Prepare to hear the truth from a real whistleblower, an American
Patriot, here's civil liberties, enthusiasts, Second Amendment,
Defender and indefinitely suspended FBI agent.
Kyle seraphin. Hello my friends and welcome to
the Kyle serif and show today, we're going to bring you some
commentary on the doj in the FBI big surprise to our regular
listeners. But the real question is with
all this talk of a national divorce filling the headlines
and all of the right-wing pundits talking about it.
My question is is the political left capable of a single honest
answer or a real honest discussion about anything.
The big topics we're going to be hitting for you today.
The Washington Post very recently released an article in
the Last day or two about some background information on the
mirror, Lago, raid and I don't think it shows what they think
it does. But it's interesting considering
it is the Washington Post covering this.
We're going to do a little bit more commentary and coverage of
the interview that Bret Baier did with Chris.
Rea I'm going to call it the fluff interview.
The thing about this thing is that Bret Baier didn't do a
terrible job but once again, we can't consider Chris Rea to be a
conservative in any way, shape, or form.
He may have been a registered Republican when he was picked.
But the man has an awful lot of left if tactics when it comes to
hiding from the answers, I'm going to talk about Merrick
Garland sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Has some of the highlights. Some of the lowlights I took
kind of like a brief note of some of the ridiculous topics
that the Democrat Senators asked or rather just sort of stated.
They're sort of positions on things that are kind of silly
and we'll get into a couple of really pretty solid questions
that came out of the guys like Senator Kennedy, Senator, Cruz,
Senator Holly, kind of Bring it up pretty strongly.
This has been a strange Newsweek in a lot of ways.
I think that we are trying to be, there's a distraction going
on. So the final thing that got
dropped in this got dropped last night.
Some of you may have heard this in a Twitter space that I was
part of but the FBI published a cybersecurity strategy for 2023.
Through the White House, came out through this portal.
We're going to get Get down. I think it is all bad.
I've had multiple reporters. Reach out to me, ask for my,
take on it and their statement was it sounds like we should be
leaving the country. So that's not a good place to
start but that is kind of the world that we live in right now.
I want to start right away with this Washington Post article.
I want to get into it straight away and kind of dig into what
they think that they said and then what they actually said.
So I'm going to transition over here to our web page in our
viewer. And so the article is entitled
Showdown before the raid, FBI, agents, and prosecutors argued
over Trump. Okay.
Well that could be interesting. Couldn't it it's really not as
interesting as you think it is. I think it shows exactly what we
have all fought but it does try to like, I don't know cover for
the FBI in some way shape or form at the expense of the doj
very strange. Carol Liang, Lian egg, I guess,
writing here says an exclusive. Look at the behind-the-scenes
deliberation, both sides wrestle with the national security case.
Potentially far-reaching political consequences.
There's a picture of Mara Lago seen a bunch of those.
All right. So, let's just kind of dig into
this article here months of dispute between the justice
German prosecutors and FBI agents out of have to best
recover classified documents. Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago club
and residents led to a tense. Showdown, the end of July last
year, according to four people familiar with discussions.
Who are these four people? Why are they familiar?
And what is their motivation? I wonder.
What is it? They have to gain by sharing
this information. Are they trying to defend the
FBI? I'm getting the impression based
on raise interview. And based on the fact that we
are seeing this sort of like what we have seen the two years
do a public interview like this. I think they're trying to cover
for what they've been up to and they're going to try to do a PR
Blitz and I don't think it's going to work because you're
going to hear what I think about this thing in just a second.
This prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested, Donald Trump
was knowingly, concealment secret, documents and is Palm
Beach Florida home and hurts the FBI to conduct a surprise raid
at the property. Like why?
Why? What?
Why was there a surprise raid? Just on every level, I don't
understand this. They'd already been there and
inspected. So this is foolishness to senior
FBI officials who would be in charge of leading this search
resisted, the plan as too combative and proposed instead
to seek Trump's permission. So that would be a consensual
search of the property according to for these four people.
Once again, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order
to disguise the fact that Leaking stuff on behalf of the
FBI so prosecutors. Ultimately prevailed in this
dispute one of several previously unreported clashes in
this tent struggle between the two arms of the doj which is
going to be the obviously the doj prosecutors and then the FBI
blah blah blah, the FBI conducted on Preston raid.
We know this happened on, August 8th, they got more than 100
classified documents. This is the claim obviously
we're not going to see what they are.
Describing foreign government military defenses, including
nuclear. These.
Oh, we're back to the nuclear story.
That's good. Thanks, Washington, Post.
So starting in May FBI agents in the Washington field office,
sought to slow the probe urging caution, given the extraordinary
sensitivity. Well, would think?
Because we're talking about a former president here and this
has never been done. So moreover there's as Garland
testified and we'll get into that in a little bit but you
know, Garland basically said he signed off on it and agreed to
the search warrant. But but there's no real clear
reason why that would be the case because Why would the doj
get involved in a national archives case?
Hasn't historically and presence of always taken things.
Home once again this sort of get Donald Trump luckily Ted Cruz
did a great job like a really, really good job of just
hammering that point home and I'll see if I can find it in the
video, we're going to be kind of skipping around a little bit and
you have to bear with me because I don't have producer Phil.
However, back to this article here, some of those field agents
wanted to shutter the criminal investigation all together in
early July. I'm sorry, in early June After
Trump's legal team, asserted a diligent search had been
conducted and that all classified records were turned
over. According to some people with
knowledge of these discussions. Again, the some people think
it's just awful like nobody wants to actually go on record
with a source so they're willing to take the stuff.
It's kind of wild. The idea of closing the probe
was not something that was discussed or considered by FBI
leadership would not have been approved.
So, the senior law enforcement official, I wonder how senior
you have to be. I'm pretty confident that is a
gs-13. Washington Post would consider
any FBI agent. Senior official, but we'll
continue on Chris disagreements, Trend.
Stemmed in large part from worries.
I'm on the officials, that whatever steps they took in
investigating a former president, would face intense
scrutiny. Oh, you think really you think
it would have intense scrutiny? If you knocked on the door of a
former presidents house? This is wild.
Oh, and there be second-guessing by people inside and outside the
government, like everybody, like, literally everybody who
just doesn't have the get Donald Trump attitude, and, and don't
get me wrong. That's not to say that.
Donald Trump does. We have his foibles, I think
that'd be foolish first to sit there.
There's some allegations going around now that are trying to
impugn the honor of myself and my friends.
This is spendables as like these Ultra DieHard magaz.
Like no, we're just alter die-hard Americans and it turns
out that Donald Trump was a pretty good president and that's
not to say that he didn't have his faults, but if we're not
going to be honest about that. Like I'd prefer Donald Trump 100
times out of 100 over Joe Biden. That'd be foolish to think
otherwise like this guy's terrible, the current one and If
you think the Donald Trump would have signed off on a search,
warrant on a Barack Obama. I think we know that he didn't.
There you go. Whereas the Joe Biden
administration's got this thing done in the first.
What? Year?
Pretty incredible. So, they're worried about it's
going to look bad and they know that people would second-guess
it. However, the agents who
typically perform the bulk of the investigative work in cases,
I don't even know what that means.
Like agents do all the work prosecutors.
Sort of just like ask questions and then have us go find out if
I need something more and the prosecutors who guide the agents
were can decide on the criminal charges.
