this stuff was going to be misinformation.

They knew that.

And they classified all of that away so that they could create this narrative because Hillary Clinton had a lot of people that were loyal to her at the State Department and in the intelligence agencies and they were trying to help her become president.

And so when this

narrative against Donald Trump was being developed as a Russian spy,

You had a whole bunch of Democrats and career people that were like, yeah, let's fine-tune

this opposition research and package it as Intel and really

create a narrative that was false, and they knew it was false.

And so I do want to say, I'm not quite convinced that they got away with it because the Durham report is not out.

Do you think it will come out?

I think that I have to at this point.

You have to believe.

I I have to believe that all of the information that we were given, that we were turning over to the Durham investigators and

Bill Bart,

who I like, and gave me his word that

Durham is an honorable guy and is using all of the information and is just being very thorough and is not political.

I knew from the beginning that it was not going to be a bombshell release right before

the election unless it finished then and that was the natural time for it to come out.

It was not going to be timed to politics on any end that Durham was going to go through a thorough investigation.

And so I have to believe at this point,

and I'm getting impatient, that the Durham investigation is going to be thorough and really people are going to see

exactly who was participating to

lie to the American people about President Trump.

At what point do you say

time's up?

At what point do you have to stop saying after the Durham report comes out and I read it.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you read that.

Rick, I have so many things to talk to you about.

I would love to have you back on again because I didn't get to, your life is just fascinating.

And especially

your view of God and how important that is to you.

And I just think you have an incredible story to tell.

And I would love to interview you again and talk to you about that.

Would you be willing to come back?

I would love it.

I always love to talk about my faith.

Okay.

Before I ask that last question, California, you going to run?

Look,

I'm not trying to be cute on this answer.

I really have not begun to think about this process.

I'm a grassroots guy, right?

I really think that it's important to listen to the grassroots.

We have 250,000 people that have been working since last summer to collect signatures well before

the presidential race when nobody in the national media was paying attention.

We had people out asking Californians to sign this petition.

And it's not a politics thing.

It is a purely mismanagement of the state.

I think that politicians may be able to be governor in states that are not so big.

But when you have a state like California, you can't promote a politician who hasn't had the ability to manage people and manage big bureaucracies just all of a sudden to become governor.

Because what we see with Gavin Newsom is that he's just a terrible manager and a decision maker and it's not just COVID.

It's not just the schools being shut down.

It's not that we in California still are not in restaurants yet inside.

It's, you know, he closed the beaches and he called it science.

We're having rolling blackouts.

We're telling people to not water their lawns and yet we live on the ocean.

This is just pure mismanagement of the state because it's politics and identity politics and cancel culture at the top.

So I'm going to listen to the grassroots people, let them have their time, get these signatures.

We don't even have the deadline yet, and then they have 30 days, 30 business days to verify the signatures.

I'm not convinced we're there yet, and let's talk once it actually qualifies and then we'll see what's needed.

Just the one last question.

And I don't say this with any malice at all.

I really don't.

I think we're seeing a very sad chapter

right now where

I you know, I remember when my grandfather, we had to take his keys away from him, and it was sad.

I worry about this president, especially lately where he's grasping for things.

It's sending I don't know, but you would.

Does a weakened president like this send a frightening message to our allies and another message to our enemies?

And is it normal for the vice president to have so many one-on-ones

with leaders of countries?

I'm troubled by it.

I think that, first of all, world leaders want to talk, especially on their first

encounter.

They want to talk to the president.

And this is a president that they actually know.

And so when they don't get to talk to him, it's even odder that, wait a minute, I talked to you as vice president and as senator and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regularly, and now I can't talk to you.

That's troublesome.

That is real troublesome.

I think our allies

feel emboldened that America is now going to govern be

having its policy policy by consensus.

I mean, they get to decide.

Europeans, I would say especially France and Germany and

the UK, their leaders have never been more powerful with America because if they say something that they don't like,

it's going to have a huge impact on Joe Biden.

He wants to be liked.

And without consensus, you know, without all of us getting along and moving forward on Iran issue or whatever.

Let me just say this.

I was extremely troubled by the Khashoggi

incident because

I had,

and I've written on this just recently, I had multiple meetings with career intelligence officials about the Khashoggi report and said, what can we release?

I'm the guy that loves transparency and was really pushing the envelope on all these issues.

And I would ask, what can we release to the public so that, you know, I sensed that the public didn't love what we had given them on the Khashoggi report.

They felt like we were holding things back.

And so I had a review, and I didn't like the initial review, so I asked for a second review.

And I said, I just, I want to go back, and I want to make sure that a manager is looking at this to say, is there anything else that we can ask to declassify or share with the public on the Khashoggi incident and the killing and everything that we know?

And the career intelligence officials said, no, there's nothing more because it will really harm our national security if we do.

So I accepted that.

And then I see the Biden administration repackage.

There's nothing new in that, what they released on Khashoggi.

Nothing is new.

Glenn, what they did is they repackaged a hit on Saudi Arabia to make it

good for the Iranians.

because they're in negotiations with the Iranians.

And so they thought, and I'm sure that this was a request from the Europeans, because they always tell, the Europeans constantly say to us, you know, you're too tough on Iran and you're not tough enough on Saudi Arabia.

And for the Europeans, they just want to sell products inside of Iran.

They don't have the same threat level that we do.

They think that the Iranians are not going to pick on them.

And so we need to stand strong and convince the Europeans that they have an obligation to stand with us as a Western alliance and not give in to this idea that we're going to repackage intelligence just to do a hit on the Saudis.

Make no mistake, the Saudi situation was very serious, and we dealt with it in a very serious manner.

And the Saudi team knew exactly how we felt, and there's a whole bunch that we did that we don't have to publicly announce

because of the very difficult policies that we are facing in that region.

I'm glad you were there during all of this.

You were a bright spot to

at least me and everybody on the team that was really paying attention to what was going on.

We always felt comfortable that you were someplace in the mix watching over things.

I appreciate your service and all the time.

And I do hope that we get a chance to come back and just talk about you and the role of faith in your life.

Let's do it.

Thank you so much, Rick.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.