Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an
American patriot. Prepare to embrace the
uncomfortable truth because this program has no time for
comforting lies. Here is civil liberties
enthusiasts, Second Amendment defender and recovering FBI
agent Kyle Seraphin. Well hello my friends, welcome
to the Kyle Seraphin show. Today is Tuesday, it is March
the 25th and we are going to be trying to answer the question a
simple and important question. Oops.
Or OP, there was a recently leaked maybe signal message chat
that came from high levels of Trump's administration talking
about bombing the Houthis in Yemen.
And the question is, is this intentional?
Was this accidental? Is this the first real scandal?
Is it a big screw up on behalf of the Trump administration?
Does it look like a scandal, but maybe it wasn't supposed to be?
Are we dealing with the 4D chess crowd?
I think the full answer I'm going to give you guys the the
bottom line up front, it actually depends on what happens
next for us to be able to determine what was meant to be
done. There's a couple of
possibilities. It could have been a screw up
that they use for strategic advantage.
It could have been planted and intentional and we'll find out
about that based on how they handle it.
A lot of that's going to have to do with personnel decisions
after the fact, but we're going to go through all of that.
We're going to talk about classified enclaves.
We're going to talk about Democrat talking points.
We're going to talk about the Atlantic and narrative
construction. Got a couple other things on
there. 23andMe is out there bankrupted and getting rid of
your data. What else?
Trump administration going to court and trying to figure out
what is the solution to activist judges.
So we've got a long ways to cover.
Got a lot of stuff to do. I've got a full video deck of
interesting clips and and why it maybe it doesn't even matter
that much and maybe I will float out the most 4D chess possible.
Is it? Is it possible that all of this
stuff is a setup to get Democrats caught in a bear trap
about what Hillary Clinton did in 2015, 2016?
Is that possible? It's possible.
I don't know if I'm convinced yet again, I'm going to be
reserving a little bit of judgement on that.
Folks, if you are following us on Rumble, we appreciate it.
You can always watch the show live here.
For the best live chat, it's rumble.com/kyle Seraphin on X
and on YouTube it's at Kyle Seraphin.
And if you want to find us on locals for all of the articles
after the fact, it's Kyle seraphin.com.
You can get them for free. Just click on the logo up in the
top left hand side. And then lastly, if you're
watching this and you're sick of pop up ads and you're watching
anywhere else and you want to give us the same view, you can
watch either the audio or listen to the video and you can switch
between them on spot notify at kyleseraphinshow.com.
Very, very simple stuff. OK, I've teased out what we're
going to get into. I'll ask the chat in just a
second. But before we get started and
and deep into this, let's go ahead and talk to about our
friends who I think they get it. This is my phone.
I've got Signal chats on here. I don't want them interrupting
the program. So we're going to put this into
my Faraday sleeve, which I usually do off camera, but we do
it on camera when we talk about my friends over at Silent Folks.
You can get your own Faraday sleeve by going to silent.com/K
YLE. Whether it's government, big
tech, whether it's corporate journalists, corporate America,
criminals, etcetera. If they are trying, they will
try to compromise your privacy. They can do so 24/7 anytime you
have your device on. There's no other option than
protect yourself. That can start with silent.
It's SLNT that's silent without the vowels.
Their Faraday products will block all incoming and outgoing
signals. Your device has become virtually
invisible and they are safe from the outside world.
They really work. You can buy cheaper ones.
They just don't work. Ask me how I know.
I used to do this for a living. You can buy their backpacks.
You can check out their phone sleeves, their tablet sleeves.
They even make a pair of pants that have patented signal
blocking technology. This is a little bit of they
have three different pillars. One of them is just if you want
to a little peace and quiet. If you want to put your phone in
a bag while you were having dinner with your family, I
highly encourage you doing that. You can also get some peace and
quiet when you're doing your podcast here.
It doesn't just just to give you Peace of Mind, it also makes
sure that your data is not going to end up in the wrong hands,
that someone's not going to hack it when you are out in public.
You can safeguard it when you're on planes and traveling and so
on. I do all these things.
Go silent@slnt.com/K YLE. Save yourself 15%.
They make an American made product.
If you guys are so inclined, you're going to pay a little bit
more for that. You can get the overseas made
product, which is just as good when it comes to the
capabilities. They make these things for the
military. There's all kinds of different
agencies that are using them. You can save 15% on
allyourqualifiedordersandyoullgetfreeshipping@slnt.com/K YLE.
The link is in the show description.
It is in the show notes. Check them out and let's dive
into this. We're going to be talking about
signals. We're going to be talking about
whether or not you need to be protecting yourself or what
these people needed to be do. Maybe the Trump administration
is playing everybody and they just kept their stuff out of the
Faraday bag. Let's find out.
All right, I will get there and we'll probably spend 50% of the
show talking about it because I've got a handful of
interesting clips and stuff that I want to get into.
First, let's talk about activist judges because they seem to be a
real problem and maybe there is an issue that can be solved that
doesn't involved impeachment. That's what's been floated as a
possible solution. How do we just get rid of all
these a holes? They're out there doing wild
stuff. And one of the solutions is that
Congress, Article 1 powers, as described by our Constitution,
actually step into the role that Congress is supposed to do.
Just a quick refresher for all of you who are listening.
Article One, the first thing discussed by our founding
fathers was the legislator. They thought that the people who
represented the people were the ones who should have most of the
power and that it should be only given out by consensus.
OK, the second most and powerful or powerful position is Article
2 powers. These come under the the
executive. They did not imagine such a
powerful executive as we have today.
And then Article 3, last but not least, but probably least if
we're being honest about it, is a Supreme Court, one court not
necessarily even called the Supreme Court, that would have
various inferior courts that were established from time to
time. Kyle, why do you always say the
words established from time to time and use the words inferior?
Because it tells you that that, that, that it's a transient in
nature that this fixed federal court system that has district
courts and circuit courts and then finally access to a Supreme
Court. Those things are not described
by the Constitution. Those things were laid out by
Congress, which means that Congress has the ability to
amend the scope and the parameters under which these
district courts and the circuit courts can actually operate.
They are inferior. So they are not able to just do
things as they please. They cannot operate with
impunity. And there is 0 instance when you
read the Constitution that makes you think that a judge from a
lower inferior established in a transient nature court should
ever be blocking the executive powers that are established
under Article 2, at least not to my reading of it.
I do understand that there's now 250 years where the case law
that has come up. But we do have to remember that
they created the power called judicial review.
They created it. The judiciary said, look, they
elbowed their way up to the table.
We're going to be playing a clip later from Tim Cast.
And if you've, if you've ever seen the show that Tim Poole
does over at Timcast, I've been there.
I've recommended my buddies for the show and they've had a
couple of months and I always give the same advice.
Going on Timcast is like a competitive dinner party.
If you want to say something, you're going to have to sort of
edge your way in. You're going to have to make
sure that you are heard. And I think the judiciary did
that very early on. Madison versus Marbury.
If you guys remember anything from your middle school civics
classes, from your American federal government type classes,
Yeah, that's where you find it. They created this.
So this is an interesting story that comes from NBC and I don't
think it's wrong. It actually would be good to see
Congress do the job of Congress and not shirk the responsibility
of actually doing the most of the law making and the rule
creating in this country as they were designed to do.
The article is entitled as Trump and his allies push to impeach
judges, which is obviously something going on right now.
And I don't know that it's the solution.
I don't know that it's not the solution, though.
Some of these people clearly need to be removed.
I've seen so many weird conflicts of interest and just
saying some of these folks are not operating under what they
call good behavior, which is the grounds for for getting rid of
them. The article continues.
Speaker Mike Johnson is eyeing an escape hatch, and that escape
hatch is a bill that is introduced by Darrell Issa,
Republican California, that would give maybe an off ramp to
let's go straight to hearings and try to get rid of federal
judges. Although I don't think that's a
terrible idea. I think anybody who thinks that
their their job is safe forever, no matter what they do,
especially when they are operating as an activist and
they are operating as the Trump resistance in robes as it's
described later on in this article.
