Transcript

LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 45 min · 7,870 words · 99 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY", an episode of MeidasTouch published February 8, 2026 (45 min, about 7,870 words). It mentions 15 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Bakai, Congress, Allison Gil.

What this episode is about

The content discusses two significant whistleblower cases related to Donald Trump's presidency, highlighting how a lawyer named Eisenberg overclassified a damaging document in 2019, which contributed to Trump's first impeachment, and revealing that an intelligence community whistleblower's report was withheld for eight months during Trump's second term. The analysis involves the role of various officials in obstructing the transmission of these reports to Congress, emphasizing the implications for accountability and transparency in government.

Key takeaways

  • A tale of two whistleblowers: political embarrassment merits classified cover-ups—yet the truth inevitably surfaces.
  • After Eisenberg's mishap, DNI Maguire delayed reporting for 3 weeks; Tulsi Gabbard outdid him by 8 months!
  • Trump's impulse to fire inspectors general: a strategic purge or a misguided attempt to stifle whistleblowing?
  • Whistleblowing: the last line of defense for democracy, but even heroes need a lawyer to navigate the system.
  • The intelligence community's unique bureaucratic labyrinth: safeguarding secrets while ensuring accountability—an intricate balancing act.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Congress, Whistleblower Aid, Donald Trump, Allison Gil
  2. – 10:00: Congress, Tulsi Gabbard
  3. – 15:00: Executive Privilege, Congress, Wall Street Journal
  4. – 20:00: Congress, Tamara Johnson, Department of Justice
  5. – 25:00: Congress, Charlie Kirk, Tamara Johnson
  6. – 30:00: Congress
  7. – 35:00: Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, Tamara Johnson, Charlie Kirk
  8. – 40:00: Congress, Executive Privilege, Tulsi Gabbard
  9. – 44:53: Department of Justice, Congress, Whistleblower Aid, Midas Touch

Notable quotes from "LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY"

  • Politically embarrassing. embarrassing enough that if that document got out, it could take down Donald Trump's presidency. But a brave CIA analyst knew about that document…
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Last week, one day after the Wall Street Journal reported on it. And joining me to discuss the matter is the lawyer who represented both of these whistleblowers and is currently representing this one.
    about Andrew Bakai · at
  • What happened there. But the following day when she returned to the DNI's office, she directed that intelligence not be distributed any further within the intelligence…
    about Tulsi Gabbard · at
  • Understood. That sounds awfully familiar to me. That sounds a lot like what happened with the Zalinski call transcript. that they refused to put Vinman's edits in, stashed it in.
    about Vladimir Zelensky · at
  • That criminal matter or what the criminal matter is? I think that's the one that, the initial ICIG, interim or acting ICIG, Tamara Johnson, said she was not able to determine…
    about Tamara Johnson · at
  • So going into, the Kirk situation is that apparently Tulsa Gabbard had placed this person into the ICIG's office to monitor the activity within the IG's office. That destroys the independence and neutrality of the IG.
    about Charlie Kirk · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Central referenced political figure · 2 mentions · first at
    The episode frames two whistleblower episodes around actions taken during Trump's first term (Ukraine call) and alleged actions in his second term (IG firings; intelligence handling).
  • Tulsi Gabbard — Person · Referenced senior official (DNI) alleged to obstruct · 4 mentions · first at
    Described as the DNI who allegedly blocked transmission of an IC whistleblower disclosure and restricted dissemination of sensitive intelligence; executive privilege is discussed in connection with ODNI actions.
  • Andrew Bakai — Person · Main guest (whistleblower attorney) · 1 mention · first at
    He is presented as counsel for multiple intelligence-community whistleblowers and explains the ICIG process, the Gang of Eight access issue, and alleged obstruction/delay by ODNI leadership.
  • Allison Gil — Person · Host · 2 mentions · first at
    She narrates the timeline, asks detailed process questions, and contextualizes the alleged obstruction and classification/executive privilege issues.
    Hey everybody, it's Allison Gil. Welcome to the breakdown and thanks to Midas Touch for hosting this show. Let me tell you a tale of two whistleblowers.
  • Tamara Johnson — Person · Referenced acting ICIG (credibility determination) · 4 mentions · first at
    Described as the acting ICIG who initially deemed the matter urgent but could not determine credibility, and later (per later-disclosed correspondence) issued an amended memo finding it not credible.
  • Joseph Maguire — Person · Referenced former DNI (first Trump administration) · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as the DNI who delayed transmitting the 2019 whistleblower report to Congress and invoked executive privilege concerns in that earlier episode.
    An urgent and credible matter. But Trump's director of national intelligence, Trump's DNI, Joseph Magcguire, delayed the transmission of that report to Congress for three whole…
  • Vladimir Zelensky — Person · Referenced foreign leader in prior whistleblower case · 1 mention · first at
    The 2019 whistleblower matter is tied to the transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky, which led to Trump's first impeachment (as described).
  • Charlie Kirk — Person · Referenced ODNI/ICIG-related figure (alleged monitor/placement) · 4 mentions · first at
    Discussed as someone allegedly placed into the ICIG office to monitor activity, raising concerns about IG independence and coinciding with a change in credibility assessment timeline.
  • Michael Atkinson — Person · Referenced oversight official (ICIG at the time) · 1 mention · first at
    Identified as the inspector general who deemed the 2019 whistleblower complaint 'urgent and credible,' triggering the process that ultimately led to impeachment proceedings (as described).
    Under the whistleblower protection laws in August of 2019. The inspector general at the time, Michael Atkinson, deemed it an urgent and credible matter. But Trump's director of…

