Rep. Eric Burlison on UAP disclosure, government secrecy and David Grusch (Rebelliously Curious, October 2026)

0:00 We'll be right back. Today, I'm joined by U.S. Congressman Eric Burleson, or also known by friends and family, Burley, a leading voice in the fight for UAP disclosure. We're discussing government secrecy, political influence, David Grush's departure from Representative Burleson's team, Grush's UAP motivations and motives, and why international collaboration, including Canada, could be critical to

1:02 uncovering the truth. With competing narratives shaping the disclosure debate, who controls the information, and how do we get the real answers? Join us as we get rebelliously curious. Eric, or I will now that I have found out, Burley, which I think is a wonderful name. Thank you for joining me on Rebelliously Curious. It's wonderful to have you here. Good to be on. You wrote an article called, Democratic Allies Must Join Forces in the Race of UAP Disclosure for the Debrief, about a month ago now, or a month and a half ago. Before we get into a whole bunch of topics around UAP related to government, I'd like to talk a little bit about this international connection. And you've come forward and really put this incorporated international relations into your strategy. What made you want to come out and publicly speak about that? You know, I think anytime that we can ally with our allies, it's a good thing.

2:03 This is clearly bigger than any one government, right? This is a topic for all of humanity. And so I've many times said that this is, you know, whether or not we're alone in the universe is not a secret for any one government to keep. And that's why I think that it is something for the United States to work alongside our allies and be transparent with the world. And I also think that given the environment that we're living in, given that we have AI anymore, people are very skeptical about what information is coming out. They're skeptical about who's saying what. But I think if we are united and there's multiple countries that are coming forward, you know, and saying, here's the information that we have, and it matches up with the information that the United States has and other countries, the more that the more that I think that will validate and assure people that the

3:04 transparency is not some kind of disinformation campaign or anything like that, that it truly is an effort to be transparent. It's true, because there is a lot of disinformation that is currently going on in the UFO topic. And, you know, we are seeing it happen past in the present. We know that the UFO topic was used as a as a main narrative within the Cold War. So we're kind of saying that, well, potentially we are. We're living in a Cold War effort now. Can you talk about, you know, maybe the disinformation or misinformation that you feel might be circulating around you and within government right now about UAP? You know, it runs the gamut. There's there's some people that say that this is a distraction. Ironically, I think that this effort has been what has been going on. And this this issue has been a pregnant topic for many decades. We finally have an administration that's that is consistently willing to be

4:04 transparent. And I say that to give you I'll give you some context. So in the first Trump administration, you know, there were a lot of people that have been clamoring for us to finally get the answers about what happened during the JFK assassination. And Donald Trump issued an executive order to expedite the release of those documents. And as a result, in 2017, there was a huge dump of documents and so many that I don't know that there's any one single person that's read through all of them. The that was that was a huge step forward. It took, what, 60 years for a president to finally to finally push against the deep state, to push against our own intelligence agencies who had concerns about releasing those files. And President Trump did that when he came back into office. He continued that that effort. He also ordered the release of all the documents related to MK-ULTRA, which was the

5:05 drug experiment program that the CIA had been operating. And and that was a very revealing thing. And that was certainly against the wishes of our intelligence community. He he he compelled the release of the information about the about the session, assassinations of RFK and MLK as well. And despite all of the narrative about the Epstein files, look, I mean, the Epstein saga has been going on for 20 plus years. But there's only one president that's released all of these documents, and that's Trump. And so more no no documents were released under Obama. Documents weren't released under Biden. They were released under Donald Trump. And so when you have millions and millions of documents against the almost no documents released on the other side of the scale, you one could easily say he is the transparency president. And I think on top of that is the UAP topic,

