Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistleblower and
American patriot. Prepare to embrace the
uncomfortable truth because this program has no time for
comforting lies. Here is civil liberties
enthusiast, Second Amendment defender, and recovering FBI
agent Kyle Seraphin. Hello, my friends, Welcome to
the Kyle Seraphin show. I'm exhausted today.
I don't know about you guys, but I am absolutely indictment
fatigued. It is draining me.
It is emotionally and spiritually exhausting to
consider that our Department of Justice, the weaponized federal
government that we have, continues to go after the former
president. And we are now on round two of
federal indictments. We have round one in the tank on
the state indictments. And it sounds like Georgia is
going to throw their hat into the ring for contender of
lousiest states doing stupid legal action.
So we're going to cover that. Obviously everybody's talking
about Trump being indicted. I have some takes on it.
I spent about 5 hours last night sitting in a Twitter space
listening to lawyers who are described as constitutional
lawyers. Many of you will probably go,
what is a constitutional lawyer? We'll talk about that for a
second to people who actually practice constitutional law, who
litigate based on the Constitution.
It is a different sort of law than most people are used to,
criminal and civil. So we'll talk about that.
We'll talk about what their takeaways were.
And I think they're I think they're worth discussing.
I do have some special guests that are going to be just a
reflection panel. We'll see if we have any
different takes on what we've been seeing.
And we're going to get into a couple other news stories that I
think are indicative of where we're at.
And President Trump is really just sort of like the Canary in
the coal mine in some ways. And we're starting to see it in
public as well. Before we do that, I want to say
thanks to our sponsors. Let me pull up here.
This is Catholic Vote. Many of you are familiar with
our friends over at the Loop. If you watched it yesterday, you
went in and clicked it and joined the Loop, you would have
gotten an e-mail telling you that you can watch Charlie
Serafin. My father, my wonderful father,
did a great interview with the with the loop gentleman.
Tom did an interview with him and my dad sent me a text after
the show said it was the best interview he's ever done.
A man in journalism for 60 years.
That's pretty something. So let me just pull this up real
quick. Oh, of course, I actually tried
to pull up the loop and now it's gone.
So let me just pull it up on my phone here because I did
actually want to tell you guys. They had a couple of good
things. Obviously they covered the Trump
indictment as well. And they, they had a whole
series of useful emails that you guys would find.
So what do they have? DeSantis confronting Kamala
Harris via letter. There's a Biden administration
says they're going to defund hunting programs.
Hunting programs, Really, That doesn't sound good.
Biden cancels a space command that was going to be moving to
Alabama. So some military movement state
Democrats delete tweets threatening Trump supporters.
Always nice to know that we have that.
Anyway, that and more. Check out the Loop.
Go to catholicvote.org. Sign up for the Loop, and we'll
say a quick thanks. Check this out.
This is the chaos that I work in, folks.
This is the insanity of the Kyle Seraphin Show.
And as usual, you can see right here, I do have my Patriot
Cooler. You can get yours by going to
patriotcoolers.com using promo code Kyle KYLEKYLE.
We'll get you 10% off 50 bucks or more.
You're going to get free shipping.
You can see in that photo right there and the the website that
they actually have one of their hard sided coolers looks a lot
like a Yeti. It has that strap those those
really durable rubberized straps that can lock down and keep ice
for days, 5678 days, things like that might be something you
want. If you're thinking that we're
going to be running out of power, we're going to be running
out of we're going to be running out of refrigeration
capabilities. It's a good survival tool to
have a good cooler. Never know when you might need
to keep meat or other things out of the heat or otherwise.
So check them out. Patriot coolers.com promo code
Kyle. Kyle, the link is in the show
description. You don't even have to type,
Kyle, by the way, you can just click right through it.
All right, without too much further ado, let's bring on
these gentlemen. Let's see what we've got.
Look at this. We've got a George Hill, some
people know George Hill. We've got a Garretto Boyle
wearing a limited edition suspendables merch that many
people in the chat are going to ask when you are going to start
shipping. So we have that problem.
Gentlemen, welcome to the Kyle Serif and Show for this weird
Wednesday. We've got lots of problems,
Kyle, lots of problems. You got problems with that mic
again? Oh.
Gosh, all right. Stand by.
So folks, we're going to start talking about some of these
pieces here. Can we throw up topic number one
right there, Ryan? The folks, we, we organize this
thing by topics. That's the easiest way that Ryan
and I could do it. There it is right there.
As they say, an indictment is only as impressive as the thing
that you're indicting. And you can indict a hand
sandwich. That's the old statement.
So there's the President Trump ham sandwich.
Give me, give me topic #2 there's the other sandwich we
got. Jared made these little memes
out there. If you like those, they're in my
Twitter feed, folks. You can go and share those
things around. We are indicting the Trump ham
sandwich and we brought up a, I've got the entire indictment
downloaded. We got some screenshots of it
that we'll go through. But George, have you read that
indictment? I did.
I'm in the middle of a 2000 page
tone nonfiction work by Carol Swain, so I really enjoyed a
deep dive into some fiction work last night.
It was very entertaining. That's a fairway of assessing
it, right? If you'll bring up topic three,
we'll see the way that CNN covered this thing.
CNN, of course, breathlessly, Pearl clutchingly holding it on,
saying, you know, this is going to resonate in American history
for years. Obviously we keep ending up in
more and more levels of the biggest news cycle in the last
10 years, 20 years. This is another indictment.
This is pile on time and they said it said the chilling effect
and all those. Can you show the picture to the
next one up there? The the Rotunda picture topic
four I think was listed. This is the way that their their
photograph of it is. I want you to look at this
photograph and I'll have George reflect on it as well.
Look in the foreground of this picture.
So if you're not seeing this is a picture of the Capitol Rotunda
on January 6th. Many of us have seen a lot of
images from that day. What we're looking at is a
couple of police in riot gear dealing with, it looks like
maybe one to two people who are aggressively reaching over,
while the cops are also reaching over.
They're making some sort of chaotic face.
And then behind them is like a sea of people that are just
standing there. I'm guessing, George, you've
been in some aggressive crowds in your life.
You've been overseas. Does this look like the scariest
thing you've ever seen? If if you.
There it is. The deep state is playing with
us today. We can't make it up.
We lost George. He's in New Hampshire.
God knows what happened to him. Look, folks, end of the day,
you're looking at a a bunch of people milling about inside the
capital as tourists and one or two people deciding to scream at
cops because they're being jerks.
Garrett, did you see that picture as well?
I didn't, I was trying to fix my settings.
Still pull it back off. This cannot be made-up.
End of the day, that's what we're talking about here.
Let's get into the indictment here and let's get in there.
He is. He's back on us.
But no it if you want it to look scary, it does look scary.
If you just look at the foreground of it, it looks like
a melee. And if you look at the
background, the back portion of it, it just looks like a
peaceful gathering. So I think it's a good pictorial
description of the whole J6 narrative.
It depends on what you want to look at.
That's, that's I think a good way of talking about it.
We always talked about this thing being sort of the American
Rorschach test. And whatever you see is what
you're going to tell me about the way you look at politics.
I see both. I can see them both at one time.
You know, I can see the the dwarves that are high fiving and
the ducks kissing or whatever it is that people do when they take
those Rorschach. If you don't know what a
Rorschach test is, it's like an ink blot test.
