Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an
American patriot prepared to embrace the uncomfortable truth.
Because this program has no time for comforting lies.
Here is civil liberties enthusiast, Second Amendment
defender, and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin.
Well, hello my friends, and welcome to the Kyle Seraphin
show. Today is what's what is today.
It's Tuesday the 19th, it's December 19th, and we have a
fantastic show geared up. I just feel it in my heart that
this is going to be one of those interviews that I'm really going
to enjoy. I think you guys are going to
also really enjoy it. We have Douglas Mackey joining
us in just a little bit here, and we're going to be talking
live on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin.
If you're somewhere else, go ahead and get there.
If you're watching us on Instagram, you are now on our
first Instagram stream. We're going to be talking to
Douglas about memes, about shit posting about the federal
judiciary, and about the debasing of our judiciary as it
decides to go after what I would say is a pretty clear violation
of a free speech principle. We're not supposed to go into
things that are First Amendment protected.
That's not the case right now. And this story has been on my
radar since it first broke that the DOJ was going after it.
So I'm very excited. I learned about it when I was an
FBI agent, and I'm now following it as a guy who just does a
podcast and just a regular guy sitting here in a chair talking
to human beings and getting their story.
So you guys stick around for that.
I want to front load and talk about our sponsors real quick.
We're going to thank them for all their support.
It really is because of our sponsors that were able to do
what we do. Talk to the people we talk to,
give you the stories that we're able to give you.
So let's start first with my friends over at Catholic Vote
who are now running the Catholic Prom King nomination service.
This is a Catholic hero of the year.
It's between me and Mark Out. That's a pretty good company to
be in for me. Mark Out, the pro-life dad who
was out praying in front of an abortion clinic and decided that
you can't say nasty things in front of his child, sent the guy
to the ground. Pretty clear self-defense type
stuff. There was some instigation going
on. We've already reached the
maximum number of votes that we can do for Catholic Here of the
year. If you guys have not done it,
you can go to votedonate.catholicvote.org
slash 2023 Hero bracket. You can also just click on the
link. We put it in the description
here for you and I'm voting for Mark Out.
You guys vote for who you need to.
I won't tell you what to do, but I like Mark as a person.
I saw him at the Police Day trailer and the the premiere.
He was in that movie as well, did a fantastic job and his
story is 1 where he really faced down a lot of actual evil going
on in our federal government. I think that the stakes were
slightly higher for him than they were for me.
I lost a job. I lost a house.
I lost a lot of my material comfort.
He was looking at losing freedom and he took it to a jury trial
and won. So that's my pitch.
You guys vote for who you need to.
I'm not going to be mad if you vote for me.
If you vote for Mark. That's the one that we did and
that we do appreciate you guys supporting Catholic vote.
You can also say thanks to our friends over at Patriot Coolers,
which is sitting right here. Doug has already seen me sort of
sipping away, getting my caffeine proper levels.
You guys can go to patriotcoolers.com.
The promo code is Kyle. It's just my name.
It's Kyle. That'll save you 10% and you can
check out any number of their products of which I have almost
everything on this website. I have tumblers.
I have some of their water bottles.
I have two of their coffee mugs. I have three of their coffee
mugs. What else they got on there?
We got one of those. We got the canteen.
We've got the big jug right there.
I've got the one gallon that they.
Got standing. You do need that honestly,
especially if you live in somewhere hot or if you live in
somewhere cold. You don't want to die from
having frozen water that you can't drink sitting in your car.
Anyway, Check out all of the options.
These are fantastic things to find underneath your tree.
They say the word patriot right on the front.
They support veterans, which we love.
They have given almost $400,000 to support veteran mobility and
it's not a very old company. They've only been around since
2018. Early 27 or late 2017 is when
they went into business and I started carrying their stuff on
duty in October of 2017 while I was a surveillance guy.
So check out Patriot coolers.com promo code Kyle again, it's 10%
off and you'll get free shipping if you spend more than 50 bucks.
What you're going to want to do because there's all kinds of
great stuff there. Let's, let's rock'n'roll, let's
bring on our guest. I'm going to have him unmute his
mic. I'm going to give a quick intro
while he's on the screen here, but I'll let him add to it.
Douglas Mackey was accused, investigated, convicted, and now
his sentence has been stayed pending appeal for memes.
He was widely attacked in the left wing media and the
mainstream media on all different fronts.
We're going to bring some of those articles on his story is
something that you should care about.
If you care about free speech in America, you don't even have to
agree with Doug. We're going to see where we
agree and where we disagree. It doesn't actually matter in
this country. You actually have a right to
have a dissenting opinion, even if it's unfavorable and ugly.
So, Doug, thanks so much for joining us today.
I'm really looking forward to chatting with you buddy.
Morning, thanks a lot for having me on.
Isn't it weird that whenever we do these shows, and I know
you've done you just did John junior show and I do it and
people go like, welcome to the show.
And then you're like, oh, thanks for having me.
And really, you're doing me a service because you're you're,
you're my guest today. It's an Otter.
OK.
So I want to dig into the story, who you are as a person first,
as I just kind of laid out, we're going to get to the to the
court case, we're going to get to the appeal and, and how wild
all this stuff is. But let's start with who you are
as a human being. First of all, how old are you?
Because this started going back quite a way.
So I want to kind of set the parameters.
Right, I'm 34 years old now. OK.
And how old were you in 2015, 2016?
That's going back seven years. Yeah, it's about 2627 around
there. OK and, and I think that's
really important to note because men in my audience, you think
about it, women you've dated men and or you're married to 1.
And you know, when I was 27, I enlisted in the military and I
was basically a very smart retard.
I did all kinds of really dumb things, and I surrounded myself
by people who did dumb things 'cause that's what people in the
military do. Do you think that you were
functioning at your highest cerebral level?
Have you changed in those last seven years the way that you
look at the world? Yeah, absolutely.
I've changed a lot. Yeah, absolutely.
And you got some forced experience that you've gone on.
I I think that's relevant. All right, let's start about who
you are as a human being. Where did you grow up?
Where were you born? I was born in DC actually.
Interesting you're the last guy that was born there.
I don't think they're having babies there anymore.
Right at the Women's Hospital there.
It's closed down though. Is it really?
Yeah. And, and did you grow up in DC
or in the surrounding area? I grew up in Colorado and then
Vermont. What What made you be born in
DC? What What was your family
connection to DC? My parents were working there at
the time. OK, they met there.
I should say my dad was working there.
My parents met there. OK.
And then you moved to what part of Colorado?
Outside. Right outside of Denver.
And Denver was a different place back then.
It's pretty far left now, but it wasn't back back 30 years ago.
No, no, it was pretty. Yeah, moderate to conservative
place. Yeah, those and it's grown a lot
it. Really has all right, tell me,
tell me about growing up. Tell me about your childhood.
I want people to get a sense of who you are as a human being.
We're going to get to the point where you're sitting there
posting memes and you have a a very influential account.
But I think it's worth knowing like there's a human being
behind the name instead of just this like headline story.
So kind of tell me about growing up.
Yeah, Growing up, I mean, I was just sort of really active, like
to get outside, play sports, that kind of thing.
I always did pretty well in school.
I did it, you know, was always interested.
It's funny. I would always go get the paper,
open the paper, read the paper. I read a lot.
I would read it, you know, the encyclopedia.
So you're the other guy for that?
Exactly. Right.
I would flip through the encyclopedia itself.
Yeah. Just sort of.
That's sort of my childhood experience.
I was fortunate living in sort of these nice places where you
can go outside and run around the woods and whatever.
Any siblings? I do, I have two younger
siblings. OK, how have they been affected
by all this? So it's very difficult for them.
You know, for example, I was docs in 2018.
They didn't know that I was posting under this pseudonym,
Ricky Vaughn. So that was difficult for my
family. And, you know, they were very
upset, understandably, at some of the more offensive things
that I was saying. So it was difficult.
We sort of worked through it. You know, we did our best to
work through it. We still don't necessarily see
eye to eye or, or on everything, but we work through it as a
family. We work through it and we try
to, you know, we try to support each other now.
Fair enough. All right, let's let's continue
moving through. You said you played some sports.
Any particular sports that you were excelling at?
So in high school I soccer, basketball and I did run middle
distance in the track field. OK.
And then and what year did you graduate?
I'm just, I'm doing timeline because I want people to kind of
look at where this all came into effect and maybe where they were
at that time as well. I graduated 2007.
OK. O 7 And then did you go to
college or no? I did.
I stayed in the state of
Vermont. I went to a small college there
called Middlebury College and I graduated there in 2011.
Where's Middlebury? It's in Middlebury, Vt, which is
South of Burlington and the Champlain Valley.
It's north of Brattleboro and South of of Burlington.
Exactly. What's going on in that part of
the state? Anything.
A lot of, well, the lake is beautiful, right?
It's a lot of, it's very windy because there's a valley and
there's a lake right there, very cold.
But yeah, just there's just a lot of, you know, nice farmland
basically in small towns. That's it.
Vermont's kind of a weird place. My wife and I looked at moving
there at one point, and it's like a lot of kind of hippie
types, but they're also kind of libertarian hippies.
Does that make sense? Is that what it was?
Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.
For instance, Vermont didn't have any sort of concealed, it
still doesn't have any sort of concealed carry law.
You could just open carry, not open carry, but you don't need a
a license to carry. So they were the one of the
original, what they call constitutional carries.
In fact, for a while when I was younger they used to refer to it
as Vermont Carry. Exactly.
That's right. That's that's how far back that
has gone now that there's a lot of states that have adopted it.
But I think they were the first or at least they were one of the
most prominent states that that came forward with that.
The Constitution is your permit. Right.
And they didn't even need to do anything about it 'cause they
never passed a law saying you need to do a permit, right?
Which is the way it was. It was always interesting if
they had ever applied like the carry permit, like whatever the
the loosest carry statutes were across the country.
If you looked at Vermont, then nobody would need a permit
anywhere, which was always kind of my dream.
That's I was like, wow, they they pass gay marriage if you
have to honor what the gay marriage is in any from one
state to another. It would be nice if we just kind
of agreed that Vermont carry was good for everybody.
That's not the way it works. But so you were that and and and
it's full of crunchy people who are kind of libertarian.
Did that shape your the way you thought about the world at all
or did you see those people as as were you part of Vermont or
was just kind of a visitor? Yeah, no, definitely a little
bit. For instance, George Bush was
the president and so there was a lot of anti Bush sentiment.
So I, you know, I was young, I was impressed.
So I caught on to that sort of anti Bush, anti Iraq war
sentiment is that, you know, read the local papers, the op
eds and stuff. So it definitely influenced my
worldview and. Then, since we're talking
politics, did you have a politically engaged childhood
and adolescence, or were you, were you aware of it at all?
Not really. I mean, when I was in high
school, like I said, you know, the Iraq war, George Bush sort
of thing was going on and it sort of against that whole war
and sort of the Bush presidency part of the, as a, like I said,
a result of my environment that I was in, everybody was sort of
feeling that way. And so I but I wasn't overly
politically engaged and it was just sort of loosely and I was
curious, but I was open minded. Makes sense.
Let's talk about, let's talk about Internet involvement
because you came of age a couple years after I did.
I remember having the Internet when I was in high school and it
was new. Like we had dial ups when I was
in high school. I could still hear the dial
tone. You know, we had AOL, things
like that. You were in a couple years
behind that. So you had it obviously
available to you when you were probably a teenager?
Yeah, yeah. Talk about your Internet kind of
growing up on the Internet and, and what that looked like for
you, what kind of things you were involved in, if you did
chat groups or if you were in, you know, rooms or if you were
in forums or anything along those lines, Because I'm really
curious how that started. Now, when I was young, it wasn't
actually that into like, chat. I mean, we had the AOL, it's the
Messenger, right? ASL wasn't totally into that.
Yeah. But, you know, I mostly just
followed sports, OK, You know, And then as I got older, I sort
of followed, I sort of following politics and then YouTube came
around so you could watch, you know, YouTube videos, Facebook,
although no, I didn't do anything on Facebook with
politics. Probably smart.
Yeah, yeah. Watch YouTube and that kind of
thing. So that was, and then it sort of
it kept, you know, evolved from there.
Twitter came around and nobody else on Twitter.
So it wasn't very interesting, but.
How early were you on Twitter? Do you know?
Do you know when you first started up on Twitter?
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I I didn't really use it
until 2014, OK. Which puts you at what age?
You're in your early 20s. 2524. OK, so you jump on Twitter and
what what did you start? What was the lure of starting
it? And then did that change in any
way? It was just that there were some
accounts that I wanted to follow.
I just want to read. So for a while, just reading
Twitter, that's all. And then, you know, sort of get
into these sort of arguments or almost trollish sort of
arguments, not even trolling, but arguments on Twitter with
other people and then sort of evolve from there.
There's been a lot of celebration in the left side of
the media about kind of like pummeling you as a troll.
I've seen the word troll in your name.
Associated probably probably on almost every major site
ABCNBCCBS all these folks. Can you describe what what the
word there it is? That's a great one.
What is that one from Ryan? This one's from I Can't.
Yeah. The Verge, Yeah.
The Verge They have a bad logo, don't they?
Far right Twitter troll sentenced to seven months in
prison for 2016. Like how absurd is it?
