Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an
American patriot prepared to embrace the uncomfortable truth.
Because this program has no time for comforting lies.
Here is civil liberties enthusiasts, Second Amendment
defender and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin.
Hello my friends, welcome to the Kyle Seraphin show.
Today is Tuesday, August the 8th.
It's 88. If you're Frank Figluzzi, the
former FBI assistant director of counterintelligence, this day
has vast significance to you in your white supremacy ladled
brain. But for those of us who are
regular people, it does not. It's simply a Tuesday.
And it's a Tuesday when our government is engaging in
malfeasance and going after regular citizens and infringing
in the 2nd or the 1st Amendment protected activities like the
freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press.
Not surprising to any of you. Before we get into my guest
today, we're going to be bringing on Steve Baker.
He joined me for my first and probably longest video interview
where we went over 3 hours, where we were going into Joe
Rogan territory. We had to break it up into three
pieces for you. And I will put the link below
when we finish the show so you guys can go see that.
If you haven't seen the original discussion, we have.
But we're going to bring it back on because there's been some
important developments. And one of the things that we
know is that the FBI listens to this podcast.
And if we are going to thumb our nose at anybody, we are going to
do it here on this show. So thanks for joining us,
everybody. Thanks for being part of the
show. Let me pay some bills real quick
and say thanks to my folks over at Catholic Vote.
You guys know that you can sign up for the Loop.
There's my copy of the Loop right there coming straight out
of my e-mail. I'm going to look at my phone
here today, Tuesday the 8th. We've got issue #1 is on the
ballot in Ohio. Folks, if you want to go out and
vote on that, check out the Loop.
First of all, you just go to catholicvote.org, put in your
e-mail address and your zip code.
You'll find out that you can go vote in Ohio on their
constitutional amendment about abortion rights.
Trying to get rid of that or trying to add it rather very
important stuff. Library director resigns over
pornography in Virginia libraries.
I think that's going to be relevant to you all.
The Boston Mayor is gaining Bass is banning gas power in city
work. Fantastic.
That seems like a real smart move by Mayor Wu, the Democrat
out there. And a couple of things about the
Gallup poll the the resurgence and that what we're seeing is
more and more LGBTQ plus people identifying in every generation.
There's a whole list of that stuff like that handful of
others, cashless society, the fears that we have Australia as
a harbinger for some of the ills that are coming down the line
and a new loop cast, which is their podcast.
So check out the loop. Go see my friends over there.
And of course, you can always join our our free the merch
type, our free the cup type brands.
Actually got his in his post office box.
I don't know if he actually went and grabbed it, but you can go
to Patriot coolers dot com, Patriot coolers.com with promo
code Kyle, Kyle or click in the show notes right below here.
You'll be able to do it. You don't even have to load the
promo code. I've actually got it loaded in
there for you. You'll get 10% off.
So if you see something like there, by all means, check it
out. Without too much further ado, I
want to bring on Mr. Steve Baker, the pragmatic
constitutionalist who has a locals account you can find will
add that to the to the notes. Steve, thanks for joining me,
bud. And I see that you are wearing
your team colors today. You're in Team CIA, apparently.
Absolutely. I'm I am part of the agency.
The the agency as it is known by those of us who work in the
government, would you say that you trust the CIA now more than
you do the FBI? I'll tell you what, the only,
the only possible rationale for that is that still technically
the CIA is supposed to work overseas more than here
domestically. So maybe.
I guess so, yeah. I've got buddies who are who are
CIA whistleblowers who literally told me that they have more
faith in the agency that they've blown the whistle on that has
fired them than the agency I used to work for.
That is amazing. That's great stuff, right?
Yeah, I mean, as far as I know, I haven't been moved on by the
CIA yet, but I have been moved on by the FBI.
So I have a real problem with your former organization.
Yeah, you and me both. All right, let me just start off
by asking folks if you are in the live chat, and many of you
are, if you want to add a question you'd like something
answered that Steve may have a unique perspective on, please
add it in the comments below. So scroll below the live chat,
put it in the comments. It's easier for Ryan to
screenshot them and bring him on screen later on, and we'll get
to those as they come down. And why don't we start off with
just letting people know a little bit about who you are?
So not everybody saw the original interview we did,
although we spent an awful lot of time on it.
So give people a rundown, maybe, you know, from your early youth
and then kind of how you ended up sitting here on the show
again. My my early youth.
Well, before I start that, I will tell you all of your
viewers they need to go listen to that first interview.
That was actually one of the most enjoyable interviews I've
ever done because we went pretty deep.
Yeah, we had a lot of fun there. Yeah, especially what by the
time we got to the third segment, 3rd hour, we were, we
were into some pretty deep esoteric stuff.
So I enjoyed. It that's true and and also we
were deep in the bladder territory where it was, we were
going to have a a time clock after the run out.
That's right. Well, my, you know, my, my
youth. If I have to start there.
No, I'm a I'm a lifelong musician.
I have been a trumpet player and vocalist most of my adult life.
I started touring when I was a kid.
I left school at 19 to go on the road and travel all over the
world and did that sort of thing.
In the process of that, I got involved with some organizations
that were doing work behind the Iron Curtain of ministry
organizations, missionary organizations.
I, I got involved in groups that were, you know, smuggling
printing press parts and, you know, tape duplicating machines,
recording the gear, all this kind of stuff to support the
underground dissident movement inside the Soviet Union.
And that's a long story in and of itself.
But then while I'm doing all of that and traveling back and
forth from being on the road and being home in my home state of
Louisiana, my father is also a private investigator.
So this whole thing of is in my blood.
It's a it's kind of Adna type thing that's been handed to me.
And then I started writing just as a hobby back in the 80s.
And then and when we by the time, by the time the Internet
came around, I was flourishing online, you know, started off on
CompuServe and AOL and then all of that became Myspace and then
Myspace became Facebook and then Facebook became A blog.
And here we are today, right? So, you know, that was that was
the kind of the genesis of this. But for most of my quote UN
quote writing career and political analysis and
commentary and that sort of thing, that was just a hobby for
me. And it wasn't until COVID came
to town and they locked the country down.
And particularly here in North Carolina, where I live now, I
wasn't allowed to work for a year and a half.
I mean, live music is my business.
It's what I do to pay my bills and it's what I have done for
most of my life. So I was suddenly not allowed to
work. And so after, you know, 2, two
weeks to flatten the curve became two months.
And then I realized it could be as long as two years.
I thought, well, I better, I better monetize this hobby of
mine. And so I kicked that into high
gear, started doing that. And, you know, it didn't really
change anything that I was doing other than obviously I was
obsessed with COVID and writing and investigating all, all
things related to that, that farce.
But when, when January 6th rolled around, that was just
part of my schedule. You know, by then I was writing
full time. You know, I wasn't playing
music. So I was, I was travelling the
country, meeting with my bloggers or my blog followers
all over the country during the lockdown.
So I travelled to 28 States and we would have meetings in
defiance, you know, we like, we would create speakeasies where
they didn't exist and we would meet up and.
What were those meetings like out of curiosity too?
It was phenomenal. You know, the, the, the very
interesting thing about those meetings, some of them were in
people's homes, some of them were in businesses that weren't
open because they were locked down, but they, but the owner
would open them for us. Some of them were out in, you
know, rural counties. So, so it would be outside of a
major city where they were completely locked down, but then
they would be in a county where the sheriff didn't enforce the
lockdown, which happened all over the country, as you know.
And so that those were the kinds of places that we had made.
And of course it was, it was liberating for everybody
because, you know, we weren't able to do anything back home
depending upon where your home was.
And so for most people, this was a liberating time to be able
just to go out and and meet with other people.
Yeah, isn't, isn't it so interesting that just meeting up
with strangers and sharing ideas was the defiance?
And in many ways it's probably a lot like what you were doing
when you were running around behind the Iron Curtain where
you're running around the Soviet Union.
I mean, you got to experience tyranny on on 2 fronts.
I'm sure you probably didn't expect it coming back home to
the United States, though. No, I, I, I never did.
And, and in fact, I'll tell you a quick story.
I was sitting in a a dissident leaders home in tall in Estonia.
This was 1983. You say in Estonia?
In Estonia, OK, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic back
then. And I, I was, I was secreted to
his home by just, I mean just like you would see in a movie.
I mean, they, they, I, I, I met in a cafe and then they, we
jumped in a cab. And then from a cab we got on a,
a trolley. And then from a trolley into a
private car and from a private car back into another cab.
And then finally after dark, we end up at this leader's home.
All the lights were out. The, the windows, of course,
were covered. And then after sitting by myself
in his living room for quite some time, he comes wandering
out from the dark backroom and he walks in, he sits at the
couch across from me and and he he holds up a pen just like this
is actually a pencil. And he says, he said here, this
is what the government tells us the truth looks like, he said.
