Scott Ritter Extra: Ask the Inspector

Ask the Inspector Ep. 188

Scott Ritter answers questions from the audience with host Jeff Norman most Friday nights at 5 PM PT/8 PM ET/1 AM GMT and most Tuesdays at noon PT/3PM ET/8PM GMT. Special Guest this episode: Indpendent Journalist Richard Medhurst. https://x.com/richimedhurst https://www.richardmedhurst.com/

Submit your question in advance and donate to Waging Peace, Scott's campaign for nuclear disarmament, at https://ScottRitter.com.

Opening music by Ed Kliman https://texasmusicforge.com/, Brian Pothier https://www.facebook.com/pothierproductions and ShortBusMusic https://hearthis.at/shortbusmusic-6e/.

Duration:: 1h 33m
Broadcast on:: 27 Aug 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] Yeah, baby, it's episode 188 of Ask the Inspector on August 27th, 2024. Jeff Norman with Scott Ritter, as always. And today our special guest is independent journalist Richard Medhurst, who was recently arrested at London's Heathrow Airport and charged with violating their extremely dubious terrorism act. And first of all, Richard, welcome, we love you, we support you. Condolences as to what happened and what you're going through. >> Thank you very much, I wasn't charged, but they might charge me. So yeah, that's the whole point, it's like keep it dangling over your head. I appreciate the solidarity, thank you. >> Yeah, same with Scott's suspicion, but not a charge yet. Thanks for that correction. And yeah, I mean, sorry on a personal level and also in the big picture. We've got to lament what this means for all of us. And this is really, I think the first opportunity to have you two together and I'm really looking forward to this because I want to see what you both think about how we can possibly connect the dots. There's something going on here worldwide. But before we get to that, you might be sick of it. So please, just for the benefit of, you probably told the story over and over again, but just for the benefit of our viewers who aren't familiar with what happened to you, Richard, if you wouldn't mind just briefly summarizing it, and then we'll get into the big picture. >> Yeah, of course, so I was flying in to Heathrow and they called my name to the front of the aircraft before anyone was allowed to disembark. And I went up and I suddenly see these bunch of people in suits. I obviously knew what was going to happen, because it's who else, in what other situations would you be called to the front of the damn plane. And then one of them, of course, was like obviously in police tactical gear. I, yes, so like you had counter terrorism outfit and all this stuff. And yeah, they asked me if I'm Richard Medhurst, and I said yes. And then they asked me for my bags. And then we started walking up the bridge, and they kind of held everybody back inside the plane because we were alone. And they, I don't know what they were doing my bags because the guy who took them suddenly disappeared and I kind of protested, I stopped and I said where are my bags? And they accused me of stalling. They thought that I was trying to be funny, I'm trying to stop here and make it about the bags. And then I kept walking just to show that I'm not a threat. I'm not trying to do anything, I'm not trying to try anything on. And they kind of threatened to humiliate me with a rest in front of everybody. They said, you can get nicked in front of everyone or over there. And I was like, confused, you just nicked me in front of everyone. They saw you taking my bags, what else does it look like? So they took me, there was a room immediately after the bridge. We went in there, they read me my Miranda rights. I don't recall them telling me I have a lawyer. And at this point, I was thinking, well, I'm going to be schedule seven. I thought that I will just be questioned in the airport. They will force me to answer all the questions. I will not have a right to a lawyer. And then I'll be on my way. And it only really didn't dawn on me until I was already in the goddamn cell that I'm like, oh, they've actually arrested me. I'm not being detained and this is something entirely different. And they told me it's section 12. And I told them, what is section 12? Can you explain what section 12 means? Because you have a right to know why you're being arrested. And they just had like a piece of paper. And as is the norm in England, it's like they were friendly. They're civil to you while they're putting a knife in your belly. And again, it's something against those specific police. It's just that's the English way of doing it. Like, we'll be civil while we're kind of-- So they took me down onto the runway after they searched me. And of course, this guy put on these latex gloves and started searching me. And then they took me into this truck, which is made for like one person. So it's like a cage, essentially. And they drove me to the police station. And while they were booking me, they were like ransacking the bags and going through everything. And they also tried contacting my family. So can I at least tell someone what's happening to me? Nobody knows where I am. Nobody knows what's happening. And they explicitly forbid me from telling a family member. They said that I'm not allowed to do that. And I asked them multiple times. I asked them while they were searching me still in the airport. I asked them while it was being booked. So they made it very, very clear that I was not allowed to tell anyone. I don't know what they thought I was going to do. But then also the thing with the lawyers is very interesting. Because I don't remember them telling me I could have a lawyer at any point. I accidentally saw a poster inside of the police station. And I thought, let me try it on. Even if there's a small chance, let me just ask if I can have a lawyer. Maybe I can. And then I asked one of the arresting officers who was a woman. So it was six of them, right? Originally. So five men, one woman. And I asked if I could have a lawyer, a solicitor. And she was so kind of nonchalant about it. It wasn't really a thing that you need or that you can have it if you want to. I was ordering a burger. So it was really so believable to me. And I did take note of that. So I then asked the woman who was booking me, the police officer, who was booking me if I could have a lawyer. And I gave her a list of names. But just to be clear, I'd asked to contact my family. I'd asked to go to the toilet. I'd asked for water multiple times while being arrested, while being booked, after I was booked. And they were really-- they'd say, yeah, sure, and then nothing would happen. So I was really doubting if they would even call a lawyer for me. I really was. I thought the whole idea was like, OK, you're going to be humiliated. They're going to dehumanize you. They're going to keep you in the can like as long as they can. And ironically, I was-- I've always criticized the terrorism act. I didn't just do that before I got on the plane. I've been doing this for years, because they started with-- I remember with David Miranda with Glenn Greenwald's husband. They were doing this stuff. And they did it with a lot of other people. And I knew that they can extend it. They can make 24 hours, then 36 or 48. They can do it for weeks if they want. So I really had no idea what's going on. And I didn't know why they had arrested me. They wouldn't explain to me what Section 12 was and what these prescribed organizations was. I really had no idea. And I was in there for like-- yeah, so from 6 p.m., 6.30 p.m., I think they arrested me. And then they questioned me the next day, the next afternoon, around 2 maybe, something like that. So you're sitting in there and they're filming you while you're peeing, while you're eating, and you eat with cardboard. And there's no toilet paper. It's cold. You're sleeping on a concrete ledge with-- it's just really barbaric. For-- forget me. Forget me, in my case. No one should be in those conditions. No one. Right, right, right. It's really archaic. It does make you wonder whether or not this is the norm. This is how they treat people. It's not exactly torture, but it isn't far from torture, either. It's very dehumanizing. And I can-- you know, I think you mentioned in another interview, the handcuffs were on so tightly. They left them marked for a while. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So they put them on. And I could immediately tell there's something weird about these handcuffs. Like they were made for serial killers or something. Like they don't go on sideways, but like up, you know? And it was like one giant block of metal with two rings. You know, so it's like, you need to be Harry Houdini to break out of these things. And they dove a lot of them and everything. And then I asked them to loosen them in the truck. And they did. And they were still too tight. And then they said, oh, don't worry. They'll be gone in a day or two or something. And if you want, you can see the nurse. And I said, yeah, I'd like to. Let's document what's going on. And then, of course, I can get to see the nurse or like way later. And yeah, I mean, I think that was all part of it. And I asked him, is this really necessary? Like, you obviously have some idea of my profile and who I am. Do you really need to handcuff me? Because you have to have some idea when you're arresting people, you know, how many officers do you need to bring? Are they this big of a wiz? So, you know, they obviously knew I'm a journalist. They know who my parents are. They know my father was in the Met. They know he's an expert on counter-terrorism. I mean, it's outrageous, really, it's preposterous. Yeah. Well, I mentioned before, this is part of something that's going on all over the globe. I mean, just in the last few weeks, kim.com has been, well, he hasn't been extradited yet, but the US is trying to extradite him. Scott's house was raided by the FBI. Your situation, Pavel Dura, the founder of Telegram, was just arrested in France a few days ago. Chris Pavlovsky, who's the founder of Rumble, was in Europe at the time, and he felt so threatened by it. He fled Europe. Elon Musk has been charged with some crimes and threatened with others. France and Brazil are either censoring or threatening to censor these social media platforms. All this is going on at the same time. So I wanna just throw a theory that Mike Benz has at you guys. See if you agree if there are maybe you think something else is going on. But just to keep it simple, his theory is that the blob wants to thwart populism. Anywhere in the globe, populism is a threat to their economic interests. And that's what's going on now. Do you agree with that? Do you think something else is going on? What do you guys think? - Well, I'll take it this way. I mean, this is sort of a big picture idea from it. I, this is information warfare. We are engaged in full-scale information warfare between the establishment and the counter establishment. And they have lost control of their ability to control the narrative. The mainstream media has lost, I