That's 2023 and they're saying. That, that was my first search
too, Kyle. Yeah, of course.
And we're going to talk about search and how that has been
kind of skewed against you, I think in in a little bit here.
But let's let's talk about the term troll.
You know, you were involved in it early on.
Do you remember, did you think of it as a trolling or was it
just kind of people keyboard wiring or?
Yeah, it was trolling. It was keyboard worrying, I
mean. What's the goal?
What's the goal of a troll account?
Right. So I would say at its best, the
goal of the troll account is to make people think and sort of
provoke them into sort of thinking.
And, you know, at its worst, I would say it's just sort of
provoking people for the sake of provoking them.
Yeah, just kind of being like an like an online asshole who just
says, yeah, exactly. Speaking around insults or just
trying to bait people. I think bait is a big part of
it. You know, you post stuff that
sort of baits people into having an overreaction or meltdown.
So that was a big part of it. So at its best, yeah, it's like
being more like a Socrates type. But that's at its worst.
It's just sort of slinging around mud.
OK, I mean, and that makes sense.
And then where does that, where does the term shit posting come
into it? And folks, just bear with me.
This is the nature of this conversation.
So if you're at work and you need to turn it down, do so.
But yeah, let's talk about like, what?
Because that's what's been like, you'll literally see mainstream
media calling you a shit poster, which is a concept.
I know it's been discussed, but not everybody, not everybody
over the age of 40 necessarily knows what that is.
So let you know. Yeah, so I was a shit poster.
It's basically just means you post a lot of stuff.
You post stuff that's maybe even extremely, you know, provocative
or offensive. Not necessarily though, but it's
like all kinds of stuff. You might just post something
because it's cool, it's fun. Like, you know, like now we see
a lot of on the Internet, like a lot of funny cat videos.
So it can run the whole gamut. But as being sort of a, when
Trump started running, sort of a pro Trump shit poster, you're
just kind of posting stuff either in support of Trump or to
sort of provoke and bait the other side.
There's a a meme that was running around at Thanksgiving
and now they're doing it with Christmas.
It's an FBI agent wearing like tactical gear and body armor and
slinging a rifle. And he's standing outside of
like a Christmas dinner where people are either wearing a MAGA
hat or they're like, you know, a conservative family with the
kind of the Nordic beard guy who tends to have like this haircut
and this beard. And and he's and he's like
saying grace or something like that, or blessings over the food
and the FBI standing out there. It's like Merry Christmas from
our family to yours. That's kind of a shit post.
It's just poking like. Exactly.
Poking establishments and institutions, kind of goading
them on. Yeah, and that's kind of like a
political cartoon. So a shit post could be like an
image base, you know it, it could just be text or a link.
And I just, I would post a lot of links just to keep people
updated, you know, on the news or if I thought stories were
interesting polls. I did a lot of polls to break
down the polls. But yeah, that's a great example
of a shit post. But it's also, you know, can be
sort of intelligent, can be creative.
Some of these posts can. Be more like a commentary.
Yeah, there's there's a social commentary for sure.
Social commentary can be caustic, can be intelligent, can
be sort of low value. You know, there's a whole range.
Sure, I mean there's some really ugly ones out there that we've
seen and and it doesn't mean they're not funny, but it's
pretty low brow stuff. And then there's some more
cerebral, right. So it can it could run the whole
gamut and all those could fall in that category of quote UN
quote shit posting. You came up with an online
persona, which I as a guy who loves Major League and I think
that's one of the great like humors that you probably
couldn't do that comedy anymore, right?
You couldn't do you couldn't do a Major League and have the the
boss dressed in the bikini and they're tearing off the parts as
they win as as the crappy Indians like slowly move their
way along and and Ricky Vaughn was kind of a classic thing.
So you named Ricky Vaughn. Did you love that movie or how
did you come up with the idea of doing that, being your your
Internet persona? Yeah, I like that movie.
And it was just perfect. I mean, at first I wasn't
planning on posting or anything. I was just like, all right,
well, I guess I need an avatar, you know, I guess I need a
handle. So rather than just be a
something completely random jumble of letters and words I or
letters and numbers, I just came up with that.
I use that because it's funny. Maybe the league is funny.
And then it sort of evolved. It's like this guy wild thing,
you know, he throws fastball, he throws wild, he's loose cannon.
The guy, you know, he came out of the California Penal League,
so. Yeah, you got to, you got to
tell people that. So first of all, iconic movie,
Major League, Major League 2, fantastic stuff, really funny.
Like I said, I don't think they can make comedies like that
anymore. I certainly don't see them being
that kind of edgy. And you're right.
When they first introduce him, you've got you've got Bob
Euchre, right, who's on the he's the he's the commentator.
And he's like, now we're going to be bringing out Ricky Vaughn
coming straight out of the California Penal League.
You know, this guy's a wild card.
They call him the wild thing. And that was his name and he had
the earring, right, which was very kind of like gay 80s.
Had the haircut. He had the haircut and he comes
out and then he just throws like wild pitches and he hits dudes
and he gets into fights and he's a brawler and that's what you
chose on there and and you put a MAGA hat on, if my memory serves
correct. Yeah, eventually, eventually
somebody photoshopped A MAGA hat on there and sent it to me, so I
used that. So you just upgraded it as
people said, How how did your did you have Photoshop skills to
do some of the stuff or did you? No, I didn't do any.
I could maybe come up with a meme and Microsoft Paint.
That's about it, yeah. People would Photoshop things
and send it to me. Got it.
And so you used and how? How big did your account get?
So my first account before it got banned off Twitter was 5062
thousand followers. 62,000 which is not a huge account but you
were getting major reach out of that for some reason.
It's getting major reach. Back then it was actually fairly
large account. People didn't like flood onto
Twitter until, I don't think, till after the election, whether
pro or against Trump. You know, back then it was a
lot, but people would be checking my account constantly,
which is why I had so much reach.
So people would book whether they followed you or not, they
still could like. So I used to follow certain
people on Twitter that I didn't have Twitter.
And what I would do is I would just bookmark the.
Page. And you could just go and look
at it and I could see whatever your last 10 tweets are,
whatever. And then I would say, don't you
want to sign up for Twitter? And I go, no, I don't.
I don't want to do. That yeah, exactly.
So used to be you could just scroll and scroll and scroll I
think. That's how I followed Andy.
No, for years, actually. That's how I kept track of what
he was at too. So you're doing this in 2015.
Did you know specifically that you were going to lean this
account towards kind of a pro Trump mean shit poster or or did
that evolve? Like how did that evolution
happen? Where that became your lane?
That totally evolved. It was 2015 when Trump
announced. And keep in mind this account
was small. It didn't really get really big
until perhaps the summer of 2016.
So it was just small. It's just a group of, of, of, of
guys on Twitter. They're, you know, knuckleheads
posting stuff for each other, you know, replying to each
other's tweets, maybe bait a journalist here or there,
whatever, or a politician. But that's kind of what it was.
And so once Trump announced, you know, I didn't, I had no idea
what Trump was about, to be honest with you.
I paid a lot of attention to Donald Trump even when he was,
you know, a massive celebrity. So of course, the first
announcer was like, oh, OK, whatever.
And then then he actually starts gaining some traction.
You start looking into it, and people are like, oh, no,
actually, you know, his platform is actually really interesting.
You know, this could be good for the country.
He's gaining a lot of traction. And so I actually thought that,
you know, this guy would be the president like August of 2015,
just the way he was connecting the people and the way that he
was sort of starting to dominate the Republican primary.
Did the the backlash of sort of mainstream kind of the RE
situation, did that, did that affect any of your thought
process as you saw people sort of lose their minds over him
too? Yeah, exactly.
Absolutely. And I thought that he was
provoking, you know, all the right people.
And you know, to be quite frankly, a lot of these people,
I think they don't like the country, they don't like
America. And sort of seeing this kind of
wave ripple across the country really pissed them off.
And this was where some of the more offensive bait posts of
mine come in, some of them because these people were
saying, oh, this guy's the worst ever.
He's going to be, you know, Hitler 2.0.
And then you kind of feed, we are, you know, I would kind of
feed into that their paranoia by sort of baiting them.
And then they would sort of meltdown even further so and.
And, and none of the things that have been alleged that you
posted are things that you've run away from.
Like they were pretty obviously posted to your account, right?
That wasn't part of your, that wasn't part of your defense, as
far as I understood it. Right.
Yeah. We're not denying anything, you
know, Absolutely, yeah. Intention is very different than
what was actually up there. It's like, yeah, of course,
that's my post. It's just you have no sense of
humor. It was kind of the, it was kind
of the take that I've taken. For some reason, the mainstream
media seems to have zero sense of humor.
That's right, yeah. And they they take it out of
context also. How surprising was that to learn
that people just didn't understand that a joke was a
joke? Well, I mean, so this cancel
culture thing goes back a lot further earlier than people
thought. I'm trying to think who it was,
but this goes back into the early 220 tens.
So I knew that this was how they behave.
You know, I knew that this is what they do.
I knew that this is sort of, you know, exactly what they do.
So that was also part of the, you know, the baiting, the
trolling, which is, you know, that we got a lot of people who
are really extremely self-righteous, sort of holier
than thou types. And so you can sort of bait them
and poke, poking at their sacred dogmas.
You know, a lot of their, you know, their totems, their golden
calves, whatever. And poking at them because just
because they were so self-righteous and they didn't
even really know how to argue their own position other than
saying I'm good and they're bad. You know, that's how they argue.
They don't know how to form a coherent argument.
They just said I'm morally good, the other side's morally bad,
and that's it. Would you say that is the
origins of the the Orange man bad?
Kind of, Because that in and of itself is a troll.
You're boiling down what they said to such a dumb level that
it sounds absurd, and yet that's what they said.
And I think all of us kind of had that instinct.
Were you guys pretty aware of that's where you were?
Going, Oh yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
And that's sort of a, a base level response, you know, and
you don't have to think it's an unthinking response.
So it can be programmed into a large number of people.
Just that psychological Pavlovian reaction, you know,
when the the dog hears the ballot drools, when the person
who's programmed sees, you know, whatever Trump on the screen,
It's like, yeah, exactly. It's that.
It's that simple. It's that low level.
It's like orange man bad. Did you have other accounts that
would dogpile on the stuff that you'd put out there as they, I
see this in my experience. I'm fairly new to social media,
so it's really weird to me. But if someone says something
really either inflammatory or nasty or direct attack on me,
I'll just, sometimes I'll just share it.
Like I'll just retweet it and let everybody who's following me
take a look at it and and break that person down.
And was that going on in 2015 too, since I didn't follow at
that point? Oh yeah, I would do that all the
time. Like retweet.
I mean, yeah, you know, it's like they say retweets are not
endorsements, right? So you retweet stuff all the
time that someone said or someone was trolling me or
whatever. Just retweet it so that everyone
sees it and you're just expose. Them stupid yeah, you expose
them to a big. Audience, that was a big part of
Twitter, absolutely. That's a great part of Twitter,
to be honest with you. I mean, people see not the maybe
not the the nasty stuff piling on, you know, but that people
sort of can see everything what's going on.
It is, it is very open. And yeah, if you decide to put
something stupid in your bio and then you want to go engage on
somebody on a a different pool, there's a lot of puddles, I
would say of Twitter, right? There's everybody's kind of
playing in their own puddle. And when you step over in the
other puddle and you find yourself outnumbered by a lot
sometimes that's where the most interesting, that's probably the
most rewarding interactions I think, even though they're not
good for humanity probably. Could we agree on that?
Right, exactly. Yeah, it's sometimes it's like
it's over the line. I mean, that's the founding,
father said. It's like that.
And, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the public
discourse, it's not preschool, it's caustic.
It's, you know, it's a lot of, you know, and people have the
freedom in this country to step over the line.
Like I said, well, to be honest with you, there's a lot of
people now that they want the public discourse to be like
preschool. And the teacher tells you what
to say and what you can't say, and that's it.
But that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
That's not what the Supreme Court has ever had in mind.
Let's talk about what your understanding of free speech and
understanding of what you were doing at the time maybe versus
now looking back on it, what how did you understand American
discourse to be and did you think that you were safe doing
what you were doing? Oh, yeah.
I mean, I thought it was, yeah, I definitely thought it was, you
know, legally safe. I mean, I was not posting any
threats, death threats, anything like this, any sort of
obscenities, you know, obscene sort of illegal content.
So absolutely I thought I was safe.
And this was Twitter back in the day too.
Twitter was very open and they didn't censor anything until
2016, late 2016. So it was sort of understood and
people understood that this sort of give and take this back and
forth and that people are not always, you know, there's,
there's a lot of innuendo, there's a lot of bait that's
going back and forth on both sides.
So that was sort of my understanding of Twitter.
You know, now, you know, when I was at trial, I said, you know,
I posted certain things that were offensive, that were over
the line, that were in bad taste.
And I regret doing that. You know, however, this has
nothing to do with my prosecution.
It's, it's just a distraction. And that was sort of the this
Wild West atmosphere that was going on back in those days.
Yeah, and this was also a program or a platform that
didn't seem to have a problem having a bunch of child
pornography on it, which we've heard over and over again when I
was joining. That was kind of the thing I
want to, I want to talk about some of the interesting
allegations that were made against you because I think
those are the most fun being able to sort of debunk and or
agree if they have some certain points.
