LUNA on Epstein Files: "I think this is going criminal investigation, for sure." | Ep 644 - The Kyle Seraphin Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:12):
Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistleblower, an
American patriot. Prepare to embrace the
uncomfortable truth, because this program has no time for
comforting lies. Here is civil liberties
enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI
agent Kyle Seraphin. My friends, welcome to the Kyle

(00:40):
Serif and Show today is it's Wednesday and September the 3rd
and thanks so much for joining me this morning or this
afternoon whenever you guys are joining on yesterday or I guess
last week was interesting. This week is going to be
interesting as well. In addition to having the
girlfriend of the FBI director seem to have some issues with
this program, I've now been ableto find out what James O'Keefe

(01:04):
intended to do with the deposition that made me skip our
show on July the 29th. He wanted to clip out about 20
something seconds so that peoplewould understand that I don't
talk dirty to my wife in a lawsuit about him being sued for
breach of contract with his company that he worked for and

(01:26):
he countersued them for something about them hurting his
feelings and finances. I'm not a party to the lawsuit.
It's the dumbest thing you've ever seen.
And so part of it was his attorneys, who, by the way, are
from Children's Law. That's the same guy, Jeff
Childers, who runs Coffee and COVID, who I don't have any beef
with. But his attorneys, especially
the ones that work for James O'Keefe, are just pieces of

(01:48):
shit. They're just shitty people.
And this guy was garbage. So he sat out there and they did
this like what they thought was a gotcha question.
Do I respect my, my spouse? If you guys have seen this on,
on the Internet, if you've seen it out on X, this is the, the
push. And by the way, donate to, to
James O'keefe's legal fund so that he can ask people who are
not working for the government questions.

(02:08):
You know what they didn't put into that?
That deposition, of course, I have a, a full copy of it.
The thing he didn't put in the the deposition is they said, did
you, did you offer to fight withJames O'Keefe?
And I said, yeah, I did, you know, in a boxing ring, maybe we
could raise some money for charity.
So if any of you want to go ahead and encourage that, I
would very much enjoy it. I have a zero and zero and zero

(02:29):
professional and amateur boxing record.
No, no organized boxing experience whatsoever.
And I'm willing to get in the ring with them.
And then they wanted to go out and point out my height, my
weight and my reach. And I said, look, yeah, James
O'Keefe has about 7 inches on mefor height probably.
And I'm sure he has reach on me.And he's got about 40 something
pounds on me and weight and I'm still willing to go in there.

(02:51):
And the odds are is that he willfind himself badly beaten,
really badly beaten. He's a wimp.
He's always been a wimp. I found something kind of in
common with the people that really have a big problem with
me. They're unmarried and they're
spousal. Maybe if they had children in
their lives and something to take that, that energy that they
have or whatever it is, they canmake like, you know, do the
thing that I do like 10:00 at night, I have to get out of bed

(03:13):
and go and put my my kid on the toilet so that he pees, so he
doesn't pee in his bed, you know, like dad stuff.
Maybe if they had something to focus on outside of that, they'd
be able to go. We've got a bunch of other
interesting things to do, but itis not unrelated to what I just
talked about. And if you guys recall, I've
actually pulled this back up again.
We talked about this on a Friendly Friday, this discussion

(03:33):
of Plato's Republic and Socratesand the metaphor of the drones,
A parasitic class of citizens who basically run around
unchecked and they manipulate people politically.
It's something to consider. We did this on one of our last
Friendly Fridays before we lost a friend to the FBI.
Again, just for those of you whoare wondering, those guys have
not been reinstated. My friends in the Bureau, I
said, hey, I look for them on the link chat and they're not

(03:55):
available. Nope, they haven't been
reinstated yet. They're just waiting.
They're waiting to be contacted by the FBI.
So Director Patel, your HR people are slow, incompetent, as
you'd expect, and they haven't been paid that back pay, which
is all they got. There's no damages.
No, the settlement included no damages.
It was simply just saying we're going to give you the money that
we should have paid you in the 1st place because we should have

(04:16):
never gotten rid of you. And they're taking their time to
get to that. So you guys know all that stuff
now. And I think that's relevant to,
I don't know, the broader discussion of our, our
conversation. We're going to get into actors,
bad theater. We're going to get into Epstein
files re release because why not?
That's where we're at today. And that includes some of the
bad actors, I guess, Jeffrey, not Jeffrey.

(04:37):
Jerry Nadler, the the Midget Penguin guy from New York is no
longer going to be hanging around in the powers of hall so
or the halls of power. That's why I got a video of
that. You're not going to actually, if
you've never seen Jerry Nadler in person, if you've never seen
him on video, have maybe the funniest video that has ever
been taken of any sitting, standing unstooled congressman.

(05:01):
You guys will understand what I'm talking about just a second
before we get into the depth of the program, of which there's
plenty. We'll talk about something
called emergency or national Emergency Preparedness Month.
If you guys want to get yourselfsquared away, check out my
friends over at my Patriot Supply.
They're the folks that we use. This is the food stuff that we
have stuffed underneath our closet that goes underneath the
stairwell. It's National preparedness Month

(05:24):
in September. We have just begun.
And so that's obviously a perfect time to ask yourself
some questions like, hey, how much food do we have for an
emergency? What if something were to
happen? How would we get clean water if
the tap went dry tomorrow, If suddenly everything was turned
off? What would you do if the storm
knocked out power for let's say a week?
Would you be OK? Would everything spoil?
Would you need critical medicines?
Is there room for improvement inany of your preparations?

(05:45):
And if so, you guys can check out my friends over at my
Patriot Supply. They're running this month long
sale in order to help you get ready.
Disaster preparedness is something we always talk about
here. You the prepare attitude, the
mentality of getting things donebefore the emergency so you
don't have to repair afterwards.It always cost you far more
after the fact. They're going to give you $1500
worth of emergency food and preparedness for free.

(06:07):
You guys can buy a one year pack.
So you can basically say no matter what happens, I can load
this up up in a truck, I can load this up in my van, I can
load this up in my car and I could be mobile and moving
around and I can feed myself, which is one of the biggest
things you're going to worry about in a survival scenario.
It's air, it's water, and right after that comes food and
shelter. All right, so check yourselves
out there. Check out their preparedness

(06:29):
mega kit if you guys want to look into that.
They free, it's a full year of food and they're going to give
you a bunch of stuff in there for free water filtration also
in there. Just look and make sure that you
have your bases covered. Many of you are already
preparedness minded, but for those of you that have been
putting it off, don't do it. You guys saw what happened
during COVID. There were lines of people
waiting for toilet paper and eggs and a bunch of other
things. mypatriotsupply.com/kyle.

(06:49):
mypatriotsupply.com/kyle. The full details are below and
you guys can click on that link in the show description.
We're going to get into today's program.
We're going to start off a little bit of fun, I promise
you. So I am going to start with fun

(07:10):
and this is the fun that I have.This is Representative Jerry
Nadler. He will not be seeking re
election in 2026. I didn't look up how old Jerry
Nadler is and I feel like I should probably do that.
We'll we'll take a risk of asking the AI how old this guy
is. What do you think?
78 years old. So it's probably about time for
him to go. And also he is, I think he's 5

(07:35):
foot tall. He might be smaller.
I've seen him stand on the street next to next to Austin
Fleckis. If you guys have never seen
Fleckis Talks, one of my wife's favorite shows was one of my
guys that kind of got me throughthe pandemic nonsense when he
was going out and asking people questions with a microphone
taped to a wooden spoon and had the the proper amount of sort of
disrespect for the the thing that he was doing.

(07:55):
But I didn't know how short he was, how small he was, how weird
looking. He waddles when he walks and
here he is giving some sort of speech about something, but he's
behind the podium. If you guys are looking, what
you're seeing is Dan Goldman on the screen because Jerry
Nadler's forehead is only visible and it's covered by a
microphone. I kid you not.
But these people are wearing masks and are and are and are

(08:17):
totally unidentified. And the question is why?
The question is why? It's completely improper.
And again, one has to assume they're hiding something or
they're hiding misbehavior because otherwise, why would
they be wearing masks and denying their identities?
Oh, they're hiding their identity.
This is talking about ICE agentswho are involved in
deportations. This is talking about people

(08:37):
that are involved in Washington,DC.
And maybe the reason that they want to do some of that hiding
is because there's a targeted effect of lunatic leftist doxing
their families coming after them.
Personally, being in that hot seat, I know exactly what it's
about. I'm not.
I'm not a big fan of having people come after me.
That being said, if you're a federal agent and you serve the

(08:58):
public, I'm not real crazy aboutyou wearing a mask either.
So I understand the instinct to do it.
And there's probably no regulation against it.
And we certainly can see the hypocrisy because we've watched
people on the left do this for several years now, going back at
least to 2020. Somehow everything about COVID
changed the way that our our normal social social decorum
works. I can't think of a single
person, maybe one person who hadcancer when I was growing up

(09:20):
that would wear a mask if they were, you know, like immune
compromised. But generally speaking, if
you're immune compromised, you just stay home.
You don't expose yourself. Now you'll see people that are
in your church, that are in yourgrocery store, that are walking
around in public on the streets like a complete lunatic, like
wearing a face mask. And you just think what's wrong
with you? I thought the same thing, by the
way, when everybody was wearing them.
And I think the same thing todayand now.

(09:41):
But they're really upset becauseGod forbid the ICE agents are
going to do it. Jerry Nadler was the long time
Democratic Rep from New York. He said he's not going to seek
re election. Said it yesterday.
And he says for more than 32 years, I've had the honor of
serving the people of New York in the United States Congress.
I'm announcing I won't be seeking re election next year
and this term will be my last. This decision has not been easy.

(10:02):
Why? Why was it not easy?
You're 78 years old. You're like like a devastated
carcass of a human being that barely can move around.
I know my heart's in the right place with this one.
It's time to pass the torch to the next generation.
Now, that time actually happenedprobably like 15 years ago, but
you stuck around anyway. So there you go.
He's going to be gone kind of fun.
And you'll notice he was worriedabout health, and he's worried

(10:24):
about whether these people are doing the right thing in public.
I guess that's also been something that Jensaki is
particularly worried about. There's been this ongoing
question, was Donald Trump dead?Did you guys know about this?
If you don't follow leftist media, you wouldn't realize that
there was a trending topic over social media.
Donald Trump wasn't seen for a couple days, apparently.
I feel like we see him as much as anybody.