They put a, you know, blaba ink in, they fold it in half and
it's supposed to show you something and whatever you say
reveals something about you, not necessarily about the picture.
And I think that's what we're seeing right here.
So the indictment itself is kind of interesting.
First of all, we've got the the fact that they have 6 unindicted
Co conspirators. If you want to pull a topic 5 on
there, Ryan, we'll get into that real quickly and we'll see what
we're trying to talk about here. So I'm just going to read right
off the screen. If you guys don't mind, if
you're what you're missing here is a piece that comes from CNN.
This is chopped right out of their story says 6 unindicted Co
conspirators were also included in the filing.
I think this is the breathless Pearl clutching.
Four of those six are unnamed attorneys who allegedly aided
Trump in his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
Now, these are allegations. These are allegations being made
in an indictment of which there is only one side that needs to
be presented and that is being done by a very political special
prosecutor. And yet, you know, CNN once
again acting like this is the thing we always tell you to
focus on the language and focus on the narrative.
They, they, the piece that they're focusing on.
There are the knowingly false claims that Trump said that the
the election was subverted right.
So on indicted Co conspiracy, we're going to talk about why
it's important that there are four attorneys.
Do you guys have a sense of that?
Do you have do either of you have a sense?
Because I'm going to give you a weigh in after you do.
I don't know my my sense is only that we are so litigious as a
society that the more attorneys you get the better.
Or at least that's the perception.
And I imagine there are just different types.
He's probably got a constitutional law attorney like
you mentioned earlier, and then probably a criminal defense
attorney and probably some civil litigators and all their staff.
So I mean, that's just my I guess off the cuff theory as to
why, but I guess I don't really know.
Have you have you ever had to deal with attorneys that can
cite attorney-client privilege when you want information from
them? Yeah, I have.
Recently in our society, that's a sacrosanct sort of
preservation. It's a it's a curtain that drops
between the attorneys that are working on behalf of a client
and the government, which is trying to pursue their case,
right. Yeah, exactly.
Are you guys familiar with the crime fraud exception in the
attorney-client privilege? Loosely, yeah, because if the if
the attorney is in on the gig, then that attorney-client
privilege evaporates and the attorney can be.
I see we're going, yeah. So when you take four people
that are are working for the president that are attorneys and
theoretically would be able to a client a claim that they have
this exception to speaking to the law enforcement.
They don't have to give any information that they have the
attorney-client privilege. Here's the the definition as far
as crime fraud exception goes. The attorney-client privilege
does not cover statements made to a client or made by a client,
rather to their attorney if the statements are meant to further
or conceal a crime. And for this exception to apply,
the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or
planning to commit a crime. Does that change the way that we
look at these, these four attorneys you think?
Yes, for me it does. What do you think, George?
No, 100%. I just, if I may, Kyle, I, I
have a slightly different take on all this 'cause I'm not a
constitutional attorney, but I am a college professor and I've
read a lot of college papers and this really smacks of a big
mouth production owned by Jack Smith's wife.
It reads almost like, look, Katie, you, you write the
narrative part and I'll fill in all the US code stuff that
people would recognize. I mean this, this just looks
like an amalgamation put together not by a team of
attorneys, but by Jack Smith and his wife.
It's very, very heavy on the narrative.
I'm going to splash up there, Ryan, if you'll throw up Topic
6, we can actually see the the cover page of the indictment.
And what we're looking at here, folks, if you are not watching
on the Rumble channel is the indictment.
It says the United States of America versus Donald J Trump
defendant and it lists grand jury stuff here.
Let me switch cameras real quick for you all.
So what it says here is that we have count 1 is 18 USC 371.
That is a conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Count 218 USC 11512K, that's conspiracy to obstruct an
official proceeding. This is that Sarbanes-Oxley rule
they keep using. There's another version of that.
It's going to be a subsection CE, I'm sorry, C2, which is
obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
And the last 1 is really a ridiculous piece.
And this one's kind of the, the biggest piece of exciting
fiction. 18 USC 241, conspiracy against rights.
We're gonna read kind of like the short version of all these
counts in just a second, 'cause I do want you to walk out in the
world informed with what it is they've accused the former
president of and why it is sort of ridiculous on its face.
Ryan, do you actually have the video, the announcement from
Jack Smith? So we can kind of play that and
we can look at the the smile playing on.
Yeah, let's look at the smile playing on the corners of this
man's mouth. This is the special prosecutor
announcing this indictment yesterday afternoon at a podium
in Washington, DC, if you'll roll that clip.
Good evening. Today, an indictment was
unsealed charging Donald J Trump with conspiring to defraud the
United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and
conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in
the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in
detail. I encourage everyone to read it
in full. Now he's going to go off scrap.
Here comes editorial. The attack on our nation's
capital on January 6th, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the
seat of American democracy. It's described in the
indictment. It was fueled by lies, lies by
the defendant. Targeted.
At obstructing A bedrock function of the US government,
the nation's process of collecting, counting, and
certifying the results of the presidential election.
The men and women of law enforcement who defended the US
Capitol on January 6th are heroes.
They are patriots, and they are the very best of us.
They did not just defend a building or the people
sheltering in it. They put their lives in the line
to defend who we are as a country and as a people.
They defended the very institutions and principles that
define the United States. Since the attack on our capital,
the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring
accountability for those criminally responsible for what
happened that day. This case is brought consistent
with that commitment, and our investigation of other
individuals continues in this case.
My office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can
be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens.
In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is
only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a
court of law. I would like to thank the
members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are working on
this investigation with my office, as well as the many
career prosecutors and law enforcement agents from around
the country who have worked on previous January 6th
investigations. These women and men are public
servants of the very highest order, and it is a privilege to
work alongside them. Thank you.
So that was charming. Did you guys notice that caveat
at the end, that sort of classic FBI caveat?
We don't. And we're going to investigate
people for their First Amendment protected activities, but we
never investigate people for First Amendment protected
activities. Remember, these are allegations,
but the defendant lied and he's a bad, bad man and he tried to
attack democracy. Your take?
I've never seen AUS attorney conduct themselves in a press
briefing like Jack Smith did. Most US attorneys, when they
step, well, not most, 99% of them, when they step in front of
a microphone, their briefings are as dry as the Saharan
desert. I mean, you, you know, you can't
get the grit out of your eyes for weeks.
I mean, that was more like a big mouth.
Production. Yeah, it's a show.
And and as was mentioned earlier on Ryan's stream this morning,
it's kind of like the old adage that politics is show business
for ugly people. Jack Smith fits that category.
And there he is up there doing his best showbiz routine,
letting us know exactly how he feels.
You want to go again? Yeah, for your audience, Big
Mouth Productions is owned by Jack Smith's wife, so they've
made she did the 2020 puff piece on Michelle Obama that aired on
Netflix. So this is just another chapter
in the whole January 6th saga. This reads no differently than
the preface and the opening chapter that the FBI started to
put out on January 7th. This is just a continuation of
the same theme. This 45 page indictment looks
like it was written by the the op-ed folks at the New York
Times or the Washington Post. It's it's certainly full of a
lot of that and kind of interestingly, Steve Baker, who
we had on referred to January 6th as the greatest political
messaging victory of all time, at least in American history and
and they are continuing that vein is what it feels like.