So I want to go to the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center,
which is kind of like the Holy Roman Empire.
It's none of those things, but it is the name that they have
chosen for themselves. It says jury selection started
today in the trial of 33. Obviously, you're now 3433 year
old Douglas Mackie, a man who prolifically spread hate and
politically charged disinformation under the
pseudonym Ricky Vaughn during Donald Trump's political rise.
So I'm gonna pull this onto my other screen here so I can look
at it better. There we go, folks.
All right, so the Justice Department charged Mackie with
election interference. That's actually not what I
remember them charging you with. You can let me know.
But I thought they charged you with conspiracy against rights,
isn't that correct? That's right.
OK, you're right. Accusing him of a conspiracy to
spread misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their
constitutional right to vote so they don't even know.
That's not election interference, that's conspiracy.
Very different animal. The DOJ levied these charges in
connection with a November 16th stunt, 2016 stunt rather, that
Mackey engaged and encouraged people to vote for Hillary
Clinton by text message, disseminated an online flyer,
and it featured a black person in front of African Americans
for Hillary Clinton urging voters to text their votes.
Nearly 5000 people fell for Mackie's ploy, I feel.
Is that true? Did 5000 people actually tack
that? I thought we found out that was
actually false. They did text it, but the DOJ
went around interviewing these people and the people that
texted the number, overwhelmingly they've actually
voted. Or if if the if the FBI actually
got a hold of them, they would tell them, yeah, I don't even
remember text his number or, and some even said, no.
Obviously I know that you can't text the vote.
Like I'm not stupid. Probably a huge chunk of them
were your followers anyway. They were people on the
conservative side. I have to imagine, yeah, it's
not like it's not like that was getting viewed by Hillary
Clinton voters in algorithmic boost.
So what happened was, you know, this was a very actually my
account at the time because it was my second account only had
like 12,014 thousand. Very few people saw this tweet.
What happened was the BuzzFeed wrote an article about it.
So we looked at the timeline and most of these people are texting
the number after BuzzFeed and Wired magazine are writing about
it. And then, you know, it's
spreading around on the other side of Twitter, you know,
liberal side of Twitter. They say, Oh my God, this is
horrible. So nobody very it was only like
100 or 200 people actually texted the meme before BuzzFeed
covered. It so organically, it got very
little view. And then they did the Streisand
effect thing where they were like clutching the pearls.
Oh, how dare he do this horrible thing.
He's taking Hillary votes. And that's when it actually
started. Was it after the election?
Out of curiosity, 'cause I know there's no there's not a lot of
time in November to to do that text.
Right, so the the the the meme was I posted the meme November
1st and there's another one was Spanish language November 2nd.
OK. And then when did the majority
of those texts come in? Do we know?
They came in close to those dates, right?
Because they were suspended. My Twitter account was
suspended. I mean, like I said, the tweet
got almost no traction. And I, quite frankly, I didn't
think it would. I thought people would just
laugh at this and then move on to the next tweet.
It's like this is 1 of dozens of tweets, retweets, you know,
every day. So I was surprised that people
took it so seriously. I was surprised that they were
kind of Pearl clutching over it because I thought it was
obviously a joke and I didn't expect it to really go anywhere
now. Yeah.
Then, yeah. So most of the tweets happen
like, you know, after. Remember, first attack of the
election was on the 8th. So yeah, actually some texts did
come in after the 8th, you know, after the election.
Not that many. But there's no evidence that
anyone actually thought that this, this was, you know, a
legitimate way to vote. There's no evidence of it.
And this was a criminal case. This is not a civil case.
They were coming and saying this was a criminal case in the Civil
Rights division, that they were alleging that you had conspired
to deprive people of their rights.
And I just want to remind my audience the burden of proof on
the government. By the way, you don't have to
prove that you're innocent. You're assumed innocent.
That's the way our system works. The burden of proof is they had
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
There could be no doubt, no reasonable person could doubt
that you had deprived people and conspired to deprive people of
your rights. What was the defense that your
team mounted as you guys came into court?
Right. No, great question.
So actually, the government doesn't have to prove that a
single person was deprived of their rights because.
They did a conspiracy charge. So this is the this is the The
Dirty trick. You want to talk about the
difference experiencing A conspiracy charge versus saying
that they actually that you actually deprived people of
rights. Yeah.
So they don't need to prove that anyone was deprived.
They don't need and they. So what they do need to prove is
that there was an agreement between two or more people and
that there was a specific intent to deprive people of their vote.
Now, they had zero direct evidence that I agreed with
anybody else as part of a conspiracy.
They had zero direct evidence that I intended to deprive
anybody of their vote. What they did was they went and
dug up these DM conversations and they said, look, this person
in the DM thought that people would fall for this, this other.
And they actually found the group, which I was not even a
part of, where the people were designing and creating the
memes. And so some people in that group
were like, Oh yeah, this is going to be great.
You know, all the shit libs are going to fall for this.
I mean that was. Yeah, I remember, I remember the
term shit Lib coming out there and people being like aghast
again. It's the same thing.
It's like that's how people. Yeah, I mean, that's a, you
know, that's a someone, somebody said it at DM.
And so that was their evidence of the specific intent.
But that's evidence of those people's intent because these
needs were spreading around. Thousands of people are making
these jokes, Not even these memes.
The memes that I shared, I found them on 4 Chan.
They were not even the same memes that were in these DM chat
groups, right? So they had zero specific, they
had zero evidence, direct evidence.
They just had to say, well, just, and they did this at their
closing army. Well, just look at it and it's
obvious, you know, just look at the mean.
It's obvious. They just point at it and say,
come on, we all know what's going on here.
It's obvious. Well, there's no direct
evidence. There's no specific evidence
that I agreed with anybody. And then for the intent, they
never said, Oh yeah, they had no intent.
They had no evidence of specific intent.
What they did was just say, well, look, he said this bad
thing here, you know, he, he must hate women.
He must hate black people. So he's guilty.
He doesn't want them to vote. That's that's what they said.
Yeah, character assassination was essentially their was their,
their power. Sometimes they're actually
supposed to be limited on that. Let's let's bring up some of the
allegations that were against you because I think some of
these are fun. Media Matters did one.
I, I got a Media Matters piece against myself a couple days
ago. So I'm kind of excited about
this. This one says, who wrote this?
Alex Kaplan, same idiot that wrote about me.
So this is even more fun. So, Doug, this is the story and
I don't have you seen the Media Matters piece or do you tune
some of this out? Yeah, I've seen that one.
OK, good. Donald Trump Junior tells white
nationalist that he quote UN quote may be my favorite Twitter
account of all time. Trump Junior to Douglas Mackey.
We've probably gone back and forth on Twitter back in the old
days and DMS, he says, which apparently you know now you
should be canceled forever. This is Media matters purpose.
That's what they do. They they interviewed you.
You're an anti-Semitic white nationalist recently convicted
of election interference. Do you want to respond to any of
that? Are any of those things accurate
about you? Well, I mean, the first thing I
would say is that in that headline is inaccurate just to
begin with, that I mean, I'm not a white nationalist, but I
actually was not even a white nationalist back in those days.
What is? What is a white nationalist as
you understand it? So as I understand it, a white
nationalist, I mean, I guess there's different types, but
some of them think that, you know, this should be a white
only country and that or that, you know, people that are
minorities shouldn't have rights, OK, whatever, that kind
of thing. I feel like Richard Spencer at
that time was like kind of the quintessential version of that.
He was out there kind of doing a neo Nazi routine.
He's actually walked away from that as well.
But you remember Richard Spencer 20/15/2016.
Yeah, I actually did an interview with him.
So he was actually a a, yeah, he would call himself like a white
identitarian or whatever. And it was not exactly clear.
Yeah, what what the differentiation there is?
What he stood for, you know, I didn't know what, you know, some
people were like, you look, we have to deport, you know,
everybody who's not white and stuff like that.
But not I never, you know, I never agree with that.
I never said that. So.
Why did they decide that you were a white nationalist, do you
think? Well, I mean, to be, to be fair
to them, I mean, I posted certain things that were
inflammatory, that are offensive, you know, that I, you
know, as I said, like, and my attorney really sustained, you
know, I regret posting, you know, some of these things, some
of the sort of dozens or, or hundreds of thousands of, of
tweets and retweets. So they this, you know, they
took the offensive stuff and said, well, he's a white
supremacist, he's a white nationalist, all this kind of
thing. So I mean, it's a nuanced sort
of thing, but you know, it is what it is.
You know, like I said, I've changed a lot since since this
happened. You have to, I kind of liken it
to the thing I've got an uncle who is famous for sending me
like a bunch of softcore pornography, which I don't
really know why he emails that, but he's like, he's like one of
the last guys on the like the right wing AOL forwarding
outpost. Like he's the last guy that
didn't get the word that like the like AOL is over.
So he's still sending things in like all caps.
You know, this guy, like everybody's got somebody like
this in their family and he's sending all caps.
He's sending me like jokes about golfers and jokes about dudes
who are frustrated with their wives and like pictures of women
who are naked. It's just like a slew of things.
And some of them will be like, you know, racist black jokes or
like Jewish jokes. And every time I read them, I
kind of go like, that's just what my uncle does.
Like, he's just that uncle. He's the uncle that sends me
this. I don't know if he believes in
it. I certainly wouldn't like, say
like this is his, his, his deep darkest feelings in his heart.
He's just a guy that just has like a very taste of kind of bad
taste in some jokes and whatnot. And I'm guessing that you're
saying that these, like some of the jokes you guys made, were
like mean to Jews, mean to blacks, cause 'cause that was
literally what your account did. It just did inflammatory jokes,
some of which were inappropriate probably.
Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right.
So. Yeah.
But but to say that that is the the core of your identity is, is
a very different thing to decide that because you made jokes
about either Jews or blacks or anything else, which by the way,
used to be very, very common in the 80s when I was a kid.
Like that was sort of the inappropriate humor that
everybody had, like it or not. And we were pretty free back
then like that. To say that that defines you as
a human being. It's like, oh, I heard that guy
wants to make a black joke in a in a locker room, you know, next
to his buddies who were black. Were baseball players?
Was the butt of these jokes, you know?
Right, There used to be Pollock jokes that I recall when I was a
kid. I mean, and there were like
whole books of like filthy Pollock jokes and you go like,
oh, I know a lot of Polish people.
I don't I don't know but one of your friends who has a Polish
like hence his last name ends in ski would be would like be
telling you the jokes because they're the ones that have
family members. Yeah, exactly.
It is sort of like a freewheeling environment.
I mean, for for better or for worse.
I mean, things have changed for better or for worse.
But that's right. That's I think you're right.
Feels worse. What about the anti-Semitic
claim are there? Do you have some deep seated
feelings about Jewish people in this country?
Well, no, I don't have any sort of, you know, prejudice or
bigotry towards Jewish people. I mean, there's a lot of great
Jewish people that are helping me on this case.
You know, I have friends that are Jewish people, so no.
And. You got, do you hear like Jewish
lawyers or Jewish paralegals or something or working on your
case? Is that what you're getting at?
No. Not necessarily.
I mean all kinds of different things.
I mean, yes, I think some of the lawyers do happen to be Jewish.
But, you know, I have supporters, people say, you
know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm rooting for you donors, that kind of
thing. So, you know, I think that as a
Catholic and as a Christian, we always have to be charitable to
others. And so I regret, you know, that
these posts were not charitable. And so that's why I wouldn't
make them again, you know, But So what the media wants to do is
sort of like to say, well, you know, they want you to apologize
for your all of your political views and say, well, now I'm
going to go on tour now and go speaking and say I'm the most
liberal person left wing in the world now.
And that's quite frankly, you know, that's not me.
That's not what I'm ever going to do.
You know, I'm never going to sort of go around and groveling,
which is why I think that they keep coming out with these hit
pieces because they think that if you are sort of on the right
or you're a supporter of Trump or even some of these other
candidates like DeSantis or Vivek, then they think that you
are sort of a prolific hater. So I mean, that's sort of why
they just keep coming out with some of these hit pieces that
quite frankly are just rehashed. I mean the first hit piece.
There's, there's no new information.
Yeah, none of these things are new.
I I keep reading them and it's just like, it's the same words
they're banding them about. But to be fair, I just want to
kind of hone in on your actual sin from the political left,
which is that you liked Donald Trump and you were irreverently
in support of him. And then everything else gets to
be kind of like piled on. They want an apology.
Tour. But but the The apology tour is
not because of anti-Semitic. Like they're not asking you to
go to synagogues and give speeches, although they would
probably love that. And they don't need you to go
around to like black churches and tell them that you, you
know, mea culpa and kiss boots. They really want you to disavow
Donald Trump. It seems like that's the real
crime, which is why they which is why they did an entire hit
piece on you because you went on his son's show, which is also
just very tasty to me. Yes, that's exactly right.
No, sorry, my headphones came out.
That's exactly right. I mean, that's, I think that and
we've seen some people do this. I'm not going to name any names
we have. Gone on apology tours.
And say, I don't like Trump anymore, sorry, biggest mistake
of my life and stuff like that. And it's like, well, yeah,
they're going to call you all kinds of names, white
supremacists, white nationalists, all these kinds of
names. They're going to call you if you
don't sort of bend the knee to them.
