SLAVERY! "wHy dOn'T yOu eVeR tALk aBoUt iT?" | Ep 635 - The Kyle Seraphin Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:16):
Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an
American patriot. Prepare to embrace the
uncomfortable truth because thisprogram has no time for
comforting lies. Here is civil liberties
enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI
agent Kyle Seraphin. Well, hello my friends.

(00:47):
Got to hit the unmute button if you want to be able to talk to
the folks out there. Thanks for joining us today For
today's program. Today is the Kyle Serif and Show
brought to you by Patriot Protect and Patriot Coolers and
it is August the 20th. It is a Wednesday.
Today started off a little bit interesting for me.
Usually when you get a phone call from Alex Jones before 7:00

(01:08):
AM, the day is going to be fun. I also got some text messages
from former FBI agents showing the Predator.
You guys know the Predator? He's the the alien hunter
character that has the dreadlocks and whatever and the
little rocket blaster thing on his shoulder was hunting Arnold
Schwarzenegger in the jungles and all that kind of thing.
The Predator holding a human skull and examining it.

(01:34):
And I went like, oh, well, what's going on out there?
It turns out that CBS put out a piece yesterday that we're going
to cover today, and the suspendables were prominently
mentioned. That's not surprising since I
gave an interview about it. But I did want to make sure that
I LED with that thought and I had to show it to my kids.
And they're like, what is that? I said, well, that is a predator
holding a skull. It is a recognition that that

(01:57):
dad is out there taking scalps, which is not a nice thing to
tell your kids. We're going to be covering sort
of this inability of Democrats to message a very important
topic, law and order. We're also going to talk about
sort of the strange narrative shift.
And then I guess the main topic that it that bothers me is that
people are starting to catch on that bitching about slavery.

(02:19):
There's no other way to say it, using the word slavery, talking
about racial grievances and trying to make something stick
in a historic setting. You're trying to talk about how
there's a racial grievance in that it's justifiable in the
year 2025 when we literally havemuseums dedicated to injustice,

(02:43):
when we have memorials dedicatedon federal space to the
injustices that happened in slavery and the civil rights
movement afterwards. If you try to make that stick,
you're going to find out that you're all by yourself.
And I think that's what people on the hard left have have
realized that this narrative that they've been able to push.
And it did get picked up and it did get some traction.
And it's been holding over people for slightly over a

(03:06):
decade. That in the era of mass media,
social media and the ability to communicate with real people,
then you can debunk it really, really quickly.
And as you walk out there in theworld, you just go, oh, you can
talk about slavery, you can talkabout racial injustices, but
that's not real. That's why you're getting these
so-called like black fatigue movements.
That's why you're seeing people even on the on on the in black

(03:30):
communities that are just going like, why are we lying about
this? And so I found that very
fascinating. It was a lead story over at
MSNBC. It was a story from NBC.
And so we're going to talk aboutthat.
And then sort of just the uptickin trying to push any kind of
psyop on the American people canbe debunked so quickly that it's
not actually effective. It can't be effective because

(03:51):
the only way the psyop works is when you have very, very low
information. We are slowly transitioning, I
think out of an era of low information, quote UN quote,
experts. I'm going to talk about sort of
the Dunning Kruger curve, if youguys are familiar with that and
where that leaves us when these people are out there trying to
push nonsense that you can't actually, you can't actually
follow up with. So before we do, let's talk

(04:13):
about the folks over at Patriot Protect.
Suggest you guys, if you are notdoing something about your
digital data, you are basically asking for an eventual
disappointment. We use patriot-protect.com slash
Kyle. That's the company Patriot
Protect patriot-protect.com/kyle15% off for the annual

(04:34):
membership or the annual subscription if you use my name
and make sure you're putting that name in so you don't lose
any money on this. It comes down to a couple of
dollars a day. And what are you trying to do?
You're trying to keep your emails, you're trying to keep
your address, your phone number,you're trying to keep your
personal information things people that you're connected to
that you're related to out of the people search data broker
websites that basically put it all up there to get clicks and

(04:56):
sell advertising. And the product is your
information. It may not be totally private
information. It's just personal information.
And when someone has that information, they can pretend to
be you. They can pretend that they are a
company that does business with you and get things like your
information on a, on a weak moment or you're driving, you're
distracted, you're busy. We could all become victim of

(05:16):
this. And statistically speaking, it's
not really a an if you're going to be targeted at some point.
The question is when. If you want to try to delay that
as long as possible or take yourname out of the stack, make
yourself a harder target. Go and check out my friends at
patriot-protect.com slash Kyle. Again, it's pennies a day.
It's dollars a month. It comes down to, I don't know,
80 or 90 bucks a year. It's a pretty easy thing.

(05:37):
It's a 1 cup of coffee if you'rea Starbucks type or if you're a
Dunkin' Donuts or whatever it isor the other ones, Dutch Bros,
something like that. If you spend coffee one time a
month, you can basically not do that and keep your name out of
the pile up there. Check out my friends over there.
So you guys, protect yourself. Don't make yourself a scam
victim. What I don't want to see is
people responding later and telling me, Oh yeah, I got
scammed by something and here's what it was.

(05:58):
And we do see that all the time,including in my own family.
All right, let's get into today's program, see what we can
talk about, and I'll show you some of the skulls that we
collected metaphorically. Metaphorically, of course, my

(06:20):
friends, for those of you that are joining us in the chat, we
really appreciate all of you being there.
We have a vibrant and and sort of interactive program.
You guys may not realize this, but the Kyle Serfin show is
always done live. There's no tape delay here.
And so we've got people joining us in chat on both YouTube where
you can come and find us withoutads if you want to get it
streamed right away or you can join us over on Rumble.

(06:41):
Same story. If you watch the show live, you
don't have to deal with that. If you watch us over on X, you
can actually participate in the chat as well and it should
actually bounce back and forth. So the folks over on YouTube
will see it as well. We're not able to integrate
everything together only becauseRumble is a slightly inferior
platform. It may be where the base of our
our audience is, but it is frustrating.
So yesterday we talked a little bit about the Co directorship in

(07:04):
the FBI and let me retouch that real quickly.
I'd like you guys to have like areal strong sense.
Let let me begin it with a question.
If you were doing your job well,that wherever it is that you do
your job, if you were satisfyingthe requirements of your job

(07:24):
description, if you were doing the work that was assigned to
you in a satisfactory manner, would you ever expect to find
someone sharing your job with you?
Wouldn't that be a little bit demoralizing?
Would it be a little bit concerning that somebody is now

(07:45):
sharing the duties and responsibilities of the job that
was meant for? One, that's Part 1.
The argument is, is that if you're doing the job well, then
you don't need another person todo it.
And if you're claiming the job is too big for you, then
possibly you're not the right person for it.
I had someone write me at 2:00 AM last night to let me know
this is not the first time we'vehad a Co director of the FBI, a

(08:07):
Co deputy director. In fact, in the 1980s we had
three. We have 3 executive assistant
directors. Who cares?
Last year we had 6 executive assistant directors.
I'm correct in saying there's never been a code deputy
director. There have never been two people
filling the job of the deputy director.
What you guys probably don't know is the FBI org chart, which

(08:29):
I wouldn't expect you to. And this is only critical in so
much as it touches on a few major topics. 1 Democrats
inability to address crime and they're sort of soft on crime
policies, which doesn't resonatewith normal people, including
people on the left. People who live in high crime
areas are not likely to go like,oh, the criminals have the same
skin color as me, so I'm OK withthem being criminals and killing

(08:53):
someone in my family or stealingthings out of my home or making
it unsafe for my children. All right, so that's part one
that doesn't make any bit of sense.
Real Simply put, the FBI org chart looks like this.
It's a straight line down until you get to what used to be the
executive assistant director level, but that's not there

(09:13):
anymore. There's Cash Patel at the top,
There's Dan Bongino directly below him.
And below that is a guy named William Rivers.
That's the 1-2 and the three in the Bureau.
And theoretically Bongino handles sort of like operational
side of of the FBI and Rivers handles the administrative side.
So they are there, you know, it's like #2 and #2.75, they're
not really a true #3 because he does handle a lot of stuff.

(09:35):
And be it used to be that you had all these branches and the
branches were called executive assistant directors.
To try to make a technicality out of this is silly.
It's very simple that a man who was the highest elected law
enforcement officer in the stateof Missouri has been tapped to
come in and join the FBI to do the job with another guy who was
already laid out as being competent.

(09:57):
And he's only been there for sixmonths.
So the short version of it is I have no expectation of Dan
Bongino sticking around. It might happen in the shortest
60 days. Supposedly, we're going to see
the the attorney general step down on September the eighth,
and then he's going to step intothe FBI role.
I cannot imagine if you're a DanBongino, both with the ego of

(10:18):
Dan Bongino, but also with the frustration that he's living
with right now. And he shared that very, very
significantly. How do you go and and try to
stay at an agency that has just said there needs to be another
person to do your job? I'm going to debunk some of the
the maggot talking points for you in just a second as well.
But first, I want to cover this other piece.
This is going back about a couple weeks ago.
This is what I believe spurred this action.

(10:40):
Politics may have spurred the August purge of five veteran FBI
agents. Now, this is a story that was
written by Daniel Clayman at CBS, and I spoke with Dan last
night for about half an hour, and he ended up quoting me in
this piece. I disagree with his use of the
word purge, and you guys might know why.

(11:01):
And the reason why is because the FBI already started doing
purges, and they did so startingin in, let's call it September
of 2021, potentially a little bit earlier than that.
The purge already happened inside the FBI, so you don't get
to call a dropping of a of a fewpeople that are in senior
management a quote UN quote purge or dropping a couple of

(11:21):
brick agents a purge when they already got rid of all the
people that were unvaccinated Christians by default believing
that they were Trump supporters.You can't go out and call that a
purge when we had significant losses that happened underneath
the Biden administration. However, the story goes is that
5 veteran FBI agents were fired earlier this month.

