Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistleblower, an
American patriot prepared to embrace the uncomfortable truth.
Because this program has no time for comforting lies.
Here is civil liberties enthusiast, Second Amendment
defender, and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphim.
Hello, my friends and welcome to the Kyle Seraphin show.
It's Friday, it's June the 23rd. It's 8:30 here in Texas,
America. It sounds like we are streaming
live. We got the thumbs up in the
chat. Thanks so much to all of you
that are paying attention and giving me that heads up.
And let's talk about what we're going to do today.
We're going to connect some dots now.
I promised you Steve friend on friendly Friday and I don't have
Steve Friend, but I've got at least as good, maybe better for
right now, especially when Steve friend is running around in the
airport. He just told me that TSA
confiscated his hair gel, the 299 hair gel that he carries
from Walmart. So way to go, TSA.
Thanks for keeping America safe. We're really proud of you.
I think we're proud of what you are all doing and you are
keeping us protected from those dangerous January 6 travelers
and also Steve friend, American hero and federal whistleblower
so that his hair is not kept in place.
That is that is a great victory. He just told me bin Laden wins
When that happens, I think he may be right.
Before we jump into my guest who you will be very pleased to see.
I want to bring up my sponsor really quick here.
Want to thank my friends over at Patriot Coolers.
You guys know them. I'm going to bring in my Patriot
cooler with me. I'm on my way to New Hampshire
later on today and it is already packed up.
This is the the view of their hard coolers, which I'm not
going to be bringing one of those suckers because they are
monstrous and they are very capable.
They can keep ice for days, much like a Yeti or an Arctic or an
igloo, except they say Patriot. They are made by this Houston
company that I've been working with.
They have been supporting our show, literally our first
sponsor, and I'm really pleased for them to be out there taking
care of us. Let's take care of them as well.
Use promo code Kyle. Kyle Promo code Kyle.
Someone told me I'm supposed to spell it out phonetically since
I'm used to doing that, but I'm not going to do a phonetic.
So do promo code Kyle. You get 10% off.
You'll get free shipping over $50 if you buy any of their
their bigger items. That's an easy thing to do.
Or you get 2 tumblers that will also get you free shipping
again, promo code Kyle for 10% off.
And let's also talk about Catholic Vote.
These are our friends that are keeping the lights on here at
the Seraphin household and outstanding organization and
something that we have something really special brewing with.
I wanted to actually bring up on Catholic Vote.
They have a an e-mail chain that comes out.
The e-mail is called the Loop. I've told you guys about it
before. If you look at the main page
right here, you can drop your e-mail and your zip code and get
timely information. I pulled this up today and the
Loop e-mail, which really does keep you looped in, has all
kinds of stuff. In fact, I could probably do my
entire show for Friday off this if I didn't have my special
guest. They have an article about the
Biden administration backing down about a trans a trans
mandate that they had for doctors.
They've got the whistleblower piece here talking about
DOJFBIIRS all discussing how the the the federal government is
giving Hunter Biden a special pass, which we talked about last
time. They've got a piece about Alito,
the the Supreme Court Justice. They've got another one about
some controversial teachers union head that's going to be
working with the cabinet, the Biden administration, the House
censure on Adam Schiff, really all the stuff that you're going
to want to know about what's going on into your days.
You can start there with that loop.
So check them out. And without too much further
ado, I want to start connecting some dots.
And we're going to do so by bringing on my friend, your
favorite. This is the Garretto Boyle,
AKAGOB, actual Garrett. Welcome back to the Kyle
Seraphin show, buddy. Hey Kyle, thanks for having me
back. Thanks for agreeing to show up
with me in the morning over there and tell people about that
shirt you're sporting, because if you're not watching the
Rumble channel, you're missing out on a great visual.
Here we go, this is prototype #1 of suspendables shirt that we've
been working on some designs and the back.
I'll see. I.
I don't know if I can really. Yeah, I don't know if you're
going to be able. To do that, is that the suspend
or die? Yeah, it's the suspend or die.
So it's a it's a play on the join or die flag and there's
some some layers in there once once we send out the photo or
whatever that you guys will hopefully pick up on.
Yeah, it's got the, it's got the snake.
That's all cut into pieces. This is the join or die thing
that started from the original colonies when they were talking
about whether or not they would go about the American
Revolution. It's a good looking shirt.
What color is that? Is that like an olive drab?
Yep, it's like AOD, Yeah. OK, And you're not seeing the
chat, but people are saying hello to you, Garrett.
So thanks for joining us. I want to connect some dots.
I want to get into a discussion about this most recent
situation. And what we saw was this week
who, who actually released this Empower oversight put this out
right. These are the guys like Jason
Foster and Tristan Levitt, who you sat on a panel with in front
of Congress. They they shared a whistleblower
affidavit. Did you get a chance to read
that? I did.
OK, I'm going to bring it up here on the screen with both of
us, I believe. Let's see if let's see if Kyle's
tech skills make it. So here's the here's the
affidavit. This is their story.
Just as a top official with the FBI has followed A protected
disclosure with the Office of the Inspector General alleging
that FBI Director Paul Abate, deputy Director Rather told the
bureau's internal critics that January 6th related casework was
the most important thing. And if they were not going to
work it or they didn't think it was righteous, then they should
seek employment elsewhere and offered to personally address
the subordinate agents. So that's always kind of fun.
This is a fantastic piece, folks.
If you're not following John Solomon, please do so.
And he writes at just thenews.com.
That's his news organization. He's a friend of our show and a
friend of America since he's been out there kind of fighting
this fight in many ways. So what is your what is your
take away? Because we're going to connect
some dots here. This whistleblowers allegation
goes back to 2021 February 2021, right?
Right. I mean, my first take away there
is I wish they would have came forward a little sooner.
I mean, I don't know what took them so long.
That's kind of frustrating. But at the same time, I would
like to give them a little grace because, you know, we're not
very far removed from our own whistleblower activities and
retaliation and things that are continuing to happen today.
So I want to try to be a little bit graceful because I'm
grateful for every single one that does come forward, whether
they want to be named or not. Like this one wanted to stay
anonymous. I don't really blame them, but
you know, I don't. But that being said, with Paula
Bate, I think it was last week, maybe the week before he was up
on the hill testifying as well. And if you, if you got a chance
to see that, I mean, he's he's what the type of person I've
been talking about ever since I came out publicly after the
hearing. He's filled with hubris.