And even, you know, it's funny, some of them do.
Some people do go and apologize. And then the, the they'll cover
it and they'll be like, well, he says he apologizes.
But we're not, we can't really quite be sure.
You know, yeah, we don't. We don't.
It's not like it actually buys you any credibility with these
people. I'm thinking of Jenna Ellis
right now, just because I saw her tweets before we started and
she's out there, you know, talking about how Donald Trump
junior, who's been very nice, he was really nice to engage with.
I don't know if you enjoyed being on his show too, but.
Oh yeah, he's extremely engaging.
He's like a regular dude in a lot of ways for a guy who grew
up as wealthy as he did with the name that he did, we had like
some regular dude conversations in a lot of ways.
He drops a, you know, an F bomb when it needs to be dropped and
that kind of deal. He's just, he's just like a
regular guy. Jenna Ellis was was highlighting
something in a tweet that I saw this morning before we went
live. And she said something to the
fact of, you know, it should be noted that he's a paid Donald
Trump spokesperson. And when I was a paid Donald
Trump spokesperson, I was speaking on behalf of Donald
Trump and not myself. And my, my, and I, I don't know
if I actually sent the tweet or not, if I was thinking about it.
But what do you call that when you sell yourself for something
that you don't believe in? For me, I was imagining women
who are willing to take money to pretend to be your girlfriend or
to pretend to love you or to pretend to have feelings for you
in some kind of way. Let's call it nicely, an escort.
Like a digital. Are you?
Are you a like you only get to do that for a little bit of time
before that's pretty much permanently associated with you.
And I don't have any grudge against Jenna Ellis, but, like,
looking at what she's doing, it does seem kind of gross.
It's not buying her any credibility on the left.
And if you had done the same thing.
Yeah, I did. I did tweet it.
There you go. Here's my actual tweet.
Let me read it to you. Doug, since we're talking about
tweets here, I said if you're a spokesperson for someone you
don't agree with, what should we call you?
You only get to sell your honor once.
You should choose wisely, I guess.
You know, if she didn't agree with what what she was doing
with Trump, like that even speaks worse about her in many
ways, I would think. And the fact that you're holding
to your principle, I, I kind of respect it.
And also you're putting jail time on the line to do this.
It's not jail time, prison time. Yeah, exactly.
I mean, it never crossed my mind.
I've got to do this kind of groveling.
So, you know, some people go out and they hire, you know, quite
connected establishment Democrat lawyers.
Or PR. Or PR.
Firms and they do this whole thing.
And look, I think that my testimony at trial was very
honest. I think that the statement that
we just put out is also very honest, which is like, yeah,
this was a long time ago, in the past.
And I regret saying that they, you know, I regret the tone and
substance of some of these posts that were just over the line.
You know, they say, I don't think that I was the, you know,
they say, oh, he's the most prolific spreader, whatever.
I don't even want to get into all that, right.
I regret the tone and, and substance of some of these
posts. But that doesn't mean that sort
of, I just sort of don't, you know, I think that we have to be
careful in this country that we can debate ideas openly and then
we can talk about ideas openly. I mean, now you want to say,
well, don't say it in a way that pisses everybody off, right?
But we need to be able to talk about ideas that say, well, if
you believe in this or you argue this, then, you know, you're
just a terrible, horrible, awful person.
And then this is what sort of where we get into this sort of
cold civil war of going back and forth where we're at now.
And it's just, it makes it very difficult.
And the recriminations and the cancellations and everything
else said, you know, I think that a lot of people are moving
beyond that. I mean, it used to be like the
end of the world. So I mean when I got doxed and
Huffington Post came out with this hit piece on me.
What were the details? What were the details of the
doxing? Did they put out where you live
specifically or address or anything?
Not I mean they just general like where he used to work,
where he lives. Enough that people could.
Find, you know, they, they, they try to, you know, harass your
parents and get them to make a statement.
So that was a big deal. And a lot of these cancellations
were super devastating just because the media had this giant
megaphone and the people would sort of bend their will.
But I'm seeing now where people get quote UN quote cancelled,
but they're not really cancelled.
I mean, they are really sort of able to bounce back.
The difference is that whereas on the right or even in
conservative or whatever, in general, if you said one bad
thing, they would exile you forever.
You know, this is back in the days of like National Review is
like the Holy Bible of conservatism or whatever.
But now I think that a lot of people understand well, either
these things are exaggerated or it doesn't make you a horrible
person, that kind of thing. Or even just that, you know,
people say things that they don't even mean or when they're
younger, or they say politically incorrect things.
We don't need to crucify everybody for this stuff.
And I think people realize that. So I've seen several people just
in the last couple of years get sort of docked or trashed in the
mainstream and they're able to bounce back.
So that's encouraging. Yeah, at some point, people
won't remember your name for this.
So they go, Oh yeah, weren't you that guy that had this thing
happened? Let me let me dig into the free
speech aspect of it because I think you said it earlier.
I think you said it in a very nice way.
You said that the Founding fathers believe that our speech
could be caustic, that that's maybe what happens in the public
square. I'm going to stay in a slightly
different way because this is the way that I think about it.
I'm a former enlisted guy and someone who dealt with law
enforcement dudes and, you know, people who carried a gun for a
living. One of the ways that I always
say it is that you actually have a like a fundamental
constitutional right to be an asshole in this country.
And I and I firmly believe that. In fact, my father, who probably
is listening to the show right now, used to give a speech, and
there's a framed version of this speech.
Well, maybe he's only given this one time, but I've seen it a
million times. It's him standing in front of a
crowd of people. They were all broadcasters.
And he started off with kind of an inappropriate joke like
people used to do to grab attention.
The icebreaker piece. This is a very 80s, maybe late
70s speech. And he said, what's 18 inches
long and hangs in front of an asshole.
My tie, he goes and then it it goes on.
He goes, I know you guys are out there.
I can hear you guys breathing. So he, I mean, I've seen that
written in written form a million times.
And we used to know in this country that that was actually a
fundamental right. And it was even worse in the 50s
and the 60s. I'm sure 70s and 80s, as I, you
know, came online and started being aware of it.
You can be an asshole in this country and it's allowed.
Like there's not a justice system that's supposed to come
after you for that. And you experienced the exact
opposite it. It had to have been staggering.
Did you? Did you think they were joking
when they came at you the first time?
You know, it's crazy. I actually, because Joe Biden
had just been inaugurated, I know that they can sort of, you
know, there's this guy Harvey Silverglate or something like
that who wrote this book. He's sort of a legend. 3
felonies a day. Yes.
And the whole promise is that, you know, every, the average
person goes around and commits 3 felonies every day without even
knowing it. So I kind of knew that this is
what they can do, that they can manufacture.
And I knew that I was sort of a Public Enemy to these kind of
people. So actually it's funny that I
wasn't even that surprised. You know, it's kind of that's.
Actually, really disappointing. That's the saddest thing.
Exactly. Talk about the timeline because
I think people need to know about this as far because you
guys have discovery, you know, when they started the
investigations and so on. You talk about when it was
started and then why you think it progressed when it did.
Right. So what's really interesting is
that Senator Amy Klobuchar, she blew up one of these tweets on a
giant white board and put it on the floor.
And this might have been 2017. Well, I don't even know about
this until after the fact. And she's just staring at it and
like, pointing at it and she's berating sort of the FBI said,
look at this, this is a felony. Look at this, look at it.
And then it's like, so the investigation I don't think
formally opens up until 2018. And so they took that under
advisement. And they took it under
advisement. And then I think after I was
doxed, then they open up an investigation.
They knocked on the place I was living at door in 2018 in the
fall. And they, of course, asked a
completely unrelated question, like, have you ever, you know
what, you know, this guy, this specific guy.
And I said, you're going to have to talk to my attorney.
You know, I didn't have an attorney, but I got 1.
And that's. Smart.
Really smart. So they were dealing with the
attorney now. Well, so I never talked to the
FBI. You know, which a lot of these
people go, oh, yeah, I talked to the FBI.
The FBI says, OK, no harm, no foul.
They everything goes under the out of the bridge.
That wasn't going to happen. Sweep it under the rug.
What was the division that was investigating you?
Do you know like what what area of the?
Yes. What's interesting is that they
didn't run this. It's a civil rights case, right?
They didn't run this through civil rights division.
So it was a New York FBI, the New York field office, and then
it was run through public integrity.
They did not even run this through civil rights.
And and for people's awareness, public integrity is the public
corruptions unit. Which also handles elections.
However, you know, with a case like this that so implicates
civil rights, you would think that the civil rights division
under Trump would actually have a say now.
The charge because the charge, specifically the the charge
specifically was that there is conspiracy against rights, which
is a civil rights violation. Right.
Yeah, exactly. We get into the the text of the
statue. It's really interesting.
Never has covered deception in the history of this country.
The text says you cannot injure, intimidate, threaten or harass
or oppress. Excuse me, somebody in the
exercise of their right. So for instance, you and I
cannot go and beat the crap out of someone on their way to vote.
I mean, obviously this is obviously a legitimate.
Old school, like Chicago political machine stuff where
they'd be like, yeah, it'd be a real shame if anybody was not
going to be able to make it to the polls today because I'm
breaking your head like that guy it.
Goes older than that. This goes back to the KKK.
I mean, we, you know, we don't want the KKK going around and
murdering people for voting, which has happened before.
And intimidating, which they did as well, yes, and sending a
message to one person for sure. So this was the idea of it.
The conspiracy against rights was done like so many things
that we've seen in a post Trump world, just like the the
Sarbanes-Oxley law was used to go after people for interruption
of a official procedure. In many ways, your your case was
the first shot fired in this sort of Biden administration war
against conservatives. And and I, I don't say that
lightly, like I don't say the idea of a war against
conservatives. It does appear to be a very real
thing. Did you know that you guys were
the the the tip of the spear on this when it started?
You know, I, I have to admit to being even a little bit naive,
like, you know, I know I got indicted and everything, but I
didn't think that they were going to do what they did these
past few years. I mean, all the indictments that
they've thrown around. I mean, you talked about in your
pre show Marco Marcouk, I'm not sure exactly say his name and
what they did to him. Now here's where it gets
interesting. The DOJ actually, I believe if
I'm not mistaken, they charged Mark Howe with the violating the
FACE Act, correct? Right.
But they also charged him with conspiracy against rights, same
exact statute that I was charged with.
Yeah, it's a catch all. So this is a liberal
prosecutor's pipe dream. It's been a liberal prosecutor's
pipe dream for a long time that we can use this statute to crack
down on the right. They've long wanted to do this.
I mean, I mean, it it, you know, it's interesting too, right?
Because the Supreme Court just said there's no federal right to
abortion. So it's curious how they can
convict someone of, you know, conspiracy gets rights for
protesting or even blocking an abortion clinic, whatever they
were doing. Yeah, I think the FACE Act
probably has some review that is required under a constitutional
and maybe some of these people will will end up that way.
That'd be really nice to see. It's an extra.
I had never thought that point. So I appreciate you kind of
that's, that's an interesting thought to add to the mix.
But the, the weirdest thing about conspiracy for me as
someone who used to do federal law enforcement, is that it, it
hinges on your intent. And I would argue both as a, as
a lifelong Catholic who I've never been inside anybody else's
mind. I don't know if you've ever been
able to capture somebody's mind and see the way that they think,
but I haven't. It's really, really difficult
for me to say what intent is and to be able to prove it to other
people is even weirder that what I I can believe that you had a
certain intent, but I couldn't look at your tweets and and
decide why. And if I said, because I used to
do this all the time, I'd go interview.
Hey, why did you do that? Hey, you just did a threat or
you just said something that was menacing, you know, and you and
I would get these Interstate threat cases.
They'd come down the line and they would go, Kyle, Doug just
tweeted out, you know, we're coming for you to the mayor of
his town. We're taking that as a threat to
life. So I'd call you up because I'm
not going to drive out there for that.
I go, hey, Doug, you just said that we're coming for you to the
mayor. What did you mean by that?
And you go, I'm I'm running for for office next year.
I've filed my paperwork. We're coming for him.
We're going to get his job. Case closed.
I don't know what your intent
was by looking at it. I can ask you, you can tell me
it sounds reasonable. If I ask you, hey, did you mean
to deprive Hillary Clinton, you know, voters of their right to
vote by this tweet? And you go, I know it was a
joke. Right now, exactly.
That's the most obvious explanation.
It looks like a joke. Yep.
It's on a forum where you post nothing but jokes, some of which
may be inappropriate unless you unless you have a political
bias, which is what we've seen. Right, That's exactly right.
Now this gets into the perversity of the prosecution
even further because what happened was they took this case
into the Eastern District of New York and why they have to so
well, that's a great question. So apparently I don't know
exactly what's going on with because it's the New York field
office, right. So apparently the Southern
District either laughed as prosecution out.
They don't want anything to do with it Which.
By the way, that in and of itself is wild because it's one
of the softest places for prosecution for the federal
government. Southern District is like, oh,
you want to get a terrorist? You want to guarantee to get
them, go to Southern District in New York.
There's three soft seats for federal prosecution, which you
may already know. Southern District, Eastern
District of Virginia, and the District of DC.
Those are all captured areas. Eastern District is not on my
radar. It's obviously a Democrat area,
but still it's not the one that they go for the top three.
