Speaker 1: So it used to be Moscow would align or look
Speaker 1: for willing or perhaps unwitting agents of influence and agents
Speaker 1: on the political left, anti imperialists, anti American socialist types.
Speaker 1: Now they're sinking their teeth into conservatives, people who believe
Speaker 1: in blood and soil nationalism. So in a way, when
Speaker 1: MAGA came into being, it was cream cheese for the Russians.
Speaker 2: I'm John Cipher and I'm Jerry o'she. I served in
Speaker 2: the CIA's Clandestine Service for twenty eight years, living undercover
Speaker 2: all around the world.
Speaker 3: And in my thirty three years with the CIA, I
Speaker 3: served in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
Speaker 2: Although we don't usually look at it this way, we
Speaker 2: created conspiracies in our operations.
Speaker 3: We got people to believe things that weren't true.
Speaker 2: Now we're investigating the conspiracy theories we see in the
Speaker 2: news almost every day.
Speaker 3: We'll break them down for you to determine whether they
Speaker 3: could be real or whether we're being manipulated.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Mission implausible. So last week we spoke to
Speaker 2: journalists and author an expert on Russian intelligence, Michael Weiss,
Speaker 2: about Russian conspiracies throughout history and how they've used their
Speaker 2: intelligence services to weaponize against the West and others. And
Speaker 2: this week we're going to talk with him about some
Speaker 2: things that have just happened recently where Russian intelligence was
Speaker 2: spreading money to right wing extremists social media people to
Speaker 2: spread conspiracy theory. So it was a conspiracy to spread
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories into our political system. And there were a
Speaker 2: number of these sort of right wing social media folks,
Speaker 2: some with large followers on YouTube and Twitter and other places,
Speaker 2: that were essentially getting paid quite a bit of money
Speaker 2: by Russian intelligence.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they claim not to know, but it was hundreds
Speaker 4: of thousands a month for some of them for YouTube
Speaker 4: videos that got very few views.
Speaker 2: Well, Adam Adam Waite, some of them got quite a
Speaker 2: lot of views. And in fact, they interviewed Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: So I mean, these guys, you know, like a couple
Speaker 2: of them are like had eighth grade educations, and they
Speaker 2: were spreading things about civil war and election deny and
Speaker 2: all this kind of stuff. But actually Donald Trump went
Speaker 2: on the show with one of these guys and did
Speaker 2: an interview. And these guys, their whole shtick is that
Speaker 2: their shadowy figure is controlling strings behind the scenes. But
Speaker 2: then when these guys it probably had never made more
Speaker 2: than thirty thousand dollars a year. Someone came to and
Speaker 2: provided them four hundred thousand dollars a week to spreads
Speaker 2: things a shy.
Speaker 4: Figure, shattery figure show.
Speaker 2: So if they didn't know if they were Russian, and
Speaker 2: they certainly knew something was.
Speaker 4: Up, although that in a way is a proof of
Speaker 4: the success, right, Like, part of Russia's goal is this corrosive,
Speaker 4: removing trust and confidence in the media and elected officials
Speaker 4: and in any voice of authority. So if you have
Speaker 4: people so cynical that they would take the money, maybe
Speaker 4: they're thinking, well, that's what MSNBC does. MSNBC does not
Speaker 4: do that, but in their mind that's what they're thinking,
Speaker 4: we might as well get ours, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're both useful and idiots, right.
Speaker 4: To quote a phrase, Yeah yeah yeah.
Speaker 2: And one of these same guys, days after it came
Speaker 2: out and there's an indictment and it became clear that
Speaker 2: he was taking Russian money, is still promoting stuff.
Speaker 4: Now when you have that much money, My mind does
Speaker 4: go to was this a sophisticated op run by really
Speaker 4: smart people in Moscow? Or was this a bunch of
Speaker 4: bottom feeders who knew how to get money from Russia.
Speaker 4: I'm talking about the middle people who paid the people off.
Speaker 4: They were like, oh, we're going to come up with
Speaker 4: this kind of BS scam. So it was a two
Speaker 4: way scam. They were scamming Russia and scamming the US
Speaker 4: just to get some commission or some bit of the payment.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Well, what's upsetting to me is
Speaker 2: how easy it is. So for Russia, it's really not
Speaker 2: very much money. It creates an incredible amount of problems
Speaker 2: in our political system. And it's not hard to find
Speaker 2: these people. They're out there. If you just look through
Speaker 2: social media, people are willing to say the most awful things.
Speaker 2: And if you want to just keep them saying them,
Speaker 2: or pump a few bits of information into them, because
Speaker 2: they'll say anything, it's not a hard operation to run. It.
Speaker 3: As an intelligence officer, the easiest operations to run of
Speaker 3: the most simple. You find a couple of schlubs who
Speaker 3: will do your bidding, and that is actually the easiest
Speaker 3: with sophisticated.
