Shawn Ryan Show - #49 Tim Parlatore - The Fight for Free Speech Against a Foreign Government

Episode Date: February 23, 2023

In this special episode, we give you an update on the continued fight for free speech from the attorney working the case—Tim Parlatore. Parlatore explains how the events with our Dallas Alexander episode are unfolding and how the Canadian government is trying, but failing to censor a free American podcast. We'll also explore how woke culture and foreign influence are weakening our institutions, from the military all the way to congress. Shawn & Parlatore discuss how we got here, but more importantly - how we turn the tide. Support The Shawn Ryan Show and get your "Don't Censor Me" Graphic Tee HERE. News About the Episode: NY Post Daily Mail UK Task and Purpose CTV News The Ottowa Citizen The Epoch Times The Blaze Breitbart World News Era DNyuz SOFX Mediaite Salt Wire  Tim Parlatore Links: Website | Instagram Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Redbox RX. Get extension like lashes without the work with Redbox RX. They'll help provide a prescription for Bometaprost, a medically proven eyelash serum with the same FDA-approved active ingredient as Lateez. You can see longer, thicker, darker eyelashes in just 8 weeks, and at Redbox RX, it's only $11.40 a week. You won't find a cheaper price online. Take a free assessment today and use the code Spotify for 10% off at redboxRx.com.

This episode is brought to you by Dr. Teals. When you need to relax and recharge, take a bath with Dr. Teals' pure epsom salt. It helps relax the body while the natural essential oils help calm your mind. Enhance yourself care ritual with Dr. Dr. Tails foaming bath for long-lasting bubbles, and Dr. Tails' shey sugar scrubs for smooth glowing skin. Soak in Dr. Tails to recharge the body, mind, and spirit so you can soak in life's important moments. Find it at a Walmart near you, now available with a fresh new look. Hey, welcome back everybody. As many of you know, we got a cease and assist letter from the Canadian government claiming that we had

classified information in the Dallas, Alexander episode. We've been working very closely with the tier one unit over there to figure out what exactly is classified. We're having a real problem actually figuring that out. So we brought in our attorney, Tim Parletori. Very well-known attorney makes a lot of heads turn when he comes around. But we go over the case, all the ins and outs that you want to hear, what's classified, what isn't? Is it straight censorship? Is it silencing their own people? I don't know.

You guys tell me, leave us a like, comment, and share this episode with everybody you know. We also talk about why the leadership in the military across the globe has turned into a bunch of weak, spineless leaders, and how that going to get resolved as well. So anyways, also hit us with a review on iTunes, hit us a review on Spotify and guess what, Dallas's episodes coming back soon. All right, everybody, please welcome Tim Parlatory to the Sean Ryan Show. Love you all very much cheers. With the

censorship from Canada that we've been dealing with we released an episode with Dallas Alexander the Canadian JTF2 sniper. Funny thing is Dallas got fired for not taking the COVID vaccine. There's been some concern brought up about the Sean Ryan show podcast. You know, the video is, it shows these guys out on an operation and shows them with equipment that, you know, you've seen a hundred times on the internet before.

I got hit with a cease and desist from Canada. There's a couple of admirals that I believe are fall through. Scary times were very scary. It looks like we're fighting with our men. We're fighting certain individuals within the government that are not staying true to their oath and are not doing what is best for the people of this country. Tim Pallatory, welcome to the show. Thank you. Man, it's an honor to have you here.

So, just a little bit about you, real quick. You are the managing partner of Pallatory Law Firm. You've been on a number of very high profile cases, the most famous being Eddie Gallagher's. Now you represent Trump for everything January 6th related and the classified document Fiasco that we're seeing all over the news right now. And I'm your latest client with the, with the censorship from Canada that we've been dealing with. And I just want to say thank you for picking up the call that day.

I've been through one legal battle and it was one of the most stressful times of my life. And so it's a real honor to have you back at me. I think we made some serious headway with these people. Absolutely, thank you. Hopefully this one was less stressful. Yeah. With you on my back, it definitely was. But everybody gets a gift.

It comes on the Shorteride show. Thank you. There you go. Hey there, go ahead. Little something for the, for the flight home. Cool. Thank you. You're welcome.

So, I just want to go over exactly what happened with Canada. In my opinion, I think this was, I don't think there was anything classified in there, and we'll get to the summary of this real quick. But basically, we released an episode with Dallas Alexander, the Canadian JTF2 sniper, and which had real footage in it. Funny thing is, Dallas got fired from the unit up there in Canada for not taking the COVID vaccine, according to Dallas, and not complying with mask mandates.

They knew that was common in part two. I got hit with a cease and desist from Canada, from the unit up there saying that there was all this classified information or sensitive information within the episode they needed to come down. Right off the bat I thought this is this is straight censorship they're trying to silence this guy they don't want this stuff going out it took me about 24 hours actually less than 24 hours I got it on a Friday night, close a business, and I slept on it because I was hot. I was really upset. I slept on it, I woke up, and I

said, you know, if there is something classified that could in the episode that could jeopardize the Tier 1 unit or compromise any of the operate, the current operators that are still on the ground, I would just feel horrible, you know, if I release something that jeopardized that unit, especially them being an ally unit, I've worked with them in the past. So I pulled it, you know, I wanted to err on the side of caution. And then I called the Gallagher's. Huge thank you to the Gallagher's. They connected me with you

