There are very few people alive who have sat inside the machinery of American intelligence, witnessed what it does in the dark, understand the inner workings of it as an agency and was called to tell the truth about the Torture Program to verify it on national television, and paid for that truth with their freedom. John Kiriakou is one of them.
John Kiriakou is a 17-year CIA veteran, former Chief of Counterterrorism Operations in Pakistan following the September 11 attacks, senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and consultant for ABC News — Kiriakou became the first US government official to confirm publicly that waterboarding was used to torture prisoners at CIA black sites. He called it what it was. The government decided to call it espionage and tried to put him in prison for 45 years. He ended up serving 23 months in federal prison. There is no way anyone leaves this kind of a life experience and betrayal without wounding at the deepest levels of being, no matter how transformed their life ends up becoming.
You know what? History vindicated John Kiriakou. The Senate Torture Report confirmed that everything he said was true. Senator John McCain rose on the floor of the Senate and said the country owed him a debt of gratitude.
He is the author of The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror, The Convenient Terrorist: Two Whistleblowers’ Stories of Torture, Terror, Secret Wars, and CIA Lies, Doing Time Like a Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison, The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis, Surveillance and Surveillance Detection, The CIA Insider’s Guide to Lying and Lie Detection, The CIA Insider’s Guide to Disappearing and Living Off the Grid, and the forthcoming Remains of the Day: The Definitive Guide to the Historic Cemeteries of Washington, DC.
A natural born storyteller of Master level proportion, he has educated & entertained audiences around the world. He’s also the host of a podcast called “Deep Focus”, “John Kiriakou’s Dead Drop”, and the co-host of a podcast called “DeProgram” with Ted Rall. John is a sought-after speaker, and professor of intelligence studies at the University of Salamanca and Bay Path University.
He has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett, the Danny Jones Podcast, the Tucker Carlson Show, the PBD Podcast with Patrick Bet-David, and many other major platforms. His reach now spans millions.
He has a way of bringing a listener into real life events and stories in a way that engages them as if they are there at the scene. Kim believes he’s a gifted Storyteller and that it’s one of his many great talents.
It’s Rainmaking Time pursued this conversation for over a year across seven different channels before it came together.
What followed was one of the most unusual and revealing exchanges in this broadcast’s nearly 600-episode history; wide-ranging and at times turbulent, covering the weaponization of the Espionage Act, the affirmative defense that whistleblowers are legally denied, the surveillance state, the prison system, Jeffrey Epstein, and the boundaries of what a man shaped by 17 years of intelligence work and being falsely imprisoned is and isn’t willing to consider.
For the first time, an episode is presented with Kim’s commentary at very specific points. Where the factual record diverges from what was said, evidence is offered not as argument, but as information and clarification. The energetic exchange you will witness is what it is and yet the record is also what it is. Kim presents both and leaves the rest to you.
IN THIS CONVERSATION:
→ How John Kiriakou became the first US government official to publicly confirm the CIA used waterboarding on prisoners
→ Why the Espionage Act — written in 1917 to combat German saboteurs — has never been meaningfully updated and what that means for whistleblowers today
→ Between 1917 and 2012, three Americans were charged with espionage for speaking to media. Find out who they were.
→ Why there is no affirmative defense for national security whistleblowers in American law and why this must change
→ The weaponization of the Justice Department: how it works
→ What really happens inside a federal prison
→ Kim’s editorial inserts: where the documented record diverges from what John said
→ How the FBI gets your data from private companies without a court order using national security letters
→ Remote viewing, Project Stargate, and a direct disagreement between Kim and John with Kim’s editorial clarification of the documented record
→ What John thinks Donald Trump must do before the 2026 midterms
Podcasts: Deep Focus · John Kiriakou’s Dead Drop · DeProgram with Ted Rall
johnkiriaku.com | ivycyber.com
Read the Full Verbatim Transcript with John Kiriakou
It’s Rainmaking Time!
Unfinished Business: A Raw Exchange with a CIA Whistleblower — with John Kiriakou
Host & Interviewer: Kim Greenhouse
[Kim’s Opening Dedication]
This segment of It’s Rainmaking Time is dedicated to the whistleblowers of the world who never knew the extent to which their lives would be destroyed at every level. Thank you for your rare kind of courage and conviction. This is as much for your families who suffered with and for you. It’s Rainmaking Time.
Kim: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to It’s Rainmaking Time. I’m Kim Greenhouse. I have waited so long for this interview. You can’t even believe it. It’s one of those that was a very, very long wait. I am so excited today to have our guest with us. I’m going to tell you a little bit about him. There are a few like him walking the earth who have been through the kind of trials and tribulations on a financial, legal, government level. So I want you to listen closely because our guest contains not just secrets, but most importantly, experience, expertise, and wisdom about our real system — not the one we think we have, but the one we have.
Kim: Our guest has served in the CIA from 1990 to 2004, when the government tried to put him in prison for 45 years. On October 23rd, 2012, he took a plea deal for 30 months in prison for something he didn’t do. He’s one of the few whistleblowers to be put in prison under the Espionage Act, and we’re going to talk about that today. He’s a former CIA analyst and operative, also specializing in the area of counter-terrorism. He was a senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he was accused of leaking classified information, which actually supposedly put him in prison. He refused to be trained in advanced interrogation tactics. He’s part of the Government Accountability Project.
Kim: He’s written so many books. I’m going to name some for you. The Reluctant Spy: My Life in the CIA’s War on Terror, Doing Time Like a Spy: How the CIA Taught Me How to Survive in Prison, How to Disappear Off the Grid, Surveillance and Surveillance Detection, The Convenient Terrorist, Lying and Lying Detection, and Remains of the Day: A Definitive Guide to Historic Cemeteries of Washington DC. There are more. He’s been on ABC, he’s been in several documentaries. He’s helped so many people understand how to navigate this realm and also provided solutions of what we need to do and why it’s so important. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome one of the great heroes of the modern day, John Kiriakou. Welcome to It’s Rainmaking Time. I hope I said your last name right.
John: You did. You did. Thank you for that, Kim. Thank you. It was very generous.
Kim: Suppose divine intelligence comes to you and says, “John, you have three wishes — only three — to eliminate the abuse in the system on a government level relative to your experience and others in the CIA, dealing with the Justice Department, the legal system, the finances, the prison system, the whole kiboodle. You have three wishes. What is your first wish?