6:06 which he is he's admitted publicly. It's not really of interest to him. But yet he understands that people do have great interest in this topic. And he has demonstrated that to its full. I mean, obviously, we want to see more, but he I think that his effort for releasing this is unprecedented. You know, if you think about it, we've had 250 plus files and videos and audio files or audio recordings released in these in these now six tranches of releases. And that is amazing. If you if you go back to the 2017 release that occurred with where Lou Elizondo and the quote unquote a tip program had released three videos to The New York Times that that was, you know, people lost their mind over those three videos. Well, look at how many videos Donald Trump has formally released, not not videos that were leaked, but formally released is in the

7:07 hundreds. And it's going to keep going. And so and not only that, but he's put together an effort, you know, entire team on this topic called the pursue effort, which is a collaboration between the FBI, the CIA, the Department of National Intelligence. And they have sent a memorandum to all of the other executive agencies, the Department of War, the Department of Energy. So, you know, every agency, every three letter agency you can think of for them to be compelled to release what information that they have and to bubble that information up to the pursue effort. So there this president has done a lot and he should be applauded for this work. Here's the thing. I agree with you that outside of the presidency and the president, this act of president. Now, I do think it's a group of people around him that are really helping to push this. I'll say that and I appreciate that. You know, people know that I'm a Canadian and and we want transparency as well as just

8:09 as much as Americans do and people around the world. But on the other hand, we see, you know, a lot of unfortunate things that are happening within these file dumps. You know, we have an active office right now called Arrow, the all domain resolution office that should be there that American taxpayers are paying to be able to vet this information before it goes to the public. And that's not happening. And then, unfortunately, we're also seeing that. And I would love to know why you think this is the case, though, that in a way that you're saying that this transparent government is releasing information on UFOs, which they are, which is wonderful. But on the other end, you're seeing on social media that they're even mocking it. Like you're seeing these tall whites of this concept within the White House and, you know, the White House Instagram is or sorry, Twitter is sharing it or X account is sharing that information. So at the same time where documents are being released, they're being mocked at the same time. So then the question is, does the administration even take it seriously?

9:09 Because it almost seems that they they don't when you're mocking your own releases. So outside of that. Yeah. And I don't understand this social strategy, to be honest. You know, I live when we in a modern world, but it's it's wild. So without having clear analytics around UAP, I say this a lot, you know, Debbie down the street now is being firehosed with information because she doesn't know how to actually analyze this. And to be honest, a lot of us don't unless you work in the topic, but it's also an area of study. It takes multiple people to come together to analyze UAP. You know, I wish it was one person because we'd probably get to the answer by now, but it's not. And so, you know, will the administration, I should ask, will the administration then come to a point where they will actually analyze this? And will Trump or the Department of War do this? I know that Susan Goff, the spokesperson for the Pentagon, did tell me by email and I

10:11 spoke about this, that she said at this point in time, they will not be, you know, analyzing any documentation. But moving forward, you know, you can't just dump files, you have to give proper analytics. Right. I think it's a double edged sword. And I'll walk you through that. So when it was being funneled through Arrow, there was so much criticism that Arrow was gatekeeping, that they were sitting on information, they weren't releasing it to the public. The other criticism that they had is that everything was a bird, everything was a balloon. And so the perception was that this was an absolute catch and control operation. And so the and I think what the administration was, their response was they heard that criticism of Arrow and from being in meetings with White House officials and Arrow in the room, you can definitely tell that they they've that they have noticed and

11:13 that they have, you know, recognized that Arrow has a public reception or perception problem. And so their response was was simply to say, look, we don't want to we don't want to taint our our views as we release this. We're going to we're going to be instead we're going to demonstrate complete transparency to the American people and let the American people who are intelligent come to their own conclusions here. But at least the American people will be able to say, yeah, these videos were out there, they were they were birds, they were balloons, but we're not going to sit on anything and and we'll let we'll let them decide. So I think that to your I mean, it is a valid criticism either way. Right. So should they release them and say and and and tip the scale, if you will, as they release them and say, this is what we think it is. They probably will get criticized no matter what they do in that release. So I think that that's part. That's kind of

