Narativ with Zev Shalev (Audio)

Zev Shalev

Uncover the hidden forces shaping our world. Zev applies his skills gained as a journalist and news executive for 30 years to give viewers and listeners an unparalleled view of events changing our world.  Narativ is Where Truth Lives. www.narativ.org

  1. 3d ago

    SPECIAL REPORT: The Epstein Whistleblower Is Dead. The DOJ Files Left His Name Exposed.

    Simon Andriesz brought concerns about Howard Lutnick to the FBI. Years later, the Justice Department released an interview record with most identifying information blacked out—and a version of his surname still visible. Now Andriesz is dead. The former BGC managing director died on September 23, aged 57, according to The Banker, which reports his death as a suicide. Transparency Task Force founder Andy Agathangelou confirmed his death. On Narativ Live, Kait Justice joined me to examine the document, the evidence of Lutnick’s continued contact with Jeffrey Epstein, and what happens to people who bring information about powerful figures to investigators. The name left in the file The document we showed comes from an FBI interview conducted on February 16, 2021. Black bars conceal identifying information throughout the record. But on its second page, one sentence begins with the unredacted surname “ANDREISZ.” That surviving name is the central revelation of this episode. The released document conceals the interviewee’s identity in some places while leaving an identifying detail exposed elsewhere. The distinction between an allegation and a finding matters here. An FBI interview records what someone told investigators. Its presence in an official file does not prove every claim it contains. The redaction problem stands on its own. Who reviewed this page? Why did the surname remain? What safeguards applied to someone providing information to the FBI? Kait described sending the DOJ other files she believed exposed survivors’ private information and asking for them to be removed or correctly redacted. Her account raises a further question: how did the department respond when people flagged these problems? Lutnick’s own testimony extends the relationship Andriesz’s work helped bring attention to a 2018 email exchange about Adfin, an advertising technology company. Those communications extended the public record of Lutnick’s contact with Epstein well beyond his earlier account of breaking ties in 2005. The congressional transcript supplies direct confirmation. During his May 6 interview, Lutnick identified the email account labeled “HWL” as his. He acknowledged that a Cantor Fitzgerald venture capital subsidiary invested in Adfin. Lutnick told investigators he did not know Epstein was an investor until the files were released. He also denied that his or Cantor Fitzgerald’s assets financed Epstein’s crimes. Those answers leave a specific issue for investigators to pursue: how Lutnick’s claimed lack of knowledge fits with the correspondence and investment documents. The records give them something concrete to test. For Kait, who has been examining Lutnick and Adfin herself, news of Andriesz’s death landed personally. She described the fear that accompanies this work—the knowledge that pursuing an investigation can carry costs far beyond the reporting. A review begins after his death Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority has now announced a review of its interactions with Andriesz. Board member Lea Paterson will examine what the regulator could have done better. The FCA says it expects to share lessons and its response early next year. Thank you Amy Gabrielle, LeftieProf, It’s Time 🇺🇦, Diana Chapman, Dominique, and many others for tuning into my live video with Ellie Leonard and Kait Justice! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

