Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistleblower, an
American patriot. Prepare to embrace the
uncomfortable truth, because this program has no time for
comforting lies. Here is civil liberties
enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI
agent Kyle Serafin. Hello, my friends.
Welcome to the Kyle Serafin Show.
You may have already been here once and this may be round two
for you, so that'll be weird. We are having some tech
difficulties that I do not think are coming from me or from Ryan.
I'm pretty confident they are coming from Rumble.
In fact, every single thing that I see says that it is sending
properly at this point. So I think we are running live
and full speed and looks like people are telling me we are
back. So good to go.
Thanks for joining us. Thank you for your patience.
We had a guest scheduled because of the international time zone
differences and also maybe the possibility that American
English and English English are slightly different.
We don't know what happened. We have no guest, but we have
plenty of things to talk about because the world is still
burning, just like it was yesterday morning and probably
will be tomorrow morning. So no biggie.
We will just carry on. The show will carry on.
And there's plenty of things for us to talk about.
We did promise you a show on COVID, long COVID and some of
the things that are going on there.
So let's talk a little bit about the COVID politics and the
politics of COVID or this. There was a man named Anthony
Fauci. Many people were familiar with
him during the AIDS crisis because he got involved there.
He's been a government employee for most of his entire life,
adult and childhood combined, And he was making more money
than the president of the United States.
Everybody knew his name By the end of 2020 when we had COVID
lockdowns and all these policies.
And he started doing clownery, like wearing multiple masks in
front of Congress and calling out senators because the man was
basically untouchable until yesterday.
So this man who is reviled by people on the right, people who
love freedom, who do not think that you should be lying to the
American public, people who think that you should be
truthful, forthright and serve the government in a way that
benefits the people, they didn't like it.
And finally we have someone stepping up.
So we're going to play a quick video of Senator Rand Paul from
yesterday. We're going to get into the
implications of that, which are not as much as you might think,
and covered a little bit. We'll talk about how do we come
back from that tyranny and I believe that will continue
yesterday's topic as well. So Ryan, if you want to roll
that video clip of Senator Rand Paul talking. 15% mortality.
We're fighting a pandemic that has about a 1% mortality.
Can you imagine if a SARS virus that's been juiced up and had
viral proteins added to it, to the spike protein, if that were
released accidentally? Doctor Fauci, do you still
support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?
Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely,
entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not
ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the
Wuhan Institute. Do they find out?
We do not fund. Doctor Barracks, gain of
function, research. Doctor Barrett does not doing
gain of function research, and if it is.
It's according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in
North Carolina and I. Don't think it's turning a bad
virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into
the SARS viruses gain of function.
That is not the minority, because at least 200 scientists
have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying
that it is gain of function. Well, it is not.
And if you look at the grant and you look at the progress
reports, it is not. The gain of function, despite
the fact that people tweet that. So do I support sending money to
the We Want Biology Institute? We do not send money now.
Did you guys just hear what he said?
He said. Just despite the fact that
people are tweeting it, just the fact that it is being discussed
on social media does not make it so.
It might. It might because it fits the
definition of the word. What we have in this country is
this massive, unelected, bureaucratic class of people.
A lot of you will call them the deep state.
I like to call them administrative state because
deep state is an emotional word and it is far too sexy for these
clowns. And yet they go out there and
they lie with impunity. Now they go out there and do
that because what are the consequences of standing up in
front of Congress and lying? I'll just give you a second to
think about it. What if you don't answer a
subpoena from Congress? You'll be held in contempt.
We remember Eric Holder. Does anyone remember Eric Holder
doing jail time for refusing to give over information?
Staring fast and furious? You won't remember that because
it didn't happen. And you won't remember anything
bad happening to Auntie Fauci, at least not yet.
There's always the possibility that something goes down.
We had a different clip of him talking about where Rand Paul
was referring this for a prosecution.
Do you have that clip available to us, Ryan, Let's let's run
that. Let's do this is a second back
and forth. So these guys kind of became
enemies. I wonder if they go and sit and
have coffee after the fact. I'd like to believe that Rand
Paul is actually on our side as someone called him in the chat.
Rand son of Ron defender of the realm.
I actually like that quite a bit.
I actually do think that he's got a pretty good instinct on
government waste fraud and abuse and so on.
And I think that he is actually incensed on this.
The second thing that came out and and our friend Peter Johnson
who was on our show for a long form interview, I'm trying to
remember how far back it was. But it was a little ways back.
Peter Johnson pointed something out.
Do you remember that Rand Paul was beat up in his front yard by
a neighbor and and it put him in a hospitalization for a short
period of time. He had his office burned very
recently and he also had one of his aides stabbed on the street.
We might even be able to pull that up while we're talking
about it because it just occurred to me, if you want to
find that on Twitter, it's it should be pretty easy to find.
It's actually. Say that again.
So Rand Paul's aid was stabbed and on the streets of DC was
stabbed by this like person that just walked by this like this
unknown assailant and and the guy, the strangest thing about
it was the guy stabbed him while he was with another person.
It was a targeted stabbing and then he walked off and and so
this is actually it's in my timeline.
If you go look on on Twitter, Ryan, the thing that is so crazy
about it is as Peter said, and Peter spent time as an
investigator and he worked for DHS and he's got the same type
of investigative mind that I do. It's why we get along so well.
He mentioned, of course these things are coincidental.
And I will say this to you, when 345 bad things happen to someone
and they all seem to cluster around the same area, a serious
investigator says they may be a coincidence, but they are
basically connected until proven otherwise.
And then you go out there and try to disprove the connection
and that may exist. There's a real possibility that
it does not. And so anyway, we've got Rand
Paul out out there. If you want to play the yeah,
you want to play the stabbing. Video Yeah, I got it right now.
Right, Okay. Let's pull this up.
I want you to watch this, folks. You tell me if this looks like
the regular behavior of just a street mugging of two people.
So you're going to see two people walking onto the screen.
Go ahead and play that. When you're ready,
pause it for a second. I want to talk through it, and I
want to play it again for people to be able to watch.
And so here's what you saw. From left to right on my screen,
I see two men that are walking. They're dressed in nice
clothing, and they are coming from work.
This is during daylight hours. This is like a there's no
shadows, so it is full on daylight and as they walk, they
are walking off the screen from left to right.
They go out the bottom right hand corner of the screen and
then an unknown individual comes in wearing a dark jacket, stabs
one of the two of them that just happens to be one of the guys
working for Rand Paul gets on top of him, stabs a few times,
is able to be thrown off, and then casually walks away.
I want you to watch that one more time with that in mind.
And then you tell me that that is not doesn't look targeted.
So here we go. They just crossed the street.
Now our gentleman in the white jacket who is Rand Paul's aides
is basically being beaten and and then they they pile on to
try to keep this guy off. He loses a knife it looks like
and then he just gets up and he walks away.
No big deal. Cool.
Now maybe this was a a very disturbed and deranged person in
Washington DC they do exist. Anybody who has been in the in
the National Capital Region the last 10 years has seen something
that is actually pretty awful. And what we see is the Judiciary
Square judge, what's it called? Judicial Square, where I used to
work. It's where the federal
courthouses are. It's where the FBI is.