John: Well, I think the first thing that I would have to do would be to rewrite the Espionage Act. And I will say shout out to Ilhan Omar because she’s working with a good friend of mine to do exactly that. She sponsored a rewrite of the Espionage Act in two consecutive Congresses now. They died a quiet death in subcommittee, but one of these days this thing is going to be rewritten. It has to be rewritten. The Espionage Act was written in 1917, passed into law in 1917 to combat German saboteurs. It doesn’t even mention the words classified information because the classification system hadn’t been invented yet. It’s never been meaningfully updated. It only talks about national defense information, but it never defines what national defense information means. So it can mean whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean.
John: Between 1917 and the election of Barack Obama, three Americans were charged with espionage for speaking to the media. Just under the Obama administration, Obama charged eight people with espionage for speaking to the media. Six of us were whistleblowers. So I would rewrite the Espionage Act so that espionage meant spying for a foreign power, not blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality in the federal space. I would pass a law to protect national security whistleblowers. We have a whistleblower protection law in the United States, but it does not cover national security whistleblowers. So if you work for the CIA, the FBI, NSA, the Pentagon, you’re out of luck if you decide to go public.
Kim: Wow. I didn’t know that.
John: Oh yeah. Most Americans don’t know it. And I would make illegal the weaponization of intelligence. Robert Jackson is a former Attorney General of the United States. He’s a former Supreme Court justice and former chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946 of Nazi war criminals. And he said something that every first year law student has to read. He talks about the power of the federal prosecutor saying that the federal prosecutor is one of the most powerful people on earth because he decides who is charged, or more importantly, who is not charged with a crime. And he says, every good prosecutor should see a crime and then charge the crime. No one should ever choose a man whom he doesn’t like and then scour the law books looking for a crime with which to charge him. But that’s what we do now.
John: It was especially bad in the Obama administration. It was equally bad in the Biden administration where they used the Justice Department as a weapon, as a cudgel to punish people whose politics they didn’t like, whether it was on the left or on the right. And so those are the biggest changes I would make right away.
Kim: There was another one too.
John: There is another one and it is the … the proactive defense. It’s one of those days. What’s the word? I’m sorry that you’re going to have to cut this out.
Kim: That’s all right.
John: In my own case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leoni Brinkema set a precedent, a very important, very dangerous precedent, where she redefined torture as providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it. My lead attorney jumped up and said, “Your Honor, are you saying that a person can accidentally commit espionage?” And she said, “That’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Kim: Oh my God.
John: So there needs to be sort of a — there’s a legal term for it that’s escaping me right now, but it’s like a proactive defense, an affirmative — that’s what it is. It’s an affirmative defense where you say, “Yeah, I did it, but I did it for the good of the American people. Let me explain.” So I was in close touch with Ed Snowden when he first went public. I wrote him an open letter that was published in the Huffington Post. I wrote him a private letter that a mutual friend delivered to him and then his father came to prison to visit me and I said, “Listen, the very first thing that he has to do is he has to hire the best attorneys money can buy. He has to hire my attorneys. I had great attorneys.” And so he did and they worked out a deal with the Justice Department where Ed was going to come home, he was going to plead guilty and he was going to agree to 20 years in prison if he could stand up in court and explain why he did what he did. And the Justice Department said, “Absolutely not.” Because they were afraid he was going to inspire other whistleblowers who were willing to go public over incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health or public safety.
Kim: I don’t think the public has any clue about this at all. Not a clue. That he was willing. And I know Mike Pompeo had said he wanted to kill him and he wanted him dead. But let us suppose that he was able to stand up and do that and he came to the US. Do you actually believe he would live in prison? Truth.
John: Yeah, sure.
Kim: You think he would live?
John: Yeah, I do.
Kim: You don’t think they would off him in prison?
John: Who?
Kim: Snowden.
John: If Snowden came in — what, a random prisoner?
Kim: Yeah, however things go. Okay. However things go, whether it’s a prisoner or the system.
John: Be careful. Be careful that you don’t fall into the conspiracy theory trap. Be careful because that’s not what happens in real life.
Kim: Well, that’s why I’m asking you. I take this not so much as a conspiracy per se, but just watching what happened with Epstein — I don’t accept—
John: What happened with that?
Kim: Well, all I’m saying is I don’t accept the story we were told about how he died. That’s all.
John: Why not?
Kim: I go by my sense. It didn’t feel right to me.
John: No, you’ve got to have evidence. You can’t just go by your sense and then run with it.
Kim: I don’t accept their evidence.
John: What part of it don’t you accept?
Kim: The parts where they talked about his body, the condition of his body, the way the cameras went off, the way all of a sudden—
John: Oh my God. Okay, let me stop you.
Kim: Please.
John: Let me stop you because that’s a very common belief.
Kim: Wait. I’m going to just say one other thing. The report of cameras not working, the report of people that were supposed to be employed that day or that night, and I don’t remember which it was.
John: Oh my God. You’ve never been inside an American prison, have you?
Kim: Thank God.
John: Okay. Let me set your mind at ease.
Kim: Okay, good.
John: The qualifications to be a prison guard in the federal system are: you must have a GED or be working on a GED and no felony convictions. Most days when we had mail call, the prisoners handed out the mail. Prisoners aren’t supposed to hand out the mail, but do you know why the prisoners handed out the mail and the guards didn’t? Because the guards couldn’t read. So as a general rule, everybody who works in the Bureau of Prisons has his head up his ass. They’re illiterate, they’re lazy, they’re stupid and they’re corrupt, but they’re not killers. They’re just kind of the scum of society.
Kim: Right. I wasn’t—
John: Well, wait a minute, let me finish. The cameras didn’t work. Newsflash — the cameras never work in any prison because these pizza delivery guys who became prison employees, they don’t know how to make the cameras work. You remember there was a blip in the camera where it went off and it came right back on again. Another newsflash — all the cameras blip off at midnight and then begin recycling again.
Kim: Okay, go ahead. And then I have a question about—
John: The guards were supposed to walk around either every eight minutes or every 15 minutes and they didn’t walk around for 30 minutes. You know why? Because they were sleeping. In the guard booth because they’re not supposed to work double shifts and they all do because they’re so grossly understaffed.
Kim: What’s a guard booth? Is that away from a cell or something like that?