12:15 what some of the thought process I can tell you just from being in those meetings that appears to me to be what the thought process is. The other criticism that I think is a valid one, which is that you've got these social media tweets that are that have happened that kind of mock the topic, if you will. And and they I would say that I think that was insulting to the community of people, myself included, who want to get to the bottom of this and are taking this extremely seriously. The best I can tell you is that this president is one guy who's operating at the head of an extremely vast organization, and that includes an extremely vast political operation. Sometimes the left hand does not know or is not fully aligned with what the right hand is doing. And I've had that happen in my own team. I'm I'm a microcosm of what the president does. And I can give you an example just the other day where my office operations were not on

13:15 the same page as my political operation. And I had to I had to, like, bridge the gap and sync them up on on on messaging because they were they were having conflicting messaging. And so I do that I just being a politician and knowing how that those two worlds kind of operate gives me a better perspective as to what the president is experiencing. And whenever I had pushed back against his official staff about some of these about some of these tweets, that's basically what was expressed to me is that he's got completely different teams that are doing some of this work. And and and and they all have different personalities that are coming forward. And so, right, at the end of the day, the buck always stops with the guy that's at the top. And I'm sure the president acknowledges that I think that given the situation, he he like keep in mind, this is not a topic that is his number one priority. He has and he has publicly stated that, but

14:18 he is he is being generous with the time, resources and effort to to those of us that do care about this. And he is dedicating resources to getting to the bottom of this. Yeah, I appreciate I think any anyone who's looking for truth and transparency, I respect in that way by by doing it. We just hope that it's on the up and up, right. And we we will see that as history goes along. If if it stands now, midterms are such a massive thing, obviously. And I've heard and I've had conversations with people in all different degrees within news media, along with politics, that potentially if the Democrats end up winning this midterm, that the task force, Congresswoman's Congresswoman Luna's task force will be pushed out and will be totally altered. It might be dismantled. It will be totally altered. And they won't be focusing on UAP.

15:20 And so we're getting to a point now where it shouldn't matter if it's Republican or Democrat. You know, we are truth is one thing. And that task force should be consistently there so that there is oversight all the time. And so do you think then within the next couple of months, if that ends up happening, the UFO topic is going to go by the wayside, along with all the other topics, MKUltra and so many other past programs that have targeted civilians will finally just disappear again. Unfortunately, and I'm not saying this for political reasons. I truly think that this is true. If we lose the midterms, this effort will come to a complete halt. And the reason is two prongs. One is that the Democratic Party has made it very clear that they will focus their efforts on an investigation of the Trump administration. And then two, the Trump administration, which has been very generous with their

16:21 resources on this topic, is going to pull all of those resources into defense mode. And so the prioritization is going to completely change. And they will not have the staff. For example, Stephen Miller, who's leading the Pursue effort, will be completely withdrawn from that effort and be on the effort to, you know, to do. They will be on their back foot defending everything the president does. And they will be in defense mode, even if they're being asked questions about this topic in a thoughtful manner. It won't matter. They will have to be focusing all of their attention towards defense. And I think the Democrats, sadly, will be focused on playing gotcha for the next two years. How did this become so political? It shouldn't be. You know, we started off by people within politics coming together to talk about the UAP topic and look at truth and transparency as

17:23 something that both parties agree upon. And now it has become so utterly divided and political. How did we get here and why? In the defense of both sides, I'll give you another example. So James Clapper, who has been on documentaries, clearly has something to say on this topic, has refused to interview Congress. The only way that we would be able to get him in is a subpoena. And the reason is that there's a lot of members on oversight. There was an investigation that's going on by the Trump administration into James Clapper. And so as a result, he's not going to be willing to talk to us. And so it's just a dynamic that's right or wrong. It's just the reality of things. And the moment, that's why I'm saying that understanding that reality is, you know, is clear that should we lose the midterms, this transparency effort is going to be put on pause for some time.