mean, they're just bleeding audience like you wouldn't believe. The viewership is down. The credibility is eroded to almost nothing. I mean, the gray lady New York Times used to be something. Today, it's a frickin' joke. Same thing with the Washington Post. I mean, the Washington Post is firing staff because nobody wants to read the crap they write. And then, out comes somebody like Richard Metters who is out there leading the charge. I mean, there's a couple of things about what you do, Richard, that this is my perspective. One, you're saying things that nobody else has the courage to say. I mean, you're out there telling the truth. But you also do it in an informative yet entertaining way. I mean, I don't think you intend to be entertaining. I don't think you go out there and say, "How can I do this?" But, you know, people are angry out there in the world today. There's people who are angry about situations that are being ignored by the mainstream media. And you come out there and you manifest their anger. So they identify with you and they become one with you. And then they start to follow you. And suddenly you have the ability to influence more people than BBC, than MSNBC, then CNN. And now you are a threat to the establishment because now the establishment and trying to counter you can't use their typical tools because the people who are being influenced by you have unplugged from that. And worse, you're starting to draw people over from the other, the old established media. This is information warfare, pure and simple. And so the only thing that the establishment has left is the tools of suppression and oppression. And that's what they've done to you, Richard. That's what they're trying to do to me. They arrested you, you know, if this was a criminal. Again, I'm not here to, you know, but I like reading to it. This was a criminal, a genuine criminal investigation. You would have had access to a lawyer from the start. They wouldn't have messed around because there evidence against you to, I imagine in England to get a warrant of this nature somebody has to go before a magistrate and a probable cause has to be articulated. You know, why do we want to detain a citizen? And if they had evidence of a crime, again, do you have your passport? - Yeah. - So they gave you your passport back? - Yeah, I'm out on unconditional bail and I have to go back to the station in the three months. - Right, but they gave you your passport back? - Yeah. - Is the British crown in the business of handing the passport off to known or suspected terrorists? And you don't have to answer that question. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. They don't return the passport to people who are genuinely being investigated on serious charges. Are you in the United Kingdom? - No, I was allowed to leave. - So you're outside the span of control of her, or his Majesty's government, again? - Yeah, I mean, they have long arms. Let's put it that way. - Well, no, of course they do. But again, they're not in the business of letting people go free, who are accused of serious crimes. So when you put all this together, this just seems to me, I mean, it's unfortunate for you, but it's the same that I feel for me. It's an act of theater. It's designed to intimidate you and to intimidate others because whether you like it or not, Richard, you're a role model. Right now, there's a whole bunch of kids out there in journalism school who are making a decision. Do I wanna go off and write for The Guardian? Or do I wanna be the new Richard Medhurst to go out there and get my own podcast and have my own show and drive emotions and be out there leading the charge? And a lot of them are saying they wanna be Richard Medhurst, and which is a cool thing. But that's the last thing the establishment wants. So they're trying to destroy you individually, but they're also trying to destroy your brand and the concept of independent alternative media, independent journalism of things. Because this is the greatest threat to the establishment there is. This is the greatest threat to the blob there is. They've lost control of the narrative, and you're one of the ones who's out there shaping this new narrative, and they have to try to intimidate you. My read of you, I've never physically met you, but we've talked before. You've interviewed me many times. This is the first time I've actually had the honor and privilege of having you on our show. I hope that it doesn't require you to be arrested every time you appear on this show. But the fact of the matter is, the person that I know through our communication is a person of integrity, of courage, of honor. So I don't imagine you're a wilting flower that the first sign of adversity you're gonna fall apart and blow away in the wind. So I think they pick the wrong guy to try and intimidate, but look, I consider myself to be a rather tough guy. I'd be a liar if I said, having the FBI come to your house and sees your electronics is not a worrisome event because they have a lot of power. Whether they're justified in the exercise of this power is irrelevant. They have a lot of power. They've already exercised it with you and with me. It's designed to intimidate. And if they decide to, and I hope in both of our cases, they don't because there's no justification, they can not just intimidate, but they can punish. And punish doesn't mean that it's just. It means it's punishment. It's designed to destroy, designed to bring harm. And we're getting to that stage in the devolution of our society's, respective societies, that that's the only thing. They can't debate you, Richard. They can't debate you. They can't have a discussion, a dialogue. They can't match you fact for fact. So they have to silence you. And that's what I think is going on here. - Did you leave England because of what happened, Richard? - I wonder you were planning to leave anyway at this particular time. - No, no, I had a flight back. I had a flight back. They knew I taught the police very clearly. Like here's the ticket and they know I'm gonna show up and I'll come back to the station. I've got nothing to hide, nothing to fear. And yeah, thank you, Scott, for your kind words. And obviously the feeling is mutual in every regard and every aspect. And I can't help but feel like they're also angry because we've got this UN background and we're informed and we kind of know what we're talking about. And they just don't want people of our background like kind of shining a light on the crimes that usually our diplomats, like if you look at the diplomatic corps now in the US and in the UK, I mean, it's really scandalous. They're robots. They're just going off to the UN Security Council and all these things and just rubber stamping what Israel is doing. And they've done that for a very long time. Like, don't get me wrong. They've done it for a lot of things. But if you look at 50 years ago, 60 years ago, there was like a minimum, like a bare minimum of, you know, right and wrong. You know, like your annexing territory is wrong. We're not gonna, okay, this, we're not going to allow this. We're gonna vote against Israel and so on. And I think they're angry that we're, you know, they view it as some kind of treachery, which is completely ridiculous. I think, actually, I think what, Scott, you're doing and, you know, what I'm doing in England and many others like me in England are doing is patriotism, actually. I really do think that. It's your course correcting the country because you love the country, because you want the country to be better and you know it can be better. So, you know, I think this idea, you know, for them, it's like, it's some kind of a treachery to the establishment, if you will. But it's got nothing to do with not liking a country or being a security threat to your country or some nonsense like that. I mean, it's really outrageous. It's honestly outrageous what they did to you with this rate. And you mentioned the electronics. I completely forgot to say they also seized my electronics to the point that they took everything. Like, they took my headphones, wireless headphones, wired microphone, wireless microphones. Like, I said, I need these things to do interviews, man. Like, you know, you're taking them from me and they're like, yeah, they shouldn't be in the bag but, you know, it's like already sealed and stuff, which is rubbish because if they want to, they can unseal the bags like they did in front of me when they booked me and put them in different bags. I saw them, I saw how it works. So, you know, it's honestly ridiculous what they've done. And I think it's an invasion of privacy. And as a journalist, I feel it's particularly egregious because, you know, I have sources to protect. I have things that have nothing to do with what they're accusing me. I have nothing to do with anything, you know, family photos like, you know, this is an invasion of privacy pure and simple. And the same thing applies to you, Scott, and what they did. It's like, they want you to feel the crushing power of the state and to intimidate you that way. And it is impart theater, I think, although, you know, I'm not in any way denigrating the seriousness of what they're accusing us of on the contrary. I think we're very conscious of how serious it is. And that's why we intend to fight it because we know that it's not true. - 100%. I'll just expand on one thing you said. You, because what you said is correct. It's the, what we're doing is the most patriotic thing that we can do. But as an American, I just want people to understand that this isn't Scott Ritter's innovative interpretation of patriotism. It's actually directed by our founding fathers. The whole purpose of free speech, the First Amendment, is so that we the people can hold our elected government accountable for what they do in our name. And the Supreme Court has consistently said that it is the duty and responsibility of a free people exercising free speech and a free press to expose the lies of their government, who, you know, especially when the government is deceiving them about issues that can lead to Americans dying in foreign lands. So this isn't me sitting back going, how can I piss off the US government today? This is me, a Marine who was, who took an oath and was willing to die in defense of this oath. An oath that says to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies born and domestic. I take this oath damn seriously. And right now, unfortunately, the number one enemy of the constitution domestically is the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are launching a frontal assault on free speech on the First Amendment. This is the fundamental, as an American, this is the fundamental issue of our times. This is the issue that will decide and define what America will be going forward. If we yield on this, then we're no longer America. Because in America without free speech is not in America. It's something else, it's something different. And I know you're a British citizen, but we crafted a lot of our beliefs and values from