John: Sort of in the middle of the cells. It’s a glass enclosed booth where they sit — where they sit and look at porn or play solitaire or just lean back in their seats and go to sleep. Welcome to the American prison system. Everybody acts like because Epstein was high profile, this thing is running like a well-oiled machine. No. It’s chaos.
Kim: It’s an assumption. It’s an assumption that I think an average person would assume because it was so high profile and they were constantly writing, “He’s under suicide watch, blah, blah, blah.”
John: You know how many people are under suicide watch every day? Thousands. Nobody gives a damn if these guys commit suicide. There are suicides—
Kim: But this guy wasn’t your average dude.
John: Yeah, actually he was the average dude. He was treated like the average dude. There was nothing special about Jeffrey Epstein once he walked through those doors. He was treated like every other prisoner in the system.
Kim: Do you know that for sure? Or based on your experience?
John: I lived it. Yeah. But everybody’s like, “Oh, the prison guards, every eight minutes you could set your watch by the prison guards making their rounds.” No, you’ve clearly never been in a prison if that’s what you think. They don’t do their rounds. I mean, some of them, yeah, they’re going to go around every eight minutes, every 15 minutes. Others, we would see them at count time and we would never see them ever again during the shift. Never. Half the time they’re mouth wide open, sound asleep, porn still on the screen, or they’re playing solitaire or they’re on the phone with their girlfriends. They’re not supposed to be on the phone. It’s chaos in the prison system.
Kim: Which I’m sure you would love to reform. We’ll get to that. Okay. So all the people who felt and sensed and didn’t accept the official story with Epstein and many stories connected to it — it’s not just how he died in prison. What about the guy — Michael — who was the pathologist or the medical examiner? He didn’t think it was a suicide. What do you think about that?
John: That was the medical examiner hired by the family. The medical examiner from the government said that it was a suicide. And people were saying they were focused on the hyoid bone, that in a suicide it’s unusual for the hyoid bone to be broken. His hyoid bone was broken. There are easy explanations for this kind of thing. They said, “Oh, the hyoid bone is usually broken when somebody strangles you.” But at the angle at which he sort of threw himself off the bunk, it would have broken the hyoid bone. Listen, killing him to keep him silent would do nothing because everything was documented, everything was filmed. Killing him doesn’t accomplish anything when everything’s already on tape. Secondly, this guy was a two-time loser. He had already been convicted of child sex crimes in 2006. He got a sweetheart deal. He wasn’t getting any sweetheart deal in 2019 and he knew what he was in for. He was going to spend the rest of his life as a child molester in a prison. And because he was so high profile, that time he was looking at 40, 50, 60 years in solitary confinement. It was better to be dead than to be alive in a six by ten foot concrete cell. I believe very strongly that he committed suicide. The reason I believe that is that I knew people like him. I knew people serving sentences like that and they were always trying to commit suicide.
Kim: I totally agree. I totally get that. People wanting to die — even to spend a year, two years, five years, eight years, ten years — not wanting to endure it or not able to endure it. So my next question, since you’re speaking from within the complex of the whole thing and where he really was in his case: what about people that think Black Ops got in there?
John: First of all, there’s no such thing as Black Ops. That’s straight out of the movies. It’s not even a term that’s used in the intelligence community. Secondly, do you have any idea the number of moving parts that would be involved in somebody going into arguably one of the top five most difficult maximum security prisons in America? Making sure the guards were asleep, making sure the cameras didn’t work, making sure no other prisoners saw any of them. The guy’s got a cellmate. The cellmate doesn’t even notice that anything’s happening three feet away from him. They kill Epstein and then they get out scot-free. Come on.
Kim: I thought they moved the cellmate. My understanding is they moved him before this.
John: The cellmate was there. Either way, there’s no such thing as Black Ops.
Kim: There’s no such thing as Black Ops. So there’s no such thing as a mercenary team that would have worked with the government to do this?
John: That’s even more unusual — a mercenary team.
Kim: Interesting.
John: Okay. There’s no such thing.
Kim: Okay. Interesting. In 2017, John was at the Strand Bookstore in New York being interviewed by ABC News correspondent Brian Ross about his memoir Doing Time Like a Spy. It’s important to note what John said back then in contrast to what he’s saying here today on It’s Rainmaking Time. Have a listen.
[John Kiriakou at The Strand Bookstore — 2017]
The CIA, Brian, was set up to — as I say in the book — recruit spies to steal secrets, and then to analyze those secrets and to provide the best possible intelligence to the policymaker. Now it’s a paramilitary organization. We have assassination squads running around the world killing people who have not faced their accusers in a court of law.
John: There was a mercenary team that washed ashore in Venezuela about a year and a half ago and the Venezuelans were just standing there waiting for them to arrest them all. And they were in a Venezuelan prison until they were traded for Venezuelan prisoners in America. Mercenary teams are even worse than the morons we have working in the prison system. I’m serious.
Kim: No, I think it is important.
John: This is right out of the movies.
Kim: I think it is important. Well, a lot of movies are predictive programming. It’s not just like — I mean, yeah, it sounds great.
John: Listen, if you’ve got some kind of inside knowledge that I’m not aware of, call your congressman or call the FBI.
Kim: If I did, I would never call any of those people.
John: Okay. Well, there we are.
Kim: You know what I’m saying? But I think on behalf of the public — a large part of the public that is tired of lies being told to them by the government about things that are going on — it was good that we addressed it and it’s good that you addressed it.
[Vocal Insert — Kim Greenhouse]
Let’s pause here for a moment. In the nearly 600 episodes that I’ve produced and hosted, I’ve never done a commentary insert in any of them. And the reason I’m doing it now is my responsibility to the veracity of events, to this audience, and to the authenticity of the verified facts that demand it.
That which was just dismissed deserves a closer look — not because I need to be right, but because you deserve the complete record. So here is what the documented evidence actually shows. You heard me reference, but I couldn’t remember his name — the forensic examiner of Jeffrey Epstein’s body, the guy who actually did this independently, hired by the family. That was Dr. Michael Baden. Former chief medical examiner of New York City, one of the most credentialed forensic pathologists in American history with over 50 years of practice. He attended the 2019 autopsy as a representative of Epstein’s estate. He didn’t perform the autopsy himself but was present. He observed the examination and reviewed the findings in detail. And here is what he found. There were three fractures — two to the thyroid cartilage, one to the hyoid bone. Dr. Baden stated that in over 50 years of forensic pathology, he had never seen this pattern of injury in a hanging. His professional conclusion was that these were crushing injuries consistent with homicidal strangulation and not suicide by hanging.
