Speaker 1: Fellow conspiracy realist, we return to you, mere humble Farmers
Speaker 1: with another classic episode. This one is a doozy. We're
Speaker 1: entering the world of tradecraft, morally gray political thrillers situations.
Speaker 2: M I five.
Speaker 1: The question are they a criminal organization? I'm shrinking, y'all.
Speaker 3: I have been knee deep in this Apple TV series
Speaker 3: called Slow Horses with Gary Oldman and some other fantastic
Speaker 3: cast members, and it is about m I five and
Speaker 3: it really speaks to this exact thing, like some of
Speaker 3: the political maneuvers that these folks in charge of five
Speaker 3: perpetrate in this series, which I believe is based on
Speaker 3: a book series that was written by somebody with inside information.
Speaker 4: About the inner workings of five.
Speaker 5: Absolutely staggering, reckless, psychotic, megalomaniacal behavior, no no account for
Speaker 5: human life outside of just one's own political motivations and
Speaker 5: or covering one's own RS as they say.
Speaker 2: For Crown and country guys. Uh what am I five?
Speaker 2: This is the one that's similar to the NSA, right,
Speaker 2: not the FBI, but like National Security Agency in the Uecurity.
Speaker 4: Services I believe is what they're called over there.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, but like Internal hundred resent Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, not to be confused with six, which is
Speaker 1: a different thing. M I five investigates national security internally
Speaker 1: though I counterinsurgency.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like CIA would be our equivalent to I six
Speaker 2: takes field trips. Got it well with that?
Speaker 1: With that, folks, and I love the shout out to
Speaker 1: slow horses there too.
Speaker 4: With that, we are going to dive in.
Speaker 6: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 6: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 6: learn this stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt, Mine
Speaker 2: name is Nolan.
Speaker 4: They called me Ben.
Speaker 1: We were joined with our super producer Paul Michigan control
Speaker 1: dec At most importantly, you are you. You are here,
Speaker 1: and that makes this stuff they don't want you to know. No,
Speaker 1: we several of us have been to the UK, right, correct?
Speaker 4: Right? Have we all been?
Speaker 7: I have when I was very very little, but I
Speaker 7: don't really recall it intimillion.
Speaker 1: Okay and Paul thumbs up, thumbs down.
Speaker 4: Have you been to London? He is not. Okay, Paul.
Speaker 1: We will go on an adventure soon, assuming we can
Speaker 1: get into the country.
Speaker 4: After today's episode, which is kind of a.
Speaker 1: Question that we have to confront often.
Speaker 2: Had a I think we'll be fine as what we
Speaker 2: will find out a little bit later. Yes, about the
Speaker 2: differences in MS.
Speaker 4: Hopefully, yes, hopefully we will be fine.
Speaker 1: You know, if the Epstein episode didn't didn't finish us,
Speaker 1: hopefully this one will be fine. So we have a
Speaker 1: lot of listeners in the United Kingdom. A lot of
Speaker 1: your fellow listeners as you are checking out the show
Speaker 1: today are located often in the Anglo sphere where people
Speaker 1: speak English, right, but there are listeners around the world.
Speaker 1: We just got an email from a guy in Uganda actually,
Speaker 1: which is very interesting. He was left our risk was
Speaker 1: not a fan of the above majestic interview. By the way,
Speaker 1: you can check out our Facebook page. Here's where it
Speaker 1: gets crazy to see our response to this sort of stuff.
Speaker 1: But this this is a episode that will center on
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom. If you are thinking to yourself, Matt
Speaker 1: nol Ben Michigan control, why should I care about this?
Speaker 1: Why does it Matt to me? I don't want to
Speaker 1: go to foggy London town. This is irrelevant.
Speaker 2: Well, let's just say before you get into your point,
Speaker 2: remember all the connections we've made between intelligence agencies across
Speaker 2: the world, especially those that speak English.
Speaker 4: Right, right, So this matters to you.
Speaker 1: If you can understand the language in which we are
Speaker 1: conducting this podcast, then this matters very much more so
Speaker 1: than you might assume. Like most countries, the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: has its own variety of intelligence services, and most people
Speaker 1: outside of the UK, we're familiar with their intelligence operations
Speaker 1: through one very important portrayal in fiction, James Bond. Yes, right, yes,
Speaker 1: perfect Agent double seven himself. I mean, I can't even
Speaker 1: I should have looked this up before we hopped in
Speaker 1: the booth here, but I don't even remember how many
Speaker 1: James Bond films exist.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna have a shot in the dark and say twelve.
Speaker 2: That sounds like the title for James Bond film Shot
Speaker 2: in the Dark. But that's not right.
Speaker 4: It's more than fifteen.
Speaker 2: Paul says, thirty five, Paul says nineteen, Paul says twenty five.
Speaker 2: He's a twenty five.
Speaker 1: That's amazing, and it also shows like, of course, we
Speaker 1: would be most familiar with intelligence agencies through this James
Speaker 1: Bond thing. There's also an interesting study you can find
Speaker 1: if you just google it about James Bond's drinking habit.
Speaker 1: Somebody went through all the books and they counted every
Speaker 1: time he had a drink, and we're like, well, this
Speaker 1: guy is clearly wasted the entire time, and he probably
Speaker 1: has a serotic liver.
Speaker 7: Have you ever had a vesper martini? That's James Bond's
Speaker 7: martini of choice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a there's there are a couple of great
Speaker 1: vesper places here in town now.
Speaker 4: Really really good.
Speaker 7: It's like got a lemon twist and it uses lil
Speaker 7: a instead of remooth, I believe, which is like a
Speaker 7: kind of dry white wine, A pair of teeth kind
Speaker 7: of thing, very citrusy.
Speaker 4: Very refreshed.
Speaker 2: I have no idea most of the words that you
Speaker 2: just said, A pair of teeth.
Speaker 4: It's good, it's good.
Speaker 1: We we also have a huge advocate for vespers in
Speaker 1: the form of our pal Josh Clark.
Speaker 4: He's a he's a vesper guy.
Speaker 2: Now nice.