and your letter back to them was phenomenal. But I'm just gonna read off the initial. So basically how what happened is, Thursday we got just a regular email in through the website and it was here it is. Good afternoon. I'm reaching out to you today as a representative of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command as we have become aware of classified information and imagery that was disclosed on your recent podcast with Mr. Dallas Alexander. We respectfully ask that this podcast be taken down to prevent further dissemination of the information and video contained within it. We would also appreciate receiving an advance copy of the second part of

the interview prior to publication to enable us to make an assessment as to whether there are any further violations in it. We are certainly willing to work with you to help produce edited versions of both podcasts to ensure they do not contain any classified information. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss, thank you in advance for your cooperation

very respectfully, this person. So I blew that one off, and then we got the official cease-and-assist and in the email and in the mail and that's when we got a hold of you. So I'm gonna post those up on screen right now and the article that has has the whole situation in there. You took that on then all of a sudden, the media just launched and it was in everything. It was in the New York Post, Daily Mail UK, Tasking Purpose, CTV News, the Ottawa citizen, the Epoch Times, the Blaze, Breitbart, World News, Error, SOFX, and Salt Wire.

And there's probably more. I couldn't keep, lost track and it sounds like it might be going more. So when you took this what and you actually got a chance to look at it, you know, the video, what was going through your mind? Did you think there was anything classified within the? No, I mean, you know, the video is it shows these guys out on an operation. It shows them with equipment that you've seen under times on the internet before.

There are elements of the video that in my opinion, probably were classified at the time, specifically where they were. When you go out on an operation and you file your plan, that is classified because you don't want the enemy to know where you're going to be or where you are. But years after the fact, that is no longer an issue. So there was nothing about that video that struck me as, you know, problematic. But instead, I kind of looked at the letter that they sent you. And obviously, as a lawyer, we look at the letters a little bit differently and kind of slice them up and figure out, okay, what is the actual applicable law? And that's when I started to feel like, okay,

this is not a legitimate claim. Yeah, well, you know, on top of that, legitimate claim. Yeah, well, you know, on top of that, just to encompass the entire situation here, because that's what I thought to us, like, well, maybe, maybe it's the location, you know, but they did a press release. Right. They did a press release of the location, because they were so happy that they broke the world record, that they couldn't wait to get the information out that unit did a press release revealing

the location of the operators who took the shot before they were able to leave the sniper hide that they were in. So they compromised the four shooters, any other intel guys that were in that hide with them, and they actually, according to Dallas, they actually had to make an emergency extraction because their country had compromised their location. And I didn't remember that initially, and then I was like,

would him in a, he says this in the episode, and then speaking to Dallas, he had mentioned it several times again, and I was like, what could possibly be more classified than revealing the location of your operators who were still on the ground? Right. Exactly. I mean, the capability of hitting a target from that distance, that is obviously something

that's not classified because they announced it. And so there really wasn't anything about that video that struck me. Sometimes you have videos where you can see, okay, if there's the, you know, the Intel or the crypto guy there, and if you can accidentally see, you know, the screen on their little, you know, iPad or whatever. But there was an A of that there. Yeah. They had mentioned a few things that were classified. It was odd too. It was, it was, here's another thing that was really odd, was

they made it sound like this was a, they made it sound like this was a major breach of national security, you know, in the, in the season to assist. And so I emailed them back, first thing Saturday morning, thinking, well, if this is that big of a deal, this email is definitely going to be monitored over the weekend. We didn't hear a damn word until Monday, what Monday late morning. And so that also tells me, okay, this is not a matter of national security. This is bullshit. And so do you want to talk about our initial conversation? Sure. So when you reach that to me, you explain the situation.

And of course, the most important thing for me is, let me read the letter. You know, lawyers, we write these scary letters, even though they're called cease and desist or demand letters, you know, we often, you know, because lawyers like to speak Latin, we call them inter-orum letters, meaning to terrify somebody. And as a lawyer, I can look at and say, well, this doesn't break quite match up. You know, what is the threat? If you don't do this, we're going to prosecute you. We're going to sue you. We're going to do, you know, filing a junction.

What is the threat? And what are the references to the law of what you allegedly broke? And what was interesting about this letter, as opposed to any other that I've dealt with before, is that it was all based on not very specific references to Canadian law, whereas you're an American. And everything you did was here in the US, and therefore governed by US law, not Canadian law. And so one of the things that immediately jumped out of me was the conflict between the Canadian standard and the US standard because the idea that a government would demand a journalist to take something down because it's classified, that's something that's been well litigated

in this country. It was something that was brought up during the Vietnam War over the Pentagon papers, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said, the First Amendment, Freedom of the Press, trumps any government interest in keeping something classified.

So the government can't censor the media based on something allegedly being classified. And of course you and I spoke about it at the time that one of the things that they said in there is that this video is the property of his majesty, the king. And it's the wrong thing to say to an American. That's exactly what you said to me at the time. You said that's the wrong thing to say in American. I said, well, I actually shone it's the wrong thing to say to an American. That's exactly what you said to me at the time.

You said, that's the wrong thing to say in American. I said, well, I actually shone it's even better than that because your defense to this is contained within the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the document that we wrote after we decided we don't want to be subject to his majesty, the king. You know, it's, so it's funny when you go to law school, you learn all these arcane ancient constitutional principles, and you think I'm never actually going to use that in practice, and yet it does come up where these things, you know, so that's when, you know, I think I told you, all right, let me write up a response to this. And what I did is I took all of their points and just hit back with, okay, I'm not an

expert on Canadian law. I don't know Canadian law much at all. But U.S. law applies here. And so when you say this, the Constitution says the opposite. When you say it's intellectual property, our laws say fair use doctrine allows you to use it. Just as any news agency out there can use these videos that depict a historical event as something to confirm the story.