Yeah, they do. Do that.
Ultimately focused on very different pitfalls.
According to these people. Again, Anonymous sources on one
side Federal prosecutors in the Department's, National Security
division, advocated aggressive ways to secure some of the
country's most securely held Secrets.
Like no, they were not are most closely held Secrets, this is
absurd. These are not like designs for
a, you know, a battleship or a super carrier, who knows what he
took home, but I'm sure it was Conversations.
And it was, you know, this is this is chaos to suggest that
these are our most closely held Secrets.
It's like compared to what and who would the Washington Post
that's writing? This stuff has ever held a
security clearance or knows anything about it.
Probably very little. It's just it's embarrassing that
the this passes is riding in a formerly like fairly reputable
journalistic publication. All right, on the other hand,
FBI, sorry, I can't help getting distract you read the stuff and
it's like, I roll my eyes really hard when I watch movies about
the FBI and I watched law enforcement commentary and this
is the same thing. It's like my wife thinks I'm the
worst to watch a movie with because of this, but I'm the
worst. When I'm reading an article to
on the other hand, FBI agents in the Washington field office,
urge more caution with such a high-profile matter and
recommending. They take a Cooperative approach
rather than a confrontational approach, is weird.
I wonder if we had like any precedent of someone else,
getting sort of, like, a Cooperative approach may be
like, Joe Biden. Next, the Corvette.
This is like a like a, this is like one of the cards in clue,
right? It's a, it's Joe Biden with the
Corvette in the garage and the classified documents.
So, yeah, multiple different residences.
Got very easy cooperation. Didn't go and embarrass him in
front of the midterms probably influence another election.
This way, we're not talking about that kind of stuff.
Apparently, both sides. Here we go.
Back a quote, both sides were mindful of the intense scrutiny
that the case was drawing and felt that they had to be above
reproach. That should be the default
position by the way, for the FBI, while investigating a
former president, then expected to run for re-election course,
while trying to follow the justice department, playbook for
classified record, probes investigators on both sides,
braced for Trump to follow his own Playbook of publicly
attacking the Integrity of their investigations know, that's what
everybody does. When you say something that
other people just say, that's not what happened.
And Trump is not unique in that. All right, I'm going to keep
skipping down here. A little ways while the people
who describe the sensitive discussions disagreed on some
particulars. Okay?
So we have four sources but they don't even agree.
Sounds really good, that's not actually how you do
multi-sourcing as someone who's, you know, dealt with Source
reporting and you have to discredit things that don't line
up. So be it.
Let's get to the part where they start talking about the names of
these folks. So Steve D, Antoine, oh.
Who was the former assistant director in charge of the
Washington field office was one of the, the characters involved
in this sort of drama and it's interesting.
They claim the claim in this particular article, so I'm still
scrolling down through. It was that he was making the
case that it was too much. That this wasn't something that
we should be doing. We being the FBI, we being the
American people signing off. And with the FBI, does that was
his claim that this was The right move and I think that's
somewhat interesting. So we're going to get kind of
the conflict here between prosecutors.
So it says against that, batroc, the backdrop of what was going
on in historical problems and going after Trump and Crossfire
hurricane and all the other kind of things that we're going on in
the history, the blemishes that they could, they would be
concerned about. Maybe I wonder if some of them
were worried that Trump might win in 2024.
That could be a real worried too.
These people are career-oriented so against that backdrop brat,
who is going to be Who the heck is brat?
I just I just read it a second ago, sort of irrelevant.
He's one of the prosecutor rule teams and other senior National
Security prosecutors. So he's one of the main ones
including the Assistant Attorney General, Matt, Olson, and George
tosca's top Counter Intelligence official.
Whoever that is they met about a week prior to the raid with the
FBI agents on their Turf in an FBI conference room.
Okay? So here we're going to get it so
Steve don't want oh he's the head of the Washington field
office like I said, assistant director in Charge was in charge
of running the investigation. That's actually not very
realistic, although he probably had pretty regular briefings on
it. The dude is not running the
investigation, he's running the field office, which is to say
he's got him as the ad but beneath that is going to be a
special agent in charge of counterintelligence.
So that's the next guy who are going to hear about this guy
named Alan Kohler and then underneath that is going to be
an addict. I'm sorry a, an a sack which is
an assistant special agent in charge.
Then there's going to be a supervisor Below that and then
you're going to have the actual agents working cases.
So he was adamant that the FB, I shouldn't do a surprise search.
This is according to people that were quoted here, anonymously,
Dance 10 said that he would agree to leave such a raid.
If only if he was ordered to not clear who that would be, but it
would obviously have to be someone above the assistant
director level of the FBI, which is pretty high up to other.
People said dance, wanna refuse to do the search but said it
should be a consensual. We've heard this over they could
you know work it out with Trump's legal team and he
repeatedly urged At the FBI instead, seek to persuade
kokorin. I don't know who this person is
to a consensual. Search must be one of Trumps
attorneys. All four, people says this
tempers ran high brat raised, his voice stress that the agents
you know, could no longer trust Trump and his lawyers and
paraphrasing at this point because this is kind of boring
reminded them of new footage should get suggesting that Trump
or is it tourneys could be concealed and classified
documents that The Florida Club. What does this new footage?
Where did that come from? It sounds like this is the the
leak that we had a security camera footage D Antoine, oh,
and fellow FBI officials complained, how bad it would
look for agents with quote unquote, FBI and blazoned on
their jackets. Invading, a former president's
home. This is not good writing by the
way to, if they've said according to some people with
knowledge of the meeting according to the people who
knew. According to all four people
they've said this over and over again.
This is such a weak sourcing. It leads to week writing it is
what it is. The Special agent in charge of
counterintelligence and this is Alan Kohler.
Apparently was on the side of the attorneys.
Ask them to consider how bad it would look.
If they chose not to act that the government actually had
Secrets at Mar-A-Lago. So you've got this sort of like
this big issue going back and forth between these two.
So I did a little bit of looking on Alan Kohler.
I'm not going to pull up his webpage right now, but it's
worth noting that this is a guy who basically stopped working
cases. Like so many of them in, you
know, 15 years ago kind of deal. They just they take these these
people at the top of the FBI's food chain and they haven't been
involved in case work and at least over a decade on the light
end of things and they and moreover it can. 15 years or
more some of the time when they're up here, making these
really critical decisions. They don't even know what
they're talking about anymore. There's so far removed and
there's so fluffed up that they just have not dealt with this.
So I actually started to write a tweet about this whole article
because it incensed me in such a way.
I'm going to read you the Tweet because I decided not to
tweeted. I figured, let's screw, I'll
just share it with you all people, that that actually want
to hear it long form. So, allow me to read this.
It says, the Washington Post reports that the FBI adac and
the counterintelligence s.a.c. disagreed, Serving a search
warrant at mayor Lago. The lefties has as so
quote-unquote prove that the FBI is actually the bad actor who
wanted to resist the Trump raid and they are Trump loyal.
This is actually quoted in the article.
They talk about how it's actually like a right-leaning
Group which there are people who lean right in the FBI.
Generally speaking law enforcement goes that way right.
But the real story is that the corrupt doj may have driven the
train which is to say that the the prosecutors were driving
this but D Antoine OKO ler and all the actual agents who went
along with flying down to Mere. Hola go and went in search.
