The Steady State Sentinel is produced by the
Steady State, a community of former national
security professionals who spent their careers
safeguarding the United States at home and abroad.
Today, we continue that mission by staying true
to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold
our democracy, and protect our nation's security.
Join our expert hosts as they interview field
-tested guests whose unique experiences shed
light on the crises and challenges facing our
nation. So you're listening to the Steady State
Sentinel. I'm John Seifer, a former CIA officer
and the founder of Spycraft Entertainment. I'm
joined today by co -host, author, and legendary
CIA officer Jim Lawler. And today we are joined
by Denver Riggleman. Denver is a former Republican
congressman from Virginia, a former Air Force
intelligence officer, and one of the most interesting
political voices of the last few years. He's
a guy who's been inside the modern GOP, inside
Congress, and inside one of the most consequential
investigations in American history. Denver served
as a senior technical advisor to the House January
6th Committee, where he helped run data -driven
investigations into digital breadcrumbs, phone
records, metadata networks, and patterns, trying
to map what happened before, during, and after
January 6th. And then he did something that still
makes people mad. He spoke publicly about what
he found. And he's also worked on one of the
most radioactive controversies in U .S. politics,
the Hunter Biden laptop story, specifically doing
data and forensic analysis. to evaluate claims,
distortions, and possible manipulation around
the material. Right now, with the political temperature
somehow getting hotter and crazier, Denver's
perspective sits at the intersection of power,
tech, disinformation, and accountability. So,
Denver, it's great to have you. Welcome. Oh,
my gosh. It's an honor to be here. Good to see
you. Good to see Jim. It's fantastic. Well, Denver,
we're going to speak about all these kind of
crazy things, but let me start with your time
in Congress, with how the sausage is made. What's
the most important thing the public gets wrong
about how Congress actually works? I would say
they get wrong that there's a lot of policy debates
and they don't understand how specifically transactional
it is. And I think, you know, and I think, you
know, when I first went in there, you know, there's
that saying the first six weeks you wonder how
you got there. And then the next six weeks you
wonder how everybody else got there. And I think,
you know, I was. You know, I was never in politics.
John, you know me. You know, you remember I came
out of the military, started tech companies,
sold two of those, have distilleries, make whiskey
in Virginia and Pennsylvania. My wife is CEO
of that. I staked her, you know, to get started
there. Now she's a very successful. CEO of a
whiskey -making dynasty. And then, you know,
I also have a brand new tech automation company.
I just finished my Series A funding line on how
to automate massive data sets for aggregation,
analysis, and simply predictive capabilities
of data. And, you know, I'm being sort of successful
on that too. I've run tech companies before.
So when I went into Congress, I'll tell you,
John and Jim, I'm like, wow. looking around,
it's beautiful here in Congress. And about 12
weeks later, I told my wife, what am I doing
here? Get me the hell out of here. This is awful.
You know, and you just want to serve the people,
but really you find out it's transactional. You
got to be in the stream, what fundraising is
like. And if you're not specifically on the team,
most of the time, 80 or 90 % of the time, they
start to cut you off at the Achilles. And I think
that's the thing people need to realize about
Congress. Again, it's how transactional it is.
Denver, like you, I was a moderate Republican
for many years, and sadly, that creature no longer
exists. When did you first detect that the Republican
Party was basically sinking below the waterline?
My first meeting. I was in, I got invited to
the first Freedom Caucus meeting. And I'm sitting
with another newly elected member to my left.
And we're sitting in the back because we're new,
right? So now you guys imagine this, you know,
at that time, I'm what? So you're talking about
January, second week of January 2019. I'm almost
49, right? I've had multiple companies. I feel
like I've been fairly successful. You know, I'm
above Moron and IQ, I think, right? So, you know,
I got some of that going for me. So, but I worked
in NSA for 16 years back and forth. with NSA,
Air Force Special Projects, Joint Special Projects,
but also, and you guys know, I mean, you work
with Big Safari and Air Force Special Operations,
you know, building things and things of that
nature. So I thought I was pretty good with algorithmic
warfare, non -kinetic warfare, cyber, computer
network operations, and how that combined with
sort of warheads on foreheads, right? And how
we did that. So I go into my first meeting and
there's Louie Gohmert. You guys probably know
about the Sterling Intelligence of Louie Gohmert.
from Texas. Anyway, so they're debating a bill
that they want to actually put on the floor.