Speaker 1: I don't know why I said it, like that changes
Speaker 1: his that shakes his moral character to the core.
Speaker 2: I see a lot of people riding around on the vespers.
Speaker 4: Uh in.
Speaker 1: That's cute man, all right, big oof, but uh today
Speaker 1: we are taking a look behind the curtain past the
Speaker 1: the sexy James Bond portrayals. Right, today, we're looking at
Speaker 1: the real life inspiration for countless spy thrillers. Aiming to
Speaker 1: answer a disturbing question. Let's just get it.
Speaker 4: Out of the way now.
Speaker 1: Is m I five a criminal organization?
Speaker 6: Oh?
Speaker 2: That's that's heavy.
Speaker 7: It's a good way to frame this discussion. Get some clicks, right, Yeah,
Speaker 7: it's a big question. Sure, we're going to drill down
Speaker 7: into it. As they say in corporate speak.
Speaker 2: Let's start drilling.
Speaker 1: Let's get granular. So what is m I five?
Speaker 2: Well, am I is the most important thing you need
Speaker 2: to know here, and that's military intelligence.
Speaker 4: I thought it was Mission impossible.
Speaker 2: I wish that it was.
Speaker 4: I thought it was martian intuition.
Speaker 2: In this case, it is military intelligence. Specifically, that number
Speaker 2: afterwards is the section number, so Section five. And it's
Speaker 2: founded in nineteen o nine, and it wasn't called this
Speaker 2: at all times. It started out as just something that
Speaker 2: was called the Secret Service Bureau.
Speaker 1: Because what better way to keep a secret than have
Speaker 1: the word secret in the title.
Speaker 2: That's right, I mean, in that Secret Service in nineteen
Speaker 2: oh nine. You can see it harken back then to
Speaker 2: the United States in our own secret service, and it
Speaker 2: we we'll find is that they do very different things.
Speaker 2: And that's why you kind of have sections for all
Speaker 2: these different secret services that you have. In this case,
Speaker 2: five is directed by the Joint Intelligence Committee or JIIC,
Speaker 2: and this service itself is bound by this thing that
Speaker 2: was created in nineteen eighty nine called the Security Service
Speaker 2: Act of nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, yeah, that's name right.
Speaker 1: What we mean when we say bound is that the
Speaker 1: Security Service Act, essentially, i should say, ostensibly, lays the
Speaker 1: groundwork for what MI five is supposed to do, how
Speaker 1: it does it, what it can do basically right right,
Speaker 1: right right, and what does it do. The service is
Speaker 1: supposed to, well, it's directed to, we should say, protect
Speaker 1: British parliamentary democracy and Britain's economic interest and a counter
Speaker 1: terrorism and espionage within the UK so counterintelligence.
Speaker 7: M I five was founded by Captain Vernon Kel. It's
Speaker 7: a very distinguished sounding name. The organization played a central
Speaker 7: role in the capture of most of Imperial Germany's intelligence
Speaker 7: agents in the UK at the beginning of World War One.
Speaker 7: It's a big deal. M I five is not the
Speaker 7: same thing. It's important to note as am I six,
Speaker 7: M I five is the British security Service. Well, I
Speaker 7: six is the British foreign intelligence Service. So Ben, how
Speaker 7: how should we think about this?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think of it as been similar in a way
Speaker 1: for our American listeners to the relationship between the FBI
Speaker 1: and the CIA just always kind of flummes me a
Speaker 1: little bit. If I'm being honest, I think it always
Speaker 1: flumkes the FBI and CIA themselves because they certainly overstep
Speaker 1: into one another's encroach. Yeah, well, and often, I mean
Speaker 1: when the CIA is dealing drugs and the FBI has
Speaker 1: to deal with it, things get messy. Uh oh whatever,
Speaker 1: It's true.
Speaker 2: Ultimately, it's dealing with inward facing and outward facing counterintelligence
Speaker 2: and intelligence.
Speaker 1: Right, perfect, Yeah, that's the perfect way to say it. Essentially,
Speaker 1: I six is tasked to send British spies abroad, and
Speaker 1: m I five is there to catch spies from other countries.
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 4: That makes sense, right, and.
Speaker 1: There are multiple military intelligence services. I really like the
Speaker 1: hit on this, Noel, because we a lot of people
Speaker 1: have kind of this Heinz fifty seven problem when we
Speaker 1: talk about I five and m I six. You know,
Speaker 1: were you ever a kid looking at heines fifty seven
Speaker 1: and wondering where the hell or the other fifty six.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to try some of those, at least ketchups.
Speaker 4: It doesn't have to do with how many spices are
Speaker 4: in it or something. I don't know.
Speaker 7: I assumed it was like Baskin Robbins or they've got
Speaker 7: the flavors and they always exceeded that flavor.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we should.
Speaker 1: We should probably ask Lauren Vogel Bomb or Annie Reese.
Speaker 1: There's a plug for savor. It's a boot size showing lifestyle.
Speaker 1: But yeah, So it turns.
Speaker 2: Out it was an historical advertising slogan about the fifty
Speaker 2: seven different varieties of sickulls.
Speaker 4: Oh pickles?
Speaker 1: Okay, how do you have fifty seven different I guess
Speaker 1: you can pickle anything, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, in the case of these multiple military intelligence services
Speaker 1: in the UK, we find that they go all the
Speaker 1: way up to m I nineteen and many have come
Speaker 1: and gone since the creation of the first military intelligence
Speaker 1: service m I one, which was created sometime during World
Speaker 1: War One, and they mainly focused on cryptography, code breaking,
Speaker 1: counterintelligence stuff, you know what I mean. So they were
Speaker 1: figuring out what Imperial Germany was up to and as
Speaker 1: we mentioned, they were quite successful with some of this stuff,
Speaker 1: and over time various sections folded or they merged, or
Speaker 1: they changed their area of focus. In these sections I
Speaker 1: one through nineteen ran all sorts of different I don't
Speaker 1: want to say hustles, but different processes. Their activities included
Speaker 1: stuff like specialized geographical analysis. You know, we have a
Speaker 1: desk that just looks at Russia, for instance, when that
Speaker 1: just looks at South America. And then they would have
Speaker 1: things like map making, aerial photography.