The president's house the same way that we would do to a drug
dealer. Like these are the real
problems. Any director with the spine
would have stood up against this kind of trash and would be
willing to resign over it. As anyone else should be in the
entire management line. But none of these people has
enough trencavel principle to be trusted with this type of job.
And Koehler hasn't worked cases. Mom, corrected here, I actually
wrote it down earlier. 2004 that was the last time.
This guy was assigned as a Frontline agent.
Working cases before he stepped into the supervisory Realm.
Is that not a problem to anybody else?
Like we're talking about 18 years, elapsed between the last
time, this guy was on a case and actually was the investigator
responsible. It's just seems insane to me.
That, that's the kind of person that you're going to allow to,
to make critical decisions about whether or not we serve a search
warrant and then in this incredibly political
environment, as well. So I says so the FBI is
hopelessly broken because the managers in the Frontline often
have no recent experience, And the ones who have done 15 to 18
years and then finally accept a desk at the end of their careers
are quickly ignored and thereby plast for what we call the blue
flamers. These are our corporate
climbers, the ladder climbers that are willing to follow
orders and only the people who have become, geez, I'm sorry.
The only people who become gs-15.
This is going to be our unit Chiefs are a sax.
Our section Chiefs, these are all the same pay grade are, are
the ones who've never said no to a bad idea and their loyalty to
the FBI to the bureau. Fully exceeds any
considerations, they have for the Constitution.
That should be a real. I'm actually going to interject
something. I didn't.
I didn't say I was going to earlier, but I'm going to talk
about something else in just a second here.
When we say corruption, this is spendables.
This is anybody that's willing to lose their job over this and
I'm going to clue you into two new spendables one that you've
heard of before little bit and one that you've never heard of
and I'm going to share about it for the first time tonight.
This is bendables are talking about loyalty to the government
agency, over loyalty to the purpose of the agency and that
makes this entire FBI's totally irredeemable.
All right, I'm done with these. Chronic quotes here.
Here. Let's talk about the spendables.
Number one, you have heard of my friend.
Garrett. A boil you've heard of him, but
you may not have seen anything about it before.
I'm going to pull up. This article right here.
This is an FBI. Sorry.
This is a Fox News article written by Brooke syngman.
This was released on Thursday yesterday for the specific
purpose of pre-empting the story that is being dropped by CNN,
which was actually dropped later last night as well.
I think they rushed it out and probably a Rolling Stones hit
piece that's coming out in short order.
Now, let's talk a little bit about Garrett, a boil and what
he did. Now, Garrett is my friend, I'm
going to be very clear about that Garrett.
And I've only met for probably a grand total of 30 to 45 minutes
in person. However, we talk almost every
day because he's one of, the founding members of this is
spendables, just like Steve friend.
Garrett is someone that is represented by an attorney and
has been basically told to hold what he got.
He went and did one of the testimonies he's The
Whistleblower that got bumped from his private hearing.
To a later private hearing. When we saw a Tulsi gabbard
speaking in front of the weaponization committee when we
saw Jonathan Turley, when we saw Thomas Baker, a retired FBI
agent, and we saw Nikki Parker who my friends and I
affectionately are calling FBI Barbie.
So this article, which was published on March 2nd, as I
said, says FBI threat tag created.
After Supreme, Court's decision ruling shifted to focus on
pro-lifers this whistleblower, says this.
Blur again, carrot oil so they out him in full force here.
I think his attorney probably did this although I don't think
his attorney is going to cop to it which is fine.
It says exclusive the FBI created a threat tag following
the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v-- Wade last year,
but it shifted to focus on pro-life individuals and agent
turned whistleblower told the house subcommittee on the
weaponization of the federal government, FBI special agent,
Garrett oil from the Wichita resident agency, which is the
Kansas City field office, Office also said the FBI made him to
divide one domestic terrorism case into four different cases
in what he described as an effort by The Bureau to show
that Congress had an influx of domestic terrorism cases.
We've talked about this a little bit.
I know Steve friend has been on our show and talked about this,
essentially, when you get a case that has four subjects.
Let's let's imagine a single criminal conspiracy.
It's four subjects. One guy's gonna drive the van,
one guy's going to Source the explosives.
The other guys, going to find the weapons.
Last guys going to do the shooting and you know, push the
button on the bottom, whatever this is.
Simple idea. When that happens, we can do it
two ways. We could open up a case on every
individual person but we don't do that.
That doesn't make sense. Because this one investigation,
it just has four primary subjects involved or even
secondary subjects. What the bureau was asking
Garrett to do and what he is alleged in his whistleblower
complaint here is that he had one case, the bureau asked him
to open four separate cases one on each of the things.
So the driver, the bomb guy, the shooter and you know, and the
gun guy, the gun procure. When you do that.
At you artificially inflate the number of cases by 400%.
You are falsifying the records that they would normally expect
would be just one case. And that's the way we normally
do it, but in order to hit those bonuses, to be able to hit the
metrics of X, number of white supremacy cases and domestic
terrorism. They're going to overdo it in
this case and they're going to push forward, something that
that's not real. And the result of it is is that
Congress goes, holy moly. We've got four hundred percent
increase in domestic. Terrorism in Kansas And when you
do that in 56, different field offices and all the different
resident agencies, so you show an overwhelming increase in
domestic terrorism cases, then the bureau ask for more money
and ask for more resources and they asked for the budget to
handle it and the Staffing to handle it, and the hiring
practices to handle it and all the equipment they might need
and the social media, exploitation, tools and licenses
to do it. So all these things are going to
come into play, there's a bunch of money that can be had when
you have enough work to do it and so it's the same amount of
work, any age. It would do one case.
This is a problem. So here's the story.
When these guys went in and did their testimony, and this is
going to be my friend George Hill, who's been on our podcast
earlier. I recommend you watch that
episode. I may have to do it again with
him because I think he's had a lot more time to think about it.
He's got a better microphone, so it'll be easier to listen to
Steve friend, who also is ahead upgraded microphone, that's a
big deal and at some point we'll get Garrett on but I'm only
going to do it when his when his council is prepared for him to
do so. So the thing that's quite wild I
think it's quite Wild is that you've got this?
You've got this secret hearing, right?
They were doing a transcribed interview like a deposition and
the Democrats side of the table leaked the information. they
leaked it to like the Washington Post, they leased it to Rolling
Stone and to CNN, That's a big issue.
And then that's why we have this article here.
This article is combating a leak that should have not happened
because that was not the terms under which these guys went and
did this speaking. Now, I know that the information
from all three of their depositions was released because
a hit piece, is going to be on all of them.
And the other fun thing I know is, first of all, these are
incredibly honest people. And I promise, you, they are,
smarter than the foolish attorneys who decided to screw
with them as you probably heard, if you listen to our episode
with Steve friend and the episode, I believe was entitled.
Your friend goes to Washington. So he went and gave us a debrief
on this because he doesn't care. Like, he's a public figure in
this point in a way that these other two are not.
And yet these attorneys, basically got it.
All backwards and wrong, they deliberately misheard it.
And the response is that if they continue to go with the stories
that they've claimed, they're going to put out there, they're
probably going to end up in a lawsuit for defamation because
these are not people who would otherwise be part of the media.
I know that friends job at the center for doing America.
They are more than happy to put forward.