British common law, from, I mean, the Magna Carta is one of the first statements of freedom and democracy. And so we share a lot of values. I know the intricacies of our laws and the way they're worded are different, but the concept of free speech is not alien to the British. The concept of a free press is not alien to the British. They have things like the secret act and all this kind of stuff that's different than us. But generally speaking, the British people are a people that believe in freedoms, basic freedoms. And every Brit I've met is absolutely assertive in his or her right to say what I want to say. I have a right to speak. I shall be heard the Oxford debate, one of the great debating societies in the world is all about free speech, debate done in a civil manner. I mean, my God, how low has England sunk? And you can answer that question if you'd like. - No, no, it's got, you're absolutely right. I do see those similarities. And obviously, it's like, it's just shocking to me. It's just shocking to me the suspension of rights when you're hit with something as archaic as the terrorism act. It's designed to put you like an illegal black hole, you know? And it's foreign to everything that I was raised on. You know, my father was in the metropolitan police before he went to the UN. So he basically, he joined the Met for a few years and then he was in UN security, then UNP's keeping them back to UN security. So, you know, he has that background. He taught me a lot about English common law and all these principles, Magna Carta. You know, all of the fact that, you know, what is bail? I remember being a child and he's teaching me like all of these things. You know, so it's like, I was shocked the way that they were talking to me when I was in the station. They were saying things like, you have the right to know why you're arrested and I asked them, well, yeah, I've been asking you for the last hour, why have I been arrested? And they even give me a piece of paper while they were saying it to me verbally. And then they just wouldn't explain and say, "Well, the arresting officers, we don't actually know. "You'll be questioned later. "When will I be questioned? "We don't really know, you'll find out." And then, you know, they did allow me to have a lawyer, like I was saying, but I didn't really know if they would actually call one because I felt like, again, I've been putting a legal black hole, like the rights are suspended. I'm not allowed to tell anyone. And to be clear, the whole time I was in there, I never spoke to any family member or any friend. I could only speak to a lawyer once the lawyer had called me back. Now, yes, I could also phone them 24 hours a day if I wanted to. I was there for almost 24 hours. But several times I did ask to speak to the lawyer and they would just ignore me. They would say, yes. And then, I mean, like, they wouldn't ignore me verbally. They would acknowledge what I asked for. They'd say, yes, but then they go away and then nothing would happen. My lawyer tried to call me two times and I didn't even know about it until I got out. One time she tried to call me. They put it through to the cell instead of taking me out of the cell to the room where you speak to the lawyer. And they told me the calls being monitored. So, you know, it was shocking, shocking behavior. I don't know if anyone, if everyone's treated like this, but it was really shocking. And, you know, to go back to what you were saying, Scott, you know, this is not how a democratic country should be functioning. You know, even if we're dealing with like, you know, an actual, like an actual terrorism plot to case, whatever, like they've got Ben Laden or something. You're supposed to have rights. That's the whole point of being a civilized society. You've got rights, you've got clear guidelines of how this works. You don't just suspend people's rights because, you know, the type of offense. That's what they would say to me, by the way. Like, due to the nature of your alleged offense, your calls being withheld, meaning I can't speak to that family. So, I think it's really shocking that we're having these basic rights when you're being arrested and when you're being questioned and when you're being, you know, you're being held in custody, kind of, you know, wishy-washy. And then also on top of that, your free speech, your freedom of speech being played around with and treated like, you know, it doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to remind people that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is inside of British law under the Human Rights Act. So, you know, we can look at this from centuries ago and we can look at this with modern things like the European Convention on Human Rights. One way or another, they've attacked my right to free speech as a journalist. And, you know, what they're doing in America, I think, is all the more egregious because I think, you know, the United States was created to get away from Britain and now it's looking more and more like Britain, in a sense, so it's kind of ironic. - Well, we have something here that's roughly the equivalent, which is this notion of hate speech. Now, one key difference is that unlike the terrorism act, it's not an actual law, but we're up against a mindset. We have a big part of our population, which seems to think that so-called hate speech is a crime. In fact, one of the vice presidential candidates, just a few days ago, said precisely that. Disinformation and hate speech, he claimed it are not protected by the First Amendment, which is of course absurd. So I think the mindset is a big part of it too, and we have ordinary people who tolerate it, and I think that's why the powers that can get away with it. So to that point, Richard, I'm curious, I'm sure you're getting a lot of support from your fans, but are you finding that ordinary people who maybe don't agree with your point of view are sticking up for you based on principle or are you only getting support from your fans? I've gotten a whole ton of support all across the planet. It's frankly quite overwhelming. It's really humbling, and I'm grateful for it. And I've had people write to me and say, I don't usually agree with your politics, but this is scandalous, or saying things like, I agree with some of what you write, not everything, but what they did to you is completely unjust. And yeah, so I've seen a lot of stuff like that. Frankly, I couldn't read everything because it's so overwhelming. And yeah, there's lots of activist groups and NGOs and things like that that have said express support for me or like our preparing things in my favor. So that's really helpful and really kind. Because I think they're trying to make an example out of me because I'm the first one, first journalist they've arrested. So again, not just detained, but like arrested and also under section 12. And the threshold for section 12 is so loose and low. It's like they have the word reckless in there, reckless. So even if it's not your intention, apparently, you could have accidentally like a drunk driver or something promoted for a prescribed organization. So it's like, anyone could be guilty. You might not even know that you're a terrorist. It's like something from 1984. Is there a terrorist hiding inside of you? I mean, I couldn't believe this really. So my point with that is just, I think people are grasping how absurd and how loosely written and formulated the lawyers. And that's why a lot of them, even if they don't have my politics, they're saying and expressing their outrage at this injustice. And you can really see the crackdown. You know, you mentioned in the beginning what was happening around the world. I'd like to add two cases to that. If that's OK, there's Mary Carstachidis in Australia who did wonderful work on Asandra's case. And I was with her in court like a million times. She's being targeted by the attorney general and these like so-called groups that fight antisemitism. And they're trying to like, they're trying to stitch her up and basically call her an antisemite and get her in legal trouble. And that's happening right now. And then also in England, while I was getting on the plane, I was criticizing terrorism acts, particularly in relation to Palestine action. Because they've been going in and sabotaging the arms factories that are producing a lot of the weaponry that is going to the Israeli military and then being used to kill people in Palestine. And they had arrested six of them and then it became nine. And then they've already sent some of them to prison now for a year each. So you're seeing this escalation with censorship and the escalation of the use of the terrorism act all across the Western world, all the way to Australia. It is not a coincidence. It's happening in synchronicity. Well, we should also talk about not only the people, but the social media platforms. That's another thing that we share in Commons. We use the same social media platforms. And you both hit the nail on the head earlier when you refer to how it's not just that your truth tellers, it's that your popular truth tellers. Now, for example, we're on a bunch of different social media channels, one of which is Odyssey. But you never hear about Odyssey being vulnerable, even though they uphold free speech, they don't censor at all. And it must be because they're just not that popular. What you hear about is rumble and X. And I don't know why you don't hear that much about substack, maybe because they're not as focused on video. I'm not really sure, but substack is huge and they don't censor either. But I think we should kind of not only complain, but applaud those who are sticking up for free speech in particular, X and rumble. We're on right now, streaming live there. - Yeah, no, I swear 100%. I mean, we had our problems with YouTube. We started out as trying to make this a primarily YouTube platform. I think Richard, when I first started talking to you, is YouTube as well, right, for you? - Yeah, correct. - Yeah, and then YouTube has decided that they just don't believe in free speech. And I'll call YouTube out on this anytime, but you don't believe in free speech. You are literally a censorship platform. You work for, I think Google. You've sold out to the man. You literally are part of the establishment. You suck, and I hope that everybody that uses YouTube will stop you because all you're doing is facilitating the insanity of censorship. But one of the interesting things about YouTube, well, and the addiction of it, is the monetization of it. And I know, Richard, if I get into an area where it makes you uncomfortable, you just don't have to answer this at all. But, the last time I checked me as an individual, I have to eat, and there's not a lot of free food around. I tend to have to put this thing called money on the table to get the food. I live in a house. They didn't give it to me for free. I pay a mortgage. I have a car. There's a car payment associated with that. Basically, I have life. Kids, family, responsibilities. They cost