Companies & orgs

  • Whistleblower Aid — Company · Business focus · 4 mentions · first at
    Organization providing legal services to whistleblowers, represented by the guest Andrew Bakai.
    Existence of this whistleblower report last week, one day after the Wall Street Journal reported on it. And joining me to discuss the matter is the lawyer who represented both of these whistleblowers and is currently representing this one.
  • Department of Justice — Company · Referenced organization · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned regarding the failure to refer a potential criminal matter, highlighting oversight issues.
    Now, the second part of this complaint is that an intelligence agency failed to refer a criminal matter, a potential criminal matter to the Department of Justice. can you tell us which.

Concepts & topics

  • Executive Privilege — Concept · Key argument · 8 mentions · first at
    Used as a justification for delaying the transmission of whistleblower reports to Congress, raising concerns about transparency.
    Magcguire, delayed the transmission of that report to Congress for three whole weeks, almost a month, citing executive privilege concerns. Now, that document they tried to hide…

Places & events

  • Congress — Place · Setting · 32 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the body to which whistleblower reports should be transmitted, highlighting delays and obstructions in the process.
    Credibility. But then DNI Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, obstructed transmitting this report and the underlying classified document the report…

Media & podcasts

  • Wall Street Journal — Media · Referenced media · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the source that reported on the existence of a whistleblower report, highlighting media's role in uncovering the story.
    Document the report is based on to Congress, not for 3 weeks, but for 8 months. And we only learned about the existence of this whistleblower report last week, one day after…

Sponsors

  • Midas Touch — Company · Sponsor · 2 mentions · first at
    Host of the show, providing the platform for the discussion on whistleblower issues.
    Hey everybody, it's Allison Gil. Welcome to the breakdown and thanks to Midas Touch for hosting this show. Let me tell you a tale of two whistleblowers.

Full transcript with timestamps

Hey everybody, it's Allison Gil. Welcome to the breakdown and thanks to Midas Touch for uh hosting this show. Let me tell you a tale of two whistleblowers. Back in 2019, a Trump lawyer named Eisenberg overclassified a politically embarrassing document, stashed it in a code word classified system so that no one could see it because it was politically embarrassing. embarrassing enough that if that document got out, it could take down Donald Trump's presidency. But a brave CIA analyst knew about that document, filed a report under the whistleblower protection laws in August of 2019. The inspector general at the time, Michael Atkinson, deemed it an urgent and credible matter. But Trump's director of national intelligence, Trump's DNI, Joseph Magcguire, delayed the transmission of that report to Congress for three whole weeks, almost a month, citing executive privilege concerns. Now, that document

they tried to hide was the transcript of Trump's call with Vimeir Zalinski. Its transmission to Congress led to Trump's first impeachment. Now, let's fast forward to Trump's second term in office. 4 days after his inauguration, Trump fired pretty much all of the inspectors general. All but two, right? And a few months later in May, a whistleblower from the intelligence community filed a report with the intelligence community inspector general, the ICIG. Now, the interim ICI deemed the matter urgent but couldn't determine the credibility. But then DNI Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, obstructed transmitting this report and the underlying classified document the report is based on to Congress, not for 3 weeks, but for 8 months. And we only learned about the existence of this whistleblower report last week, one day after the Wall Street Journal reported on it. And joining me

to discuss the matter is the lawyer who represented both of these whistleblowers and is currently representing this one. Please welcome Andrew Bakai from Whistleblower Aid. Hi, Andrew. How are you?

Pretty good. How are you? Pleasure to meet you. It's a pleasure to meet you, too. I'm I'm very uh excited to talk to you today. I have so many questions. First of all, did I get anything incorrect in the opening screed I just went through?

No, I think you pretty much summed it up um very well. Great. Thank you. We've got there's more questions obviously.

Oh yeah. Because according to a letter you wrote to the inspector general named Christopher Fox, this whistleblower retained you in November uh of last year. That's about six months.

Earlier than that, but around that time period. Yeah. Around that time period. Uh but this five or six months after they filed their initial report. What caused them to reach out to whistleblower aid and how how did that introduction happen? So, without getting to too many specifics about my communications with my client, um, basically the the fact that this disclosure wasn't being transmitted to Congress and the fact that my client after requesting to be able to go to Congress back in July of last year, the fact that there wasn't any movement on that, um, looked to find an attorney who knows how to handle these matters. And naturally, you know, it just made sense that they would reach out to me. And so my my first interface was to try and you know introduce myself back to the IG's office. I do work with that office and other IG's offices you know on a number of matters you know quite often it's what I do and um and

try and get this moving. I mean it's as simple as that. It's the goal is very simple and that is let's follow the law. Let's get the client the ability to go to Congress and make let's make sure that the disclosure gets there and to the right people.