(10:47):
He was supposedly dead. And so Jen Psaki got out there
and decided to to talk about it.But that's not it.
The NBC also ran a full piece onthis.
Trump, who questioned his opponent's health, rebuffed
rumors about his own. And they're honing in on a
picture of a bruise on the top of his right hand, which could
be a bruise. It also could be a liver spot,

(11:07):
which is a thing that people getat a certain age, start melanin
production. It may or may not be something
that matters. Generally speaking, you'll see
plenty of people over a certain age that start developing
certain patches of skin that aredarker than others and we just
kind of move on. Maybe it's a bruise though.
Maybe they drew blood from his hand.
Maybe he bumped it into something.
The older you get, the less elastic your blood vessels tend

(11:28):
to be. So a little bit of a contusion
is not totally out of out of range there.
Who knows, maybe he was beating his first against the wall
'cause he was furious with the stupidity of his country.
I don't know and you don't know,but he seems to be OK.
That doesn't stop Jensaki from talking about it.
We'll go into the quote, UN quote conspiracy in just a
second from this article. But let's hear this woman.
For some reason, when I keep pulling these video clips, the

(11:48):
audio and the video gets out of sync on some of them.
And it's probably no more appropriate than watching this
woman's face move without the right words.
Here's Jensaki on MSNBC responding to her very big
concerns about the health of thepresident.
This is the former White House spokesperson for Joe Biden.
Really can't make this stuff up sometimes.
And look, we may never know why Donald Trump's suddenly spent a

(12:09):
week hiding entirely from the American public.
But you don't actually need baseless online conspiracies to
explain why he might not want toshow his face in public right
now. I mean, for starter, yeah, he
doesn't want to show his face inpublic right now, even though he
shows his face in public all thetime.
And he was seeing golfing. He was seeing golfing on Labor

(12:30):
Day and he was maybe 15 minutes away from the White House by
helicopter. And all of that was very, very
concerning. That was his 21st day playing
golf this year. And again, within spitting
distance of the White House whenit comes to being able to jump
into a helicopter. But that was that was a a big,
big concern. And then of course, they had to

(12:51):
cover it over on CNN as well. This is kind of funny because it
pivots over to Tim Walz. Let me see if I can read any
more of this conspiracy theory. People were asking, is he OK,
how's he feeling, What's wrong? He says I was very active this
Labor Day, including golf outings at his club in Northern
Virginia and repeated posts on social media, which we haven't
seen any lack of those. And they seem to be very Trump
like, including things that I don't think are great.

(13:13):
He seems to be a victim of his own ubiquity.
He's in front of the camera so often that when he's not, people
notice and they leap to conclusions that he's I'll.
This is really serious news reporting, folks.
We're now now reporting on the feelings of what people do on
online social media conspiracieswith trending topics like Trump
dead. Meanwhile, as my buddy Steve

(13:35):
friend likes to describe him that we had a human Roomba.
If you've ever not seen a Roomba, if you're not familiar
with sort of like the the the vacuum systems that people can
have, maybe you've never bought 1.
I I can understand that. We had one for a little while,
they just sort of aimlessly bumpinto things, especially the
generation 1 and 2. They would just drive straight
in the direction and then they would hit something and then
they would turn pivot like 30° and they hit something and they

(13:57):
turn and pivot. And that's pretty much what we
expected and saw from Joe Biden for four years.
He would get up on stages. He wouldn't know where he was.
He would start sentences and then he wouldn't finish them.
A lot like a Roomba. The Roomba will like bump into
something and then it'll just suddenly do like a 360 and drive
off in the other direction. You know, that was that was our
president for four years and non-stop we were told by that

(14:19):
woman who was questioning whether or not Donald Trump was
OK or alive like that he was a superhero.
That behind the scenes he was doing backflips that he would do
gymnastics, dunk a basketball and then drink a latte while he
was like shit talking all the people in the in the in the
office because he was such a stud.
They could barely keep up with him.
He was so awesome. Kind of that vibe of a Ruth

(14:40):
Bader Ginsburg. You remember that her workout is
so intense, even though she's a 78 pound 1000 year old lady.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have fit like in my backpack and I
could have jogged with her, but she was so powerful that a 20
something year old reporter couldn't keep up with her in the
gym. You're like, why do you have to
do this? And all of that goes back to
these drones that I talked about.

(15:02):
When you start enforcing tyranny, we need to have this
like hero system. We did the same thing with the
Trump administration. They came in, they were like,
it's like The Avengers popping in.
I did an interview yesterday andI was reminded of that.
You know, it's RFK Junior, it's Tulsi Gabbard, right, Pam Bondi,
Cash Patel stepping in, getting justice for America.

(15:22):
No, these people are people and they don't always do a great job
and they certainly don't agree with everything that you would
say. And they're certainly not the
perfect representation for you. But there are obviously worse
people and there were obviously worse people.
And it's always, I think, I think there was this question
about, you know, how do you compare them?
You just have to look at the alternative, right?

(15:43):
It doesn't have to be perfect. It was better.
So you don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Sure. It sounds like people that are
working on CNN, specifically guys like Scott Jennings, who
sort of seems to be carrying their programs.
I think he's getting sick of it.So now they're going to start
dropping profanities. I do remember a time when we
were a decent society and you couldn't drop a profanity on
network television. I guess we'll be on that now

(16:04):
because there's Netflix and everything's out there.
Everybody expects koboko language.
Look, I swear all the time in myreal life, way more than I
should. I should be much better about
it. In fact, I'm regularly reminded
when I talk to people that don'tswear that I was an enlisted guy
who worked in emergency medicineand I've got something of a
mouth on me. That's just the nature of who I
am now. And I and I, I don't spend

(16:26):
enough time working on it, and Iprobably should.
I still think you could do better.
I don't drop, I don't drop swearwords when I go on network
television. So maybe, maybe this is just a
too colloquial at this point in time.
Here's Scott Jennings. He's not wrong because Tim Waltz
is garbage. And again, that was the
alternative. Remember, Donald Trump has a
bruise on his hand. Joe Biden didn't know where he

(16:48):
was. You had an opportunity to ask
the president. Today about this.
And you did not Why? Because when he got on the phone
and sounded very much alive, I thought it would sound kind of
stupid, frankly, to an Alaskan alive person if they were dead.
But I'll tell you who is a complete piece of shit.
I'm going to tell you right now,there have been a lot of swear
words. Tim Walz, the former the

(17:08):
governor of Minnesota, holding up a phone in front of a rally
saying, well, we thought we weregoing to wake up and find out
the president had died. Someday it'll happen.
Someday it'll happen. Although I will say this, the
last few days you woke up thinking there might be news.
Just saying. Just saying there will be news
sometime. Just so you know, there will be
news. And I used to say it was the

(17:29):
biggest buffoon in American politics, but it's worse now.
There's a lot of buffoons in American politics.
They're on both sides of the aisles.
We're going to be talking about some from both sides of the
aisles today, including my favorite cocktail waitress
turned congresswoman. But Tim Waltz is a uniquely
garbage human being, and he's decided to do the thing that

(17:50):
almost all Democrats do, which is that when you have a tragedy
that involves a gun in your state, then the best thing you
could do is go out there inside it, try to blame the gun, not
the person, not the mental illness, not the potential
hormonal treatments they're getting, not the SSR is not bad
parenting, not video games, not whatever it is.
I don't know what it is. Neither do you.
You don't have a, you don't havea a specific cause of action.

(18:12):
But I know it wasn't a gun because the gun has no agency.
The gun is an inanimate object. There are guns sitting in this
studio right now. I will point to one on the
screen. Boop right over there.
Benelli shotgun just hanging outaffecting nobody.
An assault shotgun, if you will.Combat shotgun.
Maybe over my shoulder. You'll see there's a revolver

(18:34):
there. There's another handgun over
here. There's there's guns all over
the place here. All of these things, by the way,
I think the Benelli would actually fit into the category
of assault something or other ifyou're in Virginia and and this
one over here, there it is on this side the the Glock handgun.
Yeah, that'll hold more than whatever their assault weapon
ban goes on in Virginia. If it's more than 2020 rounds in
a pistol, it becomes an assault weapon.

(18:55):
If it can accept a 20 round magazine, I have 20 round
magazines. That's an assault pistol.
Not the problem. They always go after the
inanimate object because that's what their base wants to hear
about. We're going to hear more about
that in Chicago because the crime in Chicago is really the
fault of the surrounding red states.
It's not the violent a holes that actually live in Chicago
that have no value for human life.

(19:15):
That's not the problem. No, we're going to blame an and
adamant object because otherwisewe'd have to talk about how our
voters are actually garbage and they continue to have garbage
policies. Here's Tim Walz.
Why don't we just be more like Australia?
By the way, I saw a March in Australia for like, I don't
know, like white nationalists orsomething like this.
They were just basically like Australians for Australia or
something to that effect. And they went in and they

(19:36):
clashed with these Antifa guys and just beat the Fr 11 crap out
of them and it was very therapeutic.
That's how I kind of started my morning here.
Here's Tim Walz saying why don'twe just take away all the guns
because it would just be fine. These people all swore an oath
to the Constitution. I thought they just don't
understand it. When they had a school shooting
in Scotland or they had an incident in Australia, they
simply made changes. They are just as free as we are.
They still have gun ownership requirements, but they have made

(19:58):
sure that they don't have these and since they did those things,
they don't have them. We are an outlier amongst
nations in terms of what happensto our children and I refuse to
think that that's OK. It's simply not.
Oh, good. So that's not OK.
It's not OK for us to have guns because even though they swore
leads to something, I, I continue to believe that
historical ignorance is one of the biggest problems that we

(20:20):
have in this country. I don't know any other way
around it. People do not understand the
mechanism by which our government operates.
They don't understand the responsibilities that exist in
that government. They're willing to blame people
for something that is maybe 100 years old or some trend that's
ongoing. We're going to have a clip from
Ben Shapiro in a minute talking about sort of the creep of the
executive. And Ben Shapiro says for the
last of 20 years, we've we've had a creeping executive.

(20:43):
That's not true. My entire life, probably my
entire probably all of your lives as well.
People have looked at the chief executive of this country, the
president as being sort of a king like figure.
It's a king for a period of time.
But that's not how our constitution is drafted.
And if you knew that, if you understood the context around
it, then you wouldn't think those things.
I had was on a podcast yesterdayand it reminded me of something

(21:03):
that we've talked about here before.
There was a court case that was done, if my memory serves, 2020.
You guys can check me in the chat.
Giofolo versus Washington Supreme Court case law came down
and reminded the American people, even though they didn't
listen and they didn't hear it, that you as an individual
citizen have zero, no plenary right to elect the president of

(21:24):
the United States of America. We'll say that one more time.
You have no right in the United States under any federal law and
certainly not under the Constitution.
You have no right to elect the president.
Why would that be? Because the founders of this
country didn't view that as being the primary and the the

(21:44):
the original, most powerful branch of government.
We have a legislator, even if it's now composed of cocktail
waitresses and like like pants crapping midgets.
That's the case. Article 1 defines the powers of
the legislator and we have a bi bicameral system.
They're supposed to be two houses.
One of them represents you directly.