Speaker 4: Cutout literally how I put this podcast together.
Speaker 3: But it's funny because the CIA and I've got to
Speaker 3: be very careful about false eclipmans. Here the CIA famously
Speaker 3: in the nineteen fifties was involved in almost the same thing,
Speaker 3: except with radio for Europe. It was getting people to
Speaker 3: tell the truth, and they were scrupulous in making sure
Speaker 3: that the stories were actually true and going in behind
Speaker 3: then the iron curtain, and people believed it because it
Speaker 3: was true. This is like vastly different.
Speaker 2: What's happened is a lot of the things that we
Speaker 2: saw in twenty sixteen that Russians have been doing for
Speaker 2: years and years were really tested, and it pushed in
Speaker 2: Ukraine before twenty fourteen and after, and then a lot
Speaker 2: of the stuff that we've seen subsequently was pushed in Europe.
Speaker 2: So in Europe they've spent a rush day made the
Speaker 2: Russian intelligence spent a lot of money on European media.
Speaker 2: But also they've paid off politicians, they've bought lawyers, they've
Speaker 2: provided money to right wing and left wing extremist groups.
Speaker 2: Is there more Are there politicians that are getting money
Speaker 2: and or somehow getting this information, because there's a number
Speaker 2: of politicians that are saying exactly the same things that
Speaker 2: these social media influence are. Is there a direct connection
Speaker 2: there or are they just hearing it in other places
Speaker 2: and spreading it By.
Speaker 4: The way in twenty twelve. These two guys, once Russian American,
Speaker 4: the others just American. But they came back from being
Speaker 4: journalists quote unquote journalists in Russia. They were hanging around
Speaker 4: with Matt Taibi. They had this newspaper with him, and
Speaker 4: they came to the US and started this thing called
Speaker 4: the Shame Project where they were revealing how elite American
Speaker 4: journalists were just tools of oligarchic capitalism. And they picked
Speaker 4: five journals and I was one of them. So that's
Speaker 4: why this stands out. Congratulations, thank you, And it did
Speaker 4: cause a fair bit of stress for me for a
Speaker 4: few days where they wrote out, I mean it was
Speaker 4: total nonsense, totally untrue about how I had sold rights
Speaker 4: to like I'd sold my soul and planet money to
Speaker 4: this bank, and they put together this dossier on me
Speaker 4: that was like I once spoke at a micro finance
Speaker 4: conference that happened to be at JP Morgan. So they
Speaker 4: had a website Adam Davidson at JP Morgan. They said
Speaker 4: that was the day where JP Morgan bribed Adam to
Speaker 4: It was utterly ridiculous. To my frustration, NPR, my employer
Speaker 4: at the time, told me, I couldn't respond and say
Speaker 4: it was munch of nonsense, and it just sat there.
Speaker 4: It was a little alarming, but it didn't get a
Speaker 4: lot of buzz. But then RT Russia Today had a
Speaker 4: huge segment on it, and that inspired somebody actually at
Speaker 4: Jared Kushner's paper at the time, the New york Er
Speaker 4: over to write a piece that sort of repeated these
Speaker 4: slanders and that somehow gave it intimacy.
Speaker 2: It makes its way into the media food chain. Just
Speaker 2: to give you a little heads up. So I was
Speaker 2: in Moscow living in Moscow when Mark Ames and Matt
Speaker 2: Taibi had their newspaper there called The Exile, which was
Speaker 2: actually a very disgusting newspaper. They would rate clubs based
Speaker 2: on the like the number one to four erect penises,
Speaker 2: about what your chances of essentially screwing girls at the club.
Speaker 4: It was disgusting. The fact that Matt Taybe got as
Speaker 4: much respect as he got. It was pretty open. I mean,
Speaker 4: he talked about raping people like he was pretty discussion.
Speaker 2: Believe me. Even though it was the nineties and it
Speaker 2: was a crazy time, the Russian security services were still
Speaker 2: very active, so they're very well aware of what these
Speaker 2: guys are doing.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I have any evidence to suggest that
Speaker 2: they are working for Russian intelligence whatever, but it's the
Speaker 2: exact kind of thing that Russians would try to take
Speaker 2: advantage of if they could.
Speaker 4: I would say, I have no firm evidence. They may
Speaker 4: have been just for free doing the thing that Russia
Speaker 4: wanted them to do, and that was later revealed in
Speaker 4: other contexts to be the exact playbook of Russia.
Speaker 3: And this isn't something new. I mean, going back in
Speaker 3: American history, Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, a number of leading
Speaker 3: movie stars were very pro Nazi right up until Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 3: In fact, the number of people who were involved in
Speaker 3: this is actually quite shocking. Errol Flynn, the Great actor,
Speaker 3: was a great admirer of Adolf Hitler. And it wasn't
Speaker 3: until December seventh, nineteen forty one that everybody suddenly changed
Speaker 3: their two.