Garrett, did you have something you wanted to weigh in on that?
No, we lost Garrett. We're losing Garrett left and
right. There he is.
Hey, buddy. Hey, I don't know, I don't know
how long this is going to last, but did you, were you asking to
weigh in on the the Jack Smith's?
Please. Yeah.
Yeah, OK. It's almost like, where do you
start? You know, like it's crazy to,
you know, I'm only 37. So in my short life, it's it's
crazy to have seen our country flip like this, where it
literally is like watching any Banana Republic, you want a name
and watching one of their attorneys or generals or whoever
politicians up there talking about their political opponent.
And that's the exact vibe that was presented by him.
And I think with these litanies of indictments, that just
continues to be the case. And I'm hoping it will backfire
because I'm hoping people will start to realize and wake up and
see. And I know many have in the last
couple years. But if people are watching these
type of things outside of the district, because they're so
insulated there where they know that like 97% of the populace in
that area are Democrats. So they think that that's the
rest of the country, but it's not.
So hopefully that hubris his his smirking and smiling.
It reminded me of Mayorkas last week when he was testifying and
Victoria Sparks from Indiana, She called him out on on the
smile. And it's like these people, I, I
don't think they're often even aware of the hubris that they're
they're displaying for everybody to see.
So that that's what's what's shown through the most for me
was just that hubris. And where he thinks like that,
it's it's all a done deal and they have rigged the game, no
doubt about it. But I think people are starting
to wake up. So I think that hubris, you
know, that that the fall from the top is, is the worst type.
So I think Jack Smith and all his allies in the DNC and in the
swamp, hopefully, you know, they'll have another comeuppance
either come the next election or at some point when the when the
rest of America starts waking up.
But yeah, that hubris is really just what's showing through for
me the most. It, it's so interesting that you
mentioned the, the sort of the echo chamber that exists inside
the Beltway when you work inside DC and, and you can imagine him
going and giving that, that trial speech at a Starbucks in
Washington, DC and getting a standing ovation, right?
You can actually imagine that everybody around him.
And so when you live in a world where everyone around you 100%
believes, backs, and supports the positions that you hold, no
matter how radical they are, you're living in a strange
fantasy world. Because, as you mentioned.
If you go and do that thing in Kansas City, you go do that
thing out in Wichita, KS, you go do that in Nebraska, you go do
that in Idaho, you do that in Montana or anywhere else, you go
do in Texas. America, in most places, you're
going to either get a mixed reaction or a negative reaction
because not everybody thinks the same way.
And when you pile on these sort of indictments that continue to
go on it, it is that Banana Republic feel.
It's like, man, how badly are you scared of this person?
And I do think you're correct that more people are looking at
it. People that were otherwise
uninterested, that were sitting on the sidelines are going, you
know what? I don't necessarily love
President Trump. He's not the guy that I'm going
to try to go in and take a bullet for.
But anybody can see when there's a job, a put up job that's being
done. And we are so desperate to tell
you how bad he is, man, maybe he's got something good going
on. And so in light of this
indictment, we're going to cover it even a little bit further in
a second here. But one of the things I want you
to guys consider, we had a raid on Mira Lago after a disastrous
withdraw from Afghanistan. And it felt like a cover that
they had to turn the lens on to something else.
We saw the Alvin Bragg thing come up and the indictment
happened just after we had the revelations of the FB is
10/10/23 document about this corruption scheme.
The fact that there were FBI sources that were reporting on
the Biden's corruption. And now we have this, and it
comes in the wake of the Devon Archer testimony.
Now, I read the highlights of the Devin Archer testimony, as
I'm sure you guys did, and I was underwhelmed by it.
It didn't say anything that was particularly new or interesting.
But when you get this, following that by one day, in some ways, I
would say they actually threw a spotlight on the day prior to
those of us who are paying attention.
Do you guys feel that there might have been more to that
Devin Archer testimony based on the radical reaction of indicted
Trump for a second time on a federal level?
Either one? I don't think that I think you
might be giving them a little bit too much credit.
I think they just continue to roll on.
And when I say that you're giving them too much credit, I'd
like to support that with if this actually does go to trial
and it's very unlikely that that judge will throw it out.
If this does go to trial, then we get to go into discovery.
And then Donald Trump will have the opportunity, actually the
legal right to introduce all the bases, plural, for his claims
about, you know, electioneering, election rigging, and that the
election was stolen. So I'm just mystified as to why
the Democrats would want to throw that door open for
discovery. I don't, I don't get it.
And so, yeah, the premise there is if they're going to claim
that all the things that he said were lies.
And in fact, if you when we read the indictment a little further,
let's go ahead and pull up count #1 if you would.
That's topic #7 Ryan, if you pull up account number one,
we'll kind of read what that says.
And it's full. And I'm going to switch over
here again. So let me take a look here and
read it with you. It says the allegations
contained in paragraph one through 4 of this indictment
realledge and fully incorporate by the reference the conspiracy
that from on or about November 14th of 2020 through January
20th of 2021 in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.
The defendant who's Donald A Trump did knowingly combine,
conspire, confederate and agree with Co conspirators both known
and unknown to the grand jury to defraud the United States using
here we go. Here's the actual claims,
dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct and defeat the
lawful federal government function by which the results of
the President election are collected, counted and certified
by the federal government. So that's the real thing.
And then they claim that the purpose of the conspiracy, this
is another sub little paragraph, this paragraph 7, the purpose of
the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the
2020 presidential election. Here's where they they get to
the knowingly part, using knowingly false claims of
election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by
which those results are collected, counted and
certified. So there is a Mens Rea, which
we'll talk about just like briefly.
But essentially you have to know that what you were doing is both
wrong and a crime. They used the word knowingly
very specifically. And as George was just stating,
I think I'm going to paraphrase this and you tell me if I I'm
saying it correctly, he had, he's going to get a chance to
say I didn't know that those were false claims.
In fact, I believe they were real.
And here's the evidence that I was looking at that told me that
these were legitimate problems with the election.
Yeah, absolutely. I, I, I don't get it.
I, I, I just the Democrats. I'm, I'm not a fan, but they're
not stupid. So I'm trying to figure out
what's the next move on the chess board here.
I don't I don't know either. I mean, all this stuff seems
absurd because this was discussed in the in the the
space last night over a 5 hour period.
It opens up the door for litigation of these things that
were all thrown out in courts because the the lawsuits were
not properly filed. But the evidence was pretty
interesting and they certainly are credible enough for people
to look at them. And many of you saw it with your
own eyes. You saw, you know, either
ballast being pulled out from underneath like videos that need
explanation and that a reasonable person.
And I think Trump would be an example of a non litigious
person. He's not a lawyer, he's not an
investigator, he's a businessman.
And he's looking at things that look really weird.
And we all saw them and we thought they looked pretty weird
at the time. I mean, I there were a lot of
FBI agents that were asking these same questions.
Jared, did you have people asking those questions in your
office at that time? Yeah, we, I mean it, it was
almost daily, I would say the majority of our squad 'cause,
you know, we, you walk in the office and the news is rolling
and, you know, at that time it was all election, election
interference. Donald Trump is denying, you
know, the, that the election results and, and even simple
stuff like, you know, people in the office saying like, man, did
Joe Biden actually get 81 million votes?