But because we can get finished television across the the Baltic
from here, we know the truth looks like this.
I've never forgotten that and I never dreamed that I would be
living that today here in our own country.
Where the government literally is spinning truth and trying to,
to influence public perception. I think they've always done
that. So I'm kind of curious.
My, my dad is in his mid 70s or early to mid 70s and, and I'm in
my early 40s. And you're kind of in between
there. I grew up with a fundamental
distrust of the government. I think my dad grew up with the
opposite of that, but kind of saw that, you know, growing
during the Vietnam anti war movements and so on.
What was your feeling about the government's involvement and and
whether or not they would be truthful with the citizens in
the United States as you grew up?
Well, when when I grew up, I think that we were all much more
trusting. First of all, we may not have
liked the other political side or depending upon which side of
the aisle you voted for, but we were more trusting that, OK, all
right, the other guys won. But they're going to tell us the
truth and they're going to take care of us and they're going to
be, they're going to be somewhat forthright and honest.
Well, obviously we had our scandals.
Watergate was well, you know, when I was in junior high school
and, and, and of course then we, you know, we've had to go
through the end of the Vietnam War in 75 and then we had to go
through the Carter administration.
And then suddenly things began to, as I grew, you know, I was
growing older, I was growing more aware and, and becoming
more perceptive. I think of, of the reality that
one of the inherent functions of government is, as you've
mentioned before, it's just to color the truth.
They're not going to be honest with us on a, on a macro sense
by any means, as they, they can justify any lie and they'll do
it for, for secure, you know, national security reasons or
are, are, oh God, I mean, look, look at where we're look at,
look at what we're facing right now.
And in terms of what they're trying to spend for security
reasons. And then the, the other, the
other reality is, is that once you get a little bit older and
you become even a little bit more aware, you, you become much
more attuned to the fact that they're probably not telling you
the truth about anything. At at least everything, as you
said, has a spin to it to some degree and to some extent.
And that's coming from every side.
And that's been, you know, that's been the most stark
realization in my career. I as a, as a writer and as
someone who is now moving in the circles and meeting with
Congress members and meeting with congressional staff members
on a regular basis, you, you just don't know what is real,
what's not, and what's you don't know what's being taken back.
And you don't, you don't know when they look you right in the
face and tell you how serious they are about, you know,
following through on this particular issue.
You've made your impact. You've seen their eyes light up.
You've seen them drop their jaw when you tell them that you know
something they need to know. And then they, you know, they
write down your name and your number and they give it to a
staffer and say call him. And then you don't ever hear
from that staffer again. I think that's the big thing
where you feel like you've made the impact like a normal human
being would. If you and I had had that impact
made on us, then we would be making that call in a in a
couple days and and then there's nothing.
There's just no follow through. I'm get I'm getting somewhere
with this. So what was your relationship
growing up? You said your dad is a private
investigator. What was your relationship with
the FBI even either by reputation or or any
interactions with it until 20/21?
Well, you know, my, my perception of the FBI came from
Ephraim Zebulus Junior and, you know, in the, the the 1960s,
seventies television series, I grew up with that and that's I
am that old. And so they were the good guys.
And then of course, the untouchables, you know, Elliott
Ness, I was, I mean, I was all over that, you know, played by
Robert Stack. That was awesome.
So that, that was the kind of thing that I grew up with.
And my perception is, is that they were, you know, they were
the white hat guys out there. And that there was, there was,
if there was truth justice in the American way, it was going
to be performed and, or executed by those guys.
And, and certainly you, you thought of maybe these guys as
being a little bit spookier in, in the background there.
And then when I was working behind the Iron Curtain, I, I,
well, I'm, I'm the only guy that I know in my entire life who's
ever been strip searched by the KGB.
Well, you're looking at him. I don't know if you know anybody
who has been, but. I'm not off the top of my head,
but I've run into enough circles I probably could find somebody
as well. You're probably not unique in
that, but it's not common. Right.
You probably could. But point being is, is that I
was engaged in activities that eventually led to that.
Yeah, sure. That I certainly during that
time thought that these guys and the FBI were the good guys.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a natural.
It'd be hard to do a lot of the things that you were involved in
or think the way that we did, I think up until very recently.
How much has post January 6th shaded your your impression of
of what our government is involved in?
I have a new axiom related to January 6th that came afterward.
I I I have. I have lots of operational
working axioms in my writing career.
My first, my, my first lead line is always as a, as a basically
as a political libertarian is that there's the world we want
versus the world in which we actually live.
And I say that, and that's why I, I call myself a pragmatist,
is there is the world that we want.
I if you put me, if you, if I took the test, you know, I'm,
I'm probably a political anarchist, but I'm, I'm more
rational than that. And I know that that's just as
unworkable in humanity and human nature as is communism, that
neither of those extremes work. And so, yeah, that's the world
that I want, but that's not the world in which we live.
We don't live in a world where we can have open borders.
And of course, that's so, you know, that's a that's a
libertarian flag. Well, yeah, I would love a world
with open. I would love a world that was
safe enough that we could have a more open force.
We don't live in that world. So that's what that axiom means.
But the one related to January 6th that popped up since then
was that I will never again believe anything that I don't
see with my own eyes. But then check the videotape.
Because what you saw, and it's not necessarily what actually
happened to. That's correct, because I took
hours worth of video that day and it wasn't until after I did,
you know, 5 days of frame by frame analysis of my own video
that I just became aware of what was going on in that crowd.
Sure. Well, I had a book of quotes I
grew up with. It was like one of those toilet
reading books. You know, you reach back and you
read a quote from famous people. And one of them that I've always
stuck with me since I was a teenager was if you, if you want
to know what history is, go talk to two different people that
were involved in an automobile accident and then try to figure
out whether anybody knows what happened.
And it's something to that effect.
I'm, I'm, I'm butchering it in a little way, but, but essentially
that the fact that we all bring a significant lens to whatever
happened and we brought our emotions and our expectations
and our assumptions to it. And then, you know, then there's
what actually happened on the videotape.
Like you just mentioned, I put out a tweet earlier this week
and I think it got some traction because I think it resonates
with a lot of people. It upset a lot of people as
well. But one of the things that I,
I've been sort of musing on, you know, the, the sphere of Twitter
is like how, how condensed can you get an interesting idea?
What I said was is the United States I grew up in would have
invaded the United States that I live in.
What do you think about that? You know, be, again, being a
libertarian, I would hope that we would not have been dated,
but I think we would have probably been compelled to
respond and attack probably in a treaty we had with somebody
because of the malfeasance that the United States that we live
in today is participating in in their country.
So we probably would have had a had a treaty with somebody that
we would have had to attack. I just, I, I, I see things like
urgent fury. I see things like Just Cause as
sort of examples from the 80s and I was a little kid from a
lot of that, but I still have recollections.
I actually jumped out of an airplane at Fort Benning on the
20 year, 20 year, yeah, the 20 year anniversary of of Just
Cause with guys who jumped into Panama.
So I had jumped, you know, guys from my from my stick were,
were, were jumpers in there as well.
And they were doing kind of a memorial jump.
And I don't know, for some reason, it's just, you know,
when you start stepping into the Banana Republic realm and you
start delegitimizing all these, these institutions that we sort
of grew up trusting. I mean, even in the 80s and 90s,
I grew up trusting these things in the way that you probably
remember as well. And then and, and even things
like Ruby Ridge, even though they bothered me, and even
things like Waco, which my dad was intricately, you know,
involved in having talked to the guys inside the compound, it
still didn't shake me the way that I feel like what's been
going on with January 6 is shaking me.
I I have one of my closest friends in the world.
I don't remember whether we mentioned him in my our our
three hour marathon previously, but he's a wounded veteran, lost
an arm in Sinai desert. He stepped on a landmine on a
peacekeeping mission back after Anwar Sadat was assassinated.
What was that, 81 or 82 somewhere in there?
And we he was a Ranger and also 101st Airborne and he was
Lieutenant leading a Recon in the desert.
And he triggered one of those, what they call them bouncing
Betties or, you know, jumping Judy, whatever the hell it got.
So yeah, bouncing betties is what I've always heard of
called. He, he triggered that and then
he ordered his guys to retrace their steps and get out of the
minefield that they had wandered into.
And this was a mine that had been planted in the Yom Kippur
War back in 69. And so the circuitry had
degraded just enough that once he, his guys were clear and he
made a break for it to try to get away, expecting to die, but
he wasn't, he managed to get far enough away.
It didn't kill him, but it took his arm off, almost took one of
his legs off. He's 100% deaf even today, as
you know, the cochlear implants, tons of other, you know.
Medical problems related to that.