(22:05):
That is your congressman. If you live in New York and
you're in Jerry Nadler's district, that's Jerry Nadler.
The Penguin is your Rep. So be it.
Which is why if you can't get that person out for 32 years and
you live there, why do you live there?
If you live in Minnesota and youcan't get rid of their bad
policies because they continue to do it.
If you live in Chicago and it's been like this forever, 100

(22:27):
years, maybe you ought not not to be in Chicago if that's not
your values. And if it is, then we know what
it stands for to live there. We know what it means.
That's the House of Representatives.
They're supposed to represent you directly, and then you have
to send it. And we changed this in 1913.
And I'm going to keep beating onthis because we can't talk about

(22:48):
the problem being new when the problem is well over 100 years
old. In 1913, we passed 2, the 16th
and the 17th Amendment. We gave the federal government
primacy over the states. That never happened before.
The minute that they could raisetheir own money, they created
the Federal Reserve. They created the IRS.
All of these things allowed our federal government to step in
over the top of the states. We are supposed to be a United

(23:09):
States where the states are the functional unit, but we're not.
And that that Senate is supposedto represent the states, the
state houses, more specifically your state legislature, whatever
its majority is, is supposed to appoint your senators.
But we changed that, and now youget to directly elect them.
So now you have this nasty thingwhere if you've got big
population centers, even though the majority of the physical

(23:32):
area of your state, the majorityof the state districts vote one
way, you can have it overrun by a population base like New York
City or like Dallas or like Chicago.
Even if the rest of the state votes for red representatives in
the State House, they can overrun you.
And that was more democratic, and democratic institutions were

(23:55):
the thing that our founders weretrying to avoid because they
built a Republic. It's the same reason why you
hear Democrats regularly, repeatedly, often trying to get
rid of the Electoral College. They, if you guys remember this,
probably you probably do. You go through elementary
school, you go through middle school.
They're teaching you about basicthings, about how does the
American federal government work.

(24:16):
This is like your civics one O 1when you're a child.
And they kind of refer to the Electoral College as a vestigial
thing. It's like having a tailbone.
Well, we don't have tails anymore, so why do we have a
tailbone? It's not vestigial.
It was a check against the mob. He was supposed to filter down
so that the majority of the state houses were the ones who

(24:37):
actually picked your, your president, who was supposed to
be the number 2 to the legislature.
How crazy is it that we've completely turned that on his
head? Your chief executives are
supposed to only have power locally.
Mayors, governors, they're supposed to be the most powerful
people. The president is supposed to be
sort of like a representative ofwhat the majority of the state

(24:58):
houses in the country wanted. If you guys realize that, they
ask who, who, who has the ability to put the electors
forward in the Electoral Collegetomorrow.
Every single RedState could repeal their law saying that you
have a right to vote for president.
They could remove the general election and they could pick the
president tomorrow for the next election.

(25:18):
Do you know that? Or they could pick the electors
at least. How crazy is that?
And the Supreme Court said this,you guys can check my math on
this, but go read the go read the decision.
The plenary power for picking electors remains in the state
houses and they can give it or take it away.
And they've given it to you in every state.
They don't have to. Anyway, these chief executive

(25:39):
locally, if they have certain ideas and if they, if you happen
to live in Minneapolis, they do have certain ideas.
Maybe you don't want to live in Minneapolis.
I don't know anybody that does. And my friends that have guns,
they've all left Minnesota. If they have gun businesses,
they are looking at doing that specifically.
If you're in Minneapolis and yourun a gun business, you're nuts.
If you're in the surrounding areas, I'm sorry that you live
in a place that used to be America.

(25:59):
It used to be that places like Wisconsin and Minnesota, you
could look around and go, yeah, many of the unions kind of run
the politics in the cities. But at the end of the day, we're
still free Americans. And more and more that is not
the case. Here's the same guy that we
showed you a couple days ago crying at the at the golden
casket of George Floyd, talking about assault weapon bans on the

(26:23):
backs of dead children, because that's that's what we do in this
country. And then I'm going to show you
that this crime is certainly sort of intentional when you
look at the way that people who live in these cities get a
chance to do something about it.What do they do about it?
And we're going to cover down onthat in just a second because
we're seeing, I've heard of jurynullification.
I've never heard of grand jury nullification.
And I think we're seeing that inWashington, DC right now.

(26:44):
So another thing that the Trump administration has to fight.
Here we go. So we have had bans on assault
weapons nationally before that ban then expired.
And so this is not it's not as if this is some unique thing
that has never been tried. Other countries have had mass
shootings and then rather than sit on their hands, they have

(27:05):
made the move to ban assault weapons so that that kind of
thing doesn't happen again. The only difference is we
haven't made that move in decades and so we're in the
position to do it now. Are there logistics that need to
be worked out just like any piece of legislation?
Of course there are. Of course there are.
But we got to have the argument,we got to take the necessary

(27:26):
steps and we're in the position now to act.
Can you be more specific about assault weapon Is a fairly
arbitrary term that. Would need to be.
Defined you're talking about. Banning.
Certain models, certain assaulted features think to how.
You're defining assault. Weapons generally speaking,
we're talking about guns and devices that are built to be

(27:47):
assault weapons and or devices that are built to shift non
assault weapons to be able to reel off a whole bunch of
bullets all at once. And we've seen both of those in
our city. So what I'm going to tell you
is, is that the reason that it'scalled an assault weapon is
because I called it an assault weapon and it has assault weapon
features. But I don't need to define the

(28:07):
term assault weapon because assault weapon means assault
weapon. These people have absolutely no
understanding about what they'retalking about.
This is how you end up with clowns talking about it's the
shoulder thing that goes up for a barrel shroud, whatever the
hell that thing is. There's a barrel shroud on the
freaking shotgun I've got over there.
It's pretty common in shotguns. It keeps you from getting
burned. It's a safety feature.
These people have no idea what it is they're looking at.

(28:29):
It's a pistol grip. It allows you to shoot it faster
from the hip. Have any of these people ever
shot a weapon? We know that Tim Walz can't even
load his own shotgun, but he's ahunter.
All this stuff is nonsensical. If you have to use the term in
the definition for the term, then there is no definition for
the term. This is the same reason why Matt
Walsh had really good success with what is a woman?

(28:51):
They define the term woman with the word woman.
It's someone who feels like a woman.
Well, what is that thing? You know, it's someone who
identifies as a woman. Well, what's a woman?
A woman is something that a woman knows when a woman is a
woman. Nonsensical.
An assault weapon has assault weapon features.
Oh, Well, can you be real specific?
She even asked like, a pretty reasonable question, even though

(29:11):
it's a dumb question to to to have to define.
We've had assault weapon bans inthis country.
Yeah, and we've also seen the data, and it doesn't freaking
work. Donald Trump had a different
solution to this, by the way, which leans towards liberty.
This is kind of the first time I've heard him say this, arming
the teachers. You know what?
I've met a lot of teachers. Some of you can handle weapons

(29:32):
and some of you cannot and some of you think you can and you
shouldn't. And I'm OK with that idea.
He talks about people who are veterans.
Just because you're a veteran, by the way, just because you
carried a gun for a living doesn't mean you know how to use
the gun. Go look at the the accuracy
details in police shootings. Go look at the accuracy of like
how many of our troops shoot andhow they qualify.
There are people that know how to use weapons and there are not
and is not a mutually exclusive category.

(29:53):
The word veteran does not instantly grant you the ability
to shoot, just like the word police officer doesn't mean that
you know anything about the gun that you carried.
I often times found it was actually the opposite of that.
But that being said, qualified people in schools who can carry
a weapon because they have chosen to, there's a very
specific group of people that are self selecting to carry a

(30:13):
weapon. If you're a guy like me working
in a school, carrying a weapon system is a massive deterrent,
especially if we give him a little bit of time, maybe give
him one day a month to go and dotraining.
Maybe you actually do the same thing that you do with like the
the the flight deck officer system.
We haven't had a a vehicle, an aircraft hijacked in a long
time. Turns out that if

(30:34):
intermittently, some of the members in the cockpit might be
armed and you are not and you have a box cutter and they're
going to put like a Sig 226 to your face, maybe things are a
little bit different. Why do I say that?
Because I know a pilot who carries a Sig 2/26 for some
reason. There are options.
So Donald Trump, you know, good on him.
I like this. He talked about doing a

(30:55):
concealed carry reciprocity across the country.
I hope it includes constitutional carry, which is
what I use because nobody shouldhave to have a permit to
exercise liberties that pre exist.
The freaking government. We have great teachers that love
our children. The parents love the children,
teachers love the children too. And if you took a small

(31:15):
percentage of those teachers that were in the military that
would distinguish in the military that were in the
National Guard, etcetera, etcetera, and you let them
carry, that's something that a lot of people like.
I sort of liked it. It's not real specific, sort of
liked it. It's sort of OK, It's not, it's
not the greatest idea, but it might work out.

(31:35):
I don't know, give it a shot. Sure.
Open it up to the states. If we're going to put federal
funding behind something, I'd rather be that than like some
sort of stupidity and studying assault weapons.
We're talking about protection. We can talk about yourself, talk
about protecting yourself. It doesn't always have to be
with a firearm. There's a lot of ways that you
could be compromised. One of the ways you could be
compromised is if somebody has access to your data.
Yeah, they could show up at yourhouse.
That would probably be a bad idea for many of you who are gun

(31:57):
owners. They also could scam you out of
your precious treasure, out of your personal information.
They can abuse your credit. If you guys want to protect
yourself, you can go to patriot-protect.com slash Kyle,
patriot-protect.com/kyle. There's a link below here.
There are always news of hacks that are happening.
They're happening on a regular basis.
They're happening from state actors.

(32:17):
They're happening from, you know, commercialized groups of
scammers overseas, and they're actually happening locally as
well. And then people can buy your
stuff in the dark web if you want your personal information
to be scrubbed so that you are not an easy target.
This includes things like your name, your address, your phone
number, and more from these datasearch websites.
There are more than 100 people search websites, and they sell
your data specifically so that people can find you.
I've used these search searches.They're very effective.