I mean, more than anybody ever. In his.
Barack Obama, Yeah. And and I think anyone who man,
you didn't even have to be paying that much attention, but
just just on the fringe, you could have been paying attention
and seeing Joe Biden's, you know, I'll use my finger quotes
his campaign, you know, where he's hiding in his basement.
Like, I think a lot of people who have a reasonable brain, I
mean, think about it, you walk into an FBI building, your squad
is filled with FBI agents and task force officers.
Those are reasonable people. Their whole job is exactly,
exactly. That's their entire career is to
be skeptical, to ask questions and to raise legitimate
concerns. I mean, in my experience, by and
large, law enforcement officers and those involved in that work
were some of the most reasonable people I've ever known.
And so when they are unprompted saying, man, did he really get
81 million votes? A lot of this seems really
fishy. You know, he's bringing up some
some valid points, some valid concerns.
That's not just, you know, the Q Anon shaman or, or some of these
other people who may appear to be more fringe or whatever.
Like, yes, on both sides are going to have those.
But then also it's like, let's go back through history.
Al Gore was denying the election results.
Hillary Clinton was denying the election results in 2016.
Like right there. There's a whole history of this.
Well, moreover, and I think you touched on it, first of all,
we're talking about skeptics. So that's something that we see
a lot of times in the, in the investigative sphere, in the law
enforcement and intelligence community.
That's that's how people operate.
It's like, tell me something, I want to try to disprove it.
Very scientific method type of thing.
But you mentioned these cases last night in this this space
and the the gentleman who was speaking was a guy named Leo
d'onofrio, who seemed incredibly well versed in these particular
cases and the cases that he was mentioning.
You mentioned Bush V. Gore, which was obviously one of
the things he mentioned a couple of different Supreme Court cases
that I'm going to mention to you right now that may be in play
with this particular indictment. The first one goes back to 1892.
It's McPherson versus Blacker, and it was a decision coming
about the laws passed in Michigan.
These all have to do with the powers of the state legislature
in order to determine who the proper electors are.
You'll remember this was a big deal in 2020, whether or not
they were these false slates of electors or what they would call
faithless electors. So the false slates is that what
there are two slates of electors that are being put forward by
the state and the state hasn't properly certified which one it
is. So that was a big issue.
The second one is faithless electors, which is to say that
people would go forward, they would be told by the legislature
of their state that they had to vote for Bush, Gore, Clinton,
you know, etcetera, Trump. And when they went out there,
they actually voted against that.
They quote UN quote, voted their conscience or something, or they
voted for a third party and they were not holding in faith.
They were faithless to their task.
And so that's another sort of level of the stuff that was
being adjudicated. And by the way, Ryan's telling
me we got almost 800 people sitting in that live chat right
now. So if you are there and you're
not hitting the like button, go ahead and scrolled on down and
hit that thumbs up. If you're sticking with us, we
do appreciate that every time you do it.
The last case here we talked about Bush V.
Gore is the one that's called Buffalo versus Washington.
And this was actually adjudicated and decided in 2020,
another Supreme Court state case about the faithless electors.
And I'm just going to read a little snippet of it from you.
The court ruled unanimously by a verdict of eight to zero.
There was 1 abstaining obviously, that the states have
the ability to enforce the electors pledge in presidential
electors. In other words, to be a
faithless elector, to show up and not vote as you are
instructed by the state legislature is actually a
problem. And they can be fined and they
hold personal liability for doing such a thing.
They are required and bound to do the duty that the state
legislature puts out there. That's part number one.
The part number 2 that I think is really relevant.
And I think this is actually going to go to the heart of the
matter. And gentlemen, you guys remember
the hanging Chads controversy and the Bush V Gore piece.
And the thing that was so wild, that was decided there is
essentially they went and they had a decision about Article 2
and the Article 2 powers that sort of existed saying that the
state legislature has the power to select in the manner they
choose. The an appointing the electors
is a plenary power, OK. The plenary power says that if
they choose to do so, they can select the electors and they can
send them forward. They don't actually have to ask
the the voting base. They can, they can change the
laws, which are state laws, and they have the exclusive
authority to do so. Then they can send electors the
way they want off to Washington to vote in the Electoral
College. Now, a layman's version of this,
and I want you guys to kind of digest this piece.
The argument being made last night was that since the the
United States has a majority of states holding Republicans in
state legislature, they could literally vote and say that for
this election cycle coming up, the one in 2024, all the states
are now going to be not using the popular vote of the of the
state and not going to go to the people.
They are simply going to vote right now that they are going to
send on a a Republican slate of electors for whoever the
Republican nominee is in the primary.
And that would be 100% constitutional and legal based
on what is said right now. It's a power that could be
exercised. And that was the argument being
made by D'onofrio. I found it pretty fascinating.
It would probably cause an incredible uproar if we actually
didn't care about what was going on in the general election.
It would be a seizure of power. In many ways, this would be
considered like a legal coup. And yet every single four years
we do have a coup in this country.
We just vote for it. That's just the way that it
works. Interestingly enough, this this
power seems to hold based on the Supreme Court cases that he's
citing. And if the and the reason why we
can say that is this that happened for the 1st 100 years
of this nation and it still is. The way that it could work is
the way that senators were also set out there.
There's been a constitutional amendment saying that the
senators are now elected by the people of the state, but that
didn't used to be the case. In fact, for the 1st 100 years
or so, we were actually voting for your state representatives
and the state representatives were out there putting people
into office with or without the permission of the of the the
voting bodies as a whole. Didn't matter what the other
people in the state voted because once you have the state
legislature, you hold that power.
What do you think about that kind of idea?
How would people receive that? I don't think they'd receive it
real well. It it reminds me of my early
days as a cop in Waukesha. So we used to talk about
desirability and justification. Yep.
And you got to balance that. Is it desirable?
Is it justified? So it sounds like it's legal to
do inside the confines of our Article 2 in the Constitution,
but how desirable is something like that?
Probably not very. I think we might see, you know
it. I'm seeing images of the summer
of 2020 in my head again. And we, you would see that I, I
think on either side if, if, if something like that was to go
down again. But it is an interesting point
to bring up the 1st 100 years to where our quote UN quote elected
officials were basically just doing whatever they wanted with
disregard for what the people wanted.
So, well, it's important. Today, but it's it's
representative. It's representative.
It's a Republic system. We are not a democracy, right?
What we do is we direct elect things like the state
legislature and those legislators have the ability to
vote on our behalf. They are then the representative
from that state. And the idea was, is that as far
when you got further and further away from power, especially the
way it was originally designed, the further away from power or
from the people you got, the more you had a representative
representing you because of the distance and because of the, the
technical logistics that happened at that time.
That's one of the arguments against the, the Electoral
College is that it was a, it was a logistical concern at that
point that everybody could not cast a ballot and have them
easily counted for presidency in, you know, 1789.
That wasn't a real easy thing for anyone to go do.
And yet today we could do it digitally.
It'd be done, you know, in 90 or 100 days or whatever it is that
it takes now to count these things with machines, even
though it used to get done overnight when I was a kid.