Now here is what the government’s own examiner found. Barbara Simpson, the New York medical examiner assigned to this case, was not present at the autopsy or the physical examination of the body. Her own assessment of the findings was inconclusive. She didn’t declare it a suicide. Her boss, the chief medical examiner, overruled that inconclusive finding and declared the manner of death suicide.
Let that percolate for a moment. The government’s own examiner said inconclusive and yet was overruled by someone who was not present. Yet Dr. Baden, who was present, who observed the examination, who has over 50 years of experience, found three fractures consistent with homicidal strangulation and said he has never seen this injury pattern in a hanging in his entire career. Two distinguished forensic voices — directly opposed conclusions. The government’s own examiner had doubts that were overruled. The question is not settled.
A redacted version of the post-mortem report released months later confirmed that Epstein’s manner of death was initially marked as pending. Documents released this year under the Epstein Files Transparency Act have revealed why Dr. Kristen Roman, a New York City medical examiner who performed Epstein’s autopsy a day after he was found dead, initially hesitated to rule that his death was a suicide because she wanted to be thorough. At least that’s what she said. Dr. Baden maintains that his position is not about conspiracy but about scientific certainty, and he argued that when a death carries this level of public consequence, ambiguity should not remain.
Now, regarding the circumstances inside that prison — including the cellmate and the monitoring failures addressed in this interview — the following timeline comes directly from the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Report, which was released June 2023. These are the government’s own findings. No speculation, no conspiracy theory. Just the documented record.
On July 30th, 2019, the MCC Psychology Department sent an email to more than 70 staff members stating that Epstein needed to be housed with an appropriate cellmate. He was assigned one. On August 8th, 2019, the US Marshals Service sent emails notifying multiple MCC staff members that Epstein’s current cellmate would be transferred to another facility the following day, August 9th. No one took action to assign Epstein a replacement cellmate, even though the requirement was known. On August 9th, 2019, at approximately 8:30 in the morning, Epstein’s cellmate was transferred out of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York with all of his belongings and Epstein was left alone in his cell. Two SHU staff members later claimed they had notified supervisors about the transfer and the need for a new cellmate. Other witnesses did not confirm this and no replacement cellmate was assigned. Epstein remained alone and unmonitored for more than 20 hours.
Required 30-minute inmate checks stopped after approximately 10:40 that night. No proper cell searches were conducted. Guards later admitted to falsifying records. On August 10th, 2019, at approximately 6:30 in the morning, Epstein was found unresponsive in his locked cell. The OIG report identifies the failure to replace the cellmate on August 9th as one of the major lapses that contributed to Epstein being left alone and unmonitored.
Additionally, among the materials released as part of the DOJ investigation into Epstein’s network is surveillance footage from the night he died. Observers have noted what appears to be a missing minute in the video timeline. Officials have dismissed sinister interpretations and the missing segment continues to raise questions that have not been fully answered. The question is also: is that video even near or pointing to Epstein’s cell? That’s a whole other question.
And there’s one more thing I want to mention here. In 2012, It’s Rainmaking Time welcomed Dr. Cyril Wecht — certified anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathologist, clinical professor at the University of Pittsburgh, author of over 550 professional publications, and one of the only forensic examiners to challenge the Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Dr. Wecht had access to details about the true condition of President Kennedy’s body that the public was prevented from knowing. He stood up when very few others would. That interview is in the It’s Rainmaking Time archive. The question of whether official narratives about high-profile deaths reflect the complete forensic record is not a conspiracy theory. It is a legitimate forensic and journalistic question with a long and documented history of official accounts failing independent scrutiny.
[Sponsor Break — The Rainmaking Company]
This segment with John Kiriakou has been sponsored by The Rainmaking Company at rainmaking.ch.
[Course Promo — Question Formation: The Art & Science of Forming Great Questions]
There’s a course I’m going to be giving that has to do with question formation — the art and science of forming great questions, and getting those questions to help you solve and deliver solutions and discoveries and create whatever it is that you want. Questions are energetic constructs and they set particles into motion. This course is coming in September — available both in person and online — small group, maximum six participants. Location to be announced. Go to rainmaking.ch/question-formation to get on the waiting list. And if you’re ready to work on Rainmaking, The Art & Science of Delivery is also available now at The Rainmaking Company. This is Kim Greenhouse, back to the show.
Kim: But do you accept that there is a thing called a conspiracy — not just a conspiracy theory, but that there are real conspiracies at work?
John: Like what?
Kim: I don’t know. Do you accept that there is such a thing as a real conspiracy?
John: Of course there is.
Kim: Can you give an example of one to the public?
John: No, because I don’t frankly know what you’re talking about. In what realm? I mean, of course there are conspiracies every day of our lives in every country of the world, but what exactly are you talking about?
Kim: I just wanted to ask you — do you make the distinction between a real conspiracy and a conspiracy theory? Because remember, I think there were many people talking about how they were told that they were using conspiracy theories years before the real thing was validated. So that’s the essence of that question. Should we go to number three — that the divine intelligence gives you three choices to change the system? So you talked about the Espionage Act, Justice Department, and there was something else in there. It’s a long phrase, but you and I both had trouble remembering it.
John: What were we talking about? Affirmative defense.
Kim: Yes, affirmative defense. That’s a very important thing.
John: This is very, very important. We don’t have an affirmative defense in American jurisprudence. I’ll quote my own judge again. She said, “Mr. Kiriakou, you either did it or you didn’t do it and I believe you did it.”
John: Oh, okay. So I’m screwed is what you’re saying. I can’t possibly get a fair trial. I better take a plea.
John: So we need the ability to stand up in front of a jury especially and say, “Yes, I did it, but I did it in service of the American people — and let me explain.” And then let the jury decide if you’ve been properly charged or not. But we don’t have an affirmative defense in America.
Kim: What’s number three?
John: That would be number three. Number two was weaponization. Number three was the affirmative defense.
Kim: The weaponization — isn’t that so broad that someone could feel or sense that somebody was weaponizing something? President Trump says a lot of things were weaponized against him for years.