Yeah. Agreed. Now, the first Zalinsky whistleblower we learned later uh was a CIA uh whistleblower and and it's important for people to understand the structure of the inspector general over the intelligence community. It's the inspector general for the whole intelligence community. The the the individual alphabet agencies do not have their own uh inspectors. Oh, they do.

They do. Yeah. I actually used to work for CIA. But I guess the nice thing, the one thing is that because if you're a member of the intelligence community, you have in that that case, you know, the ability to go to the ICIG

uh instead of your u home agency, but you know, in this particular case, it also made a lot of sense that this person went to the IC because it pertained to ICIG activity. Um, so you know, yes, you can go to your home IG, NSAI, CIG, and they're presidentially appointed Senate confirmed as is the intelligence community inspector general.

And when you say it pertained to ICIG uh stuff, you're talking about the DN Tulsy G.

Yes, DNI. Correct. It pertain to DNI material activities in this particular case.

Okay. I think what I had was confusing in my mind is that there's only one place to go to foyer all of the intelligence agencies.

Yeah. No, it gets well and the thing is this is actually confusing for a lot of people even those who are within the intelligence community because you know if you're working for um a non national security related agency um or the intelligence community agency you you have a lot more flexibility to go to Congress for example. M

the reason why intelligence officers and contractors have to go through this particular process to try and get to Congress is because and it makes sense by the way this makes logical sense the information that they have even though somebody on Capitol Hill a member of the staff of the House or Senate intelligence committees has a security clearance obviously they may not have the proper clearance to get that information. So this process is in part designed to make sure that those that that information gets to the right people the right way and in this particular case it's particularly true.

Um the CL the information here the underlying uh intelligence at issue is so sensitive only the gang of eight can see it which means that there there about you know there are certain pieces of intelligence there you know compartments if you will and there are about seven or eight of them and if they fall in one of those categories the only people who can hear it are the the r chair and ranking member of the intelligence committees so you got four right there the speaker of the house, the ranking member, the Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, right?

So you you you you get it's a limited number of people who can see it, which arguably makes this a little bit easier. You don't have to figure out you know that you know you know the people who can see this,

right? And and because you know when I was thinking when the first reporting came out that it was too classified to send to Congress, my my first thought was what is too classified for the gang of eight? Why, you know, there is is there anything? But

um now did this uh does this whistleblower come from ODNI or a different agency within the intelligence community or can you tell us?

I won't say what agency they're with, but they're they're within the intelligence community.

Got it. They're a member of the intelligence community. Okay. Now, about the structure of this, am I right in that there's a report like a complaint and then an underlying highly classified document at the core of at least one of the counts in the complaint? Is that how this is structured?

Yeah. Um, so basically everybody's focused, as they should be right now, about uh Gabbard not providing my client uh the ability to go directly to Capitol Hill to the right folks and not timely sending over the underlying disclosure, which by the way, we can get into in a little bit, is apparently heavily redacted for reasons that are not related to classified information. Um, but what's the underlying disclosure about? I'm going to get into it a little bit. So, in the spring of last year, there was intelligence that was gathered by an agency that that captured um activity that's being conducted by somebody close to the president, right? without getting any more specifics.

And that intelligence was of this particular agency gave Tulsa Gabbert a heads up, right? Not necessarily unusual. You know, if it's something that's that that the head of an agency should be aware of, that's fine, right? But what happened next is what what the where the problem starts. um at least for Gabbard is that upon receiving a a hard copy of that intelligence of that information. She then went to um to the president's chief of staff, Susie Wilds and discussed it. We don't know what those conversations were. We don't know what happened there. But the following day when she returned to the DNI's office, she directed that intelligence not be distributed any further within the intelligence community. So typically what would happen is is that this intelligence um this communication that was collected right between somebody close to the president and other actors um would be distributed to the offices

and analysts and individuals who have the need to know who need to act on this intelligence. and she came back and said, "No, don't distribute it any further." And more to the point, make me the only one on the distribution list. But because she went to uh the president's chief of staff, um this particular agency also sent it to Susie Walls formally as I understand it. So, and then it did not get distributed within the intelligence community. So the heart of this has never been really addressed and I'm not confident that members of the Senate or the House, the Gang of Eight who have a need to know have seen this. Um and that's where the concern is. The the the complaint is about the blocking of the distribution of the intelligence, but the intelligence is really important to be viewed by those who have a need to know.

Understood. That sounds awfully familiar to me. That sounds a lot like what happened with the Zalinski call transcript. Uh that they refused to put Vinman's edits in, stashed it in something called an NIC system, tried to limit the eyes on it. Now, did she and and during that impeachment, there was a lot of discussion about uh overclassifying something that might be politically embarrassing uh to to an administration. Is it against the law to overclassify something to prevent other people from seeing it? And did that happen here?