He doesn't answer questions. He doesn't want you or the
American people to know what the FBI is doing and why.
He just wants to keep you under their thumb.
Yeah, that's true. And he and he does seem like
really arrogantly proud about the stuff he's telling people
that are senators, that are theoretically the elected
representatives of the people that I'm not going to answer
these questions and I'm not going to get into that with you,
Senator. I mean, talk about somebody who
knows that they don't have any possible scrutinies, like what?
What's going to ever happen to that guy, right?
Right, Yeah. And that I think that's part of
the overall problem and that hubris they've seen and they
know from their predecessors that they can pretty much get
away with whatever they want. I mean, for me to it even ties
into the Durham hearing. Like Congressman Gates, I was
especially appreciative of his questioning of Durham because he
kind of held him over the fire a little bit, saying what's
actually going to happen to the people who did something wrong
here, like James Comedy and Peter Strzok and whatever else.
And he even mentioned Kleinsmith, the one who authored
an e-mail so they could get a FISA renewal.
And he's practicing law again in Washington, DC Like this is
crazy. So Paula Bate, he knows all
that. So he's like, I can literally
sit up here and Stonewall and do whatever I want and even
threaten to fire employees over January 6th and nothing will
ever happen to me. I'm eventually going to walk
away with my pension and get a sweetheart deal at some place
like GE, like our good friend Jen Moore recently signed on to.
Yeah, let's, let's talk about that in just one second here
because I think that's worthwhile.
I'm going to actually bring up the the specific article that
we're talking about. This is the actually the letter.
So you can see if you're not watching our Rumble channel,
you're missing out on seeing the Empower Oversight Whistleblowers
and research letterhead. And this is a letter that's
written to all the members of the weaponization committee and
then also the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
including people like Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden and so
on. And essentially what it does is
it lays out that this affiant, the the gentleman that we're
going to actually quote in just one second here heard the FBI
deputy director. That's going to be the number
two guy in the FBI. This would have been someone
that that had all the authorities to make this happen,
basically state that there was a significant difference between
people who were rioting and destroying property and running
amok in American cities in 2020 and the domestic terrorists who
decided to riot and and do the same thing at the Capitol.
And so we're going to kind of I want to quote some of these
things directly and get your reaction to that, if you don't
mind. This is this letter was actually
drafted by Tristan Levitt. Once again, the guy that sat on
the other panel with you and we'll say so the Afghan declares
who he is. He says he's an FBI special
agent with more than 15 years of experience.
He's been in a leadership position for more than 10 years.
So we can assume that probably closer to 16 years, one of those
six years and then picking up a special, what he calls
supervisory special agent job at the SSA position says he's over
18, He's competent to testify. These are pretty, pretty
standard things. Asking that he remains
confidential for fear of retaliation.
I think we can all appreciate that as you just mentioned.
And obviously if you don't do that sort of thing, you get the
the fun and chance to become a suspendable in real life.
You. Yeah, I guess you're suspendable
if you come forward. You get to actually get
suspended if you speak. Up right.
So, So this is what he says. He's providing A sworn
declaration to advise that the deputy director of the FBI,
that's Paula Bate, threatened employees who criticized the FB
is response and tactics related to investigations of January
6th, 2021, also known as J6. And then he goes on with what
his actual statement was. He says that on Wednesdays at
about 3:00 PM Eastern Time, the deputy director and the FBI
director hosted video conference which addresses all the FB is
divisions to the special agents in charge, including your
special agent. Who is your special agent in
charge? Charles Diube was his name,
which we, I mean, we can get into that a little bit.
I got some some late breaking news on him, OK.
Well, let's hold it for one second because I, I want to hear
that too. So all the, the field offices
are run by a special agent in charge, except the ones like
Washington Field. They have a assistant director
in charge. People are kind of starting to
become aware of the FB is org chart, especially if you listen
to us. They have all the legal
attaches, which are the FBI detailees to the State
Department that hang out in an embassy overseas and coordinate
the FB is efforts overseas. And then the headquarters
division heads and they go to this thing called a secure video
teleconference or SVTC. All of these division heads and
executive assistant directors, which would include people like
Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Moore and then also eventually
executive assistant director Jen Moore and executive assistant
director, what's her name? Larissa Knapp, AKA Lariss.
She used to sign her emails. Lariss, by the way, that means
to make me want to puke. Anyway, so they would all get
together, the deputy director, the assistant deputy director
and they would all address the audience on various topics of
interest to these senior executives that are out there
literally running the FBI. And he says that in February,
this is paragraph 7, February of 2021, the newly appointed deputy
director, because Paula Bate, I want to say, took took over in
January. It was a very new position for
him, but it might have been actually as new as February.
Anyway, he's brand new to the role at this time.
This goes back two years now, didn't change.
And it says he took over to address the meeting of FBI
personnel, including the individual, the AFIA, who is
making this testimony. So he was part of this
conference. And he stated that he'd come to
his attention that some of the employees of the FBI question
the FBI's investigative response to the events on January 6th,
that he heard. Some employees were contrasting
this response of January 6th with the response to the post
George Floyd protests and riots in the summer of 2020.
The Deputy Director told the audience that anyone who
questions the FBI's response or his decisions regarding that
response to January 6th did not belong in the FBI and should
find a different job or something to that effect.
Then he stated that the FBI's response to January 6th was
consistent with the the summer riots of 2020.
He argued the FBI was applying all appropriate resources in
each situation and he challenged the SA CS that if they had an
employee that did not agree, this is again, a quote, that the
SA CS could have the employee called Deputy Director, a bait
personally and he would set them straight.
The Afghan states that he witnessed hundreds of director
SVTCS, the secure conferences and he had never seen a direct
threat like that at any time, that it was chilling and
personal, communicating very clearly that there would be
consequences for anyone who questioned his direction.
It goes on a little further, but I think that's going to be the
piece of it. And then he references a, a
letter, which I'm going to put up on the screen as well.
And Garrett, you're not going to be able to see this, but this is
a letter. Are you familiar with the letter
that came in through the FBI vault?
Yeah, Yep, I read that too. Maybe paraphrase it for folks
and then I will actually bring it up here in a second and we
can talk about it like the actual direct quotes out of it.
I know it's a little small on the screen, folks.
So is this the one that has a little bit of those redactions
in it? It does indeed.