I don't think that's a good thing to have, not for the
nation. But Issa is saying, essentially,
what if we could voice support for what Donald Trump is doing
and we can limit these judges specifically by this bill that
is referred to as the No Rogue Rulings Act.
And the goal of this, this piece of legislation would be to bar
District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
You know, the thing that we've been talking about here, the
thing that all people sort of gently realize is necessary
because historically the judges acted with a thing called
restraint. We see this with John Roberts
all the time. His instinct is less to do what
is exactly constitutionally appropriate.
His instinct is always, how do I protect the institution of the
court? It's why most people don't
consider him conservative. We find that to be an awfully
squishy position. There is a right and a wrong.
A judge is supposed to be able to deal with that.
And more importantly, the judge is actually supposed to weather
all of the good and the bad that comes their way if they they did
their damn job properly, which is to say, they don't care
whether anybody likes it. They don't put their finger up
in the wind and see which way it is blowing.
And they certainly don't take a public opinion poll.
But because these are regular people, because they are
susceptible to all the things that happened, because of the
things that many of us have experienced since COVID, since
all of the government overreach that started happening in 2020,
that did happen under Donald Trump's administration, whether
or not he was in charge of it or not.
A lot of us got this understanding that there are
there are much fewer people of principle than we originally
thought. Wouldn't you think?
That's kind of where I've landed.
There are far fewer people that have principles that I would
consider to be normal. We found this out.
We have an entire class of people, an entire category where
people say, listen, they will give their life for you in our
military, right? We think the same thing about
our law enforcement officers, of whom I by default, I stand with
them. I stand with law enforcement
because I know what it takes to go do that job.
But you don't get a pass if you if you cross that line.
And you certainly don't get a pass when you are saying that
you will give your life for your community and you won't even
give up your job or your paycheck or your convenience or
your comfort for the right thing.
And we found out about that. That's what my group is about.
That's what my friends all figured out at the same time
that most of the people that worked alongside us in the FBI
didn't have that instinct. That doesn't mean everybody was
put to a decision for their chips, but of the people that I
saw who were put to a decision for it, most of them opted out.
They said that's that's actually inconvenient.
I did say that I would swear my life in allegiance that I would
put my honor on the line and I would back up the constitution.
But in reality, that's actually really difficult because I've
got a mortgage and I've got alimony and I'm almost close to
retirement and I don't want to do any of that stuff.
And yes, those are direct words that were given to me by people
I worked with inside our quote, UN quote, most premier law
enforcement agency. This is the badge right here,
folks. This is what it's about.
Like this one's a joke. I'm wearing AT shirt right now
for my buddy Gerardo Boyle. It's the dash suspendables.com
if you guys want to get your own.
This is actually one of my favorite shirts because I came
up with it. I watched Zielinski, we watched
Vladimir Zielinski walk around while he was wearing that sort
of like combat sweater over and over again.
You can get this in OD green, which is the original color.
And he was wearing that combat sweater and he was begging for
billions of dollars from the American Congress when they were
rolling over and writing blank checks over to Ukraine.
You call that? And I thought, man, our people
just want folks to do the right thing.
Maybe we could go to Congress and wear these shirts.
This is Zelensky special. They're called the Z special.
I think if you find them online. And, and it's a favorite of mine
simply because it says, how about some principles?
And how about a little bit of like that tongue in cheek irony
that we like to do. The No Rogue Rulings Act is a
brilliant idea in so much as it is a short term.
It is a smaller solution than just saying, hey, we're going to
go nuclear and we're going to remove, destroy, eliminate
federal judges from the work they're doing.
It's appropriately pointed out. He says, quote, this is Darrell
Issa, the, the, the, the sponsor of the bill.
Quote, we have a major malfunction in our judiciary.
And practically every week another judge casts aside the
tradition of restraint. Again, restraint means you still
have the authority. You could act maybe more
aggressively, but you know that you shouldn't because it will
discredit you. They've thrown that out the
window, the tradition of the restraint from the bench, and
they opt to be the Trump resistance in robes.
He said this is a constitutional solution to a national problem.
This should be something that people on the left and the right
agree with. They don't want to see
nationwide injunctions popping in.
The only reason that this should happen is, is that it should
happen at a much higher level. It should be regional.
It should start with district and maybe even the circuit.
But you should never have a nationwide injunction from
someone who represents a very, very small portion.
You have people and and look, we were beneficiaries of this
during the COVID chaos, me and the guys, we put in a lawsuit in
the Southern District of Texas and it blocked all enforcement
of the federal government's ability to do the vaccine
mandate. And you think, well, that's
that's pretty good. That benefits us, yes.
But what did it do? It was the government
constraining government action, and in reality, it needed to get
escalated right away and was reviewed by the N Bank, part of
the 5th Circuit, which is where it actually had its final day in
court. And then they refused to let it
go to the Supreme Court because they knew that we would win.
And they actually withdrew the end of the day.
Very few people are willing to say if it cuts against me that
I'm willing to lose this power. It's my big issue right now with
the FBI and why people are excited.
You don't want to see a loss of power when you're the one in
charge. The only time that you can
actually curtail power is when you are in charge.
This takes a Longview. It has to be a Longview because
we don't want to get in a world where we are back and forth
destroying judges. We don't want to get in a world
where we have anybody who has the power, is able to wield it
sort of dangerously, and we're basically fighting a war for the
ring of power. Who has control of the
executive, who has control of the most judges.
And then whoever has that gets to be able to make the rules for
a period of time and squat, wash the other side.
It is very, very short sighted. That is not an America I want to
live in and it's not an America you should want for your
children. We shouldn't be hitting back and
forth power and the ability to manipulate the judiciary or the
executive in some sort of like ping pong ball fashion.
We shouldn't. I'm going to do some narrative
manipulation too, because I think all of this discussion of
OP and we're going to get into it right now, I guess the the
question of whether or not we are dealing with an OP.
I started looking at the broader context of the discussion where
this Signal chat popped out. And so if you are sleeping under
a rock or if you haven't been paying attention to the news
cycle, maybe you get it just from here.
If that's the case, make sure you curate a new cycle.
Get something like the Loop, get something from my friends at
Catholic Vote, get something that gives you kind of a broad
sweep of all the things that are going on.
But broadly speaking, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, so Mike
Wallace and a couple of others were involved in a Signal chat
supposedly, OK, that's what we're led to believe.
And they accidentally, I'm going to put the word accidentally
right now in air quotes because I don't know the answer.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Added a so-called journalist, a propagandist from the Atlantic.
More on that in a second. And they started discussing some
of their rationale for whether or not they were going to move
forward on bombing the Houthis in Yemen who have been
disrupting shipping channels that sort of affect the United
States. JD Vance was supposedly involved
in there as well. So you had cabinet level
officials, you had folks from the White House having this
discussion. Stephen Miller apparently was a
was implicated in this as well as being part of it.
And so the question was, did this happen?
Was it intentional? Was it an accident?
Was this a serious breach? We've got a couple of different
pundits that are going to weigh in on it.
But this also looked like it was part of the story because we
have to consider in a broader context.
Top intelligence leaders are going to testify about global
threats amid questions over Yemen's strike report.
This is coming from CBS leaders in the United States
intelligence community. That's going to include the DNI
Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who was also
supposedly part of this group, FBI Director Kash Patel, NSA
director Tim, How, how howg? I don't know how to pronounce
his last name, sorry. And then the and the DIA
director as well. The question was, these people
are about to go in front of the hill and they're supposed to be
talking about Russia. They're supposed to be talking
about Iran. They're supposed to be talking
about China. They're supposed to be talking
about emerging and the most predominant threats, and that
might get completely derailed because of this story, which
happened just before they're going to go and testify less
than 24 hours before they are set to appear on the Hill.
You've got a big story about Yemens and the Hutis, and they
could talk about that all day long and they can completely
ignore the major security threats.
Is that a possibility? We have to consider it.
We have to consider that they may have been misleading people
and doing the shiny, you know, red dot on the ground, having a
cat chase the laser pointer. And the media duly obliged.
In the meantime, we also heard Jim Jordan say, and I want to
not before we we we disappear because whenever I get a chance
to play a Jim Jordan talking point without any sort of
action, I don't want to leave the judges thing too quickly.