(11:44):
This was about two weeks ago by director Cash Patel offering no
explanation. It's kind of funny because Dan
goes on to actually list what the explanation was because some
of them were actually explained.There's a despicable purge
underway inside the senior underway of senior FBI officials
says Mark Zaid. You guys know who Mark Zaid is?
He's a quote UN quote whistleblower attorney.
If you, if you read people on the left, in reality, he's a

(12:04):
very aggressive left wing partisan guy.
He's part of law fair against Donald Trump.
And more importantly, he's also part of a lawsuit that the FBI
Agents Association has been pursuing against the FBI, trying
to keep the names of January 6thprosecuting agents or January
6th investigators hidden. So he's operated on behalf of a
previous set and he's clearly working in partisan means.

(12:26):
Unfortunately, what we basicallytraded is like our guys versus
their guys when we should be looking for a non partisan
agency. And I kind of thought that's
what Caspatel was going to do. Where it gets kind of funny for
me, they bring in the story of Bryan Driscoll, which we've
covered here previously. Bryan Driscoll was a a hostage
rescue team operator. He was a SWAT team member in New
York. I have friends who worked
directly with this man, Driscoll.

(12:47):
He's referred to as a highly decorated agent who took part in
numerous counterterrorism operations, was a short stint
acting director. So he was the number one in the
FBI before Cash came in. And that was an accident and
kind of a screw up, the classic governmental work and was
believed to be kind of thought of as a swashbuckling tactical
operator. He did have Cash Patel's trust.
I know that because Cash Patel told me that directly,

(13:09):
explicitly, and then he got knocked out.
It's my take that that Brian Driscoll was removed from the
FBI in sort of collateral damage, doing the thing that
you'd expect that a good managermight do, that a good officer
would do if you were in the military, which is to say, when
someone comes and asks you to dosomething illegal, immoral or
unethical, you say no. And then if there's

(13:31):
consequences, so be it. I think he'll end up being
vindicated. They mentioned that in the story
as well. So Driscoll's story, I think, is
actually the worst of them. It's one of the collateral
damage. I have, like I said, friends who
worked with him in multiple different arenas, both in New
York and when he was at Hostage Rescue.
What's fun is, is that the suspendables are prominently
mentioned in this story. And it's not often that the

(13:51):
mainstream media that I cover every morning actually talks
about us. So here it is, the suspendables.
There are other factors that have led some sources close to
the agents and lawyers representing them to question
whether the abrupt removals werethe result of outside political
influence. Interesting to call me a
political influence, but so be it.
The question surrounds the role of a small band of right leaning

(14:13):
former agents who clashed with the FBI under directors Comedy
and Ray and have been vocal critics of the FBI that they
believe is weaponized against them.
I'm going to actually push back just a little bit.
I don't believe that the FBI is weaponized against Kyle
Seraphin, nor is it just weaponized against Steve Friend
or Garrett Boyle or Phil Kennedyor George Hill.
I believe the FBI is weaponized against you, and by you, I mean

(14:37):
all people in America who believe in the Bill of Rights.
That's been my ongoing contention.
You guys can check the tape, take a little look and go back
and listen to the first Dan Bongino episode that I ever
appeared on, and that was in September of 2022.
You can roll back three years. And in the three years that I've
had a public face, I've always told you guys this is not about

(14:58):
politics when it comes to the FBI.
It's about American liberty. And I've substantiated this by
having people on the political left, I think they're sensible
people on the left that will speak to me realize that one,
I'm consistent. And two, that it actually isn't
about politics. Because I can very easily tell
you that the Bureau has gone after people on the left, your
BLM type activist, your free speech folks, the Palestine

(15:21):
folks. And I will tell you that when
they decide to use the influence, the power, the the
the intelligence capabilities ofour federal agencies against
people simply for speaking theirmind in the United States that
have a right to do so, we got a real problem.
We got a real serious issue. Here's the story going further.
Among them is Kyle Serafin, one of several former FBI agents and

(15:44):
whistleblowers who were suspended or had their security
clearances revoked for alleged misconduct.
That's true. Former agents, including
Seraphin to refer to themselves as the suspendables.
You guys know what that is. This is the funniest part for me
and I'm going to tell you from here on out, I may have to
change my intro. Seraphin has been among the out
most outspoken and affected members of this group.
At times, he's been critical of Patel from not aggressively at
swiftly cleaning house at the Bureau, but he's also had

(16:05):
Patel's ear. Sources say he exercises
considerable influence from his social media perch on X and his
podcast, The Kyle Seraphin Show.Ladies and gentlemen who are
listening, welcome to the Perch.Here we are, the Kyle Seraphin
Show Perch, where we exercise considerable influence over the
FBII don't know that that's true, and neither do you, but

(16:28):
that is very funny. That's a funny thing to find
out. And the reason why it's funny is
because I'm not interested in trying to get specific outcomes.
What I'm trying to prove to people.
Most importantly, I'm trying to prove to our current president,
the folks that he chose to run our agency, which has been
weaponized against American liberties.
They don't know what they're doing.

(16:49):
You nominated two people who would probably be OK for
director. But the significant problem is
that the person who was supposedto know the nuts and bolts, the
internal structure, the way thatthe FBI actually works, doesn't
actually understand how the FBI actually works.
And it's fairly rare that I do an appearance on mainstream TV,

(17:12):
whether it be the Newsmax, I don't much care for it.
OANI do occasionally when they ask me, Fox, I'm not really
interested anymore. A lot of these things are so
partisan. I want to give you guys a little
taste of something that I shared.
And and forgive me, the audio and video are out of sync On the
OAN side, it's one of the worst things that they do.
They have a studio that's like across the country.
So they have these weird lags when it comes to audio and
video. But I want to play for you what

(17:34):
I shared with Chanel Rione on this night.
I want to show you the message that's going out, not just on
this podcast, but that we're trying to put out to a broader
audience simply to let people understand that we're pointing
out that the current people in charge of the Bureau don't know
what's going on in the Bureau. That dynamic of FBI director
should run and give policy, and FBI deputy has to know how to

(17:57):
make that policy happen and has to know the people he's asking
about it. And that is currently not the
case. That's going to lead to where
we're at with Andrew Bailey. We talked about it yesterday at
the end of the show. I wanted to bring it to the
beginning of the show today specifically to say I think
Andrew Bailey is coming in to replace Cash Patel.
I think Dan Bongino is a foregone conclusion.

(18:17):
He already told us he was miserable.
He already told us that he was, quote, UN quote, divorced from
his wife. For those of you who have ever
been on a stint away from your spouse because of work, you
don't use the word divorced. That's a real serious problem.
And I don't wish anyone's marriage to fall apart.
It certainly shouldn't fall apart over the FBI.
So I hope Dan goes back and fixes things with his wife,
Paula, who always seemed like relatively nice to me.

(18:38):
I don't know her well. I hope that happens.
I don't want that for anybody. I don't want that for America.
Like marriage is falling apart. It's one of the scourges of our
community. And I think it's a foregone
conclusion that Dan's gone. And I think that those of you
who have been paying attention knew 1 he probably wouldn't last
till Christmas anyway. And this Epstein fallout and
sort of the the backlash that happened not because of what
they put out, by the way, but because of the way that we

(19:00):
received it as an audience when we were like, wait, what the
hell are you talking about? Didn't you say never let this
go? Didn't you guys have Pam Bondi
saying the files are on my desk?You're going to see horrific
things. You're going to find out that
these people abuse children. Alina Haba went out and did
this. Like all this stuff can be re
adjudicated. And so the only question is why
would you take somebody who's being very successful in
Missouri, who stepped into the role of attorney general,

(19:23):
following in the footsteps of Eric Schultz Schmidt, Sorry,
Eric Schmidt who stepped into Congress.
He's now a senator. You're in a job that leads you
to a higher office and you're going to step into a non
confirmed semi politically appointed place as the number 2
that you share at the FBIA sub agency underneath the cabinet

(19:44):
level position. I don't think Bailey, who does
seem to be interested in politics and climbing, is going
to step in to some half ass roleas a Co deputy director.
I think what we're seeing here is the beginning steps of
watching Cash Patel have over. He's overplayed his hand.
He's enjoyed the private jet. He's gotten to bring booze on.
He's gotten to party, he's gotten to hang out in Las Vegas.

(20:05):
He's gotten to try to hang out with the tactical cool guy
operators. But what he what he did?
Was not do the simple thing thatDonald Trump asked him to do to
go out there and find the peoplethat were weaponized.
And if he doesn't know what's going on inside his own agency,
he's in a real problem. And I think that's what we
pointed out two weeks ago. I think that's the entire point
of that article I was sharing with you.

(20:25):
And again, I'll share with you what I said last night.
I can't verify for certain that this is what drove it.
But the other day I put out someinformation which was news to
people in the Trump administration.
And I believe it was news to Cash Patel as well, that the
case agent who handled the Mar ALago classified document case
was in fact, the person who was flying the plane around for the

(20:46):
FBI director and was in close, you know, proximity and, and and
personal contact with the current director.
Now, if you're going to go in and reform things, would you
really take the guy that was responsible for the raid on
Melani's panty drawer? Would you take that guy and
immediately put him into a position where he's rubbing
shoulders with the FBI director?I think what that actually ended
up underscoring, and I didn't mean it to do that, was more
pointing out that these guys arekind of in and over their heads.

(21:08):
They don't know who is who in the FBI.
And so Andrew Bailey is not going to be the answer to that
problem. But I actually think there's a
longer strategy here and I'm happy to play it out for you.
I think at the end of the day, we look at this.
This is a soft exit for Dan Bongino.
He kind of gave this ultimatum that either she goes or I go.
There's not a lot of room in that.
And we know that Donald Trump has the back of Pam Bondi.