That's correct. Yep.
Yeah. So it's let me actually just
pull it up myself real quick. So we'll, I'll do a quick quote
from it here. What we're saying here is that
this is a external e-mail that made it to Paula Bate, and then
he sends it on to somebody else and it says thank you, blank for
sharing everything below. And he obviously forwards it
within the FBI because it's the from line is what we're seeing.
This is the result of a FOIA. And people, you can find this at
vault.fbi.gov. This is a FOIA that I will
probably post. It's known as Dump under score
7. And while Garrett's pulling that
up, I'll just read a couple pieces of it.
It just says hello Paul. Someone who's obviously familiar
with Paula Bate knows him personally.
I know how occupied you must be with the investigation of the
capital insurrection because it's an insurrection and the
larger scale preparation for inauguration week.
If I didn't believe this was of significant importance, I
wouldn't be sending you this e-mail while you're in that
crush. No good way to say it.
I'll just be direct from my first hand and second hand
information. From conversation since January
6th, there is at best a sizable percentage of the FBI employee
population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the
Capitol and said it was no different than the BLM protest
of last summer. Several lamented the only reason
that this violent activity was getting more attention is
because of political correctness.
I think many listeners of this podcast are going to agree with
that sort of situation. And then he says, here's the
sampling of the things. I find it very interesting that
he talks about blue states, red States and purple states.
The a political FBI is going to bring all those things up.
And this is essentially what he said, that they're 70% of a
counterterrorism squad, roughly 75% of the Asian population in
an office, unknown office, disagreed with the violence but
understood the frustration, understood that the protesters
got carried away. I think that seemed eminently
true. He was very concerned that the
far right news media outlet Newsmax was on the TV on one of
the squad areas. And then he spoke to some black
agents, which he refers to as African American agents who
turned down asks to join the SWAT team because they didn't
trust every member of their office in the SWAT team to
protect them in an armed conflict.
I know you were a SWAT team member, so I'm going to have you
reflect on that as well. And then talked about a senior
analyst who has a has since retired and is now in a free
space sort of realm, no longer an FBI employee, but has a
Facebook page full of stop the steal content.
I wonder if this is where Marcus Allen's Stop the Steal
allegations went against him and the what do they call it, the
conspiratorial allegations? Anyway, so he just talked about
this, this, this, this page is actually cut off.
We don't get to see all of it, but you've got the, the e-mail
in front of you. What are your reflections on
this e-mail going back to, to this was what?
What day was it? 2021 like a week after, yeah.
January 13th, yeah. OK, go ahead.
So I mean, this thing is littered with just fear
mongering and conjecture and racism.
Like the SWAT thing that really stands out to me because Kansas
City was a small team, I mean, and it was mostly white guys,
but let's be honest, most of the FBI is white people or the agent
pool at least. And but we had, I think he's
like a mix Latino and and white, I think.
And then we had a, we had a black guy for a while on there.
But you're going to just guess because like, who knows and who
cares? Yeah, and he didn't care.
And like people would make fun of him for being like Samoan.
And, you know, it was all in good fun.
And, you know, people would make fun of me because, like my long
hair. And but then it's like, wait,
you're Irish and you know, like it has nothing to do with with
with people's race. And I mean, it's not even like
an underhanded, hey, SWAT guys might be racist.
It's basically saying, oh, black guys in the FBI are afraid of
SWAT team members because they're white supremacists.
I mean, that's how I read that, really.
And it's up here at the upper levels of the FBI again, because
they're up in their ivory tower and they have no clue of what is
really going on in the real world or the real parts of the
FBI because they've been in and out of headquarters for so long.
That's all they really care about.
They want to live in the swamp because they like that
lifestyle. They like that ego pad that they
get by thinking that they're part of whatever they think it
is living in the Capital Region. And and yeah, the, the red,
purple, blue state nonsense in here and just alluding to the
part that stands out the most to me.
It's it's our job to ask questions and to to say, hey,
you know what, just a few months ago in the summer, we had riots
all across the country and now we had something that wasn't
good. I mean, it wasn't that what
happened on January 6th wasn't good.
It was boneheaded. I'll say it.
I've been saying it all along. There were people who should be
arrested from that day. I have no problem saying that
because I've seen a lot of the video I've seen, I've
participated in a lot of the investigations.
Well, not I shouldn't say a lot. All the ones that came into
Wichita, which it, it's a substantial amount because of
how they were running it, because it was you must do this.
You must do it how Paula Bates says or else.
And I think that was reflective across the entire FBI because
everyone I know from people from Quantico that are at different
field offices to people up in Kansas City or whatever to
Wichita, it was like nothing anybody had ever seen.
And it's like, it's literally our job to wonder why that is
and to ask why that is. Because FBI agents who were
paying attention, they saw what was happening in Seattle, where
they boarded off I think like 6 square blocks of the city and
said, hey, this is an autonomous zone now.
Did you tell me? That outside the White House,
did you know that there was a quote, UN quote, Black House
Autonomous Zone that was set up in the end of June of 2020?
I I didn't know that so. Why did that not get so much
coverage? Right.
Well, how is that's not an insurrection.
They're literally trying to cede parts of the country.
In DC of all places. Yeah, and the, and the FBI is
not going to get involved with that.
OK, that makes sense. But yeah, it's it, it really
does make you wonder. And the other thing they
mentioned it in the in the Durham hearing the other day,
confirmation bias. This whole investigation was
riddled with confirmation bias. I don't know if I, if I talk to
you about it, I've talked about it before, but one of my
protected disclosures was regarding a January 6th lead
that I got and I won't go through the whole thing, but it
essentially resulted in, it was an anonymous tip, which we know
holds very little weight. But I said, you know what,
because I saw the way that this case was trending, I was like,
all right, I got to do my due diligence like really well,
better than normal probably to, to run this to ground.
So I start working on it and along the way, over the course
of maybe like a week, I get like additional leads and other
stuff. One of the things I got was a
facial recognition match they claimed.
And by that point I had already pulled.
I mean, I like the first day I got the lead.
I pulled the guy's most recent dot photo and he's.
Dot is a driver's license photo, yeah.
Yeah, Yep. And so he, he's bald and he's
probably 300 lbs, no facial hair.
And the facial recognition match that I had was a guy who was
probably like a hundred 150 lbs lighter, full head of hair.
And I'm like, what the heck is going on here?