There's the Federal Building Museum.
There's a couple of other federal buildings there.
It is swamped with homeless people.
They're all over the place. They're all over the streets in
our nation's capital. There are hundreds of men
sitting around all day long. It's almost all men, but there's
some, some women as well. But mostly you've got military
age men with no purpose, no function, and they are literally
camping with their tents pitched against government buildings.
If that doesn't show you a society in decline in a failed
western society, I don't know what else does.
But then and so that's a possibility.
That's what that guy could have been.
But he's wearing a pretty nice coat.
He doesn't look like the homeless bums that I used to see
all the time per se. And he went for one guy and he
walked off like it was cool, like nothing was going to
happen. So that video was just released
I think 2 days ago from the the the DC attorneys, from the what
is it? The the office of the United
States, the United States Attorney in the District of DC
and also the other thing that a lot of people don't realize
about that area, and this is worth noting, there are two
series of courts. Most people know that there is a
thing called the the District Court and then there's also
Superior Court. So when you have regular cities
that are not Washington, DC, this is actually worth knowing
in in your lives as you as you see some of these things that
are happening, things that are going on with President Trump
and things that are going on with January 6th.
There are two court systems. Generally speaking, we have a
District Attorney that would be like an Alvin Bragg guy, right
in Manhattan and he goes out and he files charges or one of his
underlings, one of the assistant district attorneys will file
charges. Those are local charges and they
are mitigated in a local court system.
And then we have federal charges and those go to a District
Court, which is a federal district in DC.
The same prosecutor's office handles both and they can charge
a crime both locally, which is called DC Superior Court and
they can charge it federally, which is the District of
Columbia's, the District of the District of Columbia, DDC.
And so that's where people like Charles Mcgonigal are being
charged. For some of them, that's where
President Trump is going to see is that's where he was just
indicted and things like that. So they have the ability to go
both. I don't know if they took this
charge federal since it was a federal aid.
It was, you know, someone working for a senator, but it
does look pretty suspect. We'll let you guys decide in the
chat on there. All that being said, there was a
referral by Rand Paul in the last couple days here saying
that this anti Fauci character who he's been sparring with
probably for the last 18 months to two years in a very public
way and you can see there's no love lost between those two.
He's finally made a referral to DOJ to investigate this guy and
I think he had that video as well.
Ryan. Died from this pandemic, and
that should cause us to explore all possibilities.
Instead, government authorities self interested in continuing
gain of function research say there's nothing to see here.
Gain of function research, as you know, is juicing up
naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans.
To arrive at the truth, the US government should admit that the
Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the
Coronavirus's ability to infect humans.
Choosing up superviruses is not new.
Scientists in the US have long known how to mutate animal
viruses to infect humans. For years, Dr. Ralph Barrack, a
virologist in the US, has been collaborating with Doctor Shi
Zengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his
discoveries about how to create super viruses.
This gain of function research has been funded by the NIH, the
collaboration between the US. And the Wuhan Virology Institute
continues. Doctors Barack and she worked
together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone
of the deadly SARS virus, and then use this man made super
virus to infect human airway cells.
Think about that for a moment. The SARS virus had a 15%
mortality. We're fighting a pandemic that
has about a 1% mortality. Can you imagine?
If a SARS virus that's been juiced up and had viral proteins
added to it to the spike protein, if that were released
accidentally, Doctor Fauci, do you still support funding of the
NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan? Senator Paul, with all due
respect, with all due respect, I'm not going to just disrespect
you but not telling you anything true.
We have a Fox News clip I as well which is going to basically
take this to the head where we where we hear about the the fact
that he's referred this over for a hopeful investigation by DOJ,
Is that correct, Ryan, we got the Fox News clip too.
Yeah, I got it. Ready.
Let me throw it up there right
now. Yeah, let's punch this up.
So this is. What I don't think there's ever
been a clear case of perjury in the history of government
testimony. And I don't say that lightly.
He said adamantly that the government never funded this
gain of function research. We now have the Government
Accountability Office. The Gio has admitted that the
funding came from the NIH. We have the acting director
Tabak of the NIH admitting it in writing that it came from the
NIH. But now we have really the
smoking gun, and that is Fauci in private saying the opposite
of what he was saying in public. So there you go.
Now we have one guy. It's always 1 voice, isn't it?
Isn't it just seem like there's just one person crying out in
the wilderness that is making these claims.
It's like obviously what Rand Paul is saying is the possible
case for perjury is high. Fauci said things.
Those things were not true. He said them under oath.
That should be considered a crime.
Does anybody out there have any belief?
Is there any sensation that you have that the Department of
Justice being run under these Biden sick fans like Lisa Monaco
and Merrick Carlin are going to investigate Anthony Fauci, the
hero of the Republic, the man who brought down Trump's
pregnant presidency? I don't know.
I've got pregnancy on the brain because my wife is walking
around ready to give out a baby at any moment.
But you had a guy that basically gave bad advice, created the
thing that get that gave him an opportunity to give bad advice.
And I think a lot of us are going to look back.
I think there's probably a 10 year mark from here where we
look back and we go, Donald Trump's presidency was sabotaged
on purpose by people who had such a nefarious point.
They were willing to let people die over it and this guy was
lying through his teeth. Wouldn't it be nice if we just
had people that were honorable working in our public service?
I mean, I think that was the point of yesterday's show.
The the issue that was put out in the Durham report had nothing
to do with how the FBI could change policies.
I'm switching gears on you here, but I'm just telling you this is
a ubiquitous problem. It goes across all government
agencies. It it it is a problem of people
who work for the federal government.
They think they know best. They are the experts.
They will run things the way they want, and then you're just
supposed to deal with it. And if they don't like a
president, they're going to get rid of that president.
That seems to be what we're that seems to be the country we're in
right now in so many different ways.
And we see it because it's unbalanced.
It's not like they are fairly going after anybody that is
wrong, and it's not like they're going to to credibly accuse
somebody and then they're going to have an honest investigation.
Do you know who else was accused of perjury, Mr. Ryan?
Do you know who else was accused of perjury in front of in front
of the house? Who Garrett O'boyle, which got
us pretty steamed up Garrett who's sitting in the chat right
now and he's he's Hawking some of the merch that we've had a
free the merch tag. I don't know what free the merch
is like it was not being liberated.
But he's been going out there and getting it done.
So he actually has a If you're watching in our live chat, you
can actually go through and click.
I believe it's the tiny you are all slash last line we'll we'll
pull it up in a second here. I'm actually wearing the last
line shirt at the moment which Garrett is talking about.
They said that Garrett O'boyle because he received money after
he testified from me. By the way I am not cash Patel
despite the the wonderful tan that I have in the beard.
I'm actually not cash Patel to the surprise of many members of
Congress. Garrett O'boyle supposedly
committed perjury because he said that he'd never talked to
the media, which he didn't and they they claimed that he was
paid for his testimony and that was a violation of law and FBI
policy and so on and so forth. So they referred a Boyle over to
DOJ in the same way that Anthony Fauci, who straight up lied in
front of Congress was referred to the DOJ.
Just I want, I just want you to feel the differential between
that a guy who lost his job, who had to move his family across
the country with a brand new baby that was six weeks old.