He told me, he's going to get Of that Sandman money, which is
funny to me. So we're talking about a guy who
basically talked about pumping up the numbers and then he
talked about something that I wasn't all that familiar with
although it makes perfect sense. The FBI came up with a threat
tag, this is what we do to tag intelligence.
So when there's an investigation of some kind and there's going
to be investigations all over, the country will come up with
these threat tags. And this case, this one is
called threats to scotus 2000 or 2022.
The rest. Cisco does 2022 was supposed to
be the actual threats to the Supreme Court.
That was the designation And as the Dobbs decision was leaked
and prior to the final overturning of row, when it was
actually finalized. So you've got this sort of
strange thing where people are going out and threatening
Supreme Court Justices and then possibly additional threats that
were in line with the fact that the Dobbs decision was going to
be coming out what eventually became the Dobbs decision.
So here's what's really weird. Garrett's allegation was and we
haven't talked about Garrett's concrete allegations because I
didn't want to get into it until after he'd been able to testify.
But he believes that there was a perfectly reasonable threat tag
being used. I think so as well, because
there were obviously those threats, those of us who saw
people protesting out in front of these Supreme Court, Justices
home. We know it was out there.
So, this is a real problem, but the FBI pivoted because it's a
political organization that's trying to affect outcomes, and
they pivoted to do. A focus on people at pro-life
pregnancy centers and other pro-life activists who in the
testimony or not testimony. I guess and sort of the advocacy
that we watched Mazie hirono. So this is like one of the
dumbest senators in America, but Mazie hirono, got up and spoke
to she's on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She's talking to Merrick Garland and she referred to people who
are pro-life activists as anti-choice extremists, which
was a new one on me, but you know, No, whatever.
This is the whole point, they can't have an honest discussion,
they have to change the terms. They have to change at the
metrics. They have to pump the numbers
and in this case, they decided illogically, but with political
purpose, we've got a discussion that essentially the FBI is
going to Target pro-life people because clearly it's pro-life
Advocates that are going to be the most dangerous and violence.
Once you overturn Roe, which is basically been the goal of every
pro-life activist since the row decision in the These so row v
Wade gets overturned that's going to make Catholics and
other pro-life types violent, apparently because they got what
they wanted. Like it's a step towards getting
rid of abortion, particularly in states that were already
favorable to it with these snap a clause.
Okay? So that's the FBI.
So now you've got an agency as I told you where an intelligence
agency working here. We're looking at the FBI as an
intelligence agency but they're lacking intelligence.
We could say that pretty clearly so they wanted Garrett to go
into this. And as you mentioned, you know,
going to a pregnancy center would be sort of the opposite of
an abortion clinic and why in the world would be go there when
we would Jeff definitely expect that.
Those are not going to be the people who are mad.
It's going to be the people who are in the Planned Parenthood
camp and are out there. You know, from Jane's revenge
and some of these other Jane sent us, whatever the heck it
is. So anyway, so he got these
requests for collections. A request for collection.
I'm reading right here from the article.
O'Boyle says he was later. Given a request for collection,
he was instructed his confidential human sources, who
he said, was a pro-life person, a bunch of questions about
threats to the Supreme Court, totally illogical.
Totally insane. Request for collection is a
document. That's going to give you like
specific items. You're supposed to go out and
find, it's written up by intelligence.
People analyst, who sort of say, like, this is a gap in what we
know. So, go out there and find it.
And if you were living in a world of let's say Washington DC
and you wanted to go and say, you know, what, sort of what
sort of Chinese contacts are happening in the lobbyists fear,
we would go out and try to Meet up with some lobbyists and find
out how many people from the Chinese Consulate, or trying to
set up meetings with them? That would be like an example of
a request for collection, like there's a gap.
We don't know how much influence the Chinese have over lobbyists.
And so, we're going to go out and meet them or it could be
for, you know, a machine shop and find out how many machine
shops are being visited by people who espouse white
supremacy ideology. Like, there's a lot of these,
like, ideas of requests for collection.
So in this case, the idea that they would send him to a
pro-life Center Totally absurd, but like I said, this is the
sort of the thing it's classic. They said when he was asked
directly, this is during his testimony, if the FBI was using
in creating threat eyes threat tags in a politicized way, but
boil, my buddy, the real Gob you could follow them at Gob actual
on Twitter, actually, Gob actual.
He said, yeah, I do I do think that because that's what we all
been talking about. This is, the whole point is the
allegation that we've been making is that we are dealing
with a group that is Totally ideologically activated and they
are not following the facts. The facts would say that if
there was going to be violence, it would be by people who were
trying to keep abortion to be a thing.
And, and it ought not to be. So you know, when we're dealing
with these kind of troubling actors, they're dishonest and it
leads us to go like well does this person have credibility?
What they're trying to do? Just so you have an awareness is
they're attempting to discredit Garrett.
That's what the CNN. Is doing.
I just don't understand how we've gotten to a point where we
are so divided that they can't even have this honest
conversation, right? They can't even honestly go,
well, that does look, bad. And we're not always right?
And so, you know, maybe we deal with that, that's not what's
happening right now. I'm going to give you some
background on, who Garrett is for a little bit of reputation.
We're gonna have to step back in time a little bit here.
Well, there it is. I don't know why has that.
Okay, there we go. So we're stepping back in time.
This is an article that was written in May of last year, may
have 2022. Okay, and the title is, this is
on a local Fox station. Whistleblower alleges FBI
launched investigations into disgruntled School parents.
Now, if you've been following what I've been involved in, I
actually am going to share with you a full timeline of what I've
been up to in the disclosures, I did it for Jesse Watters and
they asked me if I could kind of explain you know, what are you
been involved in? Like how are you whistleblower
what does that mean? And when I did it it was it was
actually kind of shocking to me. Now, one of the people that has
been a partner in all this This and when I say a partner, I
mean, who has been actively pulling this information and
sharing it with Congress? This is prior to him being
canceled and becoming a man. He was a spendable beforehand,
but before he was actually suspended, Garrett is this
whistleblower? This is The Whistleblower, you
know, Garrett, O'Boyle who goes out and went to gym Jordans
office and brought them information, saying exactly,
which parents were at the school board meetings that were getting
targeted by the edu officials threat tag, which is what I
Initially in October of 2021. So Garrett's the guy that that
is responsible for this particular piece.
Now they wrote a letter, this is actually a Jim Jordan piece
here. Jim Jordan, rather tweet and it
shows that he has a letter that he wrote on on behalf of him.
And I believe Johnson and it's saying that they've got, you
know, all these questions that they got this email, that went
out that we sent over that I sent over and then they've got
concrete. Quotes from the investigations.
So it's one thing to say, look, here's a policy that has been
put out and it's a problem. And and I've done that it's so
much more powerful. I think, and I think it's the
most important part of the secondary is like, not only.
Did they say that? This is not what it means.
They actually use that threat fag and tag and they opened up
investigations like that's what the bureau does.
It's literally the Federal Bureau of investigation's.
So here goes this is quoting from the second page of this
dated May 11th. This is to Merrick Garland on
from And Jordans office. We have learned from Brave
whistleblowers that the FBI has involved in opened
investigations with the edu. Officials threat tag in almost
every region of the country and relating to all types of
educational settings, the information we have received
shows how as a direct result of your directive federal law
enforcement is using counterterrorism resources to
investigate protected, First Amendment activities, this is
always been the problem. We've had, it's a First
Amendment protected activity, number one, and the Second thing
is it very much appears that the Attorney General the United
States perjured himself when he said that they would not be
using Patriot Act tools or counterterrorism resources
because it appears that that's exactly what they did.
