CIA Director James Woolsey Runs Away

[evelsteev]

Was this filmed in the U.S.? I thought it was North Korea.

[tplesco]

Ending an interview with an obnoxious person that interrupts you is not "running away". I'd walk out on you, too. That's not denial - it's respecting one's time for productive efforts rather than entertaining a fool.

[agent008t]

They seem to have forgotten that THEY WORK FOR US!

[DrPhallus]

I love what Jan is doing.

[janhelfeld]

Watch the other video clips for the questions and full context. There is no editing, just the truth. Any way, he said my questions had not been unfair.

[TheCharles3669]

What edited garbage. How about you let us hear the questions too? You cut off your "brilliant" questions which were probably offensive and stupid and just show us their reactions. You are a horseshit artist.

[MrCommiehater]

I love at 1:45 franks mic is just too complicated for him.

[gtrjeff1]

Respond to this video...  this vidio shows me nothing. theirs no contex.you people are idiots.

[dchamberss]

oink oink, look at those fat pigs at the end... oink.

[mikeandlaurie1979]

At this point, I have not seen an interview where jan deserves any recognition

[Ciaresayton]

Woosley has some of the finest Reptilian ears I have ever seen.

[321lawc]

Woolsey ran away from the UFO problem too.

But the interviewer is a fucking idiot.

[HawgNSonsTV]

Jan.. I find you VERY intellectually stimulating!

[rickelmonoggin]

At the begining Mr Helfield states "..another way they try to avoid facts and the flaws in their reasoning is by running away or breaking up the interview.."

Firstly, no-one actually 'runs' in these videos.Secondly, I'd like someone to explain how not wishing to speak to Jan equates with a flaw in your reasoning.

[Valetudo21]

Not wishing to speak to an interviewer often means that person does not want to be on record with an answer to a question. Whether that answer incriminates the interviewee or states their opinion is left up to the viewer to decide.

[rickelmonoggin]

It might mean that. It might mean something else entirely. However Jan asserts, without any evidence whatsoever, that it means their reasoning is 'flawed'.

[niffweed17]

i would not have given him half this much time.

[janhelfeld]

You had to be there. He was IN SUCH a rush he did not even let us take of his mic. Yes he ran.

[rickelmonoggin]

I don't have to have been there because you showed us that-and he certainly isn't running in your video. It's not surprising that the interviewees in your videos get annoyed and leave because the line of questioning isn't about what they believe, but simply about trying to force words into their mouths.

It's the height of dishonesty to talk about 'principle' when your real aim is simply to irritate people until they leave the interview and then pretend that that someone proves anything.

[SirMildredPierce]

"your real aim is simply to irritate people until they leave the interview..."

Wait, seriously, you think he's just doing it to annoy people?

Why is it so out there to ask our elected officials to pin down what those central principals are that drives the decisions they make when it comes to public policy?

Either those who haven't given it much thought or worse those who have really have no principals would be unable to answer... Neither type of person should be making public policy.

[rickelmonoggin]

"Wait, seriously, you think he's just doing it to annoy people?"

In this video, Jan says right at the start that the act of leaving one of his interviews or "running away" as he puts it, is indicative of him winning the argument. If that's your definition of 'success', then clearly that is what you will set out to do from the start.

I will remind you, that these people did agree to be interviewed to start with. They have every right to leave without their actions being misconstrued.

[mindlessminion321]

Your conclusion is not supported by the facts you list. These people agreed to be interviewed, agreeing to answer the questions of the interviewer. Jan did not ask a question with no answer. Quite the opposite, "No, we do not have general principles on the matter," would have been both truthful and a direct answer. By his refusal to respond to any point, and resorting instead to ad hominem attacks, where you to consider this an argument with a winner, how could it possibly be Woolsey?

[rickelmonoggin]

Actually, when you agree to be interviewed you don't give up your basic rights to freedom of speech, which includes the right not to answer a question if you don't like it-if you think it's not a fair question, if you feel you have already answered it-or for whatever reason. Nor do you give up the right to leave if you so wish.

In the introduction Jan infers that the act of refusing to answer his questions proves him right-so he intentionally sets out to provoke people to do this.

[mindlessminion321]

You're confusing liter rights with what is reasonable in the context of an interview/argument. For example, Woolsey also had the "right" to show up wearing a dress, but that wouldn't make any sense in the context of the interview. Similarly, accepting an interview in which you will be answering questions then refusing to answer any is nonsensical.