Speaker 4: They would also have.
Speaker 1: Things that we would normally find objectionable in Western governments today,
Speaker 1: such as three different active propaganda and censorship bureaus. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they were blatant about it. That's what it's said
Speaker 1: on their label.
Speaker 2: But you know, a lot of that stuff spawned out
Speaker 2: of World War Two, when the propaganda had to be
Speaker 2: strong on all fronts, right, And including with that was
Speaker 2: I nineteen that you already mentioned, and that was the
Speaker 2: bureau specifically, or the I guess section specifically designed to
Speaker 2: interrogate prisoners of war during World War Two, which is
Speaker 2: kind of scary. It's like the Black Site section.
Speaker 1: And it's also it's interesting because the organization feels a
Speaker 1: little bit different in comparison to intelligence agencies in the US,
Speaker 1: Like the CIA handles a ton of this stuff with
Speaker 1: its own different subsection, you know what I mean. So
Speaker 1: what does m I five do. We've we've looked at
Speaker 1: just the broad I don't know the broad strokes of this,
Speaker 1: but when we ask what it actually does on the ground,
Speaker 1: we run this is one of those million dollars or
Speaker 1: million pound questions. Officially, I five does what it says
Speaker 1: on the website, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it catches spies, that's what it does. It intercepts communications,
Speaker 2: it finds people, it conducts classified counterintelligence. I mean, come on,
Speaker 2: that's m I five for you. And what it does
Speaker 2: is it keeps the bear from the.
Speaker 4: Door whatever scary animal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the coyotes can't get in because of US.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, that's I like that Cold War reference, right,
Speaker 1: because the UK had to reorganize a lot of their
Speaker 1: stuff in and evolve their sophistication when the KGB came
Speaker 1: out guns blazing in the Cold War.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, interesting though, because to this day many of
Speaker 7: these operations and my five operations remain classified.
Speaker 4: Yeah it's kind of a big deal. Yeah yeah, yeah, yes,
Speaker 4: I mean a lot.
Speaker 7: It seems like in our country some of that stuff
Speaker 7: kind of eventually over time, when it ceases to be
Speaker 7: important for security, we get to get a little glimpse
Speaker 7: into some of the past covert operations, right, a little, yeah,
Speaker 7: some of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah, you're absolutely correct. One thing that's
Speaker 1: one thing that's tough for the British public is that
Speaker 1: without information about a lot of these operations, many of
Speaker 1: which were fairly recent in the nineteen eighties and stuff.
Speaker 1: Without that information, it's tough to gauge how successful or
Speaker 1: unsuccessful this organization is. Because if they're doing everything right,
Speaker 1: you never hear about them, you know, you only hear
Speaker 1: about them when something goes pair shaped, which I believe
Speaker 1: is British slang.
Speaker 2: Or something goes really right and another person leaks information.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's how we do know some intelligence failures.
Speaker 1: For instance, in nineteen eighty three, one of MI five's officers,
Speaker 1: a guy named Michael Bettany, was caught trying to sell
Speaker 1: information to the KGB. He got caught, he got convicted
Speaker 1: of vespionage. The big question is what did he did
Speaker 1: He successfully sell some stuff beforehand?
Speaker 2: Yeah, did he get away with it? Before he got
Speaker 2: caught and was he the only guy selling information? I
Speaker 2: certainly doubt it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, probably not.
Speaker 2: And you know, with these organizations, you have to continually
Speaker 2: justify the reason that you're getting so much money from
Speaker 2: the public, I guess tax dollars and all of that
Speaker 2: with any intelligence community or organization. And as a Cold
Speaker 2: War came to an end, they switched gears again because
Speaker 2: there were terrorist threats coming from Northern Ireland states such
Speaker 2: as Libya where Colonel Gaddafi was operating, and that was
Speaker 2: a threat, at least at the time it perceived threat.
Speaker 2: These were some of the major threats at least according
Speaker 2: to the MI five for a little while there. And
Speaker 2: then you know, like we said, the Cold War is
Speaker 2: coming to an end. Now we're in the nineties, and
Speaker 2: there were some major reforms put into place, and the
Speaker 2: service actually around this time gained its first female director general.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Dame Stella Remington, who held the position from nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety two to nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 7: And then the rise of Islamis terrorism at the end
Speaker 7: of the nineties, culminating in the nine to eleven attacks
Speaker 7: in two thousand and one, led to massive changes in the.
Speaker 4: Way MI five operated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, and look, folks, it's no secret. The counter
Speaker 1: intelligence is a murky murky business. Operations often edge into
Speaker 1: moorally and legally gray areas. Over the course of its existence,
Speaker 1: like many other intelligence agencies, five has conducted numerous secret operations,
Speaker 1: often without any public oversight, and often even without governmental oversight.
Speaker 1: The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Speaker 2: And many people would say that is the way it
Speaker 2: should be.
Speaker 1: Sure, Sure, sometimes even people who don't work for five,
Speaker 1: mostly people who work for m I five probably say that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I see the point about compartmentalized information, right,
Speaker 1: There's a need to have that sort of operational security.
Speaker 1: But critics don't buy this. Critics allege that I five
Speaker 1: is much more than a counter intelligence agency. In fact,
Speaker 1: they argue, while I five functions as a spy service,
Speaker 1: it also effectively functions as a criminal empire. WHOA yeah,
Speaker 1: like hydro level, What the hell are we talking about?
Speaker 1: We'll tell you after a word from our sponsor. Here's
Speaker 1: where it gets crazy.
Speaker 2: While the MI five might not be a criminal organization
Speaker 2: at least to its parent government, yield just call it
Speaker 2: what do we call it? The Parliamentary United Kingdom In
Speaker 2: their government and you know, perhaps the Queen and all
Speaker 2: of her subjects. But it certainly functions as a criminal
Speaker 2: organization at least at times, you know. And we're not again,
Speaker 2: we're not just throwing throwing ninja stars. Is that okay
Speaker 2: to say, we're not just throwing ninja stars at Britain.
