The Darrell McClain show
Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one Planet; nobody's leaving so let’s reason together!! Darrell, McClain is a Military veteran with an abnormal interest in politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and literature. He was born and raised in Jacksonville FL, and went to Edward H white High School where he wrestled Under Coach Jermy Smith and The Late Brian Gilbert. He was a team wrestling captain, District champion, and an NHSCA All-American in freestyle Wrestling. He received a wrestling scholarship from Waldorf University in Forest City, Iowa. After a short period, he decided he no longer wanted to cut weight which effectively ended his college wrestling journey. Darrell Mcclain is an Ordained Pastor under The Universal Life Church and is still in good standing, he's a Believer in The Doctrines of Grace Also Known as Calvinism. He joined the United States Navy in 2008 and was A Master At Arms (military police officer) He was awarded several awards while on active duty including an expeditionary combat medal, a Global War on Terror medal, a National Defense Medal, a Korean defense medal, and multiple Navy achievement medals. While In the Navy he was also the assistant wrestling coach at Robert E Lee High School. He's a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu under six six-degree black belt Gustavo Machado, Darrell Trains At Gustavo Machado Norfolk under the 3rd-degree black belt, and Former Marine Professor Mark Sausser. He went to school for psychology at American Military University and for criminal justice at ECPI University.
The Darrell McClain show
When Digital Security Meets Military Politics: A Defense Department Drama
The Pentagon is embroiled in a crisis of credibility as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth finds himself caught in a web of contradictions over information security practices. What began as a seemingly straightforward disciplinary action against alleged leakers has evolved into a revealing portrait of double standards at the highest levels of military leadership.
When three senior Pentagon advisors—Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darren Selnick—were unceremoniously escorted from the building and subsequently fired, they raised a troubling claim: they were never told what specific information they allegedly leaked, nor were they given any opportunity to defend themselves. "We have not been told what we're being investigated for," Caldwell stated bluntly in a follow-up interview, questioning whether a legitimate investigation ever took place.
The situation took a dramatic turn when reports emerged that Secretary Hegseth himself had been sharing sensitive operational details about military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen—not through secure government channels, but in Signal chat groups that included family members. This followed an earlier incident where Hegseth participated in another Signal group that accidentally included a journalist from The Atlantic. Security experts and congressional representatives have expressed alarm, with Rep. Jim Himes highlighting that "preparations for an attack... are to be classified top secret."
This controversy strikes at fundamental questions about accountability and equal application of rules. While Hegseth publicly decried leakers and anonymous sources as "hoaxsters," his own information-sharing practices appear to violate the very standards he's enforcing among his staff. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican and retired Air Force general, described Hegseth's actions as "amateur hour," noting that "Russia and China are all over his phone and for him to be putting secret stuff on his phone is not right."
What makes this pattern particularly concerning is how it mirrors broader issues of due process throughout government enforcement. As similar stories emerge from immigration enforcement and other sectors, we're confronted with critical questions about the consistent application of rules and the protections afforded to those accused of wrongdoing.
Has our rush to address perceived security threats led us to abandon core principles of fairness? Does the digital age require new frameworks for handling sensitive information? Join us as we explore these pressing questions—and be sure to subscribe for our continuing coverage of this developing story.
REAL ID Enforcement Begins - Digital Surveillance COMING SOON?
https://youtu.be/ZYBoH35OjXs?si=rEhZWO-h0mU_DwQL
You know what a big surprise that a bunch of a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax. That won't get back their Pulitzers. They got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies. Pulitzers for a bunch of lies and on hoaxes, time and time and time again. And as they peddle those lies, no one ever calls them on it. See, this is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.
Speaker 1:Not going to work with me because we're changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of warfighters, and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn't matter. So I'm happy to be here at the Easter Egg Roll with my dad and my kids. This is what we're doing. It for these kids right here. This is why we're fighting the fake news media. This is why we're fighting slash-and-burn Democrats. This is why we're fighting hoaxsters, hoaxsters this group right here full of hoaxsters that peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind, and then you put it all together as if it's some news story, and when we know it, we know exactly what it is. So I'm really proud of what we're doing for the president, fighting hard across the board, and I'm going to go roll some Easter eggs with my kids Over the last few days your senior, advisor, Dan Caldwell, Darren Selnick, Colin Carroll, who is chief of staff, deputy secretary of defense.
Speaker 2:The other one, Darren, is now former deputy chief of staff.
Speaker 1:We'll let go. Did you let them go? Will let go. Did you let them go? Right, it was a result of an investigation ongoing at the Pentagon where we identified there was sufficient evidence. Potentially again, there's an investigation ongoing that will have to complete itself sufficient evidence to believe that they or others near them were party to leaking. And then I have a statutory responsibility, brian, if I believe that's the case, to ultimately ensure they no longer have access to that and that the investigation commences.