So the the short answer to that is yes. I mean the goal is to not overclassify any documents particularly. You can't hide behind classification because something is embarrassing. Um the and the level of classification is dependent upon you know how the intelligence is collected, what the intelligence has. It's, you know, you always hear intelligence officers and former officers talking about sources, methods, because you don't want to show the world who your source is. You can burn a source, somebody can die, or a method, whether it's technical or otherwise, that allows you to capture that information. So, and at the same time, you can have intelligence that is part of an operation and it's classified accordingly.

In this case though, this is this is where I want to kind of drill down to a finer point, which is the intelligence is not in my understanding overclassified, although it appears to have been the excuse provided for having difficulty to get it to Capitol Hill to the gang of eight. But then all of a sudden, and I've only learned this very recently, is that um there's an assertion of uh executive privilege. And as I understand it, whatever has been transmitted to Congress, and I don't know what has been transmitted to Congress, and and by the way, I haven't even seen the underlying disclosure.

Um you have clearance to see it. Yeah. Well, I have a security clearance, but it doesn't again, it doesn't mean that I have the ability to see something like that. Even when I was in the intelligence committee, I was only read in on to certain programs as I needed to know and then read out,

right? So, you know, but here's the thing. They're not redacting for Congress because of the classification. Now, they're redacting from Congress because they're asserting executive privilege. What I found really interesting was that on Tuesday, this week has been kind of blending together, by the way. I don't know if it's been for you. I don't need money.

Yes, this is I'm in London right now so far. Actually, it's I'm in London right now. So, I'm I've it's been just a kind of a whirlwind for me. But the um but in the in the um Wall Street Journal article that came out on Monday, I believe the ICIG uh put out a comment that you know this pertains to executive privilege and that by its nature, you know, um asserts presidential communications or activity. So, it's kind of funny that they also, you know, the the intelligence has also helped obviously define the obvious in terms of why would you you would assert executive privilege, but that should be, you know, as as a former, you know, investigator and whatnot. I would call that a clue and something that, you know, one should, you know, perhaps dig a little deeper into. But you actually you really um nicely captured something which is classified information is typically what um folks are concerned is misused to

hide embarrassing things. Right. In this particular case they couldn't do it because it could go to the gang of eight. So now it becomes executive privilege. Ah, yeah. And I seem to remember Joseph McGuire, the DNI in the first Trump administration, refusing to answer congressional questions about his discussions with the president pursuant to executive privilege when it came to this partic that particular Zalinsky document as well,

right? Um, but the underlying intelligence, I don't I wouldn't know if there will be an executive privilege issue to that. So, you know, that's some that is a fight for Congress uh to go to battle with the executive branch. Um but my role here is to help my client have the ability to meet with those members,

right? As they should. and you sent a letter um I believe to the ODNI saying if we don't hear back from you on how to address Congress or guidance on how to address Congress by Friday this past Friday then on Monday we're going to go and I wanted to ask you when you are asking for guidance from Telsea Gabbard's office on how to present this is this sort of like a a sea situation where they have classified information in court and they want to learn how figure out how to and litigate how to use it in court by using substitutions or summaries. Is that kind of the guidance that you're looking for from Gabbard?

That's a good analogy. It it's it's actually a little bit different. It is that you know those the staff members on the House and Senate intelligence committees. They have security clearances, but it doesn't mean that they're reading on to a specific program or operation that has to get into uh to the Hill. And in this particular case, because it's only restricted to the gang of eight, that then means that even the members of the staff can't see the underlying intelligence that issue. So the reason why you go to the IC and you're asking for guidance. You're not asking for permission. What you're asking for is let's coordinate, help facilitate between the DNI and the ICIG and Congress who the points of contact need to be. And like I mentioned before, um the irony behind it being limited to the gang of eight is actually by definition you already identify the very eight people you got to go to. So it actually

should be easier in some respects. Doesn't mean it's not highly sensitive. Obviously it is. Um but the the process has I think been weaponized unfortunately in favor of hiding what happened. It sounds like it and it's not like they have a pattern doing that in the past, you know. Um, so it's it's um I think something that needs to be investigated as you as you've said uh multiple times. Now, the second part of this complaint is that an intelligence agency failed to refer a criminal matter, a potential criminal matter to the Department of Justice. Um, can can you tell us which agency failed to refer that criminal matter or what the criminal matter is? I think that that's the one that, um, the initial ICIG, interim or acting ICIG, Tamara Tamara Johnson, uh, said she was not able to determine credibility and she said it was, I think I read that it was because she was obstructed, somebody wouldn't

answer her questions or something like that. that so it sort of remained uh unable to determine its credibility. But can you tell us a little bit about that count?