This is also implicated in the story of OP versus oops, because
one of the things that is brought up in the op versus oops
is the question of state secrets.
Were they revealed? And that continues to be
something discussed in the judiciary.
Does the does the executive have the ability to ignore judges
when it comes to certain national security priorities?
Again, those people are going to be testifying.
We're going to be talking about whether or not those were
exposed, discussing a Yemen strike.
And then we've got the ability of the Trump administration,
people like Stephen Miller who are pushing out there and say,
hey, no, we're using the Alien Enemies Act.
We're going to be telling you that it is a state secrets issue
and we are not going to be moving forward and allowing you
to have any access. This is the actual story here.
This is also from CBS. The Trump administration invoked
the state secrets privilege in the deportation case.
This is where the entire judge things happened.
So you can get really narrow on the problem, which is that
there's one judge, Judge Bosberg, who has some
questionable compromises, or you can get broader and say, how do
we fix this problem? More generally speaking, I think
that Darrell Issa's solution is the more eloquent of them, which
just says, look, district judges don't need to be making
nationwide judges. We're going to put that into
law, then you have no question. Interpret the law as it's
written. You don't have the ability to
impose nationwide injunctions, period.
If you need to elevate, then do so more quickly.
And if the courts see that there's a problem, they should
step up and step into the circuit and the Supreme Court
more quickly. All right, here's here's the
narrow minded solution. Impeachment and hearings, which
tend to go nowhere. This stuff is performative.
I'd actually like to see Congress do their job.
Enough with the hearings. Enough with the Jim Jordan
talking in the strongly worded letters, which by the way, that
was the the universal response from folks when I posted this
this video yesterday. Everybody thinks, well, yeah,
we're going to get we're going to get stupid letters and we're
going to have hearings that go nowhere.
Just remember, when they hold hearings, people in Congress
seem to believe that that actually is the action.
That's the action they're looking for.
Here he is saying it on Fox. Frankly, there's the broader
issue of all these judges injunctions and then the
decisions like Judge Bosberg, what he's, what he's trying to
do and how that case is working. We're going to have hearings on
all of that because particularly when you look at Judge Bosberg,
it starts to look like this is getting totally political from
this guy. Particularly when you remember
he's also the judge who was part of the whole Trump Russia FISA
court granting those warrants that allowed the comedy FBI to
spy on President Trump's campaign.
So we're going to look at that issue as well.
But hopefully we can get that bill passed next week on the
House floor, move it to the Senate, hopefully get it to the
president's desk. What do you?
Think you're what do you think you're going to find here?
It seems to me like it's pretty black and white.
You know, you go, you find the judge that's going to ruin your
favor and it's been going on for 20 plus years.
Yeah, that's why we want to limit it to just that
jurisdiction, just the parties of the case.
So it doesn't have it nationwide implications.
But yeah, there's the way the left operates.
They go to these judges and they go after President Trump, as the
speaker indicated, disproportionately more there
than elsewhere. But with Judge Boasberg, think
about this. I mean, I think the president
with his order on these gang members sitting him back or
sending him to El Salvador, I think constitutionally is on
solid ground. Article 2.
Section 1. First sentence.
Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States statutorily, the Alien Enemies Act Predatory incursion.
That's certainly what this was, gang members coming here
illegally, doing terrible things.
And then finally you got this judge saying this crazy
decision, turn the plane around, bring the bad guys back to
America. That makes no sense.
So when you look at all that, coupled with this judge's
history with the FISA court, with the sentence he gave to to
Kleinsmith, the lawyer, Kevin Kleinsmith, who altered the
document in front of the FISA court, it really starts to look
like Judge Boasberg is operating purely political against the
president. And that's what we want, to have
hearings on this broad issue and some of what Judge Boasberg is
doing. And so we're going to start
those next week, and we think Senator Grassley is going to do
the same. Yeah, it seems pretty
straightforward, right? You should limit this thing
instead of doing what they call judge shopping or jurisdictional
shopping, where they run out there and they try to find who's
the right person that's going to be able to hear this case and
give us the favorable opinion that's going to affect the
entire country. You can get it narrowly.
They always go to DC. By the way, you'll notice all
the judges that were on the panel there that were being
shown on Fox News, every one of them are DC judges.
And all those judges also heard things like January 6 cases and
they ruled very aggressively against people for their First
Amendment right, which you should have a First Amendment
ability and they should have looked at and said, hey, is
there anything fair about these prosecutions?
I don't like what happened on January 6th.
But the fact that they've gone there and made that a single
party issue where Democrats are like still running on it, I'm
actually going to show you that they will.
They will sit there and say Donald Trump is incredibly
talented because he was able to turn January 6th.
Acting like these things do not happen in a context, acting like
they don't go shopping for a jurisdiction to be able to file
this kind of stuff. DC is one of the softest
circuits where you can go and get a pro government ruling
because almost everybody in DC works for government, is
obsessed with the understanding of of government jobs and how
and how valuable they are to their life.
They almost all have someone in their their friend group.
They almost all have someone in their family that is working for
the government. They may themselves be working
for government. Obviously, if you're a judge,
you are. So we've got to get this thing
sort of squared away. I like to see something solved
with a law that is passed. That means that people are going
to have to agree that we don't want to do the ping pong ball of
influence whenever somebody else wins.
I don't want to see it. It's not good for America.
We're going to get deeper into that stuff.
We'll talk about the state secret argument in a second here
too, because I think that's relevant.
And then we're going to get into this, this chat and we'll do the
OP or oops, which I do think is a fascinating discussion.
And again, we don't actually have enough information to make
that decision. We have some leanings.
So what we can do is we can set up, if the following things
happen soon, then we can kind of decide a little bit closer to
whether it was opera. We never actually may understand
this. They may not actually, I don't
think they'll come out and say it.
They shouldn't if they're smart because then they can use this
technique again. All right, Speaking of
techniques, Speaking of people trying to and settle us and make
things kind of chaotic and crazy, there's always the
possibility that even though things are generally speaking,
going the way that we hope and they are, I think most people
are feeling slightly better about America.
Democrat polling is very low, right?
So now is a good time when you're feeling like things are a
little bit safe to go ahead and get yourself prepped up for
disaster. It's prepare like kyle.com.
We've seen it before. If disaster strikes, you're
going to end up with empty grocery shelves overnight.
The best time to prepare is before a disaster.
You don't want to do it when it's too late.
Then it is too late. Smart Americans trust My Patriot
Supply to help them before any crisis comes, and right now
they're making it easier than ever.
You can order the four week emergency food kit today and
you're also going to get 4 bonus 72 hour food kits completely
free. It's almost two weeks of food,
but more importantly, it's for individual kits that you can
stash in places where you might need them. 72 hours is kind of
the, the, the, the E&E phase, the, the evasion right phase
that you might be able to stash something.
So you put in your go bag, you can put in your vehicle.
It's going to have 2000 calories per day.
They're easy to prepare. They last for up to 25 years.
Just don't storm in direct sunlight, you know, put them in
the right places, keep them semi climate controlled.
That's real Peace of Mind. There's no last minute panic.
There's no emptying of store shelves or just knowing that you
have an insurance policy and it's made of food and calories
so you can make good decisions. You can stock up today before
the deal disappears because when disaster or emergencies hit,
food is almost always the first thing to go.
That and toilet paper. We found out, right?
Prepare like kyle.com. Claim your own kit.
Plus those additional 12 days of free food, those 472 hour food
packs. Prepare like Kyle.
Prepare like kyle.com. Check that out in the show
description. Let's keep pressing onward with
some of these stories here. Another thing, this is the other
question, OP OP or oops, there's another kind of an example of
this. This is coming from I believe,
ABC talking about Trump and tariffs.
They're going to start on on April 2nd and they are now
reporting that they will be much narrower than previously
threatened. Donald Trump loves to say
something really, you know, bold and brash and then he likes to
kind of walk some things back, doesn't he?
Isn't that interesting? Tariffs.
April 2nd, they're going to be less.