18:23 It's horrible, you know, we're seeing all of these narratives come forward. And I think people are stepping out from the UFO topic in most recent weeks and most recent months. David Grush, someone, you know, very well, who worked within your team for a while, I believe up until September of this year, I believe it was this year of last year. And, you know, he's had some pretty outrageous things when it comes to the UFO narrative. You know, he has made comments that there are reptilians fighting greys in the skies and that American soldiers are killing reptilians on one of the largest podcasts in the world, you know, Joe Rogan. And just before that, we see, you know, we know that Jay Stratton's book is coming out and is out now. But before he did, it was two weeks before. So we're looking at narrative control. You know, my background before I got into journalism was public relations. And I tweeted about this and, you know, in the X community, people are not going to like that.

19:25 But you see narrative control. I see it happening. And it would be irresponsible for me not to even say that. I'm curious in your perspective. You've been probably following this and you work so closely with his team. Where do you see this narrative going and why do you think Grush would come forward with such a pretty wild statement? Well, I mean, this was Grush was on my team for 18 months. When he left the government, this was done in a very legal and proper way as a whistleblower. He didn't pull in Edward Snowden where he took documents with him, right? And so we basically, and then the other aspect is that there was a multiple year gap in between the time in which he came forward and the time that he left. And so a lot of things had changed documents, you know, things had been moved. And we know that things had been moved because we, there were a lot of people that had their eyes on, on some of these, on the

20:27 material and other things. And we know that there were, there was a lot of things that were moved. And so that kind of created a more difficult environment for us to go about verifying some of the claims that David was making. But at the end of the day, he was a valuable resource on our team, pointing us in that direction and giving us some of the breadcrumbs that we could follow. We sent multiple letters, we drafted multiple letters to different groups, whether they were the prime contractor groups like Lockheed and others. We also sent letters to the federally funded research and development centers. We sent letters to the CIA, to the FBI, to the Department of War, to the Secretary of State's office, to the Department of Energy, all requesting very specific, detailed documents. And that, I think, is what spurred a lot of the release of information that you, that we've seen today in these tranches.

21:28 A lot of those files were files that were, at one point in time, you know, in a letter that my office composed and wrote and got co-sponsors or co-signers on and had sent to the administration. So, what Grush did was very helpful from my office. And, you know, and he left our office in September because he had other opportunities that required him to leave his post with us and the government. And I'm happy for him. I'm thrilled that he's able to move on and have a successful career because he needs to have that. He's taken a lot of damage and sacrificed for being a patriot and coming forward, and I'm glad that he's able to get some outside work. With that being said, it doesn't mean that the effort doesn't continue. My office is continuing to follow the trail and try to get the actual receipts on some of the claims that he has made.

22:29 For example, the camera footage that he has described that of a crash, you know, what is described as body camera footage or up-close footage documenting those aliens, what are called like the Nordics, which he describes as having a bluish skin tone on the ground. We're still on the trail of getting that, getting access to that footage. The other thing we're on the trail for is documenting the event that occurred at one of our military bases where there was a, where they, you know, the claim is that there was a shootout. Now, that is something that I had heard from David, but also have heard from other individuals as well. And so, that's something that we're on the track of, along with other documented events. So, Jay Stratton has, you know, in his book has actually enlightened us on some things that we can follow the trail of as well. And so, we will, my office will continue in

23:30 that effort, and we'll do what we can. We have three months left, or actually two and a half months left. And so, we're going to, we're going to be in breakneck speed trying to get as much information as we can while we still have the oversight committee with the chairman, Jamie Comer, because that does give us a little bit more leverage. When I heard about the body cam footage, actually, I can't say who, but I was about, before David Grush was speaking about that, I heard that that was a potentiality to come out, which is like exciting. Let's be honest, extremely exciting. But there's also this wonder to, you know, I look at both narratives. I'm open to majority of different topics and different ideas within the UFO space, because we are at the moment moments in life where we're trying to figure out what is actually real and understanding our base reality. There are 100% moments where we could say that this is disinformation.