Speaker 1:There are a lot of ways to communicate in this building. I do it every day, I was just doing it this morning Official channels by which we communicate classified information. If you want to do it and do it the right way, you should. If we think you are leaking to the press, that's a very real problem. We take that very seriously at the Pentagon. I'm here to do one job, one job for the president and the American people Secure the country. America first. Peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers. I don't have time for the hoax press that peddles old stories from disgruntled employees. We should be talking about the decimation of the Houthis, how we're pushing back the Chinese, how we have a new defense area at the southern border. Instead, disgruntled former employees are peddling things to try to save their ass, and ultimately that's not going to work.
Speaker 4:It seems like the fastest way to derail the whole project the Trump administration and the United States of America is a war with Iran, and that's why I've just been watching it as carefully as I can, because I feel like, again, if you hated Donald Trump and you hated what the administration is doing on immigration, trade, anti-wuked, whatever, and you wanted to stop it, the first thing you would do is apply pressure to have the US military engage in a war with Iran. I mean, that's my perspective on it anyway.
Speaker 5:I think that and also continuing to do what we've been doing previously, in Russia, for sure.
Speaker 4:For sure, though I don't know why. I'm going to ask you all about this, but it feels like Wyckoff is helping a lot there. I mean, I've already said he's a godsend, god bless, steve Wyckoff.
Speaker 5:I couldn't agree more. People knew that you weren't fully on board with the regime change program. Is that fair to say? Yeah, I was very open about it. I was very on the record about it, and most of the time when I was saying that we shouldn't do this, it was actually in support of you know the president's stated preferences, like the president clearly doesn't do this. It was actually in support of you know the president's stated preferences, like the president clearly doesn't want this. In the first term, there were people in his administration that wanted it. He didn't clearly. He clearly didn't want it, and so it was supporting people who didn't want the war, and so I was essentially but Donald Trump had said, has said and now his actions make perfectly clear he would strongly prefer a diplomatic solution.
Speaker 5:Correct. I don't want to speak for the president, but it's fairly obvious that that's what he wants. Well, he said it.
Speaker 6:I mean, he said it again and he ran on it.
Speaker 7:Welcome to the Derrell McLean Show. I'm your host, derrell McLean. Let's get into this episode episode. So you just heard, uh, the secretary of defense peak exit, uh, because there's been some new, new signal gate thing again. And the last voice you heard was that of dan caldwell. Uh, one of the people who were, who was let go, who has been actually very, very loyal to the Secretary of Defense, who's saying like no, I did not leak. And there's also a big problem too, which is Secretary of Defense, said that these were from anonymous sources. Well, one of his people who were, well, one of his people who were ceremoniously marched out of the building, marched out of the Pentagon, said look, there was no investigation, there was no polygraph test. We were told that there would be an investigation next day. You know we're getting frog marched out. And he wrote in his own words what has been going on. So I'm going to get into a few of these articles now. So I just want to be totally direct with you.
Speaker 4:Did you leak classified information against the wishes of your superiors to media outlets? Absolutely not.
Speaker 5:Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of that material to an NBC news reporter? Absolutely not. Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of that material to an NBC news reporter? Absolutely not, and I have not spoken to an NBC reporter while at the Pentagon.
Speaker 4:Are you? Do you know what you've been accused of?
Speaker 5:Sitting here right now, myself and Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll. The other two individuals that were escorted out of the Pentagon, initially placed on leave and then fired on Friday. We have not been told as of this recording. One is there what we were being investigated for? Two is there still an investigation? And three, was there even a real investigation? Because there's a lot of evidence that there is not a real investigation.
Speaker 7:So let me go ahead and say this right off the bat that last part that he said was somewhat chilling, but also it seems to be telling because it's the nature of what's been going on in the current administration, this lack of due process. So if you've been paying attention to the news and I do apologize that I haven't been able to deliver it to you because my laptop is actually in the shop and so the way I process the show would have been very different but anyway, you have this migrant mass deportation thing that was promised during the campaign and all these people that are being, for the lack of a better term, disappeared with no due process. You have people saying well, this person here is MS-13. They've been confirmed that they're MS-13. And you'll look at the evidence and it's an informant that says the person was MS-13 in New York. You do the background the person never been to New York, somebody who, in the immigration thing, kind of confirms what the other thing said, even though it's verifiably untrue. You look at the criminal history. There are no criminal record. There is a record of being a asylum seeker. There's a record of a judge saying this person cannot go to this area because they're actually targeted by a group that you say they're a part of, and then they get deported to a country they are not from. You look at the record. There is no criminal record in the country and they're not deported to the country they are from. They're deported to a prison that the United States has a contract with, with no due process.