The fresh rounds of duties will be marked by a significant
escalation from the United States from its previous
position with trading partners. However, it will be more
targeted and narrowed than the president had previously vowed.
But the plan is still under discussion.
In other words, it's one of these things where he said
something. He's trying to get the desired
effect by announcing that there's a possibility of
something happening. This is how you test the water,
isn't it? My, we'll do this in a kind of
a, in APG 13 or APG kind of way. I, I had a brother that used to
do this on, on dating. He'd call it like 321.
You'd want to take some bold steps forward, right?
I think we should get married and have babies.
That's the step forward with a, with a female.
And she would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's a little bit too
much. And he would say, oh, no, I'm
just kidding. I mean, unless you want to do
that. Right.
So he would step back a couple feet.
He said, yeah, we won't do that. Oh, I'm just kidding.
You know, we'll just take you to dinner.
Unless you wanted to get married and have babies.
So you're kind of stepping forward and backward.
You're playing this game. You're throwing out an idea.
Oh, no, I didn't really mean all that.
Here's all the really aggressive tariffs we might do.
Oh, you want to. You want to soften your stance?
OK, great. Great.
Well, we could do something. We can find something in between
there. And if you do this three steps
forward, 2 steps back, one step forward, you're still 2 steps
ahead of from where you started. So you've gotten ground.
You've gotten it by introducing something aggressive.
Then you have the softening. It looks like you're much more
moderate, and you still end up gaining ground.
And the thing that Donald Trump is trying to gain ground on with
the tariff thing, which makes perfect sense to me.
There will be austerity. There will be discomfort.
We will see prices rise at home. Of course, that's because we
don't have a good supply chain that feeds all the stuff we
want. But if you listen to the way he
said it, he didn't say they're going to tariff things that are
also made in America. It's to protect American
industries. You don't tariff things that you
don't make in your own country, which means there's a lot of
things we cannot tariff in any case.
It's just this is this is more indication, I think it's more
evidence that you're looking at a very strategic rollout of a
lot of different plans. So it would have to be a
tremendous screw up, which is a real possibility.
It would be a tremendous screw up if we saw somebody
essentially leaking confidential and or let's call it secret,
secret adjacent type materials prior to a kinetic strike.
Unless this stuff was already rolling and there was no chance
it was going to hurt anything. Unless that the, you know, we
only saw the story after the fact, which is also interesting
because the person who got that information didn't actually
didn't actually report on it because they couldn't confirm it
until the actual, you know, you'd know that if you were a
decent journalist. You can't go forward and say,
well, I've got these confidential war plans.
It's just as likely that somebody was screwing with you.
And then after it already happens and the safety already
goes out, maybe that's the calculated risk.
This is the OP argument, by the way, folks.
You make a calculated risk, then you get to have a journalist say
a bunch of stuff about Europe and our allies and the way that
we look at a problem and the way that the Trump administration is
working in the background. Once it's been validated,
there's a possibility that you use this as a tool for messaging
and you send it off to the team that should be on, on, on, by
all accounts, sort of like your political rival or the people
that don't like you. And that's an interesting way to
get your messaging out, give you a little bit of both of these
things. It's a possibility.
Before we do one more thing, I want to say 23andMe, I've been
vindicated on. This is another thing that I
didn't want to be right about. But I've always seen these
things as a problem. The spit in a cup, DNA test.
This is a story that's coming from NBC.
Just just a general cautionary thing 'cause we like to look for
scams, we like to look for emerging threats, we like to
look for things where unfortunately, like I said, I'm,
I, I was correct all along about this, but I never wanted to be.
I just didn't want to see people selling off people's DNA data.
And yet it was pretty obvious that that was going on. 23andMe
is a has a bankruptcy filing and it sparks privacy fears because
now their DNA database is up for sale and millions of people are
in it. That's not a good scenario for
most of you if you're thinking about it.
Folks have absolutely no idea where their data is going to go.
The other problem is a lot of this stuff was actually stored
in Chinese servers. And if you know anything about
Chinese cyber law, you know that the Chinese government requires
every single company that does business on servers in China to
give government access on the back end of it.
They have to be able to see it. That's part of the, the, the,
the cost of doing business in China.
You basically have to compromise yourself to the Chinese
Communist Party and to and to the Chinese government.
So if you're cool with the PRC having access to your database
of your DNA, it's too late for most of you.
The ancestry.com stuff, the 23andMe, anything that involved
you spit in a cup, you do a swab and you send it off to somebody.
Now somebody's got your genetic profile.
It could go as little as they can just identify you and they
now there's a global database. That's kind of not a favorite
thing. The worst version of it is like
we're seeing in real time because of the JFK file releases
and people who have been reporting on this for a little
bit. I just watched an entire video
on Mike Benz. You guys can find it on my My Ex
profile right now. Apparently the Department of
Defense has been doing bioengineering and warfare in a
way that they could kind of covertly hide it for a long
time, to include things like Lyme disease is most likely tick
borne illnesses. The the strategic value of that
was that they were going to be able to make it into a pest that
they could organically deliver. You could drop it from the air.
You could, you know, seed it in and packages.
And then you got a bunch of these little tiny critters that
are now going to disable your crop worker population through
Lyme disease. And yet it's everywhere in the
United States. We have an entire season where
we worry about that in the Northeast.
And apparently this whole thing was developed in Montana at some
sketchy laboratory with DARPA funding and DoD stuff.
So once again, another example of there's unintended
consequences down the line. Do you want our military doing
targeted DNA based viruses, which seems like a possibility
that you could actually hone in on certain types of populations,
whether they be because of certain, you know, traits,
whether it be because of ethnic heritage and so on.
You think that's outside of the realm for the Chinese to do?
They seem to have created a virus that went after a lot of
old people that were really sick.
That seems super helpful if you have an aging population of
people that are going to be a burden on your healthcare
system. My concern my my biggest concern
with COVID from the beginning. This is purely speculation.
No evidence to back this up other than looking at the way
that works. China has a population bomb
coming their way. They had a the one child policy
for a very long time, which meant that the people were
incentivized to have men, male children.
And so now you have those men and they're roughly in my age
bracket. They're somewhere between like
30 and 50. And there are far too many of
them. They don't have any women
around. They didn't have families
because there weren't enough women to create families that
would go on and create that natural support system.
So all of those people are going to end up on the on the rolls of
public assistance in China, millions and millions and
millions of them. Wouldn't it be convenient if you
had a virus that like very aggressively took out people
over a certain age bracket that there was a much higher
morbidity rate over the of the 65 or 70?
When those people stop being producers and they start
becoming a complete drag on the Chinese economy.
This was my concern. And the worst part of it is that
there's a really decent possibility that our government
was involved in as well. Now, what their instinct or what
they were trying to do with it, another animal.
But this is kind of the ugly piece.
So when you start looking at these bankruptcies and you start
thinking that's a lot of data, that's a lot of your personal
information that is out there flying around in the world, you
ought to be concerned about it. There's nothing American about
you losing access to your genetic material and all of you
who who did this stuff, by the way, you sign that all away.
I have family members who did it as well.
For what? For like the curiosity of like
some mediocre panel test that told you that you were 23%
Irish, which doesn't make any bit of sense at all because you
can't specifically trace DNA to any particular place.
This is all based on like kind of junky science to begin with.
Anybody who's looked at that video.
But it does fill in that that that interest.
We have such a soft and, and, and, and curious population that
we can spend money on things that have zero benefit to you
whatsoever. Now, if they were doing like
real genetic profiles, you wouldn't have done it through
23andMe, that you would have had genetic profiles done through
like a physician or some sort of a medical research group.
They're going to tell you that you have like a risk to this.
OK, fine. That's not what this stuff was.
This was like curiosity. This was cheap.
This was a cheap way to to sell you a kind of interesting
product for your own sort of bragging rights at A at A at a
cocktail party. And at the same time, now you
have millions of people's DNA up for sale.
That's not my favorite thing in the world.
So go out there and protect your own data, folks.
There's only one way to do it. You're the only one responsible
for you. And unfortunately, the one thing
you can't do is you can't stop family members from doing this
stuff. Even when you tell them it's a
bad idea, they may or may not still go into it.