And they were talking about, and get this, the
one world algorithm that's suppressing conservative
voices. Now, I automatically saw the very conspiratorial
nature of what the GOP was or had become because
I had some of those questions on the trail. Like,
for instance, I had one person ask me why the
white vans were using lasers to change votes
from Republicans to Democrats in Northern Virginia.
which was, they asked me if I would please address
that and legislation while I was running for
Congress. And then I see Louie Gohmert talking
about one world algorithms. And if anybody understands
math and things like that, that's not just impossible,
it's ludicrous. It's mind -blowingly delusional.
And my first meeting, I actually stood up and
said, I don't think you should do that. I was
trying to be very kind, but I remember getting
the daggers poked at me or looked at me, right,
as I was saying. To the point I was trying to
explain math and algorithms and different database
structures and how it works. And I said, it's
just not a thing. Don't put that on the floor.
That doesn't make sense. And so now when you're
seeing like chemtrail bills come up and stuff
like that and things of that nature, I saw the
genesis of that in 2019. And so you came in in
the Freedom Caucus, as we remember, but then
you became sort of persona non grata to them.
So what's the price of saying no in that ecosystem?
Nowadays, you know, we see these Republican congressmen
openly saying things that we know and they know
is not true. So is that because they can't say
no? Because if you're not on the team, you're
kicked off. What's the price of saying no in
that sort of world? The price of saying no is
somebody told me this. It was one of the neatest
statements, but also completely right. They're
like, Denver, don't get out of the current. So,
and, you know, I'm like, well, my whole life
has been out of the current. You know, if you're
always striving, you're trying to be an outlier,
you're trying to, you know, you're coming from
somewhere that people never thought you'd be
to try to do something. And I really thought
this was a service job. And, you know, you don't
want to admit that at 48, 49 years old, you go
in naive, but I did. And because I thought, well,
I could be a new Republican. Maybe the Freedom
Caucus could be really a place where there's
debate. Maybe it's really, we could make it into
the Freedom Caucus. Nah, Freedom Caucus was should
have been called TPS, the Trump Protection Society,
because that's all the Freedom Caucus was. But
once I officiated the same sex wedding in July
of 2019, some of my other votes like legalizing
marijuana, other votes like keeping preexisting
conditions for health care, even though I was
like, well, you voted with Trump 90 percent of
the time. Well, you're sort of voting. That's
that's a lot of weird, small bills and amendments,
too. Right. You're talking, you know, sort of
some stuff that really. Doesn't matter that much.
But as I was voting no on the big bills, I started
to see that I was getting, you know, the hairy
eyeball. And then once I started saying, hey,
maybe people shouldn't be spouting QAnon stuff,
which started in about January, February of 2020.
And everybody's like, well, Denver, what is this
QAnon thing? Well, you guys remember after the
wedding, when I officiated the wedding, the first
meeting after that in Pennsylvania County. I
got completely eviscerated. It was one of the
biggest showings of a committee meeting with
people saying that I had betrayed Christianity
and betrayed the Republican Party. You know,
I'm not particularly religious, so it was an
awkward meeting. But I also had people wearing
Q -pens. I didn't know what they were. So this,
you're talking, guys, August of 2019, I first
started seeing QAnon lapel pins and QAnon t -shirts.
And then I started looking into what it was.
And so I was one of the first congressional members
to even know what QAnon was as a Republican.
And I said, this was incredibly dangerous. As
you know, John and Jim, that led to the resolution
with Tom Malinowski condemning QAnon. And by
that point, you know, I'd already had the drive
-through convention. I was already called the
tool of the Antichrist. Um, you know, and after
the same sex wedding, I was accused of changing
the sexual orientation of children. And we were
even accused of laundering money for George Soros
through our distillery. So, um, it, it was literally,
it seemed like me against the world, you know,
Democrats weren't going to help as they thought
it was great, you know, um, you know, so Republicans
aren't going to help because they think that
I've gone against Trump. Right. So it really
was my wife and I looking around like, holy hell,
you know, literally we're alone. But I think
it was the best thing I've ever done. And now
I think people trust me. You know, even people
who might not like me, they're like, well, at
least that dumbass is going to tell the truth,
you know, and he's a facts based guy. So that
that is helpful, I think, you know, in writing
some of the books I did and things like that.
Denver, a few weeks ago, John and I interviewed
Adam Kinzinger, one of your. former congressman
colleagues. And I asked him if he saw any Republican
candidates or Republicans in office now that
he could truly support. And I'm going to ask
you the same question. Right now? Right now.