Most of you can probably appreciate how difficult that
would be. And lost his job with no warning
in good faith, sold his home and then found himself with none of
his stuff. That guy was referred by the
Democrats like Stacy Plaskett and Jerrold Nadler because they
made-up a fictional story that had nothing to do with what he
said and was not based in reality.
And they have absolutely no proof of and wrote a very scary
letter saying the DOJ should go and prosecute him.
And then you have Anthony Fauci, who is a legitimate villain.
He's like a Bond villain, but you know, sounds stupider.
The guy went out there and and has been doing dangerous and
scary research for a very long time.
He's been doing things that, you know, probably resulted in death
with some unethical research that they are going and skirting
international laws and US prohibitions against gain of
function research in this country.
He's out there dancing around words trying to make things mean
something they don't. And when he's referred for
prosecution, I just want to know.
You can put it in the in the comments below.
You can literally go down, Scroll down there and make sure
you hit the like on the way down and make sure that thumb is
green and then let me know. Do you think that there's a
chance that the DOJ under under Joe Biden is going to
investigate and find anything of value or will they do the
classic the government has investigated the government and
found that the government was not culpable for any
governmental wrongdoings because I'm pretty sure that's the
playbook that we're living in. So even though we have this and
thank God we have at least somebody, some voice in the
wilderness calling this out and saying the thing that makes
everybody else feel like they are crazy, you probably feel
like a lunatic. You're out there going, how am I
the only person that's seeing this?
Where are elected representatives?
Why are they not speaking up and being the voice of the people?
We have a Republic. We do not have a democracy.
We have a Republic where we are supposed to have representatives
that speak from their elected perspective and they are
supposed to go out there and and represent you in a good way, in
a way that's meaningful. And I think moreover I keep
seeing over and over again that that is not the case.
I in fact I just saw a video yesterday of of people walking
through these are Texas elected Republicans in the State House
and they apparently approved an L GB TQ awareness day for the
Texas Department of or the the Texas Chambers of Commerce.
They're out there pushing some gay agenda and they're the
Republicans in the state of Texas of all places.
And so people feel less and less like they have a voice.
These are really important spots they and and they're just being
abused and you know people do not feel like their voices being
heard. And the same thing in the House.
You know, we're talking about Rand Paul in the Senate.
Obviously in the House you have Matt Gaetz and he seems to be
the lone voice out there crying defending whistleblowers in a
meaningful way. Got Jim Jordan in some ways.
But Matt Gaetz seems to be the only one that's really
emotionally motivated about this stuff that seems like he is
really pissed off by the injustice.
And that goes also to the back end of things.
He's actually reached out to our guys.
He sat down with them and kind of explained what was happening.
And are we going to see Chris Ray prosecuted for perjury?
We going to see anything to that effect?
Because we talked about it yesterday, it's in, it's in the
loop today. We can actually talk about our
sponsor real quick too. We might as well.
Let's say just a quick thanks again to a Catholic vote for
sponsoring our program. And this will parallel right
into what we're talking about. This is The loop.
You can go to catholicvote.org, bring them up, type in your
e-mail address and your zip code and you'll get the loop just
like I do every day. It's a great e-mail.
It's a really nice format. You can click through it and and
and the number one thing they have on is from yesterday's
show, Anti Catholic Memo, not just from Richmond.
Here's the first line of this article.
The FBI Director quote may have lied under oath about the FBI's
infamous January memo from January 23, which we exposed
here first with the Tracy Beans that uncovered DC That was our
exposure. That was a Kyle Seraphin and
Tracy Beans push along with an unnamed FBI whistleblower.
We expose this thing showing that they were so-called radical
traditional Catholics. And the evidence shows that the
memo did not originate solely in that in that field office as was
discussed. In fact, it was multiple field
offices as you heard yesterday, Portland and Los Angeles, both
coast of the United States involved.
And I'm going to talk about what I think that is in a second
here. A couple of the really good
things in there. You can see Brian Birch is going
to talk about the issue. One loss, which we covered
yesterday as well, Biden voters, no fans of, I'm sorry, young
voters, no fans of Biden, which I think it's really funny.
That's a New York Times poll by the way, folks.
They found that 4% of respondents, 18 to 29, strongly
approved for the way that Joe Biden handled the presidency,
and only 32% in that age bracket said they somewhat approved of
it. That is some astronomically bad
numbers, but, you know, not shocking considering we're
talking about a man that's over 80 that falls over when holding
a bicycle and seems very interested in ice cream and
probably jello. I imagine he's probably really
excited about being night so that things can keep moving.
And yet he's just hanging out there in the White House,
getting money, bags of cash from China, all that kind of thing.
Good, good stuff. Shocking that young Americans
are not thrilled about that. I cannot imagine why young
people wouldn't think that that would be a great thing to have
leading the country. Maybe they're looking at the the
outcome of his two children and seeing like, Oh well, his three.
We only see two left right. You've cut one that was just out
of rehab and the other one seems like he likes to smoke Parmesan
cheese craziness. How how could you have such a
president that doesn't that doesn't enjoy that sort of
thing. So let let's just kind of say
that you can check out the loop and and we'll keep talking about
the FBI director piece here because it's it's, it's included
in today's show that lying has no results.
If you go do it in front of Congress, even though the charge
would be perjury, it would be false statements.
Does anyone think that Chris Wray is going to face that And
and here's the game and I can see Fauci playing it too.
They start mixing their words. They start playing with the way
that they are saying things. If you listen to what Chris Wray
said, he said specifically, and this is where I get really,
really antsy about these kind of things because they're not going
to be able to prove it, even though the man would have lied.
Let me put it this way, if Chris Ray was your teenage child and
you asked a question, was anybody else involved in this
thing that just went wrong? And he said, no, it originated
from, you know, one thing and it was this person.
And then you find out, well, there were two other kids that,
you know, add money to it and they came up with the idea and
this kind of deal, in the case of the Richmond field office
product, essentially one office wrote it, approved it, moved it
out, disseminated it. That's true.
But they use source work from other offices And so Chris Wray
is going to hide behind it. He's like, no, like it was
originated. Like I said, it came from 1
field office. There was one group of people
that wrote it out. Just because other, you know,
field offices are doing their jobs and they're out there
putting things out to the world, doesn't mean that they were
involved in that particular product.
And that was what you asked. But if you're a parent and
you're looking at your teenage Chris Wray, who's giving you
this line of BS, he's still getting grounded.
He's still going to his room. He doesn't get his his Sega Game
Gear. I don't know what kids play
anymore. What do they play?
A Nintendo Switches? Maybe he doesn't get that.
Yes, 5, yes. Five, No.
That's how you have a ride in New York, I think.
I think the PS5 causes riots. I'm not sure.
I don't do, I don't do gaming. But what I will say is this, the
guy is fundamentally being dishonest and they are going to
hide behind this like well, that's not the letter of what I
said. If any of you think that you
would be treated in that way, that you would be given the
benefit of the doubt, I've got a bridge.
I can tell you, I think because this is not the way that it
works. There are two tiers of justice
and those tiers are people that are in the political favored
party. And we've seen this over and
over again. And then people who are not.