24:33 How are you 100% sure that David Grush and other people that are working with the government that have such deep ties with the CIA and have massive compartmentalized programs are telling you correct information? You know, instead of putting you on this massive hunt and leading you down in your team down so many roads that actually don't go anywhere. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I have. I can see the CIA doing it. And why wouldn't they do it? You know, it's not fully illegal to do that. You know? Yeah. Well, look, you have to go into all of this with your eyes wide open. And I come in as a complete skeptic. Even though he was my employee when he makes some of these claims, I observe and I document. But at the end of the day, I say, let's find the receipts, right?

25:33 So I'm not going to publicly make the same claim as though it's the truth until I get some evidence in my hand. And that's how I've conducted myself. I'll gather information from anyone and everyone that I can, but I'm not going to make definitive statements or claims until I have proof in hand. And I think that that's what the American people expect. I also, you know, at the end of the day, what you learn in this process is that you can't close anybody off. I mean, one of the things that is interesting about this UAP community is there's a lot of factions and there's a lot of big players with big egos. And what's interesting is that you talk to one person and the other faction and the other group will immediately, you know, throw you under the bus or just for being associated. And I've never operated that way. I try to be, I try to have a relationship with anyone and everyone.

26:34 And sure, it doesn't mean that you don't understand or recognize or you're obtuse to the fact that that person may have flaws or that what they're saying may be, may be flawed. But at the end of the day, I can't afford to discount anyone. I have to gather every bit of information that I can and try to put the picture together, if you will. I agree with you. And I appreciate your open-mindedness because you have to be in this topic. It's just, I think, more and more as I lean into UAP and looking at it politically, I am, I see some disinformation that's coming out. I've been privy to disinformation myself by specific people. So we know it's out there and it can be and it is tainting the halls of government right now. And so there has to be some type of mechanism that is cracking down on that. Just as much as they're trying to release information, we have to be mindful that what is coming out isn't always going to be accurate. That's right.

27:35 As I'm Canadian and you are American, right now our countries are at odds, unfortunately. I do think that topics like UAP and MKUltra are two different types of topics that can bring our countries together to talk about forms of understanding and alliances in those places. And so, you know, you've talked to Canadian representatives right now. Can you talk a little bit about, you know, what you briefing them and what you might have briefed them on and what your relationship with is with Canadian representatives in the House of Parliament? Yeah, we, we met, I met with two of your members of Parliament in a conference call or Zoom call. And, and I, I will have to recall their names, you may recall their names, but we had a great conversation. I wouldn't say that I briefed them on anything that was not public. I'm very careful about, about saying anything that, you know, giving any information from the United States that I'm

28:35 not supposed to. But at the end of the day, we had a really good conversation about how we might be able to share information, work together, validate our findings as, as they go about their research and we go about ours. I think that the shared goal is that, that, that, that we understand that this is bigger than one government, as I, as I said in the opening. And I think that, that, that also we need validation. So, to your point about disinformation, think that if the United States is leading and we're solo, there's going to be a contingency of people that are going to believe that no matter what you present, even if it's the gospel truth, it's going to be shocking to some people potentially. And it's going to be, and it's going to be, and so it's, people are going to doubt the origin. They're going to doubt who's, who's delivering that message, which is why I think that it's better that multiple countries are coming together and we're, and

29:37 we're, and sharing that information and releasing it together. For sure. The unfortunate thing though, as we start to separate as countries more and more, you know, our intelligence sharing, I imagine would be, it's kind of odd to me to have two countries that are fighting over terror force right now, but we're still sharing intelligence. You know, we're all part of NATO, which makes sense and we, we should be, but that will probably come to an end to some degree. I would imagine because I don't understand how you can be at odds, but still share information. And unfortunately, I think, you know, we have CSIS, which is like a form of the CIA for people who don't understand what CSIS is in Canada. And, you know, we do a wonderful job, but our intelligence structure is not as strong as the United States. Our defense structure is not as strong as the United States. However, our defense, uh, tactical groups and our defense planning and strategic planning is unbelievable. Some of the best in the world. So we're stuck in this weird place of relationship of sharing and intelligence,