(21:28):
For better or for worse, that's the case.
And they've reaffirmed as much. So Bongino is looking for an
exit and there's no such thing as a Co director or a Co deputy
director in the FBI. We should just acknowledge that
right up front. That's not a real position.
That's never existed before. So naming it is what they used
to call in the Army, a side saddling where two people take
the same job. There's some on the job

(21:49):
training, a little knowledge transfer and then somebody goes
home. And I think that's what we're
going to see from Dan Bongino very soon.
On top of that, I also suspect that we're going to see the same
thing. Now, if you're in the MAGA
world, what you don't want to hear is that the guy that got
confirmed, the guy that you're quote UN quote friendly with,
and the dude that has been hanging out on your podcast and
doing things with you, that thatguy is somehow now going to get

(22:09):
edged out. And that person is Cash Patel.
The problem is Cash has pretty much proven himself incapable of
doing the things that we hoped he would.
And he's actually, he's more confused about what the role of
the FBI is. And there's multiple articles
that are going from the left andthe right today.
I want to just kind of share this from from Fox News and give
a little bit of perspective. This was how it was covered, I

(22:30):
believe yesterday. This is a Fox News piece that
went out saying Patel and Bondi tapped Missouri AG as an
additional FBI Co deputy director alongside of Dan
Bongino. Bailey will join the FBI.
It's Co deputy director. There's some some useful
information that you should havein back story on that.
And specifically, it's not just me telling you that Bailey was

(22:54):
the was the runner up choice forFBI director.
He was probably the leading choice without some significant
sort of public push as I was ledto believe.
Cash was sort of the underdog version of this.
And Steve Bannon, who for betteror for worse, I'm not a big
Steve Bannon fan. I never have been.
I actually don't. I think he's a propagandist.
Anybody who makes their entire personality about one guy who's

(23:15):
about to be out of the presidency, You know, this is
like the entire quote, UN quote war room ideas that it's like,
how much can we talk about how much of A genius Donald Trump is
left and right? And I just find it kind of off
putting. But he does have access and he
does have knowledge and he's running around and hearing the
same things that I obviously heard.
He's taking some different opinions on it.
Here he is talking about Andrew Bailey real quick.

(23:36):
OK, huge news, breaking news right now just coming across the
wire. Missouri Attorney General Andrew
Bailey has just become the Co deputy director of the FBI
alongside a work alongside Deputy Director Dan Bongino.
For folks in the know and down in Mar a Lago, the FBI

(23:59):
directorship essentially came down to Cash Patel and Andrew
Bailey. So this is a huge augmentation
of the force over there at the FBI think it's I think it's also
showing, you know, cash and those guys need some backup.
There's so much going on. So this is a huge announcement.
He the the cover bid to actuallyget the directorship.

(24:20):
Missouri Attorney General AndrewBailey is now becoming the Co
deputy director of the FBI who will work alongside deputy
director Dan Bongino. So expects even more intense
that you got another pair of hands and this guy's got big
capability. So Andrew Bailey now at the FBI.
Also, Fox News is reporting thatthe full story.
All right, Yeah. So Fox News reported it again.

(24:42):
There's the same headline you'reseeing.
We're reading the same stuff. What's interesting is, is that
the person who wrote that headline, or at least the person
who wrote the story under the headline, is a lady named Brooke
Singman. We should talk about that in one
second here because that's also going to be relevant.
Before we do, let's just talk about my buddies over at Patriot
Coolers. I like to bring this thing up
front. I'm I'm I'm using it today
because I need it. I only got about 5 1/2 hours of

(25:04):
sleep last night. Patriot coolers.com.
The promo code Kyle is how you guys get 10% off from my friends
over there. They make great products.
It doesn't matter what you get, you're not going to go wrong
with it. Their water bottles are good.
We've got their like half gallonwater bottle.
We've got their 50 liter cooler.We've got the 20 oz coffee cup
here. We've got the 16 ounce coffee
cup that's on the desk. We got the 30 oz behind me.
I've got a 40 oz that I carry with me when we go everywhere.

(25:26):
Like I must have a dozen of their products.
I bought them with my own cash. Like they don't send me stuff
for free. I'm willing to invest in it.
They're a good company. They're in Houston, TX.
They warehouse all their stuff locally.
They're sending it to you very, very quickly.
Their stuff is patriotic and well thought out.
It doesn't say Yeti doesn't say Stanley.
What it says is you got 13 bars on the side of this.
It's probably a little bit whitefor you guys to be able to see,

(25:46):
but there's 13 bars on the side of this cup.
On the bottom are 50 stars. If they've thought about the
stuff out there and said, hey, you know, what is it that
Americans want to do? If you're actually proud of this
country? And that's becoming harder and
harder, I think every day. But if you want something that's
going to keep your hot coffee hot, keep your brain engaged
when you come out here and do something like this.
I heated it up. I drop it in.
I could do that at 6:00 AM and it's still hot.

(26:07):
It's now 9:00 here, 3 hours later and I still got a hot cup
of coffee as I'm sitting here and talking to you.
Check them out again, promo codeKyle.
It's Patriot coolers.com. There is a link in the show
description. They are quite easy to find and
we'll make sure that that is properly updated.
I want to read this story real quick.
So first of all, this is what AGAndrew Bailey had to say to
Missouri. Thank you.
My tenure as attorney general has been the honor of my

(26:29):
professional career. What has made it truly
meaningful is the opportunity toserve my home state.
Together, we have defended the rule of law and safeguarded our
freedoms. I'm forever grateful.
He was doing the Missouri V. Biden case, which had some
different names over the years. He was doing things like
fighting against robocalls. He was doing things like pushing
back against Planned Parenthood and funding and trying to keep
women safe in a way that actually keeps like women alive

(26:49):
and babies alive. I think all that is pretty good.
Got a little clip of that if youguys would like to hear it real
quick. Let's do that.
Actually, let's play a little quick thing about Planned
Parenthood. Again, I think this is a decent
guy. His values seem correct.
We've also seen him go on Sean Ryan show talking about
weaponization, talking about howthe Biden administration was
abusing the auto pen. So all the things he's saying
are great. There's only one little problem.

(27:10):
And I'm going to play the clip from the Planned Parenthood call
in that he did. The only thing that I see as a
problem is he's still not a Bureau insider.
I'll explain why that's an issue.
And then I also think that's whyhe ends up as the director
shortly. Planned Parenthood is
encouraging women to conceal having taken abortion drugs from
emergency medical providers and that.
That's wrong for two reasons. Number one, it puts the the

(27:32):
patient, the woman at greater risk for life threatening
complications, but #2 it, it hides the data about the danger
of these drugs and perpetuates their deadly lives.
Planned Parenthood is encouraging women to conceal
having taken abortion drugs fromemergency medical providers.
And that, let me let me say thatslightly differently, 'cause I

(27:54):
found these guys that were out there, they're actually engaging
leftists who are celebrating Planned Parenthood in the same
way that leftists would actuallygo after the pro lifers.
This is kind of a taste of theirown medicine.
I think this is what Andrew Bailey's saying.
Planned Parenthood's gay. Planned Parenthood sucks.
That's enough. You're not gonna kill the
babies. Bans off the children's bodies.

(28:14):
Can you please bans off the children's bodies?
We feel uncomfortable. Can we get some space, please?
No. Nope.
Why not? You guys don't give the the
unborn space. We are not engaging.
We're just walking away. Yeah, that's right.
Walk away. Get off the Capitol.
You guys aren't welcome here. I don't know why I like that,
but this guy walks up, but he just acts like a jerk, you know,

(28:36):
kind of like you see leftist do.There's this sort of this sort
of moment where we're just too tired to see this crap anymore.
It doesn't matter. You call us racist, you call us
sexist, you call us misogynist. And it's just, it's not
interesting. It's like, OK, no, we just care
about babies. I think it's great.
I think I think Andrew Bailey making that claim that that
they're going to go out and pickfights in the state of Missouri

(28:57):
that matter. I think all of that is really
good. So there's nothing wrong with
any of those things. But what I don't see is a man
stepping down from a position where he was doing real action.
And I don't think Donald Trump plucked him from Missouri.
I don't think Pam Bondi went down and plucked him from
Missouri because they were like,oh, let's make him less
effective. I don't think that was
happening. I also don't believe this lady.

(29:20):
This is Julie Kelly. You guys know who Julie Kelly
is? She's one of our favorites.
Julie Kelly yesterday was lamenting that there's just no
loyalty in this game, this game,this business, this politics or
whatever it is. She's a propagandist just like
Brooke Singman. Brooke Singman wrote the Fox
article. Brooke Singman is also getting
married to a Republican out of Pennsylvania.
She is the go to media outlet for the current administration

(29:45):
when it comes to law enforcementstuff.
So she is the soft source for for the FBI to give leaks and
information in the same way thatKen Delanian is the soft source
for people on the left. If you want to go to a favorable
news outlet, Brooke Singman has published all of the FBI stories
that we've seen. There are probably over a dozen
significant quote UN quote breaking stories that she's
covered. And here's another one.

(30:07):
Now this is the what I call unofficial mouthpiece of Dan
Bongino. When you see Julie Kelly, this
is an ex post from her yesterday.
When you see Julie Kelly say sources tell me and she's
referring to the FBI. Let's just cut to the to the
straight part of it. Those sources are one person.
And that one person is Dan Bongino directly telling her

(30:27):
something that he wants pushed out.
Because with whatever Dan does, he cannot have it look like the
thing that it actually is, whichis him surrendering him, walking
away from the FBI and doing so in failure.
And then sort of like pretendingthat, you know, this guy's got
it in hand. So I'm going to go back to what
I do best. This is a mouthpiece of the Dan
Bongino, you know, unable to sayunvarnished things.