Yeah. So I'm not familiar as much with that particular allegation. Um you know obviously there are a lot of processes in place to make sure that intelligence is properly handled that people particularly who are American citizens aren't being targeted as part of an intelligence operation. This particular case they were not. it was everything was done lawfully and somebody just seemed to have popped up on you know this communication this transmission and um so that that's one thing I do want to get to this credibility issue and it's been kind of um

because that doesn't stop you having to transmit the report to Congress so it's so first of all absolutely correct so that is not an issue so what so the way this process works is that if the complaint or the disclosure is deemed to be urgent and credible by by the ICIG, they can immediately go to the Hill. If they cannot make or do not make or make the determination that it's not urgent and or credible, then they go back to the whistleblower and say, "This is our finding and if you want to go to the Hill, tell us and we'll facilitate that with the processes, etc." Right?

But what this case is interesting because I'm going to go into what I didn't know and when I when I learned it as a counsel, same thing for my client. So on June 6th and on whistleblower.org for those of your your followers and those who are watching and listening want to see the documents, if you go to whistleblower.org, or you'll see a letter that I sent to the Hill earlier this or to Tulsa Gabbert earlier this week that you referenced about me you know if we don't get guidance by Friday that I will be going on Monday and you know beginning the process of doing outreach to to members of Congress um then in that letter you'll see uh exhibits one of the exhibits is correspondence that my client received from the intelligence community IG and this was on June 6th I And that's where uh my client was notified that that the acting IG at the time, Tamara Johnson, um made that if to be true, this would be an urgent

concern, but that she was unable to make a credibility determination. I understood that from my context that somebody was unable to or unwilling to I I don't want to go into the intent there. Maybe somebody was traveling to participate in that in the underlying factf finding. I have reason to believe that that would be uh Tulsa Gabbert. Okay, fair enough.

I have reason to believe she wasn't traveling. Uh but you know, that's just my personal opinion.

Be that as it may, okay, you could make it doesn't matter. And and we and the client still requested the whistleblower still requested to go to the Hill and have this information transmitted back in June. I did not know until this week that two days later the acting IG received a new information presumably by Tulsa Gabbard. I'm making an assumption there and reversed her or corrected her decision in an amended memorandum saying that she found that the disclosure was not credible. What I find to be concerning is the timing of that because one uh for your listeners, if you were to go to a Washington Post article from June 6th or 7th around that time frame, um there were news reports that Tulsa Gabbard um put in place um somebody into the uh intelligence community, IG's office by the name of Dennis Kirk and the timeline suspicious ly line up.

Why is the just for background for I know this this is a great venue to do this because there's a lot of explaining and going to the background of how things are.

No, I was really curious about the all of a sudden not credible finding and like who was who was it Tamar Johnson? Uh so yeah, tell us about Dennis Kirk.

Yeah. So, so first as a back just general overview, the the inspector general, the inspector's general do internal investigations and oversight over the agencies within which they reside. They're part of the agency, but they're independent and neutral. So, all presidentially appointed Senate confirmed inspectors general uh report. Yes, they report to the president through the director of or secretary of the agency, but they have a dual reporting requirement then to Congress and they are an independent body. For example, their attorneys at within the IG offices don't report to the attorneys at the agency or at the department because how can you conduct oversight over an investigation, an audit or an inspection of the very agency that you're a part of? So, they're separate.

They're intentionally separate, right? So going into, you know, the Kirk situation is that apparently Tulsa Gabbard had placed this person into the ICIG's office to monitor the activity within the IG's office. That destroys the independence and neutrality of the IG. And what I find,

not that having her previous uh top aid, Christopher Fox, be the uh ICIG puts it in jeopardy enough. Not that that's, you know, not enough to put it in jeopardy and have a conflict of interest, but she's installed somebody in the ICIG office. Uh which again, uh just kind of destroys the independence of of the of that particular unit.

And also, this is before Fox came on board. I don't I don't know Fox. I I I've not I mean I have no idea one way or another about him, but Tamar Johnson was a career federal civil servant. Just like in any position in government, when the appointment, the presidential appointment becomes vacant, somebody's got to be acting. The the work of the the organization has to continue. So, she was appointed as acting. And while she's acting, you have this person in there monitoring what's going on on behalf of the director of national intelligence perhaps disclosures about her very conduct. And then two, this is the this is the interesting thing that that that has been I think that needs to be kind of be understood is that my client received that letter on June June 6th, I believe, if I recall correctly, right?

And two days later, according to the ICIG's correspondence to Congress this week, this is when my client and I learned this. You're going to love it. Um, the acting director of national intelligence changed her opinion or changed her opinion in terms of the credibility of the underlying disclosure. I didn't know about this until Monday. My client didn't know about this until Monday. We found out this week.

That's news to us. That is uh extremely peculiar. Um and also uh didn't Christopher Fox say in a letter to you that Tamara Johnson had administratively closed this matter in June of last year.