30:40 but being at odds when it comes to trade. Like how was that even possible? And yeah, will there become a line where we will not be sharing information, which I think would be a depriment to us. Maybe not as much to the United States of not sharing that intelligence information to any degree. Yeah, no, I really doubt that this is going to be a lasting, um, separation of, of the relationship between our two nations. I think that, um, it's, it's like a couple that's having a little bit of a fight, right? Um, fair. And, and so I think that it doesn't mean that one that we move out or somebody moves out. Um, I think that we're in a situation where we have a dispute over trade. It, it, I think that, um, that once we get past that and settle on that, then I think that things will, will go back to normal. Because at the end of the day, the United States and Canada, um, I think it's important that, that we work together. Because we're, we're so close physically and

31:42 we are closely aligned in our ideology. We have to keep in mind that there's a lot of, a lot of nations in the world that have radically different views about how government should be structured and, and the, and the role of the people than the way that the United States and, and Canada believe. I agree with you. It's, it's true. And, you know, we have to keep democracy in play in many, many ways, um, because it's scary if we don't. And we've seen historically what happens when we don't. One of my last questions to you is about MKUltra, uh, as a Canadian and what has happened on the Alan McMorril Institute in Montreal within Quebec is appalling. You know, we have a doctor, uh, a psychologist, one of the tops in the world that is experimenting on people, torturing innocent civilians. And finally, and thanks to Luna and the rest of the people that have been behind her, there was finally a, finally a congressional

32:43 hearing and I watched it and it was just unbelievable. Some of the things that came out, I actually think sometimes it's more important of a topic to talk about than UFOs because we have so much documentation that shows that this program was happening globally. It wasn't just happening in Canada. It was just happening in the States. It was happening in Germany. It was happening in the Philippines. It was happening into so many different places and all of this type of structure, this defense torture structure was implemented in these countries. And the question is, is they, have they upgraded from, uh, the structure that was given to them? Some might not, uh, and still might be using it today. We've seen the torture structures used within Guantanamo Bay. We've seen them used within the jail structures. So I guess my question to you would be, you know, will there be another congressional hearing? You know, this topic specifically cannot go away and there are so many victims that need to come forward and speak on the record in a congressional hearing under oath about what has happened to them or being a child of a

33:45 family member who had this happen to them and how it's affected their lives and others. And I think it's one of those, one of those, one of those topics that when you bring it up in a dinner conversation, most people, they're, they're aghast that this is even true. And, and, and, and so I'm glad that we had this hearing. I'm, I'm glad that we were able to, um, you know, how, and in a lot of ways there's healing that occurs for a nation and for, and for some of the victims, whenever you do have these, these hearings, I would hope that if we win the midterms that we could continue to have these hearings. Um, so I think it really all, all stems around whether or not we win the midterms and maintain Congress and if the task force is going to continue. Um, hopefully we will, because there's,

34:45 there is still a lot of things that we need to get to the bottom of and, um, and have more hearings on. So we, we've got two and a half months. I've talked with Chairman Comer, which we're trying to navigate and see how, how we could put together some final hearings here in the very end. Um, Chairman Comer wants to elevate, for example, a UAP hearing to the full oversight committee. We, if you, if you, if you have been following, we haven't really had a hearing in the oversight committee itself. We've had it in the subcommittees of oversight, but he's, he's, he wants, he's been, he's open to having it in the full committee, which is fantastic, but we have very short time. And, um, and, and then at the end of the day, we got to get the players involved. So we have to get the right people. Otherwise we're not, there's no point in having hearings just to have one. We, we've got to have new evidence, new information, new witnesses, um, new experts come forward in order to make it a valuable experience. So there's a lot to do if we're able to pull