Speaker 7:And what is good for the goose is good for the gander, because now you have somebody who is, for all intent and purposes, has been loyal to the Secretary of Defense for years and is unceremoniously frog-marched out when there was no investigation and they're saying I did not leak. And then you have to think about well, there's no mechanism in place, when you're accused of something, to to fight, fight your your, to face and fight, defend yourself against your accusers. If it's not going to happen on the uh, I guess law enforcement side, then I suppose we should not be shocked that it's not going to happen on the administrative side as well. And then I postulate and ask a question here Is this the type of thing that we want? Is this the type of government that we want to live in? How can you run a any department like this? And then what makes it more troubling is one of the people that was frogmarshed out was one of the lone voices who was fighting against the military industrial complex when there was conversation about bombing Iran recently. So how do you know that it was not the deep state actually trying to frame this person to get them out of the Pentagon so that the voices that are surrounded by the president are all the pro-war voices? You don't know, because you didn't do the due process and the due diligence of having a real investigation. And that's what makes this thing so dangerous. And when it comes to this whole leaking thing, we have to be very concrete, serious about this.
Speaker 7:The secretary of defense used to work for Fox News. His wife is some sort of a producer. Do you think that, with a straight face, that a former journalist like the Secretary of Defense was, or a political analyst or whatever you want to call him? You think he didn't leak before? You think he has not received anonymous sources while he was working at Fox News? This is kind of the way the DC game is played, but at any rate, now there have been some calls from people inside of the camp. Who is actually saying the Secretary of Defense has to go. It is not going well. So this is coming out of the Washington establishment representatives from a district that is heavily influenced by the military industrial complex. There's a lot of weapons manufacturing in the area and this representative, who is Rep Bacon, says that now the Secretary of Defense, pete Hex, has to go. So Washington is actually aghast at the Trump administration's officials, including the Vice President and the Defense Secretary, discuss war plans in a signal group chat.
Speaker 7:Many raised concerns about the potential mishandling of classified information as well as sensitive details regarding US war plans. Only one word for this FUBAR rep Pat Ryan, a Democrat from New York and an Army veteran who sits on the Armed Service National Committee, wrote on X. If House Republicans won't hold a hearing on how this happened immediately, I'll do it my damn self. Get the fuck out, said one Democrat congressional aide, capturing the general feeling on Capitol Hill that the important security protocols have been broken. It's an operational security nightmare, the person said. The aide and others were granted anonymity, to be candid about a sensitive security issue involving the administration.
Speaker 7:In the report in the Atlantic, the magazine's editor revealed that he had been accidentally added to a group chat on a secure messaging app, signal, where senior members of the Trump administration were discussing plans for airstrikes on the rebels in Yemen. In the hours before a recent wave of strikes in Yemen, an account attributed to the Defense Secretary's headset posted details operational information about targets, weapons attacks, sequences. Inside the Pentagon, officials expressed shocked that the officials used XSignal chats for such sensitive discussions. No, no, they didn't, said one defense official. It's just absolutely unbelievable. The dod either doesn't have a strong cyber security posture right now. Our head sick is simply not engaging in it, said the second defense official.
Speaker 7:Now, according to the atlantic's jeffrey goldberg, he received a request to connect to the equipment messaging app signal on a username, matt w Mike Watts, on March 11, presumably the Trump administration's national security advisor. He was later added to a group chat called Hootie PC Small Group with several other members who appear to be the top administration officials, including Hexit Vice President JD Vance, director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the CIA Director, john Ratcliffe. Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, told the publication that the chat appears to be authentic messaging chain. The NSC did not respond to requests or further comment. Several highly sensitive, potentially classified pieces of information were included in the chat. For example, ratcliffe listed the name of the active intelligence officer who identified or used and kept closely under wraps His point of contact for discussion.
Speaker 7:The government has classified communication systems in which officials discuss sensitive information information that's the security experts questions why senior trump administration officials were resourcing to signal, a freely available app developed by a non-profit entity, to discuss battle plans now. So this article is is in politico and uh, you can read the rest of it, basically in your leisure. As people like to say, do your own research. But what I will say is to why you asked. If they ask a question of why they're using this signal trap, and that is because they are doing everything they can to avoid FOIA requests, and that's what it's about. They know that the signal chats are not kept and they don't want people to be able to track what they're saying, what they're being, what they're said.
Speaker 7:Now this comes in rep don bacon, who, who is the one who says this is amateur hour and hex is an amateur person, and he goes on to say I have had concerns from the get-go because of pete. Hexes didn't have a lot of experience. I actually like him on Fox, but does he have the experience to lead one of the largest organizations in the world. That concerns me. If it's a true lead, that he had another signal chat with his family about missions against Houthis. It is totally unacceptable. I'm not in the White House. I'm not going to tell the White House how to manage this, but I find this unacceptable and I wouldn't tolerate it if I was in charge.
Speaker 7:Russia and China put up thousands of people to monitor all these phone calls at the very top, and the number one target besides the President of the United States would be the Secretary of Defense. Russia and China are all over his phone and for him to be putting secret stuff on his phone is not right. He is acting like he is above the law and that shows that he is an amateur person. End quote. And that comes from the GOP rep, don Bacon, who is a retired Air Force general and he was speaking to Politico. Bacon is the first seated Republican to call for Hexet to resign.