And that's a big deal. So now Jordan actually goes on
to quote some of the things that my buddy Garrity exposed and he
did this in a lawful way. One of the things you can do
under 5, USC, 7211 is you can directly go to Congress and
petition with whatever your grievances are.
In this case, it is a in infringement of and Amendment
protected activities by the FBI who is expressly forbidden from
doing so. So, here we go.
In one investigation, begun, following your directive, the
FBI's blank field office, it's redacted.
Interviewed a mom for allegedly telling a local school board.
We are coming for you. That's a direct quote, quote.
We are coming for you and quote, the complaint, which came into
the FBI through the national threat operations center,
Stitch, Line. This is n talk.
That's what it stands for and talk is the same place where all
the turn in your mag neighbor week, stuff happened, that Bond,
Gino dealt with. All right, allege that the mom
was a threat because she belonged to a quote unquote,
right wing mom's group known as Here, Comes mom's for Liberty.
Now Longs for Liberty also got involved with my buddy, Steve.
Friend. Some of you may be aware of that
and obviously there are on the there on the no-go list with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, lovely enough.
This woman also apparently was a dangerous issue because she was
quote unquote a gun owner as is your second Amendment.
Right? So now we are talking about to
Maybe three I would say it's three first and second amendment
protected activities. Number one, you have the freedom
of Association and moms for Liberty is something you are
free to associate with to, you are free to be a gun owner under
the Second Amendment. And the government is not
allowed to infringe upon that. So there's no reason they should
open an investigation because of that.
And the third, she said, some words like we're coming for you
which could mean anything, it literally could be We're Coming
For You by running for office. So without any further
information, this is pretty useless.
So here we're going to get into it.
FBI agent. Interviewed the mom because an
agent. Interviewed the mom, an agent.
Went out to the house of this woman with this terribly weak.
This is a phone call at best on my end.
Just saying when the agent interview, the mom, she told the
agent that she was upset about the school board's, mask
mandates, and that her statement was a warning that her
organization. Oh my goodness, would seek to
replace the school board with new members through the
electoral process. It's almost like, it's not even
close to a threat. It may be a political threat to
their job because they're doing a bad job in This Woman's thing.
In fact, I think that's the way we're actually supposed to
handle disputes in this country. This should be a big troubling
problem for all people. This should be something that
the left can get behind to because you don't want an FBI
calling and knocking, on your door, looking for a crime, for
something so simple. As I don't know what the lady
said, but if we're going to go after, you know, the on
preferred groups, here's another one.
The FBI's blank field office open an investigation.
Went to your directive and to a dad, opposed to mask mandates.
The complaint came through the national threat Operation Center
Stitch Line. Jordan really loves that.
That term snitch line. I don't know why an alleged that
the dad quote-unquote fit, the profile of an insurrectionist.
So, here's the thing, when you receive these types of
allegations, when somebody tells you that you fit the threat of
an insurrectionist, this is a trash complaint, and should not
be given any more credibility, you know, why?
Because that is not a serious. Statement, there's no allegation
or information of a potential federal crime fit the profile of
an Insurrection. So not even a real thing because
he rails against the government free speech First Amendment and
he believes in all conspiracy theories.
It turns out you're allowed to bleep.
What do you want? No thought police in this
country even though they're attempting to Institute it and
you're going to see some of that in the cyber cyber document.
And he quote unquote has a lot of guns and threatens to use
them. That sounds vague and not true.
That's all it sounds like someone who doesn't know
anything about guns. I bet people think I have a lot
of guns and I know people that have many more when the FBI
agent interviewed, the complaint because an FBI agent went out
there again. Here we go.
The complaint admitted that they had no specific information.
Oh, this is the complaint and I got interviewed.
That's actually okay, no specific information or
observations or any crimes were threats, but they contacted the
FBI after learning that the justice department, had a
website to submit tips to the FBI quote in regards to The
concerning Behavior directed towards school boards.
Well, ain't that something the allegation that when you open up
this sort of information to people and people feel like they
are empowered to go and address it with federal law, enforcement
of all things, and federal law enforcement is happy to go out
and, and address it as well. Now, you've got these ridiculous
complaints coming and you've created more work to sift
through and it's garbage. Last example, that Jordan Gibbs
in another case initiated at your directive.
The FBI is blank field office opened an investigation into
Republican. State elected officials, who?
That's not good. Over allegations from a state
democratic party official. Okay?
So now we've got members of One party alleging to another party
to the FBI. Really?
That the Republicans quote-unquote incited Violence
by expressing public displeasure with the school districts
vaccine mandates, as is our First Amendment right?
This is actually one political party, targeting the other with
law enforcement resources, that complaint also came in through
the end talks Niche line. This is bad stuff.
There were a bunch of others as well, just so you know, but he
highlighted just a few quick examples.
So, this is Jim, Jordan wrapping it all up in here, he's asking
to see all the information and materials. once again, this was
this was dated in May of 2022 and obviously was not complied
with unfortunately, because in the world that we live in today,
the FBI does not feel beholden to congressional oversight, they
don't seem to care whatsoever but I wanted you to have a very
firm understanding and a very clear idea of who the person is
that made this allegation who this whistleblower is because
there are going to be some smear pieces on Steve friend, who many
of you've been introduced to Through this podcast.
And you'll have a real clear idea of what kind of guy he is.
He's a great guy. Garrett is very, very
like-minded. Much more spiritual in some
ways, and much more. He's not nearly as boisterous as
Steve and I he's humble in a way that is, its kind of, its kind
of amazing. He's taking all this stuff.
He's a former infantryman, he was a local police officer and
then joined the FBI. Had a couple years of FBI
experience like a very short career three years.
I think before all the stuff came up and he gladly sacrifice
the career knowing that I was probably going to be the end.
We talked about it at length as he was doing these activities
and there are many more activities that he got
involvement on the whistle. Red.
He and I have a very similar pattern, a lot of the stuff that
I was Finding. He was validating on my behalf.
When people would bring things to me, he would make sure that
it was in fact accurate before we brought it to Congress
because we didn't want to have some false allegations to
discredit our capabilities. All right, let's talk a little
bit about this National cybersecurity strategy and we'll
end with a few minutes of Chris Rea because I've got it queued
up for a few moments. This is a troubling troubling
development. So the White House released this
Us on Thursday evening and it is a it's entitled, it's a
document, sorry, I'm forgetting that there's an audio here.
There's a national, cybersecurity strategy, stated
March, 20 23 is released by the White House and and this is my
favorite March 23. It's actually dated March first
but was released on the second. People ask me if that was a
possibility that it was released in response to Matt.
Taibbi, Twitter files drop yesterday and the answer is
probably, no, it was probably That it was actually scheduled
to go out on the first and then someone screwed up because it's
the federal government. You should always be comfortable
with the idea that it was a abject failure on somebody's
part and not some sort of malfeasance or some sort of
malicious intents here. So there's a little letter from
Joe Biden talking about why they're going to invest 65
billion dollars to make sure that every American has reliable
internet service, I have no idea what that's all about.