35:47 this off. It may be a miracle if we pull it off, but it's, at least we're going to try. Yeah. For people that don't know at home and even for myself, you know, how hard, and I think it's harder from what I've heard than, than easier to be able to push a hearing in front of Congress. I heard that it, it's not as easy as some people think it would be. It obviously takes longer. And then the vetting system that goes behind the witnesses that are coming forward, because it's wonderful that the witnesses that have come forward, uh, you know, have been some, some wonderful whistleblowers. And, you know, Mike gold's appreciate his work is immensely that he's did with NASA and coming forward as well. I think that was really important to see and so many, obviously others that have been, that have come forward and talked about their own experiences, but outside of, you know, the immediate inner circle where we're always seeing, you know, there's similar reporting or circle reporting happening. There's so many other people, for example, Richard Doty, I think you might be familiar

36:47 with him. Uh, he did a disinformation campaign on a businessman, uh, named, uh, Benowitz in the 1980s and Richard Doty is one of those people I've had on my podcast. I've spoken to, and I feel that a lot of roads lead back to Doty and I have been saying this publicly, and I've been pushing it and I've talked to all different types of members that have worked in government around this, because I think that Richard Doty needs to be subpoenaed and he needs to be put in front of Congress, men and women and under oath and be able to ask the questions that he has done and be able to find out that documentation that will hopefully lead back to so many other programs. I think that Doty was attached to, you know, it was a 25 year old kid doing this, but it doesn't mean that when he was doing it, there was MK ultra, there were so many programs happening within that era that I think that when we open up that bag of worms, we're going to find more than we probably maybe, well, that we'd want, but it's going to open up a lot of other questions and

37:48 it'll connect to a lot of other programs. So can we, uh, you know, get Richard Doty and can we, you know, is that possible? And would Congress men and women be interested in something like that? That's a great question. You, so to, to kind of, um, dive into that, your deeper question about how difficult is it to bring forward witnesses and to vet them? So the process, um, like whenever I first started this, I didn't even understand the process. And, but now basically the way that this works, um, you've got witnesses that want to come forward oftentimes, um, ironically, usually the ones that want to come forward and all too willing usually have, have a reason it's, it's usually self-interest, right? Um, sadly, there's a, there's a lot of that at play. Then you have people that are, you know, experts that are, you know, they'll come forward, but it's, it's not exactly beneficial to their themselves or their career, but they're willing to do it because they're a patriot. Those are the easy ones.

38:50 You've got some that are, that will, that are reluctant to, um, come forward, but they would be happy to have a friendly subpoena. And so I'm giving you kind of the scale here. And then you've got some that are, that, um, are hostile. And I think Doty would be that in that, in that category. There's, there's a few others that we've talked about that are, you know, that the public has often talked about that are on my list that we've talked about. So to give you an idea of what happens when you subpoena a, someone who would be a hostile witness, um, all you have to do is take a look at what happened when we subpoenaed the Clintons on, on, regarding the Epstein, their experience and their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, they had, they had a very close relationship. Um, you know, their daughter was, uh, they, the, Ghislaine Maxwell attended their daughter his wedding. If that gives you an idea, they traveled on his plane or Clinton and Chelsea traveled on

39:52 his plane. Clinton was on his plane. Bill Clinton was on his plane dozens and dozens of times traveling, um, across the world. So this was, this was not a tangential, like this was a very personal relationship, which is we, so we had every right in the world to have a conversation as we're investigating this with, with, uh, Bill Clinton. But if you watch those hearings, it, well, first it took almost a year to get them in the door. Right. And so they have the ability to drag out anyone who doesn't want to come in has the ability to use legal mechanisms to drag out a subpoena that they don't want to comply with. And then once they, once that time limit is expired, then Congress can step forward and you have to have a vote to find them in contempt. And that means you have to convince the other members to, to have that vote, which isn't exactly easy. Um, that's generally speaking, that's when the Clintons came forward is when they realized that they were going to lose that vote.