He's lost 1/2 of a foot from that as as well.
Let me just jump in to tell people with this, with this
landmine situation. Is it so it's a, it's a spring
loaded explosive device that lives under the ground.
It's buried down there. And then when you put enough
pressure on it, a human pressure, it activates the
spring release. So when you let lift a foot, it
bounces up chest high, waist high, face high, etcetera.
To make the most explosive, as opposed to blowing up from the
ground where you get a limited cone of explosion.
It gets up and and detonates so that it causes the most amount
of damage. Really nasty stuff, things that
people are not supposed to use in most war zones right now.
I think they actually had one of those things in Bad Boys too,
now that I think about it in in that scene at Guantanamo.
But it's it's a horrific device. And to be standing there
basically on something you assume is going to kill you is
it's got to be probably one of the most harrowing decisions.
And of course, heroic to have your guys walk back out of it
and run. But that's that's what we're
talking about. OK, so he, he lost an arm.
He's and he's, he's thoroughly banged up.
Yeah, he, I mean, he, he thought he was going to of course, die.
He he, he was air backed to Israel.
The Israeli doctors were much more experienced back in that
era with that type of trauma and they saved his life.
And years later, I mean, guys had an incredibly productive
life even, you know, as a double amputee and has I mean, he's
scuba diver, he owns 2 boats. He's had a, you know, a great
career otherwise. And he he told me when we were
watching some of the results of these, these Oath Keeper trials,
for instance, related to January 6th, and we were together and he
just broke down and he just started bawling.
And he was so upset by that because he saw what the
government was doing to these innocent men and the
manipulation. And he said this is this the
country that I gave up this for, right?
No, it has to be truly troubling and I think a lot of veterans
are looking in the same way. And that's what that was so
troubling about that particular day.
Give people a background and we'll then we'll dig into the
modern, the updates to it. But you know, what was your
involvement in January 6th and kind of the, the Cliff Notes
version or if you want to put the bullet points out there so
people can kind of do it. And then I'll, I'll refer them
back to our our long form because we talked about that
obviously at length. Yeah.
The, the, the, the real quick elevator pitch on that is that
is that as I said, I was now out of work in my other job.
So I moved my political analysis and writing and commentary
investigative work into the, you know, the captain's chair of my
life. And so January 6th was put on
the calendar. You know, Trump announced
something wild was going to happen on December 19th of 2020.
And me and another very successful writer friend of mine
from here in Raleigh, we decided to go up together and check it
out. I, you know, I had, I had no
idea what to expect that day. I was, I was thinking maybe
because there was all of this talk about the, the, you know,
the election potential election fraud and that they had all
these investigations that they do been doing and that there was
going to eventually be the release of the crack.
And if you remember that, Yep, thought, OK, well, if they're
going to release the crack and it's got to be on January 6th,
you know, we're down. We're down to the, you know,
down to the two weeks before the actual inauguration of
president-elect Biden at that point.
So if you're going to release a crack and it better be there.
So we loaded up in my car and we rode up to DC and you know, got
a got a room in Arlington did that whole routine went over
there the next morning froze our butts off and you know, 30 mile
an hour cross went in January Wednesday.
We, we were completely unimpressed with every person
that was on the stage, me not being a Trump supporter more so
than even my friend. And then we decided about
halfway through Trump's speech to start working our way towards
the Capitol building, which thousands of people were already
peeling off and doing that at the time, because there were
announced events that day. And this is something a lot of
Americans don't understand is that there were scheduled
permitted events at the Capitol, right to follow.
And, and Trump, he, he messed up even those because he messed up
the schedule because he didn't take the stage until an hour
late down at the Ellipse. He was scheduled to speak at 11.
And the 1st events were to begin around 12:30 or, or one at the
Capitol. And it's quite a long walk.
And the, you know, there was no car traffic open that day
because of the size of the crowds and it being a major
protest day. So the, the bottom line is that
by the time we got to the Capitol, it was already after
one O clock. Trump was still on stage.
He didn't leave the stage till 1:16 PM.
And we could see the, we could see the, from our vantage point
near the reflection pool, the peace monument area.
We could see the flat, hear the flash bangs.
We could see the tear smoke. We could see a rival of DC Metro
police, their, their fluorescent, fluorescent vest
coming down the steps, you know, feverishly arriving and their
sirens going off. And we're like, man, what is
going on? I looked at my buddy, I said,
well, that's where we're headed. And we, we raced it up there to
the West terrace. And by the time we got there,
there are the, the battle had already been engaged for some
time. You know, because the first, the
first barricade breach was at 12:50 to 12:53 PMI turned my
camera on at 1:19. So it was, you know, nearly, you
know, it was over 25 minutes after violence had begun before
I started filming. And then once I captured about
an hour's worth of video, not knowing that there had been a
breach now of the building itself, but there was now a free
flow of humanity going up the the steps.
There were those you've seen, the scaffolding that were
covered with canvas that had been ripped off by the
protesters. And now people are just moving
up as freely as, you know, in a mall.
And I finally joined behind several 100 people and went up
there myself. When I got to the upper terrace,
I look over and there's hundreds of people moving into the
building. And so I, of course, never saw
the breach of the building, never saw why the doors were
opened. But once that was clear that
people were going in, I joined in the line and went in.
And so I started the process of doing nothing more than behaving
as a journalist. In fact, I've seen myself on
Capitol CCTV stopping and taking notes.
I would, you know, video. I've taken backpack off.
I had AI had a I had my camera gear, I had a tripod.
I had, you know, extra batteries.
I had my man on the street microphone because that was what
I was planning on doing that day was interviewing people about if
the Kraken got, you know, unleashed.
I had no idea that this was going to happen, but I had to
you know, my instincts were to follow the story where the story
went. So I you can as I said, you
could see me in the inside the Capitol building.
I'll, people are moving around and I've, I've shut my camera
off and I've got my phone out. I, I'm standing against the wall
typing for 10 or 15 minutes. I don't even remember doing
that. Talking about memories of, you
know, in a right crime or something like.
That how, how, Yeah. What was the, the physiological
sensation of being there? What was the the either the
sympathetic reactions or you know, you know, what was your
your memories that you do have? What do you remember the feeling
of being in that crowd? Well, when the, when I, when I
first started filming on the battle line on the West terrace.
But my, my feelings were I, I had, I had no, and I, I would
say I had no identifiable emotions of any kind.
It was just I had one intention and that was to capture the best
that I could on film because I knew that history was being
made. You didn't have a team that you
were going, you know, go police, go rioters or go go Trump, guys.
No, because because I, I had, as I said, I, I didn't know what I
was seeing except, you know, because your mind can only take
in about 5% in a highly violent kinetic situation like that.
And then you're looking through a small lens anyway.
And then when you start getting hit by pepper spray and you
start getting hit, you know, you're downwind from, from the
spray. I was never doing anything to
have it aimed at me because I was near assaulting police
officers or attacking the the line in any way.
But down when you got a 30 mile an hour north wind coming and
you're on the South side of that, you're going to catch some
of it. And so I, I eventually moved
over to the north side so I could avoid that spray, which
put me in that position underneath where that
scaffolding was. And, and now I'm over where some
really violent activity is taking place.
And now the guys over there, they've got the, the rubber
bullet guns, they've got the, you know, the, the, the grenade
flash bang grenades, all of the quote, UN quote, less than
lethal munitions that they were using, including those big tank,
you know, tanks of pepper spray. And so I've got, you know,
camera in one hand and my eyeballs on those guys with
those big tanks of pepper spray. So because I, I do, I don't want
to be near anybody deserving of him pulling the trigger on them.
So your, your brain can only take in so much.
So there was a protective nature going on right there, you know,
self preservation. I did get hit by one of the
flash bangs. It, it exploded about 3 feet off
to my right. Shrapnel came up, hit me.
I had a bruise on the side of my knee for about 6 months after
that. So just being in the area, there
were, there were those kinds of concerns, but I didn't have any.
I, I felt no political oriented sensations whatsoever until I
left the building. Because when I left the
building, I saw the and filmed and video of the extraction of
Ashley Babbitt out of the building by the EMT units.
And I I'm the only cameraman that did capture that.
So many people will have seen that footage and, and it's out
there in lots of different places, as we know.
Well, let me just before we go in and talk about inside the
building because I think that's going to be critical to
discussion why DOJ is interested in you.
I think, I think we got a, we had a question that was put out
there by Jigsaw Massacre. One of our regulars says, did
you witness the flare being shot over the Capitol building at
2:45 three PM? And if so, do you have any idea
what its purpose was? 2:45 No, I was inside the
building. OK, So at that point you're
you're marching around inside. OK, fair enough.
All right. So you're inside.
Clear we got. We got to be really precise in
our speech here. I was not marching.