And you're probably not, as you well know, as many of you have
said, if I had done the same thing, then I would be, you
know, facing charges. I would be having the FBI or
local law enforcement knocking on my door.
And Speaking of local law enforcement knocking on your
door, let's talk a little bit about what happened yesterday.
I think that we'd be remiss in not covering this.
Those of you who spent a bunch of time with me on a Twitter
space would already know this thing.
But let's let's let's dig into it.
There was an old man 75 years old in Provo, UT yesterday that
was shot sometime just after 6:15 in the morning local time
by the FBI on a SWAT team arrest.
I actually should be able to pull up in pretty quick detail
the the story about or the actual criminal complaint.
But I want to just touch on the major pieces of it.
If you didn't hear the the the spaces, I don't record them so
you're not going to catch them unless we put them out here on
the podcast and so let's let's cover it down.
There are two things that could be true at once.
The man could have been shot in a justifiable shooting and and
it could have still been a really bad tactic to use.
And I want to flesh that out and put some real meat on it because
I want people to understand that it's not a black and white issue
when the FBI gets involved with use of force.
You got some pictures below that.
Ryan's doing a good job. This is from Benny Johnson's
Twitter handle and what you're seeing is a kind of a heavy
settled guy. He was a Vietnam era veteran
from the United States Air Force.
He's carrying a a Remington 700 looking rifle or I think it was
an M24 is what he called it. This is a, you know, tactical
type rifle with a scope on it and you know a lot of people use
them for hunting or for target practice and so on.
There's a picture of him wearing a silly helmet and he's got, you
know, some goggles on and he's carrying an AR That is not a
serious looking AR to me. But, you know, maybe it looks
tough to the to the bad guys. I'm sure it played really well
when you try to present that in front of a a briefing to a
senior FBI executive and for some reason he's carrying he's
walking around with a gully suit.
Which gully suit rather, Which is to say he probably bought
something from Chinese that cost him 48 bucks on Amazon and it
looks like he's wearing grass. How effective that would be, No
idea. From what we understand the guy
was actually a pretty mobility challenged and needed a cane to
walk around. He weighed close to £300 and was
not in great health and was probably like many older
military veteran Americans, really pissed off about what
he's seen going on in this country.
Some of that has to do with the lying that the anti Fauci types
are involved in and some has to do with the weaponization that
we see the FBI doing. I'm sure all these things were
all in there. They're seeing, you know, his
posts were about people like Alvin Bragg on Facebook.
So I want to go into a couple of little pieces of this.
The nuance of this particular scenario #1, if somebody draws a
weapon on law enforcement, they are justified in making that
shot under the way FBI policy and the DOJ's deadly force
policy works. I have actually cited that
policy probably thousands of times at this point.
I've literally said it out loud thousands of times.
And I'll do it one time for you so you understand the standard
to which the FBI SWAT team will be held in the internal
investigation. And I do not think that this is
necessarily unfair. I think sending the SWAT team
may have been unfair, but using the standard of deadly force is
not. And so all of them here the same
briefing when they go in. And I've been in dozens,
probably 50-60 SWAT briefings and arrest briefings over my
time in the FBI. What it sounds like is this.
It says law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may
use deadly force only when necessary.
That is, when the subject of such force, that's the person
being shot, presents an imminent danger of death or serious
physical injury to the officer or another person.
That's the gist of it. And what we're talking about
here is imminent, imminent death or serious physical injury.
That means that they have access to a weapon, they are reaching
for a weapon, they have a weapon in their hand and they are
moving it. That is a shooting scenario.
That's how they're taught and they're not going to be doing
anything else. And you want that for the safety
of law enforcement. That is a a decent legal
standard. And yet, when you show up at
someone's house at 06/15 and I just want you to put yourself in
this guy's place, your £300, you move around with a cane, you're
pissed off at the government. He takes care of a sounds like
an adult child who had a disability and the FBI bangs on
your door. You're in bed and you hear Bang
Bang, Bang, Bang, FBI search warrant, bang, bang, bang, bang,
FBI search warrant, open the door.
Let's say you hear that. And that sounds like what
usually goes on because the 6:15 raid, they almost always execute
them at zero 600, like 0559. The wheels are rolling through
the front of the driveway. It also sounds like they used
the the battery ram on the front of a of a BearCat to punch in
the window. At the very least, we can see
from the photographs that were in the Washington, the New York
Post, and some others that there was a a window that was bashed
out in the front of the house. And so imagine you're in your
bed. You're trying to figure out who
the hell is knocking on my door. What is going on here?
You're confused. You've just woken up.
You probably had some rage tweets the night before.
Whatever it was or he was posting on Facebook is his
preferred space, apparently. And then your glass window
explodes through the blinds. There's, you know, blue and blue
and red lights. You have no idea who it is, why
they would be there. And then try to imagine, has
anyone ever knocked down your door before?
Has anyone ever blown out your window and done an explosive
breach? Because they threw flash bangs.
At least we know that they were flash bangs in front of the
window right there. Because we did see some video
from a neighbor across the street.
So he drops, he gets a flash bang, an explosion.
There's an enormous boom. There's your glass breaking.
And then there's guys with guns. I don't know.
The idea that you would reach for a weapon system is not, it's
not out of the range of possibility.
And so you've set somebody up there in that scenario to be
shot because there is no good reaction to that.
Like, maybe you have the presence of mind to agree that
you're going to give up right then.
But like, if the FB I's never been to your house before, how
in the world would you know how to react to the FBI?
You're seeing a picture on the screen right now on the rumble.
This is the front window. It looks like that that window
was very very, you know, aggressively breached.
You can see the blinds are sitting there pulled out through
the front, which tells us that something probably went in and
went back out. And then there were reports that
this guy was actually dead in the middle of the street.
And I don't know how that would have happened.
There could have been some neighbor exaggerating.
They said that he was left in the street dead for five hours.
Possible, but not necessarily true.
If that was the case, there's only like 2 possibilities.
One, he came out and decided to go out to blaze of glory.
We may find that out. There's not going to be any body
Cam footage, but there may be some some information that we
hear about that. Usually there's local police on
these things as well. And then the second possibility
is, is that that he was actually dragged out of the house and
they were trying to do some emergency medicine on him
because they set up what's called the casualty collection
point outside the front door. And that's pretty standard for
FBI briefs. Almost all SWAT teams will say
like a medic bag gets dropped out of the front step if
somebody gets hurt, usually are people, but if the subject was
hurt, you would drag them outside of the house and try to
treat them where there's open space and you can actually move
them. So, so here you have this guy
and what is his big crime? We went through the criminal
complaint last night and I'll I will paraphrase it for you in
pretty short order. I don't have the exact dates,
but I believe on March 18th he made a legitimate threat online
that is in violation OF18USC875, which is the Interstate threat
statute. And he said that he was going to
fulfill his dream of killing Alvin Bragg by going to New York
and taking a suppressed M&P 9 millimeter and shooting him in
the head and having a little bile of drug, you know, blood go
down. This is obviously a very violent
fantasy and I think falls probably pretty credibly under
18USC875. That's a legit Interstate threat
he posted online and he said he was going to do it.
And so we say does he have the means to do it?