It's a similar population. Yeah, with the machine, it
should, it should literally be like, you know, as soon as the
ballot is cast. Yeah, you would think.
But George, give us 90 days. You got to weigh in there.
Yeah, So obviously I'm not a lawyer, but I have been focusing
on the narrative. I've written about it and
uncovered DC. The narrative that has been
being laid down since Woodrow Wilson is that we live in a
democracy. Lyndon Johnson did away with
civics classes. So most of the country thinks
that we live in a democracy. So should states decide to do
what you raised, Kyle, people are going to be via, you know,
riotous because they think that somehow that we live in a
country that doesn't. Exist.
And there's no excuse for being ignorant.
But that is the line that's been laid down for over 100 years,
that we live in a democracy, a direct democracy, and that
somehow the Republicans, you know, Donald Trump tried.
But now the Republicans have finally done it and they've
stolen away our democracy. This is the the phraseology
that's being put out there time after time again, attack on our
democracy, attack on our democracy.
And most people believe it. They believe that we live in a
democracy. All right.
Now I've given you that that crazy instance that the the
state legislatures basically usurp the popular vote and
decide to do the thing that they believe that they were elected
to do. That's a possibility that's
apparently has constitutional basis.
I'm not bringing it up because I'm advocating for that position
necessarily, although that actually was being advocated
last night on Twitter. What I am bringing it up for is
the following reason, because that is a constitutional
authority that exists within the legislatures and they have the
ability to do so. Donald Trump going to any
legislature or any member of state delegations and saying go
find me votes. Go do what I need you to do is a
political exercise and not a criminal exercise under any
circumstances. It's a political thing that is
allowed to be done even if distasteful in America.
And therefore no matter what, even if they were to accept this
was the argument being made last night.
If every single charge made in the indictment, they say we
accept that all these things are in fact factually true.
That he was either lying that he was no knowingly and willingly
saying something, but he still wanted to stay in power and he
was asking state legislatures to exercise the the power that they
have that plenary authority to appoint legislatures and to
appoint electors rather then there cannot be a crime because
what he did fell within the Constitution.
And the actual quote that I took out of there was this.
There is no crime if you tell members of your political party
to exercise their political authority.
If that is the case. This was the motion to throw out
the entirety of the indictment that was being suggested by
d'onofrio last night. And it struck a real chord with
me because what often times I feel like we're doing this thing
where we're trying to debate the merits of an indictment.
Oh, is there a possibility of this?
Does this make sense? This is the classic game.
I'm going to go ahead and have Ryan bring up topic #15 if you
would, my friend. I'm going to read you guys a
couple of things. Some of you are familiar with
Saul Alinsky, and we talk about it.
If you listen to Dan Bongino, you've heard about it.
This is one of those playbooks. Go ahead and pop that up on the
screen. If you could, my friend #15 is
the rules for Radicals. And there are 10 of them, and
I'm going to read you just a select few if you do not mind.
Gentlemen, I'll have you guys reflect on these #1 power is not
only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
And that is the the reason why you would have this sort of
false set of, of allegations, why you would go after and put
something up that is spurious and doesn't have any
constitutional basis to argue against.
Because the enemy thinks that you have the ability.
So they're arguing against the indictment.
They should be trying to destroy the entirety of the fact that it
exists in the 1st place rule #4 you guys can Scroll down through
these on your own. Make the enemy live up to its
own playbook. People on the political right
find themselves more often than not on the side of law and
order. They believe that there are
rules and that people should play by them.
And so by making them live up to it, they are facing the
indictment on its merits, assuming that people operate in
good faith when that is in fact, not the case.
That is not the way that people are necessarily operating when
they are putting these indictments forward.
I think that's worth noting #8 keep the pressure on.
I think we can definitely say that that's what's going on
today, because this is indictment #3 of four most
likely dropping on President Trump as he is doing this.
And the last 1 #10 which I think is also there.
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations
that will maintain constant pressure on the opposition.
There is constant pressure being put on Donald Trump and his
campaign right now to deal with indictments and they cannot
focus on the things like putting out great policy or whatever
other things they're trying to do in order to speak to the
American people, gentlemen, in light of those 4 rules.
And they'll and then the idea that there may not even be a
crime in going to your, your constituents or your political
party members in other States and ask them to do something.
What do you think about this indictment knowing those things?
I mean, you know, Saul Alinsky's rule rules for radicals has been
big for me because it literally is their playbook and has been
for decades. You know, I, I picture a guy
like Jack Smith either having himself, he audio recorded
himself reading those and he listens to them on the way to
the office every day because, because it, it, it is their
playbook. He, he's Saul Alinsky is
essentially a God on the left. And but that being said, those
rule, those rules exist for a reason.
And they're good rules. If they're going to follow those
rules, which they are, they're, they're being smart and they're,
they're playing the game correctly.
Because like you mentioned on the right, conservatives
typically want to follow the rules.
Well, on the left, they're changing the rules.
They're doing sleight of hand. And, you know, for instance, an
indictment, another indictment on on Donald Trump.
OK. Most people think the word
indictment means like, oh, that guy's guilty, he's going to
prison. But often times indictments just
get canned because they're not good.
There's not merits there, but they're keeping the pressure up.
Again, back to the to the playbook.
And that that last one that you mentioned it, it was, it was it
was really standing out to me because it it it really brings
it all home because it's like, OK, yeah, these guys have had
this playbook. I think that book.
Rules for Radicals was written in like the 70s and they've been
instituting those rules ever since.
And we're seeing it in real time right now against Donald Trump,
probably like we've never seen ever before.
George. Yeah.
So as far as, you know, rebuffing the indictment line by
line, you know, you roll around in the mud with a pig, you get
dirty. I have spent no time.
You know, I was in that Twitter space with you for a while.
It's like, who cares? That's not what this fight's
about. This fight is about the 10th
rule, which you said, which is being unrelenting.
And then it goes back to Cloward and Piven, which people are just
going to say just make it stop. If you got to take Orange Man
out, fine. Just please God, make it stop.
And and that's where they're going.
This is a psychological operation rolling around in in
the mud. Like I said, it's just going to
get you dirty. Let's talk cloud.
Yeah, let's talk cloud and Piven.
So the Cloud Piven strategy, something that's been out there
since 1966 to Ivy League type professors that basically
released a strategy saying, and I'm going to say here, the
ultimate objective of the strategy is to wipe out poverty
by establishing A guaranteed annual income.
That's what they're trying to do.
They do so by essentially crushing the local system under
the weight of its inacquities. They're going to crush local
infrastructure in an effort to make things federalized.
And so, as you said, please make it stop.
We're willing to accept anything.
Even though the thing should be handled locally.
We can't handle it. It's too big.
We're going to go to a bigger authority.
And the broader spectrum of that is if you make people
uncomfortable and squirm long enough, they will cry uncle and
they will relent and allow the thing that they would otherwise
never agree to. That's sort of, that's sort of
the the piece, the Cloward pivot strategy sort of extrapolated
out to this idea, correct? 100% correct.
OK, I'm, I'm like, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but
I did want to paraphrase that for people that have not seen
it, because essentially it's an economic strategy to try to
bring in the federal government at a local level.