money. Now, I have chosen to do this particular job of independent journalists. So I find things to do here and there. It all takes time. Writing articles. I don't know if you write articles on a regular basis. I do. It's extraordinarily time consuming. And then you get involved in this social media stuff, the alternative media, the podcasting. And it takes forever to do this as well. YouTube gave you an opportunity to practice journalism and to earn a living from it. In a way that the time money aspect was that if you did stuff on YouTube and it got monetized, you could pay some bills. You're not going to get rich, I wasn't going to get rich, but he bills. And shutting down YouTube doesn't just shut down the ability to reach an audience. It affects the viability of the business model. Which is, I think it was one of the reasons why a lot so many people make compromises that they do to stay on YouTube. But one question I want to ask you is, they took all your electronics. How did you replace them? Do you have, I mean, have they disrupted your income stream? Are people rallying to your support? Do you need help? Let us know because you're a journalist. You're an independent journalist and it's essential that you be allowed to continue to do your work. So, are you okay? Are you paying your bills? Are you, what's going on? - No, that's a good question. Thank you, Scott. So, yeah, they demonetized my YouTube channel like a few months ago, it's almost been a year. Yeah, it was like towards the start of the genocide, like in October or something like that. And yeah, 'cause I started making this documentary series, I think it really angered them and I don't know. It was very, you could tell it was a concerted, coordinated effort because, you know, all these videos are fine and then all of a sudden, like, you know, 10 of them get removed at once. Like, it's obviously mass reporting by like a bunch of, you know, Israeli trolls or something like that. But so, yeah, it's like, that basically the idea of demonetizing your YouTube is to make sure that you can't earn a living as a journalist and therefore you can't work as a journalist, right? So, it relates to everything you just said. And yeah, they seized my, so now going back to this recent event, they seized all my devices and like I said, they took away my microphones even. They took away, so like a transmitter and a receiver, you know, like a road wireless microphone set and they took away a wired microphone as well and headphones. So, I've had to go and try and replace all of these and, you know, I still need to get a phone. I mean, it's like, you know, and also communication has been disrupted because I, you know, usually I would get like a notification, okay, if someone's emailed me. Now I have to go, I have to be stuck on the computer and checking if I'm, you know, getting something so I can respond sooner rather than later. So, yeah, they basically cost me hundreds if not thousands, I haven't even done the whole tally yet, you know, and also, I mean, you know, all this stuff, they gave me back including the, you know, like the clothes and all this stuff. I mean, who's to say they didn't plant something in the damn thing? I'm not being paranoid. I know how this stuff works. I have a very, very good idea, you know, and the thing is when it comes to so-called terrorism, it's open season, you know, you can do whatever you want. There is no accountability for the security services, especially in England and it's the same in the US. You know, they can get over with anything they want and British ingenuity goes back all the way to World War II, coming up with finicky ways to bug people and do all sorts of things. So, I'm not surprised and that doesn't make it okay, but, you know, it's like everything has to be replaced. So, yeah, that costs a lot of money. - I guess the first of all, just say this, when I was in Iraq as a weapons inspector, we modified our vehicles to be moving video and communication intercept devices because we would drive up to Iraqi facilities, nose first and get our nose stuck there as far as possible. And then we would video the era and record the Iraqi responses and the conversations. The people who set this up for us, London Metropolitan Police. So, you know, they're very good at what they do. - Yeah, I fought and told me on the trick, so yeah, yeah, yeah. - And my wife and I were just, we just assumed that when the FBI had total access to our house, that, "Hello guys, how you doing?" We just assumed that they're listening to everything. We don't care, I mean, if they don't live the most exciting lifestyle, we're old. But the point is, I guess the question is, one, just a personal question, we'll talk about this later. Do you use iPhones? - No. - No, would you use an iPhone? - No, and I think-- - All right, well, so much for me getting you a free phone, but I'm-- (laughing) - Well, just to follow up on your nice desire there to make sure Richard is okay financially, if people go to your website, Richard, can they donate there? - Oh, yeah, so basically it's through Patreon. It's on my website, but it's a Patreon thing. It's patreon.com/richardmetters. Yeah, that's-- - But that's the path to Patreon. If they go to the website, they'll see it. - Yes, yes, thank you. It's kind of-- - I would encourage everybody watching the show today, either while you're watching, or as soon as you're done, to go to Richard Medher's site and support Richard, because he is under attack. His journalism is under attack. They've cost him to incur tremendous expenses, and it's disruptive to the business model. So Richard's going through a very difficult time. He may not be wanting to say it, and I don't mean to put you in a bad spot, Richard, but believe me, I think I have a little bit of insight into what you might be going through. So any help that anybody can provide at this time, plus it's just uncertain. I don't know if you've set up a legal defense funder, not, but lawyers are very expensive. And so just getting Richard the, this is an important fight. Even if you're an American and you're saying, well, he's British, what do we have to do? No, this is a global problem, and we need to get all the victories where we can, and Richard's is a fight that, you know, we have to win, we collectively have to win. - Right, unity is suddenly sort of a trend. I mean, here in the U.S., Bobby Kennedy just joined forces with Trump, followed by Tulsi Gabbard, and we have Chris Pavoloski and Elon Musk also being very supportive of one another. So it's a strategy, and it's an important strategy. - That's a good point, yeah. Then thank you, Scott, thank you, Steve, for, you know, like just, you know, having me on, but also encouraging people to donate. I really, I really do appreciate it, because, you know, I didn't want to talk about it before, but yeah, they cost me a lot of damn money. You know, it's not, it's not. - Just so you know, we operate under the Biden, the Biden model here, 10% for the big guy, but. (laughing) I'm joking. But, so what's next for you, Richard? What's on the horizon? - Well, I mean, I just got, I have to sit and wait. I mean, they said, so they put me under investigation for three months, and I have to show up at the police station in November, and the same one, and, you know, there could be no further action, or they could decide to charge me. They could also charge me right now, if they wanted to. And the thing is that it's not even restricted to anything I might say. They could do it with, like, retroactive things. So, you know, it's, I think it's designed that way on purpose. You know, one person put it to me this way, that they, with some other people that they released, they would condition their bail and say, you're not allowed to post on social media, and you're not allowed to do this. And in that way, it's kind of easier for them, because they're very clear guidelines, what you shouldn't do. But with me, they left the open-ended, maybe on purpose, maybe you could look at it this way, and analyze it this way. That maybe, you know, to give me the rope to hang myself with, or to think that I'm okay, and then I say something that actually, you know, gets them to charge me. And as a journalist, it's, you know, I wasn't released on bail for stealing cars or something, for Grand Theft Auto or for bank robbery. It's not like I can, you know, I can forego robbing a bank for three months or something. So, you know, it's like they're criminalizing the journalism. You know, they're saying, if I open my mouth, or I type something, that apparently this is criminal behavior, which is ludicrous, you know. I can, let's be clear. I'm not saying that when I do that, I'm doing something wrong. No, no, no, no. They are the ones who are casting such a wide net on everything to make it criminal. It is not criminal. So the point is kind of like to keep you on edge, you know? You can make you feel uneasy and uncertain. Can I say this? Can I talk about that? And also, you know, in the end, you're utterly self-policing and kind of doing their job for them. And so either you're self-police and you shut up and they win, or they charge you and put you in prison and they win. So, you know, it's like, I feel like I'm being, you know, I'm being made an example of and being politically persecuted by my government. I don't think it's a stretch to say that. I really do feel like they've put a target on my back. - Well, look, Richard, I look for me, not to, you know, who's got the better terrorist story to tell. They came into my house, you know? They were gonna get drunk at a bar, sitting in a store to get the longest drive. But they came in and they said that they were investigating concerns about my conduct, things I've written, et cetera, related to the Foreign Agent Registration Act. I said, well, that's curious. Can you be specific? They were like, you know, just concerns. I said, well, can you tell me exactly what the concern? And they never read me my rights. They never said you have a right to me and say, you know, they never read my rights. And I never asked for a lawyer. What I told them is, you guys, I'm totally transparent. I'm a journalist, I write, I'm hiding nothing here. - Yeah. - Let's talk about it. I'm more than happy to talk with you. And they were like, really? I said, yeah, let's go ahead and talk. And we talked for three and a half, four hours. And everybody's going, Scott, you shouldn't have done that. Wrong answer. I'm not hiding anything. I have, you know, a key aspect of the Foreign Agent Registration Act is it only becomes criminal conduct if you knowingly avoid registration. But to say knowingly means you have to say, I am violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act. I'm not in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, not in any way, shape, or form. So we had a very long, long conversation while they're seizing my electronics. And I kept telling them, you know, on that computer you just took, I've got like, you'll check it. I have a half finished book, maybe three quarters. I have an article that's on Deadline, meaning I have to get it out like tonight. I have other articles that I'm working on that I want to get done this week. And you're taking my livelihood. You're like, well, the funny thing was, can you prioritize which one of these are most important to you? And we'll get it, we'll try to get them back to you as soon as possible. (laughing) So I want my, I need my cell phone, then I need my work computer, then my wife needs her iPad because that's how she watches Korean dramas. And you're literally making my life a hell on earth if my wife can't watch Korean dramas. So, you know, but they took a, I don't think I'll ever gonna see these electronics again. And I don't want to, as you said, once they're in the possession of an institution that's willing to violate the Constitution to harass people, you just have to assume ill intent on their part. So I have all new equipment, but I asked them, I said, am I prohibited? 