He owns the guns. Does he have the motive to do
it? He does seem pissed off.
Does he have the opportunity to do it?
That one's probably pretty weak. The guy probably has a hard time
going and hiding in a a courthouse parking lot and or a
parking garage and getting out and brack.
But that was the plan. That's an actual plan.
You can't deny that. That's a legit Interstate
threat. And that launched an FBI
investigation that brought FBI agents to his house for an
interview. They mentioned the surveillance.
They said they were going to go out there and you know check in
on him. They tried to do that sort of
thing and when that happened, what we got was exactly what
you'd expect, what actually what you should say, he told them.
I said it was a dream, we're done here, Get off my property,
come back with a warrant. That was essentially the, the,
the things. And it's actually all written
out in the criminal complaint. Now that resulted in him also
putting another angry Facebook post up.
And that angry Facebook post said basically if the FBI still
monitoring my social media, I have my, my 45 on my hip and I'm
ready for that kind of thing. And so they can come back
anytime they want, which I guess is a threat as well.
So that's eight, that's 18 U SC115 was the other charge.
So you've got two legit threats. Those both happened in March of
this year and what we discussed in our space last night and I
had Steve friend there who was on SWAT with the FBI was a local
police officer. So he's got some good background
on it. Gerreta Boyle, who I think is
sitting in our chat still also local police officer, former
army, right. And then also was on FBI SWAT
and handled defensive tactics. As an instructor.
We had two really credible people.
We had George Hill sit with us. George Hill can see the back end
of these things. He was on the Intel side of
things that would that would launch these types of
investigations threats and things like that domestic
terrorism investigations. And and I've been on like I said
I've been in dozens and dozens of SWAT briefings.
It's what I used to do as a medic.
I would sit there and and get the spun up.
I'd be on the sheet. They'd have my name listed as
you know Seraphin medic. You know, this is my job
whatever what vehicle I'd ride and I'd ride in the SWAT convoy,
in our in our transport vehicle and so on and when we went
through that kind of stuff. The question is this, Yesterday
was August 9th and those threats happened in mid March of the
same year. So we are what, four or five
months away from that? Why would they wait so long to
go after? And that was where we got to the
last charge, which which was theoretically A violation of 18
USC 870-1871, is the threats to the United States President.
That is almost always handled by the United States Secret
Service. And I may be talking to our
friend Dan Bongino later on today.
Secret Service almost always handles these things.
So why was the FBI involved? And what I think probably
happened is, and we're just speculating a little bit here,
but it's under pretty good information.
There was one of two things that happened in that original They
opened up that case and they were keeping it open because
they were keeping an eye on the guy.
And it's an open domestic terrorism investigation that's
good for the statistical accomplishments of the field
office. It's good for stats.
That's a metrics thing. So that's just like a cop
writing out a traffic ticket. That's part one.
That's one possibility. And the other possibility is, is
something that's happened to me before, which is that you go out
there, you build this case, you're like, look, this guy made
a legit threat. It's troubling.
And by the way, he also threatened us.
We've got two charges. You bring it to the assistant
United States Attorney, that's the federal prosecutor.
And that person goes, that is a good case.
Yeah, we're going to take that to grand.
We've got grand jury coming back in three weeks.
So let's do it then. And then they get busy and they
start working on other cases and you're working on other cases
and they forget about you and they don't put you on the on the
docket and you don't get called in for grand jury for that time.
And so they move on. And once that's happened, what
are two months now you're outside of the the likely
probability of being able to charge that successfully because
you're going to go in front of a grand jury and you can say this
guy's an imminent danger and he's a big deal and look he he
made these threats and the grand jury foreman will say, well that
was in March and it's July. Has he acted on those threats
and. And then you go, no, he's not.
And then you have a much harder time of proving that case.
And so often times those things get shelved.
It's like, well, we'll just wait in case he makes some more.
Of course. Joe Biden was traveling to Utah.
This guy started making threats against the president.
Now you have an open case. You've got two potential charges
that are sitting on your little investigative docket.
And then you have the third one. It's against the president.
Normally, that would go to Secret Service.
The FB i's got the open case. You move forward with that.
And I think that is the most likely probability.
But here's the real, real thing. How many threats against the
president do we remember when Donald Trump was president?
I just want you to do a little mental inventory, and Ryan's
going to give us a real good refresher of it, I think, right?
Let's yeah, yeah, I got one queued up.
Whenever you're ready, OK, These are threats against the
president, and I want you to think about how many of these
people experienced the SWAT team coming through their door.
Whenever you're ready, you can roll that for me.
Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White
House. When was the last time?
An actor assassinated a president now.
I want to clarify, I'm not an actor.
I lie for a living. However, it's been a while and
maybe it's time. Well, I'd like to punch him in
the face. If you're not seeing that last
scene, that was the one of the great scenes that's probably
ever been filmed for performance art.
That is Kathy Griffin, who was cancelled over this in some
ways, and she is holding a theatrical severed head that
appears to be a Donald Trump covered in blood.
That's charming. What a classy group of people
those are. So you know, you have Madonna,
if you're not familiar with that, that that particular
quote, but she was standing there.
This was for the the Women's March when they were screaming
about him being elected. You've got a Snoop Dogg, which
was a video that if you you couldn't hear it was a rap video
in the background. But he walks up to a Donald
Trump mime clown very clearly wearing the long, extra long red
tie. It has the hair and all the
whole thing. He's wearing this clownish
makeup and he holds a revolver to his head and pulls the
trigger. You get the the gunshot sound
and there's a red flag bang that drops down.
Then you got Johnny Depp, who claims he's not an actor but
someone who lies for a living. And and then lastly, Kathy
Griffith. So these are all very famous
people, a very high profile. And I think that the, the fact
is, is that we would probably defend these things even though
they were an awful taste as being free speech that the, the
1st Amendment is supposed to be about, you know, inflammatory
speech and that stuff is pretty inflammatory.
Killing people in effigy is highly distasteful.
I think that if you had done that against Barack Obama, you
probably would have got the visit from the Secret Service.
In fact, there's some pretty good evidence that that happened
to people. But if you do it to Donald
Trump, you're protected. And we didn't see those sort of
things. I don't, you know, somebody
said, well, Kathy Griffin got a call from the Secret Service and
and my answer to that is, is a call from the Secret Service is
exactly the same thing as a SWAT team showing up, kicking in your
window and killing you in your bed.
So there is pretty clearly a different standard, whether it
be my friend Garrett O Boyle getting called in front of
Congress and then told he's a liar for telling the truth under
penalty of perjury, He told the truth.
And then you think that an FBI agent who basically has passed
polygraphs, multiple polygraphs and multiple full background
inspections to join the military to be clear, to do the
operations he did then to do the background check for being a
police officer. And then the same thing for the
FBI to get a top secret clearance.
That guy sat in front of Congress and lied over this guy
Anthony Fauci who basically has been sitting in government long
enough to know that there are no consequences for people of his
particular persuasion in any case that that to me is the two
tiered system and a lot of you are seeing it And so the real
question then becomes and this was brought up and I would have
never thought of this big tech is pretty strong on censorship.
In fact this entire episode might get pulled for all we know
from the YouTube channel that we have which we don't apparently.