So I tracked down like the guy at the lab who said it was a
match and, and he's like, I, I sent him the dot photo and right
away on the phone, he's like, no, that's not, he's like, just
disregard what I sent you. Somebody in Kansas City sent me
a different photo. And so I ended up tracking that
person down and I, I told them the whole course of events.
And I was like, dude, you used a driver's license photo from
about 25 years or 20 years somewhere in there maybe 20-3
years prior. And the guy was adamant that
regardless, Quantico said I had a match.
And I'm like, dude, that this is violating this guy's due process
by moving forward with this. And he, he just continued to say
you have a match. They said you have a match.
And then at the end he was like, it's your case.
You do whatever you want with it, but you still have a match.
Right. Obviously it is your case.
That's the whole point, right? Like one way or another, like
you're the one who gets to decide whether or not you're
going to work it, how you're going to work it.
And then you're, you're the one who's supposed to say, OK, in,
in light of all this information, do I continue on?
Are there logical investigative steps when this is clearly not
the person that I'm you know that I'm being told that it is?
Yeah. And so I mean, I know people
would say, well, that's just an anecdotal example, OK, sure.
But once you start building a body of evidence, look at all
the like what just came out with Paula Bate or this FOIA e-mail
that that we pulled up or Steve Friends protected disclosure
information. I mean it, it is it's, it should
be readily apparent to everyone that this is like a very
politically motivated and confirmation bias filled
investigation. Do me a favor, you said
something about collecting the dots the other day, not
connecting, but collecting. Will you kind of say where you
came up with that idea? Because I think it's interesting
and also it's a good book recommendation.
Sure. Yeah.
So there's a book out there by a guy named Pete Blaber BLABER,
and it's called The Mission, The Men and Me.
And I first read that book in either late 2008 or early 2009
when I was deployed to Iraq. And it's been my favorite book
other than the Bible ever since then.
It's my most gifted book that that's when I give a gift, a
parting gift or just a gift to someone who I think is, who
would be appreciative of the principles laid out in that
book. That's, that's what I, that's
what I do. I give them a copy.
I have, I think I got like 3 left.
I bought a box of them and I've been giving them out over the
years, you know, and there's a part in there where he says in
order, it's, I'm paraphrasing. I might have it not quite right,
But in order to connect the dots, you first have to collect
the dots. And that has always stood out to
me because especially with how my brain works and then getting
into law enforcement and then, you know, coming into the FBI,
like as investigators, especially when our duty is to
balance people's constitutional rights with proper enforcement
of the law, there's a lot of collecting you have to do to
ensure that you're doing that right.
And I'm not saying that I do it right, all that I did it right
all the time, but it, it was always vastly important for me
to think of what, what my own confirmation biases are, what my
own filter is like, and to try to put those things to the side
to ask the right questions, to collect the correct dots.
That would then help me connect the proper dots to get to a
logical conclusion at the end of whatever investigation or
whatever type of case, you know, I might have been working on.
And honestly, even like just in life, like a lot of the
principles in that book, I think they're not only good for our
professional life, but they're good just for our life in
general. Yeah, I think that's part of the
the nice thing about sort of the way military training goes, the
way that military experience is, it's, it's a much more
aggressive version of what happens in normal life.
But it is still something that is almost always applicable to
sort of the way that we live, the way that we experience
things. It gives us a lens to come after
and and try to shape what it is that we're taking in on inputs
and and then, you know, how do we appropriately respond to it?
In a lot of ways, measured responses are really necessary
because I think doing aggressive training, doing aggressive work,
being involved in things that are outside the range of most
People's Daily experience, it does turn the volume down on
things that are crazy and it keeps you from going.
You know this is an insurrection when you've probably actually
been part of and witnessed what a real insurrection looks like.
I'm pretty sure you threw some rounds downrange and anger that
way. Yeah, yeah, for sure.
So, and I mean, that's, you know, that's another part like
of my filter. I remember when I did my which
this is a thing the FBI doesn't do.
Maybe they should. I did a psyche Val heading into
my Police Department like it was part of their hiring process.
And I told the shrink that my filter was sand colored because.
And that really stood out to him.
And because of my my time overseas, a year in Iraq, a year
in Afghanistan, and yeah, putting down rounds and anger.
It's funny that you said it that way as well, because I just
talked to a guy who was in my one of my very first platoons
and he's trying to help me get a job perhaps.
And he's like, dude, a lot of the people that that we, that I
work with, he's like, they've never fired around in anger, you
know? And it's like, and, and you know
it. So yeah, that's that filter for
me. And then so that is part of my
decision making process. And so when I see something like
January 6th, which again was not good, but the only deadly type
of violence that I saw, and this includes all the video I watched
that America hasn't seen it because I was an active FBI
agent at the time. So we watched a substantial
amount of video regarding one of the one of the, the leads we we
had, which that one and did end up in an arrest.
But the, the worst violence that I saw was when Ashley Babbitt
was murdered. And it's like, wait a second,
Like I've been around guns and use of force and the weight that
that comes with for a long time. I mean, overseas, you know, it's
not like it is in law enforcement here, but it's
similar because if you were to just kill some Iraqi woman like
you, you get, you get UCMJ for that, you know, and rightfully
so. UCMJ is the universal, I'm
sorry. Uniform Code of Military
Justice. God, man, that just went right
away from me. I just went like into another
world. Uniform Code of Military
Justice. And that is the law that you
operate under, in addition to any US laws.
That is a stricter standard that you abide by both domestically
and overseas when you work for the US military.
So that's an interesting point. Yeah.
You can't just send it and think that this is everything is
covered. You know, you're at war, so all
things are covered. No, there are rules which people
don't realize, but there are rules of war.
There are rules of engagement, and you have the same things
when you're a federal agent. Theoretically, I think
theoretically you're supposed to be judicious in your use of
force. You're supposed to be judicious,
judicious in all uses of force, not just deadly force, but you
know, less than lethal force. And then also even bringing
people into custody when you start detaining people and
removing their ability to to live their life freely.
That is a that's a heavy, a heavy burden that should be at
least weighed before you go and take any action.
I know you and Steve were sharing this privately maybe
yesterday or the day before. Would you, would you weigh in on
that? That sort of the gravity of, of,
of taking someone's freedom as a as a law enforcement officers
either state, federal or or local.