You're not wholesale taking a long feature film that belongs to somebody else. You're taking a relatively short clip that confirms the accuracy of your story. And that's permitted under our constitution and under the U.S. laws and copyright law. So really, I wanted to push back on them to say, hey, look, everything you're threatening doesn't scare us. We're not concerned about any of your threats because legally, you don't have any. But Sean is very different from a lot of other journalists because he respects the operators. He respects this, what they're doing. And that's why he took it down to make sure that nobody's going to get hurt.

And that's why we're willing to work with you to make sure that when it goes back up, it doesn't compromise any people or operations. And I wanted to make very clear from the beginning, I don't care what you say is classified because legally that means nothing to me. I do care about what you think might endanger people or operations, because Sean doesn't want to endanger any people or operations. The reality is classification, it's somebody's opinion about

whether something will harm national security, and it's a big problem in this country and presumably a lot of other countries of overclassification, where just because something is classified doesn't mean that it's actually something that should be kept secret. You mentioned something last night at dinner that really caught me off guard. It's just weird hearing it come out of somebody's mouth like yourself who's been in this several different times, but the use of classified information, well, it's not classified to cover up an embarrassment from some type of leadership. Correct.

How often does that happen? Well, it happens a lot. It happens a lot in this country where we have so many things that are so overclassified and classification really should be very narrowly used to the things that if disclosed would damage the national security of the country as opposed to the things that have exposed would damage the reputation of a certain senior leader. And I'm not speaking of anybody in particular because there's been misapplied across the board

to a whole bunch of people. So, and sometimes it's just that the government wants to be able to control the narrative. You know, they don't want you telling the story of what happened with that sniper team. They want to curate that story. They didn't want Matt B**** to tell the story of what happened when they killed Ben Modern.

They wanted the government curated 0-30 version of events. And so, oftentimes you have these classifications that are not really designed to protect, to protect the country, is to protect the individuals? And that's not a proper use of classification. Yeah. You think that's definitely what this was? I think that there's an element to that. I mean, when we got on the column, we started talking with these guys. One of the first things, because we went through the list of all the things that they wanted.

And there was nothing that they told us was classified that I believe to be actually classified. There were several things that we agreed, you know what, in a spirit of cooperation, we'll pull that out. First names of the other operators. That's not classified, but at the same time, at a respect, okay, we'll move, we'll pull that out. First names of the other operators. That's not classified, but at the same time, at a respect, okay, we'll move. We'll pull those names. The first thing that they identified, do you remember what it was? The night vision.

Bingo. Night vision. They wanted you to blur out the portion of the photos that showed what night vision these operators were wearing. Because it was the panoramic, you know, the 4-2. And I immediately knew that that was not something this classified because they did the same thing when my **** wrote the book No Easy Day. And they said, you've revealed I b****t wrote the book No Easy Day. And they said, you've revealed this classified case of gear that we have these panoramic four tube knots, but it's not classified. In fact, you sent me the link, yeah, the next day

where we could go on L3 Harris' website and buy a pair. I mean, what are those knots are like 15 years old, at least, you know, in local police departments have them. And they're telling us they told us they didn't want their capabilities to be out there. And it was, man, I got to be honest, if you don't have this capability by now, that's in you're the Tier 1 unit unit born and domestic in Canada. That's pretty embarrassing.

It is. And you know, the concept that we don't want the bad guys to know that we can see them at night that well. With all of the interrelation between the Canadian and the US forces and anybody else, they may not know which unit's gonna come through their door at night. But I think that they all have a pretty good idea that there is going to be some tier one unit that could come through their door in the middle of the night and see everything.

You know, yeah, I felt that to be. It's an element of Overclassification without serving any purpose that unfortunately kind of tinge to the the rest of our negotiations because you know the first thing that they asked for and We agreed because yeah, who cares if you can see the nods or not. But it did tinge everything else to where when they say, oh, this video is classified. Okay. You mean like the night vision? So, you know, there was just, there was a number of things. They also brought up the first names, which we believed,

and people find that out on Monday. So there's the previous classified, the freefiest classified edit that we did. But also, then we got into bullet flight time. Well, then we got into bullet flight time. And there was actually one specific piece of gear that my entire team was like, that's gotta be it. And it was the Takcom Optic, which they did not mention at all. Even Dallas himself was like, maybe that's it, you know, I don't know,

but the team heard it because he had mentioned something in the actual episode, but then I looked it up, Takcom HQ, their Instagram, everybody should go check that out right now, is sending us thank yous because they were told it was sensitive. And they're like, this is huge for us that we can actually get this out, but there they are.

They have a public Instagram page with everything on it. And here the Canadian unit is telling us, well, that's classified. Then they told us that the one video where they make entry, whoever was filmed in that, made entry into that room as they're actually taking the shots Yeah, and they're saying I mean you had the conversation, you know that they told you all that Equipment was classified correct right and we we discussed that because the reality is if there's something

In that video that you or I don't know Yeah, okay, maybe there's this there's a piece of gear sitting on the table and that in that video that you or I don't know. Yeah, okay, maybe there's this, there's a piece of gear sitting on the table and that individual piece of gear that we don't want anybody to know that we have. No problem. Tell me what it is. You don't even tell me what it actually is.

Just tell me that thing over there. Please blur out the widget on the table. We offered to blur out the widget on the table. We offered to blur out the widget on the table, but they couldn't identify any. Yeah. And then we found an article, and I believe it was Ballistic Magazine. Yeah.