Hold on let me look over here because I'm I'm I'm seeing it in
real. We have six people watching on
YouTube so if you're on on YouTube come join us.
Come join us over on on rumble. That's where the chat is.
But the the question is this. You guys have seen the
censorship. You know what they go after.
You know what gets shut down. Do you do any of you think in
real life you could go out there on a Facebook and post a bunch
of death threats to prominent Democrats and get away with it?
Is that plausible under any circumstances?
Is that even likely at all? Or did the following happen in
March when he made the first threat against Alvin Bragg that
was credible? Did the FBI send over what's
called a preservation letter? Preservation letter is one of
the things that you would you it's legal process that asked
them to hold on to the account and not delete any of the
information because you're going to need it for for a future
investigation or for an ongoing investigation.
And then you have either 60 or 90 days to go and write a
subpoena and that or a search warrant and you can get the
information from all that and then I'll send it over to you.
So we know how Facebook operates.
We know that Meta is a pretty leftist company.
They're based in Silicon Valley. They've got a bunch of people
down here in Austin that are South of me and the people that
work there, pretty left-leaning. And I'm pretty sure that they
are no fan of Donald Trump. And I'm pretty sure that they
would be protective of Alvin Bragg, who is attacking Donald
Trump. Here's a Here's an educated,
discomforting thought. Let's say imagine that you're
working at Facebook and you handle the preservation letters
for threats, and you get that like you get so many others.
And then you go look at this guy's Facebook page and you see
the thing that mostly would be censored, would be pulled down
and he would have been cancelled off Facebook.
That guy would be off Facebook. Period.
One of two nefarious things could happen.
One, the FBI could ask, hey, leave it open.
We want to let him do whatever he's going to do.
That's not something that's in my experience, but it's a
possibility right now because we don't have a lot of trust for
what the FBI is doing and there's certainly political
actors within it. So maybe they asked Facebook,
let him keep posting, give him all the rope that he wants to
hang himself on. That's a discomforting thought.
I think it's the lower the two possibilities.
The other possibility is, is someone at Facebook decides
we're going to give him that rope on our own because they can
control their own platform. And when they do that, when they
allow someone to go out there and put it all out there, you
end up getting more and more aggressive and violent and
selfradicalizing thoughts and all the things that happened
because people are seeing more and more ridiculous actions
happening in this country, multiple indictments of our
former president, state and federal, right?
And so this guy finally makes a threat because the president of
the president of the United States is flying into his state
and he's pissed. And so he mouths off again on a
place where he would have otherwise been censored and shut
down. Any of you think about putting a
threat like that out on Twitter on true social, You probably get
away with true social Put it out on Facebook, put it out on
YouTube, Record yourself a video doing one of these things.
You think if you held a severed Biden head that you're going to
be still platformed on any of those places, that they're going
to keep you around? Or more likely than not, you're
going to get shut down before it even gets any kind of
visibility. And yet this guy was able to put
all that stuff out there. They built a big body of
evidence of it. They have a nice long criminal
complaint with all the examples they show pictures of from his
social media, and they showed pictures of all the angry memes
that he was making. He's doing like these very
colorful backgrounds with just like text, and he's typing them
up. Seems also a little
sophisticated for a 75 year old guy.
Maybe there's a meme generator he's using because it's the kind
of the same picture, but they gave him an awful lot of rope.
Whoever was allowed him to get out there and say his piece on
platforms that we would expect him to not be allowed on.
And the end result is that because of the way the FBI
handles these sorts of things, because of the way that they are
calling people domestic terrorists, there is a big, wide
and almost unlimited justification for using SWAT
when a knock on the door may have been appropriate.
There's a couple of ways you can bring people into custody.
We talked about this last night and I'm going to share with you
guys as well, the easiest way to bring anybody into custody, the
most effective way, I believe, to bring anybody into custody.
And this is a way that is being used.
It's been used since the, you know, since the 90s and probably
before that. When you want to get somebody
into custody and they have the potential for violence, you
catch them when they are unawares, when they have their
hands full, when they are away from where they would have
weapons, You do it in a way that they can safely be brought to
heel. That is safe for your officers
and it is safe for the individual.
Those are the considerations Garrett used to say.
He told me that the, the, the qualifications you would have as
a as a patrol cop, where do you do things that are justified and
is it desirable? Is it something that you want to
get engaged in? And I may have that word
exactly, just a little bit tweaked off, but essentially,
can you make the safest decision for the public and then also for
the officers involved? And the way you do that is you
catch people when they're not ready.
I'm going to give you some examples.
This is going to change the way you pump gas, by the way.
If you are standing at a gas pump, mostly you are looking at
your phone. You are putting a credit card
in, You are getting your wallet out.
You are not in your car where you may have a weapon.
Unless you are carrying a weapon like some of us do, you are most
likely not going to have access to weapons.
You're going to be in full visibility, in broad daylight in
a well lit place. Even at night, there will be
light there that you could see, OK, and that is a really good
place to grab somebody. You approach somebody at a gas
station while they are pumping gas where they are doing
something else. They are distracted and that is
an advantage for both you and them.
They are unlikely to react in a dangerous and negative way
because there's nowhere to go. They're usually blocked by a gas
pump and a line. They've got a car.
You can block it off with two vehicles and people come in and
approach very gently and it's used very effectively.
It's been used in many states, and it's been used probably
internationally as well. Find people when they're
unawares. Imagine this.
You are unloading your groceries.
You're just kind of pleased you bought groceries for the week.
You've got a bag full of groceries.
You're putting them in the trunk.
You're not looking for a weapon. People come up, two cars pull
in, they come up really quickly and they jump out.
Or they come walking up from a side on a on a slow walk, and
they come up and they let you know, hey, you're under arrest.
We're going to take you into custody.
Go ahead and put that bag down. Are you going for a weapon right
away? Probably not.
That's a really safe way to do things.
Can you grab somebody at church? You can.
It might look bad, but you can grab on the way out of church.
They're probably not doing the same thing there.
You can grab on the way into church.
You can grab on the way to work. You can have a traffic stop
where you haven't stepped out of the car because you want to show
him something in the back and that's called a ruse and you put
cuffs on him. There are a lot of ways.
You bring an old man who weighs 300 pounds and walks with a cane
into custody where he is not standing around his AR15.
Where he is not going to grab a weapon out of the night stand.
And it's not 6:15 in the freaking morning with a glass
exploding next to him. And he doesn't know what's
happening because he has no frame of reference for that sort
of thing. We call that surveillance into
interdiction or tactical surveillance.
Interdiction was the the FB I's buzzword.
TSI is something my team did for a living.
That's like what we did. We followed people.
We watched people, We found where they were most safely able
to be interdicted and we would do it.
Here's another one. You follow MS-13 gang members.
Those guys like to use machetes. They like to carry knives on
their person. Do you know what they don't have
the ability to grab a knife with when they have two cups of
coffee because they're coming out of 711 and they're on their
way to their construction job and it's 06/15 in the morning.
So we would follow people till they stop to get something to
eat, to get something to drink. On the way into the construction
site, bam, there's two guys standing outside the door.
They walk up behind you and they let you know we don't even have
to draw a gun. Everybody is safer for that.