Let's do one more ad read. Then we're going to get nothing
in but OP and oops, Patriot Mobile is our mobile provider
that we sit here and we are going to be in favor of at the
Kyle Servant Show simply because they care about the same things
that we care about. They care about freedom.
They care about the 1st Amendment.
They care about first responders.
They care about, they care about all of the sort of American
values that you do as well. Just because the election is
over doesn't mean that there's not a fight to restore the
country, whether it be taking it back from judges, whether it be
doing the right thing. You can also take a stand with
your dollars that you spend. You can vote with the money in
your wallet by choosing America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider with
patriotmobileitspatriotmobile.com/KSS. They're the only one that has a
slightly different promo code. KSS will get you one free month
of service. When you switch to them today,
you're going to get outstanding nationwide coverage because they
operate on all three of the major networks.
You can keep your cell phone number if you want, you can get
a new one, you can upgrade your phone, you can keep the same
phone you have. The difference is every dollar
you spend supports the first, the second, the sanctity of
life, veterans, first responders and so on.
Switching is pretty easy, you guys.
You can port that number over and there's 100% US based
customer service. If you want to call them, you
can do that too. It's 972 Patriot.
Give them that promo code KSS to get a free month of service and
you can support and defend your values with every call and text
that you make. Check them out.
The link is also in the show notes.
Very easy to do there as well. All right, should we get into
should we get into this thing? This is what it looks like the
Hootie PC small group. This is supposedly what you're
seeing on the screen right now. Picture of Pete Hicks that's
looking over his his left corner.
This is John Radcliffe and Michael Waltz and MAR is
supposed to be Marco Rubio, SM supposedly Stephen Miller, JD
Vance in there as well and everybody congratulating
themselves on a good start. Good job, Pete and your team,
the team in Mal, it's Mar a Lago did a great job as well, says
Mike Waltz. Great work all a powerful start.
I've been listening to these guys talk at least for the last
few months and it seems unlikely.
I don't know. I've been in a lot of chats with
men, group chats where we're talking about policy, where
we're talking about actions. The suspendables have them.
I've been in them with journalists where we were
working on rolling out a story. I've worked in them with people
who are trying to do lawsuits. Not once have I seen sort of a
concerted, everybody jumps in and everybody get this looks
very scripted from the outset. OK.
That's what it looks like to me. So Donald Trump was asked about
this. Hey, Sir, Mr. President, what's
the story with the Atlantic thing?
He kind of he demers. I don't know anything about that
that could go either way, but I'm going to let you hear it in
his own words. We're going to kind of figure
out what we think he has to say about this and whether this is
intentional. Then we're going to go to Pete
Hegseth, whose name is in there. Supposedly one of the people
that was the leaker. The, the, the original leak
supposedly was done by Mike Waltz.
And apparently Waltz added this quote UN quote, journalist from
The Atlantic. OK.
But that to me, everybody responding, everybody only has
one response. Everybody weighs in like it's a
conference call where somebody is calling on everybody.
That seems scripted. And if you'll notice, there's
like a certain amount of time in between each one of these.
They're pretty closely laid out. I don't know.
All right, so here's here's Donald Trump being asked about.
It Mr. President, you're reacting to the the story The
Atlantic that said that some of your top Cabinet officials and
aides have been discussing very sensitive material through
Signal and it included an Atlantic reporter for that.
What is your response to that in our?
I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The
Atlantic. It's to me it's a magazine
that's going out of business. I think it's not much of A
magazine, but I know nothing about it.
You're saying that they had what?
They they were using signal to coordinate on sets of materials
and. Having to do with what?
What were they talking about
with the hoodies? The hoodies?
You mean the attack on the hoodies?
Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was
very effective. I can tell you that.
I don't know anything about it. You're you're telling me about
it for the first time. Anybody else?
I sort of love it. He's just like, I don't really
care what you have to say. I'm not going to address it.
How about Pete? Pete Hegseth.
And then we'll do Pete Buttigieg.
We'll do 2 Pete's. How about that?
We'll do back-to-back. Pete's one obviously
representing the Trump administration.
This is the Secretary of Defense and then the former secretary of
transportation who is going to lean on his very clean uniform
time when he deployed for five seconds overseas and was a
quote, UN quote intelligence officer.
So let's start with the first, Pete, this is the one we like
more. See what he thinks.
This honestly could go either way too.
This actually doesn't look that great.
He's trying to he he basically does the Donald Trump pivot
where he just goes into an attack mode.
I don't hate it, but it doesn't mean that it's not an oops.
Can you share how your information about war plans
against the Houthis in Yemen was shared with a journalist in The
Atlantic, and were those details classified?
So I'm you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited
so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes
time and time again, to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of
Russia, Russia, Russia or the fine people on both sides hoax
or suckers and losers hoax. So this is the guy that peddles
in garbage. This is what he does.
I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign because of the
skill and courage of our troops. I've monitored it very closely
from the beginning. And you see we've been managing
4 years of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration.
Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at as targets.
Our ships couldn't sail through. And when they did shoot back, it
was purely defensively or. OK.
So that's interesting. What I honed in on it was the
question leaked war plans, that that phrase war plans seems to
have originated over at the Atlantic and then apparently it
was marched out. Now war plan sounds like a thing
that would be classified. I'm pretty confident that if you
actually had real war plans, those would in fact be straight
up classified and you would not be able to just discuss them.
But then you look at the actual kind of context of what is going
on there. They're not talking about troop
movements. They're not talking about actual
intelligence. They're talking about policy,
which might be a little bit sensitive.
I think that's possible. Then we'd have to see a little
bit more of it. Apparently Jeffrey Goldberg
didn't share all of this chat, or at least the stuff that I
could find online didn't show it.
But here's what his articles entitled, and the article was
dropped yesterday, again, about 24 hours, a little bit less than
24 hours before we're supposed to have a hearing on national
intelligence. And it's 24 hours before we're
supposed to be talking about China and Russia and Iran.
Does the Trump administration want to talk about this instead?
That's a real possibility. The Trump administration, he he
just lumps them all in, accidentally texted me.
It's war plans. That's a really provocative
title, most likely picked by an editor, probably not by actual
by Goldberg, but possibly had some input on it.
US National Security leaders included me in a group chat
about upcoming strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real.
And then the bomb started falling.
He actually lays it out right there in the beginning of it.
You wouldn't think it would be real if someone added to this
chat. Now I have all kinds of
interesting people that reach out to me.
People reach out to me and they go, hey, I'm this attorney and
I'm involved in this. And I'm like, how the hell did
you get my number? That's always the first
question. I'm always asking how did you
get my information? Because I want to validate.
Is it somebody that could have given it out?
The story which I read and I found it fascinating.
He doesn't do that apparently, at least not in his own telling
of it. He says that he got a signal
connection from someone who he believed could either be the
real or a masquerading version of Michael Walls.
He got that on March 11th. That tells you that if this is
an OP, it was planned for quite a while.
He received a Signal connect from a user identified as Mark
Michael Waltz. It's he explains what Signal is.
Most of you guys know it's an end to end encrypted app.
It's something I use all the time.
My buddies not talk about it. If you talk to me, you'll end up
on Signal. That's where we go.
I like the idea that it deletes things.
I like that there's end to end encryption so it can't be
compromised in in transit and so on.
And a lot of people in Congress have been used this.
This is the default method for people who kind of, you know,
it's open source and it's not it doesn't have US based servers.
It doesn't live on a server. He said.
I assumed that it was not the actual Michael Waltz.
I had met him in the past. I didn't find it strange that he
would reach out to me. It actually is very pretty
strange. The fact that he thinks it's not
strange is interesting to me. And then he says two days later
on Thursday, and this is going back almost two weeks now.
At 4:28, I received a notice that I was included in the
Signal chat group called Hootie PTPC.
That's PC small group. And then the method or the group
began with the following. By the way, he never confirmed
who this person was. He never confirmed what was
going on. He never asked, hey, you know,
did you want to connect with me? Which is a normal thing you
would do when someone tried to connect with you, you just
accepted it. And it says team.