Speaker 2: We've seen this occur, as we said earlier, with many
Speaker 2: other intelligence services within many other countries. But it does
Speaker 2: function as a criminal organization sometimes.
Speaker 4: And we know this.
Speaker 1: This isn't a theory. No, this isn't some to foil
Speaker 1: Internet bloggery. Here it turns out that in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: declassified documents showed that the government of the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: allows MI five's agents and informants to carry out crime
Speaker 1: within the UK without consequence. They've been allowed to do
Speaker 1: this for at least thirty years. WHOA, Seriously, it's a
Speaker 1: it's a license to kill, it's a license to torture, pillage.
Speaker 4: Did you just say a license to kill? Yes?
Speaker 1: Oh wait, yeah I did.
Speaker 4: I mean, come on, man, that's great.
Speaker 1: I can't believe I did think of that.
Speaker 4: That's awesome. Yeah, yeah, I mean that.
Speaker 1: But really the bit we did was awesome.
Speaker 4: But the fact that they can just go murder people
Speaker 4: is not cool.
Speaker 7: And and as it turns out, which was a bummer
Speaker 7: to me or to my kid's self, they don't actually
Speaker 7: have a license they can flash before they kill someone,
Speaker 7: letting them know that it's legit.
Speaker 4: It's more of an expression.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should just manufacture our own, not to use,
Speaker 1: but just to have just.
Speaker 2: On a T shirt.
Speaker 4: Maybe we like, how would you.
Speaker 1: Feel if you stole someone's wallet and you were going
Speaker 1: through the wallet and you found like three different fake
Speaker 1: forms of identification right all the same face, three different names,
Speaker 1: three different profiles, and then you saw like this mysterious
Speaker 1: license to kill. What would you do with that wallet?
Speaker 2: I would put it right back down, wipe first. I'd
Speaker 2: wipe my prints from it. There you go, say it
Speaker 2: right back down on the ground.
Speaker 4: Clever, clever?
Speaker 1: All right, well, I know what you guys are getting
Speaker 1: for the holidays.
Speaker 2: You'd also have to check local security cameras and any
Speaker 2: CCTV that's around. Make sure to destroy those tapes, all right.
Speaker 1: And you probably want to drop your phone too, because
Speaker 1: that GPS record would be there. Oh god, you know what,
Speaker 1: we might be taking this thought experiment a little too far.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, Now, if you do have a license to kill,
Speaker 1: and you can tell us about it without killing us,
Speaker 1: we would love to hear your experiences. We will do
Speaker 1: our best to keep you anonymous, just putting it out there.
Speaker 4: Well, I guess you're right, Noel, it's as we'll see.
Speaker 1: They kind of did have not a badge they could
Speaker 1: wave around, but they did have documented proof that the
Speaker 1: government at all levels that were aware of it, approved
Speaker 1: of this. It was called a secret and concealed policy.
Speaker 1: This would allow the security service to authorize participation in murder, torture,
Speaker 1: sexual assault, or other grave criminality if.
Speaker 4: Just a few folks believed it was.
Speaker 1: In the service of the greater good in the public interest.
Speaker 2: That is so creepy and disgusting, and I wonder how
Speaker 2: many other intelligence organizations have an active policy like that,
Speaker 2: a secret and concealed policy. Okay, so this was basically
Speaker 2: a criminal authorization, just literally that you can do crime
Speaker 2: and it's okay.
Speaker 7: But it's like a further greater good clause, right right,
Speaker 7: that's the implication here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yes, but this is something that has been
Speaker 2: around for thirty years and it was only first acknowledged
Speaker 2: in British court when an alliance of human rights groups
Speaker 2: argued that it was unlawful to have this kind of policy,
Speaker 2: like maybe not, let's not do this.
Speaker 1: And it was completely secret like they were practicing omerta
Speaker 1: until twenty twelve. Prime Minister David Cameron wrote to Sir
Speaker 1: Mark Waller, the Intelligence Service Commissioner at the time, asking
Speaker 1: him to keep the policy under review, which we've got
Speaker 1: a quote. It's very British in the way it's written,
Speaker 1: but we'll give it a shot.
Speaker 7: I'm gonna do a British accent, let's say, in the
Speaker 7: discharge of their function to protect national security. The Security
Speaker 7: Service has long standing policy for their agent handlers to
Speaker 7: agree to agents participating in crime in circumstances where it
Speaker 7: is considered such involvement is necessary and proportionate in providing
Speaker 7: or maintaining access to intelligence that will allow the disruption
Speaker 7: of more serious crimes or threats to national security.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, that was great.
Speaker 4: That it sounds nice.
Speaker 1: But it sounds like he's describing marzipan.
Speaker 4: It sounds like he's reading like a Winnie the Pooh
Speaker 4: story or something.
Speaker 2: You know, it's totally it's a clause for undercover agents, right,
Speaker 2: that's all that's what that is.
Speaker 1: Well, no, but I meant is but yeah, it's saying like,
Speaker 1: if you have an informant who is operating maybe in
Speaker 1: something like gun running or human trafficking circle, yeah, and
Speaker 1: you need to keep them embedded.
Speaker 7: Question in the States, Yeah, you see it in movies.
Speaker 7: I just want to see what you guys think about this.
Speaker 7: Whenever an undercover agent is offered drugs, they they go
Speaker 7: to whatever lengths they can to not actually do the drugs.
Speaker 7: If they're like, you know, you know, like prove you're
Speaker 7: not a cop, do the drugs.
Speaker 4: Or whatever, it's like oops, oops, I drop the drugs.
Speaker 7: You know, isn't that a thing? No, I'm wondering, like,
Speaker 7: do you think we have a It does seem like
Speaker 7: it's not. It's frowned upon for undercover cops to like
Speaker 7: get deep and start like doing drugs. It sounds like
Speaker 7: there's a border, there's a there's a boundary that we
Speaker 7: would prefer not to cross.