(32:40):
I've used them very recently. They're actually a pretty common
tool for me. If you don't want to be in them,
you can have them removed. And that's what Patriot Protect
does. The second thing they do is they
scan the dark web where people are selling information like
your e-mail address, your phone number, your credit activity,
your Social Security number, andso on.
You can find out if you are being trafficked and sold in
that way, and you can go ahead and take steps to mitigate those

(33:01):
things, but you don't know you're under threat unless you
understand that your stuff has been sold.
Check out Patriot Protect, it's like 8 bucks a month or less.
Use my name at checkout. So you save 15% on the annual
subscription. It's a fire and forget thing.
You punch it in and then you move on. patriot-protect.com
slash Kyle, you guys, you've heard us talk about this quite a
bit. This is the system.
It'll also cut down on a lot of the robocalls because it just

(33:22):
pulls your name out of that pileof garbage.
Let's talk about people who apparently want to live in the
status that that guy wants to take your guns from.
They want to live in higher crime.
I still have this instinct that using the federal government to
solve criminal activity at the local level is not a good one.
But I have never seen this. And this is the reason why the
people of Washington DC want what they have.

(33:46):
Just like I have to believe the people that live in Minnesota,
at least the bulk of them are voting and wanting the things
that they have. This story was actually pretty
wild. This is from Scott McFarland,
which is kind of funny because we played him yesterday and like
I said, he has a hard time filling out like a regular dress
shirt. Maybe he should get some custom
skinny shirts something or maybeshould shrink him down in the
wash. What happened to the criminal

(34:07):
case of Nathalie Rose Jones facing criminal charges in the
DC federal courts? It was not typical.
The grand jury in Washington, DC, had citizens deny the DOJ's
request to indict Jones, who wasaccused of federal crime,
allegedly posting on Instagram athreat against Donald Trump.
Now, I'm not a big fan. You're going after people for

(34:30):
posting threats online, particularly really dumb ones,
when they have no ability to do it.
There is a concept of true threat doctrine.
Maybe these people are really, really well versed in what is
and what is not a true threat and whether it's just political
speech and hyperbole. But I do think we should have
the ability to be much more freein our speech and we should be
much less litigious. And I certainly don't think if
you say something stupidly threatening where you have no

(34:51):
ability to do it, that you should be arrested by our
federal government. And we should be wasting our
money and our dollars on that. The threat was pretty goofy, but
the grand jury didn't even give an indictment.
Now, you guys understand that anindictment is one of the lowest
levels. There just has to be probable
cause to believe that something happened.
Is it more likely that there wasa federal crime than not?

(35:12):
And can we pursue and jury nullification almost always is
when the jury walks in and says,we don't like the way that you
charge this case. So we are going to all agree
that regardless of what you present, we are going to get rid
of this charge. That is usually like something
that you see, as I understand it, in like the OJ verdict where
it was like, well, they presented enough evidence, but

(35:33):
but the jury decided that we're not going to take one of our
own. You can't have OJ Simpson.
Grand jury nullification is not common.
There is an incredibly high rateof returning what are called
true bills in the grand jury system.
You can usually bring the case. You may not be able to get it
past an actual criminal jury when it comes to trial, But this
is one of four instances that have happened in Washington, DC

(35:53):
in the past week. And so that is a turn that tells
you the people of Washington, DCare interested in doing one
thing specifically, and that is not going along with what the
United States Attorney's office for the District of Washington,
DC is doing. A former prosecutor that said,
not only have I never heard of this happening, I've never heard
of a prosecutor who's ever heardof this happening.
I also have never heard of this.The return rate for federal

(36:15):
agents going in and getting grand jury indictments is
basically 100%. I don't know people that go in
there and who don't have the case.
And the reason why is because they have the facts laid out and
it's a very, very low standard. This woman is accused of posting
the following on Instagram. She said, quote, I am willing to
sacrificially kill this president by disembowelling him
and cutting out his trachea withLiz Cheney and all of the

(36:38):
affirmation present. I don't know what Liz Cheney in
the affirmation means. I don't know how she thinks
she's going to cut out anybody'sanything.
All that sounds nonsensical, right?
That's not a true threat. That might be truly mentally
ill, but it's not a true threat.They interviewed her and she
said yes, she believes that the the president is a terrorist and
a Nazi. Those are also protected speech.
Why you would say that to the United States Secret Service is

(37:00):
beyond me. Probably not.
Well in the head. They refused to indict this this
woman because she quote, UN quote, threatened to kill the
president of the United States. So the the District of
Columbia's United States Attorney, which is Jeanine
Pirro, she's, you know, she's incensed by this.
She traveled and did some sort of like some protest, but she
didn't carry a weapon. She didn't have a gun.
She probably didn't have the ability to, you know, carry any

(37:22):
of this stuff out. This is strong stuff.
They also didn't invite this guy, Sean Dunn, who was a
Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a federal
agent. They said no, we're not going to
do it. DOJ came back and charged him
with a misdemeanor. That was probably the right
thing to do in the 1st place. That definitely wasn't a felony.
Felony sandwich throwing a silly.
So we're in this moment where people sitting in the crowd are

(37:42):
hearing that they are not going to participate in the system and
they're not even going to play nice enough to give an
indictment. And that is a change.
There are multiple other little examples here.
People who are accused of swinging arms and and bumping
into officers or they're getting, you know, they're being
charged with force or assault ona federal officer.
Let's be really, really, really clear.
In my experience and from the experience of friends that I

(38:03):
have that have worked all up anddown the border, we regularly,
the FBI would investigate BorderPatrol agents getting assaulted
and the burden was pretty high. It usually had to be some sort
of physical notable injury, cut,scratch, bruise, broken bone.
Hospitalization, Dr. treatment required medical records that
you could substantiate regularly.
You they would turn down other things like scuffles to take

(38:25):
people into custody where you scraped up your knee because you
were on the ground and they wereon the ground.
They would just consider that tobe part of the job.
United States Attorney's office did not take those on very
regularly. We had a great example of a
Border Patrol agent who got likeknocked over by a subject.
He was trying to get get into cuffs and it broke his
sunglasses and he was really upset about that.
So he asked for an AFO. We did the investigation, we
bring the the complaint forward.We go here's the the fact

(38:46):
pattern. You brief it to the AUSA and
they say declined. So that's pretty common.
The sandwich throwing is likely declined in any serious office
unless you're trying to make an example.
And I don't get the, I don't, I don't get mad about them trying
to make an example in Washington, DC.
Let's be real clear. It's not that strong.
It's not a strong case. It's not serious.

(39:08):
So we should be real fair about that.
Now, there is a strong case to be made that the Alien Enemies
Act, which Stephen Miller arguedwas the right way to get rid of
a bunch of drug cartels that aredoing work in this country.
Yesterday, the Trump administration released an
unclassified video. This is Pete Hegseth.
This is the DoD's move. They've decided they are going
to actually treat TDA, this criminal gang that's out of

(39:30):
Venezuela, in a criminal way, and they're going to treat them
as terrorists. Now, what do we do with
terrorists? We usually put a drone up.
We put an aircraft up. We surveil them, we watch them.
When we do something that is threatening the United States,
then we end them. And they did that very
successfully for a long time under the Obama administration.
The droning program was pretty clear.
This is pretty neat. No need footage.

(39:52):
Probably not what these guys thought their day was going to
go like. What you're seeing is
unclassified thermal surveillance from some sort of
ISR platforms. It's not clear what it's listed
as. Unclassified.
They struggle with the munition from above.
Aerial munition. No more boat.
This is a four looks like 3 to 4engine high speed boat going
across the open sea bringing supposedly drugs.

(40:12):
That's what we're told. Fentanyl and other things and
it's just gets smoked. Which reminds me.
Like, I think Steve Baker put itout on X the other day.
This is kind of like that movie Clear and Present Danger.
Like hit him where it hurts. You hit him in the supply line
before it ever gets to the United States.
But we should be real. There are many people who want
to do these drugs. The demand side is not going

(40:33):
away. And so they will continue to
undertake risks and go through the open ocean and play ball
with the United States military.If they continue to do this, by
the way, it's going to become impassable.
They're going to have to go overland routes where they're going
through population centers. So we don't do this.
But if you're going to take it oversea, you're going to be in
the place where the United States owns the air and owns the
water. Bye.
Bye, smoked. And, you know, it's kind of,

(40:56):
it's kind of rewarding to see it.
Yeah. Are there a number of human
lives that are snuffed out? Yeah.
Are they doing something that the that is a threat to the
United States, as we, as we saw from that Harrison Ford movie,
Right. They represented clear and
present danger. Once you declare something like
that, game on. And if you're going to call them
enemies, you might as well treatthem like real enemies.
You might as well actually try to keep that up.
That doesn't mean the courts aregoing to go with you.
They don't. So here you have it.

(41:17):
A federal court has decided to block Trump's removal of alleged
Venezuelan gang members under the wartime enemies law.
This is the thing that we started talking about right at
the beginning, just as we got started in the Trump
administration. And we are back to doing that
nonsense again. So now we're in the appeals
circuit because it never really stops.
And all of this stuff indicates to me that the executives in the

(41:39):
places where it happens and the people that are funding this law
fair, they want this like they want this nonsense.
They want more drugs in their intheir communities.
They want more unrest. They want people to be unsafe.
They want things to be stupid sothey can come in and offer
ridiculous solutions. There's a guy right now, we've
talked about him before, Zoran Mandami, he's running for mayor.
Illogically, yesterday I played Curtis Lee Will.

(42:01):
So I'll play one of the other people who's running Slee Will
is like the Republican candidatefor mayor.
He's been around in New York fora long time.
He was wearing the the the red beret and doing sort of Kung Fu
or, or karate in the subways andtrying to clean up the act.
And people understood that. But you know, it's from a
different time. But he was making an awful lot
of sense about cutting things like government programs that
have show up and do nothing jobs.