But that's part of the infrastructure bill I guess, the
national cybersecurity strategy, quote details a comprehensive
approach that the administration is taking To better secure
cyberspace and insert ensure that the u.s. is in the
strongest possible position to realize all benefits and
potential and our digital future.
I don't know why our government is involved in that at all
actually. And yet, here we go.
So they're going to worry about Bad actors.
They're going to try to stop hackers and they're kind of try
to do some executive orders on improving our nation's
cybersecurity, and they're going to do all this other stuff.
There's some really dark stuff in here.
So we're going to get into it kind of aggressively pillars
they have they have five pillars listed one.
Critical infrastructure. I'm not confident that the
federal government is really good at doing that.
I used to go around do defensive briefings when I was in
counterintelligence. So we would go around and talk
to people in the water business that would, you know, do water
processing and Fairfax County. I would talk to him electrical
grid, we'd go and talk to Telco companies that were doing phone
lines and cell towers and stuff. You try to get them to like stop
showing the Chinese or the Russian delegates that we want
to come and look at it all of our stuff because because all
those things were basically accommodating The federal
Workforce at their homes and shutting off like power, or
water, or trash service or any. These things would be a kind of
a big deal in the Washington DC area, but it's a big deal.
Anywhere infrastructure that, you know, keeps your way of life
going, big deal. Builder number to disrupt and
dismantle threats. Actors, we'll see about that.
Pillar three shape Market forces.
This one scares the hell out of me.
Shape Market forces to drive security and resilience.
I don't think so, that's not good.
Number for invest in a Future. That sounds like a vague
buzzwords and 5 Forge International Partnerships to
pursue shared goals. The resilient future piece is
going to be really, really troubling to you number four, as
you can imagine. So, we'll jump into them as we
go. There's some emerging Trends,
sort of, irrelevant malicious actors, are talking about
spyware and hacking, they're going to talk about government
actors. That's gonna be China.
Russia, Iran, North Korea, other autocratic states, with
revisionist contents. They want to use Advanced cyber
capabilities. It's A cheaper to rage cyber War
than it, is to do a lot of things.
The PRC the People's Republic, big eel doing their thing.
Fine. So be it, you know, they're
going to be a problem, but we already have agencies that do
this. So the path that they're going
to be talking about here. Pillars to organize a national
strategy, listen to this government speak.
Let me just read this line. This is the kind of stuff.
So they wrote 35 pages and essentially it does nothing.
This document does not think it's of no value is just sort of
telling you about How creepy it is?
The pillars organizing this strategy.
Articulate a vision of shared purpose and priorities for these
communities highlight challenges.
They faced in achieving this vision and identify strategic
objectives around which to organize their efforts.
You want to talk about stupid smart people?
I know my buddy Dan Bond Gino and I had a fun conversation
about this the other day. He said, somebody had to be
smart to be in the FBI. I mentioned, you don't have to
be smart, you just have to be educated.
That's not the same thing and he mentioned that.
That's the fundamental definition of the stupid, smart
people. Stupid smart people wrote this
document. They're talking about
rebalancing defending cyberspace, like again.
Cyberspace is like it's a nebulous concept.
The real thing that they're talking about is getting
involved in your personal business and there's a whole
bunch Bunch of dist National actors here.
The National Security Council, the national cyber director
office of cyber director, never even heard of that.
We're just constantly creating more and more, and more
government to solve problems that you are responsible for
yourself. This is like the tick tock
problem. Like, is it a Chinese spy?
Ware app? Yeah.
It is, it totally is. Should you be allowed to use it
if you want? Yeah, I don't care.
Why would anyone care? Why would the federal
government, have any business getting involved in that?
All right, so the pillars, we're going to move for Just kind of
objective established cyber security requirements to support
National Security Public Safety. It's just really difficult to
say whether or not there's an actual and mandate that says the
federal government should be involved in this.
I'm harmonized and streamline and new and existing
regulations. Yeah, right.
Like how about just they're going to make a bunch of more.
They're going to enable regulated entities to afford
security. So now they're going to be
giving away of our money. Making sure that people can
secure certain things scale, public-private collaboration
that scares the crap. Crap out of me, these
public-private collaborations are what we're seeing in the
Twitter files and I'm sure happened with other big Tech in
the FBI was known as operation bronze Griffin.
This is the the attempt by the federal government to circumvent
their prohibitions on First Amendment protections by trying
to accomplish these means and and using a private actor to do.
So, the problem is the minute you ask a private actor to do
these things. They are now agents of the
government and they are subjected to the same issues and
and And no go zones that the federal actor would.
So wear that the federal agency would rather this is not good.
These public-private collaborations are all bad news.
And and I think we probably should have to get rid of them.
They want to integrate, Federal cybersecurity Central's.
Of course. What are they going to do?
They're going to be bringing in a bunch of different agencies,
putting them all together, putting a bunch of money.
Everyone's gonna be doing the same thing.
They're talking about putting Department of energy, the energy
threat analysis Center, the dod's industrial base
collaborative. Nation sharing environment,
whatever the heck that is the nsa's Cyber collaboration
Center. Like all these horrible, things
National joint. Cyber investigative Joint Task
Force. It's just like acronym after
acronym after acronym, and they do that.
You know, they're always hiding things.
Acronyms are meant to hide stuff and they're partially for
convenience, but they're got these long names for a reason.
Objective strategy nomura number 1.4 is update federal incident
response. So, you know, here's the, here's
the big pieces on this thing. They want to modernize the
fence, they want to spend a bunch of money.
They want to put together all these different actors that are
going to be part of this, you know, governmental hodgepodge.
They want to move private sector entities involved and some of
the scariest things that are in this.
Are there talking about trying to regulate cryptocurrency?
Because it could be used to move money from ill-gotten gains
including things like spyware and ransomware.
That's not good. I'm going to, I'm going to scan
off this thing for a second will roll down a little ways but The
scariest stuff is when they start talking about basically
infringing on your personal freedoms with, like, using
things, like, like crypto because it could be used for
something nefarious. It's the same argument that Jim
Comey made in 2014 about the what he called the going dark
initiative, which was to say that the FBI and other law
enforcement and intelligence Community operators, should have
access to end-to-end encrypted apps and like, a universal
skeleton. Key to open these things up and
read documents and information that you keep on your phone.
And Ed, because two things. Number one.
There could be child pornography and you wouldn't want that,
would you? Here's the thing.
You don't have to sacrifice your freedom and a tool that is it
has a completely valid and reasonable use just because it
could be used for ill just because somebody could abuse
that technology. Like, you don't break the
technology because it could be used wrong.
You just have to work harder and stop people from using it
improperly and they did the same.
My idea they're talking about the same thing here with crypto.
The other thing that they said that end-to-end encryption could
be used as like hiding terrorist activity, which was a big
buzzword But just because terrorists exist, doesn't mean
that we can't have end-to-end encrypted apps.
I'm going to give you another example a just because somebody
could lock somebody into a room and never let them out and keep
them a captive. And now you have a sex slave or
whatever you want to call it. You know, somebody that is a
captive population, stuck behind a locked door, that does not
mean that we can't have locks, right?
It's a very narrow subset of people that are abusing the
Technologies, whether it be crypto, whether it be end-to-end
encryption, whether it be a physical lock these These are
not inherently bad, they can be used anything, could be used
bad. Same thing about a gun.