Before you can claim that Jan has purposefully provoked this person, you would have to show that the question had no other value. Good luck with that

[Lyndon1947]

Infer or imply? There is a difference.

[SirMildredPierce]

"when you agree to be interviewed you don't give up your basic rights to freedom of speech, which includes the right not to answer a question if you don't like it-if you think it's not a fair question"

And when you take on the responsibility of being a public servant (especially those who are not elected, but rather appointed like Mr. Woolsey) you have a moral obligation to be transparent with your motives to those you serve. Of course he doesn't give up his right to free speech.

[SirMildredPierce]

"I will remind you, that these people did agree to be interviewed to start with. They have every right to leave without their actions being misconstrued."

I agree that they have every right to quit the interview anytime they want, but there is no reason why they should not be questioned or judged for doing so.

It looked like running away to me, both literally (I mean he practically yanked the microphone out) and figuratively, for they will run away from anyone who dares question them.

[rickelmonoggin]

You can infer what you like, but you're making leaps of reasoning for which the facts don't support you.

If Mr Helfield insists on not treating his guests with basic courtesy, all that will happen is that people will eventually refuse to be interviewed by him.

[SirMildredPierce]

"Jan says right at the start that the act of leaving one of his interviews... is indicative of him winning the argument."

Uh you are putting words in his mouth. What exactly did he say that you interpreted as him claiming he "won the argument"?

"If that's your definition of 'success'"

I would suspect Jan's definition of success is to get on record exactly what these people believe and what those central principals (if any) that they follow are. But I'll leave it up to Jan to clarify that.

[Lyndon1947]

Philisophical bankruptcy preceeds all other forms in any society which is why the looters began 100 + years ago to bankrupt this country phiosophically via Prussian style compulsory government (taxpayer victim funded) education. The most offensive thing anyone could do would be to ask these moral amoeba about a principle.

[rickelmonoggin]

I think it's very rude to say an interviewee is 'running away', when they politely tell you that that their time with you is up. Mr Hedfeld talks about 'principle', but actually relies on some very cheap dramatic tricks to make his point, such as showing his interviewee leaving the interview as if to suggest that this somehow infers 'guilt'.

[WarVideo]

Yeah, the guilt they have is the ultimate sin, the sin of not thinking.

[anakin005]

exposing these scum for what they area

[medliberty]

These guys are OK in a situation where they get the questions in advance and therefore have as much time as they want to rehearse answers knowing that there wont be any followup questions to absurd or evasive answers. However, when they face Jan, the Man, things turn badly quickly.

[whoo689]

Woolsey and Gaffney are neocon douchebags. I can't believe Gaffney was in Reagan's administration. Reagan was NOT a neocon by any means.

[BodyHeadBanger]

He was going to steal his mic! Thief!

[PVTSolis]

What up with this wannabe Borat?

[australiamatters]

The first 4 DCI's were all wall street bankers.

Jan, you're now on the red list for FEMA pick ups.

[chaseantarctica]

and we pay these people!

[janhelfeld]

Agreed.

[kevindanielbrown]

The most obvious sign that a person doubts there own positions is the refusal to answer questions. The refusal to answer questions is also an admission of guilt. Politicians doing what they do best...

[CurtHowland]

At least the last politician was polite about it.

[RomeoIsaacRocche]

annoyin muthafuker

bitch if u were cia u wouldnt say shit no one would

[mrgrieves9876]

those cowards

[rsimpson69]

Annoying interviewer? I guess being nailed on tape would be rather annoying.

Politicians are so used to being fluffed and fawned over everywhere they go that they've forgotten how to handle real-world criticism.

These professional speakers can only talk on tape if they're allowed to parrot the lines that have been written to make them sound intelligent and compassionate. Any diversion from the script could mean their exposure as liars and fools.

I wish every interviewer was this good.

[CurtHowland]

He's asking questions and then doing what no one else does, he's following up on the answers!

[zaboomafroo]

If the mainstream press had Jan's guts, politicians would give no interviews.

[leafwatch]

If the mainstream press had Jan's guts, the politicians would be out on their asses.

[ingenious11]

Even though these politicians are all lying bastards, Jan Helfeld is also a really annoying interviewer. If he asked me questions and then repeatedly interrupted me and asked them over and over again, I would probably walk away too.

[CorrosionX3]

If you were trying to squeal around and not face the facts that you are part of a violent institution and you're getting nailed over it, I bet you'd be pretty annoyed.

[Nexus974]

This is increadible!

I doubt Jan will be granted any more interviews on Capitol Hill.