Speaker 1: They probably want to avoid it, but it comes into
Speaker 1: that idea the greater good right accomplishing the sting or
Speaker 1: the operation. So I am sure there are people who have,
Speaker 1: maybe in the DEA or something, been forced to do
Speaker 1: cocaine or something like that. But I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's a strict, a strict bright line policy wise, I.
Speaker 2: Don't think there can be. Yeah, I think because all
Speaker 2: of it's circumstantial, right, especially when you're dealing with this,
Speaker 2: if this is full on national security for the past
Speaker 2: thirty years, I can't even imagine some of the terrible
Speaker 2: things that some of these agents have had to do,
Speaker 2: like you're saying, in the human trafficking fields and drug
Speaker 2: fields and murder, like in murder in order to then
Speaker 2: get a bigger fish essentially down the line.
Speaker 1: And you also have to wonder, Okay, let's put ourselves
Speaker 1: in that hypothetical position. Let's say Paul Mission Control DECA
Speaker 1: is a big time like Narco's level Columbia drug cartel leader, right,
Speaker 1: I can see it, and we're we're up and comers,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be lieutenants. And he's like this, do this
Speaker 1: cocaine in front of me? It's cocaine, and we would
Speaker 1: we would look very suspicious if we just fumbled, just
Speaker 1: dropped it. Because I don't know. I don't know a
Speaker 1: ton about about that drug, but I do know about
Speaker 1: the general trends of addiction and people who are into
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff don't just drop it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. In that case, I think the fumble move would
Speaker 2: be to accidentally drop it on one of the guys
Speaker 2: that you know is not an undercover agent, so that it's, oh, well,
Speaker 2: we didn't waste it. It just is all over that guy.
Speaker 1: Now, I don't know, man, I think you have to
Speaker 1: do it if you're at that point.
Speaker 7: It's like that you can't be like that scene in
Speaker 7: that Woody Allen movie where he sneezes the cocaine off
Speaker 7: the dish or whatever, and it's just basically like a
Speaker 7: party foul. It's more like a you're gonna get shot
Speaker 7: in the face foul.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But then if you're talking about the bigger operations,
Speaker 2: where you're at out in the field doing things other
Speaker 2: than drugs, the actual criminal acts, that's where it gets
Speaker 2: a little I don't know, it gets murky.
Speaker 1: For me, right right right, Like if you are embedded
Speaker 1: as an enforcer and you're sent to beat the crap
Speaker 1: out of someone, you know what I mean. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure there have been in the past undercover agents who
Speaker 1: have to performatively beat the snot out of one another
Speaker 1: just to make sure they look like they're legit. So yes,
Speaker 1: the informant stuff, that's part of it, and that doesn't
Speaker 1: seem that far out. But when Cameron is writing this
Speaker 1: letter to Sir Mark Waller, he essentially says, look, we're
Speaker 1: not going to ask you to tell us whether like,
Speaker 1: we don't want you to feel as if you have
Speaker 1: to report it to anybody. If you get what I'm
Speaker 1: saying anyone, and you don't have to worry about whether
Speaker 1: or not it's legal at all.
Speaker 2: That's just crazy, man.
Speaker 7: Is that one of those things where it sort of
Speaker 7: exists in like an extra legal area.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, Yeah, And most people in the government had
Speaker 1: no idea what was happening, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I think most people in Parliament at that time would
Speaker 1: have said, you know, we should we should not give
Speaker 1: people these licensees for wanton destruction.
Speaker 4: Cameron, to be.
Speaker 1: Fair, he am were gonna try to be fair here
Speaker 1: said he considered making the letter public in the interest
Speaker 1: of transparency, but decided against it because he thought it
Speaker 1: might be damaging to the national interest also known as
Speaker 1: his political career. Wow, that's what I think. I think
Speaker 1: he was sane, damaging to the national interest, But he
Speaker 1: meant damaging to his political career.
Speaker 4: Yeah, kind of a typo.
Speaker 2: Maybe A Well, I can see that. I can see that, Ben,
Speaker 2: I mean I can see where you become prime minister,
Speaker 2: you get with of something like this, and as a citizen,
Speaker 2: it gives you pause just knowing that it's happening right,
Speaker 2: no matter where what your beliefs are in while you're
Speaker 2: holding that office. And it does seem like he kind
Speaker 2: of rode the fence there a little bit of should
Speaker 2: I shouldn't I tell anybody about this? This is really
Speaker 2: effed up? But in the in the in the uh,
Speaker 2: let's keep national security in public interest in order, and
Speaker 2: let's just balance it out and say, let's just keep
Speaker 2: it quiet. Like, wasn't it the whole idea that he
Speaker 2: basically just he said he told this guy not to
Speaker 2: comment on the legality. That was the whole idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So it's the policy is under review. Doing air quotes here,
Speaker 1: I hope you could hear them. The policies under review. However,
Speaker 1: what that essentially means is provide cover for us and
Speaker 1: don't like, Okay, look, sometimes you gotta you gotta break
Speaker 1: a few innocent eggs if you really want to cook
Speaker 1: a terrorism Omelet you.
Speaker 4: Know what I mean? Geez.
Speaker 1: So that's yeah, that's exactly what happens. Said, don't comment
Speaker 1: on the legality, don't refer it to any prosecuting body,
Speaker 1: don't refer it to law enforcement. Let's keep this between us.
Speaker 1: Let's let's have a greater good. So the argument was
Speaker 1: essentially that for most of history, most of modern British history,
Speaker 1: they have been following one of two paths as just
Speaker 1: a nation. There was the rule of law and then
Speaker 1: there were criminal acts. Right, But they called this strategy
Speaker 1: the third direction, right right? Do you guys remember Glee?
Speaker 1: Do you remember their band?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 1: One direction was a real band?
Speaker 4: What am I thinking of? Well, there was that U
Speaker 4: plus me equals us thing?
Speaker 1: New direction, a new direction, new direction.
Speaker 4: It's a pun new direction. I see a very body.
Speaker 1: Like Boy's Soul from Always Sunday in Philadelphia. But they
Speaker 1: called this thing, seriously, the third direction. Nobody acknowledged it
Speaker 1: until this year in a British court when that Alliance
Speaker 1: of Human Rights group said Matt mentioned earlier, Privacy International.