John: No, I’m specifically talking about the weaponization of the Justice Department. How would that translate? John Brennan doesn’t like that I went public over torture. So he writes a memo to Eric Holder and says, charge him with espionage. That’s weaponization. The Democrats don’t like Donald Trump, so they charge him with 34 counts of failing to fill out a form. That’s weaponization. Is society better off because Donald Trump was convicted of not filling out 34 different forms? Come on.
Kim: How would they get passed? How would these top three get passed, if we’re depending on—
John: They won’t get passed. That’s why we don’t have them now. That’s why we would have to rely on this divine intelligence figure to come down from heaven and give me three wishes. I’m serious. This was how you couched the question. These issues can’t be passed. They won’t be passed.
Kim: Is it because of Congress and the Senate?
John: Of course.
Kim: And they wouldn’t pass it because — why do you think they wouldn’t vote for any of these to be passed?
John: Can you imagine running for Congress and getting on the campaign trail and saying, “I want to make it more difficult to charge people with espionage.”
Kim: But that’s not what it would be about. It would just be having it be that they’re spies. What’s wrong with the simple—
John: I know that, but how are you going to explain that to the voters in your district? When you’re going to say, “We’re going to charge a lot fewer people with espionage because they’re not working for foreign countries. They’re providing information to the media. We’re going to make it tougher.” How many votes is that going to win you?
Kim: Well, it’s all how it’s sold, isn’t it? Everything is how it’s packaged and how it’s sold and transmitted to the public.
John: Another thing — the Republicans are in control of the House of Representatives. Ilhan Omar is a member of the squad. She’s a liberal Democrat and she sponsors a new law that Chip Gibbons wrote. The Republicans aren’t going to pass Ilhan Omar’s bill into law. She’s Ilhan Omar. They don’t even want her to be an American citizen. So there’s no reform of the Espionage Act. It’s just killed. It’s politics.
Kim: Maybe it’s because of who it’s coming from. What if it were coming from a different transmitter?
John: That’s what I’m saying. If it was coming from a senior Republican, then it might have a chance of being enacted into law. But coming from a left-wing Democrat, never.
Kim: But if in fact — I think it was you, tell me if I’m wrong about this — I think somebody in one of your interviews asked you, “Is there a deep state?” And you said yes, but you can call it whatever you want. But there is a more hidden hand operating things than we interact with or understand. So if that is so — and I accept that it’s so, it’s pretty obvious to me it’s so — the Congress and the Senate would be getting pressure from this hidden hand and from donors and from funders, right?
John: No, not necessarily.
Kim: No?
John: Not necessarily, no. Because the deep state by definition is an executive branch entity. It wouldn’t necessarily have any pull over the legislative branch. The House and the Senate both are home to the oversight committees — whether it’s the intelligence committees with oversight over the CIA, or the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees over the State Department, the Armed Services Committees over the Pentagon. There wouldn’t be that kind of interaction. It would be more like overseer and overseen. The deep state, like I said, does exist, but its pressure is on the president or on people in the Justice Department rather than on Capitol Hill and vice versa.
Kim: So you don’t feel or think that in our lifetime any of the three keys could get through — since those areas are mechanisms of abuse, abusive power, criminality, of a one-sided justice system?
John: I think Donald Trump is really going to try to change things. I really believe it, but I also believe he has to act quickly because the 2026 midterm elections right now at this early point in early January don’t look very good for Republicans. So if he’s going to be able to enact legislative changes to address these problems, he’s going to have to do it soon — probably by fall at the latest.
Kim: What would you do with the justice system to see a transformation, or would it require these three things in order for the justice system to be functioning?
John: We need to legislatively do away with weaponization. And I think that we need to come up with hard and fast rules that prohibit politicization. I’ll give you another example. January 6th — whether you believe it was a riot, an insurrection, a peaceful demonstration, or a group of tourists, I don’t care. Certainly crimes were committed, but no crimes were committed where people deserved 20, 25, and 30 years in prison. Our sentencing here in the United States is draconian. Our European allies can’t believe what kind of wild west, dictatorial-style sentences we give people. It’s shocking to them. And then we spend literally not one red cent on rehabilitation. Our money in the justice system is spent on punishment — not on education or on training or rehabilitation. And that’s why our recidivism rates are so high.
John: Listen, if you get arrested for selling drugs and you get five years or ten years in prison — first of all, you’re going to get one year in Europe and then a whole bunch of education and training so you don’t do it again. You get five years or ten years here and you get out after five or ten years and they haven’t taught you how to read, they haven’t taught you plumbing or small engine repair or electronics or whatever. And you go back to the same neighborhood you came from. What are you going to do for a living? You’re going to do the only thing that you know how to do — and that is to sell drugs. We have to change that.
Kim: When you were referring to Europe as only like a year — is there a certain part of Europe? Are you talking the EU or the UK or any particular area?
John: All of Western Europe, but especially the Scandinavian countries. They don’t even put most people in a prison. They’ll put you in a group home that is an apartment with a functioning kitchen and bunk beds in the bedrooms, and they teach you how to be a productive member of society. And we don’t do that here. It’s all about punishment. And if they don’t like your politics, they’ll put you in something called a CMU — a Communications Management Unit — meaning that you have no contact with the outside world.
Kim: Oh my God. Did they do that to you?
John: No. I was in a modified CMU and I easily got around it.
Kim: Let me ask you — when you left the CIA and you came out and you went to prison, then you came out of prison, were you afraid? Of the agencies going after you again or trying to make your life miserable?
John: No, never. In part because of my experience in the CIA — but also in part that I knew that I was right and they were wrong and I knew that the country would eventually come around to my point of view, which it did. Six weeks before I got out of prison, I called my wife. I was allowed to speak to her every other day for 15 minutes. So I said, “How was your day?” She said, “It was great.” I said, “Really? What made it so great?” And she said, “The Senate Torture Report came out today and it proved that everything you said was true.” And then John McCain got up on the floor of the Senate and said that the country owed me a debt of gratitude because without my revelations, the American people would never have known what the CIA was doing in their name. So it was all worth it. Totally worth it.
Kim: With DARPA and additional technologies that have enmeshed and have come into the world and are working at warp speed — from Palantir to others — are you concerned about the direction, the amassing of AI, the data centers, what it’s doing to the environment, the mass surveillance that’s now being ushered in, including, sorry to say, from the Trump administration?