Yeah. No, it's really interesting.
It's so it's curious in and of itself, but there's no
connection for this case to the Eastern District.
I was not in the Eastern District.
OK, So you didn't live in, you didn't live in Brooklyn?
Did not live in Brooklyn. OK, 0 conspirators lived in the
Eastern District of New York. OK.
Now the DOJ also was not able to prove that anybody viewed the
meme in the Eastern District of New York.
They were not able to prove that anybody in the Eastern District
of New York fell for the meme OK and didn't vote or?
Even so, nobody was victimized. And usually what has to happen
for this to be the case, you either have to have the victim
or the perpetrator be directly associated with the district
that you bring the charges, right?
That's not the case. Exactly.
And I don't know what they thought I was thought I was just
going to roll over and, and and plea out.
They did, just to be fair. That's what they think.
That's what happens 98% of the time.
Right. I think they're probably
surprised by the whole, you know, everything that happened.
But anyway, so here's what they said.
They said we they proved that the tweets had to have gone over
the wire or through the air over the Hudson River or the East
River. And the Eastern District shares
jurisdiction with the Southern District over the waters
surrounding Manhattan. Therefore, we can bring this
case in the Eastern District of New York, which is really sort
of unprecedented. This would set up, if this case
is held up in court, this venue argument that is setting a
precedent in and of itself that sort of if they can prove that
tweets go over wires, then they can prosecute this case wherever
they want. They can drag a conservative.
Into DC. Where did you live at the time?
Were you living in Manhattan? In Manhattan.
Exactly. Manhattan, they can drag a
liberal into Wyoming, whatever Eastern District of Texas,
whatever, you know, it's really jaw-dropping.
And venue was written into the Constitution because Americans
were being dragged to London or wherever and being prosecuted by
the Crown. So that's exactly why they said
you can only be prosecuted in the district where the crime was
committed. Now, there are some cases of
like drug dealers and stuff where you make a phone call to
your connection from New York to Florida.
So if you're in New York, you call your drug dealer, whatever
your drug, connect down to Florida, say, yeah, send me the
drugs, whatever. Then they can prosecute you in
Florida, but they can't prosecute you in every state
that that phone call went through.
Right. We're not going to trace the
wire. And so just so folks have an
understanding of this, when we talk about Interstate
jurisdictions, a lot of the things that the FBI would have
jurisdiction on Interstate threats, which you just
mentioned, that was a fictional idea.
Someone actually did say I'm coming for you to a mayor and I
actually did make that phone call and asked why and I
actually did get that answer. So that's not fictional, but you
know, the idea idea of you being involved in it.
But the reason that the FBI has jurisdiction on a local person
making a so-called local threat is because they post it on the
Internet, which means that it goes over wire, which makes it
an Interstate Nexus. That's what they call it.
You guys are you guys are new to this show.
The concept of an Interstate Nexus is that there is a reason
for a federal authority to touch it.
Even though it happened within the state because it was posted
on the Internet. It could be viewed all around.
In your case, you're posting me those memes are on the Internet.
That means an Interstate Nexus. That means the federal
government can get involved. But so interesting that it's
kind of a Canary in the coal mine for both free speech, which
I think is definitely part of it, but also for jurisdictional
selection, which I did not realize.
Right. And when we talk about a police
state trying to over expand its powers, man, they don't do it by
accident. They didn't accidentally choose
your case. It sounds like that was a very
specific movement that they were trying to make a a precedent set
there. It's very concerning and and,
you know, we're going to see what the courts say about it.
What is the absolutely, extremely concerning it should
be to every American. I mean, This is why, you know,
you know, CNN or whoever does these hit pieces and it's like
they're kind of missing the point.
This is not about whether you love me or hate me or whether
you agree with everything I said or whether you hate everything I
said. This is about every American's
right. It seems straightforward.
That's why the ACLU used to defend Nazis.
Right, exactly. That was actually a liberal
value. They were like, hey, we don't
like what they say. We don't want them marching
anywhere, but they have the right to March.
Because if if the crappiest opinions can't be shared, then
all opinions are somewhere on that spectrum.
And. We don't want that spectrum to
even be analyzed. The federal government is
supposed to be agnostic about speech, whether they like what
you said about Jews or blacks or Hillary Clinton voters or
anybody else or Donald Trump. Like, So what Look, the answer
should be, what's the federal Nexus?
And if it's Interstate wire and our and our belief that we're
going to get into your head that you are conspiring to destroy
some people's ability to go vote because they're too stupid to
know that they can't, they can't read.
You know, wouldn't it be nice if we actually had some
requirements that you had to be able to at least know how to
vote to be able to vote, that if you were swayed by a meme like
that actually is a disqualifier. It's like, sorry, you fell for
the trap. Like you can't vote.
You're too dumb. You're actually a liability more
than the guy who made the meme, I think.
Right. I mean, the sad thing is that
nowadays in 2024, it might actually be more believable
because you have this mass mail and balloting.
They're setting up ballots, you know, to everybody.
And you know, some of these houses are getting 20 ballots in
the mail. So I, I registered last to vote
in California because I lived in outside of Los Angeles in 2007.
I think, I think I was, I think I, I think I registered in 2007
and I still get a ballot sent to my last address.
And I've emailed them and I've called them and they said you
need to go and get a sworn notarized affidavit.
I'm not kidding. To get off the rolls of, of
being a voter in California, which I have now lived since
that time. I lived in Texas where I was
stationed for military service. Then I lived in New Mexico,
official residence. Then I lived back in Texas, then
I lived in Virginia, then I lived in New Mexico again, then
I lived in Arizona and now I live in Texas again since that
time. And I'm still got there's still
a mail in ballot with my name on it that was just mailed out.
I get I get notification though, like we just mailed your ballot.
Like hey. Have you ever gotten to see if
they? I've never seen one sent.
We just look like we do. We get a freeze right there,
Ryan. Yes Sir, he is frozen and I
probably can't hear us, so you might want to reach out to him
and tell him to log out and log back in.
Let me show them a quick little DM here.
We'll have them do a reboot. Got it.
I I want to you. Need to film that, Kyle.
That'd be awesome to film you recording that and you know,
like you pulling out the ballot and trying to get it taken.
Off. I can't get the ballot there.
There is no ballot. I'll show.
You about that guys? Yeah, no, that was perfect.
You just did a great job. I was just about to DM you and
tell you to to come back in and and you didn't miss anything.
All all I'm saying is it's it's amazing to me that that is not
considered a threat that California as a state, the
Secretary of State will not take your name off the voters rolls
without me going through a bunch of rigmarole.
And I also was told that after three presidential election
cycles, then I would be removed anyway.
And so we had the presidential election cycle of 12 of 16, of
20. We are now coming up on 24.
We've gone through the three. I'm still registered.
I still get emails from like people in Glendale saying like,
hey, I'm running for office. It's like, dude, I don't, I
don't care. Of course, and if someone filled
it out, then you would, you know, you could come under
investigation for vote. I would love.
That that would make me nothing. Nothing would make me happier
than that because it would be amazing proof of how stupid
their. System is.
That's why they'll never do it right.
I don't know if they'll do it or not, but I, I, every time I
look, I cannot find a anyone has ever used my ballot, but
somebody gets it in the mail every year, every two years,
which is sort of incredible for a place that I haven't lived,
you know, since 2009. Yeah.
They don't even ask if you want
the ballot, they just said it to you.
You. Want to talk about being a
different person in 2009, I was unmarried.
I was a single guy who had just enlisted in the military.
And today I'm the father of four.
I'm a cancelled FBI agent and I've, you know, I'm an honorably
discharged veteran. So like that's a pretty big
that's a pretty big life gap and I know you kind of must feel the
same way. Eight years is a long time,
particularly in your 20s and early 30's.
The the sort of the change that you've had over and from talking
to you, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you don't seem like
the most extroverted, like looking for trouble kind of guy,
maybe online, but it doesn't seem like that's your your
personality. No, it's not my personality, but
I would say that, you know, I don't, you know, I don't back
down, right. Which is why, which is why I'm
where I'm at, you know, in this case.
So yeah, you're right. Absolutely.
I'm not the, you know, I'm not the most loudest, the loudest,
you know, most outgoing guy ever.
Why? Why do you think you don't back
down? I don't know, I think it's maybe
just, you know, in the blood. I'm not exactly sure.
I just, I, I always felt like, you know, you got to stand for
what's right. And I think that's part of being
an American too, where I even, you know, growing up in the 90s
or whatever, I can remember people say, well, you know, it's
a free country. You know, let's say, you know,
the little kids on the playground say one would say
something and another would say, you know, you can't tell me what
to do. It's.
Like can I play on the jungle gym too?
It's a free country. Yeah, that too.
Exactly. Can I have your meme?
I had someone ask me the other day can I take your meme?
I was like it used to be a free country.
I think so. Yeah, exactly.
So I don't know what it is exactly.
I mean, it's just, I don't know the constitutional or, you know,
or whether it's just sort of how I grew up.
But that's, you know, that's sort of how I've always been.
You offhandedly mentioned that you have a Catholic upbringing.
Are your parents Catholic? Actually, I didn't have a
Catholic upbringing. I.
Became you were talking. Were you talking about my Oh,
you became Catholic. All right, Tell me more.
I want to know. Yeah, no, I became Catholic back
in 2020 during COVID. So I went through the process
starting in 2019. So I had a sort of a like a more
like mainline Protestant background and, and upbringing.
But you know, going through everything that I did back in
2018 and 2019, which was extremely difficult coming down
to Florida, restarting my life. And I just had this sort of
spiritual moment where I kind of came to God and joined actually
the Catholic Church and. Why was that luring you in?
Well, I think that dealing with all these hardships is sort of
have to lean on something greater than myself and also
just sort of learning how to deal with adversity and struggle
and suffering. And so just through sort of
prayer, it was how I, you know, I sort of re came back to being
a Christian, right. And then sort of doing my own
research and looking into sort of what what church to join.
I just was convinced that the Catholic Church was sort of the
the original church the the the true church.
So that's the church that I ended up getting confirmed in.
Makes sense to me, but I'm biased.
I I grew up this way. I had it easy.
Let me ask you this. What did you think when I
exposed that story about the FBI going after Catholics in
Richmond? And obviously it's, it's many
other field offices were involved as well, right?
I mean, that's how did that hit you.
I mean, that's crazy. That was shocking.
I mean, honestly, what it really makes you think is like, you
know, you go to the parish or whatever, or you go and hang
out, you know, you know, maybe go to the Holy League or
whatever, and you're thinking, well, are the feds sending in,
you know, informants, confidential informants?
You're like, what's going on here?
This is crazy. I mean, you would think this
would happen. Of course, in like, you know,
we've seen this sort of repression in the Eastern
Europe, you know, or even in like Mexico.
It's where they've cracked down. It's just, it's shocking.
You never would think that would happen in America.
It it's what I remember thinking about when we think about what
was going on in like East Germany, which was really
aggressive only because it had a border with West Germany where
freedom was and they were like, aha, like you, we will not allow
you be free like as the papers right like that.
That's the memory I have things like spy game watching.
I just mentioned the other day on a on a show.
So I'll do it again. But Robert Redford and Brad Pitt
in this kind of great Cold War drama and like you see, like it
was life and death back then and they were sussing you out.
And if you had religious, you know, if you had religious
feelings and you were willing to practice a religion, like you
were a potential problem for the state.
And the idea that we would have, the idea we'd have that in 2023
America is so like, it's a mind job on me.
Right, exactly. And and especially when you look
at some of these purges, which they're not regretting from the
military or whatever. They're just trying to think,
come up with things that correlate with being on the
opposite side of the political spectrum.
Like you said, you know, if a federal officer or agent or
whatever doesn't want to get a vaccine, they don't want to wear
a mask. You know, they go to church
regularly. Well, maybe we should force them
out because these are all, you know, indicators that they are
threats to the state. These are proxies.
That's what we are seeing. Yeah.
They're stand insurance. They're proxies.
And and we actually had whistleblowers come out and say
the same thing about what me and Gerald O Boy were doing.
It's like they basically determined that military service
and that that the idea that you would have certain beliefs,
religious affiliation were literally stand insurance for
conservatism and conservatism is apparently the enemy.
I mean. Yeah.
How, how do you even square that with the way that we grew up?
Like even even with a decade between us, we're, we're about
810 years apart. So how do we square that in this
world? Well, you'd think that we want
law enforcement agents to have some agency, to have some
individualism, to sort of have a sense of right and wrong.
You know, these are not necessarily supposed in America,
at least you're not just supposed to be sort of an, a
robot automaton arm of the state.
You know, you're supposed to have sort of a conscience.
But this gets back to what we said or what I said earlier
about the preschool. And some people don't want that.
They don't want people thinking for themselves.
A lot of people, they don't want, you know, independent
agents coming to their own conclusions or or making
trouble. They want the preschool.
The teacher tells you what to say, what to do, what's good and
what's bad. And also in preschool, you have
the good kids and the bad kids, right?
If you're the bad kid, they want to put you in time out and
segregate you. And the ones that you know,
there's the good kids over here. And I think that this is what we
see a lot in in society where it's just people want the
America to be like a giant kindergarten rather than a
country of free people, free men and women who sort of have this
sort of sense of freedom, a sense of liberty.