(42:21):
And then you got this guy and he's basically promising like a
king, I will tell the evil Lordswhat they can charge you or not.
The Lords being the people who are landlords that actually own
property. If you live in a place that is
rent stabilized or rent controlled, like New York City,
all that tells me is, is that itis an unsustainable market, that
the market will bear more than you can handle.
And if they can't figure out that, hey, we probably need like

(42:42):
quarters for people who work at the CVS or the Duane Reade's
that they have in New York City.If they don't, if we don't have
the ability to have like folks who are going to work in a
McDonald's or a Chick-fil-A or aChipotle, if we can't actually
offer enough for people to survive and work in this city
for a wage that does it, then the city is basically
unsurvivable. You can't do it through

(43:03):
government Fiat. This is a guy who is socialist
campaigning to go and take over America's biggest city, and all
of his programs are bad, including the idea that we're
going to freeze rent on 1/4 of amillion of privately owned
residences where people would have to live.
Rent control is crazy and stupidfor people who have never lived
around. If you think that is normal, if

(43:24):
you live in a city where you're like, yeah, obviously they don't
have to do rent control, how else could people afford it?
Move immediately. Go to America where they have a
free market. You will find out house prices
go up and they go down. Rentals go up and go down.
They're based on supply and demand curves.
There might be some other stupidity involved as well.
But generally speaking, if you have to control rent, and
there's a possibility that if your family lives in the house

(43:46):
long enough, and this comes fromsome family experience on my
wife's side from the 1950s, thatyou can get 1950s rent in 2025.
You live in a crazy place and you shouldn't live there.
Here's Mondami. That is why as your next mayor
of this city, I will freeze the rent for more than 250,000 rent
stabilized apartments. I don't know who the dummies are

(44:13):
that are cheering for that. I mean it was only like 2 or 3.
And they did sound like they were like women who don't
understand how basic things work.
They probably don't understand what the constitution means.
They probably don't understand how markets work.
I imagine that their other graspof economics is low because
they're excited about a 33 year old socialist who was a former
garbage rapper and doesn't really have any sort of
experience. But if that's your thing, you

(44:36):
probably don't understand and you should leave.
You should not be around where those people's vote counts as
much as yours. I would never live in a place
that when I tell you that the places are not America, they
mean that they're places that Kyle Seraphin and family cannot
live. I wouldn't take my kids there.
I wouldn't trust their bad policies.
I wouldn't trust their policing.I wouldn't trust their inability
to allow citizens to defend themselves.
I don't go places where you can't own guns that I own and

(44:58):
not have to ask questions and permission from the state.
And I recommend the same for youbecause it's really scary.
These people, they don't live onthe same plane of reality as far
as I can tell. We're going to take a deep
breath. We're going to play a Spotify ad
right here for those who are listening on the audio.
Thanks for listening through these or skip them, whatever.
But there's your warning. Heads up, I want to move on to

(45:18):
the Chicago program. But so if New York is screwy and
New York has been better or or worse for most of my life, there
were times when it was really bad.
Giuliani came in and cleaned it up and they actually cleaned up
the subways and they did the broken window pane policing.
And suddenly people realize it that like there was some pride
in being a New Yorker and it became a really safe city,
relatively speaking, for a big city in America.
And then there's places like Chicago, which I recall being

(45:40):
kind of dangerous most of my life.
Certain neighborhoods are certainly out of control.
Somebody told me that the mayor actually lives in the worst
neighborhood, Austin, that I constantly see.
And that may be the case, but healso has like a multiple, you
know, armed local agent, police detail that will keep him safe.
So it's nice. It's nice to be the local king.
I like seeing people push back on this guy, Brandon Johnson.

(46:01):
And I'm going to play you some side by side.
He used to think that crime was just crime, and now he's going
to blame Republicans because they have a scapegoat.
And all of this is the same garbage theater.
I see a parallel between the theater about guns and the
theater about crime and whether or not the federal government
should come in and fix it and soon and so forth.
And the same theatrics we're seeing about the Epstein file

(46:22):
release, which of course was front page on all the news.
And we're going to hit that in asecond.
And it's it's it's done by equally unserious people, in my
estimation. Here's the current mayor of
Chicago, one of America's what, 5 or 6 biggest cities?
He's just being accused blatantly of being a racist,
which is kind of refreshing. This is finally investigating
your race hustle. As someone who grew up on the

(46:45):
South side of Chicago, I've heard a lot of race hustlers in
my life, trust me. But they were usually marching
around outside of City Hall, which is what makes this so
embarrassing and dangerous. Very, very dangerous to the city
of Chicago. We need the question.
I'm more than happy to ask this question.

(47:06):
It's long overdue. For over a year, real
Chicagoans, white and black, have been telling me that your
black power rhetoric is bringingthe city backwards from a place
that we need the question and overcome.
You want the question? Please, real Chicagoans want to
know why are you a racist? So that's a pretty good

(47:28):
question. They don't answer it, he says.
That's not a serious question. We're not going to answer it.
How about things like this, though?
These are from his actual speeches.
Are you prepared to defend this land?
This land that was built by slaves, a land that was built by
indigenous people, a land that is built by workers?
Are you prepared to defend this land?

(47:53):
The people united will always prevail.
I need you all to stand firm, tostand strong.
If this president decides to continue to break this
Constitution. Oh, they're going to break the
Constitution that the city of Chicago was built by.
Who was it again? By slaves and indigenous people.
That's weird. I seem to remember being also in

(48:16):
middle school and learning aboutthe Great Chicago Fire of 1871.
Maybe some of you also remember that.
And they blamed a cow. Catherine O'leary's cow
supposedly knocked over a Lantern.
It turns out it might have been a drunken Irish woman who was
looking for a beer. So what?
It was built up mostly by immigrants to this country,
people who were, who were hungryfor a future.

(48:36):
And there was a city that burnedto the ground.
And so they were able to build it back up.
It turns out that your history is a little bit flawed.
And that's probably the same reason why you don't actually
know anything about the Constitution.
You're the mayor of a major cityand you are invoking race and
race hustling, and it's Donald Trump's fault.
Turns out when you were campaigning for mayor, Joe Biden
was in office, so you didn't have that scapegoat.
And we heard very different words.

(48:57):
Here's Brandon Johnson against Brandon Johnson.
We can actually solve crime in the scene of Chicago with my
plan. We will never be able to end gun
violence in Chicago as long as the president continues to allow
10s of thousands of guns to be trafficked into our state and
our city. Why does the president have
anything to do with guns being sold in other places?
And then you go look at the crime rates that are in other

(49:18):
places that on the surrounding States and they're not the
problem. What do they just like smuggle
guns into Chicago just so they could just watch a young black
kids shoot each other? Is that the is that the goal?
That's a really, that's a hell of a claim.
That is a race baiting claim. So that's all nonsensical.
Ben Shapiro seems to have a pretty honest take about this.

(49:38):
He's over on the CNN panel. You know, Ben, Ben Shapiro is
very bright. For those of you who don't like
him, I don't really care. Sometimes I agree with him and
sometimes they don't. You can be right about two
things. There is the concept of that
federal rule and coming in with the National Guard is not a
great plan long term, and it's not even a great plan that you
have to go there in the 1st place.
But what it does indicate to me is that if the federal
government has to step in, why do we not just accept that

(50:01):
Chicago wants this? And people who live in Chicago,
they basically want this. And if you live in Chicago and
you don't want this, you have a choice.
The overwhelming number of people in your city continue to
put people in with terrible policies, and they tell you
exactly what they mean by it. So you have to leave.
There's all these folks that make excuses for people that

(50:22):
stick around and oh, I'm behind enemy lines and I'm resisting.
You are physically giving money.You are one of the providers of
financing for the thing that youhate.
You got to square that with yourself.
I don't understand how people doit.
I've always voted with my feet and in America you can do that
still for now. If that's no longer an option,
then maybe you got a different situation.

(50:44):
And I'm going to tell you why I think that's really important
because Florida is the example, and it was the example because
of COVID and it was the example because of the tyrannical
insanity that happened in New York City.
So we're talking about major cities.
When people vote with their feet, the policies go to the
places where they want and they reinforce those good policies
versus really bad ones. I'm going to play you a clip

(51:04):
from the Chuck Todd podcast thatactually sort of illustrates
that. First, Ben Shapiro making the
argument, I think, against the National Guard as a general
rule. What is to stop that, Ben?
I mean, I think that to be fair,the, the exertion of more power
by the executive branch has beenan ongoing process for the
course of the last 20 years minimum.
And you saw the Obama administration declare national
emergency, something like 12 national emergencies or under

(51:25):
President Obama, something like 9 under, under Joe Biden,
they've had President Trump declare a wide variety of
national emergencies. This isn't a unilateral problem.
I think it is a, a bilateral problem.
With that said, I think that we should separate a few strands
here. 1 is the legal that that Eli was talking about.
The the one of the other things here, though, is, is I think
what Van was referring to, whichis President Trump does have a
habit of wrong footing his political opponents in a unique

(51:47):
way on this sort of stuff. There are 574 murders in Chicago
last year. And you can make the argument, I
think plausible argument that National Guard troops should not
be on the ground enforcing crimeboth legally and and just as a
matter of of general policy. But if the position you end up
taking is that there is no serious crime emergency in
Chicago on rhetorical level, noton a legal level, on rhetorical
level, or you make the case thatactually crime in Chicago just

(52:10):
isn't that big of a deal, which seems to be the mistake that
many Democratic politicians are making right now.
Trump is going to win that battle all day long.
I mean, I, I hear you. But I, I also think there is the
rhetorical level which we could focus on.
But I mean, I also want to focuson the reality, like the actual
things that are happening. And even to that point, I mean,
voters are not I, I think we treat voters as stupider than

(52:33):
they are. You ask them in polls and they
say we think crime is a problem.We don't like the way Trump is
handling it in the way that he is sending the National Guard.
They want Trump to do more aboutcrime.
They don't necessarily want him to send troops to city so voters
can handle these topics. I was grabbing this just because

(52:55):
I wanted to see can voters really handle this topic?
And the fact of the matter is, Idon't think they can based on
the numbers and based on the year on year data, the people in
Chicago either don't turn out understanding what the problem
is, or maybe they just don't actually have a real voice.

(53:16):
Because if you're voting for this, I think you're nuts.
Almost 77% of the the victims ofhomicide are black and almost
20% are Hispanic. So for all of their rhetoric
about, oh, it's all about like, you know, it's bad people
hurting minorities. No, it's minority victims.

(53:37):
And overwhelmingly, when they actually do actually find
someone who's involved in the attacks, they're also people who
look just like them who are doing the killing.
And it's certainly not police involved shootings.
That's not what's going on. You can look, you heard defund
the police and they were talkingabout that very seriously in
Chicago. Here's 2025 police involved
shooting stats. We can go back to 2009 and see

(53:58):
the number of total 2009. There were 19 killed in police
involved shootings with 42 wounded Right now.
This year so far, it's 6 killed and seven wounded.
And overwhelmingly those numberskeep going down.
We've never seen more than lookslike 2011, Barack Obama years.
Oh, where's he from? Chicago.
OK, 2011 you had 23 police shootings that resulted in a

(54:23):
death and 37 woundings. That was a pretty big year.
But most of them are single digits, especially in the last
like 8 or 9 years. So it's not the cops.
This is the citizens of that of that city doing crazy things to
themselves. And what's crazy is you can look
at the homicide trends from 1957to 1954.