Speaker 2: Not everybody. There's still a lot of people supporting that's
Speaker 2: after you as you listened to Rachel Maddow's podcast.
Speaker 3: Well, they weren't openly, Yeah, they weren't openly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm really pleased that we're going to have two
Speaker 3: episodes with Michael Wise. He's really one of the leading
Speaker 3: lights when it comes to disinformation, authoritarianism, and especially for
Speaker 3: as he's an expert on ISIS. I found it very interesting,
Speaker 3: having served twice in a rock against hearing his views
Speaker 3: on it. And it's funny as a professional intelligence officer
Speaker 3: that for a while was my thing. I was focusing
Speaker 3: on ISIS night and day, and I hear journalists come in, Adam,
Speaker 3: I will unfortunately pay you a real compliment. Serious journalists
Speaker 3: like you and Michael Wise. They come in and you
Speaker 3: guys have got a really good grip, and we would
Speaker 3: listen very closely what you had to say, because you
Speaker 3: had to take on things that those of us on
Speaker 3: the inside didn't always get.
Speaker 4: But just to be clear, you're saying, I'm also really good.
Speaker 4: I just want to I will say something that Michael
Speaker 4: Wise represents. This may be a time of enormous misinformation,
Speaker 4: but it's also I think it's got to be the
Speaker 4: time of the most good information about misinformation that we're
Speaker 4: actually aware of it.
Speaker 2: But what bad actors know is essentially they know we're
Speaker 2: so big they can't take us on directly. They need
Speaker 2: to find weak spots, and a week spot for an
Speaker 2: Intelligence Service is our First Amendment. They know that they
Speaker 2: can spread any information into our system, and frankly, there's
Speaker 2: not much we can do about it. We can't stop it,
Speaker 2: we can't turn it off. We can't tell people not
Speaker 2: to say things, even if they're getting it from foreign
Speaker 2: places for malign purposes. And this is like a terrorist
Speaker 2: looking for a soft spot to attack, rather than attack
Speaker 2: an army head on or something. They're looking for weaknesses
Speaker 2: and taking advantage of it. And in this case, this
Speaker 2: information flows very well into a system with the First Amendment. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm a bit old. I'm going to need to go
Speaker 2: to the bathroom, so let's take a quick break and
Speaker 2: we'll be back shortly. All right, welcome back.
Speaker 3: There's a Rolling Stone article that's just come out, and
Speaker 3: this is on the First Amendment. And Johnny, I want
Speaker 3: to trow you as well that Trump apparently is telling
Speaker 3: and this is just accord of the article and what
Speaker 3: I've read, but he is saying that he wants to
Speaker 3: arrest Stephen Colbert for expressing his First Amendment rights. And
Speaker 3: what he's saying in the intimidation part this is that
Speaker 3: Colbert's jokes and his comments are a contribution not in money,
Speaker 3: but in kind to Trump's enemies, to Trump's about his enemies,
Speaker 3: but to his political rivals and his opponents. And he
Speaker 3: intends to, if elected, go after Colbert for making jokes
Speaker 3: about him.
Speaker 2: So maybe if Harris wins, she can go after Tucker
Speaker 2: Carlson for his contributions to That is.
Speaker 3: A really good point. Yeah, I mean, you know Goose
Speaker 3: and Ganner kind of thing. But Adam, do you sense
Speaker 3: this is just something he's just like brooding about or
Speaker 3: is this something that we actually have to be we
Speaker 3: and Michael Weiss, this is the authoritarian handbook, one on one,
Speaker 3: even if he doesn't follow through with convictions, even just
Speaker 3: investigating or telling the Justice Department to go after as intimidation.
Speaker 4: I had an interesting talk with I was at a
Speaker 4: dinner where it was a bunch of lawyers and smart
Speaker 4: people on the law, and they were talking about how
Speaker 4: what this Supreme Court has already done with the presentsidential
Speaker 4: immunity and other bills this year, the Chevron defense, et cetera.
Speaker 4: The immunity thing wasn't even a wild fringe idea that
Speaker 4: really came out of nowhere and was really shocked a
Speaker 4: lot of people but the Chevron defense was a fringe
Speaker 4: idea that has been slowly populating, So it's probably not
Speaker 4: a good idea to assume this is all, Oh, that's
Speaker 4: crazy talk. Like the crazy talk to the law of
Speaker 4: the land pipeline seems pretty robust right now, and like
Speaker 4: the whole goal of the unitary executive. Even non crazy
Speaker 4: Conservatives have been promoting this idea for two hundred and
Speaker 4: fifty years.
Speaker 3: Before the Supreme Court they said, well, in theory, could
Speaker 3: a president order Seal Team six to murder political rival?
Speaker 3: And yet no one seems to be worried, nor should
Speaker 3: they be, that Biden is going to order Trump assassinated by.