That was I believe in the letter that he sent to Congress. So I've not received any correspondence. He he went he went over you know the the yeah that's the thing there if in the DNI posted on X uh they went over the chronology of events for the decision-m process and you know it it just there are things that the strangest thing for me is that there was no update to my client and then when I came on board and was interacting with the office which you know from my experience has been you know there there are a lot of good folks who work there right now um that's not something that I was aware of and that that surprised me and that concerns me. Why is this secret change all of a sudden happening? Which by the way doesn't change the fact that he still can go to Congress,

right? All that still exists. All that still exists. So, you know, and we're still waiting months later. The other thing that I want to get into is this notion of credibility. And how do you define credibility? And apparently in this in the case of the IG in terms of what I've just seen this week presented by Fox to Congress is that you know if information is provided by a whistleblower that may be secondhand or that they've read they don't they cannot provide the document because it's so sensitive and classified that when they speak to the alleged subject of the investigation, the wrongdoer if you will, and they say, "Well, I didn't do it." that person's credibility because they're talking about themselves firsthand is higher than somebody saying that they heard this as part of a meeting or you know whatever the case may be and that shuts it down. That's not that's a crazy way of determining

credibility in my mind. My opinion um I don't think I I I I know that no lawyer or investigator would uh conclude any activity with talking to only two parties. He said, she said, he said, he said, she said, she whatever the case may be, and make a conclusion strictly based on that. By the way, this 14-day urging concern process is not sufficient time to conduct an investigation. It's merely an initial determination if it should go to Congress immediately.

Right. That's kind of like a temporary restraining order, like we can't Yeah. look at all the merits and everything right now, but for now, transmit it and uh, you know, do an investigation on the full merits of the case.

Exactly. Because, you know, things may be hitting the fan. you should be aware of this, Congress, and we're going to try and get to the bottom of this, but in the meantime, at least it's on your radar. That's kind of the whole point of this. And this never got on Congress's radar. And there has been, to my knowledge, no investigation of the underlying issues. So, you have and this is what I mean, this is the reality of life. And it, you know, I'm here to represent folks who are trying to get the, you know, when you see something, you say something. you go when you see something wrong, you go to the IG or whatever the case may be. And members of Congress are, and it is it is the world that we live in, you know, go into their own corners and they'll say, "Well, the IG said it's not credible, therefore this has no credibility." And that word hits because of what people hear when they say it's not credible. Therefore,

it must be flawed and there's nothing there. That's not the case here. It's an initial determination to say is there something that needs to be investigated and the standards that are I believe my opinion are being relied on and making a credibility determination are flawed. Um again red herring still should go to Congress and why have we waited 8 months to get there which by the way Congress still does not have the gang of eight doesn't have the underlying information because they're still withholding it redacting it. I have no idea if the underlying intelligence was ever transmitted to Congress.

Wow. Um, so let's say you don't hear from Gabbard's office on guidance uh for for going to give an unclassified briefing to Congress. Uh, and so you let's say you go Monday uh because you haven't heard. What does that uh look like? I I assume it's the gang of eight. um even though you don't know the classific you know what's the the classified matter is

um does would at that point your client just take it upon themselves to summarize what it is or substitute what it is or give hints to what it like what does an unclassified briefing given the highly classified nature of the underlying document look like when you don't get guidance from the DNI

right so basically there's some additional information obviously that I know that is unclassified But I hesitate to share it because I just want to be mindful of, you know, the equities at play for everybody, right? And so there are some there are things that I can then elaborate upon for members of Congress and senators um by the way who who are beyond the gang of eight, but ideally, you know, within the intelligence um committees u to give them an understanding what this is about and then so that way the gang of eight knows what they're doing. this is serious, you know, and that they need to push um and assert their oversight role as the under article one as Congress over the executive and try and at least get to the bottom of this and and figure out what's going on. Um, as far as a whistleblower going to Congress, that would certainly be a conversation um that would have that I would have to

have and my team at whistleblower.org board would have to have with um with Congress because we would want to make sure, you know, we we would be able to get this person to the hill in a safe and secure manner to protect their identity, safety, and all of that stuff. So, you know, and you know, then they can elaborate in an unclassified manner and of course when it's unclassified, it's going to be limited, but it's something's better than nothing, right? um to go into, you know, what what the general, you know, issues are. And then,

right, like if it were a Zilinsky call, you would say seems like he was going to withhold aid unless they opened an investigation, like a summary type of a situation.

Yeah. And and I and I did that even in that case. I was able to say, you know, this involves a phone call, this involves this, this, and this, you know, dig. This isn't, you know, nonsense. In fact, when I was working on the Zillinsky call, I was giving I went to the intelligence committees. So, I tried to meet with them, met with one of them, and literally as I was concluding my briefing, um, an email with a letter attached to it from the ICIG came over in 2019 and all and one of the lawyers stood up. I went looked at his document.

He called over the other lawyers to take a look at this and they all turned pale.

And then they looked at me, they said, "We just received an email from the ICIG alerting us that they're being precluded from coming to Congress um with an urgent concern and the timeline, the chronology, everything matches up we just came forward with."