That's what's being extinguished in a lot of these cases.
It's just, and that's the sort of Soviet aspect to it.
It's funny that I think it's I think it's my buddy Dan Bongino
that says the pucification of America.
I don't know if I stole that from him if I'm misattributing,
so correct me in the chat if you guys know that that's a damn
thing. But I'll call it the
infantilization of America, which is very, very accurate to
your preschool idea. They, they don't want people
thinking and just to affirm what you just said, I'll just use
some therapy talk 'cause that's what my wife's profession is, to
affirm the thing you just said. They actually don't provide a
lot of agency for people in the FBI.
You're not empowered to go do the right thing.
In fact, one of my buddies who was a Green Beret and I don't
think he listens, but but he could at sometimes they do.
He, he got written up because he reached out to a source.
The source said, hey, you know that bank robbery that just
happened. By the way, that's an FBI thing
because the FDIC is involved. So FBI crimes like bank robbery,
you would think that if somebody reached out like a source called
you up and you were an FBI agent.
And they said, I know the guy that just robbed that bank and I
know where he is and I don't know how long he's going to be
there, but he's there right now. And he called me up, which he
called one of his other buddies in the area and they went out
and they affected arrest of a known bank robber on probable
cause based on what was going on there and then brought the guy
in. And of course he had, you know,
like the gun from the from the robbery hitting the money.
And they were like, they were literally like divvying it up on
a table kind of deal. If you wouldn't arrested a bank
robbery right after a bank robbery that you have
jurisdiction to arrest on. He got written up for not
clearing it with an OPS plan and not getting together a SWAT
team, whatever else. This is a man who's like killed
people on three different continents, you know, and is and
is just like pretty capable of violence, brought him into
custody with no, with no danger, has arrested far more dangerous
people and far more dangerous places, you know, and, and he
got written up for it. That's the that's the FBI that
we're actually dealing with, which is also infantilization.
You, you can't look at your person.
They're not giving agents agency.
In fact, they are that. Do you know that?
Actually, that's where the term special agent comes from.
Right, because you're you're given some sort of leeway.
Sorry. You're given it's special
agency. If you're a special agent, it
means you are not a full agent of the government.
A full agent of the government is like Joe Biden.
It's the Secretary of State. They're able to make like big
sweeping deals. A special agent has narrow
jurisdiction and and authorities.
So as a special agent, theoretically, my credentials
used to say that anything that involves a federal crime or like
the United States may be a party to is something I can
investigate. You'd think that I'd have the
agency to do that, but you don't.
And then they're using it on guys like you who are out there
saying, hey, I just want to exercise my First Amendment
right. I may want to say things that
you don't like. Turns out, America, you're
allowed to do that. What did?
What does this cost you financially?
If you have any kind of idea, have you been able to put a
number on it? So personally, I put in, you
know, anything I can, any money I can in this case, but I am
completely unable to finance this case by myself.
So I'm very truly fortunate the American people have stood
behind me. Do you know what your what your
legal defenses run in this case? It's over 1,000,000.
OK. And what is the what is the
motivation of people kicking in on it if they've told you?
Because I'm very curious about what what sparks people to to
throw money into it. I think it's the right thing by
the way. Yeah, so a lot of people feel
like the principle of it, a lot of people, you know, know me
personally. And it's like, well, you know, I
kind of like this guy. He's not a bad guy.
And then there's people who are like, well, you know, they
really had a lot of fun back in the what it called me more days,
you know, and they remember those days.
And yeah, it got a little spicy. It went over the line at times.
But, you know, people have fond memories of that.
So they want to kick in. Muddy, do you get?
Do you get any of the people that are like the old school
liberals, the the guys like we're seeing the Matt Taibbi's,
the the Michael Shellenberger types that say I disagree with
everything you said, but I would defend your right to the death
to say it, that sort of thing, that that mindset.
Do you get any of those? Yeah, I believe as Glenn
Greenwald, I believe he spoke up about this case.
Some of them, there's a couple of them.
I'm not sure about the donors, if we had any of those donor
types. I don't think so, but I could be
wrong because you know, some people donate anonymously.
Of course, yeah. And I'm just curious if they've
actually expressed it, but but you are seeing a minimal amount
of these. Very.
Minimal, right? Very small, very minimal.
I mean, there are guys like this.
Well, a New York Times guy is election expert Rich Hassan, I
believe is his name, who has said that.
Well, maybe this should be a crime, but we don't have a
federal statue criminalizing this.
They're they're abusing the statue that exists.
I mean, look, it's one thing if you have a statue on the books
that says, look, you cannot spread disinformation or
whatever about an election within 30 days, which is
actually a law that Barack Obama tried to pass the Senate and
failed. Now, that might pass
constitutional muster. We don't even know.
Yeah, I don't know. We don't even know if it would
exactly. Now, so, so folks can understand
the way this plays out, because most people don't understand the
federal judiciary, they've never been exposed to it.
I'm, I'm guessing you have a much more nuanced take on it at
this point. But the, the original district
that they bring that they are alleging the facts of the crime.
That's what you're arguing, the facts which the government was.
Was it a jury trial or was it a bench trial?
A jury trial. OK, So a jury theoretical
critically of your peers in a place that you don't live in a
place that you didn't commit their alleged crime.
I guess it's been convicted. So they they've they've decided
that you were guilty of that and then you get a chance to appeal
it. And in the appeal circuit, what
we argue is the law, whether the law was appropriately applied
and it's a procedural argument, whether the the government met
its burden, followed process properly, etcetera, etcetera.
That's where you're at right now, Ryan.
Ryan, do you have the ability to throw up a like a Google search
where we can just type in Doug's name?
I would point out we are actually arguing also
insufficient evidence. We are arguing insufficiency
evidence, OK. So you're even.
Able to the evidence was, like I said, these other people in this
DM group thought that it would trick people out of voting.
Well, that's fine, but they didn't.
They didn't indict any of those people.
OK, we're going to show the search 'cause I think it's just
so relevant. So let's, let's get a taste of
this, folks. This is what government
censorship, this is what people like actually Shellenberger and
Taibbi have kind of made the argument about when, when the
government owns the means of of this sort of censorship when it
comes to your search results, everything here, convicted,
convicted, 7 months, go ahead, keep going.
That's a sentencing. These are all coming.
Months over notice too, how the government always takes the very
top Yeah, they're going to get the 1st 2:00 and then it goes
woke. So as we run through these
so-called trusted names and news keep keep punching down through
there. What I don't see any of them is
that that you were successful on appeal and I had to dig a little
deeper. We actually pulled up the
article from post millennial. So Doug, I want to read from
that because it actually took me specifically typing in appeal
and I think the word success or something to that effect to be
able to get, you know, all these things are literally smear jobs
on you until we get down to breaking.
This is on December 4th. Federal appellate court sides
with Douglas Mackey in mean case drops prison sentence until
after the appeal and that was signed by a a judge who is on
the appeal circuit, but he's a he's a District Judge for the
District of Connecticut. How did how did that all happen?
How did that go that way? Yeah.
So we filed, we, we were denied bond, which was actually kind of
surprising and this kind of a case with a 7 month prison
sentence to be denied bond. We were denied bond at the
District Court level. It was also a little bit
surprising that the government opposed.
However, you know, they kind of have to do what's best for their
case, right? They don't want to admit that
these are debatable. Issues and and that you're not
like a massive danger running around in danger.
Well, they actually admitted, they admitted that I wasn't in
danger. They just said, wow, this isn't
debatable. You know this isn't a close
call, so did you. Spend time behind bars.
No, I didn't. So I was, you know, besides when
I went to the, you know, the, the, the courthouse, I was at a
holdings hall for two hours or whatever or an hour or whatever
it was. So I had AI had a report date
which was January the 18th. The District Court denied bond
pending appeal. That was a surprise on this kind
of a case. I mean, this is not a drug case.
This is not a murder case. You know, this is not a danger.
And they admitted that was not a danger, to be fair.
But they said this, this is not debatable.
So we did go to the appeals court and say and, and move to
stay the appeal, which basically just means that you don't have
to report to prison. You don't have to, you know, be
sentenced. You don't have to carry out the
sentence until after the District Court, the appeals
court decides. So we filed our brief, the
government opposed, and then we filed a response.
That's how it works. Do you think?
The government overplayed their hand by not giving you bond.
Do you think they actually kind of worked against their case in
that in that matter? Yeah, I believe so.
Because this, any kind of thing like this, you can, you know,
sort of get the ball rolling. Momentum.
You know, if they had just said, yeah, that's fine, you could be
a well, now they, you know, there's a little bit of
momentum. The judges are looking at this,
so it went through the appellate court.
It looks prejudice right before it goes to the to the appeals
court. So like it's already it's giving
some imminence to what needs to be done.
And I would also add that they did have to even admit certain
things at the oral argument. Interesting.
They had to admit that this was a novel prosecution.
They also had to admit that a venue, the doctrine of venue, it
does evolve. It's not so cut and dry.
For instance, we have the Internet, we have phones, you
know, so this is how the doctrine of venue evolves
because back of the day, you're not going to be placing a phone
call and then so you can be tried in multiple districts,
right? So, yeah, we, we argued that
this was debatable on the 1st Amendment on due process because
you can't be prosecuted for a crime if no reasonable person
would expect that this was a crime.
So obviously, you know, if I steal something from somebody,
even I might not know the exact federal statute, you know that
you're committing a crime when you're stealing something for
someone. This is not so cut and dry.
And we argue, and this is the doctrine of of, of notice, a
fair notice. You have to be on fair notice
that you're committing a crime. The 3rd and then the third issue
that we argued at the bond hearing was venue that they did
not. This is it.
Like I said, it's not so cut and dry, so black and white.
But typically these courts have to find substantial contact with
the District for a case to be upheld on venue.
And so we argue that no, there was no substantial contact.
They didn't prove the case for venue just because the tweet
goes over the wires, over the water or under the bridge.
And this? It sounds funny, but it's true.
I know, but it's just, it's, it's such a strange thing like,
and, and This is why I want people to listen to what that
is. It's like the things that the
minutiae that they're hanging their hat on in order to
establish even where this went down, where they even decided to
try the case is debatable, which is what you just shared.
Exactly. It's it's a shady movement and
why would they choose that when, as we said, Southern District is
actually very favorable to government prosecutions,
generally speaking. And and did those prosecutors
laugh it out? Did they go, hey, this is this
is a dog shit case. We're not going to do this.
I. That raises even more questions.
You, you can literally take a case that is, that is stronger
than this in front of a reasonable prosecutor and they
just go like, if this guy's not going to plea, then we're going
to drop, we're going to decline prosecution.
It's a waste of our time because it, it looks bad for them to
lose. They don't want to lose.
Yeah, exactly. This case they could not drop
because they invested a lot in it.
The DOJ, the higher ups, the new ones that Biden put in were
invested in it. The new US attorney was invested
in it. It's like they couldn't drop
this case. There was no misdemeanor that I
could have pled down to. You know, some people say I'll
plead to a misdemeanor just to make this go away, you know?
What if they'd offered you that? Any thoughts?
It's possible just because of the time and the expense,
because a misdemeanor is quite frankly, it's not a huge deal on
your record, you know, so it's possible I could have pled down
to a misdemeanor just to make the whole thing go away.
But there's no question in my mind to ever plead to a felony
that I didn't commit. I mean, that's ridiculous.
You might, a lot of people, unfortunately, maybe they're
charged with 10 felonies. And so they do plead to a felony
that they think that they didn't commit.
And a lot of people plead to a misdemeanor that they don't
think they committed because it's not a big deal, a
misdemeanor, especially when you're looking at the time and
the effort and the investment to win or to win an appeal and a
misdemeanor, etcetera. So, so yeah, yeah.
Where were we at? So yeah, we.
Here's the thing. Yeah, and we talk about this all
the time, folks, but the the amount of money and the way the
system is set up is that the government has unlimited
resources to go through prosecution.
And you have a finite amount. And what they're trying to do is
put you a decision for all those chips and it's either all in or
not. Because that's what happens if
you decide to go against the government.
That's that's why so few people challenge it.
That's why there is such a high plea out rate.
So I don't want people to necessarily walk away with the
idea. I, I wouldn't say that having a
misdemeanor on your record is no big deal.
It just is not going to materially affect you and it may
save you $1,000,000 in legal defense.
That's right, you can save you millions of dollars.
And not everybody can raise that and not everybody's case is
going to get enough attention. I think that's the only
fortunate thing is they picked a guy.
It was such an egregious case and they went after you.
I mean, it really is egregious. Yeah, yeah.
And I would point out too that, you know, in the appellate
court. Oh, I forgot.
I completely lost my train of thought there.
Sorry, no. Big deal.
We were talking facts of the case of what you're arguing.
It's jurisdictional. It's going to be procedural.
It's going to be the the arguments of law, which are to
say whether or not the law was actually appropriately applied.
I think those are all interesting.
What are your what are your attorneys feeling that they were
granted this particular stay on your on your sentence?
That's what I was gonna say. So this, this kind of appeal is
not granted often interesting. A bond appeal, usually it's like
one line denied. You know the motion has been
denied. If if memory serves when I was
reading about this, it's stated something to the effect of based
on the the probability of success in your appeal is what
they granted it on. Is that accurate?