That was, I can't remember the title of the article, but in the paragraph, it was something long lines of the equipment used in the J-T2's World Record Sniper Shot, a TAC-50, McMillan rifle, what round, what optic, what the prism optic, it was all right there. And so my team actually found that a farted off to you. Did you send that to him? No, I didn't need that. I didn't need to.

I thought that was rather interesting too. And then, you know, it was even for me, you know, even for me knowing what it was. It's still, and I think this is a problem with a lot of different, or with a lot of issues that are going on in the country today. It's so, it is so blatant. It is such, I mean, it is censorship, silencing in your face under the mask of classified material.

And even myself is like, man, what's classified in here? It's so hard to get through my head that the free world is censoring their people that hard. Yeah. And it was, it's just, and I think this happened with all these different problems across the country, across the globe

is so blatantly obvious that people can't get it through their head like that this is happening the way it is. You know, it's something that with the proliferation of social media and YouTube and giving voice to the people in a way that we never had before, that the government just doesn't know how to deal with it. You know, think about,

think about even as bad, for as recent as the 80s, when you didn't really have the internet, you had 13 channels on TV, you had newspapers, and that was how information got out. And so the government had a lot more control at the time over what got out, how it got out, and they could curate things better. But now when you have the ability to disseminate information that much faster with the internet, the government doesn't have to keep up with that.

And so much of this is, it's not about protecting national security secrets. It's about the government wants to have sole control of the narrative. And even when we discussed with the Canadians, well, hey, you guys did the press release. How is this an issue? You guys did the press release. How is this an issue? You guys did the press release. And, you know, quite frankly, I look at that episode with Dallas, and I say, aside from the COVID piece of it, the rest of it is a celebration of how good the Canadians were. It should be a good story for them. Obviously, they don't like the ending that Dallas told, but it should be something that they celebrate, but they wanted to control the narrative, they wanted to control who's

giving the narrative, in my opinion. But in it's the same thing that you see across the board with all of these types of cases. I mentioned, you know, Matt B**** earlier, who was a client of mine, full disclosure. And his book about the Ben Laden raid, he did not go through the proper pre-publication review. The publisher asked him not to. The publisher gave him a lawyer who advised him he didn't have to. And all because the publisher wanted to rush it into publication before the re-election. Because the administration had put out, you know, there's a dark 30 version of events. And they wanted to have the counter narrative, the true story out there, also before the re-election campaign,

they went after him, they destroyed his life because they were angry at him for questioning their narrative, for putting out a counter-narrative, for not asking permission. mission first. Even though at the end of the day, they put them through hell of a criminal investigation, and there was nothing classified in the book. Had he submitted it for pre-publication review, it would have been the same book that came out. And unfortunately, he was given bad advice, which is what gave them the hook to be able to do that to him. But it all came down to them being angry at him for questioning their narrative. How many other times have you seen this happen? I've said it a few times. It's something that when you embarrass the government, they will come after you.

And sometimes it's in the case of a criminal investigation, where you're nominated for a government position and you withdraw because you find out oops, you know, there's a problem with paying a nanny off the books and you've embarrassed them. So then they sick DOJ on you and they go through everything they can to try and find something to put you in jail because you embarrassed them. Speaking there, of course, Bernie Kerrick. Is that what happened to him? It's frequent. It's frequent. What did he do to embarrass the administration? I'm just curious. Bernie Kerrick was nominated for the Secretary of Homeland Security, and he withdrew from the nomination when it was discovered that he had paid a nanny off the books for his kids

and didn't pay the payroll taxes because she wasn't in the country legally. Interesting. Interesting. Today, that probably wouldn't be a disqualifying thing. Yeah, but at the time it was. Wow. What do you think? I mean, so they literally have zero, zero recourse in getting this video down or coming after me. Correct. and getting this video down or coming after me.

Correct. So you are protected under the Constitution. The New York Times is actually the ones who fought this all the way to the Supreme Court several years ago to establish this precedent. That's why, for example, when you have, um, you know, Snowden giving all those secrets to Glenn Greenwald, government didn't do anything to Glenn Greenwald because he was within his constitutional rights to publish all of those classified documents. You know, WikiLeaks is within their constitutional rights to publish those classified documents. You, if this was classified,

or certainly within your rights, to publish this, they can go after the publisher. The constitution protects you, unless you sign the NDA. If you're the one who had the security clearance and you had the non disclosure agreement and you violated that, you know, ultimately what they got mad on,

the breach of contract. That's it. That's it. That's what they did. They got them on a breach of contract. So people who are still on active duty, obviously, UCMJ has more heightened punishments for it. But here you don't have a clearance. You didn't get this through the course of any official government work. So they can't really do anything to you on that.