Yes, you. You were walking around and and
observing and and documenting things as a charm.
Infuriating is an actual misdemeanor charge.
Isn't that amazing that we are in such a strange, silly world
of that? All right.
My buddy Steve friend mentioned, and I know he you've talked to
him at length and, and one of the things he said is that you,
you're going to be charged for, for upsetting a bench inside the
Capitol. And, and and that was one of the
things that I think that they were really honed in on.
You've been interviewed by the FBI at least once that I'm aware
of. Was there another interview?
There was an attempted interview that was aborted prior to my
actual 2 hour interview in which my attorney and I showed up at
the field office here in Raleigh and they met us at the door and
said, hey, we may not be able to do this interview today.
And we're like, OK, they said, just give us a few minutes.
We'll be back in about 10 minutes.
We're on the phone determining whether we can do this or not.
I had no idea what was going on. So they went back in the back.
We sat in the lobby and they actually, it took on about 1/2
hour before they came out. And when they came out, they
said, yeah, we can't do this, you know, because of your status
as a journalist Press, where we, we can't do this interview
without express written permission from the US Attorney
General's office. I, I didn't even know such a
code existed in the federal code, but it actually does.
And so as a result of that, it took about another two months,
actually over two months before we actually did the interview,
because it took that long for the letter to, of approval from
the US Attorney's office in the negotiation with my attorney.
And then the final proper letter that was that we agreed to for
the interview. All right.
And then you've had recent contact.
This is obviously why we're back out here talking about this
again. So we've entitled this episode
The Subpoena. You had a text message.
It showed up on Twitter that you posted from your attorney.
Just walk people through what that was, what the emotions were
of getting it, and then what it turned out to be.
Yeah, 10:25 AM this past Friday, I get a text from my attorney
who and it's my Raleigh attorney, not my DC attorney,
telling me that he was contacted by the one of the agents that
interviewed me two years ago and said that they had a service of
process that they needed to get to me and did they need to go
through him or, or execute that right directly to me.
So he said I don't know, you let me, let me, let me check with
Steve. So he, he called me right up and
or I called him right back from the text and I, you know, what
the heck's going on here, man? He said I, well, I don't know, I
have no idea what it is. It's just they noticed me,
notified me service process and I said yeah, call him back, tell
him you'll take it. But ask them what the hell it is
and it turns out it is a subpoena from the District Court
there in DC demanding access. Not access, but demanding copies
of all my videos that I took on January 6th.
Now, that doesn't sound so ominous, except if there's a
problem. A couple of key legal technical
details you you might be intimately aware of.
The first thing is, is this is a grand jury subpoena.
A grand jury is not seated for misdemeanor charges, right?
Only for felony charges, even in January 6 cases.
You know your your former colleagues may SWAT people for
misdemeanor charges, but they are not sent there by a grand
jury decision. Sure.
The other problem with this subpoena, once it was picked up
by my attorney yesterday morning, is that this particular
subpoena is signed by the actual assistant US attorney who was
handling my case over 20 months ago.
Meaning after my DC attorney saw it and he called me up and he
said, OK, he said, you probably already figured it out, but this
is not good. And I said, OK, why is it not
good? And he said, well, three levels
#1 as you know, if there's a grand jury looking at you, it's
not for a misdemeanor, it's for some felony.
Second thing is the fact that this particular AUSA is the
signatory means that this is your case.
They're not looking at your videos for somebody else's crime
or, or case or, you know, and I said, OK, well, you know, what's
what's the third thing he said? Well, he said the other thing
that makes it evident that they're looking at you is that
is that if they were looking at you specifically, they would
have to subpoena only your tools of trade, the video itself.
They can't subpoena you on your case, right?
So they can't bring the suspect into the grand jury.
He said that that means he said that they are in fact, he could,
because if this was just a witness testimony, if they just
needed to know what you saw and you needed to authenticate your
video, they could just call you in to testify on somebody else's
case, Said The fact that they're calling your video in means
they're looking at you. So 3 steps, yeah.
So let me just break that down three steps.
You're saying 1 felony because it's a grand jury.
OK, I can get behind that. Two, you're saying that there is
it's targeting you specifically because the assistant United
States Attorney, the prosecutor that was looking at you
initially is the one who signed off on the subpoena.
And then the third is because they are not asking you to
testify. It is likely specifically about
you. They are just getting
information, data that you have and not your personal testimony.
I think, I think it's a fair, I think it's a fair guess.
That is still kind of an educated guess.
Obviously it's not conclusive, right?
But it. Is not, it is not conclusive
from the subpoena itself, but you and I both know that I've
been really hard on them for the last 20 months.
As, as is appropriate right now, there's some interesting things
in the subpoena and, and I think you have it in front of you or
you have at least the text of it.
Do you want to do you want to read some of that interesting
stuff? Because I think people will find
that to be the most concerning. Yeah, I I want to and I'm
absolutely going to be straight up front with this is that back
in our following my original FBI interview.
Let me let me I should probably lay the groundwork for this.
Is that following my original interview?
It was another month before my attorney received an actual
letter or e-mail from the assistant US attorney that was
assigned my case. Her name is Anita Eve, she's out
of Philadelphia, and she actually sent him the e-mail on
November 17th of 2021 in which she said your client, that would
be me, is going to be charged within the week that was her.
That's an exact quote. And we and we talked about it
just after that. Yes, yes.
So your client is going to be charged within the week.
This was November 21. So that's almost two years ago.
And then we did a media offensive, did press releases,
sent out about 200 press releases to media sources of all
sizes. And and then we, we, I engaged
my DC attorney that same week. I actually for the first time
had a Congress member, a senator call me Senator Ron Johnson
called me on Tuesday night of that week and asked how he could
help. That's how, that's how fast the
word got out. And and then and then on the
follow, the Monday following Thanksgiving of 2021, my new
attorney who is a 22 year former federal prosecutor himself, he
contacted Anita Eve who is with has acquaintance with and sent
her an e-mail. First things that I'm now
representing Mr. Baker and would love to talk.
And then she didn't respond. So he placed a phone call to her
on the Monday after Thanksgiving.
She did not respond and we never heard from them again for 20
months. Over 20 months has passed until
this Friday and they all all of a sudden popped up again.
Now you, yeah. And, and you've had something of
an obsession about January 6th since then, I think rightly so.
Can you talk about some of the things that you've been digging
into in the in the interim that may have triggered some some
animosity from DOJ? Well, first of all, if, if, if
you start in my, my earliest work, I was certainly looking at
some of the those odd bird characters in the crowd who
nobody been able to figure out who they are yet.
You know, there's a lot. I spent a lot of time obsessing
over the interesting unindicted provocateurs that were in the
crowd and have written stories about some, some have who have
been identified since and some who haven't.
Some who have been identified and are still not arrested.
Some who have been identified and are now on the Lam overseas.
Think things of that nature. And so then of course, it ended
up as my investigative trails naturally developed, I ended up
in relationship with quite a few of the Capitol Police officers,
ended up developing whistleblowers out of the
Capitol Police, Some who have actually come out and become
whistleblowers and then others of course, who are still unnamed
sources that would would come out if they genuinely believe
they would get protection for for doing so.
What do they think will happen? Out of curiosity, what's that?
What, what do they think will happen if they come and speak
out and and what do they base that on from your every?
Single one of them who has either come out or not, says our
lives will be destroyed. Destroyed.
And this is despite the fact that in the last two weeks,
there's been two separate House Administration Committee
meetings in which the existing House existing Capitol Police
Board, as well as the new police chief have both promised the
country. You know, right there on C-SPAN,
right, come hang out right out of, you know, the, the, the, the
hearing rooms that whistleblowers will be
respected. They will be protected.
And that is of utmost importance to them to be sure that the
rights and the protections and the procedures are followed for
capital whistleblowers. To which, of course, I get on
the phone with the acquaintances that I've made within both
retired and otherwise within the United States Capitol Police,
and they all had exactly the same word for what those men
said in those hearing rooms. Bullshit.
Yeah, it sounds a lot like what Chris Wray said.
Yeah, I don't. And I and I and I don't have to
send them a script. That's the first phrase that
comes out of their mouth. Yeah.
And so nobody has any faith in the whistleblower protections
because we know there's no teeth in them.
And I'm I'm assuming they're seeing what's happened to other
people. They've seen what's happened to
you guys. They've seen the, you know, that
they've seen the weaponization committee hearings in the way
that they were treated, obviously, particularly by the,
the Democrats on that committee, but also how you guys have been
treated otherwise. They've seen the IRS
whistleblowers and how they were treated.
They, I mean, look, even even the, the, the Twitter Files
guys, you know, Taibbi and Shellenberger and all they there
to have to have congressman calling them so-called
journalists. Right.
