Captain Brad Geary
speaker
303 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Feb 2025
last heard Feb 2025
Captain Brad Geary’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
mask them with other drugs, and Google searches in discussion threads about, we can mask this drug use by adding this drug into it based off this data. I mean, an active collaborative little pool of bodies who are doing this. Pretty deliberately.
With intent.
Well, I'll give you a great example on this. So why aren't they giving up the records? So I'll give you a great example on this one. One of the FOIAs we know came from a press release at some point, someone from, I think, maybe it was the Times, I can't remember, but they had requested access to that initial line of duty investigation, which had been serialized, completed, done.
We talked about it last time. Admiral Kitchener had independently verified it, and then it got buried and changed once the vice, you know, at the time had said, change it. So someone got word about this, and they were trying to get access to it. I know from an insider who was sitting in a room with a bunch of jags and public affairs officers,
and they were trying to brainstorm ways to say no to the FOIA request. And at one point, someone's idea was, well, let's say that that was never a completed investigation. Therefore, by FOIA rules, we don't have to release it. At which point, another person in the meeting said, hey, you guys can't actually do that. That's illegal.
Like, if you have a legitimate reason to say no, fine, by the law, but you can't say that. The response from one of the JAGs in the room was, yeah, but can you imagine how bad it would be if this got out? That's a problem. And that's not a FOIA exemption. That's a problem. Here we are. It got out. Yeah.
It comes back to, again, we don't know full intent yet, but I do know that was the intent, like you said, early on when Admiral Howard was still in command of Warcom. That was his intent was, we're putting this behind us. We know what happened. It's clear. We're going to do our best to preserve this guy's legacy and not talk about all the bad stuff, but we're done. We're moving on.
We also know that somewhere around there is where the SECNAV at the time had said, no, this sounds like victim blaming. I don't like that. That's when it started changing. back to some of the stuff Davis Younce was saying in our last episode here, that's evidence of a problem within a culture that's very similar to whatever you want to call it, DEI, wokeness, whatever.
When you call someone a victim, you're automatically placing them in an oppressor and an oppressive relationship. So now where's the oppressor? If Kyle is the victim, where's the oppressor? We have to have an oppressor. So that begins the hunt. And as you talked about in the last episode, as we all know in the military, if you give the military a mission, we'll get to the end state.
Hopefully we won't compromise ethics to get there, and in this case, that's what happened. The end state is find an oppressor. Thus began the hunt. Jeez. What gets worse, as we're now getting ready for this board of inquiry, we heard through the grapevine, validated, that there was a separate... Bureau of Navy Medicine independent investigation into the medical part of all this.
And we found out that they determined that there was no medical malpractice. That our medical professionals met the standard of care expected of them. No licenses were at risk.
We don't know. That was probably their hope. But we asked for access to that Bumet investigation to fight the charges because one of them was that I failed to provide proper medical oversight. But if my medical professionals met the standard of care, how do you draw that line? They denied us access to the B-Med investigation. It's privileged information. You guys can't have it.
So you inflated a charge against us. You know that there's evidence that vindicates us, and you deny us access to that evidence while you're charging it and moving forward? Even worse, the second charge is that we failed to maintain a safe command, blah, blah, blah, led to Kyle's death. Well, we knew that there was a safety investigation out there. because I was debriefed on it.
Again, the numbers of investigations are ludicrous here. But for the public, the way to describe a safety investigation, it's actually usually one of the most reputable investigations because they come in and say, hey, everyone has anonymity. And there will be absolutely no punitive actions taken by anything the safety investigation finds.
And the goal there is to have everyone tell the complete raw truth and expose where we might have been acting unsafely so we can fix that and not have to worry about getting punished because of it. The air community does this really, really well. Navy pilots have a very good safety standard when it comes to these safety investigations.
So the safety investigation actually got wrapped up before I even left for my next job. And we remember getting debriefed from the investigating officers who said, hey, listen, it's pretty clear what happened here. Nothing that happened was unsafe based off of BTC, TTPs, tactics, techniques, procedures. And none of that was related to Kyle's death. This was a safe command, case closed.
So we said, all right, well, now that you've elevated and said I ran an unsafe command resulting in Kyle's death, we want access to that investigation. Denied.
Yeah. It's how the administrative process, and this is part of the problem with the system, is that they say it's non-punitive, but it really is punitive. Because through that administrative process, you can give me another honorable discharge, all administratively, You can demote me in retirement. Separately administratively, you could take my trident. All administratively.
Those are very punitive things. And you and I both know, and you, having all served active duty, you give someone an other than honorable discharge, you're ruining the rest of their life, potentially. Good luck getting a job. And they can do that administratively. No, no, that's not non-punitive. That's very punitive. And being shy of a court of law or court martial,
they can subvert due process laws because, well, this is non-punitive. So it's a play on words and it allows them to basically hide information that they know would vindicate you because they want to meet their own state objective. I mean, even when this board was happening and we started fighting it and trying to get this access to information, And I was going public with a few outlets.
Showing 61–80 of 303 · page 4 of 16
← Previous
Next →