Yeah, for sure. So it's it, it's weird because
ever since I, let's see, when I got out of the Army, I started
going to school for criminal justice to get into law
enforcement. And then, you know, with, with,
within a couple years, I, I get hired.
And the two courses in college that stood out the most probably
to me were criminal law and constitutional law.
And I liked them, But I also realized, I think right off the
bat how important they were to anyone who was entering the law
enforcement field. And I never really talked about
that to anyone. I thought like, oh, everybody's
probably thinking this, you know, and then I get hired at
the PD and I, you know, in the four years I was there, I
realized like, oh, not everybody actually does think this.
Like there are some guys who just think their job is
literally to put handcuffs on everybody.
And it's where, where I was like, again, it goes back to
that balance of, of people's rights versus proper law
enforcement activity. And so in short order, and I
will credit out one of my FT OS field training officers,
especially, honestly, all three I had were, were great.
But one of them, especially him and I, we bonded real well.
And he had a similar mindset, more of a libertarian mindset.
And he, he, I remember him telling me once that the longer
he did the job, the more laissez faire he got.
And, and not in a bad way, like we often think of the French as
as not, you know, but he he was like, yeah, the longer I do it,
the more I've come to realize what are the alternative
solutions to the problem. And so I picked that up in my
first six months, you know, as a new cop, right.
And then coming from my military background, where in Iraq and
Afghanistan, even though it was occupied by America, like it was
still like a totalitarian regime because they had Sharia law and
customs and traditions were very different.
And it was readily apparent that like the police and the
military, they're not all of them.
There were some good guys, especially in Afghanistan, in my
experience. But in Iraq, pretty sure the
whole police force we worked with was corrupt because at one
point, like, we had the Iraqi army come through and like, do a
sweep and they found out like the Iraqi police were selling
clocks that America was buying for them and stuff.
And it's like, did you say? Clocks or Glocks?
Blocks like the, the, yeah, the sidearms we were buying for them
to issue to them and they'd be, oh, we lost them.
And in fact, they were selling them to like Al Qaeda or
whatever. But so, yeah.
So again, with that background coming into law enforcement in
America, it was like, I've I've seen it already to a degree done
wrong. And even I've had a couple of my
own personal experiences with law enforcement that weren't
great. And it's like, I don't want to
be a cop like that. And that's not what America
deserves then or or the community that a cop works in.
But so that it was always weighty for me to because also,
don't get me wrong, there are times when absolutely yes,
people must be taken into custody or absolutely yes,
physical force must be used. And I don't like either of those
things, but I'm ready, willing and capable of implementing them
when necessary. And I think that's often lost on
people because they're like, whatever, I'm just going to
throw cuffs on them and take them to jail where it's like,
dude, where are your problem solving skills?
Isn't that more appropriate? Or instead of when I was a, when
I was a cop, we would call it pimping and it'd be like, Oh
yeah, he's that other officer, he's pimping them.
And, and that is when they're instead of using verbal judo,
they're being confrontational with someone that we're dealing
with on a call. And they're like trying to get
them to get under their skin to get them to, to get into like a
scuffle. So then they can use their own
force and take them into custody.
And it's like, that's not, that's not proper law
enforcement. And I know what happens all it
happens all over. Sure.
No, it definitely does. I want to, I want to drag it
back into the the dots that we've sort of collected and then
we might start connecting. When you were getting these
January 6 cases and you're a judicious use of force guy,
which you've just demonstrated. And I think, you know, America
is worse off because we don't have a Garrido Boyle out there
as an FBI agent or as a cop anymore.
I know we had that conversation privately.
It's like, what do you do when you look at your resume?
But you know, you're a judicious use of force guy.
You've got this January 6th investigation that's being sent
over towards you and they're telling you to go and do it.
And I can't imagine that you were like, yeah, gung ho.
I think that in the same way that you've just explained, you
have to look at these things in sort of a, a slow moving, moving
and methodical, you know, you, you handle things according to
what the facts of the case are. If the guy's £150 more, you
don't go knock on the door because that's not the guy.
So how did you experience sort of the management structure,
what was their reaction to any of your your takes and your sort
of judicious use of force mindset?
So I I wonder how lucky I was compared to other people out in
the field because my supervisor at the time brought up the
previous summer. So he was aware of the two
tiered system that was in place and he said we didn't do a
command post or any of this for that.
And then on top of it, guys on my squad, like my whole squad as
far as I know, pretty similar minded and which was good
because it made for a good working environment.
I mean, we're all different and other than the Tfos, we all came
from different parts of the country, but overall it was
similar mindset of, of how to properly do this.
So and, and in fielding these leads.
So for my that particular one, it, so I mean, imagine this it's
it's essentially a guardian lead that I got granted it was pushed
down again. For people, just because we're
we're speaking jargon a little bit.
OK, so I I'm. Not criticizing I'm I'm just
sharing. People will go like a.
Guardian, they listen all about it.
So basic. It's basically somebody calling
into dispatch, you know, and saying, hey, I want to remain
anonymous, but here's the information I want to provide.
But you know, that first went to DC and then came out to me.
But so it's just a simple lead, which often times you can cover
that with a paragraph in your report.
This ended up being one of the longest reports I've ever
written. And I did that because I knew
full well if I didn't run down absolutely everything and
explain absolutely everything within the context of due
process and relevant case law, which I don't think I've ever
cited constitutional Supreme Supreme Court case law in a
report. But I did in this report because
I thought it was necessary in order for them to not be able to
come back and say you have to do what we're asking you to do.
No, you're totally right because I, I threw out a bunch of
January 6 leads as well. And I think you and I, you know,
we didn't know each other at the time.
We've never met. This is going back to beginning
of 2021. And yet all those leads came in
and they were literally hundreds of thousands of leads.
People, you've got to, you've got to appreciate how many leads
we are talking about, hundreds of thousands of leads coming
into Washington field office, which ended up, you know, in
places like Garretts field office as well.
And I was dismissing them as they came in because on their
face they were ridiculous. They were ridiculous for the FBI
to be involved in. It wasn't an FBI matter even in
even in the the least. They were simply local matters
and or grievances and or completely unfounded allegations
that didn't bear any scrutiny. When you have 500,000 leads
coming in, you got to find the ones that are useful.
And this is pretty common. Like a case agent would normally
go out there, use their discretion.
But I was also citing the Bill of Rights and sort of the 1st
amendment protected activities, why we wouldn't go after it.