Speaker 7:Now, donald Trump is known for a lot of things. One of the biggest things he's known for is firing people things. One of the biggest things he's known for is firing people and even though there is a bit of denial going on and the president seems to be standing by the Secretary of Defense. There was a lot of reporting coming out, and reporting came out of NPRS, national Global Public Radio, that the White House is actually looking to replace Pete Hexett as Secretary of Defense because of this scandal. So so.
Speaker 8:Support for NPR comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.
Speaker 6:The Senate's top Democrat, chuck Schumer, is calling again for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to be fired over a report of a chat in the Signal app. Now, if you weren't following news over the weekend you may think well, that's an old story from weeks ago. But actually it's happened again in the Signal app. A report that there was a chat in the Signal app, started by Hegseth, that discussed plans for the US attack on Houthis in Yemen. Npr has not been able to independently confirm this report, which was first reported by the New York Times and appeared to be confirmed by the Defense Department. A second chat on the commercially available app. Unlike an earlier chat that became public when it inadvertently included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, jeff Goldberg, this conversation was started by the Defense Secretary himself. So let's discuss this with Jim Himes. He's a member of Congress, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which looks into these matters. Congressman, a member of Congress, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which looks into these matters. Congressman, good morning, welcome to the program.
Speaker 2:Good morning.
Speaker 6:Thanks for having me, do you have any independent reason to believe or disbelieve this report in the New York Times?
Speaker 2:No, I'm like everyone else, just reading it in the media. But no, not shocking, based on the pattern of behavior we've seen for a long time now out of the Pentagon.
Speaker 6:Now the statement from the Defense Department about this. This, quoted in the Times, says listen, nothing of all that important was discussed here. Nothing secret or classified was discussed here. Not that it was unimportant, but nothing classified was discussed here. If there in fact are again details of what was a forthcoming attack in Yemen, does that strike you as nothing classified, nothing secret, nothing that important.
Speaker 2:No, I mean it's simply not right. I mean this is sort of not subject to debate, right? What is classified is not at the discretion of the person who is generating the information. There's very clear standards for what needs to be classified and in fact, when I had the opportunity to talk to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard at an open hearing a number of weeks ago, I actually read her the standard. And you know, preparations for an attack and it's almost ridiculous to have to say this but especially specific preparations for an attack, timing, weapon systems, et cetera are to be classified top secret. And look, I think most Americans, even if they don't know the Pentagon standards for classification, understand that talking in advance in an unsecured spot whether it's a signal chat or a bar about an upcoming attack could result in tragedy and we're very, very fortunate that in this case it didn't.
Speaker 6:What have you and I guess we should note. According to the New York Times, his wife was on the chat. She has traveled around with him and attended meetings with him. Other people were on the chat who are in the Pentagon but not necessarily in a position to need to know this information. Was anybody on that chat who strikes you as inappropriate?
Speaker 2:Well, the whole thing is inappropriate, right? I mean, again, we spend millions and millions of dollars a year creating classified and sealed environments in which this stuff is talked about. No, I can't imagine why his wife, his brother and his personal lawyer would need to know particular aircraft that are to be used in an upcoming attack. So I mean, you know, this is just sadly reflective of a much larger problem at the Pentagon. Here, I mean, it's important to remember the context right.
Speaker 2:All cabinet secretaries have difficult jobs, but this defense secretary's job is unique because 24-7, the hundreds of thousands of people at the Department of Defense are doing things like driving aircraft carriers and launching planes off of these carriers and carrying weapons and doing lethal things, and 24-7, the Secretary of Defense must be almost perfect in their prudence in their care, in their ability to make judgments when really awful things are happening. And when you see basic errors, including your wife and your brother, on what should be illegal communication about an upcoming attack, you really need to worry about the national security of the country as a whole.
Speaker 6:Isn't it true, though and you would know this as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee that a lot of people in the US government find Signal to be pretty good, and in fact, people in the CIA have it installed on their computers?
Speaker 2:Well, so Signal is pretty good, that's exactly the right word, but I'm here to tell you that it's not perfect. And so, yes, people in the government use Signal for unimportant, by the way, as do I for unimportant things, you know, to communicate social plans to my colleagues, for example. But there's two problems. Number one it's not perfect and there is this whole other system that we spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to handle precisely these communications. And number two, though it's a little esoteric, the government is required, and people in senior positions in government are required, to keep a record of their communications, which, of course, in Signal is almost impossible to do. This was, of course, takes us back to the absolute outrage that we dealt with for half a decade over Hillary Clinton's emails. One of the charges was that she was breaking the law on records preservation. That's secondary to the very serious danger that the Secretary of Defense and Mike Walz put our pilots in, but it is a thing.
Speaker 6:Just about 20 seconds left. But what do you make of this? Apparently, even as this story was unfolding, the Defense Department was dismissing senior advisers to Hank Seth for supposedly leaking information, something they've denied but these very people were on the very same signal chat that Hexeth himself initiated.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and look, it's totally. We have no idea what's going on other than the fact that both senior advisors to the Secretary of Defense were fired. We also know that a four-star general who ran the National Security Agency, a military officer was fired because Laura Loomer had a problem with them. This is a pattern of real trouble at the top of our most dangerous government department.