John: Yeah. I’m very worried. I’m worried about Stargate. I’m worried about all of it. And I’m worried because at NSA, they don’t even make any pretext anymore to preserving the civil liberties of American citizens. It’s a part of NSA’s founding charter that it is not allowed to spy on Americans — and it spies on every American. They intercept every phone call, every text message, every email, metadata on all of us, and they just warehouse it in this gigantic facility in the Utah desert. And there are other facilities now as well. They don’t need court orders or warrants or legal permissions to collect this data. They just do it. And then they say to us, “What are you going to do about it?” And what’s even worse is now the FBI doesn’t need a warrant or a court order. They just call in and say, “Hey, what do you have on Kim Greenhouse?” Send it on over. And they do this with private companies too. In my own case, they didn’t need to go to court and get a warrant. They just went to my ISP provider with what’s called a national security letter saying, “Give us everything you have on John Kiriakou.” And Apple said, “Sure, here you go.” And gave them everything. So yeah, I’m very worried about it.
Kim: And there’s a guy named Mike on Twitter on X that has been tracking the whole surveillance communication censorship complex and how long it’s been going, how long it has been amassing. And that is also concerning — the censorship tentacles and structures that are in place with nonprofits and profits to censor communication. Does that worry you in the same way surveillance does?
John: Explain a little bit more.
Kim: I think his name is Mike Benz. He’s been tracking this whole censorship complex, the whole development. I can’t even listen to it anymore because it’s so upsetting.
John: Oh, Mike Benz. Sure. That bothers me very much. Yes. And that’s why so many of us thought that with Elon Musk taking over Twitter and renaming it X, we were going to finally have this platform for free speech — and we don’t. Meta is way worse. Try criticizing Israel on Facebook or Instagram. Forget it. You’re done. So we have to turn to places like Rumble and Discord, but then people go to the opposite extreme and promote hate crimes. So I’m not sure where we go from here, but I will say I don’t want anybody standing in the way of free speech unless that speech is advocating crimes. Free speech should not include the freedom to post child pornography, for example, or to threaten someone’s life. I would oppose that, of course, but otherwise it shouldn’t be up to Mark Zuckerberg to decide what my position on Israel should be.
Kim: He was one of the first people — right before or after Barack Obama was elected — that flew to Germany and met with Angela Merkel to talk about hate speech and to create a domain of hate speech. It was Zuckerberg, Mark Zuckerberg. I remember. You can see it online, actually.
Kim: And I’ve done so many shows with Dr. Edwin Vieira, who’s a constitutional master really. He’s been practicing for over 50 years, highly published and so articulate.
[Audio Clip — Dr. Edwin Vieira, from the It’s Rainmaking Time special: Calling in The U.S. Constitution]
“They’ve created this dichotomy. There’s you, the civilian over here, and then there’s this governmental establishment. And if you say anything against the governmental establishment, you are some kind of seditious individual, insurrectionary, or whatever it is, anti-government person — when they don’t seem to realize that the real government of this country is not them, it’s you. And they have besotted you with propaganda to prevent you from understanding this.”
Kim: The minute you start that domain, you can start throwing in all these things as hate speech. So I come from a Jewish family, but if God forbid I said I’m not a Zionist, that now alone could be considered hate speech.
John: You’re an anti-Semite. Yes.
Kim: I’m an anti-Semite, right? I come from a Jewish family.
John: Self-hating Jew.
Kim: Self-hating Jew — the whole caboodle. But what I’m saying is that it’s scary that we live at a time where you can’t even say, no, I’m not for this other thing that’s going on. I just come from a Jewish family or I come from a Catholic family — that’s also weaponization of speech. Do you see what I’m saying?
John: Absolutely. Under the category of hate speech.
Kim: So to me, it’s a mechanism of entrapment — to entrap speech. And to me, it violates the First Amendment in a major, major way. So between the ushering in of AI and DARPA-like systems and the censorship complex coming in — all dependent on who’s in power — that’s scary. That’s scary to me.
John: Yeah, that’s scary to me as well.
Kim: Do you feel that you and I are going to live at a time where we’re not even allowed to have conversations like this or be considered enemies of the state? Remember that movie, Enemy of the State?
John: I think we’re headed in that direction without any doubt. There have been calls in Israel recently for the US government to restrict our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. I think that is so unbelievably dangerous. It is improper meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country and I’ll go to my death to protect my freedom of speech.
Kim: I think I will too. I think the fight’s already on. It’s already on. But the thing is that because of partisanship, even though we’re watching the force come in to try to take away our rights to communicate — can you imagine, to communicate — it seems to be not really being dealt with in this administration. It’s not really being dealt with, the free speech. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t it?
John: Any administration. They’re all either unwilling or unable to address this issue. And look at the lobbies. Look at the defense contractor community. It’s a multi-trillion dollar industry. I say all the time, it’s not an accident that before 9/11, the highest concentration of millionaires per capita was in Silicon Valley in Northern California. And after 9/11, it was in Washington DC. Everybody got rich because of 9/11 and they want to make sure that cash cow keeps giving, that goose keeps laying its golden egg. And so they don’t want any changes to the status quo — and the status quo is to protect their interests, not to protect the interests of the American people.
Kim: How do you live today with everything you’ve gone through, knowing what you know, and have joy and peace? By the way, I will tell you — you are one of the greatest storytellers I’ve ever seen of the modern day.
John: Oh, geez, thank you.
Kim: I have had more fun listening to your stories, which are always engaging. You’re on a tightrope, but do you have joy and do you have peace today — seeing what’s going on, having been through what you’ve gone through, knowing what you know, truth in your spirit and in your heart?
John: Mixed. Not really. I will say that I’m a very proud Greek American and I go to Greece at least once a year. I try to get there twice a year and I can actually feel my heart rate slowing when I walk out at the airport. That’s the joy that I get.
Kim: If you could — I know you have children here — if you could pick anywhere, give me your top three places you would want to move to if you could move out comfortably with no friction out of the United States. Would you move out?
John: No. I still think that the United States is the greatest country in the world. I think that it’s troubled and because it’s troubled, we all have to fight to make it right. So I would not leave, even if I had the opportunity. I have five kids, they all live here in the United States. No, I would not leave. This is my country and I’m proud to say that I served my country and I want to continue to serve it in any way that I can. But I wouldn’t leave. There are places that I really genuinely love with Greece being at the very top of the list. But you look at places like the UK — the UK is in far worse shape than we are.