Speaker 4: Although he can fully legally he could, right yeah, and
Speaker 4: because he won't, in fifty wants to overturn it.
Speaker 3: And I'm really concerned about this for both conspiracy theories driving.
Speaker 2: This is my opportunity to turn you to an op
Speaker 2: ed piece that I wrote in the Washington Post recently
Speaker 2: with Jim Petrilla, a former CIA lawyer, about the immunity discussion,
Speaker 2: and it's all this talk about the Seal Team six,
Speaker 2: and when you talk about the military, there's this whole
Speaker 2: history of not following illegal orders and that type of thing.
Speaker 2: I think more likely these immunity decision will have an
Speaker 2: impact on places like the CIA, where there are authorities
Speaker 2: that can be used to such a get rid of
Speaker 2: the reforms that have happened for the last forty fifty
Speaker 2: years and allow the CIA to do some of these
Speaker 2: kind of activities.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, these aren't conspiracy theories anymore. These are like something
Speaker 3: that people in these audits should be really concerned about.
Speaker 2: So today we have Michael Weiss. He's a journalist and
Speaker 2: author and expert on Syria, terrorism and Russian intelligence. He's
Speaker 2: been publishing inside reporting on the war in Ukraine and
Speaker 2: Russian malign activities around the world. So, Michael, this seems
Speaker 2: to be the perfect story for Mission plug. So Russia
Speaker 2: engaged in an actual conspiracy to pay conspiracy theorists to
Speaker 2: spread disinformation and conspiracy theories and paid them very well.
Speaker 1: Made I think a couple of million dollars. They all
Speaker 1: got hundreds of thousands of dollars to make videos. There
Speaker 1: you go, I mean, not produce anything elaborate and sophisticated,
Speaker 1: just them ranting on camera about things that it seemed
Speaker 1: that they already sort of believed. But if you read
Speaker 1: the indictment. They were prompted by their handler, who it
Speaker 1: turns out, was a fake persona invented by a Russian
Speaker 1: intelligence officer, and basically he just his cutout was this
Speaker 1: non existent finance bro who, in the mold of Elon
Speaker 1: Musk and David Sachs and that lot, seemed to think
Speaker 1: that wokeness was destroying Western civilization and the only cure
Speaker 1: for it is a bunch of weird maga people with podcasts.
Speaker 1: And the strange thing is that the FBI and DJ
Speaker 1: make it seem as if these guys were unwitting agents.
Speaker 1: If somebody came to me and said, hey, we love
Speaker 1: your podcast. I'm gonna give one hundred thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: that episode, I'd be a little bit suspicious. I think
Speaker 1: highly of myself, but not that highly of myself. You know,
Speaker 1: it's well above market rates, So yeah, I mean, is
Speaker 1: it that they were too stupid to have any even
Speaker 1: the base level interest in who's coming up to them
Speaker 1: and offering these bags of cash or did they just
Speaker 1: not care and think, okay, if it's the Russians, so what,
Speaker 1: I'm already drinking from those waters as it were.
Speaker 3: The media is pretty clear that they received a CV
Speaker 3: on whoever this guy was, this fake persona, But if
Speaker 3: you gave it more than ten minutes of googling, he
Speaker 3: simply doesn't exist. This guy.
Speaker 2: He's even spelled his name rong.
Speaker 1: Two ends.
Speaker 3: So it's either they didn't know or more likely they
Speaker 3: just simply didn't want to know.
Speaker 1: But you know, the amazing thing is the level of
Speaker 1: insight that the FBI had into the Russian case officer
Speaker 1: and what he was doing. And one of the things
Speaker 1: I've been tracking and I think is very thematic, is
Speaker 1: the kind of cultural degradation of the Russian intelligence services
Speaker 1: over time. You know, Dossaevsky said you can judge a
Speaker 1: society based on its prison population. You can also base
Speaker 1: the society based on its cadre of intelligence officers and agents.
Speaker 1: This guy, for instance, pretended he was in Paris but
Speaker 1: was logging into Zoom or whatever it was Microsoft teams
Speaker 1: on Moscow time, and they've literally got him googling the
Speaker 1: time in Paris from his computer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he missed a meeting one time because he missed
Speaker 2: the thought.
Speaker 1: Right, right, And I mean he is spelling your name
Speaker 1: with two ends, a name like Gregorian, which you could
Speaker 1: easily google how that name is. It's just bizarre kind
Speaker 1: of tradecraft.
Speaker 3: Because Trump himself has commented on this and basically said,
Speaker 3: I don't believe any of it, and I think in
Speaker 3: the right wing blogosphere and their right wing ecosystem, this
Speaker 3: story doesn't exist right.