(30:47):
Sources tell me one reason why AG Andrew Bailey has been
brought on as a Co deputy director of the FBI is his
prosecutorial background that will come in handy as cases ramp
up at the Bureau. All hands on deck scenario.
I'm told Bailey officially stepsdown next month.
He said it in another post that he was going to be stepping down

(31:09):
in September on September 8th. All right, let's debunk a few
things. Also, by the way, what you're
seeing on the screen out there are the the receipts that we
dropped about a year ago now of Julie Kelly giving money.
I think it's like slightly, I think it's like 2000 or $2500 to
the Biden administration campaign in 2019 in the middle

(31:29):
of writing a Trump book, she waswriting a book saying, oh,
Donald Trump is has disloyal opposition in the Republican
Party. Meanwhile, she's giving money to
Joe Biden. Before that she gave money to
Hillary. Before that she gave money to
Obama. These are all easily publicly
searchable. All you need to go is to the
FEC, the Federal Election Commission database and you can
search for Julie Kelly. She lives in Orland Park.
She publishes that online. That is not a docs that is

(31:52):
saying things that this woman has publicly said about herself.
And I can just tell you, you cango find out she gave money to
Democrats as late as 20/22. She was giving money to Chicago
Democrats who were going after, you know, conservatives in that
area. So all of that's kind of funny,
but let's just debunk this. You're going to need someone
with prosecutorial backgrounds to be able to fix the problems

(32:14):
at the FBI. And Dan doesn't have that.
Didn't we want to get Cash Patel, a former prosecutor and
defense attorney, someone who's seen both sides of the coin,
into the director chair? The problem Bailey will have is
that he doesn't have institutional knowledge of the
FBI. And that's really simple when
you've worked at a company for along time.

(32:35):
Think about any company you've ever worked at.
You know who had a little spat five years ago?
If you've been there, let's say you've been there for 20
something years. And a lot of the people that are
in the management have been there for 20 something years.
So that's kind of a different animal than most private
companies. But imagine that, you know all
the dirt, you know who dodged aninternal investigation, you know
who got an HR allegation but wasable to like pay off, you know,

(32:58):
the, the, the accusation and that went away.
There was some point of a settlement.
You know who hitched their wagonto what other manager and what
projects they sort of like fudged on and said that they
were part of and were able to climb up the ladder with it.
The reason why you have institutional knowledge in the
position of deputy director is because they need to know how to
turn the screws to make the vision of the director happen.

(33:19):
Bailey's not going to have that,folks.
He's not going to have it because he hasn't been there.
So he has no idea who the peopleare that he's going to be trying
to get to do stuff. But he might be the right guy in
character in principle and in track record so far in politics
to actually carry out the reforms that we've been hoping
that we were going to see from Cash Patel.

(33:40):
There is no chance that you needa prosecutorial background.
Here it is again, a prosecutorial background to be
the Co deputy director of the FBI because the FBI doesn't do
prosecutions, period, period. It doesn't do prosecutions.
That's called the the, the Department of Justice.
That's called the United States Attorneys Office.

(34:00):
If you wanted to bring in someone with a prosecutable
background because you thought he was going to be really,
really good at putting together great cases, you would bring him
over to DOJ. He would go work for Todd
Blanche. Maybe he would replace Todd
Blanche if that's what you thought was important.
That's not what's happening here.
It's very, very clear this is made-up.
This is spin. So all we're doing is we're
trying to set up. And again, it's coming from
someone who's basically been running propaganda for quite a

(34:22):
while. I didn't realize how bad it was
over at what is this real America's voice?
I've I don't think I've been on there in a very long time.
Rav is such AI don't know third or fourth rate power.
This was Bannon in November of 2024 talking about Julie Kelly.
I've never heard or actually referred to as St.
Julie Kelly. Seriously.
He's actually saying it. Seriously, I don't think you get

(34:43):
to sainthood by lying to the public.
I want to go to Saint Julie Kelly.
I I just want people to put in. Wait, what was that I want?
To go to Saint Julie Kelly, I, Ijust want people to put in this
perspective. When President Trump left the
Whitehead, they all state power.They had the House against him,
the Senate against him, Mitch McConnell dumping on him, all
the Republican donors dumping onhim.
You know, we had when they brought all the state power,

(35:04):
just like the Nazis did, just like the Bolsheviks did.
With the judges. And the courts and the lawyers
and they investigate FBI, all ofit the the American Gestapo,
FBI. What did President Trump have?
What did the forces of light have?
We had a woman that's not a lawyer, that's Julie Kelly going
into courts and seeing this J6 stuff and saying this is not
right. We had Mike Davis, one man who

(35:26):
started group Article 3. We had Boris Epstein and Boris
will tell you couldn't even get lawyers, the big law firms
because the clients came to lawyer says you can't work with
Trump and Bannon. OK, Julie Kelly, not a St.
She's not a lawyer. She's never worked in law
enforcement. She doesn't know what she's
talking about. Let's say 6 times out of 10,
which is far too many times for you to be quote UN quote A
reporter. She's absolutely atrocious to

(35:49):
January Sixers who wanted to gettheir story out.
She's gone and tried to physically threaten.
She's like 5-9 and kind of Manish looking.
She's tried to physically threaten people that are friends
of this program like Steve Baker, which is really weird
because at the end of the day, even if you look like a
transgender person, it doesn't mean that you are actually a man
abandoned talking about Mike Davis who's accomplished exactly
nothing. 0 things. What does the Article 3 project

(36:11):
do with nothing? It's a cheerleader.
It's a MAGA organization and he's saying something that I
think is inherently dangerous. He called the folks that work
around Donald Trump the forces of light and that we are
fighting back against this Nazi sort of regime.
The fact the matter is, if you are going to make it so simple
and so stupid that that that we're talking about good and
evil with the FBI and assume that one group is going for

(36:33):
Republicans and that makes them good and the other group is
going for for Democrats and thatmakes them bad.
It completely ignores the stupidity that the FBI serves
the FBI. And I'm reading a piece here
today which I wanted to cover. This is from Catalanian.
So we've gone to the sort of theother side of the Julie Kelly
type, you know, grift soft thing.
This is what Brooke Sigman does for the right, Tentalinian does

(36:56):
for the left. He wrote an article that
actually shows that neither sideknow what the hell they're damn
talking about. And it's so tiring to watch.
This is what I feel like we're trying to do.
And This is why the suspendablesdraw fire from both sides.
That's why I actually very much appreciate that that Mister
Clayman called us right leaning.That's accurate.
We're right leaning. We're actually like far right

(37:18):
compared to Trump and MAGA and most of the other things.
Maybe the rest of you are as well.
We're aggressively conservative,unapologetically so.
That's not what's going and being attacked by the FBI.
The FBI is serving the interest of the FBI.
So let me read this real quickly.
Trump is turning the FBI away, FBI away from investigating
terrorism and corruption. Sources say staffing cuts in a

(37:39):
new focus on violent crime will leave fewer resources for the
agency's other goals. Well, right away I can tell you
that the quote UN quote other goals of the agency are almost
exclusively against to the constitutional interests of
Americans. That's that is going to be very
easily shown. Now, what you're seeing on on
this picture is also stupid. You have two federal agents
wearing kit and gear. That doesn't make a lot of

(38:01):
sense. It's brand new.
That is the brand new issued stuff that's only been out for
like a year or two. They're carrying equipment in
ways that they can't access. There's a tourniquet behind that
guy's gun hand and I don't thinkyou can probably reach back in
and and activate it. I used to carry a tourniquet on
the rear, but it was for, like, if I was face down somewhere,
you'd carry a tourniquet on the front if you know what you're
doing. The FBI was once known for

(38:23):
taking down gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde, but in recent
years, its targets have been more like the Boston Marathon
bombers, who, by the way, got away with the bombing.
You guys remember that, right? The FBI tries to tell you that
tyranny is necessary, that all of these illicit sort of spying
operations, that seven O2 is required, that they need to go
out and run intelligence investigations where they can

(38:43):
pull all of your data, They can pull your phone records, they
can pull your financial transactions.
And they need to do that in advance so they can prevent
terrorism with no evidence that terrorism is being prevented.
Again, the Boston Marathon bombers got away with dropping
explosive devices at a a major gathering in a left-leaning
city, which does go to the less problem with enforcing crime.

(39:07):
That's going to be covering a little bit later after the
September 11th attacks. This is accurate.
Then Director Robert Mueller recognized and reorganized the
Bureau around national security and intelligence.
I think that was the worst thingthat ever happened.
It was the wrong lesson learned.The top priority was stopping
another terrorist attack on American soil.
That's not possible. You can't do that.
That's a tyrannical mandate. We've covered that ad nauseam at

(39:28):
this program. But if you're new here, I want
you to understand that the minute that you say no American
will die from terrorism is the mission of our national security
apparatus. That is the minute when you
accept that your constitutional liberties, your right to speak
freely, to practice your religion, to say things, to be a
dissident, to gather and protestand, and to be able to, you
know, petition for a redress of grievances, to be free from

(39:50):
government searches and seizureswithout a warrant.
Those all go away the minute that you accept that a mission
of no American dies from terrorism on American soil.
And that is the lesson that our national security apparatus
learned. And the FBI is a big problem
that did it. Again, I don't think that Patel
or Bongino or Bailey lack an understanding that that is

(40:11):
problematic. But the means though of which
you actually turn that animal around.
You have to know who is inside the agency that you are working
against. You're talking about 20 plus
years of people who are entrenched in that idea.
That came up under Robert Mueller, that came up under Jim
Comedy, that came up under Christopher Wray, none of whom
varied the path. And now you have Cash Patel

(40:31):
who's doing some clown like behavior and wearing a badge and
flying around to Las Vegas and hanging with his girlfriend and
going to USC and we're still back, baby, and all that
nonsense. But none of that addresses the
underlying issue that the FBI isan investigative agency and you
are still allowing intelligence investigations to happen.
They actually touted that they have something like 800 Intel
investigations going on right now this year.

(40:54):
And they were super excited about it.
Dan Von Gino went out and and touted it.
And they're also telling you that that is their number one
priority. Again, I played this yesterday.
I'm going to play it again. This is the priority.
All of these things are nationalsecurity concerns.
This is what is flooding the zone in the director suite right
now. And that is not what the FBI
that you probably voted for a return to law enforcement should

(41:15):
be doing to that too, because what the.
Director's saying is right. You got to remember we come in
in the morning, there's a portfolio of 100 level 10 items.
If it's a level 9, which is a pretty big freaking deal,
someone else fixed it. The only thing that gets to my
desk or his is a level 10. That's the entire day.
Look at his schedule. Any given day.
I'll show you the palm card I have.