Do you see either running or is in office that
you would say, yes, I would support that Republican?
Any at all? Scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Thanks for the question, Jim. I appreciate you.
I think one person I do respect is Don Bacon,
former Air Force General out of Nebraska. Very
good friend of mine. Call sign bits, by the way.
So just so you guys know. Also, you know, people
shouldn't sleep on Michael McCall. The issue
is Mike and Don aren't running again. That's
why I was asking, you know, Jim. You know what?
You know how far you want me to go on this? They're
out. There's no way Don and Mike continue down
this line. Right. And then you see people like
Brian Fitzpatrick, who I thought, you know, he's
going to stand up. You know, he's sort of wet
noodle -ish. Right. You know, you have to be
really careful what you say if you want to continue
your political career in this MAGA environment.
Well, I don't know what Adam said. Adam said
none, just to be clear. Well, that's where we're
at. People that are running right now at zero.
And I don't know if you guys know this. Adam
is part of my company. Adam and I are very close.
And, you know, good man. And, you know, he's
obviously media. He likes being out there, a
lot of media, you know, I'm sort of the data
guy. But things are, you know, crazy right now
with that. But I think that Adam's correct. There's
really nobody. If you are aligned with Trump,
you're aligned with somebody who's been adjudicated
for sexual assault, who's a felon, who has companies
that have been indicted for fraud, and somebody
who simply liked to party with Epstein on a level
that's very hard to get over, right, as all of
us as intelligence officers and looking at the
actual proof in redactions. I think it's very
hard to support anybody who supports that guy
or is part of that team. I think that's a fair
answer. You were on the January 6th committee,
and I want to ask you, when you joined the committee,
what did you think you were walking into? What
interested you or shocked you once you saw the
data? And if you had like 10 minutes alone with
someone who still says January 6th was no big
deal, what's the fact pattern that you'd put
in front of them? You know, oh, gosh. Hey, this
is a hell of a question here. No, this is wonderful.
No. So first, when I walked in there, I thought
after the first meetings that I would actually
be able to build a proper fusion center. I think
I walked in there expecting that I was actually
running a counterterrorism investigation. But
and not to say that the committee didn't do incredible
things, but I think Congress is ill suited for
a data driven or metadata specific investigation
of this complexity. You have to have the funding.
the experts, but you have to have the tool sets.
And when I say tool sets, I'm not talking about
just mental tool sets. I'm talking like actual
tools and capabilities to parse that amount of
data. And you also have to have the authorities.
And I don't think people realize in Congress,
they don't have law enforcement authorities.
They only have authorities in the public trust.
And it's something I wrote about in my book,
The Breach, as you guys know, I wrote, and I
don't like to talk about it too much because,
you know, it was just a New York Times bestseller,
but, you know, so, but I, you know, I think.
I think when we're talking about when I walked
in there, I think it was I was still fighting
these political headwinds from left and right
that I thought I could overcome and didn't. As
you know, boy, did I piss some people off. And
it ended up I was correct because data is, you
know, ones and zeros make the best witnesses,
I believe, you know, as we're going forward in
this direction, in this world of data. I think
when you're talking about. the aftermath and
what I would do with somebody or what I would
say to somebody who still thinks it's really
still a day of peace or it was a fedsurrection
or Ray Epps had something to do with it, which
I saw Ray Epps' phone records. We can go into
all these conspiracy theories. If I were to sit
down with somebody, I would say the first question
I would ask anybody is, first of all, what you're
sourcing for what you know, right? And a lot
is like, okay, you're telling me this, what's
your source? Where did you get the information
and your source? And why did you come to the
conclusion on that information? And that's when
you sort of trip somebody up immediately on those
specific questions. The second one after or the
second sort of strategy is I want you to simply
explain to me how every state's election system
works and where they would have penetrated. Go.
Right. Here's the third one. OK, the election
was stolen. Why did the Republicans still take
Congress? Go. So once I do that to people, I
can almost see them start to dissemble. The other
thing, too, is I'm like, can I read the Meadows
text messages to you? May I read the text messages
from Jenny Thomas? By the way, I saw all the
text messages from Ali Alexander. Also, I also
saw all the phone calls that were going from
rally planners and those associated with the
Proud Boys to the White House. Would you like
to talk about those? And why were the Oath Keepers
texting Andrew Giuliani? So these are the kind
of things when you start really getting into
it, people start to dissemble. The issue is,
though, is that the people who believe the Oath
Keepers and Proud Boys were right. There is no
way to bridge that gap because now you're talking
about somebody who's either ignorant, immoral,
right, or so credulous as not to be worth your
time. So that's usually, John and Jim, how I
approach it. Like tomorrow on my little show,
which is, I don't know why people like it now.