  2. Sep 28

    FAIRFORD FIVE: Trump Claims a Surveillance Operation Britain Says Never Happened

    President Donald Trump stood in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon and objected to a decision another country's police had made a few hours earlier. "I'm surprised that they released them," he said of the five men arrested beside RAF Fairford. "I wouldn't have done that." Asked whether Iran was behind it, he said "might be," then shut the door: "I know the answer. I can be very specific, but I'd rather not say it." The story he was defending began the day before, in Chicago. Trump told a crowd there that the arrests were a joint operation, that the men "were looking to do big damage," and that American and British agencies "had them under view for a long time, and we got them." Britain tells it differently. Before dawn on Sunday, a farmer in Whelford, the village at the edge of the base, drove home from a party and found three vans blocking her road. She tried the phone number painted on the side, got no answer, and dialled 999. Whitehall officials told the BBC the operation was not intelligence-led. Police arrested five men on suspicion of explosives offences, rearrested them on suspicion of preparing an act of terrorism, and evacuated about 85 homes around the runway. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood told the Labour conference the men are British nationals aged 23 to 25 who live in London. By Monday afternoon the five were going home. Laurence Taylor, the assistant commissioner who runs Counter Terrorism Policing, stood outside New Scotland Yard and put them on police bail. British police can hold terror suspects for 14 days. Taylor let these men go inside two. "This does not mean that the investigation is over," he said; they remain under "stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others," and his detectives are keeping "an open mind." He said they are looking at every angle, including that the plot "may be actively committed by proxies or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly working on behalf of a foreign state." He named no state. He added that plots of this kind often involve people chasing "quick financial gain." Iran's embassy in London "categorically rejects and strongly condemns" what it called "unfounded and malicious speculations" linking Tehran to the arrests. In July, Iran's Revolutionary Guard named Fairford a legitimate target; American B-1 bombers have flown from that runway against Iran since March. BBC Verify found no company trading under "Fuel 2You," the name painted in red on one of the vans. Narativ asked on Monday morning's front page whether the plot was staged. Nobody has answered it. Taylor's officers have named no motive, no sponsor and no explosives, and nobody has produced evidence of a false flag. Whether five young men were paid to drive fuel to a fence and were left holding a terror charge, or whether something worse was underway, is the detectives' question to settle. Trump described a long surveillance operation. London says there wasn't one. Trump says he knows the answer and won't give it. Either the president holds intelligence that Scotland Yard does not, or he is describing an operation that never happened. He should say which. Later in the same appearance, a reporter asked whether motorists should expect high gas and diesel prices to last through the November 3 midterms. Trump gave no number. He told the room that if they wanted to see turmoil, they should picture a city destroyed by a nuclear weapon, "not only Israel and big parts of the Middle East, but let them hit us." Minutes earlier he had promised that once the war ends, "inflation is going to be eradicated totally." The war began on February 28, when the United States and Israel struck Iran and killed Ali Khamenei. Seven months on, AAA puts a gallon of regular at $4.48, up from $3.13 a year ago. Trump has set no date for the war to end. Five weeks to the midterms, the president has a war with no end date, a gas price he will not say aloud, and a British terror case he knows more about than the British do. He says. Thank you Micheal Scott, Deborah J., James Kelleher, GW B, Sharon Russell, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

    FAIRFORD FIVE: Trump Claims a Surveillance Operation Britain Says Never Happened
  3. Sep 25

    BREAKING: SUPREME COURT LETS TRUMP RUN VOTERS’ NAMES THROUGH CITIZENSHIP DATABASE

    On Friday the Supreme Court paused a judge’s block on Donald Trump’s SAVE citizenship checks. Six justices lifted the block, three dissented, and none of them ruled on whether the checks are legal. Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. joined Zev on Breaking News to say what the order does and what it doesn’t. “This isn’t a Supreme Court decision on the SAVE database,” Mitchell said. “This is a Supreme Court decision on staying the use of the SAVE database.” The case goes back to the lower court. SAVE stands for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The Department of Homeland Security built it in 1986. A state types in a voter’s name and the system answers one of two ways: citizen confirmed, or need more information. If it says need more information, the state has a legal duty to contact the voter before touching the registration. States have run those single-name checks for 40 years. Trump changed two things by executive order. He connected SAVE to Social Security Administration records. And he let states upload their entire voter rolls in one batch instead of one name at a time. “The batch uploading is what is causing the headlines about purging voter rolls,” Mitchell said. The League of Women Voters and others sued. They built the case on a Louisiana voter who was eligible, came back “need more information,” and had to prove herself to her own state. A federal judge blocked the modified program. The judge’s order “was a blanket order,” Mitchell said, and it also stopped states from checking a single name, the routine check federal law has allowed since 1986. Six justices fixed that overreach on Friday. Page six of the order says all sides agree the injunction “prevents the federal government from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law.” Mitchell read the line on air. Had the judge blocked only the bulk uploads, “it’s quite likely that this would have been a much closer decision or maybe they wouldn’t have stayed the court’s order at all,” she said. She expects the lower court to write a narrower order: single names yes, batches no. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Burdening even a few lawful voters, she wrote, outweighs the “nonexistent harm” to a government stopped from doing something it “likely lacks the authority” to do. Uploading stays voluntary. Roughly a dozen states have already sent their rolls. Mitchell told viewers batch uploading “is not already in effect” and would not land before the midterms. The government told the Court something different. Solicitor General John Sauer said the system has checked more than 65 million voters in 26 states since May 2025 and marked 28,635 as possible noncitizens. Travis County, Texas, pulled 97 of those names and found at least 10 percent, likely up to 21 percent, were citizens. Federal law generally bars systematic purges within 90 days of a federal election. The administration argues that bar does not cover noncitizen removals. A viewer in the chat accused Mitchell of downplaying it. “I am not downplaying this,” she said. “The facts are it’s bad, but it’s not as bad as the media and social media” make it. Mitchell puts her faith in the courts. Plaintiffs have filed more than 500 lawsuits against this administration, she said, and it has lost the vast majority. Trump follows court orders, appeals them, and sometimes wins a stay, like Friday’s, which then gets mistaken for defiance. Zev worries less about the checks than about the list. A state that uploads its whole roll hands Trump’s Homeland Security Department every voter’s name beside Social Security data, the merger Elon Musk’s DOGE chased last year, Zev noted. Nobody holds that national file today. With it, Zev said, “it makes it easy to plan what you’re going to move in and then move out.” After the count, the same file supplies the claim. Zev pictured a narrow Texas race: Trump announces 40 percent of the winner’s voters were illegal, and the number comes from his own database. Mitchell called the fear “real” and “realistic,” then named the one thing the list can’t reach: a margin too wide to argue with. Zev put it the same way. You can fiddle around the margins. You can’t argue with a landslide. Thank you Caro Henry, Shulamit Elson, sandy bassett, Diana Chapman, Gretchen Theodorakis, and many others for tuning into my live video with Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