So they didn't not they did not release an opinion.
OK, just released an order. So they did not release an
opinion. There's several factors that can
come into play substantial issue raised debatable or novel.
And this is completely novel to argue that it is.
And it's kind of. Yeah, we we define that term for
people in the case of a a lawsuit like this.
Yeah, absolutely. So if they're, if they're
prosecuting someone on a novel set of facts, then then you are
an novel set of facts where you know, you're, if you win the
appeal, then it's then the conviction will be overturned.
Then you can be granted bond on appeal.
And the idea that it's a novel prosecution means they are
basically trying out something that has not been done before.
They are using either in a law in a new way or they're using a
fact pattern in a new way to try to establish connection.
Hence what they've done with this sort of obstruction they
did with the J Sixer as which was to say it was always used
for procedural. It was an Enron law,
Sarbanes-Oxley. It was if people decide to
destroy documents as they were embezzling investors out of
billions of dollars, Yeah. Oh, also it could be if you were
trying to stop a vote and people were like, huh?
But they were successful in their novel prosecution.
They use it over and over again so they could open up new
precedent by with your case is essentially you.
Exactly, exactly. I mean this that's the dangerous
part. If we going to say that this
statute covers the word injure in the statute, covers
deception, because when Congress passed the KKK Act, which is
what this is, they also passed other act, you know, other
statues, for instance, 1 was fraud, defrauding the United
States government. They did not use the word
injure. They used the word fraud,
defraud, deceive. You cannot defraud the US
government, DC, the US government, you know, And so
they did not use this, this, this verb in the statute.
So if they're going to say that a conspiracy to injure someone's
rights involves saying something that's not true.
I mean, that opens up a massive can of worms.
That opens up a huge can of worms.
I mean, you can only imagine and they're the the other.
The Supreme Court has already has already said too, that they
can't artificially limit a statue not based on the text of
the statute. So, for instance, they the
government wants to say, well, this is just because it was, you
know, deception about the time manner in place of an election.
So it's saying that there's an exception to the First Amendment
for deception about the time manner in place of an election.
That is opening up a huge can of worms.
And I would mention, since you're in the FBI, you would
know this or you would be familiar with this.
In the 2020 election, there's a guy a lot of people are familiar
with by the name of Elvis Chan of.
Course. In the San Francisco office.
Big winner. We're big fans of Elvis Chan.
Big fans. So Matt Taibbi published a
Twitter Files report on Elvis Chan and the There were people
on Twitter during 2020 making election jokes.
Some of them were completely fantastical and absurd.
Like someone said, I'm sitting in the ballot, you know, the the
the elections office, and I'm ripping up the vote of everybody
who didn't wear a mask. You know, these are obviously
jokes. And he's sending emails to
Twitter saying, you know, please preserve this.
We're going to serve process. Yes.
You know, no sense of humor. Yeah, exactly.
So. Well, let's let's even get more
specific, because one of our favorite people at the Kyle
Seraphin show is Sheila Jackson Lee, the congresswoman from
Texas, from Houston. And she just ran for mayor and
she just went on multiple television programs, including
National, stating that the election was in fact a day that
it wasn't on and encouraging her supporters to go vote for her on
a day when they couldn't vote for her.
So now that theoretically would be under the jurisdiction of
something like this. And I assume there'd be some
retroactive prosecution, even though it actually she she
handily lost that election, Right.
Wouldn't that be interesting to to be able to open up that can
of worms where an ambitious Texas based prosecutor goes?
Yeah, you know what? Screw it.
I'm going to go after. I'm going to go after Jackson
Lee. Yeah.
And I'm going to be bipartisan here and say that even Sheila
Jackson leads, she has a right to privacy.
I mean, I don't think that she should be subpoenaed all of her
financial records, all of her text messages, all of her
emails, because she got the day of election wrong.
They're not going to dig through her entire life to see if she
intended to get it wrong to deceive people or not.
I mean, and I don't think they should.
Noel, I agree with you. There's no reason why any of
that should be done. And that's sort of what the
egregious nature of your case is.
That's why I've been following it since it it popped up.
I didn't. It makes sense to me that they
were obviously investigating you beforehand, but the the nature
of the fact that it took the Biden administration to come in
before they actually brought these charges for you, which
happened to what, March of this of 21?
No 7 days, seven days after. Oh wow, it was that fast.
He got the. Warrant two days after his
inauguration. That is so incredible.
Did they serve, did they serve it as a as a search warrant, as
an arrest warrant, or did they serve it as a complaint with an
arrest warrant? You know, they served it as a
complaint with an arrest. Warrant So you were probably one
of the first guys that experienced this.
Do you know the difference between getting complainted and
and being indicted with a a grand jury?
Are you familiar? With that you.
Want to talk about it? Yeah.
So with a criminal complaint is sort of I, I could be wrong, but
it's to say, you know, sometimes what it's a matter of urgency or
what have you, the FBI agent will file a criminal complaint
that says we believe this, this this person did all this, so we
have a right to arrest him. So you arrest him.
Now, as a defendant, you can move for a grand jury
indictment. They always get an indictment
after the fact. There's the I don't know anybody
that doesn't. Do it.
That's what we did and they got an indictment after the fact and
it was a bare bones indictment. Yeah, just just simple.
Simple, Mr. Mackey did injure a breast, threaten and intimidate
voters in, you know, the exercise of blah blah.
Blah, blah, blah. So the affidavit or the the
facts in support of it was much shorter.
So what's interesting in your case, and I think this actually
plays out as why it is such a bigger issue broadly for
conservatives. You were one of the first people
that I'm aware of that were arrested by complaint.
And that has become the standard for going after conservatives
specifically, but mostly J Sixers in this case.
They went after all of them. When I went through the FBI
Academy in 2016, the argument was made that you will probably
never, you will rarely, if ever serve a criminal complaint.
And arrest somebody based on exigent circumstances because
the FBI doesn't do that. They do planned operations.
And it is by exception only that you would go do the complaint.
And the reason is, is because if you're doing a long term federal
investigation and you started in 2018, what's the hurry?
Where's the fire would be the argument.
Why would you need a complaint when you can wait to go to
Richard Public? It's been years.
So they can easily do that. And they do the same thing on
the J6 stuff where they are getting complaints and the
reason why they'll do it. And I'll just tip you in on
this, if you guys, you you're probably aware of this, but just
somewhat for the audience benefit.
The reason you do a complaint and not go and do a grand jury
indictment, which may come with an arrest warrant, is because
you can also have the judge weigh in.
You say, hey, I'd like an arrest warrant.
I'm going to go get this guy and they could go, why don't you
just issue a summons? You can just have them
surrender, but the arrest warrant is automatic with the
complaint because the nature of the complaint is that it
basically shows that there's exigent circumstances.
The example is I wrote one criminal complaint.
My buddy Steve Friend did many because he worked Indian
Country. He was actually like a cop
working in a detective role. And you regularly had exigent
circumstances. People that just beat the hell
out of their wife. You find out who they are, you
go grab them right away so they don't do it again.
That's good. But in my case, the only time I
arrested somebody under exigent circumstances was I had a guy
who was in jail. He was in county and he was
calling over and over again. When you talk about Interstate
threats, we touched on that earlier.
He was calling and leaving threats for federal judges and
state judges saying I have plans to kill them.
He wanted to go back to jail. For what it's worth, he was
meant right. Clearly.
But he called up and and it was actually, we called him the
legend. I'm, I may even have a copy of
this guy's voicemail because it was one of my favorite
voicemails. I would just play it on the loud
speakers at the office sometimes because he would go, hello, this
is Ramon. I can't remember his last name.
It's not Sanchez, but like in my head, that's what he's like.
Hello, This is Ramon Sanchez. Yes, it is.
I I've got plans to kill federal judges, you know?
And then he would name the judges.
He would name them off. And he was like, he was like,
call the feds. Call the fucking feds.
That's what he said in his thing.
So I typed it up in my complaint.
Call the feds. Call the effing feds.
You know, I typed it all up and I played it out for the judge.
And the judge is like, OK, yeah, this guy's got to go back to
jail. So we arrested him that day.
He got out of jail. We were trying to keep him in
county. He got released.
He didn't want to be released, I'm sure, because he was a
street guy. So we went and we arrested him.
We put him in a hold again. He went right back to county,
but he was in the federal side of it holding.
And then he got moved for psych evaluation.
He went up to Colorado and some other stuff.
But that's the way I used a complaint.
That's the only time I wrote a complaint in 6 plus years of
being an FBI agent because you just don't do it.
Why would? You.
Yeah, I didn't know that because they easily could have just the
judge was like, yeah, just go to a summit.
I didn't know that. They clearly want the headline
and they wanted the shock value of it.
That's right. They wanted this to go on.
I mean, that night he said about, oh, baguette traitor
Trump troll arrested, you know, on the Rachel Baddow show that
night, right? I mean, that's clearly what was
going on here. There's no reason not to get in
a diamond. Or you could say that the, the,
I don't know, the higher ups are saying, you know, go bring me
the head of a MAGA extremist or whatever.
I love how that sounds, by the way, but that sounds exactly
like what our guy Nick Searcy, who's a great actor that was in
Police State. I don't know if you went and saw
it, but it's worth your time. And see it.
Yet I need to see it. Yeah, let me know.
We'll send you a copy. I'll buy you a copy and send it
to you. It he says in there.
He says, you know, we want the subject on full display.
We want, you know, the whole song and dance.
And we helped write some of these lines.
They kind of came up with like, hey, we want to show that
they're making a display. But they did, they did it with
they did it Roger Stone and they did it with you and they did it
with you as the beginning of the Biden administration.
I was not familiar with the concept that they would go and
do complaints and I didn't realize they did it as early as
seven days and they got it two days after January 6th.
But that must have been the marching order.
We can we can say this. Let me let me say it very
specifically based on my training and experience and time
as an FBI agent, I believe that that is the case.
That's how I would swear to that sort of statement.
It's pretty clear that they've broken protocol for a reason,
and the process is the punishment.
That's why they went. What do you like that?
How crazy. Exactly.
Man, so crazy. All right, what are your next
steps? What are you looking forward to?
What does the new year look like for you as we as we stare down
the the next election cycle? Are you are you trolling
anybody? Are you online?
So I'm not trolling anybody, you know, I'm online, I, you know,
I'm promoting my 'cause I'm promoting my case.
The next steps for me, you know, fundraising, everybody's got to
go to memedefensefund.com and donate to this case.
We really need money to fund this appeal.
Just the top notch, I mean the most excellent legal team you
can imagine. I'm feeling extremely fortunate,
but these, you know, these guys need to get paid.
So please help me at memedefensefund.com.
There are other ways to donate. If you go to my website
douglasmackey.com with two s s then you'll see crypto.
You can send cash, you can go to gifts and go.
There's all kinds of different options to donate.
So really trying to raise money, spend some time with my family
this Christmas. Just had my first son.
Awesome. So very happy about that spend
some time with family Christmas and celebrate the, the, the
season and, and but we we're focused on winning this case.
Our brief is due January the 5th and so oral arguments on this
case should be sometime in possibly March.
So this is this appeal is extradite expedited, which I'm
grateful for. I'm grateful for the judges of
the district, the appeals court, they're exploited the case.
So we should have an answer quickly.
Well, and the upside is I think we've pointed this out is just
like the implications for speech in this country are so intense.
There's really a few things in the 1st Amendment that are kind
of sacrosanct. And your ability to like, engage
in political speech should be pretty.
Yeah, pretty, pretty far reaching, I would think.
So this should actually be something that left us.
Not left us maybe, but liberals and and conservatives can
actually agree on like we don't, you don't have to like what what
Doug said exactly. And Doug may not even like what
he said a couple years ago. Yeah, that's right.
But but you still should have the ability to do that without
facing jail time. And so this is a pretty far
reaching place, which is why I was glad to have you on and
talking about it. We're we're throwing.
This case is not about me. You know, this case is about
abuse of a statue and the weaponization of a statue.
And, you know, by donating to this appeal, they're charging
all kinds of people with the statue.
Now. They even charge President Trump
with breaking the statue. So, yeah, this case is not about
me. This case is about, you know,
setting a precedent where they can't abuse this this law.
Yeah, the idea that the conspiracy against rights folks,
if you didn't see that was some of the that was some of the
pieces in the indictment of Trump.
So also kind of wild you noticed they didn't go get a criminal
complaint for him. Exactly.
Just saying, not saying they wouldn't have tried if they
thought they could have got away with it.
I just don't think it would fly. Yeah.
See, I didn't know what you said about the criminal complaint
getting the automatic arrest warrant.
Does that change? Does that change change your
thoughts? Absolutely, Absolutely.
Yeah, make sure, make sure your legal team is aware of that.
If that's not they, they probably know it, but it it may
not. It may not sit as as front and
center as it does to those who are in the public the way that.
We Yeah, well, we brought it up. You know, it's crazy.
We almost, I don't know if we almost won this case, but we
almost hugged the jury. They deadlocked two or three
times. The judge had to read an Allen
charge, which if anyone's not familiar, they say, look, you
know, everybody spent a lot of time and money on this case.
You shouldn't change your opinion unless you know, you
shouldn't necessarily change your opinion unless you know
your conscience Guides to do, however, go back and look at the
the evidence one more time and try to come to a verdict.