It's exploded a bit. I'm going to be reading
selected passages of the text messages tomorrow
for the people on the anniversary of January
6th. Can you tell what your show is so people
can find it? Absolutely. It's going to be between
one and two. I'm going to announce it. We're
trying to put it all together because I want,
like, Tara Settmeyer to read Marjorie Taylor
Greene. Like, I want some people to read some
of these. But it was something spontaneous. It
was like, Denver, you know more about the text
messages than anybody on the planet. It is true.
I do. I know more about the context and how it's
structured or how it actually outlined the entire
plan of disinformation going forward. You can
see it from November 1st. all the way through
January 6th, the whole text message thread with
everyone. So I'm going to read that. So it's
going to be, it's like breach media. We're starting,
but it's Denver After Dark, which is my, you
know, my very smooth jazz podcast, John and Jim.
So, you know, so we're going to be doing that.
But I am reading that tomorrow. It's probably
going to start in the afternoon between 1 and
2 p .m. It's going to be all over social media.
I'd love for you guys, I would, you know, if
somebody wants to read Don Jr., let me know.
But no, so it's just, it's going to be, it's
not, fun. It's, it's, you know, people are like,
oh God, this is great. No, it's actually sort
of a horror story. And it's, it's hard to, it's
hard to encapsulate when you read a Jenny Thomas
text where she has information or she has communication
with Jared Kushner and she is working hand in
hand with Louie Gohmert's congressional office,
you know, all three branches of government. you
know, embodied in one individual, which I think
is the biggest mistake of the committee was not
subpoenaing, subpoenaed to Jenny Thomas. It was
her non -oath testimony or interview, which was
worthless. So those are the kind of things that
I'm going to be doing. But yeah, buddy, I just
want people to understand that there's no way
that this wasn't a coup attempt. Just for our
listeners, quickly, we're recording this on January
5th, the day before January 6th when Denver is
going to be doing this. So they'll be hearing
it afterwards, but I'm sure they can find it
because it'll be, hopefully they'll get a lot
of attention. Well, if you guys want to put it
out on your social media channels, feel free,
but you know, have fun. Yeah, that's a great
idea. Denver, you know, when John and I were
in the agency, John was in for what, close to
30 years, weren't you, John? And I was there
for 25 years. And prior to the election in 2016,
I neither knew nor cared what any of my colleagues'
political affiliations or beliefs were. We were
supposed to be nonpartisan. And it never even
occurred to me to ask somebody. I assume it was
like that when you were in the Air Force and
when you were working at NSA. What has happened
to America? Why have we become so entrenched,
so partisan? So, I mean, what is going on? I
had somebody. tell me that history always repeats.
And we're in this situation, Jim, that this is
no different from the know -nothings. This is
no different from any period in U .S. history
where you have a propaganda or a tribal machine
that can take over in some way. And I push back
pretty hard. You know, when you're talking about
the metastasization of radicalization or you're
talking about these type of things, social media
has had such a big impact. on the poisoning of
the well of sort of what America is. I think,
you know, when you give everybody a voice and
those voices can be magnified through specific
motivations that aren't pure at all, or just
grifting, or maybe even the ability to tap into
credulity in a way that we've never seen before.
I mean, look at Marjorie Taylor Greene, millions
of followers. trying to, you know, sort of rebuild
her image, which is impossible, especially after
I read the text. But, you know, almost impossible.
But I think it's really that ability to self
-select. I had an incredible individual. We were
talking about disinformation. I was in an essay.
And I don't know, this was right before I ran.
So you're talking 2017, 2018, guys. He said something
that blew my mind. And he goes, you know, Den.
the world has gone from multicast to unicast.
I'm like, well, that's an interesting statement.
What do you mean? He goes, well, you know, back
in the day, you had all your channels, three
channels, right? You had ABC, NBC, CBS. You had
the big three, multicast, and you just go between
those three. He goes, and now people are only
on one channel. I said, well, I want to push
back a little bit. I said, we're well above unicast.
You got a million channels. He goes, yeah, Dan.
He goes, but people are self -selecting one channel
or one information flow. And he goes, we've gone
from less choices to less data. The more choices
I have, the more you self -select into one barrel
or one bin. Now, I don't know if that's 100 %
true, but it was a fascinating conversation.