Speaker 1: Well, all the influencers essentially capped to it and said,
Speaker 1: we were duped. We are the victims here, right, So
Speaker 1: they're legitimating the indictment and the credibility of it. The
Speaker 1: other interesting thing I've noticed with this, and this has
Speaker 1: also been a theme, certainly for the last decade or so.
Speaker 1: Usually when the Russians get their hand caught in the
Speaker 1: cookie jar, their intelligence operations are exposed, their reflexive response
Speaker 1: is to deny it's a lie, it's Rusophobia, or the
Speaker 1: CIA and the FBI are whipping up anti Soviet sentiment.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just go back to any major spy
Speaker 1: scandal in the twentieth century during Cold War I mean
Speaker 1: Gusenko in Canada, the extent to which the Soviet press
Speaker 1: has said that this was all just a fabrication designed
Speaker 1: to disrupt the World War two alliance. And oh, okay,
Speaker 1: maybe some people in the Communist Party were stealing nuclear information,
Speaker 1: but it was all stuff we had already, and this
Speaker 1: is all penny antebs this time. The Russians are kind
Speaker 1: of Artie's response, I think they were quoted by Fox
Speaker 1: News was ha ha. They're laughing off. Russian propagandists are saying, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: they paid a bunch of right wing podcasters. What about NAPO,
Speaker 1: which is a collective of, as they call themselves, brain
Speaker 1: dead cartoon dogs who espouse the Ukrainian cause and basically
Speaker 1: troll the Russians the way the Russians used to troll
Speaker 1: everyone else. And yet the Russian conceit, and the conceit
Speaker 1: of the fellow travelers of the Russian government is that
Speaker 1: NAFO is a CIA enterprise. But these are all bots
Speaker 1: paid for by clever accountants at Langley or whatever. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I know the people who found in NAPO. They're very real.
Speaker 1: One is a former army tank commander in Afghanistan who's
Speaker 1: done interviews about it. But I think that's part of
Speaker 1: the new kind of the way that the Russian government
Speaker 1: plays these games. You know that the idea of we're
Speaker 1: inhabiting a post truth, postmodern world where it's no longer.
Speaker 1: You don't have to deny something. You cop to your
Speaker 1: own malevolence, but you just turn it around and say,
Speaker 1: we just do what everybody else does. Right. That's the
Speaker 1: fundamental nature of these conspiracy theories is they project that
Speaker 1: which they what they accused the West of doing, they
Speaker 1: themselves are guilty of.
Speaker 2: Right. Let's take a quick step back, though. Can you
Speaker 2: tell us about the people involved in this?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: So it was through this company called Tenet Media. There
Speaker 2: was a few people Benny Johnson, Timpoole, Dave Rubin, and
Speaker 2: Tim Poole even interviewed Donald Trump on his show. And
Speaker 2: Benny Johnson has something like two and a half million
Speaker 2: followers on his YouTube channel.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the short answer is they're all angry, grievance
Speaker 1: afflicted culture warriors. I wouldn't even say that they have
Speaker 1: any coherent politics other than the liberal establishment and the
Speaker 1: elites are out to dispossess all of us and wokenesses
Speaker 1: the cancer of our time, and anything that is anti
Speaker 1: Trump is bad, and Donald Trump represents this sort of
Speaker 1: disruptor mentality that they all cling to. These are people
Speaker 1: who demand to be taken seriously and are very angry
Speaker 1: at the fact that so few people seem to have
Speaker 1: done so, and so they've created this cottage industry of
Speaker 1: being on the outside looking in at a forty five
Speaker 1: degree angle to the so called establishment, whatever that is,
Speaker 1: and however one chooses to define it. And there are
Speaker 1: a lot of angry cranks and malcontents out there, and
Speaker 1: what the Internet has done beautifully is bring all of
Speaker 1: these people together. And the Russians, to their credit, saw
Speaker 1: that this is having an influence, that these guys do
Speaker 1: have an organic following of real people. They are peddling influence,
Speaker 1: certainly in the age of Trump, They're acting as a
Speaker 1: force multiplier for the stuff that he believes. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's this guy, Tim pul Well. I don't really know
Speaker 1: them that well. I don't follow this ecosystem. I know
Speaker 1: Timpole has gone on Fox News and complained about how
Speaker 1: guys like Timpoole can't get laid and how women don't
Speaker 1: like them, which again, like if I had, if.