You know, and and and I'm like, hello, you know, me too.
Right. About a me too movement right
now. And, and so these are the, these
are the kinds of things that they're, they're that those guys
are up against. And then I don't know where we
left off on, on my particular story here getting to where we
are today. But when we got the, when I,
when I got the, Oh no, I've got to, I've got to go back to, I've
got to go back to November of 21 because there was an exchange
between my attorney, my Raleigh attorney and this assistant US
attorney. And part of that exchange was,
was when my press release went out on the Monday of
Thanksgiving week. That went out at 9:00 AM on
Monday morning, Thanksgiving of 2021 by 115.
She already had a copy of the press release because she's
monitoring my comms or somebody is sure and she sent a copy of
that press release to my attorney and said we're not
happy about this. To which my return, my attorney
responded, well, why are you saying that my clients are forgo
forgo his First Amendment right to talk about the persecution
that he's potentially about to undergo from the federal
government? To which she responded and said,
no, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that a judge who
eventually handles his case will not look favorably upon this.
And so I'm just, you know, concerned for him.
Let's say let's hang in that little space for just a moment,
if you would. All right.
So the First Amendment says that Congress can make no law that
bridges our our freedom of speech and assembly and the
press and so on, right? And so we have this belief that
the government is not supposed to weigh in on that arena.
And yet over and over, that's what we see.
Like there's no other way around it.
The FBI is involved in First Amendment protected activities,
whether it's going after, you know, parents at school board
meetings who are speaking out and have that right or people
that are in a Catholic Church that want to do the Latin Mass.
And and that's their, you know, they they should be free from
government intervention or journalists who are engaging in
a traditionally protected activity of covering newsworthy
events. I mean, was there ever a time
that you recall journalists were being prosecuted for being,
let's say, on the wrong side of a riot when they were capturing
footage of said riot? No.
And, and of course, just being a journalist is not carte blanche
to be anywhere at any time, you know, whether whether we're
talking about state law as it applies to journalistic
activities or federal law, you, you do in fact not have the
right to cross a restricted area line or prior or to enter a
private facility from whoever owns that, you know, that that
property. And, and the same thing is true
of even if it's an arbitrary restriction at the Capitol that
day. I mean, they were under quote UN
quote, COVID protocols. So technically the Capitol was
not open to the public. And then technically, even
though the Capitol Police had issued permits for protest on
the lawns and indeed on the steps of the Capitol, which were
then set up arbitrarily inside restricted spaces, it still
doesn't technically give a journalist a right to access
there. On the other hand, as is
adjudicated, you know, innumerable times, both state
and federally, is that when a journalist does safely and
behaving themselves professionally does follow a, a,
a riot, a crowd or or a crime scene into a restricted area,
they're generally, it's like, OK, you know, we understand why.
There's that kind of newsworthy exception that has always.
Sort of existed exactly. And not and not and.
And there are exceptions to that as well.
There are times when their journalists have been prosecuted
for for trespassing. Sure.
Now one of my acquaintances is Bill Shipley, who's been
defending a lot of January Sixers and has taken on and set
up sort of legal defense for them.
Former federal prosecutor has articulated the following.
And I think it, I think it's worth noting that in his view,
and I, and I think it's the right view, the federal
government doesn't have any skin in the outcome of a prosecution
that people like me who did my old job, their job is to go out
and uncover whatever truth it is, build whatever the strongest
case it is, including exculpatory evidence, if if that
exists. And they are supposed to put
that out. And the judge's job is to
mediate things fairly and to make sure that they are in, you
know, consistent due processes is done.
And the prosecutor's job is to mount a credible prosecution.
And the defense's job is to make the best defense possible.
And the jury's job is to sort out which is true, which is
false, and whether it meets the standard as given by pattern
jury instructions. And nobody really has any skin
of the outcome. The outcome is sort of supposed
to be outside of the emotional realm of whether or not we won
or we lost. It's not about that sort of
thing. Or the financial realm.
All those things are not supposed to really come into it.
There's not a punishment aspect of the of the prosecution.
We don't really we're supposed to be agnostic in in the way
that the the process is meted out.
In fact, the government's only interest according to Bill
Shipley, and I think it's very, very interesting, is that fair
process is supposed to be done. That's the government's primary
interest. The rest of it like the outcome,
you know, guilty, not guilty, acquitted, mistrial, hung jury,
all these things are are not really part of the government's
interest because why would it care the government.
Exactly if, if it is indeed the Department of Justice, then that
should be the only end goal. That should be the only end
game, right? That's not what I have seen in
these January 6 trials. I have seen first hand with my
own eyes sitting in the courtroom.
I have seen the deliberate manipulation of evidence.
I've seen the deliberate expungement or the, the, the
courts block the judges in a highly prejudicial way, allowing
inculpatory evidence and excluding exculpatory evidence
that was equal and opposite and should have, should have
countered each other's in any fair minded jury's eyes.
And, and I've seen that block, I've seen the, the, the DOJ and
the judges collude. I've seen, witnessed and heard
the FBI agents lie on the stands.
I'm talking about bald faced lies.
And as you know, I've had access to the 41,000 hours worth of
videotape And one of my stories is, is I am going to show that.
And conclusively I've got the smoking gun.
I have the kill shot to prove a case where that happened in one
of these trials. On top of that, they're telling
you to be quiet and there was something in your subpoena I, I
believe that mentioned something very similar to what the, the
Instinct devil were not happy about you speaking out with your
original press release. Can you kind of flesh that out
for people? Yeah, I'll just, I'll just read
it. This is this, this came is
pinned by the same AUSA who told me that they were not happy
about my press release 20 months ago and the cover letter of my
subpoena actually says this in the final paragraph before her
signature. And I quote, although you are
not required to do so, you are requested not to disclose the
existence of this subpoena. Just let that set in for a
minute, Kyle. Yeah, just read that again.
I think that's worth that's worth a repeat.
Although you are not required to do so, you were requested not to
disclose the existence of this subpoena, not let me keep going
from there. And any such disclosure could
impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere
with the enforcement of the law. They're threatening you with
obstruction. Absolutely.
That, that, that that's all that paragraph was designed for was
because she knew that the last time they threatened me with
prosecution that I executed a media offensive against that
threat. And they decided to just go
ahead and draw the line right here.
They put a red line down. And so they admit in the first
before the 1st comma that it's, it's not illegal for me to do
so. Although you are not required to
do so, it says you are requested not to disclose the existence of
the subpoena. We hear about grand jury
subpoenas all the time in the in the news.
Well, the first thing is they sent you a non sealed publicly
available through public means. They sent you a letter, a
document that you have physical, you know, they didn't come and
show it to you and say, hey, we're showing you this and then
we're taking it and you need to comply with it.
There's nothing classified about what was there.
There's nothing that gives them the right to conceal this
information. And once it's in your
possession, you can do with it whatever you like it.
It reminds me of something that happened to our friend Steve
Friend. He was the on the recipient end
of a investigative target letter from the Internal Affairs unit
that basically said you are are being told in no uncertain terms
that you are not allowed to disclose the existence of this
particular investigation into you to your spouse.
You can't disclose this to your attorneys.
And and none of these things have any legal standing.
And yet they're out there, you know, they're out there going
and attacking people in the public space simply under threat
of force. And, and for me, this is where
it gets really, really scary because who in the world told
them that this was a technique that they could utilize?
And how high up does it go to approve that sort of thing?
How, how far has our government fallen where they think that
they are able to weigh in on people under threat of, of
essentially violence, right. Because we're talking about men
with guns coming to your home. And this, this is not just a a
warning not to exercise my First Amendment privilege as a
journalist. This is a warning against my
First Amendment privilege. Privilege as a citizen writ
large, in this particular paragraph, in this.
Well, and there's, there's no legal distinction in the
Constitution of what is and what is not the press.
You know, there's some case law that is basically established
what we would consider regular press.
People use the term citizen journalist, but I think it's
wrong. I think we're all just citizens
and you have the ability to engage in journalism should you
choose to. Yeah, you can start a news.
I mean, whether you're Ben Franklin or Thomas Paine, you
can start a, a flyer, you know, campaign or you can start a
newspaper. And neither one of them had to
apply for a permit or a license to do so.
And we're seeing that in the in, in a really weird way that the,
the sort of sycophantic government, you know,
mouthpieces that exist in the media right now, They're running
their stories by the government. They're getting their stories
from the government. I've seen this in our own sort
of releases. We, we've shared some
information and I'll just kind of, you know, let you kind of a
pine on this in a second. But some of the things that I
have have exposed Chris Wray doing some of his work and, and,
you know, flying around in the jet and all this kind of thing
worked with a journalist, you know, for Daily Wired, Brandon
Dre, good guy. We went out there, we put
together a piece. I gave him all the background
information. I told him where to look, what
to dig. He came up with it.