'Cause I said, I have to write this article is how I make money. You're literally, when you take that computer, you're not just taking the cost of that computer, you're taking tens of thousands of dollars of work of potential income is left with you. I need to continue. They said, oh, no, no, no, you can get a computer. I said, can I go on the internet? Oh, yeah, there's probably going on the internet. Can I do a podcast? (mumbles) Can I write? (mumbles) Can I get a cell phone? Yes, can I call, anything you want to do? I go, then why the hell are you doing this? What's the purpose? And the purpose is just what you said. You see, they sat there and they just released just enough to say, we're concerned about some of the things you've written. We're concerned about some of the associations you have. We're concerned about this. We're concerned about that. But not enough to handcuff me and lead me away. No, they left and they're like, hey, yep, have a good day. Go on with your life. And so now you have to sit there and go, what the hell is going on? I mean, did they just warn me? Am I supposed to do something? And I, you know, I made a decision and I checked with very, very good lawyers who are experts in this. Look, a lawyer, if you retain the first thing a lawyer is going to tell you is don't say anything. Don't say anything, don't say anything. And I said, well, here's the problem, guys. FBI came into my house and the whole media was out there filming it. Now the whole world thinks I've done something wrong. And they've articulated as the Foreign Agent Registration Act. So something about my work is wrong. If I stop doing what I do, I'm sort of lending credence to the notion that I might have been doing something wrong. And so I know you're supposed to be a little nervous about the rope, but a key aspect of American jurisprudence is mincerea. Do I think I'm committing a crime? The intent to commit a crime. I have no intent to commit a crime. I made that clear that I'm not committing a crime. Nothing I've done is a crime. Therefore, if they're going to allow me to reconstitute my ability to communicate and do my job, I'm going to do it the exact same way I've been doing it, which is also include to call them out. So I've been very aggressive, very aggressive in calling them out and fighting them. The difference between you and I, just so people understand that I'm not calling Richard out is he was arrested. And there are restrictions on what Richard can and can't say. I have no such restrictions. I would imagine Richard since we've appeared to be cut out of the same piece of cloth that if you didn't have any restrictions, you'd be out vocally advocating exactly as you had been doing what exactly what you have it, but you can't. And here's the frustrating thing for you. And again, this is me reading into it. You made it clear you're not allowed to talk about things. And we respect that. So I'm just going to go off here and you don't even show emotion. But in the United States, there's different ways to manifest quote unquote terrorism and support for terrorism. And one of the ways is to be seen as advocating for that. Richard is a very effective advocate for certain causes. Causes that aren't necessarily embraced by his government, my government, and other governments. And if that is, in fact, the crime, that means Richard can't do his job. Because one of the fun things about watching Richard Metters is watching him get out there and nail people to the cross. I shouldn't use a Christian analogy when talking about Jews persecuting Muslims, but forgive me, I'm a marine. The point is to basically take people to task for what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. And now I would imagine that's a very difficult thing for you to do because of the uncertainties that are out there. They haven't said you can't do this, but they've insinuated that something about the nature of your work creates a problem legally for you. So, in many ways, I'm in a much better situation than you are, Richard. Much better, A, I haven't been charged with anything. B, no restrictions, no legal limitations. I wouldn't know what to do if I were in your shoes. I mean, the fear, and I'm just talking to you as a man to man who, the fear that would exist in my gut. If I had your restrictions and your limitations, not of having done something wrong, but being able to live, to support yourself, the work that you've done for so long, such great work to see that the potential of that, to dissipate, you have an audience. Jeff and I know this too. If we stop broadcasting, one of the fickle things about social media and this kind of podcast-based advocacy is, we have to keep doing it to keep people engaged. If we stop doing it, the audience goes away. And once they flee to other podcasts, it's tough to get them back. This is an attack on your business model, man. This is a frontal assault, not just on free speech, but on your ability to sustain your business model. Now, your big enough name and you're a big enough guy that you're gonna get back on your feet, but that doesn't mean it's gonna be easy. It's gonna be extraordinarily hard. And we're here for you. I guess that's what I would say, is we're here. - Absolutely. Not to diminish your plight at all, Richard, but the guy who has it even worse right now is Pavel. He's in prison. Do you have a Telegram channel, Richard? - Yeah, just like posting the same updates that you're on Twitter and YouTube, so that's it. - Do you guys have any sense of what's going to happen to Telegram because of Pavel's situation? - I'm assuming that they're going to like, you know, they want a backdoor essentially, and they're gonna pressure him into giving them one. I think that's what's gonna happen. Hey, more of the team, like the engineers that he has. - And one of the interesting things is there was a rumor going around on Telegram that the Russian government was getting ready to order all communications to be deleted. So last night, as soon as I read that, I stopped and I went into my Telegram and opened up every single conversation I had with anybody that either was in the Russian government, Russian military sources, and I screenshot it to everything. My wife's like, well, why are you doing that? I said, I need a record because if it gets deleted, then the only record that's gonna exist is in the hands of the United States government. That means they get to cherry pick things, you know, and I don't believe in allowing anybody to cherry pick. So I actually went in and copied everything because the truth, that contains the truth. That's the reality of my interactions. But there's people out there who are concerned about their communications on Telegram. For whatever reasons, maybe they're breaking the law, then you have a right to be concerned. You shouldn't break the law. But they're journalists and their sources. I mean, you know, I have people who talk to me. You know, I'm not, you know, Evan Gerskowitz, I don't receive classified information, but people talk to me about things that maybe they don't want people to know that they're talking to me about. Well, now thanks to the rate on my house, all that information is in the hands of the US government. They don't give a damn about protecting sources, except their own sources and methods apparently, but they don't respect journalists. Now, you know, fortunately, none of my sources are American, but you know, still it's just, because I don't trust the US government, because I don't believe that they believe in doing the right thing, all of this information now empowers them in a way that they shouldn't be allowed to be empowered. And I would imagine that's the same for you, the conversations that you have with people. It's not a violation of the law, but their private, you know, source conversations that journalists have with sources that they don't want people to know about, and now the British government has that. - I might get it, yeah. Kim.com said that they're gonna pressure whomever is running Telegram now, and he predicts they're gonna cave. They want the data, they want all the information. - Yeah, I saw that. - Well, no matter what, let's just say that you're the Russian government, you know, 'cause apparently the Russians use Telegram for, you know, battlefield communications. This is how their drone operators communicated, how the artillery forward observers communicate, all this kind of stuff. I have to say that if I were a Russian military officer, I would never use Telegram again, 'cause you have to assume that it's been compromised. Even if you don't have evidence of the compromise, you have to assume, and Pavel has talked about it. He's talked about what they wanted, what they wanted these back doors to be put in. You know, that wouldn't be identified. They would just exist. And, you know. - Did you guys hear about the woman who was traveling with him, Julie Vavilova? You know about that? - She was arrested too, yeah. - Well, she's missing. That's a really weird thing, she's missing. - Oh, okay, I thought she was arrested as well. I don't know. - No, her family says since he was arrested that they haven't heard from her, they don't know where she is. - Maybe she's laying low, something like that. - Well, she better be laying low on power, I'd get the hell out of dodge. But, so Jeff, do we have any questions from the audience? - Well, we got a couple of voicemail messages. Let's give one a listen now. Hmm. I don't hear it. Well, let's see if we have any coming in on the social media live ones. - We didn't have any written questions for him. - Well, we had one about something we can't really address. - All right. - Well, you know, Jeff, if we can't find questions from the audience, we can step in and ask questions. - Yes, we can. - Yes, we can. - Yeah, I was just gonna say something in response to what you said, Scott, is that, you know, when you talk about mens' rea and this, you know, the legal concept of, you know that you're committing a crime. I mean, that's the thing which is so, it's so outlandish about this