And so I'm, I'm citing theoretically the things that we
all swore an oath to, which says that we cannot engage in
behaviors that are running down people's personal grievances or
their political feelings because that's not, it's the business of
the FBI. That's just not what they do.
It's interesting that you had the same instinct to do that.
Yeah. And it, you know, I'm glad I
did. I'm glad you did.
And hopefully there are many more out there who did.
But I honestly, I won't hold my breath because.
And also on top of that, I would say this, if I got a lead about
which of course we know would never happen because of how the
FBI is being run. If I got a lead from Portland OR
Seattle or Minneapolis that, you know, John Doe and it's an
anonymous tip that John Doe and and you know, you know, bum Fe
Kansas is was was up there with the antifa riots, right?
And they had information that I couldn't corroborate.
And then I talked to to John Doe and John Doe tells me, I don't
know what you think you know, but I know that whatever I was
doing on that day, I was doing legally.
And then I get a driver's license for that's 20 years old
for this Antifa member, right? I would do the same thing.
That's right. It's not a political decision.
No. And it's like that's a job of an
FBI agent or a law, a law enforcement officer.
But it seems like people can't hold those two thoughts in their
head at the same time. Yeah, it's, it's difficult for
people to even assess like what that involves and and what their
responsibilities are. I guess they get so job task
focused and so on. Speaking of task focus, I've
been kind of looking back and forth to the chat here.
And so Ryan, Matt is in there. Thank you, Ryan for for
moderating. And folks, if you have not hit
the like button and you're watching our live stream, we
really do appreciate that. If you are watching after the
fact, by all means hit that like button on Rumble if you're
watching it that way. If you're listening to us, you
can always give us one of those five star reviews which we'll
bring up at the end here. You know, the, the whole point
of being task saturated, being able to not focus on or being
able to only focus on one thing is sort of the reason why
they're supposed to have the hiring process.
They are they're supposed to hire people with discernment.
And I know you went through a rigorous process and I did as
well. So it's sort of disappointing
that we are not seeing that sort of that push back.
And it's also interesting in that that whistleblower letter
that we just read, and I didn't finish it all down, but it
brought up the Holocaust Museum. And I know some people think
that you're being theatrical or that I'm being theatrical when I
bring it up, that I'm talking about something because it has a
lot of emotional impact and not because it has a lot of actual
meaning to us. But you and I shared that
experience. We did it a couple years apart
and it sounds like it actually resonated with this agent as
well. What do you make of?
The impact of the Holocaust Museum trip at the FBI Academy.
Maybe tell people what it is and then why it impacted you.
Yeah, so it, it, it's a day that every employee who walks through
Quantico's doors, so analysts, SOS, agents, we all are there
for enough weeks where they cut out one day to go up to DC and
go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and then after that the
MLK memorial as well. And it the whole point of, I
mean, even the director, he comes and speaks at the end.
And the whole point of it is to say you must be aware of what
the depravity of man can lead you to.
You must be aware of what history has shown us in order to
do this job correctly. That was my biggest take away.
And so, yes, when people then say, oh, you're being
theatrical, bringing up Nazis or bringing up the Holocaust, OK,
well then the FBI is being theatrical and having that
event, right? So, but it in actuality, you,
me, we know others. And now in that, in that letter,
it's obviously resonating with people as it rightfully should,
because it is harrowing just to go through that museum.
You know, it's not like we're even taking a trip to Dachau and
seeing the empty camp or something like that.
It's a museum, but it is, it is a harrowing journey to go
through there. Like I was emotionally spent
when I was done and I could have spent many more hours in there
too. But it was like, oh, we got to
go. And on top of that, like,
because I had my law enforcement background, my military
background, I've always liked history and the section where I
learned about World War 2IN high school was one of my favorites
and it sent me down this rabbit hole.
And it's like, man, they hardly taught us anything about World
War 2. And I'm not saying like I'm a
World War 2 buff. I know some that man, they,
they've forgotten more about World War 2 than I would ever
know. I.
Had a team Sergeant that whenever he would sneeze, he
would sneeze and he would try to say the name of a famous World
War 2 Marine Corps battle because he was a former Marine.
He'd be like, you know, he would do this kind of a thing.
That's impressive. Yeah.
And he would do. And then he had 50 more of them
that he would do that I can't remember off the top of my head.
I just remember him doing that one.
But yeah, you say there are some people that really, really dig
deep into it. It's a, it's an incredibly
vibrant part of America's history.
And in fact, it's actually a dividing line, I think, for a
lot of people. I took courses in college that
were called pre World War 2 history and post World War 2
history because since World War 2, the pace has accelerated so
dramatically. You can go pre World War 2 and
you can catch everything from the American Revolution, the
Civil War, war and the First World War and sort of the big
conflicts kind of in one little 1 little grab.
And then, you know, World War 2 and on is really the modern
world that we live in. And so I, I tend to agree with
you. It was one of those formative
things. There's a reason why they had
like the boomer generation was literally people who came back
from that war and created a baby boom because they had that post
war prosperity and it shaped the modern life that we live in.
And until maybe maybe that'll be a post Afghan experience as
well. I don't know what that's going
to look like. There's probably a baby boom as
well. Yeah, maybe.
One thing I think about that with the with the baby boom
after World War 2, I wonder how much of the and I don't know how
novel of an idea this is, but it's just something I've thought
about where they come back from this horrific war and and their
deployments were very different than what ours were like.
So when I was deployed, it was a year and some guys would get
extended to 15 months, 18 months at the most.
So World War 2, if you made it all the way through, you were
there the whole time, four years or so.
And then you come back and you have, they didn't call it PTSD
back then, but you have this trauma and these experiences,
but you've now come to realize the importance of life, how
fragile it is. And so I, I do wonder if part of
the healing process is I come home from war, I find a wife or
I come back to my wife and we just start having kids because
of how precious they are. And we want to rear them in the
in the right way so we don't have to go to war again.
You know, like it's weird after 911.
I mean, I was a teenager, but I was like, let's go.
And by the time I got out of the military and even more so sense,
how about as anti war as they come?
So many, so many vets are in that same boat.
I think that you're not unique in that.
I want to bring up some of the dots that we talked about.
All right. And so I'm bringing up on the
screen right now an article that you'll be familiar with.