The FBI issued a statement and he included the gist of the
statement, but he didn't directly quote them because the
direct quote was sort of bullshit, as you mentioned
earlier. It, it just was, it was false.
They, they denied everything and then and they said it in a
pretty way. And so him not quoting them got
him another phone call saying we're really displeased with the
fact that you didn't include our entire quote.
As though they had some right to explain to people how that they
were supposed to frame an argument against what was said
and that they had some right to tell people how to think.
And a lot of this goes in. Have you, have you been
following this sort of CISA development, this sort of
cognitive infrastructure usage? Are you familiar with that?
Not not not sure. Well, let me let me bang this
off you. So in 2018, President Trump
signed into law the creation of the new federal agency is the
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Administration, CISA.
And CISA, like every other government agency, has been
involved in mission creep, right?
They've been slowly gaining authorities and they've been
basically pushing themselves into space that didn't exist
previously. And one of the things that they
have written, they've committed to this in writing because
infrastructure is their mandate that they actually have a duty
to act in the cognitive infrastructure space.
Now just think about the government doublespeak that's
involved in that. But what would you imagine
cognitive infrastructure looks like?
You're a smart guy. You've you've been around
government doublespeak for a while.
Well, yeah, I, I, well, first of all, if, if they say cognitive
infrastructure, I would say that would be all-encompassing.
I don't think that there's any limit on that nomenclature at
all. And, and the way they frame it
is essentially they're talking about your brain matter, your
your Gray matter between your ears.
They're going to police what's going on in there and make sure
that it's safe and the way that they do it.
And this is critical to what we just spoke about again, and I'll
let you kind of come back at me with that.
But by by protecting the cognitive infrastructure, it
gave them license to censure. It gave them the license to make
sure that what goes in is only the safe ideas.
This is a big piece of weight where the Twitter Files and the
Missouri V Biden case is gone. And even in your case where they
tell you don't, don't go out there and share this
information, they don't want any of the bad information to go out
without their spin. And, and I'm not even, and I'm
not even opining in here. They're literally just telling
us this in real time. We can go out there and observe
in their own words that they think that they have a right to
tell you how you should think because it's the safest way for
the government. Now they're telling you that you
can't even disclose the existence with with threat of
force and under threat of investigation for for
obstruction, but with no right to do so.
Literally, they're explicitly forbidden from doing that by our
Constitution, which in theory they actually swore an oath to
and. And, you know, one of the things
that we have done over the last four days since I was notified
that the subpoena was coming was, you know, spent hours on
the phone with both my attorneys.
And we're just perplexed at what this felony try because again,
it's a grand jury and they were going to charge me with a felony
20 months ago that I don't know if you remember in our first
conversation, I told you they were going to charge me with
Interstate racketeering. Right, because you made money
off your video. Right.
It was absurd on his face. I mean, every single independent
journalist on the planet either has a sub stack or a locals
page, or they license their videos if they're a videographer
to. And my videos were used in HBO
documentary, the New York Times documentary, as well as news
agencies all over the world licensed use of my video.
And that's just the, you know, that's the way it's done.
I mean, on January 7th, I had, I had licensing agencies calling
me saying we want to represent your video, right?
Why? Why did they know to call me
Kyle? Because I was already
established as a guy in the media, independent though I may
be. I wasn't working for a big
company, but I was already established enough to know that
by the time my information went out in the, the, you know, the,
the, the interwebs on the evening of January 6th, that
there were people that were attuned enough and aware enough
of me and my work to follow me and, and begin calling me.
I mean, the first call I got the next morning was from Fox News
and said, Hey, we want to, we want to, how much for all your
video? And then the next call I got
was, you know the, the aggregators, the story full and
I ended up signing a deal with them directly.
And so the. And just for people to really
just dig into that, literally, you were threatened with a
charge of racketeering, which is to say an organized crime that
you were in this conspiracy to travel between Interstate lines
and videotape something that you could not have known was going
to happen because nobody else seemed to.
Because apparently even the Capitol Police missed it.
And so did all the intelligence agencies, although we don't
necessarily believe that. But there was a, you know,
apparently it escaped law enforcement, but it didn't
escape Steve Baker, who traveled between states with the
intention of videoing something to make money off it.
Right. You know, I'm, I'm one of those
smart guys. That's it.
So and, and, and that's, that's the absurdity of the claim.
That's why it's absurd on its face.
That's right, because either they admit that they couldn't
have seen, foreseen this, or it was foreseeable and they failed.
In which case there's a bigger problem than you.
Very. Very nature of an Interstate
racketeering or racketeering charge is that first of all
there has to be collusion. First of all, I had to have for
knowledge of a criminal event and then I crossed state lines
therefore to profit or to, you know, be remunerated for the my
participation in that criminal event.
Sure. And and so with, you know, with
a charge of up to 20 years in prison for that.
And so that's what they notified that I, that I was going to be
charged with the first time. Obviously our assumption at the
time was that they were just trying to scare me into a, you
know, quick plea deal down to the glorified trespassing charge
and and get their notch on the belt and send me on my way.
And in the earliest conversations with the AUSA and
my attorney, the question was from her, your, your clients not
really planning on going to trial with this is he and she in
my attorney was like, well, you seen the shit he writes.
He's not going to he's not going to bend the knee.
And that's where we're in here we are 20 months later and
that's exactly where we are again, a grand jury
investigation as you know, and this is this is mind block
boggling to me. And you know it more intimately
than I, you know, even though I've, I've read hundreds of
January 6 charging documents, you always have the Afient.
It's almost always a, you know, an FBI agent who writes up the
criminal complaint and describes in detail the reasons why they
believe that there was a crime committed or 4 or 8 or 11 crimes
committed that this particular person needs to be charged with.
And then that's handed over to the DOJ.
They make the decision, it goes through a grand jury, whatever.
And so that's the process. So as as my attorney met with
him yesterday morning to ask this particular FBI agent,
Special agent Noya's and he says, So what, what's going on
with my client is are are you guys, I mean, are y'all
reopening up the case against him or whatever?
He go? Oh man, I, I have no idea.
I don't, I mean, I don't know. And I'm, I'm thinking to myself,
you, you, you lying bastard. First of all, you were the guy
after my first interview who wrote up this document that you
felt like that there was sufficient grounds for me to be
charged with Interstate racketeering.
Are you effing kidding me? What did you see in our
interview that gave you any idea that that would be?
A valid assertion or criminal charge, I mean.
And what makes me different than any other journalist paid by any
agency anywhere in the world from the New York Times all the
way down to like a Substack subscription based journalist?
What sets me apart that I get that because I'm the only one
out of the over 1100 people charged with January 6 offenses
to this point, I've never seen the word Interstate racketeering
associated with any other defendant.
What what made me different? What did I know and, and what
you said earlier is exactly I should take it maybe as a badge
of honor or a compliment because if they're if their intelligence
failed them that day of Capitol Police intelligence failed them
that day. If Metro P DS Intelligent failed
that day and I'm the only one that knew.
You're it. Yeah.
You're, I mean, you're the only guy in the know in America,
apparently. Good me, good for me.
Yeah, well done. And it it is, it is kind of a
stagger. Like I said, I as someone who
doesn't have an interest in any of this stuff, when I used to do
investigations, it's like, can I disprove my case?
That's the way science works. That's the way that a real
investigator works from a skeptical position.
It's like, let's start with the supposition that he did these
things. Well, if he did, then he would
have had to have the jump on all the intelligence agencies, on
all the different law enforcement agencies.
Well, that's illogical. And that's going to be the first
line of maybe I'd be a good investigator for a defense
attorney because so many of these times I see these, these,
these questions and the line of questions should be really
straightforward. It's like the gotchas are the
same on either side. If you, if you start with one
premise and you go to disprove it and it's really easy, that's
a really bad case. That's not a case that I want to
go on and and move forward with. And I used to shoot down cases
all the time when they would, they'd pitch them to you, They'd
go, well, you know, this person got defrauded out of this money.
And it's like, OK, well, where's the fraud?
Well, someone showed up and said these things and then they
signed a document. So they voluntarily engaged in
transactions, didn't receive payment for it, thought they
would broke the terms of service for their credit card company
for accepting, you know, credit cards with no Idi mean it sounds
like a bummer but but is there a crime here and can I actually
prove it? And I don't think that I can.
And so if you go into those attitudes like that, you should
be basically trying to walk away from cases, not because you
don't want to do cases, but because they're not good cases.
And and what is the case against you in that case?
Like I said, you're gonna have to argue basically that your
knowledge and your intelligence base as an independent
journalist running around the world with a sub stack and with
a with a local's account and and some independent subscribers
were able to get the jump on the entire U.S. law enforcement
apparatus that was running in the Capitol on that day.