Speaker 2: The women knew he was getting ten million dollars.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I'm reading the indictment. I'm looking at the profiles of
Speaker 1: all of these actors.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: One of the ties that binds all these guys is
Speaker 1: they're very down on Ukraine and the idea that the
Speaker 1: Western the United States has any responsibility whatsoever to help
Speaker 1: Ukraine materially, morally, diplomatically, financially. And I think looking at
Speaker 1: them from the perspective of a Russian intelligence officer, it
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense that they would seize upon these guys
Speaker 1: and say, how can we help. We want to amplify
Speaker 1: your endeavor here and give you lots of money and
Speaker 1: keep you doing the things that you do. But there
Speaker 1: is evidence here this wasn't a sort of non editorial
Speaker 1: interference deal. They were prompting them, they were giving them
Speaker 1: talking points. Could you, for instance, say that the isis
Speaker 1: K attack on the Crocus mal in Russia was in
Speaker 1: fact the Ukrainian military. And then it becomes this relationship
Speaker 1: where you realize the only TV you can do is
Speaker 1: Russian state TV. So you lean into what you think
Speaker 1: that audience is expecting from you. You know, Seian opposition
Speaker 1: or all terrorists, plasher a Lasada ain't so bad? Putin
Speaker 1: is this? But what about George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, etc.
Speaker 2: Etc.
Speaker 1: And I've seen a lot of people over the years
Speaker 1: who they might start out a little heterodox in their
Speaker 1: thinking or kind of contrarian and then, as a result
Speaker 1: of getting boosted by Russian propaganda, become completely intoxicated with
Speaker 1: the conspiracism because they realize that's how they're building their
Speaker 1: audience on Twitter and Facebook, and they become this sort
Speaker 1: of cultural force onto themselves.
Speaker 3: But in the past people like this, So in World
Speaker 3: War Two, Lord haw Right who talked to British troops,
Speaker 3: he was executed by the British after the war, and
Speaker 3: his trial he basically said, I believed it. I thought
Speaker 3: this was all I didn't actually lie. I was talking
Speaker 3: about British defeats, and I was talking about competence by
Speaker 3: Montgomery and so forth, and it didn't matter. And then
Speaker 3: in the US we had Tokyo Rose and access Sally
Speaker 3: and again in their trials where they're all found guilty
Speaker 3: of treason, they basically said, I was telling the truth.
Speaker 3: My truth just happened to be the same as what
Speaker 3: our enemies were doing. So when I hear Tim Poole
Speaker 3: and people like this say, it doesn't really matter because
Speaker 3: that's what I think anyway. But basically doing it at
Speaker 3: the knowingly or they should know at the behest of
Speaker 3: Gladabra Putin, who is our enemy? If you don't believe it,
Speaker 3: just ask him, right, he says this, And seventy years
Speaker 3: ago we were putting these people in the docket and
Speaker 3: trying them for trees. I'm not saying we should do
Speaker 3: with these guys, but I think that as a country,
Speaker 3: we treated disinformation differently in the past. Okay, let's take
Speaker 3: a break from the craziness just for a minute or two.
Speaker 1: And Rebecca, the critical word is money. I have some
Speaker 1: flickering respect for sort of the generation of revolutionary idealists
Speaker 1: from the twenties and thirties who joined the communist cause
Speaker 1: because they truly believed that was the future of humanity.
Speaker 1: They were driven by not necessarily I mean yes, in
Speaker 1: many cases a love of Moscow, and they believed in
Speaker 1: the workers state. But also they were terrified by the
Speaker 1: rise of fascism in Europe, and they saw communism as
Speaker 1: the only viable alternative because liberal democracy had failed. We
Speaker 1: talked on the last show Whittiger Chambers head amassing people
Speaker 1: of that ilk to them. When the Soviet services started
Speaker 1: to say we want to pay you, that was anathema.
Speaker 1: They would never have taken money that was an insult,
Speaker 1: and that actually started to make them doubt their own idealism.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, pay me. I'm doing this because
Speaker 1: I'm a revolutionary. I do this because it's the core
Speaker 1: of my conviction.
Speaker 3: It's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: Right, it's the right thing to do. And you know,
Speaker 1: the difference here is it's a grift.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Maybe they start out believing I don't know, Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: is kind of comie like in her policy prescriptions. Maybe
Speaker 1: they start with the kind of politics like this. But again,
Speaker 1: this relationship that they have with their online audience, these
Speaker 1: invisible faces of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who click, follow, subscribe,
Speaker 1: and then if there's a tip jar or some kind
Speaker 1: of crowdfunding mechanism, feed the beast. That's what I think
Speaker 1: drives them. Suddenly they're famous, suddenly they're wealthy, or they're
Speaker 1: doing quite well, whereas in the more traditional sort of
Speaker 1: outlets and fora they would fail. And I think again,
Speaker 1: their sense of self, their mentality, and their place in
Speaker 1: the culture is very much in definition, is defined by
Speaker 1: their negative relationship to what they see as acceptable society
Speaker 1: and the fact that the Russians just paid them loads
Speaker 1: of cash is very much in keeping with that sort
Speaker 1: of core cynicism, I.
Speaker 2: Think, Michael, let me ask you the question we were
Speaker 2: getting to earlier about how much bigger it might be.