Kim: Oh my God. They’re arresting young people for tweets.
John: It’s like a fascist dictatorship over there. Yeah, you get arrested for a tweet.
Kim: And older women, older people just putting up a flag. I mean, it’s bad.
John: If you complain about Israel’s human rights violations in the Palestinian areas, whether it’s Gaza or the West Bank, you can get a felony charge for material support for terrorism in the UK.
Kim: Wow.
John: Yeah. Just ask Richard Medhurst. They just dropped the terrorism charges against him and all he did was write an op-ed saying, “Hey, the Israelis shouldn’t be violating all these Palestinian human rights.” Terrorism. So I mean, England’s great. I love it there. I love London. I love the countryside. I have many friends and my host family from college is there, but they’re far worse off than we are.
Kim: And look at what’s happening in the EU. It’s not much better, but the UK is pretty severe.
John: It depends on the country. There’s real disagreement within the EU on these issues. For example, the greatest press freedom scores come out of places like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland. And the worst — the lowest rated country in the entire EU for press freedom — is Greece. So every country has problems.
Kim: Are you ready for a change in the financial system — everything going to the blockchain? Are you concerned about it?
John: I am concerned about it, yes. I am concerned because I think all it does is give government yet another tool with which to surveil us and to control what we do and say and where we go. I’m strongly opposed to digital currency. Strongly opposed.
Kim: And then I have three last questions because I know that we started a little bit late. Do you accept that there’s something called telepathy?
John: Yes and no, I guess. Yes — there are certainly people who seem to exhibit some sort of ability that other people don’t have. No in the respect that I don’t believe that it can be codified or weaponized. The CIA worked on that for decades with MK Ultra.
Kim: I didn’t even mean that. Okay. I just mean — do you accept that there’s telepathy between people, between people and animals, between animals and animals. Do you accept that?
John: Between animals and animals, without any doubt, 100%, yes. Scientists told us — I got such a kick out of this that it’s stuck in my mind all these years — that they finally learned that the reason why geese fly in a V and are constantly honking is because they’re talking about who gets to lead the V next.
Kim: Oh, I love that. Seriously. That’s great.
John: And they switch places — but that’s why they’re honking, because they’re communicating about who gets to be first in the V.
Kim: Because I talk to animals. I was just wondering what you think about the telepathy part. I interviewed a guy who said that dogs know when their owners are coming home and did a 30-year study at Stanford Research Institute. I forgot his name. He’s from England. And I interviewed a lot of people in the PSI program and remote viewing and controlled remote viewing, et cetera. So I just wondered where you were at about at least the telepathy part.
John: Yeah. The CIA could never get the remote viewing thing to work. They tried for decades. They tried for 23 years and they just gave up on it.
Kim: I interviewed the top people at Army Intelligence, which was the original Project Stargate, by the way.
John: Yeah. So why don’t they do something then? What are they waiting for?
Kim: They are. They’ve been saying that since 1952. It’s time to get on the stick.
John: Well, I don’t know. Lynn Buchanan had to sign non-disclosures with NSA and the CIA and others — Burt Stubblebine, General Burt Stubblebine and others. So they have been working for many years. I just don’t think they can be public about their findings in a way that you had to be very careful about what was communicated.
John: These are all people that we’ve all seen on podcasts. So it’s time to put up or shut up. Either you’re going to come out with the information or shut up — because all they do is cloud the space with their half talks and half truths and innuendo. Either there’s remote viewing or there’s not remote viewing.
Kim: There is remote viewing.
John: Well, then why don’t they come out and show us?
Kim: They have. I’ve taken a course.
John: No, they haven’t. They’ve talked about it.
Kim: Yeah. I don’t know who specifically you’re referring to, but—
John: Any of these people who claim to be able to initiate remote viewing — they say that they do. I want to see the demonstration.
Kim: Okay. I’m going to hook you up. I want to see it. Put it on YouTube. Not behind closed doors.
John: I want to see it. Put it on YouTube. Not behind closed doors.
Kim: Actually there’s a group out of Hawaii that you join by membership and they do it right there. They record all their sessions and they write the diagrams and they do the writing and they say what they see.
John: Yeah. Well, that to me is like Crossing Over — that guy, John, what’s his name, who was debunked.
Kim: Who?
John: The guy that had the show called Crossing Over where he would read people’s minds.
Kim: Oh, you’re talking about a psychic. I’m not just talking about a psychic. I’m talking about—
John: To me it’s all the same thing. The CIA did this from 1952 to 1975. They failed. We have all these people coming out of the woodwork saying, “Oh, CIA, DARPA, NSA.” NSA doesn’t do remote viewing. NSA intercepts electronic signals.
Kim: Right, right. Well, the people I’m talking about — I hear what you’re saying. It’s like a big conglomeration of maybe misinformation is what you’re saying in a way.
John: Oh, I think just about all of it is misinformation. Anybody who says, “We’ve done it, we’ve accomplished it, highly classified — take my word for it,” I tell them, get lost.
Kim: You know what? I would say that you’re probably right about 70% of what you’re referring to, but they’re distinct. Being psychic — I’m psychic, you’re psychic, how much, who knows? I was a former tournament tennis player. I’m sure I could put you on the court and you could play, but I don’t know how good you’d be. There are people that train in something and they’re very good. I met the people that trained and are very good.
John: Well, then why don’t they do something for the country?
Kim: They have. They have.
John: Show us.
Kim: Well, you want to know, right? I’m happy to put you in touch with these people.
John: No, I mean show us. Put it on YouTube. Put it on TV so we can see.
Kim: Do you understand that they’re not supposed to know? There’s a process. Do you know about remote viewing — what the process is?
John: No, what I’m saying is remote viewing is bullshit.
[Vocal Insert — Kim Greenhouse]
Project Stargate was a legitimate United States government intelligence program that ran from the early 1970s through 1995, funded and operational for over two decades. It was originally an Army intelligence program — not solely a CIA program — and that distinction matters. It did not run from 1952 to 1975 as John stated. The record shows otherwise.