Speaker 7:So, according to reporting, like I said, the White House has begun the process of looking for a new leader at the Pentagon to replace the Secretary of Defense, pete Hicks, according to a US official who was actually not authorized to speak publicly.
Speaker 7:So this comes as again, hexen is mired in a controversy over sharing military operation details in a group chat. The defense secretary is again under fire for revelations that he shared classified information in a group chat with his wife, brother and lawyer. The source actually said that Hexis used Signal messaging app on his personal smartphone and was detailing minute-by-minute classified information about airstrikes to Houthi targets in Yemen. About airstrikes to Houthi targets in Yemen. It happened about the same time in March, when Hex had shared similar details with White House officials in a different Signal group chat that accidentally included the journalist from the Atlantic. Now that leak hours before airstrikes hit could have endangered US pilots if that information had, because it had the timing, and the airstrikes hit could have endangered US pilots if that information had, because it had the timing and the airstrikes were, if it had been intercepted by US adversaries. Now, already the Houthis have twice shot down American Predator drones and that's why that is a worry in this case.
Speaker 7:so white house press secretary carolyn livet denied that there's an effort to replace the secretary of state, posting on twitter that the president, trump stands strongly beside hexing. Speaking to reporters at the white house, trump also backed the secretary of defense and said concerns over the signal chat was a waste of time. Trump said that Hanks is doing a great job and asked the Houthis how he's doing. Trump also said Hanks had denied wrongdoing at that White House Easter event that you heard earlier in the show and of course, you heard the show. This is what the media does, etc. Etc.
Speaker 7:And the three other Pentagon advisors, dan Caldwell, colin Carroll, darrell Sickling, were escorted out of the Pentagon and accused of leaking information to the press. The trio then put out a joint statement on EFCOG their dismissal unconscionable and say that they have not been told what they stand accused of leaking. All three of us served our country honorably in uniform. For two of us, this included deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, based on our collective service, we understand the importance of information security and work every day to protect it. Caldwell and Sinig are longtime associates of the Secretary of Defense, who worked with him and concerns Veterans for America, a right-leaning policy group, new Hampshire Senator Gene Shaheen, a Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that Hague said she should accept accountability, but we must not forget that ultimately the responsibility lies with the president for selecting a former weekend TV host without any experience successfully leading a large, complex organization to run our government's biggest department and make life and death decisions for our military and country. She said so.
Speaker 7:The Oracle from Omaha, the man, the legend himself, berkshire Hathaway's own, warren Buffett, has actually announced that he will be stepping down from his role as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway come the end of the year. He made some statements about trade. Obviously, he made a lot of money over his lifetime and he came out talking in this shareholder meeting. He talked for over about two hours and 37 minutes, I think. But yeah, warren.
Speaker 7:Buffett is going to be retiring finally in his mid-90s.
Speaker 3:We want a prosperous world with eight countries with nuclear weapons, including a few that are what I would call quite unstable. I do not think it's a great idea to try and design a world where a few countries say ha ha, ha, we've won, and other countries are envious. So the main thing to do is not use trade, should not be a weapon. Do is not use trade, should not be a weapon. And the United States, the United States, we've won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country starting from nothing 250 years ago. There's nothing that ain't like it and it's a big mistake, in my view, when you have seven and a half billion people that don't like you very well, a million that are crowing in some way about how well they've done.
Speaker 7:So this is a day that investors knew that it was going to come, and it has finally arrived. A conscience of capitalism prepares to step off the stage. It was closing in on 1 pm when Warren Buffett, sat on stage before a ramped audience of about 40,000 at the CHI Health Center in Omaha, said that he was getting a five-minute warning. To most of those that were there for the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway and his company, it was simply a signal that the gathering known as the Woodstock for capitalists was drawing to a close. No one knew that something historic was about to happen. After 60 years of running the company he called his painting. The 94 year old Warren Buffett said that he planned to step down as chief executive officer at the year end, proving how much freedom he has always exercised at Berkshire Hathaway. He surprises on board and Greg Abel, his hand-picked successor. I want to spring that on the directors. He said that on the directors. He said with a smile. People in the crowd, many of whom were in tears, rose from their seats in a standing ovation for a singular figure in the business world.