This comes from uncoverdc.com. This goes back to February of
this year, so over a year, actually two years after that
whistle blower piece. And folks, I'm just going to
read it to you. For those of you can't see it,
the the name of the article, which strangely I can't.
Oh, there it is. It's over here on my right hand
side. I can't read it.
It's written by Tracy Beans, who's a good friend of our show
and has been outstanding and supporting the suspendables.
It's called terminating descent. The FBI merges insider threat
training with whistleblower training.
I know Garrett, you're going to have some reflections of this,
so I'm going to get to him. But let's first just talk about
what happened. We found out in about February
of this year, maybe late January.
This is right after the Catholic peace came out and we realized
that the FBI was going after Catholics at, you know, at mass,
calling them radical traditional Catholics and sort of targeting
Christians in general. We find out that the FBI merged
two types of virtual Academy training, which are annual
trainings that we do. One of them is whistleblower
training, letting you know that you're allowed to be a
whistleblower and theoretically are protected, which we found
out the hard way is not true. And then they also do a thing
called the insider threat training, which is essentially
looking for the next Robert Hansen.
And folks, if you're not familiar with Robert Hansen,
he's in a supermax prison for betraying this country as a spy
working for the Russians. But employed by the FBI as a
special agent, he was actually at headquarters.
I think he was as high up as either a unit chief or a section
chief. So he was AGS 15, top of the
general scale for pay. And So what they did is they
combine these trainings. I want you, Garrett, to kind of
reflect on it, people. You can go to this web page
right now. You can go to uncoverdc.com.
It's in my Twitter, a timeline if you wanted to go find it
there as well. But this is AI think a very
chilling moment that we were able to uncover and obviously
chilling for our colleagues as well.
Maybe tell people what it means to combine these these two
trainings and what we saw out of it that maybe other people
wouldn't. Yeah.
So, yeah, I think it's super chilling because to another
piece that's often forgotten is whistle blowing.
As a federal employee, that's part of your First Amendment
protected activity for you to go to Congress and tell them what's
going on. And so when when an agency like
the FBI combines these two annual trainings, which to my
knowledge, they've always been separate, in my experience, they
were always separate. Now they're combined.
Right off the bat, when that first broke, before I even read
the article, before I even looked at the slide deck, I, I
thought that they are intentionally trying to merge
the two and chill the free speed, the 1st Amendment rights
of employees who want to come forward.
And then I think we, there were some of the, some of the
comments by employees who, who said that exact same thing, that
that's exactly what they're trying to do.
And it's like, oh, OK, so I'm not wrong.
And initially thinking that. And I think that is what they
were trying to do because a lot of FBI whistleblowers have come
forward. And then now the FBI is like,
OK, how do we, how do we quell dissent?
And it was, we'll, we'll threaten them by saying you're
basically an insider threat if you want to whistleblow.
That's right. So I'm, I'm kind of scrolling
through the deck for people to be able to see it and folks, if
you're watching on the Rumble channel, you can see it.
Now. This is the really interesting
part. So it gives you a little bit
about what a whistleblower is, the protected channels, the way
you can go about it. It talks about what an insider
threat is and how you might identify those things.
And then it says here at the end at testation and I'm trying to
get rid of this little piece here.
Unfortunately, I am unable to to figure this thing out.
So we're going to lose Garrett here.
It sounds like for a second as Garrett, you're going to you're
going to sign off. So I'm going to let you go.
You got another interview and I'm really grateful that you
stayed with me. Say hi to Emerald Robinson
folks. If you want to catch Garrett,
he'll be on Emerald show today. So we'll go back to just talking
about this piece, but see you, buddy.
And thanks for jumping on. Yeah, sorry to jump off.
Thanks for having me on Yeah, bud.
Enjoy it. So folks, I want to talk about
this, this insider threat piece. What it says is there's an
attestation at the end of it, OK?
And the attestation says essentially that you attest that
you've gotten this training, you've received the insider
threat awareness, and you are aware that you have
responsibilities related to your protected disclosures.
You fully comprehend who is considered a whistleblower, what
that consists of, who the designated authorities are.
In addition, you recognize that a, that when in a managerial or
supervisory role, communications by FBI employees to offices or
officials outside the chain of command may be considered a
protected disclosure under 5USC23O3, which I often cite.
And you also acknowledge that penalizing these FBI employees
for violating chain of command if they're engaged in protective
activities or that any retaliation against them is a
violation of law. So they are actually trying to
get people to agree that that they can't go after
whistleblowers. But at the same time, they're
also making these like very interesting claims about who are
the insider threats. And I'm going to read out what
they claim are insider threats. People who possess an ideology
that seriously convict with the United States government's
interest, criminal or other protections activity or
prohibited activities, intractable financial problems.
And I'll tell you this having been around feds for a while.
There are an awful lot of people that have no money that work for
the federal government Despite that paycheck coming in every
two weeks. And they are in dire straits if
they lose it even for a few minutes, which I think is I
think it's very telling our our federal workforce is paid quite
well and for them to have serious problems financially.
My buddy was AGS four and made something like $50,000 a year
and he was a firefighter for the for the Forest Service.
Never had money problems live within his means.
In the meantime, you have GS thirteens and GS Fourteens at
the FBI that are afraid they're not going to make their mortgage
payment. Should they, should they have a
paycheck interruption? That should trouble a lot of us.
But for whatever reason, intractable financial problems
always there. Like I said, they're trying to
catch them. Next, Robert Hansen substance
abuse. That's pretty standard sexual
activities that are compromising or secretive sexual practices.
That's kind of strange because there's definitely some of that
going on, including what we found out the deputy director of
the FBI, Paula Bate. I had three different
independent sources confirm that they worked with his girlfriend
and his girlfriend was a female that was so bad at her job that
she was actually going to be removed from the job, but
instead was actually protected by Paula Bate and allowed to
attend law school in another city than where she worked.
So she essentially had a no show job and he signed off on this.
And the reason he signed off on it was because that was his
girlfriend. I don't know if Paula Bade is
married or not. Actually, people are not really
sure because he's private about his personal life, which is
totally fine except apparently when you're banging A
subordinate, which is actually a big deal when you have a
national security clearance, you shouldn't be compromised.
It's literally one of the things they discuss is being a
vulnerability. By the way, I was referred to
the Office of Insider threats as potentially vulnerable.
God knows why. Oh, here's why.