(54:44):
By the way, this is hey Jackass.If you guys don't go to Hey
Jackass, I used to sit on surveillance and watch this when
I was still in the FBII would still just like pour over these
crime statistics and they're shocking.
Every single mayor outside of Eugene Sawyer, who was only
mayor for two years had north of1000 homicides on their watch.
And in two years it was just shyof 1000.

(55:05):
It was it was 978. That was from 1987 to 1989.
This is a historically long running 50 to 75 year long
problem, maybe 100 years. So when you hear Ben Shapiro
say, you know, the executive hasbeen moving this route for a
very long time. And the executive, you know, has
slowly been growing at least in the last 20 years.
No, the executive has been growing at least since 1913, but

(55:28):
we know in a big, big way that it took a huge dump in 1946 with
the Administrative Procedures Act when the legislator seated
its authorities. So if the legislature is not
going to solve problems, and I don't think this is a national
problem, but if they're not going to do it, I do see people
wanting to be safe. They should at least be safe
enough to pack their U hauls up and get the hell out of Chicago.

(55:49):
That's my take on it. That's what I had to say about
that, and I hope they do. Honestly, I hope they don't.
I don't want anybody to live in this crap and neither should
you. Let's talk about other
nonsensical things that are going on.
This is sort of the last little piece.
Again, this was the main topic that was on all of the websites.
I think it's sort of silly. And I'm going to point to you
why I think it is silly. And then we're going to go into
the voting with your feet, whichI'm going to end with.
That is the argument here. But Epstein's survivor says his

(56:11):
impact on her is clear from her high school yearbook.
This is a story that came directly out of CNN's coverage
Yesterday. The House released 33,000 plus
files from Jeffrey Epstein's case investigation.
And ridiculously enough, the spokesperson who was out there
representing this is Anna Paulina Luna.

(56:33):
I don't think she has a suitablebackground to be a elected
representative, but that just means something about the
district that represents her or that she represents rather.
It doesn't say anything about me.
It doesn't say anything about Congress other than we've got a
lot of really poor actors. And so she's sort of pretty.
So that's what we go with. That's an interesting move.
They're going to have somebody who doesn't understand a lot and
apparently can't read as far as I can tell, because I feel like

(56:55):
this, this situation was alreadyput to bed For many of the women
that were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein.
Their lives are divided into twoparts before and after they
sexually abuse. They go over the story of a
woman named Ashley Rubrite who had friends that met Epstein.
She didn't know the stark differences until she looked
back and she saw that her yearbook showed that when she
was before meeting him, like 14,had a great summer.

(57:17):
Let's chill, Let's hang out likekind of like 14 year old things.
And then the year after she met Epstein, she's got things that
said like, you know, really worried about you don't do
anything stupid this summer, want to see you at the end, you
know, at the end of the summer when you come back next year.
And so people were worried abouther either suicidal or self
harming or other things. Yeah, that's what abuse looks
like. Sure, we can.
We can talk about that. To talk to those victims and

(57:40):
think that they were not talked to previously is sort of silly.
And to get multiple statements from a congresswoman that seem
to be completely devoid of like the historical facts not of 100
years ago, not devoid of like understanding how the
Constitution works or how the, the, the, the amendments have
changed the structure of our federal government.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a couple of

(58:00):
weeks ago, there was a memo released by the DOJ.
Some of you guys were around when that happened, right?
I was on I just took a picture of it.
So we're going to go through thethe memo and what it
specifically said. But first let's hear what AUS
congresswoman who was part of the release of this file again,
theatrical roll out bread and circuses distractions for the
crowd, laser pointer call it what you want cat chasing the

(58:23):
dot. Here she is telling you super
important that we investigate and it might even be a criminal
matter. I've got two different clips
over here. Here's one where she was
cornered inside the Capitol. The biggest thing that stands
out to me is the victims themselves has have stated that

(58:43):
this is a lot bigger than I think anyone anticipated.
We are obviously being going to be requesting the stars reports
from Treasury and also to following up on that.
There's some very rich and powerful people that need to go
to jail. I think everyone's been
frustrated as to why that hasn'thappened before.
But it is very much so possibility that Jeffrey Epstein

(59:03):
was a intelligence asset workingfor our adversaries.
But also too, I think the questions that we have is how
much their own government know about it.
And so there's more to follow and I'm sure you'll be hearing
right. Now, I'm sorry, did she just say
that he was an intelligence asset?
We were reliably told that that's not true.

(59:24):
I don't necessarily believe them, But didn't she say that?
Wasn't that the story that's been going on forever?
So why did they close the files?Why did they shut it down?
So who's lying to us is really what I want to know.
I, I just want to know real simply did the DOJ and the FBI,
the, the director, the deputy director and the, and the deputy
attorney general get together, put together a memo and lie to

(59:46):
the American people? Or does this woman not know what
she's talking about? And now she's trying to get all
kinds of things move in her direction.
There was another clip. She was caught outside the steps
where she decided to tell us that they were going to.
She hasn't read the files that they've, they've released, by
the way. They're massively redacted and
they're basically things that people already knew.
But she hasn't read the files. There's 33,000 pages of them.

(01:00:07):
Obviously, I haven't read all ofthem either.
I'm kind of going on the summaries that I've seen and
based on what she thinks was done and based on interviewing
victims like the ones we showed on the couch earlier.
She's going to make a criminal referral possibly, and there
needs to be a criminal investigation.
I'm going to tell you why that sounds absurd to me.
And then our opportunities are one of these people doesn't know
what the hell is going on. Well, there's 33,000 pages that

(01:00:30):
have been released. I have to at least look over
some of them. I'd like to get through all of
them before I decide whether or not I'm going to do that.
But I think that they've basically released everything
except for the victim information, which obviously we
don't release that. One thing to note that today,
when we're actually talking to some of the victims, one of the
women stated that at 14, when Epstein started to victimize
her, that she has no recollection of some of the
stuff that was done to her. She's hoping to find that out so

(01:00:53):
that she can actually bring it to her therapist and continue
the healing process in regards to the damage and the trauma
those caused to her. So, but from what I'm being
told, from what I'm hearing, there's a lot of very wealthy
bad people. It's actually scary to hear some
of the stuff that was brought forward.
And so I think the only way to collectively attack this is as a
group and as a whole, meaning that Democrats and Republicans

(01:01:14):
have to work together and back Comer subpoenas, because I think
this is going to be pretty hairy.
Is there more information beyondthese 33,000 pages?
Well, there's there's going to be names.
The attorneys kept emphasizing we need to follow up on the
names. These girls are not just making
this up. These are some of the wealthiest
people probably in the world, and we'll start with that.
So they named individual people that are.

(01:01:34):
Part of apparently. Apparently in these files that
just dropped. I have not been able to look
over all files again, there's certain.
People, I'm done by the meeting in the meeting.
There are some people named yes were.
There any public officials that they named?
No, but very, very wealthy people have been.
Can you name? That they told us not to because
they don't want those people to start basically burning files.
So I think this is going criminal investigation for sure.

(01:01:57):
I will say that what's been released, obviously the American
people have wanted for a long time.
Kudos to the DOJ for getting to it, to us.
I know that some of the delay was due to redacting victim
information. And so we'll see where it goes
from. Here.
Oh, yeah, for sure, for sure. Like I think there's going to be
a criminal investigation for sure.
That's what she said. Is it hard to listen to that for
you guys too? I don't get it.

(01:02:17):
Again, Florida, shame on you. You're electing people that are
pretty, but perhaps the the background of being a former
cocktail waitress at a strip club and, and taking pictures in
patriotic bathing suits is not good enough for them to be good
representatives. And what sort of like are they
doing investigations? She sat in with victims and then
she went in and like, oh, like the oh, for sure.
Like they just named people. So like that's it.

(01:02:38):
Like they definitely have reallypowerful people, super powerful,
not politicians, nobody that youwould be really worried about
specifically, but also like an intelligence asset.
But like also like everything that I've heard Alex Jones talk
about pretty much like no specifics for you.
I'm sorry. I'm just, I'm, I'm conflicted
because then I've also read whatthe DOJ said about it.

(01:03:00):
Through this thorough review, wefound no basis to revisit the
disclosure of those materials and will not permit the release
of child pornography, which is what they claim was in a lot of
these video files. The systematic review revealed
no incriminating quote UN quote client list.
Huh. Seemed like that's what she was
talking about. She's talking about an abuser

(01:03:20):
list. Let's continue on with this
memo. There was also no credible
evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent
individuals as part of his actions.
We did not uncover evidence thatcould predicate an investigation
against uncharged third parties.There are three individual
statements in here, and I'm going to break them down for
you. Very specifically, the 1st 1A

(01:03:41):
systemic review. Systematic review revealed no
incriminating client list, but what that tells us is from what
the DOJ claims are true or falseis irrelevant.
Their claim is is that they did not have some sort of people
paid and then got access to young women.
So this would be the traffickingto others story.

(01:04:03):
The DOJ says no. I guarantee you that the files
that they released did not say otherwise because that's not how
DOJ does business. Even if they did have those,
they wouldn't show them and showthat they were full of it
because then you would destroy the credibility of Todd Blanche,
you destroy the credibility of Cash Patel, Dan Bongino.
If anything, the DOJ protects DOJ and FBI.
That's what they do. Ask me how I know.

(01:04:24):
The second line is that there's no credible evidence found that
he blackmailed prominent individuals.
So their individual charges being levied, right?
If you remember the Epstein allegations, we're talking about
Intel asset. What would he do with that?
He could compromise people by having them pay and then know
that they paid for sex with young girls.
That would be Part 1. The second thing would be that
he videotaped them without theirknowledge and he could blackmail

(01:04:46):
them because let's say they weremarried or maybe he was involved
in some sort of homosexual activity or something.
That would be compromising visually.
So then you have the the idea ofblackmail.
Blackmail is different than paying for trafficked sex, one
of them commercial sex. The other one would be the
blackmail material. They say no to all of that.
And then lastly, this is the keybecause for what the DOJ says,

(01:05:06):
whatever Anna Paulina Luna said is absurd and stupid from this
last sentence because there's nochance that they put this out
and they're going to turn aroundand go back on themselves with
this. They had this material.
She just said DOJ released this material.
This wasn't material that was like magically turned over by
somebody else. This is not novel or new.
This is governmental informationand what they said was, quote,

(01:05:29):
we did not uncover evidence thatcould predicate an investigation
against uncharged third parties.Evidence against uncharged third
parties does not exist in this statement.
Predicate an investigation just means like probable cause to
believe actually the level of predication for a criminal
investigation for the FBI to undertake it or any of the
federal law enforcement agencies, they all they have to

(01:05:51):
do is they have to substantiate that there is allegation or
information that a federal crimetook place.
They can do it based on the victim, they can do it based on
the act and they can do it basedon the subject that they believe
actually engaged in it. Any one of those three things
are predicates. So that's very specific, kind of
like the way the FBI plays ball.And now you've got this girl and
I'm just going to call her a girl because she sounds like a

(01:06:13):
girl. She sounds like a high schooler
saying like, oh, for sure, like for sure.
That's going to be that's what'shappening.
There's a lot of unserious people out there.
And this is certainly in my experience, like one of the most
unserious things. Get distracted by Epstein again.
Now we're the heroes again. Well, what are we?
What are we distracting from? That's what I always want to
know. One of them is AI.