Speaker 7:Buffett is often described as a symbol of American capitalism. The truth is that he has always been an outlier. He is more of a conscious of capitalism, willing to speak uncomfortable truths about the system's ills while others remain silent. His public comments on issues like tariffs over the weekend are a prime example. The billionaire always comes across as a gentleman and, in his age of distrust, became someone the people could trust. Fellow business moguls and government officials admired him because of his success. Yes, berkshire Hathaway reported $89 billion in net profit last year and is one of the biggest buyers of US Treasury bonds. But it also is because he didn't appear to have changed. Despite his wealth, he lives in a modest house in Omaha and for years drove his own car, including to the drive-thru at the McDonald's. Buffett isn't perfect, something he often acknowledges, and he urges his followers to stay humble as he discusses his own investment mistakes and misses. But that's also got to be one of his biggest accomplishments using his annual Berkshire letter and a marathon Q&A sessions with shareholders to educate generations about business, investing and life itself. That wouldn't have normally considered to be a Berkshire Hathaway watcher, who perfectly encapsulated the importance of Buffett and his longtime business partner, the late Charlie Munger. There were good investors dealers in reality. Patton wrote Nick Denton, who was the founder of Gawker. When the history of the rise and the fall of America is written, one of the chapters will have to begin in Omaha with their departure.
Speaker 7:As Buffett prepares to depart, the big question is what will happen to his masterpiece once it passes to Abel, his masterpiece once it passes to Abel?
Speaker 7:It has been apparent for several years now that the day-to-day basis Abel is already running large swaths of Berkshire Hathaway's operations, so the shift likely won't be dramatic, but the scrutiny of Abel's Berkshire Hathaway will undoubtedly increase. The company wasn't built just as a collection of desperate businesses but as a vision of one man. Abel has said he will seek to maintain the culture that his boss meticulously built, but things will inevitably become different. Berkshire's board gave Buffett an unparalleled degree of autonomy to operate as he saw fit, often learning about significant deals he had struck only after the fact. Abel will have to work hard to earn even some of that latitude, and under him Berkshire is likely to operate with more guardrails. But there is speculation that Buffett will remain the chairman for some period, which could afford Abel more freedom as he grows into the top job. Nevertheless, buffett's success and the company he built were exceptional. What investors gained in Omaha this weekend and the world over want to know what comes next.
Speaker 9:A big news today out of Omaha Warren Buffett announcing that he will be stepping down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett shocked the arena full of shareholders with the announcement that he will be stepping down and Greg Abel would become the CEO by the end of the year. Buffett has been in charge of the company since 1965, said that he has zero intention of selling a single share of Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 3:Buffett announcing the news at the end of a five-hour question period, Five where Greg should become the chief executive officer of the company at year end and I want to spring that on the directors effectively and then get that.
Speaker 9:That's my recommendation the news that was not expected. Buffett surprised abel, who was sitting right next to him, with the announcement. He said he had only told his two children. Buffett's berkshire hathaway also owns our company, wplg incorporated.
Speaker 7:Uh, the end of an era as, as they say, the end of an era. As they say the end of an era, all the things may come to an end. Warren Buffett was an incredible, towering figure in a way that most people do somewhat mimic. Just looking at a thing the other day that he had over Berkshire Hathaway's company was holding over $350 billion in cash and he had a lot of bonds that in some measures I forgot what metric was, but he had more now than the actual Federal Reserve. Now that is some solid, long-term investment. So one of the biggest things that are about to happen to all Americans now even it's just been warning for about 20 years and now it is coming to fruition, and that is now the enforcement of the Real ID, and that's where we're going to end this show. Thank you for tuning in. I'll see you on the next episode.
Speaker 10:A march towards a technocratic state, towards using technology to expand the totalitarian state in a way that we've never seen before. But it's also the first time that the US is going beyond an ID that is issued by your state, by Texas, by New York, by California. What have you?
Speaker 8:The federal government says it's finally going to start enforcing the REAL ID Act, nearly two decades after it was passed. They tell us it's all about keeping us safe, but could REAL ID open the door to digital surveillance, biometric databases and a future where you'll need a government-issued ID to participate in everyday life? My name is James Lee and you're watching Beyond the Headlines on Breaking Points. You might have heard that, starting May 7th, Americans will need a Real ID compliant license to board a plane or enter a federal building.
Speaker 8:The Real ID Act was passed back in 2005 in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, sold to the public as a post-9-11 safety measure, a quote-unquote, long-delayed upgrade to protect our elections and national security. What you might not know is how this push fits into a much larger agenda, one that some say includes mobile driver's licenses, biometric facial recognition and partnerships between government agencies, global institutions and big tech to roll out digital IDs across the country. Now, to help us break all this down, I recently sat down with independent journalist Derrick Rose, a prominent voice warning us about the dangers of digital identity systems. Here is that conversation.
Speaker 10:Thanks for having me on, james, I appreciate it Absolutely.
Speaker 8:So we're going to hopefully dive deep into this, but I first want to start with, maybe, the basics, for people who haven't looked into it much. What exactly is a Real ID, and how is it that different from an old driver's license system that we've had for decades?
Speaker 10:Sure. So you sort of outlined the beginning of it, which was 9-11. And, of course, after 9-11, calls for making the country safer. How can we prevent terrorists from entering the nation and how do we keep track of everybody in a way that is supposedly going to reduce crime, reduce terrorism? Now it's been 20 years since then and there's less talk of terrorism and the ways there were post 9-11, but there's still this discussion, I'd say now, more especially with the right wing, of how are we going to, you know, keep track of all the voters, how are we going to keep track of illegal immigrants, et cetera. So the same ideas are still being pushed.