Speaker 4: Who are the other ones?
Speaker 2: Yeah, those guys over at PI. Then we've got reprieve
Speaker 2: the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Pat
Speaker 2: Finnickan Center.
Speaker 1: According to the legal team representing this alliance, the third
Speaker 1: direction policy is likely to have enabled the Security Service
Speaker 1: to conceal wide ranging illegal activity, and they brought this
Speaker 1: case before an investigatory powers tribunal. The trial included as
Speaker 1: a bonus the publication of a heavily redacted document, a
Speaker 1: guideline essentially for how to break the law and get
Speaker 1: away with it.
Speaker 4: This is how you do it.
Speaker 1: And like a lot of government documents, you can find
Speaker 1: copies of this published in a couple of different places
Speaker 1: in British media, but tons like the entire paragraphs are
Speaker 1: blacked out. They're not gonna admit this stuff, right because
Speaker 1: it's still the great boogeyman of national security exactly.
Speaker 2: And you know, the timing of the letter was also
Speaker 2: really strange here because just two weeks after this highly
Speaker 2: redacted document gets released, it's made public. Mister Cameron, our buddy,
Speaker 2: admitted that there was this thing called state collusion in
Speaker 2: the nineteen eighty nine murder of Belfast solicitor Patrick Finnickin
Speaker 2: and state state collusion what does that mean?
Speaker 1: That means essentially the Cameron is arguing some faction of
Speaker 1: the intelligence apparatus or the state apparatus.
Speaker 4: Of the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: May have aided aided in this guy's death, or may
Speaker 1: have at the very least been criminally negligent and protecting him. Right,
Speaker 1: it's the most fair way to say it. They get
Speaker 1: into some very very very dirty things when they were
Speaker 1: attempting to retain Northern Ireland, you know. Oh yeah, and
Speaker 1: we'll tell you more about the trial after a word
Speaker 1: from our sponsor. So, according to Sir James ed QC,
Speaker 1: that stands for Queen's Counsel, those are the guys who
Speaker 1: have the wigs. The name for those wigs is Peruke, So.
Speaker 4: Peruk assault, What was the what was the one you did?
Speaker 4: Off air?
Speaker 2: Peruca's on fire Peruke.
Speaker 7: To learn more about the history of the Peruke, you
Speaker 7: can check out me and Ben's other podcast, Ridiculous History,
Speaker 7: where we do an episode about what the heck's up
Speaker 7: with those crazy British lawyer wigs, which is yeah, which
Speaker 7: is one of our first episodes.
Speaker 4: Be kind or be brutal, it's up to you. We
Speaker 4: just want you to know. That's a great word. Internet's
Speaker 4: going to do it then, and that's going to do.
Speaker 4: Then that's true. That's true.
Speaker 1: So this guy, Sir James Edy, QC, is representing the
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies, the Home Office in the Foreign Office, and
Speaker 1: he told this Investigatory Powers Tribunal that details of MI
Speaker 1: five's conduct had to be kept secret even in the
Speaker 1: modern day and could not be aired in open court.
Speaker 1: He argued that the claim should be restricted to investigating
Speaker 1: over a sensible time period, at most six years.
Speaker 2: Wow, six years to keep all your secrets?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: Interesting?
Speaker 1: So what did the Alliance of Human rights organizations say
Speaker 1: to that?
Speaker 7: So in their argument, the claimants cite Finnican's murder as
Speaker 7: an illustration of the considerable public importance of the issues raised.
Speaker 7: It also refers to allegations that Freddie Scapatici great name,
Speaker 7: Yeah it's pretty good, was a former senior member of
Speaker 7: the IRA and a security Service agent working under the
Speaker 7: code name Oh my god, I love this Steak Knife
Speaker 7: s T A k E. That's a good DJ name
Speaker 7: right there, Steak Knife.
Speaker 4: How about that?
Speaker 2: Huh oh wow, that's great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's so Skeptichi aka steak Knife was we have
Speaker 1: to say, allegedly still but was involved in kidnap, torture,
Speaker 1: and murder. A while working as an agent employed by
Speaker 1: m I five. So the roundabout way, then the government
Speaker 1: of the United Kingdom was paying this guy to kidnap,
Speaker 1: torture and murder people.
Speaker 4: For the greater good, for the greater good. Right.
Speaker 1: M I five has refused to answer the claimant's questions
Speaker 1: about the scope of this third direction policy, including whether
Speaker 1: it could in principle authorize murder, torture, in humane and
Speaker 1: degrading treatment, sexual assault, kidnapping, or false imprisonment. The security
Speaker 1: services lawyers all so said to answer such questions would
Speaker 1: reveal the facts of conduct that they wish to keep secret.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like a trust us we're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing. We can't tell you what we're doing.
Speaker 1: We can't tell you why. Other than that, not a
Speaker 1: very convincing argument.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. And we also have other examples
Speaker 2: of some strange things that ended up coming to light,
Speaker 2: or at least things that maybe never wanted to see
Speaker 2: the light of day. There were some papers released by
Speaker 2: the Irish state that showed that there was this loyalist
Speaker 2: paramilitary group, or at least members of one of these groups,
Speaker 2: specifically the Ultier Volunteer Force. They're a paramilitary group out
Speaker 2: of Northern Ireland. They claimed that am I five asked
Speaker 2: them to assassinate the then Prime Minister of Ireland, Charles
Speaker 2: Hahi in nineteen eighty five. And we went to this
Speaker 2: BBC source to learn a little bit more about this.
Speaker 2: But it's very I don't know, it's very strange because
Speaker 2: it was it was a letter, just kind of your
Speaker 2: standard letter sent to somebody, like a correspondence, and it
Speaker 2: just happened to include a couple documents and a couple
Speaker 2: literally guys who just said, hey, by the way, m
Speaker 2: I five asked us to kill you one time.
Speaker 4: We didn't do it, yeah, but but you know, you
Speaker 4: should know it's crazy.