Lynn Buchanan and Paul H. Smith are Fort Meade-trained Army Intelligence veterans who worked with the actual operational program under strict scientific protocols. General Albert Stubblebine was a direct overseer of the program. These are not television psychics. They are primary sources with documented operational and military records who signed non-disclosure agreements with the NSA and the CIA. This is not the behavior of charlatans.
Russell Targ was one of the original scientists at Stanford Research Institute who developed and tested the remote viewing protocols for the government. Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher brought rigorous scientific credentials to the independent investigation of remote viewing.
It’s Rainmaking Time has conducted original interviews with Lynn Buchanan, Paul Smith, Russell Targ, Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, and others who were directly involved in this work. Those interviews are in the archive. We invite you to listen, watch, examine the record for yourself, and form your own conclusions. You can also learn remote viewing from Lynn Buchanan’s group, Paul Smith’s group, and others. The question of what human consciousness is capable of is not settled by dismissal. It never has been. We present this for your consideration — and back to the interview.
John: It failed repeatedly over decades and now we get these people who are like, “It works. Take my word for it. You’ve got to join my club if you want to see.”
Kim: I think that—
John: I’ve seen enough charlatans over the years, especially since I’ve left the CIA, that I just don’t buy it unless I can see it with my own eyes. I’m not buying it.
Kim: But here’s my question to you — and that’s fine, I got what you said. If in fact you could see it working, would you be open and willing to see it?
John: Sure.
Kim: And I’m not talking about a psychic standing up. I’m talking about the actual remote viewing work. Which is different.
John: Yeah. Definitely.
Kim: That’s good to know. I would say one fallout — and we all have them in our lives from different things we’ve been through — of your life experience and professional experience is coming out very skeptical.
John: Oh yeah, because everybody’s either a crazy person or a liar. A colleague of mine set up a Zoom call for me recently from some guy, some nut, who claimed to be able to do all these different things. This guy was in prison for 20 years and he told me that he was writing for the President’s Daily Brief from his prison cell. I said, “No, you weren’t.” “Yes, I was.” “No. You weren’t. First of all, you don’t have access to classified information. The President’s Daily Brief is 16 tight pages of the most highly classified information in government. You didn’t have access to it in your prison cell.” He’s a convicted pedophile, no less. And I ended up just hanging up on the call because the guy was clearly just a nut. And I get that all the time. You should see my inbox right now — 25% of the hundred or so emails I have in my inbox right now are from lunatics and I quickly tire of it.
Kim: Have you ever heard of those Native American circles, their healing circles, and you go into this sweat lodge? Have you ever been in a sweat lodge?
John: The prison had a sweat lodge for the Native Americans and they ended up having to take it down because instead of going in there for religious services, they were going in there to have sex and so it just didn’t work out.
Kim: Okay. But beyond the prison experience, have you ever been to a sweat lodge?
John: No.
Kim: Okay. I think a sweat lodge is in order for you.
John: No. It’s not going to make me believe any of the lunatics.
Kim: No, I don’t mean believe. I’m not talking believe. It sounds like we are the sum total of our experiences hopefully with wisdom and we’ve transcended a lot of things. I get it. I can’t imagine even being you walking into the day.
[Vocal Insert — Kim Greenhouse]
Due to the fact that I named my company The Rainmaking Company and my podcast It’s Rainmaking Time out of the profound inspiration from the Native peoples and their tribal traditions, I must comment about the reference our guest just made. The Sweat Lodge is one of the most sacred ceremonial practices in Native American spiritual tradition. It’s been used for at least a thousand years by archaeological record and by oral tradition far longer, across many nations, for healing, prayer, purification, and community. I have personally experienced the sweat lodge in many different areas around the country and in my experience it’s profound. We honor what was just dismissed and we move on and back to the interview.
Kim: Do you enjoy the film that you’re trying to make now? Did you make that film? I know you’re raising money for a film, right? Is it a documentary film?
John: No.
Kim: Wasn’t there something — there was like a website that you were putting together pieces of a film?
John: It was preempted. I recently sold the rights to my first book to a major studio.
Kim: Congratulations. Thank you. And so we’ll see how it plays out. Does that mean they’re going to make it and then bring you in?
John: That means they bought the rights to make it.
Kim: Did it worry you to sell it? Are they going to tell the truth or are they going to cloud it with a bunch of things?
John: Well, it’s based on the book.
Kim: Very good. It’s a pleasure to meet you. It’s been a long wait. There are many things to discuss. John, it’s Rainmaking Time. It’s time for healing, togetherness, unity — to fix things while we still can. I appreciate you being here.
John: Sounds like a plan. My pleasure. Thank you so much.
Kim: Thanks for being here. How do people get ahold of you, John?
John: Oh, the easiest way is — well, I’m on all the platforms on Facebook, Instagram, X, Rumble — and johnkiriaku.com. I can also be reached through ivycyber.com. The emails there dump straight to me. So it’s easy.
Kim: Are you still teaching in Spain? I know you were teaching and are you doing consulting? Security consulting?
John: I do security consulting. I’m teaching at the University of Salamanca and the graduate school. The graduate school has a program in intelligence studies, so I teach Introduction to Intelligence and the History of Terrorism. And I also teach a course on Intelligence and Cybersecurity at Bay Path University in Massachusetts.
Kim: So you’re busy full-time. Your children must be proud of you. Three podcasts. It’s a pleasure to meet you. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, John.
John: Thanks for having me.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Great interview and very interesting guest! I love the way Kim interviews and I enjoyed his unfiltered responses.
I was amused at John’s closed-mindedness and ignorance about the remote viewing (near the end of the interview). I understand that he has had other things on his mind, but that being the case, he should have just said that he hasn’t kept up with the news and material that exists about that topic. I don’t know whether there actually was some kind of psychic project he’d heard about for the dates he gave, but they were completely wrong for the dates of the remote viewing effort and had nothing whatever to do with it. It was obvious that he didn’t know what Kim was referring to, but still had very strong opinions, nonetheless. There were a couple of other things in the interview about which he was completely mistaken or just plain wrong. It was a great interview and I always like to watch both Kim’s podcasts and John’s interviews, but this one showed that what he gives in interviews is often more his opinions than accurate facts. Great interview, though. Kudos to Kim.
I was in awe of how Kim keeps her cool during this interview. Her focus, attention to detail and ability to shed light on truth in a peaceful way is a refreshing attribute to witness in today’s world. Bravo Kim!