That is a much better move. And so when you do that kind of
stuff, you create an opportunity for people to have trust in law
enforcement. Like, hey, that was a pretty
smart move. Did you use a tactic or a
technique that made it safer? Yes.
Was it good for the public? Yes.
Did you still get the guy in custody?
Yes. Did you mitigate the threat that
was made against the president? Yes.
Until, that is, the is the problem.
But here's what a lot of people don't understand.
The FBI has a lot of money for their SWAT program.
A lot of money, big time. They spend 10s of thousands of
dollars on a monthly basis for the stuff, for both training for
simunitions, for specialty equipment.
They got cool guy robots. They're not even a reactive SWAT
team. The SWAT teams do not get called
out like your local Police Department.
If there's a barricaded subject, they don't do local law
enforcement. These are for federal arrests
only, which are not all that frequent.
In DC We would have like one a week and we had something like
60 guys on the SWAT team. They had two different teams.
They would offer an alpha and Bravo would go on different on
different weeks. I was, you know, attached to
both of them when I was doing medic stuff.
So I would see them both. They're out there running, you
know, one arrest a week. This is not a high volume call
out. This is not a full Time Team.
These are part time tactical guys.
They've got robots, they've got sophisticated equipment, they've
got explosive devices, all this other kind of stuff.
They can do explosive or I don't know if they can do explosive
breaches anymore. They certainly have the ability
to do what they call like hydraulic breaches where they
can snap the door frame. They got all these cool guy
tools and they want to use them and they want to justify these
budgets. And so how do you do that?
You send them out for stuff. It is a default position that if
somebody owns a firearm and showed hostility towards law
enforcement, it is almost guaranteed.
And by the way, hostility is like you wrote something like,
you know, F the police or you think, you know, we can't trust
the cops on on a on a social media post that they find that's
enough. That checks the box.
There's an entire, what they call SWAT matrix where every
single case agent in the Bureau who's going to do an arrest has
to run down the list, check the boxes and then submit that to
the senior team leader for that SWAT team.
And then the SWAT team decides, hey, we're going to take this
arrest and you can't do it. What could have been two agents
knocking on the door in broad daylight saying, look, we do
have an arrest warrant for you, you're on your way to the car,
whatever it is, because that's where they encountered him the
first time. We're shutting this thing down.
They could have done that. They didn't.
And it should bother everybody because what you have is
somebody who's dead and you what you have also, which many of us
are seeing. And this is the problem with it,
is that this is a different experience than we saw under
Donald Trump. There is a fundamentally
different experience of being somebody who sounds unhinged,
who's making dangerous threats. Those are dangerous threats.
They may not be protected, but it's somebody who did it under
the wrong president and he ended up dead for it, as opposed to
being a smart thing where you bring them in.
So it's it's not hard to see why people will be riled up about
this. And then I also started seeing
social media Twittering about it.
The fact that Elon must change the name for Twitter, by the
way, bothers me in a big way. But there's a lot of twittering
out there in the social media sphere about how this guy wasn't
a lone wolf. He wasn't just a lone example
that lots of people on the right wing are dangerous and and
unhinged and they are all motivated by violent political
rhetoric and right wing propaganda.
I don't think it's propaganda to call out what is real.
What is real is we had a guy named Anthony Fauci who made a
bunch of money, who lied in front of Congress and is going
to get a fundamentally different experience and is far more
comfortable with a referral from Senator Rand Paul, which is a
legit referral for his perjury. Because there is tons of
testimony of that guy and there's also physical evidence
to back up that he probably lied or Chris Ray doing the same
thing. The fundamental experience is
very different for people like Garrett of Boyle or Marcus
Allen. And went in front of there and
had these noncredible accusations thrown out there and
then breathlessly covered by the New York Times and others, the
idea that your celebrities are going to go out and make
threats. Those are pretty legit threats,
even though I don't think they had any intention of being
involved in them. But they are no worse than what
this guy was saying. When was the last time an actor?
Oh yeah, by the way, I'm an actor who who threatened the
president when assassinated the president.
That's the kind of thing we're talking about.
It's been too long. Maybe it's time, you know, the
whole thing is, he said. Maybe when you have these
hypotheticals, you actually get a lot of Shields and carrying up
a thing in political effigy. Like people used to burn
effigies as as political speech all the time.
They would make it, make a dummy, they would hang them and
burn them and so on. We saw it in Canada.
We've seen it in the United States the last 100 years.
It's a thing. It's ugly, but it's real and
it's allowed because we have to have free debate and speech.
People have to express themselves.
The the upside of being able to use violent rhetoric sometimes
is that they don't do actual violence.
And this guy didn't seem like he was probably that cable of it.
You know, how the hell is he's going to get out there and do
any of these things and yet he's dead.
He's dead as of yesterday because of these actions,
because we have an unsympathetic system, at least to one side of
the coin. And I think many of you are are
feeling that that is what's going on.
So we're going to leave it at A. Question for you, Kyle, on that.
Can I ask, can I ask one question with these cop
officers, when they're doing these things, what is the
difference between obviously a weapon, but what about one of
these guns that is like nondeadly, like rubber bullets
when you're shooting an assailant?
Couldn't they have done this with?
Without using lethal force, seems like those rubber bulls
are going to stop a suspect right?
I know, but couldn't we couldn't we get them or or make law
enforcement like do you really need to kill somebody?
Is there any a situation unless they have like an assault weapon
when obviously you got those in your car?
Couldn't we get police officers to carry non lethal weapons.
We're getting into the the deep weeds of whether you know what
tactics are allowed and not under DOJ's policy they don't
actually allow that. The the what they call less than
lethal options are pepper spray. That's one thing.
They can use a gas they can use like a CS gas which they can
throw in but that has to have special authorization So you can
drive people out for that or you can go and use batons and those
are you know basically not the most functional as far as rubber
bullets. That's not under DOJ's think
those can be just as lethal. There are areas that where they
use those, like Bureau of Prisons has access.
I think Homeland Security has access to them.
I think Bo Attack has them. There's a couple of groups that
do, but it's not an FBI tool. So in this case there are SWAT
teams that do. But here's the real question,
what was the imminent danger once you had that guy contained
in his house? And it's very easy, by the way,
I've been on surveillance of of terrorism targets where we just
babysat them 24/7 surveillance for weeks to make sure they
didn't do anything stupid. And we were prepared to react
and we never had to. I never once had to react to one
of these people. It was always contingency.
Did you see the video right here of these?
This was the neighbor film this. I don't know if you saw that you
want to play the audio so people can hear it.
Yeah. I'll I'll tell you what's.
Give me one second. Yep, we're going to re queue up
this video folks. So this is supposedly from the
neighbor's cell phone you're seeing.
You're going to re queue up with audio.
That's as loud as I can make it, Kyle.
Yeah, you're good. All right, so that was the
flash. Bang.
So what happened is you got a bunch of SWAT guys that are
standing out behind a BearCat or or I can't tell if it's a
BearCat or a pickup truck from that from that lighting and
they've got their lights activated so they've clearly
identified who they are. You hearing screaming I actually
hadn't heard the you did pretty good with that volume so you can
actually hear there's a back and forth going on from whatever's
inside and and they threw a flash bang and then that's the
end of the video. I think the the neighbor
probably dropped the phone and was probably scared.