And yet this can be applied using that sort of overwhelm the
system that flood the flood the the lane situation to where
people don't know how to deal with it and so they just give
up. Sure.
And Donald Trump is a is a major obstacle in the way of that.
They're criminalizing political speech.
And what are we seeing in states like Michigan where they're
passing laws to if you misgender someone that you can actually be
charged under state code. So this is all about policing
speech. This is and and people will just
get to the point of please just make it stop and they're willing
to accept anything. If you can't talk, there's not
much left. That's it and that's why it is
the first thing you're supposed to start with your speech.
The second UPS obviously a last resort sort of situation.
It may be your right to have it at all times, but the goal is
not to use it. I want to queue up this video.
Get you guys impression, Garrett, I know this was a video
that was near and dear to your heart.
Now video #1 if you want to queue that thing up, Ryan, what
we're looking at here is the way that it was only a couple of
years ago and then the way that it was in the last week.
And Donald Trump sort of is a Canary in the coal mine for some
of these things. He is the the indication of the
way that things are going to go for regular people as well.
Like you look at a guy with wealth and power, he's a
billionaire. He lives in a big mansion.
He's got people and a staff and all the lawyers.
What about the people that don't have those sort of resources,
don't have that sort of capability, that don't have a
microphone? They can stand up and get CNN
and everybody else to go and, you know, listen and carry their
feed. So if we can queue up this video
#1 this is a street preacher in Tempe, AZ.
You're going to get some of it. We'll, we'll cut up some of this
video and move it forward a little ways.
Ryan, I think we're starting about a minute and 1/2 into
there. There's some, some time stamps
on there, if you would. Let's go ahead and roll that
thing right now when you're ready.
Well. I understand you can illegally
amplify. Yeah, I'm.
Talking about disturbing somebody's peace.
Yeah, that's, that's been, yeah, that's been ruled on.
No, don't. Don't give me the law.
Just if I could get your name would be great.
OK, I'm just asking why you need my name.
So are you? Are you arresting me or charging
me the crime? At this point.
No. So then the state law of Arizona
says that you can't ask for my ID unless I'm being charged with
a crime. Woman, I am in the process of
investigating your crime. Okay, what?
You just ignored that. When you get arrested, I, you
know, I have to be able to do an investigation.
Sure, but the law just. Grab people and arrest.
Them I appreciate the officer, but you're a law enforcement
official and I'm showing you the law.
The law says that in order for you to say I'm disturbing the
peace has to be more than a vague generality of your own
opinion. You have to have a you have to
have a calibrated meter that demonstrates I'm over 65
decibels. Do you have a calibrated meter?
Do I have to have a? You do, it's the city code
that's. What it says?
Anything. So tell me who you are you don't
want. No, officer, I respect your
position. I'm a pastor I respect.
So he's showing him the law and if you look, if you're watching
on the video, what you're seeing is the cop is making eye contact
with the man and not the not the piece of paper he's holding.
This is obviously a non threatening situation.
It's nonviolent. These are people that are openly
protesting abortion on the streets and they are doing so
within the law. They actually looked up the
code, they printed out the statutes, and they're saying
that we're allowed to use amplified megaphones and so on
as long as it's under 65 decibels.
And the only way that you could calibrate that it's over 65
decibels is with a calibrated meter, which is a totally
reasonable position to have. And then he doesn't want to give
the cop his name. He later on does say, I'm Pastor
Jeff and the guy's like, what's your last name?
And he started and they fight over that a little bit.
Garrett, you saw that, you brought that to my attention.
I know I've seen it before. I've seen clips of that, but not
the entire thing like I did last night.
What is that showing to you as someone who's been a local St.
cop? To me, it's showing proper civil
disobedience because one that cop, he didn't even know that he
needed to have a calibrated meter.
He said, do I need to have a calibrated meter?
Because he, he didn't know the law.
And you know what, honestly, that's fine because as a cop you
have state statutes and in Wisconsin, the the state statute
book is like probably like that thick.
And then you have a Unicode book and then you know it.
It's impossible for you to know every single one inside and out.
But also, when he gets sent on that call, he could have pulled
up the muni code book or pulled it out of his duty bag or pulled
it up on the website on his computer and checked, but he
didn't know the law. I would say a street preacher, a
patrol cop, probably knows knows violation laws.
That's probably something to deal with pretty regularly.
Yeah, it is. And I would say in my
experience, amplified sound device, man, it was pretty rare.
And I don't even know what the code was as far as measuring it.
I don't know if we had one in our city, but it was, it boiled
down to like a reasonableness standard.
And in this instance, you know, the cops get called, so they
show up. That's what they have to do.
But then when you show up as the officer, the one who's supposed
to enforce the law or decide to not enforce the law because no
law is being broken, then you need to make that play or that
decision, you know, right there. And instead of doing that, he
gets sent to the call and says, OK, whoever called the police is
right. And we see that very often in
law enforcement. It shouldn't be that way.
And in this case, you know, Jeff Durbin, the pastor, he, he was
prepared for it. And you know, good on him for
being prepared, but then bad on the officer for not even wanting
to look at the law. And then I don't know if you're
going to play it, but it gets worse with the supervisor.
Shows up, I'm going to have Ryan play that.
Ryan, can you go to timestamp 332?
And we'll just play that for a couple seconds and then we'll go
to the the 538 stamp where we actually see the female officer
intervene. Oh yeah, give me a second.
I have it set up for 2:30. Give me one second 3332 332 yes,
if you'll bring it up on that and then we'll we'll listen to
this. So this is just a little bit
further in this conversation. So this conversation is very
peaceful. There's people just milling
about and you can't see it. They're on a street corner.
You can probably hear the road noise in the back.
Just let me know when you're ready to bring that thing up.
You can cut it off it. All right, Rock.
The problem is, and I know you're a law enforcement
officer, you took an oath to the Constitution.
We have freedom of speech rights.
And somebody saying you're disturbing my peace because I
don't like your message or I can hear it isn't a valid reason to
undo the Constitution of the United States that says I have
freedom of speech. the US Supreme Court has ruled on this.
Somebody can't say I'm disrupting the peace because
they don't like my message, because I'm amplifying,
amplifying my voice. The law which you and I both are
committed to states that I'm in a lawful activity right now.
Well, that was a. Shroud.
And I appreciate you. No, I know and I appreciate your
position. I have no disrespect for you,
but when it comes to law and law enforcement, 30. 8 Whenever
you're ready. So he shrugs.
He just goes like, yeah, you just told me I have an oath to
the Constitution. George, you're a regular guy.
Your oath to the Constitution has existed for decades at this
point now. But you were not law
enforcement. I mean, could you be more polite
with this guy? You're looking from the outside.
Does that seem like a thing that you'd be upset about hearing?
He the the pastor is exemplary. If you if you need an example of
a behavior to follow, bring up that video and and follow his
example. Do you think he's as calm as a
Marine would be? Oh God, no, no, I, I, I I'm not
capable of that level of self-discipline.
All right, so it, it gets worse in this video and, and folks, we
can put the link if you really want to see it.
But if you go to that 538 timestamp, Ryan, when you tell
me you're ready, we'll roll that.
And this is where it gets really ugly.
I think this is where we are getting towards.
And then we'll show the second video from this week.
Again, this is a couple years old that we're seeing right now.
