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