We're establishing a principles group for coordination on the
Hootie's, particularly over the next 72 hours.
My deputy, Alex Wong, is pulling together a Tiger team at
deputies and agency chief of staff levels, following up from
a meeting in the sit room this morning for actions.
And we'll be sending that out later this evening.
That looks to me like more information described.
That is the kind of thing that you would put out in a memo that
you'd put out in an e-mail to people that are not familiar
with the situation. How, why would you have to say
my deputy, Alex Wong, wouldn't you just say, Hey, you know,
Alex is going to be doing this if everybody knows who his
deputy is because they would because that seems pretty
common. This all leads me down the line
of OP and I'll show you a little bit more and we'll see if the
other possibility is, is that this was just a screw up by
Waltz and then he's been exposed as being someone who's in
contact with with Goldberg, which is a possibility as well.
Men, this all continues on in kind of the scripted way.
So we'd have to believe that not only are they discussing this
stuff on Signal, but they're also like total screw ups on it.
They're also using very official photographs.
When I deal with people who are in government, when I deal with
people who have a a high level of connectivity either to a
political or they are members of like a pretty powerful group of
things or they're like a high level media person.
Almost always they don't actually include an official
photograph. They don't.
Reporters do, decision makers do not.
For whatever it's worth, on Signal, they'll have cloak and
dagger icons, which is the default one.
They'll have a picture of a dog. They'll have a picture of
something that means something to them.
They'll have a picture of a car. They often times do not have
their official portrait and that's what we saw in some of
the signal group. So let me just show you there's
Pete Hegseth that is a professional headshot for
professional for for Pete Hegseth.
And he's saying VP. So he's he's calling out JD
Vance. The way that you tag somebody,
by the way, is you hit at JD and it'll actually populate their
name. So you know who they're being
tagged. But you write VPI fully share
your loathing of European freeloading and it's pathetic.
But Mike is correct. This is a lot of long form
writing. This looks more scripted to me.
I'm just weighing in. One guy listening to it.
Let's get Pete Buttigieg's idea. He wanted you to know that
classified systems and unclassified systems cannot mix,
that there is no classified, there's no unclassified material
on classified systems. But to blow this out of the
water in 2 seconds here, any of you who've ever held a security
clearance and ever worked on what's called Cympernet in the
military, or you worked on Bunet, which is the Bureau
version of it, or any other version of what's called like
the red side? The red side is a secret up to
and including no secret information.
Pete Buttigieg is out here trying to explain this to ACNN
audience. Assuming that nobody there has
ever had a security clearance and no one has ever worked on
this stuff. It makes me wonder how much he
trafficked in it because about 80% of what I used to get on the
red side computers was unclassified.
Here he is talking about something that's not true.
Experience both in the cabinet and as an intelligence officer,
you would have to go out of your way to take classified
information and move it into an unclassified system.
I don't know if a lot of folks understand how this works, but
it's not like there's a computer where you might get a
unclassified e-mail and a classified e-mail in the same
inbox. They're not even the same
computers by design. It is very difficult for
information to move from one system to the other unless
somebody goes out of their way to do that.
And, you know, I want to speculate on how the FBI will
respond to this or how Congress will respond to this.
But I know that it was drilled into us back when I was an
intelligence officer that if you ever took top secret
information, moved it over to an unclassified system and
disclosed it, that that would be a crime.
I mean, I can't tell you how much this was drilled into us
when I was in the military so much.
What about Hillary Clinton? I'm just curious, are we setting
up like a Hillary Clinton prosecution there?
I don't actually get into the the the 4D chess game because I
just don't think that's real. But that actually is really,
really funny and interesting to me.
That declination, maybe the statute has passed, but are we
just going to just go ahead and skewer that woman one more time
with the fact that everything Pete Buttigieg just said could
apply to 2015 and 2015 and 2016 Hillary Clinton and the what
difference does it make? And the any reasonable
prosecutor nonsense from Jim Comedy, Are we just hitting that
home again? Because that's kind of fun to me
when I think about it. He's wrong, by the way.
It's actually not that hard to move classified stuff up or down
if you want to. There's supposed to be a look
for it. But moving stuff from the
unclassified side into the classified terminals, The FBI
had a system that was called, what was it called up Uplift?
I think it was called Uplift. And then the other one was
called Downdraft. There were two programs.
You'd literally go to a website, you'd load whatever files you
wanted to have onto the other classified on CAVE or the
unclassified, and it would search it for portion Marks and
things that would obviously show that it was classified or not.
And then it would move it. And if you did something really
sketchy, then it would flag like a security officer to check it
out. But this stuff happens all the
time. You move it up and down.
You know what the most easy way to move classified information
to an unclassified place is? It's your brain.
It's the same thing that Hillary Clinton was accused of doing,
that she read emails on a classified enclave, secret, top
secret, doesn't matter, then turned around and then use them
in emails that were personal like this.
This is exactly a one to one look and nobody ever paid for it
at that point. The other thing is that the
president actually has like the the, the unilateral ability to
declare that this is fine or not fine in advance.
So I think that's kind of fun. We should ask a little bit more
about who is this person? Let's let's do who is this guy
Jeffrey Goldberg? Because for context, he's not
exactly an honest operator. And so it would be interesting
if they tried to set him up. And you could imagine that Trump
probably has some, maybe some vindictive feelings towards the
guy based on the way that he operated.
First clip you're going to be hearing if you're just listening
is September of 2020. The second clip is coming from
October of 2024. We'll play both of them
back-to-back. This is him talking on CNN both
times getting his sort of take on the suckers and losers thing,
which was sort of nonsensical. And just whether or not you guys
think this guy is an honest operator or whether he was being
set up. And like I said, he didn't go
forward with it until after the attack.
So it turns out there was actually no risk of him probably
reporting on it. He's not that reckless.
He did wait till it actually was substantiated and at that point
that value was kind of not there anymore.
It did represent a potential leak, but the court were a
spill. But the question because spill
and leak are different. This would be, I think I would
call it a spill, which means that somebody accidentally moved
classified information out there.
It's not a leak. Leak is intentional.
That being said, it also could be very easily the OP part of
it. And I think our chat has sort of
aligned on this. Listen to this guy.
You tell me if they weren't setting him up.
At issue is a report by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg
based on accounts from anonymous sources.
Goldberg writes of the morning Trump was scheduled to visit an
American cemetery near Paris, where American Marines are
buried. This is a piece of the article.
In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of
the scheduled visit, Trump said, quote, why should I go to that
cemetery? It's filled with losers.
In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to
more than 1800 Marines who lost their lives at Bella Wood as
quote suckers for getting killed.
Earlier today, Goldberg responded to the pushback from
the president and several of the president's aides.
I stand by my reporting, multiple sources telling me this
is what happened. Here's what Kelly told the
Atlantic magazine about a White House conversation after Trump
told Kelly he wished he'd be more like German generals.
Kelly said, quote, do you mean the Kaiser's general?
Surely you can't mean Hitler's generals.
And Trump said, yeah, yeah, Hitler's generals.
What do you think that this is important for voters to know
about? Is that one of the why did why
did you do this story now? Is that you finally got the
confirmation of these stories recently?
Yeah, I, I got, I got confirmations and I got on the
record interviews that I needed to make sure that the story was
was solid, including an interview with General Kelly.
So there you go. OK, so he did the General Kelly.
Donald Trump was a was a big fan of Donald, of Hitler, of Adolf
Hitler. So that was one of the stories.
He did the suckers and losers. There's other stuff as well.
He was a big proprietor of the Russia, Russia hoax.
So that's a question. We have to put that out there.
Here's the owner of the Atlantic talking about why she bought the
Atlantic. She's sitting on a on a panel.
You can't see it if you're just listening.
But the person that is directly to her right is Kamala Harris.
And this was done in the sort of the the tail end of the the
campaign that we just finished up.
So here she is talking about how they wanted to be able to
influence narrative, that they wanted to be able to have their
own words in it. Again, that idea that war plan
is the question that is being posed to Donald Trump, being
posed to Pete Hegseth and others.