specific provision under which they've arrested me. So, section 12, 1A, is that apparently it could be reckless. And that word is in there, reckless. So, you don't even, their intention makes no difference whatsoever. - I'd never even heard of this thing. You know, I knew a lot about the terrorism act. I knew what's wrong with it. And again, there are obvious things in there to fight actual terrorism. Like, it's not completely, you know, ridiculous to have counter-terrorism laws. But the problem is that they were written, this was written in the year 2000. And what they did is they took all this, like, oppressive crap that they used against the Irish, you know, that we did in Northern Ireland and arresting people, you know, just randomly arbitrarily treating them like crap. And then reintegrated that, repackaged it after the troubles were over into something called the terrorism act. So, they just, you know, they changed the name of this a little bit and then took a lot of the nasty stuff and kept it in there. And they were preparing this for the war on terror era. You know, it's all Tony Blair. And I just, I found this so ironic. Like, you know, you're looking for a terrorist, go arrest Tony Blair, Jesus Christ. You know, you're looking for terrorists. You can go arrest the people in the MI6 and MI5 buildings. I mean, the irony is that, you know, when we were posted in Islamabad, 'cause there's a mission there for, you know, I'm unmo-gip, I think it's the acronym. You know, they, you had Zwahari, who was like bin Laden's lieutenant back then. So this is like early 90s, you know, Cold Wars is just over fresh. Soviet's just left Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's still like early stages. And he is bin Laden's mentor, essentially. And he's angry that the Egyptians imprisoned him a while back. And he goes and he blows up the Egyptian embassy, which is like, you know, literally next to Jason to my school. And I can still remember that as clear as day. You know, we had this loud sound and then, you know, the teachers like, she thought it was a taxi or something, 'cause there are that horns going off outside. And then a few minutes later, all the windows and the glass, just like everything blown in, because it was actually a double bombing. And I later understood that when I was older, 'cause I looked it up and I understood, okay, that's why there were two loud noises. Now I get it. And it corroborated what I remember as a child. And my parents thought I was dead. Like, you know, they were called up at the UN and they thought I was dead. And they came rushing in there and then, you know, like, my point here, just with that is, these people, bin Laden, Zwahiri, a lot of these people that are actual terrorists, you know, that have murdered civilians, blown up embassies. They've received a lot of training, a lot of funding, a lot of support from the British government, from the US government. And for those people, those spooks, that then turn and accuse me, a victim of terrorism, of being a terrorist, is so insulting. Not to mention, you know, my father wrote a training manual for the United Nations, who was passed by the General Assembly on counter-terrorism. And he was reminding me, I'd forgotten about this, I apparently helped him when I was a kid with finding photographs and stuff like that for the book. It's a giant behemoth of a thing. So, you know, just the whole profile, that I would have anything to do with my parents being diplomats is so ridiculous. But the point of this law is that it casts such a wide net that anybody is a terrorist according to them. It makes no difference, you know? It's like really 1984 on steroids. So I guess you get 2024. (chuckling) - There's the same thing with the foreign agent registration act. It's so broadly written that it's meaningless. And an interesting thing about the foreign agent registration act, it was written in 1938. And when they do a cut out for journalism, they say, of course, journalists can't be charged under this. But they define journalism under an archaic law, dating back to that, because I guess back then to be a journalist or a journalist, you know, a journal, it was based upon subscriptions. And you had to register with the post office. And, you know, it just lays it all out. What defined, you know, a journalistic entity under this law? And I'm like, holy cow, it's 2024. You know, journalism is done on the internet. You know, we don't mail, you know, I mean, it's ridiculous. That shows how archaic it is. It's being abused by the government, this Foreign Agent Registration Act. It's designed to stop mass demonstrations paid for by a foreign government, I think, oh, there's Richard. And yet now what they're doing is they're attacking journalists for daring to speak out against the policies of the United States. I mean, we're, your terrorism law, our Foreign Agent Registration Act, these are-- - There are tools-- - I understand the intent behind them. I understand the intent behind them. Do we need laws to catch bad guys? 100%. Do I want American democratic processes free of foreign influence? I would really like that. But that's not why you were arrested, and that's not why they came at my house. - Precisely, I agree with you 100%. You know, no one is saying that there should be zero counter-terrorism laws or zero, you know, laws against foreign influence. On the contrary, we're saying we want actual ones, not fake ones, that are political, you know, tools used against political dissidents or journalists. Sorry, I laughed about that post-office thing. It's just, it really is archaic. I mean, it's incredible. (laughing) - It's just interesting. I was in the middle of most centuries. - But I haven't registered with the post office. (laughing) Am I a journalist? (laughing) - Is that question on the screen for me that the-- - Yes, yes it is. Are you, somebody's asking if you are a member of a journalist's union, and are they coming to your aid? - Yes, and yes. And I mean, it was funny watching the police like taking out the press cards from the bag. There's so many of them. And I was just thinking to myself, I hope you know, I hope you realize like how silly this is. I hope you understand. Maybe some of them do. Again, I'm not accusing any of them of ill intent or something because, you know, one of them was actually saying like, "Oh, you know, we don't know why we're here." We kind of just sent down and stuff. But you have to remember that the way the British intelligence work and British police work is that they try and say these things to get you to loosen your tongue up a little bit, you know, and say, "Oh, I don't know either. I just said it up." So, you know, I tried to keep it cool. But to answer the question, yeah, I'm a member of several unions and at least one is coming to my aid. I know that, but it's a pro. - Somebody's asking in particular about, I think that's the national union of journalists in the UK. Is that correct? - Yeah. So, not yet, but we're working on it. - Well, even apart from unions, I would imagine there's, you know, journalism organizations like here, right? That exist for the purpose of advocating for journalists. Yeah? You mentioned the cards, you know, your journalist badge. Just a funny story, I think 2004. I was invited to the United Kingdom by George Galloway back when he was a member of parliament to attend the labor annual labor gathering in Blackpool. And I was credentialed as a journalist. So I had a BBC press badge. So I'm coming back to the United States and I, of course, I get to treatment as soon as I step off the plane, you know, they take my passport, I go into the room and they bring my bags in and they're starting to go through my bags. And, you know, and I'm just like, why are you guys doing this? And they're saying, well, you know, we want to do this and the other thing. And I said, no, I'm a working journalist. You literally have no right to do this. Stop, this will be a First Amendment fight. And suddenly one of them pulled out the press badge and he's looking at it. And then he calls in his colonel and he shows in the press badge and the colonel goes, tag it all up. Sorry about this. It's understanding you have a good day. You know, you, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. So there was a time when it mattered to-- - Yeah, good, good, yeah. - You guys want to take a phone call? - Sure. - As long as they don't ask stupid questions. - All right, let's do it. - Hello, John, please lower your device. We have Richard Metters here. Don't embarrass us with flawed audio. - We're having trouble. And you thought this was a flawless professional podcast, Richard. We have technical issues just like everybody. - No idea how many tech issues I've had on the fly. - Oh, you don't hear him? - No, I don't hear him. - Oh, all right. All right, sorry, sorry, John, go back. Sorry about that, guys. All right, back to what we were saying. - No worries at all. Trust me, it's happened more times than I can count and I'm supposed to be tech savvy. So I'm like, you know, I'm struggling live on air. - Now, are you continuing your podcast? - Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to gauge what is permissible to I'm self-policing at the pleasure of his majesty. So, you know, yeah. - You said, and I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've read in an interview you've given that you're not allowed to discuss the specific questions that you were asked by the police. Without getting into that, are you able to work around that, to judge what you can talk about on a podcast? - Again, you know, it's, I'm trying to. I still don't understand what I've done wrong and I don't think I've done anything wrong. So, you know, it's very difficult for me to gauge what is going to annoy them and not annoy them. I honestly, I really believe that not everything they ask you in an investigation or during questioning has necessarily everything to do with why you're actually there. I think I was doing so much stuff in the lead up to it that any one of these things could have annoyed them. I was reporting heavily on this like gang rape scandal. I was reporting on the Olympic athletes, you know, going through their social media. Maybe there's a connection there. I don't have no idea or, you know, 'cause basically all these Olympic athletes in the Israeli team, yeah, I know they have military service. So does Switzerland, you know, but there's a difference between going off on your own social media and saying, I dedicate my medals to the IDF and, you know, it raised Gaza. So I did that investigation and then I was talking about the far right Israel connection in the UK. Maybe it was the Julian Assange reporting, there's a million things, you know. So I think that any one of them could have annoyed these, the government could have annoyed these pro-Zionist groups. I really have no idea. And at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that I don't think that anything I did is wrong. I reject all of their accusations and this is