They were pushing a possibility of an intellectual property copyright violation, which certainly you're allowed to use it for fair use doctrine in a limited capacity. But here's the funny thing. If they wanted to come after you on a copyright action, I would obviously defend you, and I think we would win. But before they could do it, they would have

to take that video first to the US Copyright Office and register it, which goes against the idea of it being classified. So they have to first register with the United States government that this belongs to his majesty of the king. And then you and I would end up in the US District courtroom getting in a fight with his majesty of the king. Oh man, what were some of the other red flags that you saw that made you think that this was just, hey, this is

just a cover-up because they don't want to see, they don't want the fact that Dallas was fired for not taking the COVID vaccination. You know, the timing of it, you know, was interesting. They moved very quickly to, you know, they moved very slowly to send you a letter. And then once they got my letter, they moved very quickly to have a meeting. And what was, I think, you know, goes to the benefit of the credibility of the Canadians, is that once I had pushed back on the constitutionality piece, I think that they recognized that and they said,

okay, let's work together. Let's, and they were, they recognized that we were doing them courtesy. Yeah, which by the way, not a lot of people would have done what you did. Okay, your decision to take that down and to prioritize the safety of the operators over, you know, over the story and over, you know, profits and everything else. Not a lot

of people would have done that. So I definitely applaud you for that. I mean, there's a lot of people out there. You know, we've discussed names in the past, I won't say any right now, that would have said, oh, you don't like that I, in fact I put up a video of dead green braze? That's okay. My profit means more than the families. And somebody does that, obviously, have no interest in even having the conversation with the Canadians. So that is something that speaks to your character that you wanted to take that down and put their safety first.

But once we've gone through this, we met with them to see what their concerns were, to see what needed to come down for safety of operators and operations. And when they couldn't identify it, and just said, well, we'd like you to take it down because we don't think that you should have had it in the first place. Okay, I appreciate that, but we can't really work with that. You mentioned another thing last night too that I thought that I didn't catch, and that's that their lead POC, point of contact for us, was a public affairs officer. Correct.

Correct. Yeah, there was a judge advocate officer that we spoke to initially, but kind of once we established that there's not a legal issue here, he kind of moved to the side and then said the public affairs officer, you know, took lead on it. And we're not going to say his name here, but relatively junior guy, you know, Lieutenant Commander. If this was such a matter of national security, I would have expected that we would have been talking with intelligence kernels, not a public affairs major or

Lieutenant Commander. Very interesting. So, which, again, the fact that you have public affairs taking lead on this, and the fact that we're talking about a legit classified material on an open line with two guys who don't have clearances. It did kind of further reinforce to me that, you know, this is a control of the narrative thing. And let me be clear, the guys that we spoke to, they were following orders.

Yeah, I don't, I think that they acted, you know, cardiously and professionally in their dealings with us. But, you know, ultimately they were given orders from higher ups to, you know, do what you can to take this thing down. And, you know, they took it as far as they could. What do you think, what do you think might happen to Dallas? Yeah, you know, it's hopefully nothing, obviously. I don't like to see anybody get in trouble.

It's kind of what I do is keep people out of trouble, but, you know, they would have a problem with doing anything to them. You know, they could try to do the same issue with saying that he broke his non-disclosure agreement. They could try to say the same issue as saying that he broke his non-disclosure agreement. They could try to say that he revealed classified information. And again, I don't know the Canadian legal systems. I don't know. Can they recall them back to duty and court martial umber any of those things.

But ultimately, while there certainly are differences between the Canadian and the US system, when it comes to trials, there are very common principles of evidence. I think that they would have difficulty because they would have difficulty with showing that it was actually classified or in a nature that damages national security. But here's the other thing. the damages national security. But here's the other thing, is that how would they actually establish that he's the one that even gave it to you? Unless they had you come in and testify as a prosecution witness on it. So I think that there's a lot of chain of custody and classification issues that make it difficult. But more so, and one of the things I said to the public affairs officer is, the more

you push on this thing, the more you draw attention to it, and there's an element here of the more you let it alone, the more you allow the public to sit there and say, wow, the Canadian Special Forces guys, they have some great capabilities. And leave it at that. Because the more you push, the more you create a circus, the more you push, the more you create a circus, the more you create polarization,

from a public affairs standpoint, it can end up hurting you more than helping. Do you think they will go after them? I don't know. I'm sure that they're going to do their investigation. If media reports are to believe, they're certainly investigating it. Where is that going to do their investigation. If media reports are to believe they're certainly investigating it. Where is that going to lead? I don't... Where does it lead?

Can they build the evidence? And what is the appetite for having that type of problem? So they're definitely investigating them. Ultimately, you'll be up to the senior leadership decide, are we angry enough with him that we wanna go through this process? Do you, if you were Dallas right now, what would you be doing?

Move into the United States. That, what would you be doing? Moving to the United States. That's what I would be doing. If he doesn't do that, what would you do? Well, and obviously there are still extra-ditioned treaties and things like that. So, you know, he has the decision to make. Yeah, of course, it's easy to sit here and say move to the United States.

But at the same time, obviously, there are immigration issues. Can he get a green card to move here? Is he will the US allow him to come air for more than just a visit? Will they allow him to become a resident? So I think that, you know, Dallas, he's taking a stand for something he believes in. I think that, you know, based on your conversations with him and my brief interactions with him, I think he knows what he's doing, and he's made a conscious decision that this is more important to him.

So, the best thing that Dallas really should do right now is to try and find the Canadian version of me to have sitting in his corner with him. Roger that. Well, I'm sure he's gonna watch this. But Tim, let's say. If there was an opportunity for me to go up to Canada,