But what what you've got going on there is a pretty standard
sort of call out. But they're you know The thing
is you can sit in that BearCat all day long.
The guy can sit and shoot at it all day long and it's not going
to do anything. It's dangerous to the neighbors
maybe and that may create something but we're talking
about you. You instigated with that that
flash bang which was clearly supposed to be a distraction and
maybe that maybe that triggered the guy to to lift up a weapon
or you know most people have no idea what to do.
They've never been hit with a flash bang, unless you've.
Been Why did they throw it outside the house?
It's pretty common to throw it outside of a window or something
like that. But like I said, you can beat.
This will probably be a justified shooting, right?
They are going to. Most likely I will.
I will be. I would be shocked because I've
got a friend that's on that team that wasn't there.
And he said it's very straightforward what happened.
And that means the guy probably came out with a weapon.
You know, he's probably still confused.
And it sounds like he was arguing.
I actually hadn't heard the arguing.
So let's go with that. He's yelling at those people
he's engaged in and you know, aggression.
He's decided he's going to, he's done with this 75 years old and
he's got a rough life. Maybe he decided to pick up a
gun, or maybe he was already carrying a gun and they were
trying to talk him out of it. But there's easier ways to do
it. And that's my point, is that
there, just because sometimes in the medical world we talk about
if you choose your doctor, you choose your diagnosis, you might
choose your outcome when you choose your type of law
enforcement engagement. Right?
A, a local cop approaching this guy at at a while he's out in
public would have been a very different scenario than what we
saw here. And there's no question that
that would have been an option. But the FBI doesn't have the
humility to do it. And of course they're
incentivized to use these SWAT teams, which cost a lot of
money. They got to send these guys out.
These guys spend time training every week.
So we got to justify it. And when they're all done with
that, usually they get to go and have breakfast, they go knock
down a door, they go drag you out, they put you in handcuffs.
It's over by, you know, 7:30 in the morning and and then the day
is over, go take a shower and high five and go to Denny's and
sit there. And that's pretty common and
that's a good six figure gig if you can do it for a team that
is, you know, part time tactical or in the rare instance like
this, you end up shooting somebody because your tactics
that you've done over and over again are tactics that involve
the possibility of dealing lethal force.
And somebody on the other end of it may pay with that because
they don't know how to deal with what you do.
You're supposed to go in there and blitz them fast enough that
they don't see what's happening. And it's supposed to be safer in
that theory that the sort of speed, surprise and violence of
action is what they call them, that the triangles of CQB.
It's supposed to make you go in and make it safer for everybody
else. But the most dangerous thing you
can do in law enforcement is go into an unknown home.
And the only reason you should be doing that is to be able to
protect life. There's no other really good
reason to go do that. They could have grabbed this guy
anywhere. And so that bothers me.
The tactic bothers me. What they did once they were
there, I'm sure it was all up by the book.
And that's and that's the real problem that we're dealing with.
We're dealing with something where it doesn't matter if they
were okay with, you know, steps CD&E because the A and B
decisions that led to them being there in the 1st place may have
been really, really misguided. And a lot of it comes from just
bad awareness and a non nimble organization that refuses to do
better techniques even though they exist and they have for a
long time. So we're going to wrap it up
right there. Let's let's let's say we
hopefully have this guest back. We had Moneypenny who was
supposed to talk to us about COVID.
Long haul. So we'll do it again and I'll
update the show notes for you guys.
Didn't mean to go into a rant about this, but I do think this
is something that's going to be bothering people.
It'll get swept under the rug if they can find anything else.
I also want you to just think about this for one one second.
We've got pictures of this guy social media right now.
We've got pictures of his, his bad tweets right now.
Does anyone remember what the manifesto said about the the
transgender chick that was out there shooting up little kids at
a school? Do you did you get that memo?
Did you see what that look like, Ryan?
Oh yeah, got it right here. Yeah.
So just the speed of the news and the addressing of the of the
story, it should bother you dramatically.
This is the two tier and it's multiple fronts.
It's media and it's government and and it's and it's a it's a
full court press in so many ways.
We've already got this picture out here.
We had this yesterday just seconds after he was killed.
We knew he was a bad dude, but we didn't have that stuff.
They didn't want to leak out the the footage of anything that was
going on in in Nashville in the school.
So that is that is something we should all be aware of.
Like I said, the message campaign sometimes is the weapon
system. That's what happens in an
information war. And with that sour note we'll
let you know that we have been streaming this live from Liberty
Hill, TX. Thank you for staying with us
through the glitches and some of the weird things that were going
on. Hopefully Rumble gets their act
together. We do appreciate it.
You can always join us on rumble@rumble.com/kyle Serafin
and we'd be happy to have you join us in the live chat.
Thanks all of you for sticking taking around those of you that
were there and we also really appreciate you leaving us a 5
star review on Apple podcast. The link is in the description
of all of our show notes. You go down there nearly 650
reviews so far. We are rated at five stars and
here you go. This is 1 from Haas Dresden.
What a great name. Haas Dresden.
Haas Dresden says fantastic. Top of the charts were the
podcast Five stars. This is such an amazing podcast.
First heard about Kyle when Dan Bongino interviewed him and
discovered this content later. I love the flow of the show,
actual content, guests, and especially how Kyle interacts
with the producers. Hey, how about that, Ryan?
There's some love for you guys and for for our emeritus
producer. Phil, thanks so much for putting
yourselves out there. And Godspeed.
Thank you. Godspeed to you, Haas Dresden.
Man, I love that. I just like, no, no, that's a
really that's. A sweet name.
It's a sweet name. Well done.
I will be like, I'll be hearing that in my name, you know over
That's like Snake Pliskin. It's like one of those names
that kind of sticks with you. We do really appreciate you guys
coming in here. We want to say hopefully we'll
get a guest on there. If you're not following Ryan
Matta you could find some stuff. I actually boosted one of his
one of his threats today. You can find him on Twitter at
Ryan Matta Media MATTA. He does a morning show that you
can do and you can also see him in the afternoon on LFATV.
So check out Ryan Matta Twitter. And then on Truth.
He is at Ryan Matta. MATTA, just Ryan Maddow on True
Social. Don't forget to like this video
on your way out the door. If you guys are going down
there, scroll on down. Make sure that thumbs up is
green. We really do appreciate you
doing that. Subscribe if you're not already
anywhere that you're hearing this and share this thing if you
like. We will see again tomorrow for
Friendly Friday. Ryan's going to have the day
off. He's traveling to go see some
wild stuff down on the Texas border, I think so.
We are going to have a friendly Friday and we'll see how we do a
solo and hopefully rumble cooperates.
I hope you guys have a great rest of your day and I may be
talking to Glenn Beck here in just a few minutes.
So if you want to check out Glenn Beck's radio or Dan
Bonginos, you might hear me a little bit further today.
We'll talk to you all soon. Thanks for listening to The Kyle
Serraphin Show, streamed live weekdays on rubble.com.
Kyle Serraphin Follow Kyle on Twitter, Truth, Social and
Instagram at Kyle Serraphin.