And I'm wondering, you know, as I'm looking at
these radicalization paths, when I look at Proud
Boys and Oath Keepers, I look at all the individuals,
right, that were out there. If you look at the
Donald .win or you go to Gab or you go to Parler
or X Today, right, which is like Parler on steroids
or Gab on steroids, right, the old right wing,
you know, social media channels. When you look
at it, people self -select into that environment
or into that ecosystem and they can't get out.
And I think that's why you see more hate, more
tribalism, more violence. But you also have demagogic
leaders, people like Donald Trump with no moral
compass whatsoever that can take advantage of
these new unicast self -selected ecosystems.
And boy, I sounded like I used a lot of big polysyllabic
words there. I apologize. But, you know, but
I think that's where we're at right now, right,
is that people can self -select into crazy. And
I think they like it. Yeah, it's self, it's entertainment.
mixed with political news, right? You can pick
your own adventure, man. I mean, I could be a
hero in my own movie, you know? Yeah, exactly.
And then also some people can make money off
this. You get your own channel and you spin the
stuff. So it's a tough time. So I want to move
on to, you worked on the Hunter Biden legal team
doing forensic and data analysis across the whole
controversy. For those who remember, for a while,
you know, the answer to anything was Hunter Biden's
laptop. So you evaluated the claims about the
laptop material and whether the data was distorted
or fabricated. So what's the single biggest misconception
the public has about the laptop as an evidence
object? The biggest misconception, and it's so
simple, but I think it makes me excited, right?
The biggest misconception is that all data in
the public sphere cannot be validated. There
is no data. that was used by Congress, that was
used by anybody that had any forensic chain of
custody. It is absolutely astounding. If you
look at John Paul, you know, by the way, John
Paul MacIsaac wrote a book. People should read
it. It's insane. He actually thought the Bidens
were planting flower, giving him flowers full
of poison. I mean, the guys, right? And this
is the guy that, you know, that they're actually,
so people should go find John Paul MacIsaac's
book. And yeah, he might make a little bit of
money, but you know what? Have pity on the man
and read it and actually look at what he did.
He didn't even make a forensic copy of the laptop
anyway. He only made copies and gave them to
two separate sources that went to the Giuliani
and the Bannon teams. Now, think about that,
right? There are multiple. We had actually built
out, I think, 30 or 40 different people who had
their hands on the data at one time or the other
with an unsubstantiated copy. So when you're
looking at Marco Polo, you're looking at 4chan
released by Yakov Applebaum, and I'll go into
that. There is nothing out there that was used
that could hold up in a court of law. Nothing.
It does not exist. And I think that's what's
so amazing. So, John, Jim, the people that wrote
the 51 that said that this looked like a Russian
op, yeah. You know why? Because even if it wasn't
state -sponsored, most of the people, even when
you're talking about the 2020 report by Ron Johnson,
right, our boy, right, in the Senate. Telizhenko,
Durkash. You're looking at massive numbers of
Russians and foreign assets that Giuliani was
utilizing for data or for information that didn't
come from any validated source whatsoever. It
just couldn't. Even the whistleblowers at the
IRS, nobody misspells what they misspell, right?
So there was just so many things that were so
ludicrous about this. But really, to me, the
American public, when somebody goes, well, the
laptop. First of all, data and the laptop are
mutually exclusive, number one. Right. Number
two, if you're going to use data, it has to be
forensically sound. It's not. And number three,
maybe don't use foreign assets for information
when you're doing a Senate investigation. So
those are that's that's how I see it, guys, going
forward and what I learned in that investigation.
Denver, if I recall correctly, you, I believe,
more or less identified yourself as a libertarian.
Maybe I may not be recalling correctly, but I
used to be also a libertarian. Is there any room
now for a libertarian today in today's political
atmosphere? I really wonder. No, no. I mean,
you know, I'm a civil libertarian. You know,
it was interesting because people. You know,
Jim, people are like, Denver, you're a libertarian.
I'm like, because I don't care what people do
in their bedroom, I'm also pretty strong on foreign
policy, right? So maybe I'm a neo -libertarian.
Well, you know, the old joke is if you have 100
libertarians, you have 150 different political
directions. Exactly, exactly, right? But I think
libertarian today, I think there's just nowhere,
ain't nowhere you can be if you're pure libertarian
all the way down the line, right? And there's
just no way with the way that we're funneled
with data and things like that. And I apologize
if there's some construction going on over here.