I have them sitting behind me. They're used for personal
defense. They could be used in a crime
but they're not. You don't get to take them away
just because somebody might use them wrong.
So this is part of the argument that they're making here.
And what they said is that they're going to actually hold
get this right. They're going to hold the
entities that write the software code responsible for malware
vulnerabilities. So let's say somebody finds like
a zero-day exploit in. In fill in the blank software
that you choose to use and they are able to hijack, your
computer for money. Under this strategy, the
software writer would be responsible, not the malicious
actor, not the person who wrote the malware, it just seems
insane and then what it's all about at the end and I'm going
to scroll down past all this stuff and I'll come right in
because I want to actually show you the text because once you
once you see it, you can never unsee these kind of things.
Here we go. So we're not dealing with honest
people, right? Buried on page. 27 of a 35-page
document is the following This strategy will take a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to expanding the
national cyber Workforce. Improving its diversity, of
course, and increasing access to cyber educational and training
pathways. I just don't know how you can
always shoehorn this diversity Ridiculousness into everything,
but they do it. What a skip down, another
paragraph, the strategy will build on existing efforts,
develop our national cyber security Workforce, including
all these different things, there's the nice initiative,
there's the cybercorps scholarships for programs,
there's a national Center for academic excellence and blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All these training things,
they're going to leverage ongoing, Workforce Development
programs with the National Science Foundation, other
scientific agencies to augment government programs.
Here we go. Go.
It will tackle here. I quote ready directly it will
tackle head on the lack of diversity in the Cyber
Workforce. I know you were concerned about
that. I know it was making it
difficult for you to sleep. You were thinking, man when I
use my iPhone and I'm checking out that new iOS update, was it
written by people who fit into the the following diversity
groups because this thing says, employers are not hiring from
the right talent pool. It's hiring from too small of a
talent pool direct quote, too small of a talent pool.
And from professional networks, that are not able to draw from
the full diversity of our country.
I swear, I thought it was just the people who applied for the
job that had the right skill set.
Know what we need are more women, people of color, first,
generation professionals and immigrants.
That's a new one to me individuals with disabilities,
that's really important. We need John fetterman, doing
your iPhone updates and lgbtqia+ individuals that are among the
communities that are underrepresented.
And you know what, if we're not representing everybody and
everything we are not okay, this is not acceptable.
Now, interestingly enough, the by demonstration keeps Hocking
how they have like, something like fourteen percent of their
overall appointed positions are coming from the lgbtqia+.
Communities. That's weird that seems like a
massive over-representation because those things people like
that. Make up what?
Maybe 2%. I guarantee it's less than five
in this whole country. So why is it 14%?
I think they should be drawing from a more important talent
pool of regular people? Wouldn't that be something if we
could just do that? All right, let's wrap up with a
couple things from Chris. Rea this thing is really scary
stuff. If you have not read the
national cybersecurity strategy, you can find it on the FBI's
Twitter page because because of course you can write because of
course you can that's what's going on.
You've got this sort of thing where the FBI is just going to
push it out. I'm going to see if I Actually
pull up this guy. Here it is.
Okay, so now I'm going to pull this little Chris Rea piece and
we'll do a little bit more commentary on this thing before
it adds, this is the end of the Bret Baier piece look.
I only did the first half the first 15 minutes so here he is
talking. My former boss get ready for the
Chris list. Will you be meeting The subpoena
requests for the house? Judiciary Committee for these
documents about the investigation into parents and
school boards. We're going to work
collaboratively with the Congress was that mean this had
longer is just like we have just like we have with the Congress
before it and the Congress before that we're going to try
to be as transparent as we can be.
But we're also going to be mindful of our own obligations
legal and policy that we have. What's your thought?
This is a man who just Said a whole bunch of words and
literally said nothing. We're going to be collaborative
with the Congress. No, no there, the oversight
group, they like their job is to tell you what they want and then
you're supposed to comply with it but he just said we're going
to do if we want to. Well look what I'll tell you is
what I told the executive management of all of our field
offices across the country. When I first read that
memorandum, I got to stop it again.
You ever noticed that when he's asked a question, He has as many
words as possible before he gets to the thing.
Like, what I'm going to tell you is that I told the executives of
the field offices who are human beings that have ears that are
able to listen to words that I said at a time when it was
appropriate for me to speak speaking, not a different time.
Like it's just it's all crap. It's all crap that comes out of
this guy's mouth, he's running out the clock on this thing.
As we mentioned on our last podcast which is the FBI is not
now, nor will it ever Were be in the business of policing speech
at school board meetings, anywhere else.
But we are not in the business of policing speech by parents at
school board, meetings, or anywhere else.
So, I did a little jump cut their, I just wanted to cut out
some of the garbage that was in his actual statement.
However, as we have just found the FBI is more than willing to
go out and interview and talk to and that's why it's so important
to know that the actual information this is going back
to May of last year. He thinks you've already
forgotten because it's March of 2023.
That the FBI did this. And now, the Whistleblower who
brought that forward, Garrett oil, my buddy is going to be
coming to the public light. Not because he wanted to not
because I was his choice, but because Democratic operatives
are forcing it on him. So, you know, the man's lying
fact All right, so I set these little like things up so I could
remember where the next piece is she also back then about the
investigation to covid. Origins is the FBI in charge of
the investigation of the origins of the coronavirus.
We certainly have a role in looking into this.
Not a, yes or no. What is the determination by the
FBI? So as you note bread the FBI has
for quite some time now assessed As you note, the FBI has for
quite some time now. Assess like number one, just
keep watching this guy's head. If you want to see what people
do when they lie, they move around a bunch.
They're very uncomfortable because they're saying things
that are untrue. This guy does this over and over
and over again. His head moves around, like a
bobblehead. I set it on Wednesday, it's
really uncomfortable to watch. When you've done these types of
work, like, I do interviews all the time with people, I used to
do it in a paramedic setting. If I watch people like this, I
would think they were on a drug or they were lying to me.
Me or maybe they were constipated or they needed a
catheter because they had a blood clot in the head and peed
and days like I've had that happen to.
This is a really weird thing to watch this man just doesn't and
then he's going to give you the list, get ready for a Chris list
of running out the clock talking about all the types of
employees, we have that, the origins of the pandemic are most
likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.
I might have cut out the list, actually, that's probably get
back for a second. You know, the FBI has folks
agents professionals are nameless, virologists
microbiologists Etc, who focused specifically on the dangers of
biological threats, which include things like novel,
viruses, like covid, and the concerns that in the wrong
hands. Some bad guys, hostile nation
state, a terrorist a criminal, the threats that the, those
could Pose. So here, you're talking about a
potential leak from a Chinese government, controlled lab that
killed millions of Americans. And that's precisely what that
capability was designed for. It was like a six-minute version
of saying, yes, we do assess that, the Chinese Lab Lake was
the most likely thing because the FBI has some capabilities in
that field. I just did his job except I
wasn't trying to run out the clock because I'm actually
running up on the edge of our clock.
This finish out the last little piece of this video, and we'll
wrap this sucker up. I should add that, that our work
related to this continues and they're not a whole lot of
details, I can share than art are classified.
I will just make the observation that the Government seems to me
has been doing its best to try to thwart.
An obfuscated, the work here, the work that we're doing, the
work that our US government and closed foreign partners are
doing and that's unfortunate for everybody.