They had to do an Allen charge. They came back with a verdict on
Friday afternoon. I mean, we interviewed some of
the jurors when they when the, when the government, you know,
when we went over the facts of the case, the jurors really
didn't like it. A lot of the stuff the the whole
show with the arrest warrant, 8 to 10 agents, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, they didn't like that. It's unfortunate that we didn't
have a few holdouts, you know, that stuck to their principles
or convictions or whatever. But, you know, it's difficult
being a juror. I think there are great people
on the jury and I think that they took their job seriously.
So we're not at all, you know, upset with the jurors.
We're just hoping that the the appeals court is going to step
in here and make this right. Well, what's interesting is the
jury doesn't know that it's so unusual to get a a criminal
complaint for this particular matter.
And I think something like that hammering home, that's one of
those things where when you're a defense attorney, I don't think
you necessarily realize what would impact people like that.
And I think my audience is going to probably sound off in
comments. Feel free if you guys didn't
know that about the criminal complaints.
By all means put it in the comments because I think it's
worth knowing we have to share this kind of information around.
It's what's been so novel about J6, about the way they've used
that. Because most FBI agents never
wrote a criminal complaint and they had no reason to.
Maybe a couple times in their career over 2025 years.
I've talked to some that did 1520 years and never wrote one,
not even one. No reason.
And yet now it's getting very common because we've had
thousands of arrests and they were all based on complaints and
they were all J Sixers. So isn't that something that
it's basically opened up a toolbox that was previously
unused and that's actually a dangerous tool?
Very dangerous. Because.
Show arrests. Show trials.
That's what these are. I was literally told it's like
if we can call somebody up and say this is a white collar fraud
case, this is a, you know, an embezzlement case.
This is a conspiracy case, whatever, and these people are
not violent and they've already talked to us and they've got an
attorney and they've already been represented.
We'll just call him and say, hey, why don't you meet me out
in front of this hotel? Hey, I'll come pick you up at
your office. You know, hey, we can come do
this in a in a train lobby, fly in here and you when you land,
we'll come grab you and we'll hook you up.
We'll take you to the car and that's it.
It's supposed to be, you know, in many ways the FBI supposed to
be like a gentleman service of things.
It's like, look, it's not emotional, right?
We're not trying to, you know, throw you on the ground because
you just beat up some old lady. Like I've been in that.
I've done that. And even the guys who beat up
old ladies, we, we arrested them respectfully.
I literally arranged for surrenders because why wouldn't
you, right? It's like, why wouldn't you?
It's easier for everybody. It's safer, it's smarter, you're
above the fray in some ways. And when they go to make the
argument, oh, you know, this FBI agent is going to come testify
against me. You know, he threw me on the
hood of the car, did all this. It's like, no, he called me for
like a week. I had a guy that dug you like
this. I had a guy that that he didn't,
he didn't want to turn himself in.
We did a search warrant for his for his house and he wasn't
there. And we had an arrest warrant and
it was from an indictment came back with a with a true bill
from a grand jury. And he didn't want to turn
himself in. So I left my business card with
his roommate and he called me up and he goes, hey, man, heard you
looking for me. I said, yeah, do you want to
turn yourself in? And he said no, I got all this.
And he starts talking. I just hung up on him like I
don't OK, the Marshalls will find you later.
He called me back. Another day later, he goes, hey,
hey, are you still looking for me?
I go, yeah. Do you want the Marshalls to
find him or you want to turn yourself in?
He goes, no, I got all this beep hung up on him.
I hung up on him like a like a high school girlfriend like 3-4
times. And then about four days later,
he calls me up. He goes, hey, man, I'm not
trying to run from you. And I go, OK, when do you want
to meet up? He goes, how about today?
I go, no, I'm busy today. We could do it tomorrow.
Like I don't care. It doesn't matter to me as it
shouldn't. And that should have.
Been the case, that's the kind of Bureau that we need to have.
Well, that's what you should have experienced.
Above the ground Bureau. You should have experienced
that. You know, that's the thing that
should have happened. They should have called you up
and said, hey, we're pushing this thing.
You know, we're going to have a grand jury indictment.
It's going to, you expect to be required to surrender in the
next week or two. Get your stuff together and
you'd go, oh God, I better get a good defense team.
I better do all this stuff and then that'd be fine.
The government doesn't care. It's not supposed to.
Right. Yeah, exactly.
It's not. It's not how the system is
supposed to be. I mean, everything is becoming
very emotional, very hysterical. And honestly, that could
backfire. On the other side, we already
see the the Supreme Court just granted a review, as everybody
knows, of that obstruction statute.
So you rush to do this stuff and then I think this can really
hurt the legitimacy of the government and the, the, the
FBI, the DOJ, because if they're going to rush all the stuff,
well, and, and you know, shoot first, ask questions later and
then the courts are going to step in and say, no, you know,
that just vindicates what everybody's saying.
And that's going to that's going to hurt the country.
I mean, to have this sort of loss of faith is just going to
hurt the country. Think about how much money
they'll have wasted if none of this stuff it was all just
decided to like go after people for the sake of going after
them. Like think about how much money
we will have flushed down the toilet for that.
Right. And how many investigations, you
know, the FBI people don't realize the FBI is very limited.
We don't have a million, 2 million agents, whatever.
They have to pick and choose what they're investigating.
So this takes, you know, investigators away from other
things that are very important. Well, it could be important.
I will be OK with shutting them all down.
To be fair, at this point, having seen what was in there
and what they do, people have no idea.
But we're talking about 14,000 armed federal agents, of which a
couple thousand are involved in management and administrative
garbage, and a bunch of them do national security stuff.
That doesn't make a difference in my experience.
There are arguments to be made. On the contrary, there are
certain number of small number of people that actually do
something of value. But a lot of it is just make
work. It's people doing work for the
sake of it. And then you got a a small
number of people doing the criminal stuff.
You could take every one of those 14,000 and put them all on
child pornography cases and they would never run out of work.
That's right. But we don't do that.
We're arresting Doug Mackey, making the world safer democracy
by by stopping free speech. All right, wild stuff.
Well, I hope. How old is your son right now?
He's only two months. That's awesome.
I got a three month old right now, so I'm I'm in the same
boat. Congratulations, my my #4 and
there's nothing more fun than a baby around Christmas.
So I hope you guys have a very blessed Christmas.
I hope you guys enjoy that time. I know there's a lot of stress,
so I hope you get a few minutes where you can wake up and not
think about that for a few minutes.
Thank you. Appreciate that.
Probably very difficult. We'll we'll put meme defense
fund. Is that what it is?
Meme defense fund? We'll throw that up there in the
in the show notes and folks, you guys can go and check that out
folks. And then also the where can they
follow you on Twitter? Because I know you got updates
there. Yeah, it's at Doug Mackie case.
Doug Mackie Case. At Doug Mackie Case.
And for for those of you who follow me on Twitter, you'll
find it. I put the name in the show notes
for today and I also put it in the title.
So you can go back and look and find it right there.
So Doug, I do really appreciate it.
Thanks for thanks for taking all that time this morning because
it was fun for me to to kind of cut it up with you.
Thank you. Really appreciate it.
God bless you. All right.
All right, buddy. All right, so ladies and
gentlemen, that is our show for today.
I hope you guys learned something.
Number one, I hope you have a little bit of a greater
perspective on what we just saw #2 all good things.
And let me say thanks to the people that keep the lights on
over here. I want to say thanks to my
friends over at 4 Patriots. You can go to fourpatriots.com,
that's the number 4 Patriots with an s.com/kyle or just use
promo code Kyle and you can troll through all the things.
Use the word troll. There we go.
You can check out all of the outstanding ideas.
Ryan just loves coming back to my lemon bars.
I really do. It's the ultimate.
Bitch. It's the ultimate no prep
survival to it. What's funny is after we made
these, my mother sent me pictures of the lemon bar she
made. Not nearly the same animal.
These things last for up to five years.
You can throw them in a truck if you guys get stuck somewhere
where it's cold or you're without food.
If you want to put them in for just for camping, for survival,
there's a lot of different sort of use.
I like the idea of keeping survival foods that you also
alternate with your basic training, which is to say you go
out in the wilderness and you walk around, you go on a hike,
you go on a camping trip, etcetera.
So you kind of cycle them through.
So don't make them waste five years, just cycle them in every
couple years. You guys got water purification
options, solar power, etcetera, etcetera.
Go check out all the different options and the survival food is
kind of the number one thing that I think is probably the
biggest thing that most people are not repped for.
If you got ammo and you got guns and you got food, you're
probably going to be OK. Maybe some candles and then
figure out your solar stuff. So again, for the #4
patriots.com/kyle, that'll get you all the deals that are
negotiated out through our little deal with four Patriots
and we do appreciate them. Let's promote the sweatshop.
I got kind of a one off shirt on right now I'm wearing a blue, a
thin blue line in, blue out. I'm not sure if Garrett is
selling all these, but you can go to the Dash suspendables.
That's the Dash suspendables.com that's going to support FBI
whistleblower Garrett O Boyle's family.
That's the O Boyle family sweatshop keeping his kids
sweating through the holidays. My favorite shirt is that
they're on the front right there.
Click on the black one with the with the rifle.
If you would Ryan the the last line own the nightshirt kind of
looks like going through night vision.
I actually just sent Garrett a picture of my night vision
sitting on top of that shirt. I got a set of Bino night vision
folks. So check out the dash
suspendables. Don't forget the dash.com.
You can use my promo code there, which will save you a couple of
bucks. I get nothing out of it other
than I get to know that my buddy is working and that we are
supporting them and you guys have been doing a great job.
Keep them extra busy. They have been very, very busy.
He's gotten a small breather since he came back from Fargo,
but keep promoting the sweatshop.
And if you guys are looking for stocking stuffers, things like
the pins and the patches are great.
I just had a friend reach out and ask me about a plate carrier
system. And now I got to send him one of
our patches, which I think I have.
I have one right here. Yep.
And remember, the Eagle is down. It's an agency under duress
doing things like going after Doug Mackey.
You guys, they're going after Doug, They're going after the
former president. They're going after people like
the Boyle family. It is the reason why we wear the
badge upside down. It is really a protest about
what goes on there. And lastly but not least, you
can support Mike Lindell and you can support that by getting
excellent products from mypillow.com/kyle.
The number of you that have reached out and been 1 using our
promo code Kyle and also telling me the things that you love at
My Pillow. I had no idea like before I did
any of this stuff, like my Pillow wasn't even on my radar.
I knew that it existed sort of. I think my wife ended up buying
the 1.0. We may have to give the 2.0 a
shot. But I know my parents use the
sheets. I know Steve friends parents use
the sheets. I know a number of you guys are
running around the slippers, including Ryan who is doing
construction in the damn slippers.
He's out there cutting drywall and vacuum off.
So check out those. You can use mypillow.com/kyle or
just use the promo code when you go to the Mypillow website and
we get credit for that. That's it.
We got 1 five star review that we're going to read for you guys
today. Do we have any credible?
Do we have any required rumble rants we got to get through?
Too. Yeah, we got one.
All right, let's do the five star review and I'll let you
pull up the review in a second here.
Oh, we can do that one. We can ask it, we'll ask Doug
out there in a little bit later. We'll we'll have him respond on
Twitter, but it asks if he can counter sue for damages or even
legal fees. All that stuff is going to come
much, much later in the game, right?
The folks at this point, the game is, is get through and not
go to prison. I think that's going to be the
number one thing. All right, let's read a five
star review and then we'll shut this thing down.
I do appreciate you guys sticking with us for this time.
You guys can link to the podcast links or the podcast reviews in
the show descriptions. And here is 1 from DBA one mom
who I know I've read before that looks familiar.
Five stars. Again, revealing what is
happening is often less pleasing, but it is our reality
lately and we need to know so we can push back, get united and be
prepared. That's exactly right.
That's why the show is done today.
That's the specifics of it says God fearing Christians,
Catholics and all who believe in Jesus is our Lord and Savior
must hold tight for what is coming.
Always thankful and truly blessed to be in the
suspendables community. Zip.
We really do appreciate you leaving the five star reviews
folks. We are slowly eking our way up
towards the 1000 mark. I don't know if we're going to
make it to the end of the year, make 1000, but we are getting
damn close and it has definitely been a wild ride.
We've cleared almost 1.5 million audio downloads through all the
podcast apps this year, which is pretty incredible because six
months in we are only at 400,000.
So you guys are making the show grow.
You guys are the ones who are sharing it.
All of you who are watching it on all the various places, make
sure you've gone to rumble.com/kyle Serafin.
That's where we keep the live show and the big chat that we
keep a track of, which has been bumping all day today.
I'll have to go back and read it.
Make sure you guys are going there and giving us a thumbs up
and sharing these videos, particularly the story of Doug
Mackey. If you haven't heard on some of
these facts before, it's worth sharing and we'll probably cut a
couple of shorts out and make sure it's distributed out on
social. So thanks so much for joining us
there. That's it for us today.
God bless you all. Thanks for listening.
And we will see you again tomorrow for another Kyle
Seraphin show. Thanks for listening to the Kyle
Seraphin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle
Seraphin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, True
Social and Instagram at Kyle Seraphin.