I hear that they still wear wigs. I think I'd be a lot of fun. Yeah, I've always wanted to the horse hair wig. On that note, let's take a quick break. And when we come back, I wanna talk about, we had a great conversation last night on why the military, almost globally, seems to be now we're in this spineless, weak,

woke era of military leadership, and I think you're right on the money. I can't wait to talk to you after the break on that. That's it. Hey guys, let me tell you about this subscription service that I've been working real hard on called Vigilance Elite Patreon. Basically on Patreon, we haven't broken up

into three different tiers. We've got tier one, tier two, and tier three. Let's dive in. Our tier one patrons get all the behind-the-scenes footage of the Sean Ryan show. That could include behind-the-scenes photos, that could be side conversations that we have in between breaks, that could be specific questions that our patrons give us for the guests on the Sean Ryan show and a ton of bonus content that doesn't really fit into any specific category. For our Tier 2 patrons, they get access to our tactical training library which consists of well over 100 videos. We've broken those videos up into separate categories

and those categories are rifle fundamentals, pistol fundamentals, drills, tactics, driving, gear, and weapon setups, and everybody's favorite mindset. Also on Tier 2, you will get a live update from me on the first and the 15th of every month where we talk about the upcoming guests on the Sean Ryan show. Plus all the benefits of tier one. Our top tier, which is tier three, gets full access to all the other tiers. Plus they get full access to me where we do video teleconferencing VTC. Once a month we discuss anything from tactics to current events, to who's coming on the show, I take suggestions and it's very interactive. No matter what tier you choose, the support is greatly appreciated and it is the only thing that makes this show

drive on. So thank you for all the support. See you on Patreon. All right Tim, we're back from the break and we had a fascinating conversation last night about fascinating conversation last night about why the leadership in the military has become so weak and spineless. And this is a topic that's just I've seen it over and over everybody wants to know why the military leadership is going the way it is here in the US. Now obviously in Canada and likely across the globe we've received a ton of emails, actually, from spec operators and Germany, and Holland, and Australia. And it seems like everybody worldwide is dealing with the exact same scenario here. So I'll let you take it from here.

Yeah, you brought this up last night at dinner, and remember the first question I asked you was, when you joined, do you remember who you're seeing your leadership was at the time? Yes. And how many of them have Vietnam combat service? All of them, that's right. And that's the thing, is that if you look at the historical cycle

of this country from World War I to the present, Vietnam to 9-11 was the biggest gap from active combat and sustained active combat that we've had in this country. You know, yes, there was desert storm and, you know, Somali and things like that in the interim. But when you join, when I joined, all of our senior leaders, the senior enlisted, the colonels, the generals, they were all in Vietnam.

You know, the Comna, the Marine Corps was a platoon commander in Vietnam. And the last Vietnam veteran aged out, the last Kamna, the Marine Corps who was a Vietnam veteran, retired in 2005. So when 9-11 happens and considered before that, I went to the Naval Academy started in 1998 and so while I was there the lessons that we learned about how to prepare for combat and combat leadership They had all the Vietnam veterans come in and teach us that because that was the most recent experience that they could draw upon. And so you fast forward, inserting around 06, all of those leaders are gone. And you go all the way up to the present and all of your general officers today,

not through any fault of their own, but for the year of their birth. They were all too senior on 9-11. And so you have this entire generation of paper generals that their junior officer days were spent during the post-Cold War peacetime. They've never carried a rifle on patrol. And so let alone Ben and combat. Right. Well, I mean, they've they've done it in training. They've done it in training. Maybe some of them were were in desert storm. Maybe some of them were in Somali and things like that. But if you look at the makeup of the

combat arms today, whether it's special operations or infantry, your lieutenant colonels and your commanders in the Navy side have the most combat experience in the officer corps of anybody, because they were the platoon commanders right after 9-11 when we went in to Afghanistan and so you have One two three four star generals that are looking at their lieutenant colonels and saying

That guy has more experience than I do I have a bunch of you know metals for you for, you know, making policies and writing papers. That guy has a purple heart. And it's a very weird time right now in the senior military leadership. And this is something that I discussed in my closing argument when I represented Stoosh Sheller, where your senior leaders are the least experienced. Look at the SEAL community. Admiral Grant is the most senior SEAL Admiral I believe right now in the Navy, and yet he

is the least experienced SEAL officer in the Navy because he was too senior. So he never got to lead these combat patrols. As this current crop of the 9-11 junior officers starts right now to put on Eagles as colonels and captains, and as they continue to move up into the admiral and general ranks, I think that you're going to see a bit of a reversal of this because the current leadership just doesn't have that experience. But the next generation will. If any of them are left, it's so many people are leaving the military. They are. They are. It's unfortunate. I graduated from Naval Academy in 2002. We were the first class to graduate after 9-11.

I look at all of my classmates who are now commanding officers of squadrons and ships and now screening for command of aircraft carriers and you know, batai and command. I think one of my classmates was recently a team commander out in Coronado. And the guys are getting and women are getting out. And a lot of it is because of the policies of DOD that's forcing them out. And the increase of the whole zero defect mentality, where I've done things recently, and I'm not gonna name names here, but I've done recently things that I really didn't wanna do.

I represented a lot of my friends who are really the command, and I hate that. I'm happy to be able to help them them but I hate that I have to do it because we are trying to take the best officers out there and get rid of them. And I think that probably the there are more targets on the backs of the O5s right now on the backs of the O5s right now, then I've ever seen, man. And it's those that survive to make the senior ranks,