It's it's absurd on its face, one would think.
And yet don't obstruct them, please.
Right. Well, and this is, this is what
my suspicion is. And I, I, I, I having seen so
many of these trials related to January 6th, is that my
suspicion is that they are trying to entrap me in a process
crime of some sort right now. I think that that's what they're
up to. Like, for instance, there's been
over 20 months since I had that. It's been, well, almost two
years since my interview with the FBI.
Sure. And in that too, you know, when
I left that that when I left the interview that day in a closing
comments, you know, we're laughing, joking with the agents
and friendly shaking hands and telling stories just, you know,
being a bunch of guys. And so one of the things they
said, you look, look, until this thing is all settled, be sure
don't delete anything from your devices.
Don't delete anything from your phone.
Don't delete anything from your computer.
I'm like, OK, you know, no problem or whatever.
Well, Kyle, it's been two years ago.
I have a new phone. I have a new computer, right?
I before, I mean, the the reason I got a new computers, I was
running out of memory in my old computer.
I, I trashed, you know, untold numbers of gigabytes worth of
data out of that computer. Sure.
As as people do, as they move forward, technology continues to
move forward. Your abilities, your needs are
going to change. Most people swap a phone out
there. I mean, here's the other thing.
You go out there after a Steve Baker and say, listen, he, you
know, he got rid of his phone and we believe that's an
obstruction or we believe that he was trying to conceal
evidence. And then you go, what's the
regular turn around rate that that is an exchange program with
T-Mobile for a phone that is being used.
Oh, it's 12 months, you're eligible for an upgrade or six
months you're eligible for an upgrade.
So the average American can go and live his life, but Steve
Baker has to live in pause in in 2021.
Is that what has to happen? And that's absurd.
And so I, I am absolutely convinced that this subpoena for
my, my videos, because first of all, all right, if they're
looking at me, Kyle, they've got me on hundreds of hours of other
people's videos that day, right? They've got me on 17138 CCTV,
you know, Capital cameras that day.
They've got me on all manner of cell phone video that they have
captured from that day. They've got me on Metropolitan
Police body cams that day. They have enough video on me to
determine whether I committed any crime of any kind that day.
I've already said yes, I was inside the Capitol building.
OK, so our first of all, are you going to selectively prosecute
me and not the other 80 to 100 mainstream media journalists
that followed the story into the building that day?
OK, so you are going to do that because why?
Because I didn't work for one of those cartel journalists that
provide you guys with information every day?
Or is it because I was independent?
Or is it because my narrative did not comport with the Pelosi
establish and preserve the narrative of January 6th theme?
Yeah. What?
I mean, what is the reason why I'm being selectively
prosecuted? But more importantly, you know,
beyond any shadow of a doubt there is.
It's irrefutable by all available evidence that I did no
violence, I broke no stuff. I did not attack any law
enforcement officers. I did not parade.
I was not wearing Trump gear. I didn't carry a flag.
I didn't chant. I never chanted USAUSAI, never
said whose house, our house. I never sang the Star Spangled
Banner. I behaved as a journalist that
day, from the moment I arrived arrived until the moment I left
that building. And what are you looking for?
And there is no good answer. No where is the felony in this
except that they're trying to create one right now and that's
what I think that they're up to. Sadly, I think you're right and
I think that's the country that we're living in, which is why
they've discredited one of the things that has bothered me so
much. And people get really upset
about Nazi references, but, but they're so easy to make.
That's so easy to draw parallels between what happened in the
Third Reich, what happened during COVID, tyranny and so on
that they, they're almost a 1 to 1 mixture.
And one of the first things that went on in the Third Reich was a
undermining of the judiciary and the credibility of the
judiciary. And so I've covered it on my
program, the 1st letter to judges, how they expected the
judiciary to rule. And we are seeing a very similar
sort of action plan and the fact that they're all being charged
in, in DC, that they're all being charged under, you know,
under a very favorable situation to the government.
As you mentioned, the government has basically made arguments
earlier on that there's so much video, there's no way they could
give access to all of it. And so people are not entitled
to a, a, a strong defense, a fair defense that they've thrown
out Brady decisions that they are not giving access to the
exculpatory information that should exist.
And then we have people that are perjuring themselves.
And I'm not seeing Giglio being revealed after all those things.
It, it, it's just mind numbing. Where does this go?
That's the other real question. You've got more years on the
planet than me. You've got maybe closer to the
fire, but also you've been kind of a disinterested observer
who's trying to document things. Where in the hell does this go
'cause I think people are just absolutely flabbergasted and
people like me include. We may have talked about this in
our our previous marathon, but the bottom line is, and this is
the most important thing that the American people need to know
and this is what I got since I've talked to you, I've
actually met with Jim Jordan. I met with Representative Mike
Johnson from Louisiana, I've met with Troy Nell staff, but the,
the most significant conversation I had was when I
had with Jim Jordan. This was two months ago.
And I got in his face and I, you know, I said, Sir, with all due
respect, and I was addressing the fact that he had no
intention to address January 6 issues in the weaponization
committee. And I said, with all due
respect, you do not know and understand what's going on in
these courtrooms. And I said, let me just give you
a couple of examples. And I did.
And I, I not only told him that I had two stories that I
couldn't bring to the American public without his protection.
Why do I need, why does a journalist need congressional
protection to tell a story? It's because of the
weaponization of the government against people like me.
That's the first thing. But the second thing is, then I
said this, and this is where where I'm going is that the most
important thing that we're seeing in these January 6th
trials is the weaponization against the 1st Amendment.
It's not. They're not.
They're not they don't care that somebody took a a flagpole to an
officer or sprayed them with some bear spray or whatever.
If you if you took a flagpole to an officer and whatever,
whatever that crime qualifies you for in terms of your
sentencing if it's 24 months in jail or whatever the case may
be. If you also additionally posted
on your Facebook page videos and you chanting and you taunting
the police and you're doing other things like that, then you
probably got 48 months, right? All right, if you were a
grandmother and you're 60 years old and you walked through the
Capitol and for 10 minutes and you took a couple of selfies and
you walked out, you probably were able to plead down to two
years probation, $500 fine, you know, 50 hours community
service, whatever like that. Go back home and try to repair
your life because you were kicked out of all of your clubs
and your organizations and, you know, your church and everything
else. So after your arrest.
And so if you were a grandmother who walked into the building for
10 minutes and you took a couple of selfies and you chanted
USAUSA, you got two months in prison or 6-8 maybe.
If you're an independent journalist and you work for and
you're an independent journalist, let's be very clear
about this. And you only had a cell phone in
your hand and your name is Luke Mogilson.
And you walked through a smashed window.
You didn't go through an open door.
You went through a smashed window and you went into the
Senate. And you've caught the famous
iconic video of the Q Anon shaman praying inside the Senate
chamber. If that was you and you
submitted your story to The New Yorker and you use the word
insurrection and insurrectionists in your story,
you haven't been charged with a crime.
But if you were a professional videographer from Pensacola, FL
and you showed up with all of your high end expensive
professional camera gear and you went through the exact same
window at almost the exact same time as Luke Mokelson.
And then you paralleled him throughout all the entire
Capitol and into the Senate chamber, recording the same
events that Luke Mokelson did. But when you went in and you
were a Trump guy and you got caught up in the moment and you
said, USAUSAUSA, you got eight months in prison.
That's the only difference between those two men's
activities that day. So what are they suppressing?
The same thing that they're trying to suppress in the cover
letter of my subpoena. They're trying to take this away
from us. They're trying to take our
words, our speech, our thoughts, our cognitive, cognitive
abilities. And that's what these trials are
about. I mean, these are, these are
look, the the Oath Keepers were were, were convicted of bot
crimes. They were convicted of violence.
Yeah, they were convicted of conspiracies that didn't
actually happen. I've talked about this with
prosecutors. I've never seen conspiracy.
The only conspiracies that I've ever seen charged when the
actual crime did not go down was a crime of violence that was in
progress and interrupted because of some special knowledge the
government may have had. The great example of that would
be you have a wire up. You know, there's a conspiracy
to move drugs around and do this other thing.
And then in the middle of it, they say, by the way, we're
going to go off this guy and we're in route.
And then you go interrupt them because you have a duty to sort
of protect the public or you have a duty to to stop and
notify this person that there's imminent harm coming their way
because you know about it. And so the government will go
and arrest people and route to a conspiracy to commit murder,
let's say innate of racketeering or so on.
And then they'll get hit with a conspiracy of a thing that
didn't happen but was progressing.
We have after the fact, no interdiction conspiracy charges
that were done without the conspiracy ever being enacted.
Whatever that conspiracy was, the thought of it was enough.