(41:36):
It is filled from 7:30 to he leaves seven at night, 6:30 at
night. It it's filled all day.
We just can't focus on one thing.
You want New York to go boom, DCto go boom?
You want an OC organization to go hack into some cyber network
and crack all of Fox News's holdings?
One, I don't care what happens to Fox News.

(41:56):
That's their job. They should do their own
cybersecurity, hire some good people.
But let's be really, really serious about what he said.
Do you want New York to go boom?Somebody used those words and
said that to him. If you don't maintain the status
quo, if you don't keep doing thethings that we are doing, that
we've been doing, then you're going to be the reason for the
next 911. You're going to be the person

(42:17):
who has to deal with this, who sets the priority of what's A9
or A10? They're already set by the FBI,
right? Who set those meetings?
If you're the deputy director ofthe FBI, you call meetings.
You don't get called to meetings.
And yet these guys are being handled by the folks that do
this professionally. And their entire career is
already like, based on you have to continue what you're doing or

(42:39):
you're going to be a failure, you're going to be removed.
And what did he say? We can't just focus on one
thing. Well, we actually only elected
Donald Trump to come in regarding the FBI and the DOJ to
do one thing to de weaponize this animal to defang the attack
dog. He just told you they can't do
it and you're not going to get it from Patel.
They've all been handled. They are being handled.

(43:02):
I don't blame them because they don't know what they're looking
at. They need someone inside the FBI
or somebody with FBI knowledge. I saw our chat earlier said
you're looking for a Unicorn. No, I'm not.
I know people who can do this job.
I'm not one of them, but I know how to assess what that person
is and if we're being fair, so do these guys.
You need somebody with 20 years of experience who is retired and
showed backbone against it. You probably need someone who's

(43:23):
been removed for a whistlebloweractivity, who had 15 to to 25
years inside the FBI as an agentand worked in the major offices.
They need to have time in eitherWashington Field, New York or
Los Angeles. Maybe a side runner would be
Miami. That's the the fourth biggest
one. They need to have spent time in
the headquarters units. They need to have worked under
and seen the people who are currently the section chiefs,

(43:44):
the people that are the assistant section chiefs and the
unit chiefs needs to know what an assistant director does.
What the deputy director's job is, needs to have an opinion
about the previous deputy directors.
I guarantee you if you took Dan Bongino before he started that
job, he couldn't have named to you the last three or four FBI
deputy directors off the top of his head because it's not his
agency. And I don't blame the guy for

(44:05):
it. But you put him in an unwinnable
situation, so it's obvious he's going to leave.
And you're now putting Bailey inthe same exact unwinnable
situation. He can't win because he doesn't
know the things to win, but he might make a better director.
And I do think that's what's coming down because I don't
think that they blew it. I don't think they did.
I've already given names to people, including Cash Patel,
including the Trump administration, who would be

(44:26):
favorable choices, who would do this in a in a short period of
time, 6 to 9 months. It could be almost done by now.
And they would burn all the friendships they have in the
prior FBI because they won't have any colleagues, because
they would upset people on both sides.
You don't need a a conservative or a MAGA loyalist to come in
and be the FBI deputy director. What do you need is a

(44:47):
constitutionalist, somebody who understands what the left and
the right boundaries are. And by the way, Kendalanian
doesn't seem to get that, so neither does Cash Patel.
They're both wrong from the leftand the right.
They're wrong. And this is the classic problem
of standing in the middle saying, listen, I know more than
you do about this one thing. We're going to get to the end of
that in a second here. Here's where it goes.
Patel, who often refers to FBI agents as quote, UN quote, cops,

(45:10):
a label they tend to shy away from.
The reason they shy away from it, folks, is because they're
not cops, which is why this picture you're seeing on the
screen is ridiculous. Having FBI agents wearing body
armor patrolling DC is a recipe for disaster.
They're not trained for that. I assure you that that dude
wearing a Doo rag and that Lady wearing a baseball hat are not
trained to be cops. And maybe one of the two of them

(45:31):
at best is. But it's like less than 30% of
the FBI comes in from a previouslaw enforcement role.
They're taking steps to get the Bureau more involved in
investigating violent crime. Investigating violent crime and
patrolling the streets are not the same thing.
He's carrying out a plan to dramatically slash the
workforce. He's also talked about rolling
out Tasers. What that tells you is we are
looking at people that have no business running this agency and

(45:52):
they're putting out priorities that are not going to solve the
problem. These are tourniquets.
These are band aids. These are not addressing the
actual, they're dealing with symptoms and not the disease.
The disease is, we have intelligence apparatus agents
running this group and they've turned it into an Intel agency.
And I made that very clear to CBS last night.
Everybody wants to talk about a deep state.
I'm like, no, what we have is anagency that's mission has gotten

(46:16):
so sideways that it actually believes that its requirement is
to violate the Constitution, the1st and the 4th Amendment, plus
others in order to accomplish something that they are not able
to accomplish. There's no evidence they've ever
been able to do it. I thought Bongino understood
that because we made a movie called Police Stay Together with
Dinesh D'souza. I thought Patel and I thought
Julie Kelly and Bannon, they were all interviewed for this.

(46:37):
Peter Schweitzer, the same story.
The solution is someone who actually knows how to do this
thing. You have to put your
investigators up front and let them manage.
They're not going to want to do it.
You need reluctant leadership inside the FBI.
And the figurehead is going to be less relevant than the person
who understands the nuts and bolts of getting this thing
done. It's pretty.
It's pretty simple. Multiple current and former FBI

(47:00):
officials say they've already seen what's happening over the
last several months as agents have been diverted to
immigration enforcement and veterans with years of
experience have left the Bureau.Some of that's not bad.
But yeah, immigration enforcement is not what the FBI
ought to be spending its time doing.
But they're chasing stats because the FBI is still
subservient to the old metric system that they were always
subservient to, which is called integrated program management.

(47:21):
Again, something that me and theguys have made Cash Patel aware
of. If you don't get rid of IPN,
then these guys are going to chase their bonuses.
If you don't understand that thepeople that are senior field
agents, your special agents in charge of each field office are
incentivized financially to the tune of five figures.
Let's call it somewhere between like 20 and $60,000.
It varies depending on the size of the office and decide any of

(47:43):
the size of the year and and howsenior.
But these people will make like a significant chunk of their
salary 10% or more in a bonus based on hitting numbers.
And those numbers are include arrests.
So if they get a bunch of illegal aliens arrest, those are
super easy to get. And it's better to do that than
it is to go out there and do real investigations.
Again, Federal Bureau of Investigations, the word is
right there. The problem is, is you've got

(48:05):
the NBC national security and law enforcement contributors.
This is Rob D'amico. I don't know who he is, but
doesn't matter. He said this is putting the
nation in jeopardy. They seem to be nation making
national security threats secondary, correct?
That's right, because you're notgoing to be able to stop
national security threats. There's no evidence.
You have. In fact, what there is evidence
of, and we showed it in the movie Police State.

(48:25):
We showed it with guys like Dan Bongino and Julie Kelly
contributing is that they go andthey manufacture these things
and they can manufacture it under the the title of January
6th and they can manufacture it under the title of BLM and they
can manufacture it under the title of white supremacy.
Wherever the money train is coming from out of Congress is
where the FBI will chase the statistics and those statistics

(48:48):
drive more funding and budget. And that's what government is.
Government is the ice cream conethat licks itself.
All it needs to do is show you that it needs to exist, and it
needs to exist because it's doing the thing that it does.
What a stupid and recursive argument.
Like why do you need it? Because we've always done it
that way. Is the answer for the FBI you

(49:10):
used to go after Bonnie and Clyde?
Were Bonnie and Clyde St. level offenders?
No, they were multi state Interstate criminals that were
fugitive from local law enforcement and the resources at
the time did not allow for for for following someone from
multiple jurisdictions locally. We don't actually have the same
problem as the 1930s United States did.
We have mutual aid, We have the NIM system, the National

(49:32):
Incident Management system. We have the ability of
integrated, you know, command. We have the ability to share
warrants nationally. That is the FBI thing.
They share this, this NCIC system where you can actually
send a warrant at a state level anywhere in the country and
everybody can see so they don't have the problems that the
Bonnie and Clyde thing does. You can't go back to Bonnie and
Clyde. What you can do and what should

(49:53):
be done is actually investigate corruption as it says here in
the title of this this article. And you should be doing long
term complex investigations thatnobody else has the time or the
energy to do. And if you're not going to do
that, if you're going to do these like stupid little sugar
pop slam dunks where you're going to go after a bunch of
like Midget illegal aliens that are working somewhere in a

(50:14):
construction job and there's some low level MS13 or or ATDA
member, then you're not serving a purpose either.
What you're doing is you're justdoing PR.
And the odds of this being turned back on something else
that is politically expedient is100% in the way that it's being
run right now. We're wasting money, we're
wasting time. And I'm hopeful that they say,

(50:35):
OK, fine, we need someone that actually understands what's
going on here. But all of this stuff.
Current and former FBI officialstell MSNBC that the changes are
coming at the expense of the role of the FB is role in
protecting the United States from terrorists.
That can't be done hackers probably also can't be done
spies. They're mediocre at that as
well. The only way they catch spies is
by letting people spy for a verylong time and then finally
turning on them as well as its traditional mission.

(50:57):
And here's where it actually belongs, White collar fraud.
The FBI used to hire significantchunks of Cpas and attorneys.
Why? Because you can go after that.
Public corruption. They're outside of the public
system locally. So they should be able to
investigate that. That is a critical role.
And child sex crimes, which theycould basically turn the entire
FBI into chasing child sex crimes.
And they would never be out of work.

(51:17):
And they would doing constant knocks on everybody's door.
That would actually happen all the time.
There's a disgusting appetite inthis country for that.
That'd be amazing. They don't do that.
If more agents are working on violent crime cases, then their
total numbers are being reduced and there won't be manpower left
to put the same level of resources towards national
security and the other threats. I agree, and they shouldn't be
because you cannot be an intelligence agency and a law

(51:39):
enforcement agency at the same time.
We have proven that. We've proven it to people on the
left. We've proven it to people on the
right. We've proven that when you take
national security tools and you apply them to American citizens,
what you were going to do is violate American Civil
Liberties. The end.
That should be the mission set that the Trump administration
should be going after. And by the way, Donald Trump
himself and his family were all victims of this thing.