There's just no way that you can actually, I
think, funnel anywhere and get anything done
if you're libertarian, because then you start
to you start to spin off into things that don't
make sense to somebody who's just trying to live
day to day. So, you know, I think libertarianism
is dead. I think you can have libertarians sort
of lean like civil libertarian like I am, which
I mean, I don't care if you worship a head of
lettuce. Right. Or, you know, I just I don't
give a rat's, you know, but but I certainly do
care. If you have a country that's, I don't know,
pushing out foreign disinformation through social
media channels through Russia, North Korea, Iran,
you know. So, you know, so there's that. Right.
So that's I think that's where I'm at right now,
Jim. Let me ask you, you know, we've talked a
little bit about your diagnosis, the Republican
Party. We can talk a little more about that.
But what's the biggest weakness or the biggest
self -delusion of the Democrats that you see?
Oh, my gosh. Great question. And that's why,
you know, I do self -identify as unaffiliated.
I just want you guys to know. I think the biggest
delusion of the Democrats, again, is they keep
redoing the same mistakes. First of all, I think
they always want to play with Marcus of Queensberry
rules when it's a goddang, you know, it's a bar
brawl. I've never seen anything like it. You
know, they're like, you know what? We need to
put on six -ounce gloves before we step into
the ring, right? And they're shooting somebody
with a crossbow. before they walk in there, you
know? So, you know, and it just feels like they
don't understand what the temperature is of America
right now. And I also think that they go into
certain types of social issues that nobody gives
a rat's ass about. Or they think it's ludicrous,
you know? And, you know, and I've had these debates
with Democrats, like, well, Denver, I guess you
still are a Republican, you know? And I'm like,
wait a minute. As a civil libertarian, I don't
care. what anybody does or what they do. But
there are certain types of factual things that
have to happen when it comes to, say, sports
and things of that nature that you sort of just
got to say, yeah, it's probably probably the
right way to go. And I also think as far as the
economy is concerned, I think they always try
to regulate themselves into prosperity or it
looks like the Republicans are trying to fascism
their way into prosperity, you know. And I think
that's the other thing, too, is that it's much
easier. I think, to identify those that are regulate,
regulate, regulate, or they just or they still
are on the tax side and things like that, then
it is in the much more, I think, dangerous way
of giving out favors to social media billionaires
in order to get monies back for ballrooms or
to make sure you enrich yourself in the White
House. So I just don't think the Democrats have
cracked the nut yet on being tough enough. on
identifying the proper, I would say the proper
policies, but also looking where America actually
is. Stop being idealistic. It's time to be, I
think, realistic on what you need to be. And
if you want to be for the working people, be
for the working people. If you want to be for
folks to make sure they're taken care of, be
that. But don't look at specific identity politics
as the only politics there are. I think that's
rough. And you're seeing MAGA do that with evangelicalism,
right, and religious fundamentalism also. So,
listen, it's two sides of the same coin sometimes,
but I would say that the Republicans are in a
hold my beer moment. I think they're much nuttier
than the Democrats right now, to be honest. You
know, I think George will summarize that, Denver,
when he said that Dems' problem is they're weak,
whiny, and woke. I thought that was pretty good.
We're like America's HR department. Yeah, exactly.
We are like America's HR department. And we,
you know, and that's a great way to say it. I
mean, to be honest, and, you know, and gosh,
you know, I supported Abigail Spanberger here
in Virginia. You know, I'm on her transition
committee and a great person. And everybody's
like, oh my God, so you're a Democrat. I'm like,
no, I'm sort of to that pick the person type
of thing, because there's no way I was picking
Winsome Sears, right? You've got to choose the
best person for the job. But I'm hoping, you
know, from what Abby said and what I can see,
maybe she's going to go down that line of doing
the best regardless of party. Yeah, she's a friend
of ours, obviously a great person. And I think
a number of these women who have national security
experience like you and Jim, you know, take the
job seriously. When you come into Congress, when
you come into government, you see yourself as
a professional who's trying to work for the American
people. And I think what's happened is. Because
people realize that, you know, stoking fear and
creating false narratives, you know, gets them
play on certain on Fox News and other things.
They've sort of moved towards that entertainment,
angertainment type of thing. And there's still
a few people who want to actually do work. And
I think that's the danger here is the Republicans
are into the angertainment thing is at some point
the American people are like, aren't you going
to actually do any work? Like you've moved so
far to the fringe that there's no way to compromise
and actually. have laws or do anything. And it's
crazy. I think anger and fear make you a lot
more money in fundraising too than policy. Well,
that's true, isn't it? You know, you hire consultants.