Speaker 2: It was sent two years after the alleged I guess
Speaker 2: assassination or the hit was put on him, I guess.
Speaker 2: It contained a long long list of collusion allegations against
Speaker 2: the British Intelligence Service so or various services that the
Speaker 2: British intelligence has this guy. It was addressed to mister Hahien.
Speaker 2: It read in nineteen eighty five, we were approached by
Speaker 2: an MI five officer. He asked us to execute you.
Speaker 2: And it said that these this paramilitary group had been
Speaker 2: supplied with quote details that would have compromised this guy's
Speaker 2: personal security, including aerial photographs of his family home, his cars,
Speaker 2: and his private yacht.
Speaker 1: So for an imperfect comparison, it's similar to say, the
Speaker 1: CIA taking over Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland wanting
Speaker 1: to make a United Canada, and so the CIA contacts
Speaker 1: someone in Canada and says, kill whomever is in charge
Speaker 1: of this unity group in Newfoundland, or kill the prime
Speaker 1: minister of Canada so we can keep our part.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I guess they didn't imagine that the people
Speaker 2: who were not necessarily the friends of the British Intelligence Service,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't just say, oh, yeah, okay, show up boss.
Speaker 1: Well maybe they just said, you know, killing prime ministers
Speaker 1: step too far.
Speaker 2: I guess that's what I'm saying. Yeah, like they didn't
Speaker 2: expect that to occur. That seems very strange to me.
Speaker 1: In twenty ten, Benyam Mohammed al Habashi went to court
Speaker 1: to hold five accountable for collusion in his torture at
Speaker 1: the hands of Uncle Sam. And then there's the example
Speaker 1: of Shakira Mir who said I five watched him being
Speaker 1: tortured in two thousand and one.
Speaker 2: That was really brutal too. Yeah, the guy he was
Speaker 2: in Guantanamo Bay, right, and he said like several times
Speaker 2: British officers would be in the room while he's being beaten,
Speaker 2: just brutally beaten, his head slammed against the wall. Yeah,
Speaker 2: pretty pretty crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: It's truly disturbing because now with all this new information,
Speaker 1: this admission on the part of the British government that
Speaker 1: these sorts of things occur, many of those previous allegations
Speaker 1: of criminal activity on the part of mi I five
Speaker 1: that were once dismissed as out and out conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: seem increasingly maybe not plausible, well maybe not probable, but
Speaker 1: certainly less impossible. They've been implicated in the murder of
Speaker 1: anti nuclear activists Tilda Murle. They've been accused of creating
Speaker 1: a far right neo Nazi group, Combat eighteen. Their profile
Speaker 1: peaked in February fifteenth, nineteen ninety five, when they orchestrated
Speaker 1: a riot in Dublin that led to a cancellation of
Speaker 1: a football match between England and Ireland. One theory suggests
Speaker 1: that British intelligence wanted to create a magnet for the
Speaker 1: most extreme parts of these political parties. One member who
Speaker 1: is convicted of murder. In nineteen ninety eight, a guy
Speaker 1: named Charlie Sargent has been accused of being an MI
Speaker 1: five informant with some pretty solid evidence. And then we
Speaker 1: did the death of Commander Buster Crab in a previous episode.
Speaker 7: Yeah, just a.
Speaker 2: Crab where he never surfaced, and it seems that maybe
Speaker 2: someone on the inside was responsible.
Speaker 4: Weren't there frogmen involved in that story? Yes? Yeah, what
Speaker 4: about crab men?
Speaker 1: They never made it to Crab mainly because the difficulty
Speaker 1: of making forward backward motion.
Speaker 4: That's hard. Yeah, scuttling, scuttling.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned Colonel Muammar Gaddaffi earlier as well, right.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, And in ninety six, there was a bomb
Speaker 2: that was placed under a car that was I guess
Speaker 2: thought to be the vehicle that Gaddafi was going to
Speaker 2: be traveling in in his motorcade, but well he wasn't
Speaker 2: in that vehicle. The car did explode, the bomb did explode,
Speaker 2: and several bodyguards were killed. There was an ensuing gun
Speaker 2: battle that killed several people, and there were even there
Speaker 2: would be assassins, you know, the people that planted the
Speaker 2: bomb and everything. They had links to al Qaeda, and
Speaker 2: it's thought that maybe maybe I five had a little
Speaker 2: bit of a hand in.
Speaker 4: This, right.
Speaker 1: The head of the Libyan desk for mi I five
Speaker 1: at the time was a guy named David Shaler, and
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety seven he left the service leaked this
Speaker 1: information at these accusations, these allegations to the press. He
Speaker 1: was forced to flee to France, and in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: eight he claimed that the plot to kill Gadaffi had
Speaker 1: been funded by.
Speaker 4: M I six. Wow, cooperation with m I five.
Speaker 2: There's you know, taking out a head, a leader like
Speaker 2: that of a country is no small deal.
Speaker 1: Well, and there's compelling it's not compelling evidence, there's proof
Speaker 1: that ultimately the French government was behind the assassination of
Speaker 1: Goadaffi to preserve financial hegemony because they wanted you know,
Speaker 1: Godaffy did many, many terrible things, but the thing France
Speaker 1: was most frightened of him doing was to create a
Speaker 1: continental African currency, a denollur. Yeah, so mess with the money, right,
Speaker 1: that's what happens.
Speaker 2: Money in the oil.
Speaker 1: The new series starting Matt Frederick.
Speaker 7: Here's always money in the banana stand.
Speaker 4: So what does this all mean?
Speaker 1: This is this is pretty strange because it's rare for
Speaker 1: this kind of information to come out in such a
Speaker 1: blatant way. Yeah, break the law for the greater good,
Speaker 1: most intelligence agencies, I would say, pra just that right.
Speaker 1: The problem is the goalpost of that defines greater good
Speaker 1: is always moving.
Speaker 4: Who's good, right, greater for whom?
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly, And at this point many of us listening
Speaker 1: to the show today will have a hard time being surprised.