I have hope that they are going to be the ones that are going to make things better. You know, it's like one of my good friends, I always thought, you know, throughout this whole time, you know what? Things are going to be better. The moment that my friend puts on a star. You know, we knew from the beginning that this guy is eventually going to be a general. And I've always held that hope that the Marine Corps will be better, the moment that they

put a star on the shoulder. And instead he reached out to me and said, I've been relieved of command, I need your help. Damn. And what was he relieved for? Holding his Marines accountable. He's relieved for doing what we want our leaders to do. But in every one of these cases that I'm dealing with, you have a situation, the pattern keeps repeating itself where they try to hold the junior

officers accountable to the same standards that we were held to as junior officers. And instead, rather than admit that you can't meet that standard or raise your performance up to meet that standard, they choose to file an IG complaint. And then that creates this whole investigation and vendetta where then the senior leaders come down and they say, you know what? It's easier to get rid of this guy than to do the harder right. than to do the harder right. And I will say that I'm in a weird situation with my job where everything I see in DOD is unfortunately the worst of what's going on because nobody invites me to the successes. I only get invited to the party when things are going badly. And I will caveat this to say that I have seen

that the aviation community does a lot better at this than the other communities. It's not perfect, but I've definitely been a lot more impressed with the senior leadership in the aviation side of things than the others. And part of that may be because that's the one community where you have flag and general officers who did fly combat missions. Interesting. Because unlike the SEAL teams where once you get above put in command. You're out of the field

You know squadron commanders are still flying combat missions So there's there may be an element of that in it too but It's bad and the morale is bad and so many people that I sit there and say, this should be who we want to be the next general or the next admiral. They at 20 and they drop the papers. And in so many of them, command, you know, when I was a junior officer, my captain was the greatest.

And it was like, this man was born to command a warship. And when he had his chain of command, we were all so sad to see him leave. And he was sad to see to leave today. Today's commanders are even told a successful command tour is defined by surviving all of the IG complaints. And I've had so many of my friends that have gotten to the end of their command, or done the chain of command, changed a command. And rather than being disappointed at no longer being there with their command, they're relieved. Damn, they're relieved that they survived. You know, command of a warship, or a battalion, or or a squadron should be the pinnacle of somebody's

life. And now it's something to be survived. That is pathetic. That is pathetic. Do you ever since I saw this defund the police movement come about, you know, what was that about that 2019 ish? Somewhere in 2020 is when it really started. It went rampant and I had this theory right off the bat that this was engineered from way

up there where they wanted to restructure all of the police departments get the old blood out bring in the new blood bring in the Yes, men who are gonna do anything that that the leader that the weak leadership tells them and and and I thought this is gonna carry over to the military then we saw that we saw we're seeing it right now We saw with the with the COVID vaccine mandates, they got rid of a ton of wartime experience, a tremendous amount of wartime experience. Now we're seeing the new agendas come in

and that's demoralizing the few guys that are left. They're leaving. I mean, do you think that this is coming from way up and they're trying to restructure the entire military and police? I mean, it's definitely, we're at a place right now where we have less people that have served who are serving in senior positions.

You don't have, I mean, think about years ago, how many members of Congress fought in the World War Two? Yeah. You think about, you know, not having served, not having gone to Europe or to the Pacific, was a liability for a political candidate at a certain point in time. Now, you have very few people that have served, and therefore, very few people that have that understanding and experience and cultural understanding of what military and the police do. So I think that there is that factor. Now one of the things that I enjoy seeing is more veterans that are now getting elected to Congress. I think the more that on both sides of the aisle is a good thing because the more people that you have that understand that and understand the

principle of for the good of the country we come together and work together even if we have differences of opinion, I think that's going to help to turn the tide. Is it only conspiracy from the top to cut all these things down? I think that there may be an element of influence operations here from our enemies. Certainly, who benefits the most from the weakening of the US military? The Chinese. Correct. Russia.

Correct. And you have the Chinese that are investing tons of money into our educational system, tons of money into this country to try and influence things. And as our leaders fight each other, they ignore the external threat. And sometimes don't even recognize that it's the external threat that is created. Be inviting. I believe that too, Jim. I am 100% in line with that. And I've been thinking that's what's going on for a long time.

And I mean, to be honest with you, I don't think China could do a better job than they're already doing it dividing and demoralizing America and its citizens and our allies too. Right. Canada. I mean, look at it, and I don't want to get into the whole discussion about election fraud and things like that. But if you look at 2016 and 2020, the greatest things that our enemies could have done was not to create fraud in the election

to influence his outcome, it's to create the appearance of fraud. Because if there's an appearance of fraud in the election, the two sides fight each other. So, and it's a well-known principle. I mean, look, read Sun Siu. This is something that the Chinese have followed for hundreds of years, that if you can use influence operations to get the enemy to fight with each other. Have the enemy defeat itself without having the fire shock. If we could recognize that, then maybe we could focus more on building this country up and focus on that external threat. Scary times were in, very scary. How long do you think it will be before the military starts changing if any of these

guys are left in the system to take leadership? Because there is this, you know, there is the old saying, hard men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times and the cycle goes on right And you can you can see the cycle throughout our history from You know from Vietnam, you know the post Vietnam let down and all that stuff And so I do think that things are going to turn around. I'm hopeful that things will turn around really within the next five years because the people, the men and women who, you know, bore the brunt of the load after 9-11, they are now starting to, and many of them are putting on captain and Colonel and we'll be up for flag and general officer ranks soon.

And I think that there, you know, while there certainly is a retention problem, I think at the same time, good men and women are still there. You know, I was, I went to the Pentagon a couple weeks ago for something. And walking down the halls, I ran into a couple of guys that I knew. And one guy in particular, I won't say his name, but I saw him and I haven't seen this guy in over 20 years. And this was one of those guys that we knew

would have been a phenomenal officer, but he was also a guy that, you know, tended to get into trouble for certain things. And everybody figured, okay, maybe he's going to do five years and get out. And I saw him wearing eagles. And I thought, this right here, seeing him wearing eagles in the halls of Pentagon, that gives me more faith in the Marine Corps's future. So there are some phenomenal men and women that are still coming up the ranks that have not been pushed out or forced out.