Speaker 2: So we have lots of evidence, for example, that in
Speaker 2: Europe Russia has overtly paid for media, but has also
Speaker 2: paid politicians and political parties. So is this latest indictment
Speaker 2: just a tip of the iceberg?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's very funny. I lived in London
Speaker 1: from about twenty ten to late twenty twelve and one
Speaker 1: of the things I noticed when I was starting to
Speaker 1: cover Russian intelligence and influence operations was the Russian government
Speaker 1: seemed very interested in the Tory Party to an extent
Speaker 1: that the SVR helped found something called Conservative Friends of Russia.
Speaker 1: They had their launch party at the Russian Embassy and
Speaker 1: a friend of mine, Peter Palmeransive, went to one of
Speaker 1: these events and he said it was all very Weimar.
Speaker 1: You had very awkward looking men with bad complexions. There
Speaker 1: was at least one or two Dwarfs there, and it
Speaker 1: was like, these are all like guys who want to
Speaker 1: go to Russia, want to meet pretty girls, want to
Speaker 1: have consultancy contracts with gaz Prom and Rosneft, and they
Speaker 1: see Russia as a fun anarchic place where they can succeed,
Speaker 1: whereas in the UK not so much. At best, they
Speaker 1: might be a Tory backbencher one day, and yet lo
Speaker 1: and behold, the Russians took them to Moscow and Saint
Speaker 1: Petersburg and there was some compramont and strip. I mean again,
Speaker 1: you could write the script in crayon. That's how easy
Speaker 1: it was. What struck me was okay, so it used
Speaker 1: to be Moscow would align or look for willing or
Speaker 1: perhaps unwitting agents of influence and agents on the political left,
Speaker 1: anti imperialists, anti American sort of socialist types. Now they're
Speaker 1: sinking their teeth into conservatives. People who believe in blood
Speaker 1: and soil nationalism have a sense of religiosity, even if
Speaker 1: they don't quite subscribe to it. So in a way,
Speaker 1: when MAGA came into being, it was cream cheese for
Speaker 1: the Russians. This is exactly what they were hoping to
Speaker 1: see arise in the United States because they had been
Speaker 1: playing with the same elements in Europe. What starts in
Speaker 1: Europe often migrates over to the United States. And I
Speaker 1: think we're just now catching up with the fact that
Speaker 1: this has been going on here for quite some time.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I mean it probably isn't just confined to
Speaker 1: the far right, because there's certainly elements on the far
Speaker 1: left who agree with the far right on a lot
Speaker 1: of things Syria, Israel, Palestine, now certainly Ukraine, and indeed,
Speaker 1: I mean running interference for Donald Trump, because he is
Speaker 1: the guy who's going to just tear it all up
Speaker 1: and start all over again, and he's so unpredictable and chaotic.
Speaker 1: It weakens the United States and therefore empowers its adversaries.
Speaker 2: Who are the main public figures in the United States
Speaker 2: who appear to be regurgitating Russian talking points come to
Speaker 2: mind for me, for example, Tulca gabberd Ron Johnson, Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, Rfk, Junior Rugi, Scott Ridder, Aaron Motte, Josh Holly,
Speaker 2: all those kind of guys.
Speaker 1: Sure Ridder might himself face indictment because the FBI raided
Speaker 1: his house evidently.
Speaker 2: Not the first time, not the first time.
Speaker 1: No, I mean you mentioned it. The Grey Zone Project
Speaker 1: is low hanging fruit. I think, given the fact that
Speaker 1: it was founded literally after Max Blumenthal came back from
Speaker 1: Moscow attending the RT annual Gala ten year anniversary, at which,
Speaker 1: by the way, was also one Mike Flynn, one Jill Stein.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, look, just because you're regurgitating these
Speaker 1: talking points or these narratives doesn't mean that you're on
Speaker 1: the payroll.
Speaker 2: It's true. But it's interesting that how clear they are.
Speaker 2: Often like at the same time they all start putting
Speaker 2: up almost the same language. So something's going someone's getting it,
Speaker 2: putting it into the ecosphere, and others are picking it up.
Speaker 1: You know, all of these guys were saying in the
Speaker 1: lead up to the February twenty twenty two full scale
Speaker 1: invasion of Ukraine, this is crazy, this is QAnon for
Speaker 1: the liberal establishment. It ain't gonna happen. Then when the
Speaker 1: Russians invaded, the tweets were almost identical. It was listen,
Speaker 1: I was wrong, I'm sorry, and it was almost verbatim
Speaker 1: across Mark Ames Aaron mate. It's like they all got
Speaker 1: their fucking taskings from their handlers telling them, oh, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: we need to change the narrative to start putting this
Speaker 1: stuff out now. It cra deserved it, yeah, exactly, Ukraine
Speaker 1: deserved it. This is the result of NATO's expansion, blah blah,
Speaker 1: and that's what they've been doing for the last two
Speaker 1: and a half years. And that actually reflects that not
Speaker 1: everyone in the Russian government and across the security services
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies was read into the invasion of Ukraine. I'd
Speaker 1: heard stories from here in New York that the Russian
Speaker 1: mission to the United Nations was hosting a party and everybody,
Speaker 1: you know, we're twelve vodkas in the bag and they
Speaker 1: had to be recalled to the office because guess what
Speaker 1: Putin actually went in And so they either they were
Speaker 1: acting surprise or they were genuinely taken aback Butye because
Speaker 1: they didn't think he was going to happen.