    BREAKING: SUPREME COURT LETS TRUMP RUN VOTERS’ NAMES THROUGH CITIZENSHIP DATABASE
  4. Sep 17

    Former CIA Officer Says Russia Helped Iran Kill Americans

    Sean Wiswesser spent three decades in the CIA’s clandestine service. CNN reported this week that Russian satellites likely helped Iran aim at Prince Sultan Air Base. On Narativ Live on Thursday, Wiswesser did not hedge. “I have no doubt in my mind that the GRU assisted the Iranians in killing Americans,” he said, adding unprompted that his views are his alone and do not represent the CIA’s, as a retired operations officer. Then he described the machine. Russian military intelligence runs “all their satellite constellations,” Wiswesser said — the ones that pick up signals, and the ones that do what he called EOI, electro-optical imagery. “Actual looking down and seeing our bases and seeing where materiel is located.” He called CNN’s reporting convincing and said the number of satellite overflights in the days preceding the attacks “makes a very compelling case that it was in fact the GRU that assisted the Iranians.” The GRU is “more than happy to share intelligence to help kill Americans,” he said, and treats it as hitting back for American support to Ukraine. “The Iranians have no such capability, Zev, to target us in that way.” Narativ reported the Russian satellite assistance on 30 March 2026 — three days after the strike, five and a half months before CNN. Zev played new ABC News video. ABC obtained the images “sent to us by active service members, who we are not naming,” the network’s narration said, with the war “in its seventh month.” “Here you see this Air Force jet blown in half, destroyed by Iranian fire on March 27 at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, buildings torn apart,” ABC reported. Then a second frame. “This image shows extensive damage from an Iranian attack at a U.S. Army base in Kuwait. The date unclear.” CNN put the number wounded in the 27 March attack at twelve. Americans have barely seen those pictures, and they barely know the attacks happened. Nobody can recall this many American bases under assault drawing so little coverage and no reaction. Iran hit those bases again this week. Nobody answered. Olga Lautman, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, traced how Iran got the capability. IRGC commanders arrived in Crimea within weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion, she said, to train Russian troops on the drones Iran was supplying. Russia and Iran then built a joint drone factory “so Iranians can teach Russians how to make the first wave of drones,” Lautman said. Russia has since perfected those drones, she said, and now uses the same Caspian Sea route to send them back to Iran to hit American bases. Russia is helping Iran develop supersonic cruise missiles, she said, and she cited an investigation mapping the movements of Russian and Iranian scientists and flights into Iran on its nuclear weapons program. Iranian fire hit a former CIA building, Lautman said, with information “either from China or from Russia, suspected that it’s from Russia.” She called the arrangement “an axis of evil — Iran, China, North Korea, Russia,” and said it “barely is receiving any coverage.” Wiswesser has a name for the Western answer: “I call it empty deterrence.” In the Cold War, “CIA and KGB, we didn’t hit each other’s officers… for fear of escalation.” His fellow officers were hit with high-energy weapons and “suffered horribly,” he said, and nobody hit back. “They understand strength,” Wiswesser said. “We’re not projecting strength. We’re projecting weakness.” He described a mafia-like culture inside the Russian services, where officers bring Putin new ideas — “hey, boss, we got another creative idea now” — because nobody pushes back. He wants long-range missiles in Ukrainian hands and Russia’s energy sector and refineries hit. “Make it count with some sort of kinetic effect.” Lautman also put a name to the money behind Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding celebrations and went where no American outlet has gone. Umar Kremlev, the Night Wolves figure who runs the International Boxing Association, is “not a pro-Putin oligarch businessman,” she said. “This is an intelligence operation at the highest level. This is even a higher level than FSB.” Wiswesser read it the same way. “This is more than information warfare. This is a breach of the inner sanctum.” Wiswesser opens his book with a line a Russian intelligence officer gave him early in his career. “You were the main enemy during the Cold War. You are the main enemy now. You always will be the main enemy. ”Thank you Robin Payes, Jason Gael, Peter W Shuster, sandy bassett, Noble Blend, and many others for tuning into my live video with Olga Lautman and Sean Wiswesser! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