an attack on the press. It is without question, like an attack on free speech and they're trying to make an example out of me. So it's, you know, for me to like, work out what I can do and not do. It's like kind of admitting that I did something wrong in a way or that, you know, that I'm, I have to self-police. So it's like a lose, lose. I don't know. - 'Cause there's no more important time than now for your voice. I mean, we are at one of these critical junctures than what's going on in Gaza, you know, where, you know, we are on the edge of the abyss in terms of going over into a broader war. And there's no better time than now for a Western audience to be empowered with knowledge and information so that they can put pressure on their respective governments to put pressure on Israel, not to escalate this thing further into a war, to put pressure on Israel to, you know, maybe accept a ceasefire to put pressure on Hezbollah and Iran, not to escalate either. There's, you know, this isn't the one-way street. This is a two-way street, you know, to avoid bringing more death and destruction. But that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Audiences have to be informed. And if you watch mainstream media, you're not going to be informed. You were one of the greatest sources of information on this issue. And there's more, there's never been a more important time than right now for you to be speaking out. So I hope that you are able to, you know, develop the four corners of what you can and can't say and you get back out there and you keep doing what you do because your work is immensely important. If we lose your voice, you know, it just makes the prospects of peace that much dimmer. You're the bright light that keeps Hopo alive. So we got to keep you on the air, Richard. - Thank you, Scott. I appreciate it. And the feeling is mutual and reciprocal. And, you know, the thing is that if you read the Lord, this specific provision, you could interpret it as basically anything that makes Israel look bad is promoting whoever they're fighting. Does that make sense? So yeah, and that, yeah, that's all I'll say. - Well, we have laws here in America. Congress, did they pass the law? Jeff, or I don't know, but Congress was considering making criticism of Zionism hate crime. - Oh, yeah, I don't think it is. Yeah, but they are talking about it. - You know, and it's like, wait a minute. Am I allowed to say that genocide is bad? No, you can't say genocide is bad. Can I say killing the six year old girls is bad? No, no, you're not allowed to say any of that. I mean, this is the level of insanity that we're done to where no criticism is permitted. - We have somebody in the audience asking, Richard, whether or not anybody from the mainstream media has interviewed you about your arrest. - No, and I don't need them. - Okay, good answer. Well, as we said before, if you want to support. - I know there was a little bit of arrogance in there, but the thing is that I'm so overwhelmed by the support. And I really mean that like coming from a humble point of view, it means a lot to me. It really does. And I mean, the fact they have an interview, it's scandalous because at the end of the day, we're all in the same boat. I mean, I don't know, maybe why they all know. - I didn't take it as arrogant at all. They have made themselves irrelevant. - They're irrelevant, yeah. - Yeah, yeah, it's just, I'm shocked, honestly. Like I said, I'm the first journalist to be arrested under this provision. They should be like, you know, it should be setting off alarm bells. But I didn't expect them to do anything because I know with Julian's case, they also did nothing and said nothing. And so, you know, I stepped in to fill the gap from a personal point of view, a moral point of view and also a professional point of view because I know that they're going to abdicate their duties to report. - Well, Richard, if you take a look below, we're scrolling some about a peace rally that I'm participating in, helping organize on September 28, but that's not the important part. The important part is the concept that's that's woven into this, which is I call the family of podcasts, meaning that we have an alliance of podcasts that are in agreement on some very fundamental basic issues. And with your permission, I would like to approach the family of podcasts about having you on their podcasts to discuss this issue because this is such a fundamentally important issue. I think every American has to know your name, know your cause because even though it is British, you know, there before the grace of God go us, the British, the British are prosecuting a journalist by accusing him, you're making the accusation that his journalism is somehow related to terrorism. And that just can't happen. So I would like to ask Judge Andrew Napolitano to have you on. I would like to ask Max Blumenthal to have you on. Gerald Solante to have you on because, you know, when right there, just between those three, we're talking literally millions of Americans now will be exposed, millions of people around the world because these are international audiences. But it's just absolutely essential that your story be heard. I know that you're a busy man and I know that there's a lot of pressure on your time, but I think it would be worthwhile to get you in front of as many Americans as possible, many people around the world. And so if you give me permission, I'd like to do that. I'd like to serve as your unfunded, unpaid press agent just in this limited fashion. - Thank you, Scott. I think that's a wonderful idea and I'd be honored and more than happy to go on their shows, especially at your invitation and your initiative because I really do believe in what Jeff was saying earlier about this idea of unity. I think it is important now more than ever. You know, we're cousins after all in the US and the UK. So what happens in the US is also gonna affect the UK and vice versa, really, and especially in an era of globalization, I mean, it's just normal. So, you know, our fates are intertwined at this point. We're heading into intellectual dark ages across the west. You know, if we had any semblance of freedom of speech, if we had any semblance of democracy, that's being destroyed right now. You know, it really is fundamentally being destroyed, whether it's Mary in Australia, whether it's power being arrested in France. You know, whether it's what's happening to you, Scott, in the United States or with me in the UK, we're really, really headed in a bad, bad direction. And I think if we don't stand up and raise awareness and fight, they will just take that as, you know, as acquiescence. They will just think that we're accepting this and we're gonna go along with it. We have to put up a fight. You know, we've done nothing wrong. We really do love our countries. We want to have a better future for everyone in the world. We are not just being selfish about ourselves. We wanna stop, you know, this genocide in Gaza. And we wanna rein in these neocons and all these crazy people. We wanna have them work for us and do their jobs. It's all, we're not asking for the moon here, you know? So just to go back to your question, I'd be on it and I really appreciate that, Scott. Thank you. - Oh, no, it's, it's, I'm just, I wrote down, our fates are intertwined. I'm stealing that, Richard. I will acknowledge you, but I love that. But when we say our fates are intertwined, it brings up something else. And I, like, I know I don't want to keep you forever. But, you know, on September 3rd in the United States in Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, there's the trial of the Urua III. They're being charged under the Foreign Agent Registration Act and violations that could lead to 20 years imprisonment. The charges are all about speech, all about speech. They're being charged for what they say, they're being charged for what they wrote. The problem is why nobody heard about it, is that they're black or they're black supporters. They support the black nationalist cause. And as a result, white Americans, this isn't an attractive issue for them. This isn't, you know, they're not gonna say, oh, we're gonna rally around this blonde hair blue eyed, you know, person or whatever. It's black nationalist. Maybe they brought it upon themselves. You know, they call each other comrade. Oh, God, this makes me uncomfortable. I'm just gonna, I'm gonna pass on covering this. No, the reason why this isn't about black nationalism. This is a fight about free speech. Presidents are going to be set in this prosecution. If they lose this fight, the precedents that are set will be applied to everybody in the United States. - Right, exactly. - Whether you're a black nationalist or a white boy like myself, you know, being an independent journalist, all Americans will be, this is the fight of America. So when you said our fates are intertwined, this is so right. It doesn't matter who the people are or whether you agree with them. I've had many people telling me that they're shocked at what happened here, even though they don't support anything I write, which is okay. You know, this isn't about the content of what we do. This is about what we do, the process. If there are people out there that you like in the alternative media world, people who write things you like, people who do podcasts that you like, understand that their ability to continue to do that will be terminated if the Uighur three lose. Because the US government will have established a legal precedent to come in and shut anybody down for this broadly defined concept of what constitutes being a foreign agent when it comes to free speech. Political speech now will become a criminal act. And this is important. Again, I said this once and people got sort of irritated, but 'cause doesn't mean I support guys, but if you're a second amendment person out there, they're coming after you. If you're a right to life person, they're coming after you. Whatever cause you have, whether I support it or I don't, they're coming after you because this isn't about the law. This is about suppressing an alternative narrative to the one being promulgated by the establishment, by the government. This is the end of the ability of a free people to hold their elected representatives accountable for what they do in their name, for Americans to behave as Americans, for British to behave as British subjects, for journalists to behave as journalism. So our fates are intertwined, Richard. Your fight is every bit as important as my fight and our fight is every bit as important as the Uighur three and everybody else, the lady in Australia, all of our fates are intertwined because it's about free speech. You can't be a free people if you don't have free speech. - Yeah, they are and it's very sad, honestly, 'cause you mentioned the Uighur three and I'm thinking of when it comes to black liberation movements in the United States and there's been decades of like co-intel pro and all sorts of intimidation. If you can go on the FBI's website right