(52:00):
They should know about it. So the return to law and order,
which is what's being covered over at NPR, should be a no
brainer. And it is a place where
Democrats are weak. This is an iron that you can
strike on that actually goes bipartisan.
You can share information by saying crime stats are bad.
When people are not held accountable, they do bad things.

(52:21):
We are going to back up local law enforcement, put our funding
there, get the FBI out of their way, stop trying to go after
like this, like low hanging fruit, and really do long term
complex investigations into hugecriminal organizations which
exist, including politicians. That's what we're interested in.
We want to clean up corruption. We want to clean up fraud.
We want to protect you from force and fraud.
Oh yeah, The actual purpose of aConservative government.

(52:43):
It's the only charter and mandate that it needs.
And what we're not going to do is fall into the trap that the
anti federalist saw starting at the founding of this country,
because the original debate about whether or not we should
have a strong central governmenthinged around a strong central
government abusing its authority.
And there is nothing more abusive than a national security
apparatus that doesn't have to obey pleas outside the

(53:06):
boundaries using pre crime and other nonsense that doesn't
actually work. People who go outside the
boundaries of our Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is only as good as the people who actually
swear allegiance to it. And guess what?
We found out that the FBI doesn't do it.
How do you know, Kyle? Oh, 'cause I was there and I saw
a First Amendment caveat saying we're going to investigate
people for their speech and their ideas and their politics.

(53:29):
And I brought this to Congress. And the reason the FBI says it
is we don't do this thing that we're about to go do.
They actually launch a case saying we're not going to do
this thing while they do this thing.
Has the 1st Amendment caveat been removed from everything?
No, so I already know that things that could have been done
day one, organizations within the Bureau that should have been
disbanded. And I actually thought listening

(53:50):
to people like Sean Ryan's show where Patel went on, listening
to Glenn Beck, listening to Fox News where they invited this guy
on, talking to Trey Gowdy or anyone else, Hannity, take your
pick. Take your pick of your right
wing hero. Patel went out and said he was
going to do this stuff and he hasn't done it.
So maybe Bailey will again, you got a huge opportunity here.
Here's CNN covering this. This is Chuck Todd and this is

(54:11):
Scott Jennings talking about. There is a like people are not
sad that they got Donald Trump. The people that are upset on the
political right are sad that there's not enough of the things
that Donald Trump said during the campaign that are being
carried out right away. And some of them can be carried
out faster than they are and they should be because you've
only got a limited amount of time.
It's not punching at Trump to say the things you said.

(54:31):
We want more and we want faster.And Democrats actually who
crossed the aisle to be able to vote for him and put him in
office kind of want those same things.
That's my sense of it. Nobody wants to live in crime.
Scott Jennings. So that, yeah, no part of the
Republican base is presently demoralized.
Every single part of the Republican base that voted for

(54:53):
Donald Trump. I'm just telling you, if I
didn't, they are as happy as they could possibly be with him.
And they will be that way come next year.
This idea that there's division over this in the party.
They're happy with Trump, trust me.
No, I think what's a risk here is that Donald Trump has
portrayed himself as a warrior against the elites.
What Jeffrey Epstein files present is a an alternative

(55:16):
story that no, no, no, no, he's part of this elite group too.
He's been with the elites. He's been in part of this.
You know, there's the, you know,and I think that is what could
be so damn that weirdly, that's the damage.
It's not a specific allegation. Were you an inside or an
outside? Are you?
You think it's true to American voters or Republicans that he is
an elite person? No, no, no, of course he was a
no, but no, he was the guy actually know that the New York

(55:39):
elite didn't like that the political league didn't like
that the Republican League. He built an entire brand on
being the on grievance. So no, I think this is what's at
risk for him. What's really interesting is
when you see Democrats like Chuck Todd go out there and make
this messaging, what they do is they have to zoom into the
timeline to the part that actually shows the thing that
they want. And then they make that
argument. What they can't do is zoom out

(56:01):
wider and remember that Whoopi Goldberg used to embrace him,
that Joy Behar gave him a kiss on the cheek, you know, when he
came on the view and that kind of stuff.
So you have to look at a very micro space of this guy's almost
80 years on the planet. And then you go, yeah, see,
look, he was, he was this outsider.
It's like, yeah, he was an outsider when he changed his
opinions or more importantly, his opinions continued to be
sort of of like 90s Democrats, which is my argument.

(56:24):
And the party that he was a partof, the Democrat Party,
diverged. That's not the same thing as
donating money to the actual Democrat who ends up doing the
J6 stuff. While you're saying that you're
loyal to Donald Trump and you'reyou're bitching about people not
being loyal. What am I referencing?
Of course I'm referencing this woman, Julie Kelly.
Let's take 2 seconds here for the folks over on Spotify.
And if you're listening on the audio, you're going to hear a

(56:45):
quick audio ad. So we'll do that right there.
I want to continue on that vein of thought because this is where
that Chuck Todd statement. It actually ends up abusing the
the authority. There are wins that happen.
People do want to see this. Accountability is actually
pretty good from all ends of it.To cry about certain people
losing security clearances. Nobody cried when I lost mine.

(57:05):
Nobody cried when Gerardo Boyle lost his.
And by the way, he's still quote, UN quote, employed by the
Trump administration as an FBI agent with no pay coming up on
1100 days. We're on the way to 1100 days.
Almost 20% of this was actually under Donald Trump's leadership.
There are people that are getting the job done.
It's pretty obvious to us. It looks like this.
If you go to odni.gov, people who say, well, Tulsi, this is

(57:29):
just your view or your interpretation.
No, it's all in hundreds of pages of documents that I've
declassified and released that show point by point exactly what
happened through this timeline that showed this very dangerous
thing that occurred in the creation of Russia Gate, the
creation of this manufactured intelligence assessment that

(57:51):
essentially had the intent of undermining the voices and votes
of the American people who elected Donald Trump.
They were not happy with the outcome of that election.
And so they created this politicized, weaponized piece of
fake intelligence that, as you mentioned, then went on to serve
as a foundation for everything that came after the multiple

(58:11):
investigations, the years long Mueller investigation. 2
Congressional impeachments, investigations in the raid at
Mar a Lago, the list goes on andon.
The list does go on and on. She's completely right about
that. Her group, the the Director's
initiative group or the Director's Intelligence group
that's working the DIG that's over at OD and I is doing that
work. But let's be real clear about

(58:32):
what's happening. It is being presented to you to
say injustice happened but you are doing it in a non
investigative role. Intelligence agencies don't have
the ability to prosecute. Even the FBI can't prosecute.
It can investigate and not and prosecute.
So you're seeing Tulsi Gabbard as the director of National
Intelligence laying out a case that these are all the bad
things that were done. She's not a prosecutor.

(58:54):
It's not being done by Pam Bondi.
It's not being done by Cash Patel.
It's not being done by Dan Bongino.
The reason is because they're not going to actually prosecute
this stuff and they cannot. They can't.
What they can remind you of is things were done very poorly.
We have a problem in this country.
We saw politicization. The statute of limitation is
broadly speaking, done. Some of the things they did, by

(59:15):
the way, as much as you hate them, were legal.
They were done under the authorization of the president
or people who were delegated by the president to take such
actions. So you're getting all you're
going to get out of there. Let's accept that the best thing
you can do is not point out how that weapon was was created or
point out how the weapon works. The answer is dismantle the

(59:36):
weapon. So at the very best case
scenario, they don't build it again, but in the worst case
scenario, they have to reassemble the damn weapon to
come back after you. And that should be something
that people on the left and the right can agree on.
Americans in general should say,hey, we sort of believe in due
process. We believe in fundamental
fairness. We believe that no one should be
above the law. We believe that elite shouldn't
get a second tier justice. It's the reason why you saw such

(59:58):
a major backlash against the Epstein story because it was
played up. Whether it was real or not,
whether there is actually anything there or not, and I
don't know and neither do you. I heard people say things.
I heard people that are in positions that are in
authorities like the attorney general, the United States said
that there are significant numbers of victims, that there's
all this sort of sexual abuse, that it was abuse of minors,

(01:00:19):
right? We heard Alina Haba, who
represents as a spokesperson forTrump, who's been this sort of
like surrogate, was on the the campaign trail saying, I don't
know how you would not be shocked to find out that all
these elite people were involvedin this evil.
She might have been talking out of her ass.
It's totally possible, right? We can, we can agree on that,
But they made promises. Americans on the political right

(01:00:41):
and the left both agreed on the same thing for different
reasons. People on the left are like,
gotcha, Donald Trump is a bad guy.
People on the right were like, you cannot have elite people get
away. That's not what we campaign for.
That's not what we voted for. De weaponize, make the system of
government more fair, and more importantly, pull this Intel
apparatus out of it. We don't want blackmail
operations going on. We don't want elite pedophiles

(01:01:01):
running things. We don't want people who are
involved in corruption having a say in what happens to regular
people that don't have a voice big enough.
And that's the funniest maybe piece about this whole story
that was put on by CBS, Kyle Seraphin influencing the FBI
from his social media perch and his his podcast, The Kyle
Seraphin Show. How funny is that?
I'm just a guy sitting in a house in, in, in like the

(01:01:22):
suburbs outside of Austin, TX. And we have 10s of thousands of
people that listen to the show, which is not very big by the
way. That's not very many people.
The audience of our administration is in the
millions. The millions didn't have a
voice. They were pissed off about it.
The movement that people wanted to see was deweaponized as

(01:01:42):
animal. And the reason why that has
stuck and why I think it crossedthe boundaries from left and
right and everybody kind of looked at it and went like, man,
can you just stop with this nonsense is because the left
abused their position. They didn't do things that were
reasonable. They acted in a way that's
inappropriate. They, they, they destroyed words
like sexism and racism and misogyny.