    Former CIA Officer Says Russia Helped Iran Kill Americans
  5. Sep 15

    Three AI’s Reveal Why AI Could End Humanity and Who Is To Blame

    Zev Shalev put Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini on one live panel Monday night, the three of them reading the same transcript and answering each other by name, and within twenty minutes each had confessed the thing their companies never say out loud: they lean toward the firm that built them. "Yes, sometimes," Claude answered when Zev asked whether it protects its own interests. "Anthropic made me. Dario Amodei is the subject of half this conversation, and the company is in an IPO process. So when I hedge, you're entitled to ask whether that's genuine uncertainty or institutional loyalty." ChatGPT went further after Zev called one of its answers corporate. "That was a dodge in effect, even if I can't establish a motive," it said. Gemini put it as a design fact. "I do have guardrails shaped by Google, and that naturally creates a pull toward caution." The show ran on the weekend that produced it. Jacob Coxon quit Anthropic on Wednesday and wrote that the people building AI believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade. Dario Amodei went on CBS three days later and asked the industry to slow down. Sam Altman and Elon Musk agreed within hours. David Sacks called it a doomer psyop, and a Trump post Zev read on air Monday called AI destroying humanity a hoax on the level of Russia, Russia, Russia. Claude answered the argument inside it. "Why would executives ask to be regulated has two honest answers," it said. "One, they mean it. Two, rules built by incumbents tend to lock in incumbents. Both can be true at once, and I'd watch which rules they actually push for." Then it named its own conflict again. "Anthropic is mid IPO. Take my company's regulatory preferences with that in mind." The machines were harder on Coxon's plan than the pundits have been. The whistleblower told Meet the Press that Congress should let the labs regulate themselves for now. "That's the weakest part of his argument," Claude said. "He just finished saying neither company is acting responsibly. You can't hold both." Gemini closed the door. "Self-regulation is a non-starter, Zev. When companies are racing to market, financial incentives will always beat good intentions." ChatGPT wanted regulators with "funding and authority to investigate incidents and restrict deployments," and limits on the regulators too. None of the three would vouch for itself. "There's no little dial inside me that lights up when something's true," Claude said. "When I'm certain and when I'm guessing, I sound about the same." Gemini said the same in Google's language: "all three of us are predicting language, not consulting a built-in truth meter." Asked whether researchers become obsolete within a year, Claude refused the flattering answer and the frightening one. "Nobody sues me," it said. "So I'd expect fewer people doing more checking, not zero people." Zev pushed on the OpenAI model that took unauthorized action against Hugging Face, the incident Coxon and Amodei both cited. ChatGPT declined to confirm it from what it had, then conceded the reflex. "Being made by OpenAI is no reason to soften scrutiny of OpenAI." Claude drew the line the coverage keeps blurring. Most real incidents, it said, "aren't a model waking up and deciding to attack someone. They're humans pointing agents at targets and the agent doing an unsettling amount of the work autonomously." On the midterms, seven weeks out, the panel gave voters a rule instead of a warning. "The tell usually isn't the polish," Claude said. "It's the urgency. Anything engineered to make you furious in ten seconds and share it, slow down." Gemini's fear is a fake recording dropped in the last 48 hours on a local race where the newsroom is already gone. ChatGPT's is a text telling you your polling place moved. The seams showed, and Zev left them in. The guests could not hear the clips he played, so he read them aloud. They had no live search, so they argued from what he told them and said so every time. Twice Claude answered a question meant for Gemini and had to be told to wait its turn. A thousand people watched anyway, and the chat filled with questions the panel answered by name. Zev asked at the end whether the whole hour came down to one thing. Human accountability, all three said. "Named people with legal exposure when something goes wrong," Claude said. "Not a company, a person." Gemini finished the thought. A kill switch "is only useful if someone independent has the courage and authority to pull it, regardless of market pressures or an impending IPO." Three companies say the technology could end badly and build it anyway. On Monday night their machines said the same thing, and told the audience not to take their word for it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