I remember I made a lot more money when my flyer,
when my digital fundraising said, Nancy Pelosi
is a socialist who wants to eat your dogs. Right.
Rather than saying, hey, I'm ready to bring rural
broadband to Virginia. Yeah, we need to make
a lot more money on the more hyperbolic, crazy,
insane type of fundraising, you know, outreach.
I think that that's now that's just politics.
And it's a shame because the country's suffering,
guys. I mean, you know, national debt, when you
look at the deficit and the debt, when you're
looking at unemployment, when you're looking
at housing starts, when you're looking at bankruptcies,
I mean, things just aren't good. And but but,
you know. At least we're going into Venezuela,
you know, and at least, you know, we're building
ballrooms. I mean, there you go. America first.
How about it? Do you have any short comments
about our latest venture into Venezuela? Anything
that you'd care to share with us? No, I think
there's I think there's a distinct I think you
can have two things happen. I think you can have
a successful military operation with very faulty
foreign policy. And, you know, I think that's
the thing that I was looking at is, you know,
a reminder of Saddam Hussein a little bit, you
know, and I know we could have this discussion
on a whole nother podcast, but man, it was great
to take Saddam Hussein out. But if you do it
for the wrong reasons, sometimes that cascading
effect can be absolutely brutal. And if you don't
have an exit plan, when you look at Venezuela,
you're like, oh my God, have they looked at the
actual size and the geography of Venezuela? And
by the way, You know, are you looking at Guyana
and Suriname? Are you looking at Colombia? Are
you looking at Brazil? You know, it's just insane
to me that the incompetence of this administration
has led to this. And everybody's like, well,
Denver, Maduro's a bad guy. Yeah. Yeah, Maduro's
a bad guy. But it doesn't mean that as the United
States of America, where we're supposed to be
and the standard we're supposed to set, that
we just go into place because of a guy's a bad
guy or because... As Trump said specifically,
he told the oil companies he was going in before
Congress, or that this is about oil, which he
said unequivocally. So it's pretty amazing to
me that that's where we're at. It's not about
democracy. It's not about helping the people
of Venezuela. It's about ensuring that the donor
class or the people that are around him are somehow
you know, part of the exit plan because he's
a lame duck. This is an exit plan foreign policy.
This isn't a foreign policy about the future
of the United States. So there's my short statement,
sir. I think it's fair. I mean, we've learned,
we should have learned from Iraq, Afghanistan.
Going in is fairly easy, but how you end up on
the other side, and Donald Trump is the laziest
politician I've ever seen. He doesn't want to
do the hard work necessary. for the back end
of this. So like he wants to, you know, just
do some quick bombing in Iran and say, I've solved
the problem. I should get a peace prize. People
should, you know, fawn over me. He wants self
-validation and he wants it quickly. He doesn't
actually want to work for it. So same thing here.
Oh, yeah, we've succeeded. You know, everybody
should laud me. Like, you know, if we said that
in the beginning of Iraq or Afghanistan, it would
have been laughable by the time we walked out
with our tail between our legs. Like the Iranian
nuclear facilities. It brings to mind Colin Powell's
pottery barn thing about if you break it, it's
yours. You break it. That's right. You break
it. It's yours. It's all yours. But yeah, absolutely.
Well, let me ask you, you know, we don't want
to keep you too long here. We really appreciate
your time. You have some companies now that are
working on data and stuff. I want to hear a little
bit about that. But I'm actually excited, obviously,
about the whiskey business. Tell me a little
bit about that. Well, yeah, so we've been in
business about 11 years. My wife's a famous,
nationally renowned bourbon and whiskey maker.
Also gin and vodka locations. Is that why you
married her? No, I wish. No, that's awful. I
shouldn't say that. No, honestly, I don't know
why she married me, John. I mean, we've been
married since we were 19. So what, 36 years,
you know? So yeah, but she, you know, she was
with me in thick and thin when I deployed. You
guys know, I mean. spouses that stay behind three
kids, pretty much a single mom, you know, and
then when I finally sold my first company, I
said, it's my turn to follow you. What do you
want to do? And she goes, I want to make liquor.
And I knew I'd hit the jackpot. So, so anyway,
so I said, okay, that's what you want to do.
We can make that happen. So we have two locations.