40:53 And then once they did come forward, we basically had two days of hearings where they said, I don't recall. And I don't remember. So it's, it's very, very difficult. Um, and it, and it, to have a strategy where you can get some information out of someone who doesn't want to be there. Um, you, it doesn't mean that can't, you can't learn something and you can't get something, but, but if that gives you an idea how difficult that, what our challenges are when we have someone that doesn't want to provide information, but also pushing for that documentation, I think would be interesting in those files to be dropped, please do that. If you can, uh, I think it's so important that people know what happened to Paul Benowitz and understand the programs that were maybe attached to him outside of one, because there was multiple letter agencies, unfortunately doing a disinformation campaign on this man. Um, yeah, I mean, you're prompting me for something that my team might be able to do. Uh, so as we're having this conversation and

41:56 I'm trying to explore how to get that, it may be better for us to just send, um, a request of information about Richard Doty's activities and his roles from this, from the CIA directly and get a briefing on that. Because I don't think we're going to get anything from him, um, uh, if we go, if we go, if we request it from him directly, but we, we certainly could see what the, what the CIA has, uh, or if they haven't destroyed it or lost that information. That's interesting because if they have destroyed it, I wonder sometimes if it has, uh, been connected to MK ultra then that would be a, uh, you know, to me, it would be a potentially a connection. It is wild how many connections the MK ultra had in, in, in, and, and it almost, it seems conspiracy theory, right? But it's not, it's so wild. It is, it is extremely wild. And so as someone who's a complete skeptic on this, it is, it's, I have a hard time, um,

42:57 even, even talking about it, but when you, when we were researching MK ultra and it turns out that Charles Manson was, was somehow connected with somehow people that was, that Wally West was used, was experimenting on because he was the parole officer. And then you had the, um, and then you had Jack Ruby being treated by the, the very doctor that was, that was in, that the CIA was using to administer the MK ultra drugs. It just, it's almost seems like way too connected. Um, and, and it, uh, it just sounds conspiratorial. Well, you see these all shoots though, uh, programs, right? Like you can actually find a through line from program to program to program to program, you know, just the names just changed. And so we're seeing where it might actually be today. And that's something I'm, I'm technically working on, but we're also, you know, I talked to a fair amount of the Canadian victims. I'm technically within that inner circle right now and chatting with some of them, uh,

43:58 because it's, it's sad. And what we're doing in Canada right now, and what they're doing as a team, you know, is we're literally, there's a legal, uh, fight going on right now for reparations. And they were looking at suing the CIA that got pushed out of the lawsuit. Hopefully we'll get pushed back in, but you know, the judge has been pushing it off a little bit and we understand why, but there is more documentation that is being held up at Miguel university. And there's documentation that we know that there is probably within the chancellor within Germany. They talked about this at the congressional hearing, but specifically within Canada, we know that Miguel university has more documentation. And so if we're looking at those public institutes that are connected to government outside of what the CIA has, there's probably a lot of information there. We saw that the indigenous community was immensely targeted within MKUltra. There was victims that came forward and said that they would see indigenous children and indigenous people within the walls of the Alan McMurrayal Institute. And the question now is if some of those

45:00 indigenous students and people that were there were actually buried underneath the pool. Like, I can't believe I'm even saying this, but that's the conversation right now within Canada. And so there is a lawsuit right now going on to be able to get that information from two different groups, from an indigenous group and also from a collective. And there's 2,000 people within that lawsuit right now against McGill University and the Canadian government. That's fantastic. That's wonderful. I can't wait to see what the outcome is. Yeah. And so we'll, we'll hopefully find out, you know, within the next year or two, here's hoping, but again, they keep, they keep delaying it. I will say Burley. I love that your nickname is Burley. Thank you so much for joining me on rebelliously curious. It's wonderful to have you here today. It's great to be on. Thank you.