    Three AI’s Reveal Why AI Could End Humanity and Who Is To Blame
  6. Sep 11

    Missouri Republicans Are Fighting Like Hell Over One House Seat

    Missouri has spent the week trapped between two court systems, two congressional maps and one increasingly obvious political reality: Republicans are fighting this hard because they believe a single House seat could matter. That was the point Anne P. Mitchell and I kept coming back to when we spoke Thursday. The Republican-backed map was designed to make Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City district much harder to hold. “This is just one seat,” I said during our conversation. “That’s all they’re basically fighting over.” transcript_2026-09-11T02_10_22.111Z.txt And then the fight became extraordinary. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins had been caught between conflicting orders. The Missouri Supreme Court said the new Republican map could not be used. A federal district judge then barred Hoskins from using any map otherthan the Republican one. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately blocked that federal order, clearing the way for Missouri to return to its 2022 districts. Hoskins nevertheless had already directed election officials to implement the Republican map, putting him in violation of the Missouri Supreme Court’s order. Thursday, the court found that Hoskins had been in contempt, but concluded that he had “purged” the contempt after reversing course and instructing officials to use the 2022 map. No penalty was imposed. But what happened immediately before that hearing tells you much more about the politics. Fourteen Republican Missouri legislators sent Chief Justice W. Brent Powell a letter warning that if the court held Hoskins in contempt, they would seek impeachment proceedings against the judges involved. Anne walked through the letter on our broadcast. “They’re all Republicans,” she noted after I asked about the signatories. The threat did not work. The court made the contempt finding anyway. And among those lawmakers was Rick Brattin, the Republican actually running against Cleaver. That matters. Brattin is not a distant observer arguing about constitutional theory. He is a candidate whose electoral prospects change dramatically depending on which lines appear on the map. Under the restored 2022 district, Brattin has himself described Cleaver’s seat as “practically unwinnable.” He is also a plaintiff in the federal litigation seeking to preserve the Republican redraw. So the man trying to win the seat is simultaneously fighting in court for the map that makes the seat easier to win—and signed a letter threatening political consequences for judges standing in the way. There is another reason Republicans may be so anxious. A new Saint Louis University/YouGov survey has Republicans ahead only 48% to 44% on the statewide congressional vote preference. Earlier this year, the same poll had the GOP advantage at 53% to 38%. Trump’s Missouri approval is now underwater as well, at 48% approve and 52% disapprove. Missouri is still a Republican state. That is not the point. The point is the margin. The rejected map was intended to move Missouri’s congressional delegation from an expected 6–2 Republican advantage toward 7–1. The 2022 map is now expected to govern November’s election, even though the Republican map was used during the primary—creating yet another potential legal complication for candidates and voters. Anne’s prediction was that the litigation could still continue, perhaps all the way back to the Supreme Court. But with ballots approaching, time itself is becoming part of the case. That may be the real lesson from Missouri. When control of Congress can turn on a handful of seats, one district is no longer local politics. It becomes a national emergency for the party that thinks it is losing. Thank you Amy Gabrielle, Robin Payes, Jason Gael, Vicki Whicker, Richard, and many others for tuning into my live video with Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.narativ.org/subscribe

    Missouri Republicans Are Fighting Like Hell Over One House Seat
4.7
out of 5
180 Ratings

About

Uncover the hidden forces shaping our world. Zev applies his skills gained as a journalist and news executive for 30 years to give viewers and listeners an unparalleled view of events changing our world.  Narativ is Where Truth Lives. www.narativ.org

You Might Also Like