I was forced to sell my second company when I
won the election. I didn't think I was going
to win. As you know, John, I am the accidental
congressman. And then so with this company, AI
Automation, it is insurance and health technologies,
but the actual automation layers we're building
is actually helping with law enforcement and
security. based on automating video management
and intelligence by linking persona data to biometrics.
And our automation layers work for that too.
So we have this huge technology transfer thing
going where we're doing incredible stuff in insurance
technologies and health technologies for doctors
and patients. And we're also doing automation
layers on video management and identification
technologies using artificial intelligence and
graph neural networks. So pretty insane. And
then we just went through a really big funding
phase. Just incredible what we build. We got
patentable technologies now. And our service
side company is called RIG, Riggleman Information
Intelligence Group. And our health and insurance
technology is Hoodle. Humans out of the loop.
I was able to trademark that. We need like a
Google or Twitter name. I came up with Hoodle.
So there you go. So it's RIG, Hoodle, depending
on what the vertical is. And we are doing automation
technologies that transfer not only to commercial.
but to security -based applications. And I sounded
crazy. And can you tell people about what you're
doing in the media sphere and about your books?
So if they're looking for more information. Oh,
they just learned about me. God help them, John.
They just learned about you. God help them. How
can they find out more? Yeah, so in media, I
have my Denver After Dark podcast, which we're
about to turn into The Breach. I'm on the news
all the time. I have a book called The Breach.
It was about January 6th. It was a... You know,
it's a very in a humble way, you know, to be
a bestseller is really cool. It seems like it's
selling again for some reason, too. I was like,
that's pretty interesting. But, yeah, it's called
The Breach. I also had a book before that that
was, as you know, is famous called Bigfoot. It's
Complicated, which is about cult believers. But
the Democrats, when they ran against me, thought
it was about pornography. And I was hit with
that, as you know, on Saturday Night Live as
a devotee of Bigfoot erotica when the book was
actually about disinformation. But the one time
the Democrats take their gloves off, they accuse
me of Bigfoot porn. And then. So if anyone's
interested in that, my other podcast that I do
with another CIA former colleague called Mission
Implausible about conspiracy theories, we interviewed
Dundee. I'm also, not only do I go after conspiracy
theories, as you know, I'm also the victim of
conspiracy theories. So I'm in an incredible
position. So many conspiracy theories. It's not
just that, guys. Trust me. I did not know I worship
Satan. Like, there's a lot out there about me.
that I'm like, wow, I didn't know I did that.
And I have a third book that we're working on
right now about three girls in Ukraine who helped
spy on Russians during the Kherson invasion and
liberation, which I've been to Ukraine multiple
times, and I'm working with UTA on that, which
is pretty incredible. I'm also writing a fiction
book about a former... intelligence cat who likes
to bury bodies. That is not me. It's not based
on me. I'm just going to let you guys know. So
there's that. And, you know, dabble a little
bit in music and help my wife test whiskey. So
there you go. That's my life. I'm on X. I'm on
Blue Sky. I'm on Substack. Sounds like a good
life. Yeah. There you go. Sounds great. All right.
Well, Denver, thank you for your time. Fantastic.
I hope if people weren't aware of you, they will
be and they'll follow you and read your books.
And we'd like to hopefully have you on again
as events transpire over this next year. It's
going to be crazier than 25, guys. Going up into
the midterms, I think it might be the most potential
of violence, I would say, in certain polling
places around the country. And people who really
lose their minds. I think past performance is
indicative of future performance. So I think
the conspiracy theories about stolen elections
will cascade between 26 and 28 on a level we've
never seen. I worry about that as well, especially
since to serve in the president administration,
you have to believe that 2020 was stolen. And
therefore, the notion that you'll try to steal
2028 is not actually too far fetched. So sad,
really sad. It is too sad. Well, on that high
note, let me say, listen, if you like what you're
hearing, please subscribe to The Sentinel and
follow Steady State content and give us a five
-star review on Google. The reviews help us get
this important content to the widest audience
possible. Thank you for that. So stay informed,
stay engaged, and join us next Tuesday for another
episode of The Steady State Sentinel. This is
John Seifer, Denver Riegelman, and Jim Lawler,
still standing watch. Thank you. Thank you for
listening to the Steady State Sentinel podcast.
Don't miss out on more insights and exposés from
America's premier global security experts. Also,
subscribe to our Substack at substack .com slash
at SteadyState1 and follow our social media and
join us right here next week for another exciting
edition. The Steady State is a nonprofit organization
working to sustain our democracy and national
security. Join us and support our mission by
visiting www .the steady state .org.