So this goes back a couple years in Tempe, AZ Ready to roll that
one. Yeah, let's do it.
Sergeant. Liz Lens in Tempe PD.
Hello. Hey, who's been using the
megaphone? I have.
Yeah, and what's your name? Jeff.
Oh.
Yeah, Jeff, it's Pastor Jeff. Pastor Jeff, I'm so supposed to
know where you pastor at? Apology at church in Tempe.
OK. And what's your last name, Jeff?
Do you need that for anything? Yes, we do, because I'll, we, we
have a complaint that we're working.
That's why we're here, OK? Otherwise we would not be here.
In my respect, your position, I was just telling this officer
over here in order to for me to identify myself, I have to be
sided with a crime according to Arizona State law.
Well. We're going to give you a
warning right now, so we're going to need that for a street
check. So what's your last name?
OK, so the warning is a violation of the law.
Well, because of the amplified sound device.
What I was saying to the officer was he's right over here.
Zach, Where's the other Zach? Morgan, he's out of state right
now. OK, I'm used to.
They know me and Steven knows me.
So you're going to be given a warning you cannot use.
Any officer. You can't do that, officer.
You can't do that unless you have a calibrated meter
according to the city code. Oh, we can.
And you test it. Yeah, we can.
And so you can. Violate this law, we have a.
Complaint. That's a citizen.
A complaint of illegal activity. We have complaint.
Of illegal activity. Disorderly conduct.
Ma'am, if you read the city code.
He's saying a complaint of a legal activity, not illegal
activity. Somebody said I don't like the
thing that the guy is doing that's legal.
And so that's where we're at right now.
What do you think about that Lady?
Is that your favorite kind of cop or what?
George? You know, I think Garrett
touched on it. It's, it's not the decibel
level, it's the content of the message.
And this ties in perfectly with the 45 page indictment against
Trump. This is a war on free speech.
It plain and simple. Yeah, it does seem like they're
First Amendment protected. Even if he's wrong, he has the
right to be wrong. They're they're trying to say
that he's knowingly wrong and using that knowingly wrong
information. And potentially as as was argued
in these sort of court cases that we're talking about,
particularly the the Bush V Gore piece, is that the he had every
right to go and ask for a political solution to a problem
that he had, which is a political problem, which is to
say he wanted to stay in office even if he knew he was wrong.
Theoretically, that that's what the argument is.
So they get us chasing the laser pointer of all the different
counts in the indictment. And I had them all all lined up,
and they're not even worth covering a lot of them because
it's fiction, as you mentioned. It doesn't make a difference
whether they're true or not. It doesn't matter at all.
Garrett, I'm going to get your reaction to this last video if
we'll pull up. I think it's video #3 no, it's
not showing up on there. There was a YouTube video that
we have. Sorry.
YouTube, Twitter. Yeah.
Is that what it is? There it is, yes.
Video 2. Thank you so much.
Can you pull up Video 2. This is what happened just a
couple days ago, folks. And this is in Wisconsin.
This is right in Garrett's backyard.
True love serve one another all the law is to.
Build in one word. Even in this, you shall love
your neighbor as yourself. But if you buy and devour one
another, beware. Lest you be consumed by one
another. Hey, hey.
What are you doing? What are you?
Doing what is the problem? What?
Are you doing? You didn't give any warning.
This is. The same one that we had.
Yeah, that was in there. It was not out here.
They said we can have because they said we can speak out here
on the sidewalk freely. Nobody told us that.
How come there's no amplification?
You guys are acting like thugs, man.
You're like straight up thugs. Hey, you're you're taking away
my. He has every right to be out
here engaging in speech. He has every right to be out
here engaging in speech. There's cars driving by with
their radios playing. That's amplified sound.
People are standing out here with radios, that's amplified
sound. The ordinance has to do with a
decibel gauge. You don't just get to pick and
choose which amplification you like there what we're.
Seeing is now, police officers are now leading away.
This guy, he's got to be in his early 20s.
He's out there doing sort of a scriptural reading.
I don't know what the event that he was standing outside of, but
he's on the sidewalk and in a place that he's publicly allowed
to be where they were previously told they could stand.
And you've got something like 7 or 8 cops roll up.
They all look like our tribe of people, that's to say young, you
know, like fit, capable people who swore allegiance to the
Constitution. And they walk up and they
immediately put the guy's hands behind his back, strip the
microphone out of his hand and cuff him.
There was no discussion. There was no citation.
This was straight to cuffing and dragging him away.
Again, the content of the message.
Will you give a little reflection on I I tweeted about
the reserve police battalion one O 1.
But I give you an opportunity to talk about that anytime you
like, Garrett. Yeah, so this video, it's really
disturbing for me because like you said, it's it's right in my
backyard. I mean, Watertown is, is 30
minutes, maybe a two of my former colleagues live there.
It's a very quaint conservative town.
And for those officers in a town like that, in this once great
country to show up at that event and literally arrest someone for
reading from the Bible or, or preaching a message that's based
on the Christian faith, it is astonishing.
And yeah, like, it's, it's tough for me to, to deal with because,
like, I think of my days as a cop, like I never would have
handled a situation like that. Never.
And most of my colleagues, I don't think would have either.
Some, yeah, probably, which is unfortunate, but that Sergeant,
he's the one who went in there initially and strong armed that
kid and grabbed the mic. And then everybody else followed
suit like, oh, the Sergeant, well, he's he's doing it.
So OK, I'm just going to slap the cuffs on and get this kid
out of here. And that's that slippery slope
we've talked about before. And we've talked about the Nazi
argument before. OK, Then again, I've said it
before on your show. Well, then the FBI needs to stop
doing the Holocaust trip If if they think that talking about
Nazism is a is a bridge too far because you go on that trip so
you don't repeat the mistakes of the past.
And in 1932 in Germany, that's the type of thing they were
doing. That's what law enforcement was
doing. They were quelling speech.
They were quelling dissenters and they were escorting them
away. If they were engaging in speech
that was outside of the Nazi regime.
And for it to be happening in a conservative town like that and
in Wisconsin like it's happening everywhere, then and then where
did? That meet you just so people
understand 1932 we're shutting down speech, we're identifying
people that are problems and by the time we get around till 1939
what's happening. And then you have Holocaust, you
know, you have, you have, you have a concentration camp set up
by then. So it, it's, you know, people
always say, oh, that's never going to happen again because
the human race has evolved. No, we haven't.
Our technology may have evolved,
but us as people have not. Hate still exists, You know,
anti God beliefs still exist. Anti human beliefs still exist.
And oh, if you've been othered like the Jews were and the
gypsies and the communists and the gays and a list of a bunch,
yeah, a list of people. Everybody always thinks, oh,
it's just the Jews. Like, yeah, they were a big
section, you know, subset of it, probably the biggest.
But it wasn't just them. And we're seeing that othering
happening again here. And I would venture to say that
most of those cops that showed up at that call in Watertown the
other day, they probably have a conservative bent, but they're
doing it anyways. And that is the real problem.
And and that is like where like, I almost don't even know what to
say or how to comprehend it or how to grasp it because it's so
far beyond the pale for what I always tried to do as a law
enforcement officer, both at the local level and in the FBI.
So it's just difficult to take in.