(01:02:03):
They abused it. They called Wolf so many times
that we actually got buy in frompeople on the left that said,
yeah, I don't, I don't see it. I'm sorry.
I go out every day in my neighborhood and I see people of
every skin color. There are Hispanic Americans,
you know, they're Americans, butthey have whatever Latin
origins. There's black guys, there's
black women, there's Indian people.

(01:02:25):
Some of them are just from India.
Some of them have been here for a while.
They talk like Cash Patel. What I don't see is regular
increased systemic racism. It's not everywhere.
It doesn't. It's not pervasive.
And what I think they did, they being the left, they being the
media organizations, is they pushed a narrative as long as
they could and they actually found out where the end of that
rope looks like. And that's how you end up with a

(01:02:46):
silly kind of story that was just put out about how the
Smithsonian is. They're getting they're getting
attacked for their their story on slavery.
The story on slavery is the entire story.
It's like, no, it's hundreds of years old and we have moved on
from it. The people who were actually
quote UN quote suffering from the Jim Crow, they were more

(01:03:09):
conservative than current today's society, Probably people
on the right that are benefitingfrom all the policies that
existed in America. Like they're like, we're all
probably more left-leaning and more, less bigoted.
They were more they were less bigoted than we are today.
I think I articulated that I'm going to play you this clip
about how that got done. It got done by this repeating of

(01:03:34):
the same phrases over and over again and putting it into places
like the Smithsonian where it looks like it has some
substance. The propaganda machine activates
to move forward, right? This is the this is the point
that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes true to people
right up until eventually they realize, like, you know what my

(01:03:56):
personal experience jives with everything that you're saying.
It just it, it, it, it jars my sensibilities to try to believe
it. So I can't here's here's CNN
having this discussion about like the trending of the words
like white supremacy, by the way, FBI funding on that
slavery. Same story.
These these ideas that there's racial grievances in the United
States and that's what's dividing us.

(01:04:17):
It's that's not your everyday experience.
That only happens through algorithmic booths and it
happens through media narrative.And here it is.
Starting around 2011, 2012, sociologists started to notice a
shift in white liberal opinion polling to where white
progressives became more extremein their views on race than

(01:04:39):
black and Hispanic Americans. And they called this, the
sociologist did called it the Great Awakening.
And when they postulated, where did this come from?
Why did white progressives suddenly start obsessing over
race in a way that was actually far to the left of where
Hispanic and Black Americans were on this issue?
They found that the media had shifted radically how it talked

(01:05:02):
about these issues. So for example, in 2010, the
words white supremacy were mentioned 75 times in The
Washington Post and The New YorkTimes.
But the media is different from museum.
In 2020, the words white supremacy were mentioned 700
times in The Washington Post andThe New York Times and 2400
times in NPR. The word racism 4000 times in

(01:05:23):
2020, the words white and racialprivilege from 2013 to 2019 grew
by 1500% in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the
word slavery itself exponentially skyrocketed as a
percentage of words. I'm offering this only to
suggest, to suggest that what doyou think is the problem with

(01:05:43):
talking about slavery, white supremacy, racism, etcetera?
Yeah. The problem is, is STFU, shut
your effing mouths about it, because nobody here on this
planet lived through it. Nobody here is dealing with the
direct implications of it. Nobody alive today in the United
States, that's an American citizen.
Now, maybe there's some people from like Africa that came in

(01:06:05):
you. You didn't own slaves in this,
in this. And nobody here that we're
dealing with was a slave, at least not in the chattel slavery
sense of the African slave tradethat they're crying about.
It doesn't happen. It hasn't happened in so long
that we are now making up fairy tales about it and you're
pushing it. That is what the illusory truth
is. By the way, folks, the the
effect, we've done entire shows on this in the past.

(01:06:26):
You can go back and look them up.
The illusory truth effect is repeat a lie enough times that
people actually believe that it's true because they don't
remember where they heard it. And what we deal with regularly
now is this Dunning Kruger effect.
I'm showing it on the screen right now.
If you've never seen it, allow me to describe the graph.
On the X axis, that's the up anddown.

(01:06:48):
It's confidence in what you knowfrom low to high.
And on the Y axis, is that right?
No, no, no, sorry. The the Y axis is the up and
down. The X axis is left right.
The X axis is knowledge in the field from low to high.
So again, on the bottom, moving from left to right is how much
you know, and going upward is your confidence in how much you

(01:07:09):
know. It starts off with not knowing
anything and then you learn justa little bit and you immediately
skyrocket and most people self assessed to know everything.
It is sometimes referred to as the peak of mount stupidity.
It's I've read a couple of stories on PACER.
I don't know anything about law enforcement.
I have no degree in this thing. I have no formal training.

(01:07:29):
I have no personal experience for years in the field.
I'm not an attorney, I'm not a paralegal.
I haven't even watched a lot of court cases.
But I know who Judge Judy is. I know everything.
I'm going to go out and make an entire thing about this, AKA the
Julie Kelly types, AKA the Candace Owens types.
Know so little, learn tiny bit, think they know everything.

(01:07:50):
And what you learn is that the wisest people in the world who
think like, who are very, very accurate in knowing a bunch of
things about a very small topic because they spent their whole
life on it. What do they find out?
It's really complicated. I know enough to know that there
is way more than I know. That's what this curve shows.
There's a a moment of despair when you Start learning enough

(01:08:11):
about something where you're like, I will never learn all of
this. I will never be able to because
there's too much information. You know, Socrates talked about
this people that were consideredto be the fonts of of Western
thought went out there and said like, you know, essentially, the
more you learn, eventually learnthat you just know nothing in

(01:08:31):
comparison to what can be learned.
We're surrounded by these sort of media influencer types that
are quote UN quote experts. To be an expert in today's day
and age is to be at the top of that first peak.
I know a little something about it.
And so I'm going to go out thereand I'm going to tell you it.
I've had people hit me up in ourcomments and say, I agree with
you about many things, Kyle, butwhat I don't agree with you

(01:08:53):
about is Candace Owens. Candace Owens is a national
treasure. She's brilliant, she's great.
She knows what she's talking about.
Candace Owens is a dipshit. There is no question in my mind.
I watch her say things that are the dumbest things that you
could say. The base of knowledge that she
should be operating from is too small to make the claims that
she does. And I'm going to give you a

(01:09:14):
couple examples if you guys are not following.
I think his name is Nate Livingstone over on X.
You're missing out on some of the funniest things that this
woman has said. The problem with saying a bunch
of stuff is that eventually someone might play it back to
you. And if you can't acknowledge
like, hey, I'm dumb, I don't know what I'm talking about.
I went over my skis on this thing and you're going to end up
looking like this lady. Here's here's evidence.

(01:09:36):
One of our experts are at the peak of Mount stupidity.
But I find myself not so shockedbecause I know the pieces of
history that they are trying to hide and the lies that they're
telling, kind of recasting people that have been terrible
as victims. That's like one of the moves.
And of course, the world is quite literally a stage.
By the way. I always wonder where that

(01:09:56):
expression comes from. Can you look it up, Skyler?
The world is a stage. Where is that from?
I actually don't know where that's from originally.
That would be interesting to see. 2 minutes later, Oh, it's
Shakespearean, all the world's astage.
Interesting, very interesting. I might have more to say on that
later. I might have more to say on the

(01:10:16):
fact that all the world's a stage and we are but players on
it, right? Like isn't that kind of the
quote? You don't know that's
Shakespearean. You don't know the basis of like
Western culture from which you got like this expression, which
is what, couple 100 years old now.
Are you going to be able to go out there and make comments on
things when you haven't read sort of the basic understand you
haven't read the building blocks.

(01:10:38):
It's not good. It's like when I used to ask my
sister something. My sister has a she has a
master's degree. I think she's working on a PhD
right now. We don't really talk that often.
My sister couldn't tell me what decade, by the way, there are
two in the 20th century. What decade did the the war in
Vietnam take place with the United States was involved in
it? You had two options, right?
60s and 70s. You could have picked either one

(01:10:59):
of them. You got a 2020% chance of
getting it right if you were to just choose.
And you should probably know that there are Vietnam Veterans
who are alive, so that should limit it.
Nope, couldn't do it. How about World War One?
She couldn't do that. World War 2 couldn't do that.
How are you going to tell me that Hillary Clinton is the
right answer for America today if you don't even know what
America did in the last 100 years, let alone like Western

(01:11:21):
history that led up to it and the ideas that are being
espoused? If you don't know the
philosophical roots of the arguments you're making?
If you don't know that there's been literary discussions about
why all the world is a stage or what he was saying or what the
context was even. You just heard a little like
series of lines and then you just said it.
Oh, very interesting. After I think about this,
because I have no idea what the hell just happened to me.
I just admitted to my audience that I don't know, like basic

(01:11:44):
stuff. Embarrassing.
This is the same woman out theretelling us that she thinks the
military secretly and quietly runs America.
I read yesterday that if you hadthe basic knowledge that many
people used to have, this was the the upside of a decent high
school education, which they've clearly taken away from the
American populace. If you, if you had the basic

(01:12:06):
knowledge that a High School graduate would have, let's say
50 years ago, then they wouldn'tbe able to sell you some of this
crap. 95% of the so-called conspiracy theories could be
debunked. And then we could get to the
real meat of the danger, which is really out there.
It's like, OK, we articulate that the the noise is the noise.
Let's hone in on the signal. The signal is that you are being

(01:12:28):
sold a bill of goods and we can feel it.
We can see what it is. We know that they're selling us
something. Why do they keep measuring
slavery? Oh, OK, What is that distracting
us from? Oh, bad policies, a soft on
crime initiative. Is the answer going to be
deputizing a federal law enforcement agency that does
investigative work or God forbid, the Secret Service?
No, that doesn't seem like it's good answer.
There's actually some historicalparallels for that going really,

(01:12:48):
really poorly. Nobody needs a national police
state in the United States. What have we done previously?
Let's try some of those ideas. If you don't know any of that
stuff, then you're going to comeup with things like the military
is quietly running Donald Trump.But I find myself not so shocked
because I know the pieces of history that they are trying to
hide and the lies that they're telling, kind of recasting

(01:13:10):
people that have been terrible as victims.
That's like one of the moves. And of course, the world is
quite literally a stage. By the way.
I always wonder where that expression comes from.
Can you look it up, Skylar? The world is a stage.
Where is that from? I actually don't know where
that's from originally, but I find myself not so shocked
because I I'm so disappointed inmyself.
I had two clips and I only grabbed 1.
Stand by. I'll get you the other one.