now and read their reports and just like petty harassment, like waiting outside of a party for someone to come out and then mugging them. I mean, it's just like the level of government intimidation, I don't think it's gone away. It's just like, they declassify certain things decades later when it's too late to do anything, but it doesn't mean that we're no longer viewing or seeing or experiencing ourselves when it comes to the Uighur three or your case got government intimidation in other forms, in this case through law fair, where they use the law in a loose way or in a loosely interpreted way. So, I fully sympathize with everything you just said and we have to take a stance and if there's anything more that I can do, I will do it. And that's not something that I believe I'm restricted to talk about it in any capacity. So, yeah. - That's a good example. I mean, I'm so glad you mentioned the Uighur three and it took us a while to recall it and Richard added a couple of people to the list before. This really amplifies how ubiquitous this is that even those of us who are focused on it can always remember all the examples. Yeah, it's a real problem. - It's a war, yeah, it's a war. And it's a war that's escaping the attention of the people who should be aware of it most, the people, we, the people. - Exactly and I find it particularly egregious because if I can just maybe argue this from another point of view, in my case, I find it disgusting that they're targeting me because the Medhos family name goes back 1,000 years in England. I mean, my father served in the police and his father before him in World War II in the RAF and his father before him in the British Army World War I. And I consider my journalism to be a public service. I do it for free. I do it to educate, to inform the public. I don't expect anything in return. I just want to have the right to do it. I just want to be able to speak in my own country or be read in my own country. And just to tell the truth, especially when I'm trying to hold my own government to account, it's very easy to sit there and point fingers at Russia and China and Iran and Venezuela. I'm not from Venezuela, I'm not from China, I'm from England. I care about what my government is doing in my name. So I have a right to hold them to account and for them to come and try and put me in prison or threaten me. And for what? To protect a foreign entity? To protect, because maybe my reporting happened to make the Israelis look bad. I mean, you know, I finally saw Iranic, if only these policemen knew what would have happened to them were they policemen 70 years ago. The Israelis would be murdering them. And that's what they did to British soldiers and British civil servants. And they were putting bombs around London and sending letter bombs. You know, they targeted and blew up the King David Hotel and government buildings in London. And Netanyahu in 2006, who is now waging this genocide, he went to an event where they celebrated essentially the bombing of the King David Hotel. That's the deadliest terrorist attack against British subjects. So again, I want to repeat that. The deadliest terrorist attack in history against British subjects was carried out by Zionists, by Israelis. And Netanyahu celebrated that. It was so offensive to the point the British government, like formerly protested, which you can imagine is quite a rare thing to see. So, you know, if you're looking for terrorists, you can find them crawling inside the halls of MI5 and MI6, or you can find them in Tel Aviv. You know, don't go looking around for me, or, you know, people who are just doing their jobs as journalists, and if they want to look for people who are exercising foreign influence or being foreign agents in the US, they can find a lot of them in APAC, certainly not in Scott's house. Okay, I think we should make that very clear. - Well, it's not a joke, it's real, 'cause I, and for the FBI listening, listen carefully. When you have the State Department fund a, and help organize and direct, a office called the Center for Countering Disinformation that works for the president of Ukraine. It's a Ukrainian government office. And the very first product they put out, again, directed by the United States is a blacklist that lists the names of many people around the world, but especially Americans, including myself, who are called information terrorists. Again, this is the State Department funding and directing this. And then a subsequent meeting says that information terrorists must be treated as real terrorists, meaning hunted down, arrested, killed if necessary. And this is done in a meeting organized by the State Department, with State Department personnel present. When the FBI receives input from Ukrainian intelligence about social media platforms and accounts that they find to be offensive as Russian propaganda, and the FBI acts on this to shut it down, I just described foreign agents. - Exactly. - The United States State Department, the United States Department of Justice and the FBI are literally foreign agents. They are acting at the request of and the direction of and on behalf of the Ukrainian government to silence American voices, therefore suppress free speech. So the pot better be careful about calling the kettle black because the kettle's actually red, white and blue. It's the pot that's black and the pot will be called out. - That's beautiful. (laughs) That's really good. - Not really. - We've held you forever. I know it's late where you're at. Jeff, you got any more follow-up questions? - Yeah, no, no, I think we held them long enough. I think we held them long enough. Thank you so much. - That was a lot of the police. - By the way, there were a lot, there were actually a lot of questions, but most of them were about how can we help? How can we support them? How can we donate? They came in before we said how to do it and just basically a lot of things. - Wait a minute, Jeff, are you telling me that if we hold him for four hours and 15 minutes that will have held him longer than the British police? - I thought it was almost 24 hours. - 24 hours, yeah, okay, forget it. I'm not doing a marathon, Richard. (laughs) - Well, speaking of accuracy, you may have been the more accurate one before when you said that Julie Vavalova has actually been detained. Some, one of the commenters said that's the case. So that may be more updated information, so just want to mention that. - All right, well, Richard, thank you very much. As I said, I am going to be contacting the family of podcasts and I'm going to be promoting you, trying to get you out there. Your voice, our fates are intertwined. That is one of the best things I've heard and I'm going to act on that because your fate is my fate. It's a fate of everybody who practices independent journalism and participates in alternative media. - Thank you both for having me. I salute your podcast and your journalism and Scott. You know, I salute you also as, you know, not just to a weapons inspector, but you know, having that commonality from, you know, the UN, from the diplomatic community. I know how hard you worked in that. And, you know, it really is absurd that we come from something that is clearly well-intentioned, that is geared towards international law and they try to make us out to be a 180. I finally discussed it, but, you know, it's like, it's the irony of the highest order, but you guys are both patriots and I salute you as those patriots. - Thank you so much for your time. - Sure, we love you. You won't be near any time, Richard, take care. - Cheers, bye-bye. - All right, cheers. All right, what a great, wow. - Wow, Richard Medhurst, ladies and gentlemen, a true hero. I have to say, you know, I've been following him for a while and one of these, one day I got an email. Hi, Scott, or Mr. Ritter, 'cause he was respecting him. Hello, Mr. Ritter. This is Richard Medhurst. You know, I have a podcast editor and I'm like, dude, I've been following you forever. I mean, you're gonna invite me on your podcast. It was pretty cool. He's a good guy. He has a great take on things. He works hard. He's one of the hardest working people in the world in this business. - Yeah, an extremely charismatic before. You sounded like you were afraid that you might sound like you were trivializing them before when you said he's entertaining, but I know exactly what you mean. He is really a serious journalist, but he's also articulate and he has a great personality. He's very charismatic. - Well, you can have good, you know, we can have good politicians, but when they get up in front of the chamber and they start giving a speech, if they put you to sleep, Richard Medhurst is a great journalist, but when he starts speaking, you ain't sleeping. - He's Galloway-esque, you might say. - He's Galloway-esque, yes, yes. He can turn the phrase. (chuckles) - All right, are you, do we have a new Scott Ritter show coming tomorrow as usual Wednesday night at nine Eastern? - Yes, I interviewed a French entrepreneur journalist who was in Ukraine at the time of the Maidan. He was there actually from 2006, I believe, until 2015. He wrote a book about Ukraine and so I interviewed him. We talked about his book and we talked about the current situation. At the end of the podcast, we talked about the situation in France, the political crisis confronting Macron, and we also talk about Pavel Durov in that situation, free speech. - All right, so you can see that tomorrow night at nine p.m. Eastern time at scottritter.com and also a few of our social media channels. And there was some talk about switching our night again this week, but I think the final decision was we're gonna be on as usual Friday night, Scott, is that right? - Yeah, just so I was invited to go down and participate in a rally in St. Petersburg, Florida in support of the Ahura III. And I wanted to make that happen, but unfortunately it's just impossible to do this week and it's short notice and there's just too many conflicting things going on. But I am trying to get somebody from the Ahura III to come on our show Friday night so that we can continue this discussion about free speech and provide the ability to shine a light on their predicament, which is an American predicament. So I'm hopeful that that still happens in contact and hopefully we'll get a few. If not, and this is you and me, baby. Oh, I can say this too. Bobby Kennedy has committed to come on our show, but he's on vacation right now. And but when he gets off vacation, I am instructed to reach out and we shall schedule. So there you go, ladies and gentlemen. Stay tuned, Ahura III, Bobby Kennedy. Who knows? We will be maintaining, sustaining the unity theme, the unity strategy. Our faiths are intertwined. Yes, they are. All right, Scott, thank you very much. Thanks to you, Elena, for a great backstage work. And thanks to our beloved audience. Watch Scott tomorrow night, as we said, and join us on Ask the Inspector Friday night. Take care, everybody. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) [ Silence ]