So I have hope for that. You know, and one thing that I like to do is I read a lot of history books. And so when you read about how bad things were at so many other periods in our nation's history, you realize maybe it's not so bad. As much as you feel like everything's about to fall apart, you know, read Alexander Hamilton by Charnau. And in the later chapters where it talks about a lot of the political infighting, he said there and said, wow, that sounds so familiar of the political infighting. He said, there's a, wow, that sounds so familiar. And they overcame it.

And I think we will again. So I have hope. It gives me a lot of hope. It probably does because, you know, I always try to keep a lot of hope and I try to remain positive and that we're gonna come out of this. But to be honest with you

until that conversation last night, to remain positive and that we're going to come out of this. But to be honest with you, until that conversation last night, I've been really breaching for something to grasp on to, just seeing where this goes and this last thing with Canada, even though it's technically not our country. But the same shit's happening in our country. It know, it's almost, it's almost, I mean, it's almost a blessing that it happened cross border. Right. Because it, it unveiled so much about how they're censoring, how they're trying to silence their people. Right. And I, you know, I see, I shouldn't be reading the comments, but I do read the comments sometimes. And I see, you know, I see a lot of comments. So to like, you know,

I remember it those years ago, screw Canada. And it's not, it's not the Canadian people. It's the Canadian government and the leadership. And it's not the JTF2 unit. It's the leadership and the JTF unit. And it's individuals. It's individuals. This is something that I always keep in my mind

when I'm fighting cases. And a client will say, we're fighting against the Navy. We're fighting against the Marine Corps. And I have to stop and say, no, no, no, OK. I am not attacking the Marine Corps. I'm attacking some very specific Marine Corps generals who are making bad decisions. We're not attacking the Marine. We're attacking some certain Marine Corps prosecutors.

I'm not attacking the Navy. There's a couple of admirals that I believe are a fault there. There's NCIS agents that are a fault. The institution itself is not something, you know, the government. I'm not fighting, it looks like we're fighting the government, but we're not. We're fighting certain individuals within the government that are not staying true to their oath and are not doing what is best for the people of this country. And not doing what is required by the Constitution. And so we fight those individuals. And so as much as it looks like I'm out there fighting with the Navy and the Marine Corps and DOJ and everything else. In a lot of ways, I feel like I'm fighting for it. You know, when I stood up there with Eddie Gallagher, yes, I was fighting the

Navy on behalf of one seal. But the reality is, at least the way I looked at it, I was fighting the corruption of certain individuals on behalf of all of that esteem. It's a very logical perspective. And if you think of it as this monolith, then it can't change. But if you think of it as individuals, they can be replaced. Interesting. It's a great way to put it. Well, Tim, on that note,

I think this is a good spot to end it. I do wanna just say that after what you just said that my intentions were never to embarrass or bring light to JTF2 in any negative aspect, those, like I said, I have worked with those operators several years ago, some of them are still over there and it is a phenomenal group to work with. The only in, and thank you for the compliment earlier.

I did, I wanted everybody's best interest, one of the best interests of the operators over there, one of the best interests of Dallas, and thank you for jumping in and saving my ass. Of course. And in the, in the other thing is that I want to get out is, you know, there's, I think there's a lot of kids and young adults whose aspirations are to go to a unit like that. And I don't want to demoralize the future of these units because they're extremely important.

They have great culture in them. And I just want them to know that, yep, we're going through a transition right now, but weak leadership is always replaced with strong leadership. And so anybody that's looking at going to a unit, that unit or any unit, you know, just know that. These things will never improve unless good people go in. And I remember right after the acquittal, Freddie, the first interview that he did and I sat with him. And I remember he was asked, does this change? Do you regret joining the Navy or becoming a seal? And I remember his answer, just he really struck me where he said he didn't regret it

for a second. And they earlier, they were trying to put him in jail for life. And he says he doesn't regret it for a second. And he would advise other people to do it, because while these certain individuals did the wrong thing, the reality is the team's military was the greatest thing in his life, and he would absolutely recommend it to other people. If my child grows up and decides to join the Navy, it'll be the proudest day of my life, too. You know?

And it's what we need. It's more good people to go in and do the right thing. 100% and good people standing up to this tyranny, this BS from these governments. But man, what a, you know, I'm just, I'm, I'm extremely proud of what we did. We, we have uncovered what it's like. We've uncovered real censorship. We hear it about it all the time, and this is it. This is exactly what they're doing. They're masking it with classified documents. And, you know, I just, I think we won by unveiling that.

I think it was a big win for freedom speech. And, like I said, thank you for being there. Of course. Thank you for taking the case. I've really appreciated it. And, man, what an honor to know you. Well, what an honor to be trusted by you. Yeah, that's one of the greatest things for me is

when people call me to ask me to do these things, that they are entrusting me to look out for their best interests and to protect them. That means a lot to me, so I thank you for that. My pleasure, seriously. So, all right, best of luck to you, all your contact information, links, everything will be in the description. So, if anybody's in trouble, I need the best of the best. There it is. All right, thank you. Thank you. Cheers. The Bullwork Podcast focuses on political analysis and reporting without partisan loyalties. Real sense of day job is sprinkled on our PTSD. So, things are going well, I guess. Every Monday through Friday, Charlie Sykes speaks with guests about the latest stories from

inside Washington and around the world. You document in a very compelling way all of the positive things have come out of this, but it also feels like we have this massive hangover. No shouting or grandstanding. Principles over partisanship. The Bullwalk Podcast, wherever you listen.