Right. That is overworked - just last
year I mean I'll just give you one example here we got this
could be a less turkey division are New Mexico division in one
seizure last fall. Seized a million fentanyl pills
as if that weren't enough. Loads of methamphetamine,
something like 2 million dollars in cash.
Lots and lots of guns ballistic vests hand grenades.
It's have a couple Twitter questions, Ford Fisher?
It's what I'd really like to ask.
The FBI director, General. He's just like listing things
that They seized like every single law enforcement agency
does. It's so bizarre, they're going
to ask him here. Okay, does it, you know what's
going on with the January 6th and he's not going to give you a
straight answer. By the way, he's gonna tell you.
He's got a lot of faith in people or if it's so gross want
to still unidentified person planted pipe bombs at the DNC
RNC which diverted law enforcement attention and
resources on January 6th with hundreds of other January 6,
defendants, arrested over two years.
How has the bomber still not been?
What does the FBI director feel confidently?
That they will come? Someday be brought to Justice.
The only answers the second question.
I will say that I have enormous confidence in the team, the
dedicated team that is focused exclusively on that investigate.
Okay, he doesn't have confidence that they're going to catch the
person. He has confidence in the people
that are doing work. That sounds great.
I know some of those people I don't know if we should have
confidence in him at this point. It's been a long time, the FBI's
pretty good at finding people when they want to.
We find Grandma's that were marching behind the Velvet ropes
at January. 6th in the u.s. capital but we can't find this
and we can't find any of the people that were involved in
bombing pregnancy centers. Firebombing them vandalizing
them, it was over 100. We don't have any arrests in
that. That's weird.
So Chris Rea is not an honest actor.
ER it's worth noting it's one of those things that what you going
to do the man refuses to be accountable to us.
So I guess we should look at the the simple question.
Can these leftist have an honest discussion?
The answer seems to be no that's when I'm taking it away.
Just going to give you the quick highlights on what you missed if
you didn't watch the hearing with Garland, what I'm going to
do is I'm actually going to cut out all the Democrat pieces and
I'm going to post it on the to my Rumble channel.
So it'll be It's probably over the weekend, if you get bored,
it's like an hour and a half instead of four and a half hours
which is a lot easier. And I made a couple, I even have
a shorter one that just has Crews and haole and Kennedy.
You can watch them. Let me just give you a quick
summary of what the the left is Democrat Congressman or Senator
is rather said Senator Blumenthal.
From Connecticut said that he was really interested in the
Wagner group and what they were doing in Ukraine.
Go figure, Senator Whitehouse said that climate change is a
really big deal. There's Been a lot of lawsuits
in the climate change and we need to worry about whether or
not money is being appropriately, given to the
Ukrainian war effort and whether oligarchs in the United States
that have ties to Russia are being appropriately.
Penalized. And we're doing civil asset
asset. Forfeiture, Senator office off
from Georgia said, we need to be really sure that prisons are
safer and nice. He was really interested in
prison, safety. I don't know where the hell that
came from. Senator Coons says that violent
crime is up and we should prevent criminals from having
guns. Guns are big problem and
sometimes drivers lose their licenses because they're in debt
and they don't like that. He doesn't like that people lose
their drivers licenses, I don't know.
Mazie hirono invented a term anti-choice extremists talking
about crimes that happened in the 70s and 80s in the abortion
movement and the anti-abortion movement.
And so that's why you should go after Federal resources to
protect abortion. Clinics also domestic terrorism
and white supremacy or a big deal and they're really scary to
lgbtqia+ whatever General. And said yes I love calling him
General Garland. By the way they keep calling him
that Cory Booker talked about that Knoll he fluffs Biden says
buys doing a great job. Thank God that he's gotten cops
to stop doing choke holds that was also pretty gross.
No serious questions from the left side of the aisle, none
zero whatsoever. And none of them showed up for
the second half of questioning. So, they were two rounds.
They had like a seven minute round, and they had like a,
like, a two minute rounds or something or three minute round,
the only person who stuck around for round two.
I believe was That are White House from the Democrat side.
All the rest of questions were Republicans.
So you had all of your, you know, your best hits there, we
had corn and some of the others. So I cut out all the garbage
nonsense questions, all the fluff and I just put it all into
one, you can watch it. Like I said it's an hour and a
half is still really long but it's way shorter than the four
and a half hours. You'd have to watch to have
caught the entire thing. So I hope you if you want to
take a look at that, knock yourself out, I'm not expecting
a ton of views on that but it's available as a resource for you.
If you choose I spent a bunch of time because I wanted to make
sure I watch the whole hearing and be able to give You the full
take on it, so that it is ladies and gentlemen.
This has been the Kyle Surf and show, I'm very appreciative of
you watching. I will have a five star review
for you on Monday. When I have director, when I
have Phil back, we're going to a really neat guest on Monday.
I'm going to have John Mattingly, who is a retired
police officer, who was shot in the Brianna Taylor raid and he's
the author of 12 seconds in the dark, which should be not what
we're talking about explicitly. Well, we're going to be talking
about is how someone Hired a killer or at least was alleged
to have hired a killer to come after him and his family.
And the FB I decided not to do it because they were too busy
going after him for civil rights investigations into Brianna
Taylor's life. Even though he got shot, doing a
legitimate law enforcement action, while they had a search
warrant, we're going to get a story as you have probably
gotten used to. We talk about FBI malfeasance
doj malfeasance. This is obviously one of those
things we want to talk to people who are law enforcement Heroes
that did the right thing that's been done on.
Career. So, I'm going to be talking
about somebody who did both. I think that's really cool.
So tune in on Monday, you can expect that first thing.
It'll be a long form interview. I've got no time limit on it but
we'll be taking that shortly and getting John's story about what
the FBI has failed to do on his family's behalf.
And I think you're going to not want to miss that one, we
continue to get more and more downloads and and subscribers
we're really appreciative that. The five star reviews have been
pouring in and like I said, well will read another one but thank
you so much. If you do take the time if you
do Like what you're hearing, give us a comment or read one of
them on the show for sure, Phil loves it.
He reads. Every one of them, I read every
one of them and you'll get to hear your review.
If you put it out there, especially if you have some kind
of funny or quirky title on top of that.
If you will share this with your friends, will take all the
subscribers we can get right now, we are growing the base and
and that is always appreciated and put a comment out there if
you're watching on pod being or on Apple you can't do it but you
can always go to our Rumble Channel, watch the video.
A lot of people always ask me hey, how come you don't put it
on Rumble, it's on run. Folks, all you got to do search
my name and you'll find it. And if you're listening on the,
if you're on the rebel Channel and you're going to be a way you
could always find us on Apple, on Spotify, you get a lot of
listeners and downloads from iHeartRadio anywhere that you
find podcast. You can you can find us.
You can just search the Kyle Surf and show.
In fact, under Apple k yl, e, will bring me up on the first
Kyle that I've been able to see. So anyway, folks we do really
appreciate your listenership and I hope that you have a wonderful
weekend. We will catch you on Monday but
John Mattingly This has been the Kyle Serafin.
Show. I'm Kyle, Serafin.
Catch you after the weekend. Thanks for listening to the Kyle
Serafin. Show be sure to follow him on
Twitter and Truth at Kyle's seraphin.
Thanks for listening to the Kyle Serafin.
Show be sure to follow him on Twitter and Truth at Kyle's
seraphin.