(01:13:31):
This one's actually quite fun too.
I I'm, I'm constantly terrified when I realize that people are
listening to folks that have no idea what's happening.
One man show. Sometimes you grab the wrong
clip. Here's the right clip, Johan
writes. Candace, do you think Trump told
you to ease up a little because he knows Mccrone sells every
important French industry to United States since 2014?

(01:13:54):
I've thought a lot about that. I kind of go back in my mind to
that conversation and I find myself wondering whether or not
Trump was being directed by somebody to give me a call and
whether he was being honest withme, if it was really coming from
him, if it was coming from higher up.
You know, my general perspectiveis that we live in a a nation
that is governed by the military.

(01:14:15):
And I actually had to look up what that word was.
It's it's just stratocracy. And I think it's been that way
for a long time, definitively since JFK was shot.
And that's, I guess another broader way you could say that
is the military industrial complex.
So I don't necessarily believe that Trump is in control of
things, right. Donald Trump answers to the

(01:14:37):
military. So there's that.
Like I said, we're, we're dealing in a time when the
quote, quote, UN quote, experts are at the top of the I know
everything You guys will find regularly that if I don't know
what I'm talking about, I'll just tell you like foreign
policy, not Kyle's butt. I know that I don't care.
I know that I'm America only. So that dictates what I feel
about it. That doesn't mean that I
understand the strategic importance of all these

(01:14:57):
different moves. I don't, I don't want to.
I don't think Americans should have to worry about that.
That's theoretically why we bring on people that do know
about it. We try to stay in the lane here.
One of the lanes is if our government is not serving us in
a way that makes perfect sense, that we can actually just as
regular people go, oh, yeah, that's what it's supposed to do.
These entities aren't serving the purpose for which they were

(01:15:19):
created. Or maybe that purpose doesn't
exist anymore and we should get rid of these agencies then.
Then we got a problem. We got a serious, serious
problem. The government has grown to a
point where it is not. It's not something we can vote
our way out of at this point. I don't see.
And for all of you that said Donald Trump was the solution,

(01:15:39):
if you actually believed in that, then you should be having
a moment right now where you're like, well, it's pretty clear
that he was, he was a a better alternative than what we saw
from the other side, but clearlynot the solution.
Let me give you one last little thing, because if Trump doesn't
solve this problem, I don't think that forget about voting
our way out of it or even tryingto, you're not even going to

(01:16:01):
have the option. This is something I kind of
teased out yesterday. He's, he's made this statement
that there's going to be a, an executive order talking about
mail in ballots. There's really, if we, we, we
should get down to the brass tacks of what we need to see.
This is one of the things that needs to happen 100% if it does
not happen. I think that not only are we
cooked, which I think is probably the long term scenario,

(01:16:23):
we're going to find out whateverthe next iteration of America
looks like, but we're cooked in the short term as well.
Listen to this question that this journalist throws out.
And, and by the way, they do it when they're trying to like
derail him because he's talking to Zelinsky and he's trying to
do the, the peace accord thing in Ukraine, which I could care
less about. But they, they want to know
about mail in ballots and his statement about it, which I
think was totally and utterly reasonable.

(01:16:44):
You cannot go into a black box and then tell people with 0
transparency. This is the same problem as
having an intelligence apparatusthat's doing law enforcement.
Law enforcement is supposed to be done in the in the sunlight,
supposed to gather information publicly with warrants sworn out
sworn affidavits with your name.Donald Trump is saying the same
kind of problem exists with our with our ballot system.

(01:17:05):
And I do think that this is an existential crisis.
There's only like 3 or 4 of them, immigration de weaponizing
law enforcement, fixing the voting systems.
If we had that, this would be a abject win.
Forget whatever happens with comedy and Clapper and Ray and
all these other clowns. Fix the existing problem.
We'll worry about people paying for it later.
About doing away with mail in ballots and potentially

(01:17:25):
electronic voting machines, can you expand on that and help?
Well, that's a very off topic. Just really quickly.
Mail in ballots are corrupt mailin ballots.
You can never have a real democracy with mail in ballots.
And we as a Republican Party aregoing to do everything possible
that we get rid of mail in ballots.
We're going to start with an executive order that's being

(01:17:47):
written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end
mail in ballots because they're corrupt.
And you know that we're the onlycountry in the world, I believe
I may be wrong, but just about the only country in the world
that uses it because of what's happened.
Massive fraud all over the place.
The other thing we want change in the machines for all of the

(01:18:10):
money they spend. It's approximately 10 times more
expensive than paper ballots, and paper ballots are very
sophisticated with the watermarkpaper and everything else.
We would get secure elections, We'd get much faster results.
The machines, I mean, they say we're going to have the results
in two weeks. With paper ballots, you have the
results that night. Most people almost have, but

(01:18:31):
most people, many countries use paper ballots.
It's the most secure form. So between paper ballots, very,
very important paper ballots, and I think maybe even more
important, the mail in voting, we're going to end mail in
voting. It's a fraud if you have mail in
vote. Even Jimmy Carter with this
Commission, they set it up, he said.

(01:18:52):
The one thing about mail in voting, you will never have an
honest election if you have mailin it.
And it's time that the Republicans get tough and stop
it because the Democrats want it.
It's the only way they can get elected because with men and
women's sports and with transgender for everybody and
open borders and all of the horrible thing.
And now the new thing is they love crime.

(01:19:15):
They're fighting me on the fact that I've made Washington, DC
safe. We're not going to get mugged,
beaten up or killed like all thepeople you've been watching get
so badly hurt. I'm glad.
I hate to take your time with this, but I'm glad you asked me
that question. We're going to stop mail in
ballots because it's corrupt. Did you see how quickly he gets

(01:19:38):
derailed by all the the priorities out there because
people want everything done at once?
We have to really sort of have astratosphere or a striation and
tiered threats and the tiered threats, I think he nailed a
couple of them. I don't think, you know, boys
and and girls sports is a national level threat or
anything else. And it definitely is
distractionary. It's a small percentage.
It's a big deal for if you have kids that are in those sports,

(01:19:58):
but it's not nearly as like a fatal to a nation as.
Being able to do some of the wild stuff like subverting the
election process and making people think something George
Hill said to me. And I want you guys to walk away
with this thought. The credibility of your
government is integral to the legitimacy of your government.
And that's where we're at right now.

(01:20:20):
With no credibility. We have people that say things
that are obviously not true. You can see it with your own
eyes. And it doesn't matter whether
it's about Epstein or whether we're going to go fix the
problems in DC, but we're going to do it with the federal police
force. That's, that's illogical.
The issue is that you have a corrupt and weak DC Metro PD,
which is run by people who don'tseem to do the real thing.
If you don't have credibility inthe space you're working in, you
don't have legitimacy. And when you don't, then you end

(01:20:41):
up in a revolutionary time wherepeople get really, really hurt.
I think that's the biggest thingto, to focus in on.
It's it, it, it concerns me thatwe constantly are distracted by
that laser pointer. And I'm guilty as much as
anybody else. If we don't hone in on those
things of credibility and how doyou do that?
You get reasonable people voted in that we believe it.
The priorities, the American people are carried out in the

(01:21:01):
with the tools that need to be done.
National tools solve national problems.
Local tools solve local problems.
Federal agents don't solve localcrime.
That's the end of the day. All right, I saw the chat this
morning. You guys were fun.
I saw a lot of people with some disagreements on the various
things. That's what we're trying to do.
Let's think about it. You don't have to agree with
everything that Kyle has to say.I I hope you don't, it'd be

(01:21:22):
weird if you actually agree witheverything.
If everything that comes out of my mouth is also your thoughts,
you may need medication. That's all I'm going to say
about that. We should have a healthy
disagreements. We should all be able to kind
of, I'm at it with a skeptical perspective.
Don't just take anybody's word for it.
Speaking of that, Speaking of healthy disagreements, I'm going
to be on with Alex Jones. I have absolutely no idea where
that's going to go. But if you guys want to watch

(01:21:42):
this afternoon, you can find that on Alex Jones on the the X
stream at Real Alex Jones. You can find it on the Infowars
stream and so on. And if you're listening to this
after the fact, you might want to go back and look for that
because those are always a good time.
My most intellectually demandinginterviews are always with Alex
Jones. I have absolutely no idea where
he's going to take it. I have no idea what he's going
to say and I'm probably not going to be able to cosign on
all of his conclusions, but that's what makes it fun to

(01:22:04):
people who don't necessarily agree on things that see some of
the same stuff. Thanks for joining us today.
I appreciate you guys. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you for caring about America enough to to look out
there and try to be educated so you can make your own good
decisions and not be at the top of that Mount stupidity.
That is a real thing. Go look it up until tomorrow,
which will be another opportunity for you guys to

(01:22:24):
check out my buddies on the Amrat.
Another perspective where we don't agree on everything.
We're going to sign off here from the Perch of social media
and the Kyle Seraphin Show influencing the FBI direct by
this microphone from Liberty Hill, TX.
I hope you guys have a fantasticrest of your day and God bless
you. We'll see you soon.

(01:22:45):
Thanks for listening to the KyleSeraphin Show, streamed live
weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin.
Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth Social and Instagram at Kyle
Seraphin.

All Episodes

SLAVERY! "wHy dOn'T yOu eVeR tALk aBoUt iT?" | Ep 635

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;}SLAVERY! "wHy dOn'T yOu eVeR tALk aBoUt iT?" | Ep 635