Yeah. Literally as I'm there, I was on stage with Renato Mariotti at a live show in Chicago when it came up on my phone that Adam Schiff has learned of a whistleblower report of immense proportions and

um we and it all unfolded from there. Um, now this may be unrelated, uh, but we've, oddly, um, there's some new reporting from Reuters about Tulsi Gabbard that last spring she went down to Puerto Rico and seized voting machines as part of an investigation into Nicholas Maduro over false claims of foreign election interference.

Um, I know that you can't talk about what's in the Is that related at all or you just have

Not at all? Not not related at all. Not related at all. We can rule it out. We can rule that out. I mean, the fact that there's all that stuff happening as well, it just compounds a problem. But yes, not related to that one.

Okay. Totally different uh awful thing happening. Different problems. Different problems. That's that's a very a lawyerly way to put it. Now, you told Aaron Bernett that there needs to be an investigation into this. What uh what does that look like? Um what what kind of investigation given Democrats don't have a majority in the House like they did when uh the Zalinsky whistleblower complaint came in? What's what sort of investigation can uh can be undertaken here if you don't have subpoena power and even if you did, you don't have a cooperative DNI or DOJ? So what what does an investigation look like for for this particular issue? to your point, if it require if we're talking about a congressional investigation at this juncture, it will require courage um and people acting apolitically and in the interest of national security purely to try and find out what's right and what's wrong. Um national security, the things

that are happening globally that affect every American citizen, that affect everybody in the world, um should not have a left or right posture on this. This should be apolitical. you know, let's let's make sure we're all safe. So, it's going to take some courage on some folks part. I I would say there are a couple of investigations that can happen depending on how you scope it, right? I mean, one, why was the underlying intelligence being withheld from within from disseminating it within the intelligence community for action, right? Why are they being blocked from the things that they need to do that they need to know to do their jobs?

That's that's kind of a that's that's that's that's kind of a big thing that's just hanging out there. Um you can of course conduct an investigation as to what Tulese Gabber did or didn't do with respect to trying to prevent that distribution of intelligence. Um you can look into what she has done or not done with respect to getting this urgent concern to Congress timely and providing my client timely guidance which we were still yet waiting for. um to go.

You could ask uh Tamara Johnson about that credibility determination of Dennis Kirk right?

You can you can find out what happened there. You know, there's there's a lot of things. It again, it depends on what you want to scope. Do you can scope out you? I mean, the thing about the investigative world, and that's a world that I've worked in for a number of years, is that you know, it depend what is the what is the focus on, right? And it could be multiple different things. So that cuz I'll tell you this, if you have one global investigation on all these things, they'll take years to complete, but you know, you focus what the what the questions are, you know, focus one investigation on the intelligence, focus on the activity of Tulsa Gabbert, focus on and and it may be related, you know, but yeah, th those are the things that I would want to know from my client standpoint. I want to know what the heck happened that that delayed this.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Why are we here? Any excuses? Oh, executive privilege, government shutdown, staffing changes, just

this is that's great. By the way, again, um deflection, the disclosure was filed um the initial contact to the IG's office uh happened in April. Okay. But the disclosure wasn't finalized until May. So, just to let you know, when you make an initial phone call to the the IG's office, that doesn't trigger the 14-day timeline. It's it starts when they've got it everything from you from the whistleblower, right? Because it wouldn't make any sense if you say, "Hey, I have a my first phone call is I want to meet with you. Clock starts, but you're traveling for a week and you just lost 7 days." That doesn't make any sense. So, you know, the clock started in May and in early June, June 6th, this determination was made. Um the time between June 6th and the government shutdown and the change in staff and new IG didn't happen for months.

Yeah. I think he got Fox got there in October, I think. And yeah, shut down right around then.

Yeah. So between June and October, you know, barbecues, there's stuff. There's just stuff there. Things people are busy. Uh Andrew,

have fun. I mean, it's fine. You can have fun. real your life, right? But, you know, there's not that's not going to slow down. Oh, by the way, and that's the other thing is um it doesn't slow down. It shouldn't take even five months to get it there. So,

people freaked out that it took a month to get the Zinsky report to Congress. Yeah, we we took So, think about that. That was a disclosure about uh communication with by the president with a foreign leader. And we I I had that we filed a disclosure. It was actually my dad's birthday, August 12th uh of 2019. That's why I remember that date. And um in in just over a month, we got it to the hill. This one's 8 months. And now we're asserting executive privilege to hide the classified information from the gang of eight. It's a shell game. It's really disturbing.

And you know, here's process-wise, you know, what's interesting is process is boring, but when some then when things don't go the right way, they start, you know, eliciting, you know, clues again, as we we say in the investigative world. Um, Tulsi Gabbard could have uh first her staff could have simply called the Hill and said, "Hey, we've got something that's coming your way that's really sensitive. We're trying to figure out how to get it to you, but we're giving you a heads up right now. Give us a week or two, whatever." Right?

That's an approach that I as I understand it from former uh senior officials in that world has been done and when Gabbard would have transmitted that to Congress, she's actually allowed by statute to provide comment. So if she wanted to say that, you know, that the that the disclosure is erroneous or whatever the case may be, she could have drafted a cover memo in

like we think this is stupid, but here it is by law. Oh, we have to give it to you.

