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.