Speaker 10:As you mentioned, it's been delayed numerous times through every administration up until this point, and now the deadline is finally here.
Speaker 10:The thing that makes it different, just on a practical level, is people will notice you might have like a little star in your driver's license.
Speaker 10:So many people already probably have these and just didn't realize that they got them because over the last 20 years, as state by state has started to become compliant, more and more people are getting these, like I said, whether they realize them or not. So now we're at the point where, all across the nation. Everybody's going to have to have one of these to enter federal buildings to do various things in the country, and the main thing, though, is just that you'll notice a little star. They promise that there's some more counterfeit measures, so, on the practical level, that's pretty much it. You won't really see anything different. We're not at the point where it's just your face to get in somewhere, but, as I have written about recently, I do think that's where it's headed, particularly at the airports and federal buildings and places like that, but for the moment, it's simply just a change in the look of your ID, just a change in the look of your ID.
Speaker 8:Yeah, you mentioned you wrote an article about this, so I wanted to dive into that a little bit, and you wrote, quote Real ID is the latest move inching Americans closer to mandatory digital identification programs, not only for voting but for daily life. Can you walk us through a little bit of how this I don't know seemingly innocuous real ID requirement connects to this argument that you're making a much larger and broader infrastructure, things like mobile driver licenses, facial recognition, digital ID system? Basically lay out your theory for us?
Speaker 10:Sure, and I don't think it's very far-fetched. First of all, because, in order to be Real ID compliant, there's a few things you can do. One is what we just described Just get an update of your driver's license, your state ID, and it's going to have the little star in it, and then you'll be Real ID compliant. The other is to continue to use a passport. So if you're someone like me who only has a passport, then you just keep doing what you've been doing. But there are also other forms of being Real ID compliant. One of them is known as mobile driver's license, or just MDLs, and again, people might be using these already because there's certain states that have adopted them in the last few years without realizing that it's, you know, real ID compliant. But essentially what a mobile driver's license is? There's several versions. Some in certain states are government-run, government-owned, so you have a you know my ID insert state name. Then there's others that accept Apple and Google Wallet, google ID sort of apps to become Real ID compliant, and what these are basically doing in my mind is just getting people as you quoted me there a bit closer to this real ID, this digital ID, facial recognition everywhere. Because to be real ID compliant. The easiest way is to get the idea, but you could also just start using your phone. Many people are doing this everywhere and they're also scanning their face to open their phone. So maybe hearing this is not like some big concern to many people. But if you've been paying attention in the last decade to digital rights, digital privacy people much more informed than me lawyers, ngos, nonprofits who focus on these issues particularly have been warning about the growth of facial recognition, have been warning about the growth of digital IDs and how, as those systems become more interconnected starting with, okay, you have your identification to get into federal buildings on an app, but then, over time, as these systems expand which they will both in the private sector and through government, to include your health information, to include your banking, financial information, et cetera you end up being very close to what China has in the version, in their form of WeChat and the one app that sort of has everything in it. And again, this is going to be sold in a way that's convenient, it's fast. We again, this is going to be sold in a way that's convenient, it's fast.
Speaker 10:We're seeing this at the airport People are being encouraged to go paperless and to just use their face to check in, and we've heard from the airports that maybe as soon as this fall, but definitely the next couple of years, they plan to make facial recognition a mandatory part of the check-in process.
Speaker 10:So in all different sectors starting with the RealID, with mobile driver's license, and especially at the airports, we're seeing this push towards digital identifications, and mobile driver's license is just one form of that. I'll also just note briefly that the TSA has already made it clear on their own website that they will accept mobile driver's licenses as a RealID compliant ID and again, they've also got pages on their website showing you how you can skip the whole ID part at all and just do facial recognition, which they're starting to roll out at different terminals. So overall, I don't think it's a big leap, to kind of point out what we expect to see in the next couple of years. I don't think it's going to happen by the end of this year that digital IDs will be everywhere, but I do think becoming real ID compliant with things like mobile driver's license is definitely taking us in that direction.
Speaker 8:Right. And then you brought up China there. I was recently there and they certainly have a very robust identification protocol in a lot of places that you go public areas, including travel, as well as the mall things like that. But to kind of give the other side of the story a little bit, some say, you know, there's kind of these trade-offs with privacy concerns and maybe they're a bit exaggerated in what you're talking about. You know, the real ID is it just you know? Is it just a natural evolution of going from paper to a digital world? And I'm wondering how you would respond to people who say, if you're not really doing anything wrong, what's the danger here? What's the problem?