Yeah. So, so but says she's hiding it. H instead says she's hiding it. So again, the not the the process failure raises a lot of questions because now we don't know what we don't know.

Yeah. Well, it's not like I said, this administration has a history of hiding things that are politically embarrassing for them.

Totally transparent. Totes most transparent in history. I'm the most transparent ever. Um, yeah. Okay.

Consciousness is not transparency. Just putting out there. Oh, yeah. Very, very well. Uh, so a lot of people tend to ask, especially folks who are super engaged, really um politically aware folks who who watch the breakdown, watch my touch, watch my shows.

Yeah. Always are like, "What can I do? What can I do?" The first thing I want to tell people is that you can support whistleblow. It's a nonprofit. You can make a taxdeductible donation. Uh we'll put the link here uh up on the screen. It's whistleblower.org/beans. You can donate to help uh these amazing lawyers protect these incredibly brave uh whistleblowers. It's a lot of process. There's a lot you have to go through for the legal process to it's it's a it's a lot to navigate. It takes really really brilliant lawyers. Um so you can help there. And then obviously, you know, I'm going to tell you, uh, flip Congress so that if the Republicans don't want to investigate this particular issue and others, uh, we will have, uh, a little more power and control the committees, uh, to be able to to continue investigations. Is there anything else you can think of, Andrew, or any other information about this?

Again, I know you can't give us any indication about what's in this. We know what it's not. It's not the Maduro Puerto Rico voting machines thing.

Um, anything else you want to say about what people regular folks like us can do or anything else you want to add about uh what you know about this complaint?

I can't add anything else about the complaint but and and thank you for mentioning what whistleblower.org or what we do um it's not I mean so what we do is just kind of give everybody an understanding we provide uh free legal services to federal employees I mean that they would not necessarily be able to afford otherwise to make sure that they are able to lawfully disclose um things that they see that are wrong that violations law rule or regulation and particularly for members of the intelligence community if they mishandle that if they mishandle classified information they can be charged under the espionage act so doing this right matters And then the other thing that we do that that's really different from some other organizations is that um we provide wraparound 360 services. So you know we've actually had in the past where we've had to um ensure that individuals are protected physically

uh for fear of retaliation not through like adverse actions like being fired but you know being doxed is a real thing. And so we go to great lengths to make sure that we have thought through the processes to make sure that our clients are safe, comfortable and and well taken care of. It's it's a lot. This is to become a whistleblower at any time even even when things are you know in you know nor in the normal world is is a heavy lift now more so than ever and the folks who are coming forward because government so many people have been removed there are senior officials.

There's a lot to lose. It's very it's it's challenging, but but we're here to help.

Yeah. And I have to say, even though Trump came in, fired all the inspectors general, tried to get rid of any kind of oversight apparatus that he possibly could, um, you know, gut by gutting the public corruption unit at the DOJ, you know, just all of this stuff to getting getting rid of all the oversight, getting rid of foy gutting foyer offices. Despite all that, there are still career professionals in these agencies that want to and need to blow the whistle that that have the kind of services that whistleblower aid uh provides. And so we should be encouraging um folk I mean when I was in the I worked for government for 12 years. It was encouraged to blow the whistle. You weren't put you you didn't get in trouble

uh if you if you pointed out some fraud waste. It was a thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. or if you did something wrong, you just said, "I made this mistake. Let's fix it immediately." And everybody was happy and wonderful and great. So to to have these brave individuals, especially now in this environment, they need to have that uh protection. And I'm glad that you give them that. Uh

you know what's interesting? There's there's one other thing that I will add is that because for example, you mentioned the Department of Justice, there are a lot more attorneys coming forward and that actually is really challenging because of the attorney privilege and all the rules that are unique to council. So, we're we're we're working through a lot of issues to make sure that the folks who want to come forward are doing so in a way that protects them. That's why we're here to help.

All right. Well, I appreciate that. Uh and I appreciate you taking the time. I know it was a lot of questions today. I appreciate you taking the time to explain everything in this granular detail. Uh I think it means a lot to to the folks watching.

Thank you. Thank you for doing this. Yeah. No, it's it's my pleasure. Seriously. Uh and I hope uh I look forward to maybe speaking with you again after Monday uh to see what goes down uh in Congress. Uh so uh everyone here on Midas, thank you. Thank you for watching the breakdown. You can follow me at mullerro wrote.com and uh we will see you next week on the breakdown.

Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY"?

Allison Gil (Guest), Andrew Bakai (Guest).

What is "LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY" about?

The content discusses two significant whistleblower cases related to Donald Trump's presidency, highlighting how a lawyer named Eisenberg overclassified a damaging document in 2019, which contributed to Trump's first impeachment, and revealing that an intelligence community whistleblower's report was withheld for eight months during Trump's second term. The analysis involves the role of various…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

15 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Bakai, Congress, Allison Gil, Executive Privilege. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: Whistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY"?

The episode runs 45 min; the transcript is about 7,870 words in 99 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 9, 2026.