Speaker 1: Some of us might even support this policy, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. There are people who say that torture
Speaker 1: is a terrible thing, but ultimately it saves lives. We
Speaker 1: have an episode on why that is not true as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but but there are points to be made that
Speaker 2: if you it's not an easy task to stop the
Speaker 2: you know that, in your worldview, the worst people in
Speaker 2: the world from doing the worst things. That's not an
Speaker 2: easy task to prevent that from happening, and you do
Speaker 2: have to perhaps do some bad things. It's just I
Speaker 2: think in this case, it's that gray area of how
Speaker 2: bad is too bad for the a thing for the
Speaker 2: good guys to do to prevent the bad guys.
Speaker 7: Well, it's that idea that to like counter to the
Speaker 7: bad guys, you got to stoop to their level. We
Speaker 7: got to play by their rules otherwise you're gonna get
Speaker 7: stepped all over right in theory?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's a good point. Did they
Speaker 1: tell you guys rewatched True Detective recently?
Speaker 4: Season two? Season one?
Speaker 2: Thank god?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I have a friend that really says, revisit season two,
Speaker 7: give another chance.
Speaker 4: I yeah, I've heard that.
Speaker 1: I've heard that before, but I didn't take a break
Speaker 1: beause season one was just so great. There's a quote
Speaker 1: that's not a spoiler, but this, this conversation reminds me
Speaker 1: of it. The two main characters, Marty and Rust, are
Speaker 1: having a philosophical discussion about the nature of good and evil,
Speaker 1: and at some point in the conversation, Marty says Marty
Speaker 1: asked if they're good people, and Rust says, no, we're bad,
Speaker 1: but they need bad men like us to keep the
Speaker 1: others from the door.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that made that a bear from the beginning
Speaker 4: of the show. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Or Jack Nicholson, right, not not as a not as
Speaker 1: a character, just him.
Speaker 4: He's keep don't know, he's a creepy looking guy. I
Speaker 4: don't know. I wouldn't want him to knock him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know him well enough to remark on
Speaker 1: his door policy.
Speaker 2: I guess, I guess the big question is do we
Speaker 2: have to have the bad guys inside the door keeping
Speaker 2: the other bad guys from the door. Why can't we
Speaker 2: just build a giant wall and.
Speaker 4: Topical topical question? So I take that.
Speaker 2: Totally, getting them totally.
Speaker 1: Well. It's a good question though, because should m I
Speaker 1: five allow its agents and informants to break the law?
Speaker 1: Does it really does it really become a necessary evil
Speaker 1: on the way to achieving a greater good?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: And if so, for who what laws they break? How
Speaker 1: do we measure the success or the efficiency of something
Speaker 1: like this if it's conducted entirely in secret? What sort
Speaker 1: of oversight should the public and or government agencies have
Speaker 1: on this process? Because right now the answer is not.
Speaker 1: But yeah, they have a letter from twenty twelve that's like,
Speaker 1: don't send this to anybody. David Cameron sent a no
Speaker 1: snitching letter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly what happened, and that's where we are today,
Speaker 2: no snitching, boys.
Speaker 4: And girls, Snitches end up in stitches. Yeah, Well, tell
Speaker 4: us what you think.
Speaker 1: Find us on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter and let us know.
Speaker 1: Are these things necessary evils, is allowing the collapse of
Speaker 1: the rule of law in one scenario really necessary to
Speaker 1: allow the enforcement of rule of law in another situation? Right,
Speaker 1: That's ultimately the question really is.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I was just going to bring
Speaker 2: this up before we ended at the Tenderfoot holiday party
Speaker 2: thing that we were at the three of US. I
Speaker 2: ran into a gentleman. Paul Dicken was there too, but
Speaker 2: I ran into a gentleman who truly truly believes and
Speaker 2: had a long discussion on me about it that the
Speaker 2: British government still controls the United States.
Speaker 4: I overheard that, and I didn't want to jump in.
Speaker 2: He truly believed it. Oh, I should talk to him,
Speaker 2: I know, well, I kind of. I didn't want to
Speaker 2: go any deeper than we already had in the conversation
Speaker 2: because it's one of those that doesn't really go anywhere.
Speaker 2: After you hit a certain wall. It's like, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: you can't prove anything, but that's an interesting idea.
Speaker 4: Did you tell me did an episode on it?
Speaker 2: I did?
Speaker 1: Did you tell him that he can contact us via
Speaker 1: a telephone call? We're just a phone call away.
Speaker 2: I did, I said, call one eight three three std
Speaker 2: WYTK brought the STD back for this one because it's
Speaker 2: not about awful things like the last one.
Speaker 1: Oh and I also also want to just in the
Speaker 1: interest of full transparency, I'm not at death's door, but
Speaker 1: I am in. I am darn sure on like the
Speaker 1: sub basement of sickness right now. So that's why my
Speaker 1: voice sounds.
Speaker 4: A little bad.
Speaker 1: If you heard any any mucusy noises, sorry, folks, that
Speaker 1: was me.
Speaker 4: Should be hailing hardy later. Are you down with the sickness? Ben? Oh?
Speaker 4: Oh ah, I'm always I'm always up to something.
Speaker 2: It's just extra deep. I like it.
Speaker 4: It's nice and gravelly. Thanks guys, Paul, Will Shirley snip
Speaker 4: out all the snot sounds, thanks Paul.
Speaker 1: So yeah, let us let us know what you think
Speaker 1: and check in with your fellow and listeners. We'd like
Speaker 1: to take this debate to the internet, and we mentioned
Speaker 1: it earlier in the show, but you can find us
Speaker 1: at our Facebook site.
Speaker 4: Here's where it gets crazy if you love all that.
Speaker 2: And that's the end of this classic episode. If you
Speaker 2: have any thoughts or questions about this episode, you can
Speaker 2: get into contact with us in a number of different ways.
Speaker 2: One of the best is to give us a call.
Speaker 2: Our number is one eight three three STDWYTK. If you
Speaker 2: don't want to do that, you can send us a
Speaker 2: good old fashioned email.
Speaker 1: We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they don't want you to know. Is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.