Speaker 10:Well, I just got to say I love that phrase because we've been hearing it for 20 years now, since 9-11. And in the wake of 9-11, when we saw people being kidnapped off the streets, what the US government likes to call rendition, or people being taken away to be tortured, what they like to call enhanced interrogation, there was a lot of that discussion. If you're not doing anything wrong, if you have nothing to hide, who cares? If the NSA is spying on your phones, who cares if these things are going on? I mean, I think people could make that excuse all day to justify a march towards a technocratic state, towards using technology to expand the totalitarian state in a way that we've never seen before. But even if people are skeptical or say that there's no big deal, okay, I'm already using my phone to do everything I do. What's one more thing? Or often I'll hear people say, well, you already gave them your face, you already gave them your information when you signed up for your regular ID or for the passport, and that is true. But, as you pointed out, with China's robust digital ID system, once these systems become more connected, then it's a whole new level.
Speaker 10:The other concern I have, besides just the general surveillance and tracking you everywhere you go, being able to trace every purchase you make, is that this is also a step towards a national ID card and, thankfully, when it first passed, there was former congressman and presidential candidate, ron Paul, who was speaking against this. Currently, I think, thomas Massey is the only person who's really speaking against this and making these points. But it's also the first time that the US is going beyond an ID that is issued by your state, by Texas, by New York, by California, what have you and something that is now mandated by the federal government. So if you go back to those post-9-11 years and you can read some editorials, you can see some congressional speeches. There weren't many because people were in the hype of post-9-11 and just give the government whatever they need to do. We all need to feel safe, but there were people warning about this from the beginning, and so, 20 years later, the American public has been kind of worn down. Also, people who were born post 9-11 have no awareness that this was even a controversy.
Speaker 10:But it's another step towards having a national ID card and, as I said, when you're bringing on the systems that we know are rolling out both privately and publicly facial recognition, digital IDs you could end up in a very dangerous situation where the government knows everywhere you go even more than they currently do and knows every purchase you're making.
Speaker 10:And, as we've seen in the last few years, when you combine that with they sort of whether you want to call it cancel culture or just people who are talking about controversial topics, who've been debanked or taken off social media, what happens whenever all that's run through one central app and I've already seen this in places like den, for example, is a country I recently visited speaking about these concerns, and they informed me, derek, we already have this. We have a MyID program where you can't do public transportation, you can't get insurance, can't open up a bank account, can't get a home, etc. So essentially it's not mandatory, but you can't function without it, and so I think that's the other big concern is that, as these things roll out, there becomes no way to operate outside of those systems and within those systems, becomes tightly controlled.
Speaker 8:Yeah, I know you mentioned, or you just mentioned there, you know, potentially people getting grabbed off the streets for crimes they may or may not have committed or they're being suspected of something. Certainly, that seems like it's happening as we go, and I'm not sure if this might be a kind of a speculative question, but when we talked about the law being passed in 2005, post 9-11, and the enforcement kept getting delayed up until now, do you think there is, or why do you think there is, or why do you think there is, some kind of push to finally enforce it in 2025? Is there anything, has anything changed about the circumstances that would warrant them finally enforcing this law?
Speaker 10:Well, like you said, this is a bit speculative, so keep that in mind. I would say that I find it interesting that every administration, including Trump's first administration, has delayed this and both right and left have kind of given the states more time, at the least. I won't say every administration was like the real idea is a danger per se, but they kept kicking it down the road because states were just resisting. There was lots of lawsuits Again. People who aren't familiar with this history look up the lawsuits about real ID related to dozens of states who have tried to resist it. But nevertheless, here we are in 2025.
Speaker 10:And, as you said, with people being taken off the streets right now under the Trump campaign, trump administration and relation to immigration, relation to speaking out against Israel, and part of that conversation, of course, is the discussion around illegal immigrants voting and how do we secure the border and these sorts of things.
Speaker 10:I think that the real idea coming into compliance, full compliance, during the Trump administration, whether planned or just happenstance, it works out in the favor of the government, because many of the people on the right conservatives who may have resisted this under, say, a Biden or Obama administration or Clinton administration, are making, in my view, excuses and saying it's no big deal. You know, it's Trump's program, it's rolling out under Trump, so it can't possibly be bad and of course it's going to stop all those bad illegal immigrants from coming in the country, and yeah. So I think that overall, the fact that it's happening now, it might make the rollout a bit easier and less resistance from the crowd who may have resisted if it, you know, was under any other circumstances so, look, there's five more minutes left of this interview.
Speaker 7:Um, I'm going to link to it in the show notes, just so. Uh, breaking points gets the credit uh for at least watching it. Um, I do try to support independent media, so I am a subscriber of. There's a yearly contributor, or actually I'm a lifetime member, uh, um, so, um, yeah, you, I want you guys to try to watch the whole thing in its entirety and try to stick to that. Um, while you're watching it, think about some things entirety and try to stick to that. Um, while you're watching it, think about some things that we'll be talking about on the next episode. Uh, sometimes, when you have a policy that one president uses, you give that president the authority. You have to remember that you're going to be giving that authority to the next president. Uh, see you for tuning in and I will see you on the next episode.