(01:06:35):
Think the discussion about medical institutions that we no
longer trust. I'm going to play you 2 little
things and I'm a close the argument because the COVID
argument, which I started yesterday, and broadly speaking,
pharmaceutical interventions as a, as a solution to a lot of our
problems. I actually think that as
Americans continue to open theireyes up and go like the
government lies to me about everything else.
Why would they lie to me about things like FDA studies?

(01:06:57):
Why would they lie to me about CDC studies?
Oh, because they did already. We already saw this.
This is News Nation. This is a discussion.
This is our FDA commissioner talking about whether or not
vaccine injuries exist. I played you the RFK thing the
other day and sort of the joke. It was a punch line for Jimmy
Dore. Then it was like, not a punch
line, but it turned out to be a laugh line for RFK Junior
talking to Bill Maher. This is not a laugh because a

(01:07:20):
lot of people, including people in this audience, had their
lives destroyed by either takingthe shot or getting this
disease. And I know that for, because
I've talked to you about it. And it wasn't just the mandates
that went down. It was the the taking of that
thing in good faith. I think plenty of people took
that shot, think he was a good idea because they actually
listened to to experts. And now we're finding out how
diabolical that really was. And I think it's much bigger

(01:07:42):
than that. But we, we should note that
vaccine injury and God forbid vaccine deaths have been a very,
very small minority of the 10s. Hundreds of millions of people
who've taken this vaccine, hundreds of thousands of
Americans describe vaccine injury. 25% of clinicians know

(01:08:04):
of somebody that's been significantly disabled or died
from a vaccine. I know of three people who have
died from the COVID vaccine, notpersonally, but through a
physician or friend that has hada first degree contact with
someone who has had a vaccine complication.
We know there's a risk of myocarditis in young healthy
men. That's one in 2600 young so to

(01:08:28):
to you know, when when people use these blanket terms, they're
ignoring the very nuanced question in medical science and
that is do the benefits outweighthe risks?
That is the question, not let's,you know, blindfold ourselves
and insist that everybody take this look at the last
administration rubber stamping COVID boosters every year with

(01:08:49):
no outdated clinical trial. And we said we're not going to
keep going down this road. We don't believe in COVID
vaccine boosters forever unless we have evidence to support it.
We're bringing back gold standard science and common
sense. That seems totally reasonable.
Forget what the nation, what thenetwork is that's calling it.
I don't care about who is it. This is the person that is that

(01:09:10):
is in charge of the FDA. So that's Marty Makari.
He's the the physician who runs FDA.
If that's the claim that we knowthat there is a significant
number of vaccine injured, that there's a significant number of
complications that exist, that he personally has experience
like all of you probably do as well.
I heard that there was an FBI agent that got hit with a shot.
I I listened to the the crying testimony of his wife.

(01:09:32):
The day after the shot. He went home and died.
Do normal 40 something year old healthy males who get annual
physicals normally just keel over and die from a flu that
comes out of nowhere. Not usually, no, they don't, but
it's opened up the question how many of these institutions are
completely full of, it doesn't matter whether it's government
institutions giving you 33,000 files that are redacted on a
case that's already closed. It won't go anywhere.

(01:09:54):
And saying that, oh, there's very, very powerful people.
No specifics in the in the Intelworld, we call that NFII was
actually talking to Bill Taylor about this.
We were kind of laughing. Bill Taylor was our Sunday sit
down for last week and will be this week again.
NFI is like an allegation that'scompletely unsubstantiated.
I'll tell you something really wild.
A bunch of really wealthy peopledid this thing.
Who are they? NFI, No further information.

(01:10:17):
OK, that's what we're getting. And how many people have gone
out there and started asking questions about the other
pharmaceuticals? Again, I was in my early, maybe
no, maybe mid 30s when I went into the VA and the nurse who
was doing the intake said what? What medicines do you take
everyday? I was like, none.
And she was like, no, I mean, like, what prescriptions do you
have? It's like none.
There's no other way you can askthis question, lady.
And she was like, what pills do you have to take when you, you

(01:10:37):
know, throughout the day? It's like, lady, I'm first of
all, I'm a paramedic, so I know about medicine, probably have as
much pharmaceutical understanding as you.
Second of all, what are you asking me?
I'm like in my 30s. I don't take medicine.
But before I went off to the FBII was, what, 35 years old?
And they were trying to prescribe me a statin.
So I started looking at a lot ofthese things in the same

(01:10:57):
critical way that many of you are.
And I know a lot of people that are in my parents age brackets.
Some of you are in that that bracket.
If you're in your 60s and your 70s and you've been taking a
drug for 20 years, then you're asking like, what the hell is
the foundation of why we're doing this?
And almost all, a huge chunk of them are correlation without
being able to establish causation.
And they just went with it. So here's a story about statins.
I've got another one about SSR is again, I think we are re

(01:11:19):
evaluating the institutions. And I actually think it's a net
good, but it's going to cause some real, real upheaval in this
country. And the last thing is we're
evaluating our own decisions. So that's where we're going to
get to the end with the covet argument.
The government actually did a bunch of randomized controlled
clinical trials on 10s of thousands of people testing to
see if saturated fat and cholesterol caused heart
disease. So they actually took groups of
people and they did this in mental hospitals where they

(01:11:41):
totally controlled the people ate.
And half the people they gave, you know, meat, butter, cheese,
regular high saturated fat and cholesterol diet.
And half the people they, you know, gave them soy filled
cheese and margarine instead of butter and soy filled meat.
And in those randomized, that's rigorous experiments on 10s of
thousands of people, they could not show that the people eating

(01:12:01):
the meat and the butter and cheese died at higher rates from
heart disease. In fact, they showed in one of
the most famous experiments called the Minnesota Coronary
Survey on 9000 men and women over 4 1/2 years, they found the
more the men lowered their cholesterol, the more likely
they were to die of a heart attack.
So what happened to all those experiments?
They were not. That particular experiment

(01:12:23):
wasn't published for 16 years. Other experiments I found sat in
NIH, National Institute of Health Basement, never
published. Ignored, not included, just
ignored or suppressed. It's like out of a crime novel.
It's. Crazy.
And So what was the American Heart Association doing,
ignoring all those clinical trials?
Isn't that troubling? Because if it doesn't fit your

(01:12:45):
data and it's going to cost you a bunch of money, then maybe you
just don't have that study. It's like, well, we are not
going. That's an inconvenient study.
That's not science, which is thekind of argument that people are
making about a lot of the stuff that was going on.
If people died at a 23% higher rate because they took a a shot,
you start asking some real questions.
Well, that doesn't serve our financial interest.
So you're just going to exclude that?

(01:13:06):
Again, same story I have with SSRI's and I think I'm not alone
in that. This is another Tucker Carlson
interview that was a Joe Rogan. Rather, this is a Tucker Carlson
interview. This is a, an Australian Doctor
Who was a psychiatrist by training and he's talking about,
you know, going to work for, fora big pharmaceutical company
that was associated with Johnson.
And Johnson, I think it's their subsidiary called Jensen.
And he's talking about SSRI numbers, which sound also really

(01:13:27):
sketch. You can stick needles into
people's spine and you can draw out fluid, and you can look at
the metabolites of things like serotonin.
And you can get depressed peopleand undepressed people and say,
is there any difference in the actual amount of serotonin
floating around in the brain? Every time they've done this,
they have not found that there is any difference between

(01:13:48):
depressed and undepressed people.
But there's no difference. There is no difference because
that's why we don't use any biological markers in the
diagnosis of any psychiatric conditions.
No brain scans, no blood tests. They're not useful because there
are no ways, you know, like actual biological ways to

(01:14:08):
differentiate depressed people from UN depressed people.
Are you serious? Absolutely.
And the way they justify it was,well, OK, so we haven't found it
yet, but it must be a medical problem and we're eventually
going to find it. And rather than admitting that
in the meantime, we'll just tellpeople it's a chemical imbalance
because it's an easy, it's, it'sjust an easy kind of like

(01:14:29):
metaphor for them to understand.And it helps us dish out the
drugs without people asking too many questions.
Right. But it might be untrue.
Full disclosure, he also works in a, in a clinic that where
they step people off SSRI. So he offers alternatives and
gets people out of those things.So he has a financial interest,

(01:14:50):
obviously in the position that he's holding.
That being said, it reminds me of people like Scott Baker,
Sorry, Sean Baker. And you guys may be familiar
with Sean Baker, who does meat heelsithink.com or meat heels
dot US. And he was a an orthopedic
surgeon who kept seeing people that were, you know, injured and
and destroyed and their bodies were all jacked up.
And he's like a super freakish animal with a high performance

(01:15:11):
at every level and every sport that he's ever done.
And he's a world record holder, indoor rower and, you know,
dunks A basketball and he's massive and he's freakishly, you
know, unique. And yet he went out there and
said, well, I don't want to be an orthopedic surgeon who goes
out and, and repairs a bunch of bodies that are damaged.
I want to help people not be sick.
And so he does this sort of carnivore diet.
He's a proponent of that. And he's a freakishly big guy.