The word war plan coming directly out of their narrative,
directly out of the Atlantic, tells me something as well.
It was pretty obvious to me that we could build.
We, you know, we, we build out in a very cross disciplinary way
our work, you know, capital investing and policy and
philanthropy. And we could do this work
forever and ever. And we could have the narrative
overtaken by, by someone who's, who has a lot of power, who's
completely contrary to us. And we could never get to the
place where we think we're part of a more just and equal
society. And so it was obvious that if we
could be part of the the creation of cultural narrative,
that would that would enhance and amplify all the work that
we're doing, which is Hillary Clinton talked about today, is
telling the story, getting the content out there.
Yeah, She was. Yes.
Yeah, yeah. Telling the story, getting the
content out there, being able to craft narrative because we need
to be able to buy an outlet that we can push this forward.
Jeff Bezos owns Washington Post. Now you've got this lady, I
think her name is Laura Powell. Laura Lauren Powell owns The
Atlantic, and she wanted to do so specifically so she could
influence narrative. That's what she says.
Let's go to the other side of the coin here.
Let's go to the accident side of the coin.
Jesse Kelly had a take on this. I like Jesse Kelly also.
Seeing how people have reacted to this and who is defending and
who is not kind of tells you a little bit about it.
I found Jesse Kelly to be a pretty honest operator all the
time. So let's imagine that this was
in fact a mistake. If it is, again, we have to wait
long enough to find out. If we see Michael Waltz removed
from his position, you are going to know something very, very
specific right away. Jesse Kelly saying look, you can
make mistakes, you just can't make a mistake at this level.
If they don't remove him, it leads me more down the line of
this was in fact an op. Accidents are OK depending on
the qualifications of the person who committed the accident and
depending on, most importantly, the importance of the topic at
hand. We are dealing with national
security issues, military issues.
The Trump administration has less than four years to purge
the communist menace from inside the federal government while at
the same time juggling about 19,000 world affairs,
international, domestic and otherwise.
And if there is one person, I don't care what his name is in
the Trump administration, who was so thoughtless, careless, or
stupid that he's going to include a dirty communist on an
important group chat of national security matters, then that
person can prepare his resume, pack up your stuff, and leave
Washington, DC immediately. And it needs to be done publicly
so everyone else in the administration understands
you're not allowed to be a moron.
Very simple, right? The argument is we watch and see
what happens, which is always a great idea.
If you see what happens, then you'll know a little bit more
about how it's taken internally. If somebody is publicly fired
and shamed and sent out, that says you can't be a moron.
If somebody is protected and continues onward and this
becomes nothing, and all we do is hear a little bit more in the
hearings talking about some stuff.
OK, that tells us a little bit as well.
We have to have a little bit more evidence.
We don't have it all right in front of us.
That's pretty clear. We could ask Jasmine Crockett
what to do. Jasmine Crockett just thinks
that you need more black ladies, apparently.
Apparently this is a decidedly racist take.
I hope that we have more of this from the Democrat side.
That's actually why they keep losing.
Float this lady please. Then y'all want to come in us
and act like people of color are the problem or that women are
the problem. Like baby, you probably need a
good black woman in the room who can check you and tell you that.
First of all, you shouldn't be doing this shit on Signal or
anything else. She's so classy.
I just wish that she would just always talk.
I'm so glad that Dallas decided to elect her and put her out
there. And actually, I'm really excited
that Democrats continue to post her because she thought that was
a good idea to broadcast into the world as a sitting
congresswoman. That tells you something.
How about somebody with a little bit more class?
How about Scott Jennings taking on this?
I think this is interesting, whether it's damage control or
whether or not there's something more at play.
He's fairly well connected. People talk to him and he's on
CNN talking about this. He's been in some pretty high
level meetings. I have to imagine at some point
he starts talking about how this was preloaded on, that this was
actually a way that people were, you know, discussing things.
If you've ever accidentally added anybody to a group, I
don't think that's ever happened.
And the fact that nobody looked at it and went, how come this
one person just lurking and not talking, you can see that stuff
on Signal and you can easily remove them.
So that leads me more towards the piece of it.
I'm just saying we still need a little bit more evidence, but I
keep leaning more and more towards it.
And then I'm going to play the ultimate argument, which I think
Tim Poole lays out pretty well. Again, I wanted to kind of see
who says what, whether I agree with him or not.
Here's Scott Jennings, all right.
Moments ago, Caitlin Collins was reporting on her show Scott that
there is shock inside the White House that.
This. Chat was texted to Jeffrey
Goldberg. Are you shocked?
Well, sure. I mean, it's a, it's a shocking
thing. And, you know, they've admitted
that it was a mistake and admitted that it's authentic.
So they're owning up to it. I think they're still based on
what I've heard tonight trying to figure out how it happened.
I'm not sure of the National security advisor walls even
knows Goldberg. In fact I don't believe he knows
him and has never met him. I did learn a few things and
some of my conversations if you're interested. 1 is that the
signal program was pre loaded on a number of devices and agency
computers in this circuit when they got there.
So in their view it was already in use #2 in some of the
messages they talk about needing to go to the high side computers
which is the classified system. So they clearly were knowing
there was a line on what you could discuss in a chat like
this versus classified system #3.
There is a dispute over whether the term war plans is being
exaggerated and #4. Look.
I love the policy. It's well executed.
You got a thoughtful policy discussion going on, and we did
what the Biden administration would not do, stop these people
from harassing our shipping lanes and our boats and our
Navy. So good on the Trump
administration for reversing a bad policy.
OK, so he hones in on a couple things #1 they're using the word
war plan. That is the leftist term that is
coming from CNN, even has it on the Chiron.
So you're getting that narrative March out.
That's pretty interesting. We're going to do one last
little thing about war plans. I'll play you some Katt
Williams. I think it's very interesting.
Verbiage is incredible and and very specific and it means
things and has emotional triggers.
It either makes you think about something.
Imagine war plans. close your eyes right now and do that for
me. Imagine war plans, whatever that
means. Are you seeing a battle map and
some sort of general standing around and you know, some sort
of national leader moving pieces around Game of Thrones style or
you're seeing it Axis and ally style In World War 2, they've
got this big situation room and a big plan.
Are you looking at it and seeing a darkened room with computer
screens everywhere? We've got satellite Intel and
that's what war plans looks like to people in their heads.
Or it could look like this. Hey, Pete Hegseth, See, by the
way, the vice president knows how to do the highlighting
thing. If you think, what did he say?
He says, Pete Hegseth, if you think we should do do it, let's
go. I hate bailing out Europe out
again. Let's make sure our messaging is
tight here. Interesting.
Talking about messaging. I don't get into this kind of
stuff other than it looks fairly fairly scripted.
And if there are things we can do to upfront to minimize risk
to Saudi oil facilities, we should do that as well.
Then you've got him talking about whether or not they should
be bailing people out. This is this is P Higgs that
talking about it, talking about shipping lanes.
Mike's correct. This is not how people normally
talk in a signal group. You just run back and forth.
There should be some snarkiness. There should be some reality to
this. This sounds like a scripted
meeting where everybody feels like what they're going to do.
There's no swear words. There's no funny emojis.
There's no reactions to any of these things.
By the way, whenever somebody says something, the fastest way
that you're going to agree with it is you give it a thumbs up,
you give it a bullseye, right? You give it a 100.
Signal is really easy. If you were to look, look at
every single Signal chat I have with more than a few people,
every single one of them would have some reactions.
There's no reactions. That looks scripted to me.
And so here's Tim Poole's take on it.
You guys tell me what you think in the chat.
We'll get to that. Again, This this leans more like
optimy and I'm not one to give passes for stupidity.
They accidentally created a group chat to discuss bombing
Yemen and included a liberal Russia, Russia, Russia
journalist on accident. And there's the other story and
that's they intentionally created the group chat with a
script that took two days to write and they wanted him to
espouse their their narrative to the world.
Look, I don't know exactly, but either the strong possibility
that these journalists are dumb as a box of rocks and the Trump
administration should they have actually included him, did it
intentionally so that he would report their words behind the
scenes, which I got to be honest makes him could look kind of
good. JD Vance saying we can't bomb
Yemen. This goes against Trump's
message. And then Heg Seth says, but
we're the only ones in the world who can put a stop to this.