Because highly egotistic or highly egotistical or excitement
seeking personality traits. I'm sure that's what they kind
of claimed to us since I like to have a a shoot out in the desert
and have a conversation with a cop saying, hey, man, you're not
within your rights to tell me not to exercise my civil
liberties. And then the last one is family
members in oppressive countries considered advertarial to the
United States. My training agent actually had
that problem. He was discussed as a potential
insider threat because of the fact that he was Chinese,
ethnically Chinese, spoke Chinese and still had family
members that was living in China at the time.
And they actually, they took him out of some of the the
possibilities for advancement. He ended up going to Guam and
he's living the life on an island right now, as far as I
know. But it is troubling that this is
sort of the nature of the way the FBI looked at these things
and they combined that with this whistleblower thing.
So are you excitement seeking if you go to Congress and you
expose malfeasance or wrongdoing?
Let me just tease this out there.
I know Ryan's sitting in here and he knows we're working on
this. I have taken a bunch of these
dots and we've showed you a couple of them today, connecting
some of those dots and those dots are going to make some
connected dots. We've collected them.
I'm sharing a few that we've collected.
I'm going to connect them for you in a long form video.
It's probably going to be sometime early next week and
Ryan's going to work on it with me.
When we do that, I think you're going to see a comprehensive
case that takes the dots that we collected from the BLM riots,
things that happened in Washington, DC in June, the
riots that happened in Portland from March to September.
October when I was there in Portland keeping an eye on what
was going on. The way that we saw January 6th
and the whistleblower testimony that we just had in this
affidavit. The this disclosed letter that
was foyed that discusses the political bias of former FBI
senior executives and the way that they were handled.
And also the way that all the suspendables were treated,
including producer Phil, including myself, including a
couple of guys that you don't know, but they work for the
National Security Branch and they've been without a paycheck
for over I think 2 years now, a year and a half at least.
Guys like Marcus Allen, what happened to Gerardo Boyle, what
happened to Stephen Friend? Literally all of these things
are all dots that can all be connected.
And I'm going to connect them for you right now.
We've showed you that we've collected some of these dots.
And I promise you, the number of articles that we have to go
through is going to be pretty significant.
So this is a dramatic production.
But honestly, I think it is going to be sort of the the big
work that has been done so far since I've left the Bureau.
This is the biggest and most important sort of testimony.
And luckily, we're in positions now to share it with members of
Congress, Congress in a way that we've we've got those
connections made. I did speak to members of Matt
Gaetz's staff the other day and they're interested in it.
When I laid it out, they were like, of course, of course, that
makes sense. Does anyone know about it?
And of course, one of the last thoughts we found out is that
the FBI is now internally investigating over 700 FBI
agents or 5% of the agent workforce.
It sounds like on secret investigations that are not even
being disclosed to their division heads, the people that
actually supervise them. That means that they're not able
to take promotions, they're not able to go any further.
But it also means that the FBI might be getting rid of them in
short order, in short form. That's kind of stuff is
incredibly chilling. This is Stasi type things.
This is secret police type work. And you know, end of the day, it
is actually terrifying in many ways for those of us who have
been on the inside to know that they are doing these sort of
things to their own people. With that said, I am going to be
flying to New Hampshire later on today.
So I'm going to be signing off here just shortly.
We're going to be going to the airport.
If the the air marshals are listening to us, they can join
us there at the airport. I'd be happy to see them.
Give me a high five. You don't have to hide it.
I'll spot you anyway. This is one of the most listened
to podcast apparently in the FBI.
So thanks to all my FBI listeners too.
I wanted to say that and I wanted to thank you who are
giving us these five star reviews that are really moving
the ball forward. We've cleared the 550 mark.
We're over 560 right now and I want to read 1 from Sunday.
This is by Charles stage. It's called the real heroes of
the FBI is the name of his his rather long, his rather long
five star review. I want to read it out to you
says Mr. Kyle and the rest of the suspendables is why the FBI
was one of the great law enforcement agencies in the
world. Mr. Kyle and his friends
continuously mentioned doing their job and being conscious of
not violating the rights of Americans.
Mr. Kyle and his group are so articulate.
They're so knowledgeable and so honest about the role of the
federal government the FBI should have in America, not the
role that they do have in America right now.
Once again, honestly or honesty in this podcast is so
refreshing. And in fact, it's very
addicting. I think the reason why it's so
addicting is that we are just craving the truth.
It goes on with even more flattering terms.
But I do really appreciate what you had to say there, Charles.
I read all these kind of five star reviews that you guys send
us and you can get yours read on the air by going to the Apple
podcast app and leaving us a five star review of your own.
Put a name that you want read. And if it's too silly, we'll,
we'll, we'll straighten it out. But I do really appreciate
these. I, I really do read them.
And it is you, all our listeners that are moving this forward.
It's a big deal for us to clear the 500 mark.
Producer Phil said. We'd get to 1000 by the end of
the year. I think we may get there far
sooner with your help. And remember, you can actually
rate any episode. It doesn't have to just be 1 and
done. If there's something that moves
you in a particular episode, if there's something you like,
there's a message you want to pass on to one of the
suspendables. They read these as well.
You also thanks so much for joining us.
We do appreciate all your prayers.
They are keeping us buoyed and we are thankful to our sponsors.
Again, go ahead and visit patriotcoolers.com and use promo
code Kyle. Kyle for 10%.
Go and sign up for that loop. Like I said, it's fantastic
information every morning. It'll get you ready for whatever
water cooler talk happens at your job at catholicvote.org.
Folks, I will see you again on Monday and you can catch me on
the blaze midday. You'll have to look it up.
There is a segment that I am doing.
I'm sitting down on a stage with Beck Ramaswami.
I'm very much looking forward to hearing what that man has to say
and kind of picking his brain. I think he's one of the great
reasons to have primaries, putting good information into
our heads and kind of sharing information with the rest of the
candidates that I assume that Trump will win.
There's no reason to think otherwise.
But getting more especially stuff that he's talking about.
We're going to be talking about, quote UN quote, defanging,
taking the fangs out of the deep state or the administrative
state, as I like to call it. So look for that on Saturday and
I will see you all again. The Kyle Seraphin Show on Monday
morning. Have a safe weekend.
Thanks for listening to the Kyle Seraphin Show streamed live
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin.
Follow Kyle on Twitter and True Social at Kyle Seraphin.