And then when you pair it with the previous video with Jeff
Durbin, how it was handled, even though the the older cop didn't
know the law and the the the female supervisor, obviously it
was a real Karen, but they didn't strong arm him to get him
out of there. They end up walking away
themselves with the citations. That's what you have to do.
Exactly. Yeah.
And, and so, yeah, just to see that video with, with that kid
getting strong on like that and coughed and escorted out of
there for engaging and 1st Amendment protected speech.
OK, you know what, if there's a, if there's a decibel issue with
his amplification device, OK, fine.
Then let's deal with that and say, hey, dude, it's too loud.
And you know what, I actually was flipping through Watertown's
Muni code book last. Well, I say flipping through
like I actually had, I was on their website looking through, I
couldn't even find what the decibels are supposed to be
because their noise ordinance didn't even cover that.
So it it's, it's more of a reasonableness standard.
So they have to take in the time of day a special events, you
know, and I have the links. I mean, I'm, I'm sure people
don't want to go down the rabbit hole Watertown WI you know, muni
code, but it's. More like a, it's more like an
example that exists. And these are in two different
places around the country showing, you know, this, this
trend and the trend is more towards action and, and doing
what they're told. George, you live in a different
part of the country as well. Could you imagine that happening
in your town as well at this point?
It probably wouldn't be as much of exchange of dialogue.
It would have been handcuffed pretty quick.
But look, I had a pinned tweet. But this has been going on for a
while, starting with the defund the police movement and then the
vaccine mandates. The the left in this country has
been policing the ranks of police and law and, you know,
the federal entities and the military of people who don't
just reflexively follow orders. And this is what we've got.
This is this is by design. This is not by accident.
This is not a one off that you can come up with two videos that
just took place within days of one another.
And then on top of everything else we're seeing, this is a
plan that we see starting to gel and starting to set and and we
wind up in pre World War 2 Poland. 100% there.
I'm going to take the last word on this folks.
When I, when we have these, these call outs, it's not
because we don't think that law enforcement is overwhelmingly
full of good people. What we're talking about is the
so-called good men and women of the FBI, a federal law
enforcement of the state and the local law enforcement.
They need to police their own. It is your job.
Your job is to refuse illegal, immoral, unethical.
Orders if you want to call them that or request by supervisors
if you are a supervisor, you cannot engage in this behavior
if you see your colleagues do so.
The FBI has actually created a duty to act to stop your
colleagues from depriving people of their civil liberties up to
and including deadly force. This is a new piece of DOJ has
been introduced. I generally don't think that is
AI think they had the wrong answer, but the idea that you
should not be allowing your colleagues to engage in this
type of behavior. It is always been there.
It's never not been part of that oath.
Your job is to make sure you protect civil liberties of
everyone out there, including from your colleagues.
It's not just your refusal to infringe on it.
It has to be something that you look and you see that others are
out there doing the same thing and you do not accept it.
We got a bunch more things to talk about, but we'll keep doing
this stuff. We'll have it on.
I think we'll do it again on Friendly Friday with more
tomorrow. I'm going to be bringing you an
interview with Tiffany Justice for Moms for Liberty.
The segue there is we heard a little bit of hope on Tuesday
from a from a high school age young gal who did a great job
and and kind of shared with us her generally out positive
outlook, conservative perspective on America.
I thought that was really wonderful, especially with
parents that don't necessarily agree with her.
That's kind of opening her eyes. Give us a little bit of hope.
Today is a little bit of a downer.
Unfortunately, tomorrow will be how you fight back a little bit.
We're talking to Tiffany Justice with Moms for Liberty, the
things you can do locally to try to make a difference, to make
sure that your children are educated in the way that
Americans have always been educated, that they understand
things that are important. If you're not going to
homeschool, then you got to fight to make sure that
government schools are the thing that you want to send your kids
to. If you're still sitting in that
live chat, Scroll down there, make sure you've given that like
button. Make sure that it is a green
thumbs up. We're collecting those as often
as we can. If you have any questions or
things you want us to cover in future panels, including with
Friendly Friday when we have Steve Friend on, scroll on down
past the live chat and you can go to the comments section and
you can add a comment there. Any questions, we tend to answer
them during the day if we know it, and if not, we'll add them
on to the next show. We'll put it into the topic.
So thanks so much, folks. You've been listening to the
Kyle Seraphin show. We are stream live from Liberty
Hill, TX every morning right now at 8:30 Texas America time.
That's 9:30 for those of you who are on the East Coast.
Don't forget to like that video. If you haven't.
If you're sitting and watching us on one of the other channels,
you can always go to rumble.com/kyleseraphin/live
Kyle Seraphin. We'll get you to our channel and
you can watch our shows and join the live chat, which has been
bumping so far today. Share that link on social media
as you like anywhere you like it.
We're big on Twitter and we're big on truth.
But if you're on other platforms, please feel free to
share it. A couple thank yous.
Thanks for joining us to you, those of us in the live chat and
we do want to say thanks to all the five star reviews.
We're almost at 625 like this one right here.
This one is coming from green Nick is what I see or is that
Greek Nick looks like Greek nick.
He says been as suspendable since Hillary Rodham Clinton
classified me as deplorable dot dot .5 stars and Kyle Seraphin
show speaks right to my heart. He has has the actual talent and
viable training. He understands what content will
impact his listening audience and has the reach to put on
guess whose personal experiences are sure to deeply affect how
you understand the irrationality and silliness of our modern age.
God bless you, Ryan and the fellow suspendables, including
our guests who are very thankful for George Hill, Congressional
whistle blower and intelligence analysts retired from the FBI,
and Gerardo Boyle, another two of my heroes that are out there
in the world that are pushing the envelope and making sure
that you guys have access to information from a reputable
sources. So gentlemen, thanks so much for
joining me today. Again, We'll also say thanks to
Ryan Madda, the very skilled and talented who's been queuing up
all of our videos and making sure this thing runs smoothly
despite some of our little technical glitches.
Follow Ryan at Ryan Matta Media, MATTA Media, Ryan Matta Media on
Twitter, or you can follow him at Ryan Madda on True social.
We're there folks. Our opening theme was composed
by my talented brother Casey Seraphin.
I'm sure you all heard it. Please consider subscribing to
the podcast anywhere you get it. Share it anywhere else you like.
Gentlemen, you want to throw out your social media handles real
quick and people can follow you as well.
Garrett first. GOB, actual Twitter, Instagram
and truth and then last line.substack.com.
Are you letting people into the last line yet?
Not quite, not quite. So hopefully we'll have some
some developing news on that front.
I've had some interesting developments with on the
attorney front, so. OK, good enough.
I'll come back and talk about that soon.
Yeah, you got it, my friend. George, where can people follow
you? Senior chief SENIOR chief
CHIEFEXW. All one word at Twitter.
Got it, Senior chief Exw on Twitter, folks, follow my
friends there and you will have a enlightened perspective on the
the daily events. We're all pretty active in the
social media space these days and we will see you again
tomorrow with an interview with Tiffany Justice.
Thanks so much for joining us for the Kyle Seraphin Show.
Thanks for listening to the Kyle Seraphin Show streamed live
weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin.
Follow Kyle on Twitter, True Social and Instagram at Kyle
Seraphin.