And then there's JD Vance saying I get it, you're right, but I
really want to keep bailing out Europe.
U.S. trade doesn't even go through here.
It really sounds like APR message distilled through a
moron who thinks he got leaked information.
So the American people think they're getting a genuine behind
the scenes look at the difficult decision to bomb Yemen.
Let's be real, when they decided to have a conversation about
bombing Yemen, they didn't do it over Signal.
They met at the Pentagon. They're all in DC as it is.
What a ridiculous story. But maybe maybe I'm crazy and
everybody else is crazy. I don't think so.
I think it's pretty hard. Like I said, we'll have to see a
little bit further what happens. This could have been smoking out
somebody within the Trump administration who makes bad
decisions. It could more likely have been,
I think, scripted just because of just the way that that chat
looks. It doesn't look natural to me.
And I'm in a lot of those with those types of people Now,
strangely enough, in my life, I hang out with people that are in
the national security space that have a lot of instincts that
know exactly what it looks like and what kind of compromises can
be done. And you know that you're going
to be targeted from nation state level actors and they can break
through that. Listen, they're not going to
break the encryption and signal. They're going to break into your
phone very specifically. You know who can do that?
The Israelis. We know that there's spyware
technologies. I actually went on Dan Bongino's
TV show back when he was still doing Fox and talked about this.
They have the ability to break foreign phones and US phones.
Pegasus and Phantom are NSO spyware technologies that can do
this kind of stuff. You don't need to to grab the
data in in transit. You can literally just grab the
phone and see everything on there.
So you get on either end of the encrypted tunnel.
That's how you actually compromise something like
Signal. You tell me you guys can go
ahead and put it. I would love to see put it in
the, the comments below. Make a comment over on Spotify.
I want to know where you're weighing in on this because
it's, it's early, but let me give you 2 last little things.
This is kind of a fun reaction. There's a guy named Eli Mistall.
He, he looks kind of like Kenan Thompson.
The guy from SNLI actually thought this was SNL skit.
This is the stuff that Democrats are going to be talking about.
They're going to be talking about whether or not there's a
problem with leaking classified material on signal.
Meanwhile, they defended Hillary Clinton and what difference does
it make and the e-mail servers and it shouldn't be about that.
She lost, by the way. That was a losing battle.
And then they want to run on we should make 16 year olds vote.
So this is what they're talking about over on MSNBC.
Just as a contrast. You tell me, OP OK, so like
what? Well, we could eliminate all
voter registration laws. See, when Democrats get in
charge, we try to protect voting rights.
We don't make voting easier. Now, I'm all for voter
eligibility requirements. I might, we might disagree about
what those requirements should be.
But you know, I'm going to say that like, there should be an
age limit to vote. I might say 16, you might say
18, but I'm not going to say 8, right.
So we're going to agree that there should be voter
eligibility requirements, but once you're eligible, why do you
have to pre register? Why?
Why is that even a thing? It wasn't a thing in this
country at the founding. We didn't have voter pre
registration in 1787. We didn't have voter pre
registration in 1821. We only started having voter
registration, generally speaking, after the Civil War.
Why do you think that is? It's because a bunch of freed
African slaves were migrating up north and all of a sudden New
York was like, we need some registration up in here, right?
Bunch of immigrants from Europe. Yeah, the rule was racism.
The people that freed the slaves were so racist.
That's what was going on. They didn't want all those
racially mixed people coming in and voting.
Apparently they're just going to completely ignore the fact that
the Democrat Party was the one that was stifling black votes.
That's why they actually left in the first place anyway.
But don't worry about history, OP or oops.
That's the kind of conversation they want to have.
I actually think this is a fairly telling piece here.
This is a pretty good argument about why this doesn't work and
why what they're doing is a failure and why you're going to
have to. They're giving them something
shiny to look at. As long as they're looking at
Signal chats, they're not paying attention to where the real
battleground is, which is population voting with their
feet. Here's Bill Maher honing in on
the actual victory and why I said if we don't have two
functional parties, one party is actually actively running
themselves off the Cliff as fast as they can and they are
actually losing where it matters in population density.
And that means in representation.
And it also means and probably most importantly, it means an
Electoral College votes. Listen to this little kind of
sleigh. You tell me if this doesn't kind
of slight your your thoughts about where they are not paying
attention. This is laser pointer one O 1.
Get people to follow the dot. Follow the signal chat for me.
California's projected to lose 3 seats, New York 2, also going to
lose a seat, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Illinois, all blue
states. Who's getting these?
Texas, Florida, Idaho and Utah. I mean, this looks like game
over, you know? And the reason why people are
voting with their feet is a lot of what your book is about taxes
and regulation. I certainly been screaming about
it forever. I did three years with a sign
here that said how long is it going to take me to get my solar
hooked up? Three years talking about it on
television. In this state, you couldn't do
it. This state has almost 400,000
regulations. I just put in a new roof because
the fire. I thought, oh, let's get a roof
that's not going to burn up. Two inspections.
Why are you inspecting my roof? It's my fucking roof.
If it falls on me. That's my problem.
And we're taxed more than any other state.
People are leaving these kind of states for places where they're
not let they feel the heavy breath of government on them.
Well, Hallelujah. Yeah, people don't want heavy
government because government sucks and they do a terrible job
as like someone keeps quoting me over on social media now and I I
appreciate that you do. Government is almost always the
worst solution to any problem. Even when it's the only
solution. There may be some things that
only government should do because we can't have certain
things privatized and yet it's going to do a crap job of it
because government doesn't care because it's using OPM, other
people's money. It's a thing that you eventually
run out of. It always is going to be a
lesser solution than what you would do for yourself.
You just can't do all the things for yourself all the time and
you have to outsource some of it to government.
Things like, you know, a judicial system, things like law
enforcement, things like maintaining all the public
roads. If it's going to get bigger than
like, let's say your community, fine, OK, we get it.
And yet Bill Moore walking along and seeing this, I feel like
this is a big, big distraction. I'm going to go leans op right
now with the caveat that that that some personnel decisions
could come out that would change my mind.
So that's where I'm going to say I think it's important that it
happened because it tells us a little bit about how Donald
Trump is operating and how the the cabinet there is is playing
with things. And if they are in fact doing
OPS like this and entrapping the leftist media, that will be
closer to the 4D chess that everybody has told me this guy
has been doing. And it means that he's got some
really smart people around him. That's what I'm going to say for
today. I appreciate all of you guys
joining us. You're seeing that our our
numbers are really depressed over on Rumble.
I'm fairly confident because they've boosted it and changed
the algorithm to favor Rumble's favorite thing.
Follow us in all the places you can.
You can follow us at Kyle's Serif.
And if you want to start watching over on YouTube, you
certainly could do that live. We'll see the chat there as
well. You can watch on Spotify after
the fact. And I do appreciate you guys
doing that. Give us a comment, boost it up.
Make sure you're liking the video, if you think the analysis
is is sound and interesting to you, if you like the clips that
are getting pulled, if you want to grab them.
And by the way, I should put a caveat up front.
You guys can cut any piece of the show and use it anywhere you
like. I have no problem with anybody
using it if it is interesting to you.
I have seen some people doing that of late.
It's kind of cool to see it. That did mean something to you.
So thanks for paying attention to the program.
Very grateful for it. Like the video, wherever you're
at, we'll look forward to seeing you again.
And if you guys want to stick around for more former FBI hot
takes and people that are analyzing stuff that's going on
in the world, my buddies, the American Radicals, that's
Gerardo Boyle and Steve Friend are going to be live over on
Rumble. I will feed you directly over
there. If you're watching over on X or
if you're watching on YouTube, check them out.
It's at Amradpod. You can find them real easy.
Have a great day, folks. We got a bunch of stuff coming
up for tomorrow as well, so look forward to seeing you then.
God bless you. Thanks for listening to the Kyle
Serafin Show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle
Serafin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth
Social and Instagram at Kyle Serafin.