No proof. In fact, in the Oath Keepers
trial, all 7 FBI agents who testified, testified under cross
examination that never one single time did they ever find
evidence of an order from Oath Keeper leadership to enter the
Capitol, to storm the Capitol, to harm Congress members, to
interdict the certification of the election.
That they and then once the prosecution realized that they
were getting their butts handed to them by the defense about 1/3
of the way through that nine week trial, they switched gears
and it became a conspiracy of that was hatched on the Capitol
steps in the moment. It was a conspiracy of mental
telepathy, right? It's it's instantaneous
conspiracy people. And, and that was, it was a
spontaneous combustion of conspiracy with no words spoken
between any of those individuals.
And, and, and I'll, I'll never forget.
I was there for the sentencing hearing.
And Judge Amit Mehta said to Stewart Rhodes, the founder of
the Oath Keepers, And this is a paraphrase, but he said, he
said, you're smart, you're eloquent, and you know how to
lead men. Therefore you're a danger to
society. I'm going to put you away for 18
years. That's it right there.
Right there. I think so much of these, these
prosecutions have not just been going after people, but making
examples in order to say that don't ever do this again, don't
ever gather again, don't ever speak out again.
This is what it feels like for me.
And, and I'm a little bit too emotionally involved in this
for, for any kind of journalistic activity.
This is, this is certainly not that.
This is advocacy at my, you know, I'll, I'll own it.
And it's definitely, it's an emotional opinion that I have,
but watching the way that people are treated, watching the
subjugation of, of whistleblowers and, and making
the examples of them, the way that my buddy Garrett said, he
went out in front of Congress and said this government will
crush you. This government should have no
interest in one thing or another.
It should only be interested in providing the service that it
does and be limited in that that scope.
And instead it is aggressively, aggressively pursuing actions
that benefit not the people, but the government specifically,
like the the agencies of the government are out there
pursuing their own ends. That that is the definition of
weaponization to me. Do you have any?
Do you have any thoughts on on where this where this ends for
you? Where, where it ends for me
right now is still an unknown. I, I have, we have made the
decision, as you know, in this, in this, in a subpoena for my
video, I have the ability to opt to send that to them
electronically or to actually hand it over to the agent in
charge. And so I in consultation with my
attorney yesterday, we decided that I'm going to appear, I'm
going up next Wednesday and I'm going to face the grand jury.
I'm going to say what the Hell's up.
They do have the possibility of at least asking questions during
that, which is a possibility, so that might be interesting for
you. Yeah, it should be interesting,
but it would have the easy route would have me would have been
for me to just hand them a flash drive with my videos on it.
But I've decided to making appearance there next Wednesday
and see at the district courthouse.
So where it goes from there, I don't know Where I go from
there. I don't know.
You know, I, I'll, I'll tell you that I've, you know, I've had I,
I, I told my children more than, you know, two years ago.
They're, they're adults. I told them I said you're
there's, there's a because of the work I'm doing.
I said there's a high likelihood that, that your father will not
finish his life as a free man. And I've prepped them for that,
you know, for a long time. And, and you know, I'm, I'm not,
I'm not either patting myself on the on the back or, or trying to
execute a grift here of some sort.
But Kyle, I think, you know, I think I've told you offline
before one of the stories that I'm working on and it's
explosive. And I have read House
Weaponization Committee investigators have been read
into this story. I spent 4 1/2 hours with them
two weeks ago. Investigative members of the
Heritage Foundation have been read into the story, as well as
a couple of other friendly journalists.
So that if anything happens to me, if I'm Clintonized or
Arkansided or whatever you want to call it, the story is still
going to come out. And it is a January 6th story
that is explosive. And everyone who has seen this
story so far has said that this is going to be the first a
cornerstone of the House of Cards to be pulled out from the
January 6th narrative and the most significant part of the
story. And This is why I don't believe
that this timing of this re engagement of our re initiation
into prosecuting me some 20 months later is that I have I
have absolutely no doubt that they are not aware of this
story. And it specifically implicates
the FBI and the DOJ in conspiracy and cover up
specifically in these a couple of these trials.
And not only that, but the fact that we know that senior FBI
executives were pushing the specific narrative that I think
that you can pull out on, you know, amongst other things, but
that they are committed to it. They committed their careers to
it. And they rode, they rode that
wave up to the top of positions that they shouldn't have ever
been holding. And then and they have a vested
interest in in concealing it, I think.
So that's where where this leads is is interesting.
It's it's what a time to be alive, huh?
A strange time indeed, and a strange time.
Sad time for the America. Like I said, I do believe that
the America that I grew up in would have invaded the America
that I live in. And I will say it again because
it's this is what the Banana Republic looks like.
And when you start undermining your judiciary, then you end up
in a world where you can't trust it.
Tell people if they're interested in your journalism
where they can go and do that. We'll throw that up there.
It's going to be in the show notes as well.
But give them kind of a verbal if you would.
Yeah, the the, the easy way and the short way to type it is just
to go to tpcforusa.com, tpcforusa.com and that is my
locals community. It's free to subscribe, but for
as little as $5 a month. As we mentioned before, you can
support the work that I am doing.
And I've not set up a Gibson Go yet.
I'm I'm not going to do that unless I am indicted.
But yeah, there, there we go. There's the image for that.
And then of course, with the same exact handle TPC for USA,
you can find me on Twitter and Facebook and True Social.
So it's, I've, I've simplified it in the course.
Obviously my Rumble channel is where I put all my videos out.
And the Rumble channel is the same thing, TPC, the number 4
USA, they can go and search that and they'll find that you did a
really good interview recently with TK Johnson as well as a
bunch of others. And some of your some of your
digging into what did and did not get investigated on the
January 6th the front, which is a lot of things that did not
that seem very interesting. And a lot of things that have
been have investigated that have yet to be revealed.
That's fair. Couple of juicy bits coming.
Well, I hope that folks, I hope you can share this video.
And then the reason why is because the noise is part of the
safety cloud that we build for guys like Steve, for guys like
me. Honestly, this is one of the
reasons why I do what I do. It's one of the reasons why
Steve has no choice but to do what he's doing.
Why people like Garretta Boyle and and and Steve friend, not
like my buddies who have done the the verbal cover.
We have the media cover is that they know in the in the Court of
Public appeal. The case is already being waged
and, and they're trying to stifle it literally in Word,
they are putting it in writing that they would like to stop
that sort of thing. So they can just have you shut
up and take your lumps and and the government can continue on
with its weaponized process. So that's really scary stuff.
Steve, thanks for sharing a lot of stuff.
Thanks always for being candid with us.
And you know, anytime you want to come back on and chat, we can
do it for a long or short as you like.
And we will promote this not as much.
I'm going to try to get some other some other podcasts and
some other types involved. So we'll keep getting your story
out there. And then your, your handles on
truth and Twitter are the same. The TP #4USA TPC #4 USA, which I
follow books. You'll see me post some of us.
Steve, stop. Thanks so much for joining me
this morning, buddy. I'm going to go down and shut
the day down and then panic about the how bad our, our
existence is right now in this country, which is, which is
terrible. Every time we talk.
It's not, it's not a great feeling, although I enjoy your
company. But we're we're in it.
We're in it for the long haul. That's it.
Yeah. No other choice on that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, you've been listening to the
Kyle Seraphin show. We are stream live from Liberty
Hill, TX. So we do want to thanks a couple
of people. First of all, we're going to
thank you for being here and for joining us.
We want to thank all the new monthly subscribers that we have
on Rumble and we've got a five star review.
As you know, you can post them on Apple.
Nearly 650 strong so far and we appreciate all every one of them
including this one from Page NORI.
Don't know if there was more to that, maybe Page Noir.
It says always informative Kyle and all.
I love your podcast. I learned so much and I enjoy
your guests. I hope you enjoyed having Steve
friend Steve Baker on here rather the pragmatic
constitutionalist, ladies and gentlemen, TPC, the pragmatic
constitutionalist, the #4USA TPC #4 USA.
Don't forget to like this on Rumble if you haven't done it
already. Scroll down, hit that like
button. Leave us comment there.
If you have something, you can always go and you can tweet or
you can truth it at Steve Baker and you can give him your
support as things go on. You can sign up for his locals
if you like and please make sure that you are not, if you're not
subscribed to our Rumble channel, that you do.
So we really appreciate those as well.
Until then, we'll see you guys again on Wednesday.
Sorry to leave you on a heavy note on this Tuesday, but we
went a little long because I think the story involves a
little bit more than normal. Again, we'll see you again on
Tuesday and I hang in there. It's going to be an interesting
day. Thanks for listening to the Kyle
Seraphin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle
Seraphin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, True
Social and Instagram at Kyle Seraphin.