(01:15:31):
If you guys ever seen him, he played, you know, professional
rugby and Scottish Highland games and does all these other
chronic crazy things, deadlifts £500 / 50 years old and all the
stuff. But there's something to be said
for people who are doctors that want to say maybe the
traditional quote, UN quote, Western medicine model is not
for me. So I'm open to hearing that.
And I also continue to see a lotof these problems, their

(01:15:52):
institution problems. All that leads me to the COVID
question again, which so many ofus saw right up front and the
vote with your feet argument, which is to say, if you leave
places where people don't think the way you do and act
irrationally, at least accordingto your values and beliefs, then
you can hyper concentrate in places where you will get the
outcomes that you want. We're just hearing right now
that Governor Ron DeSantis is talking about signing into law,

(01:16:14):
if they can pass it, a complete revocation of all property taxes
in Florida. That would be the first state in
the nation to get rid of property taxes and allow you to
actually own something that you quote, UN quote own instead of
leasing it from the government every single year at the threat
of being taken away. That would be a real game
changer when it comes to actual sort of conservative ideas and

(01:16:35):
rolling back the clock for what things used to be in this
country. You can get that when you hyper
concentrate a bunch of people that are semi like minded and
they all want to go to one place.
So here is a this is a Democratic representative.
This is Moskowitz talking to Chuck Todd and saying, I'm not
sure that we can win this back in the short term.
That's what you want to do. Don't fight for nominal weak

(01:16:56):
victories when you can get complete victories and you can
devastate the opponents, which are doing things that are
completely illogical, like a grand jury notification for for
fighting federal troops or they just want to continue bad gun
policies, even though there's noobvious answer to it in the way
they're doing it. COVID was a Seminole moment in
in politics. You know, even though we had
more Democrats in Florida, registered Democrats in Florida,

(01:17:20):
you know, when Rick Scott got elected, when DeSantis got
elected, when Jan Bush got elected, when Charlie Crist got
elected, we still had more Democrats, but we were still
electing Republican governors, OK.
Now there are 1.2 million more registered Republicans.
It's starting to get to a point that it's not recoverable, at

(01:17:40):
least not in the short term. OK.
But I think COVID was a big piece of it.
I think COVID was a big piece. And I was there.
I was involved in it on on on the other side, I think, and I
have. How did Joe Biden only lose by
three points then? He lost Florida in 2020 by just
three points. Well, I mean, again, as Joe

(01:18:02):
Biden would say, don't judge me against the Almighty.
Judge me against the alternative.
Can I just stop right there and say one thing because he's going
to talk about the the strong victory of Donald Trump in 2024.
How did he only lose by by threepoints?
Maybe we shouldn't have any mailin ballots and maybe there was
some serious fraud in that particular election.
I think a lot of us have that instinct because you're going to

(01:18:24):
hear that the alternative, he won it in 2016.
Trump did. Then he won it again in both,
but he was the smallest margin in 2020.
Why was that? It was because Joe Biden was
such a great candidate. Anybody and so 2020 right, we
were still mid COVID, OK and youknow, people wanted a change.
They wanted a change, right? And so that was a mood politic.

(01:18:49):
OK. Meanwhile, Ron De Santis won his
re election in Florida by 19 points and Donald Trump and
Donald Trump just won Florida by13 points.
OK, So there, there the policiesthat came out of COVID closing
of schools, the fact that Florida opens schools early
because the data was clear it wasn't spreading in schools,

(01:19:09):
right? That's a big piece, Chuck.
I mean, and I was telling them my Democratic colleagues, like
guys, read the data. Like I would sit at a conference
table with the governor, we'd bereading the data from Denmark,
right, and, and Germany and all,and Europe, because they were
ahead of us and it was clear it wasn't spreading in the schools.
OK. And I, I said to my democratic

(01:19:31):
colleagues, I'm like, when we open schools, it's going to be
very popular When you guys come out and tell parents you want to
keep their kids in the house foranother year.
OK, I'm I'm telling you, this iswhere this is going.
And if you're not data-driven and if you understand that the
entire purpose of an institutionis to educate children and all
you care about are the people that work there.

(01:19:54):
And you basically go out there and try to get them a paycheck
without having to go to work, which is what happened.
Why would you stick around for that?
Why would you be there? A lot of people moved to
Florida. Florida grew dramatically and
that red wave that crushed in there and, and, and and, you
know, lifted Ron De Santis up tothe almost 20 point victory.
It was still there earlier. It was concentrating though.

(01:20:15):
And so as you concentrate good ideas, you get rid of the bad
ideas. The bad ideas don't have any
ability to proliferate. That is actually a solution
moving. Go figure.
A lot of people will tell you not to do that.
They and fight where you are. Oh, if you love California,
stick around. You're you're insane.
You're an insane person at this point.
It's not a winnable battle. The crazy people move there.
They vote crazy whether they steal it or not.

(01:20:36):
If you don't control with with with paper ballots that you can
actually go out there and check out.
What are you doing? You're voting into a black hole
and you're giving the people whoempower the ability to keep
going and they keep and you're paying for it.
So anyway, I do think that's thesolution and it's coming from
Democrats who are talking about it.
Whatever it's worth, we should consider it.
I want to do one last little thing here.
It's kind of fun. I've been gone down a bunch of
different weird rabbit holes in the last little bit.

(01:20:58):
Last night a friend of mine and I decided to keep asking this
question and there are many, many articles that ask the same
question. Who is Alexis Wilkin Cash Patel
girlfriend unveiling the enigmatic life of a rising star
in country? And we kept trying to figure out
who is Alexis Wilkins. She apparently lived.
I was born in Boston and then lived in Europe until she was 9,
between England and Switzerland.And then she came back and she

(01:21:20):
found herself in Arkansas. And then she from Arkansas, by
the age of 16, she went to Nashville and she became this
country singer. And that's the story.
And so, you know, that's the story on every website.
It's the story on all of the articles.
I've looked in the Hollywood life.
I've looked in the knowers inside.
I've looked at the Times of India.
I've looked at dozens of sourcesof information and they all tell

(01:21:41):
me that she's this super talented, pretty, sweet, all
American girl who grew up in a country area.
She listened to country her whole life.
That's why she has no accent. And she was in Arkansas, where
country lives and and breathes and and and propagates.
And then suddenly afterwards shemoved to Nashville and then she
was able to become a star, although no one's ever heard any
of her music. I'll just argue that that's the

(01:22:03):
case 'cause I listen to country music, including female
vocalists, and I've never heard it.
Would it be weird to find out that she's not really that great
of a singer? You guys ever listen to
professionals? I guess they have off days.
You ever heard anybody pop in and grab the microphone at a
Southwest Airlines terminal and sing to the terminal and then

(01:22:24):
wish they had changed the key? I did.

(01:22:51):
Anyway, so she only misses like probably about a half dozen
notes in that little short clip.Anyway, no big deal.
That's what normal people do. They go up there.
If you're a professional singer,what you do is you take
advantage of any audience. You go grab the microphone at
Southwest Airlines on Veteran's Day and then you go ahead and
sing your heart out into whatever that was because you
know one song really well. I've seen her sing the national

(01:23:12):
anthem like 4 times online. That seems to be the thing she's
really interested in. Would it surprise you to learn
that she attended dozens of industry parties in Los Angeles
starting at the age of nine? She seemed to be in Los Angeles
all the time. I have pictures of her at all
kinds of these crazy young actress things.
That she was actually an actresson Modern Family, that she was

(01:23:34):
an actress in some sci-fi movie where she was a like part of a
horror film. It's really strange, folks.
You start looking into this gal,which I didn't previously do
because I wasn't particularly interested.
I don't really care who the FBI director dates, but I do care
about people who lie about theirbackground.
It seems strange to me to say that you are Arkansas bred and
Nashville based, but you spent an awful lot of time, dozens and

(01:24:00):
dozens and dozens of appearancesfrom the age of 9 until the age
of like 16 years old in Los Angeles and you're always
described as an actress. A lot of pictures of her with
older guys though, so that mightbe her thing.
I, I can't actually rule it out.Pictures of her with Aaron
Carter when he's in his late 20sand she's in her early teens.
You know, weird stuff. I don't like looking at people

(01:24:23):
and figuring out how strange their life is.
I don't like looking sort of deeply and finding out that
they're they're all kinds of, you know, publicly pushed lies.
But what I also found really crazy was that all of these
stories asking who she is have nothing to say except the
official line that comes out of her bio.
Not one person looked even deeper.
She has a, she has a Instagram account that goes back years.
She's got YouTube appearances. You can just type her name in

(01:24:45):
there and find times when she's interviewed when she's 12 years
old. Her favorite songs were like One
Republic and Drops of Jupiter. Nothing about country until she
decided she was a country singer.
Anyway, I just sometimes you find that people are
inconsistent because they do things that are inconsistent.
Sometimes there's a reason for hiding your background.
I don't know what that stuff is.I do know that it's very strange
to get a lawsuit from somebody five days after I said something

(01:25:05):
that I've already clarified. Anyway, I've archived all this
stuff. We'll continue to play with it.
It's it's frustrating because it's, it's, it's been a burden
to deal with and a burden from who?
Some rando chick who has no background and then turns out
like she's got a ton of background.
I found all kinds of stuff abouther online and all of it is odd,
including the people that the reporters that reached out and
said, hey, super odd. We'll talk more about that soon.

(01:25:29):
I'm sure. I'm sure there'll be more of
this. This will probably be a social
media thing and not a podcast thing.
But thank you so much for joining the program.
Hi, guys. I hope you took something away.
I hope the argument sits with you well, that if you're living
in a place where you're like, I'm not free, you make the you
make that change. You vote with your feet.
And then you also look at peopleand say, is this an honest
actor? Is this person just a a theater
child who wants attention, or are they trying to act honestly?

(01:25:53):
Go watch the new campaign video that Thomas Massey just dropped
out, by the way. It's pretty good.
He says, I will not be a thespian in a theater of crazy
or something to that effect. And I went like, Yep, that's
what it's all about. You guys can support us by
following us over on YouTube. I actually hate Rumble.
Every time I deal with Rumble, every morning it has a new
problem and they all suck. So if you guys want to follow us
over on YouTube, I'd appreciate that you'll move over from
Rumble. It's unfortunate, but they also

(01:26:14):
kind of take money out of us. And I can show you guys that the
numbers over on locals, follow us on locals if you want.
That's a Rumble product. So you can still focus and, and,
and put your money there with those guys.
It's a good way for us to interact and I appreciate you
guys there. Subscribe, like the video,
etcetera. And then if you want to see it
on Spotify or if you're listening on somewhere and
you're thinking, hey, sometimes I want to see the visuals while
I'm listening, check out Spotify.

(01:26:34):
It's free on Spotify. It will not cost you a penny.
You actually get less ads, I think on the Spotify.
And just go to kyleserifandshow.com.
And if you type that in, it willtake you directly to our Spotify
little like cheat code. You can download the app.
You can even watch it on the website.
So that's the request. Thanks so much for listening
today. I look forward to seeing you
guys again tomorrow and have a fantastic rest of your day.

(01:26:55):
Thanks for listening to the KyleSerafin show, streamed live
weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Serafin Bobble Kyle on Twitter,
Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle Serafin.

All Episodes

LUNA on Epstein Files: "I think this is going criminal investigation, for sure." | Ep 644

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}LUNA on Epstein Files: "I think this is going criminal investigation, for sure." | Ep 644