Speaker 3: We've seen this play before. So in World War Two,
Speaker 3: the French Communist Party, the American Communist Party, they were like,
Speaker 3: you know what, let's just stay out of this World
Speaker 3: War two until Barbaros. Once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: then the American Communist Party had to do a complete
Speaker 3: about face.
Speaker 1: The French Communist newspaper, the editorials in the morning and
Speaker 1: the evening edition were the exact opposite.
Speaker 3: And dare I say, Hunter Biden. I mean, I don't
Speaker 3: want to go back to that, but I think we
Speaker 3: do have to say that it's not just these influencers.
Speaker 3: Alexander Smirnoff, for example, was this guy was arrested an
Speaker 3: FBI in Foreman, a Russian who was pushing the narrative
Speaker 3: that the Biden crime family were in the pockets of
Speaker 3: the Russian So someone it's not just a few influencers.
Speaker 3: I think the Russian services are going at this in
Speaker 3: a whole host of different ways. So it's a huge
Speaker 3: conspiracy and it's manifested in all sorts of different ways.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and now you have this wonderful chestnut from Putin
Speaker 1: where he's winkingly endorsing Kamala Harris for her infectious laugh
Speaker 1: and everyone these idiots are literally saying that means that
Speaker 1: the Russians are for the Democratic Party. Aha, it's still
Speaker 1: a hoax.
Speaker 3: But the infectious laugh thing that is playing off. Of course,
Speaker 3: what Trump was saying that was a criticism he was making.
Speaker 3: So it's clear that Putin is listening to this and
Speaker 3: he's winking at the American audience.
Speaker 1: There's a macab delight they take in watching this sort
Speaker 1: of very eager enthusiastic constituency, lap up whatever it is
Speaker 1: they're pouring down, because this is one of the thoroughgoing
Speaker 1: conceits of how the Russians view people who are not
Speaker 1: fully recruited, but are these useful idiots, agents of influencers.
Speaker 1: The Russian term for it is shit eater. They treat
Speaker 1: them with contempt. They're like tissue to be used and
Speaker 1: discarded at the Russians pleasure. And this now, this new
Speaker 1: thing up where you're offering amnesty to Timpoole and Lauren
Speaker 1: Chen and a lot of them. They want to come
Speaker 1: to Russia and live here. Can you imagine any of
Speaker 1: these people going and living in Russia? I can't. That's
Speaker 1: the whole game over right there. They need the Western audience.
Speaker 1: They want to live, they want to indulge in life
Speaker 1: here while tearing down their own society as completely depraved
Speaker 1: and corrupt.
Speaker 3: So, Michael, how does a free society protect itself? So
Speaker 3: Lord haw when he was involved in the World War two,
Speaker 3: the British executed him, access Sally and Tokyo Rose got
Speaker 3: thirty years, although they're all out within four or five.
Speaker 2: Right, These social media influencers were all about conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2: They had millions of followers, and they constantly talked about
Speaker 2: seeing shadowy figures secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: But somehow they didn't seem to question why someone gave
Speaker 2: these eighth grade education people millions of dollars to spread
Speaker 2: Russian talking points. They see things behind every bush, and
Speaker 2: then on this all of a sudden, they got a
Speaker 2: bunch of this money and didn't ask any questions.
Speaker 1: And this is part of the great irony. And again
Speaker 1: going back to the macab delight. You know, the Russians
Speaker 1: tell their useful idiots to say everything is a CIA
Speaker 1: State Department deep state conspiracy, from NAFO to the White
Speaker 1: Helmets or whatever, when in fact, what the Russians are
Speaker 1: doing more accurately adheres to that definition, and it's this
Speaker 1: weird sort of Freudian projection.
Speaker 2: It's funny. I saw a tweet which said exactly. I said,
Speaker 2: just wait until the conspiracy theorists discover they're part of
Speaker 2: a conspiracy to use conspiracy theorists to spread disinformation via
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: So we're going to stop here for today and continue
Speaker 3: our conversation with Michael Weiss on the next episode see
Speaker 3: you next week. I'm Mission Implausible.
Speaker 5: Mission Implausible is produced by Adam Davidson, Jerry O'Shea, John Seipher,
Speaker 5: and Jonathan Sterner. The associate producer is Rachel Harner. Mission
Speaker 5: Implausible is a production of Honorable Mention and Abominable Pictures
Speaker 5: for iHeart Podcasts.