Prepare to hear the truth from a real whistleblower, an American Patriot, here's civil liberties, enthusiasts, Second Amendment, Defender and indefinitely suspended FBI agent. Kyle seraphin. Hello, my friends and welcome to the Kyle Serafin show for Friday March. The 17th 2023. We are in a perilous time and nothing could be more important than our privacy, and our freedom to think speak and associate with those.
With whom we choose in this contentious time, we have government entities, like CC declaring, our thoughts are part of the federal government's cognitive infrastructure and our Communications are potential cyber attacks on the Homeland.
So with that in mind. And our Congress is facing a decision to renew the foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa and specifically section 702 of the fisa yet on the opposite, side of privacy are so-called woke Bettors are constantly bombarding us with messaging about their sexual orientation, their racial diversity and how we must have these so-called minority groups over-represented in political and public life. Quote-unquote, diversity is our
strength. We hear over and over again. I'm going to show how perhaps The left is interested in crushing our privacy because it allows them to continue to flaunt these absurd claims about diversity. And once we cover these topics, I'm going to have a short session with my buddy, Steve friend coming in to call some balls and Strikes on some of the information that has come out of the proud boys trial. So stick around for that. But first just a quick word from our sponsor.
We want to thank Patriot coolers for sponsoring the Kyle, serif and show this month. I carried the first generation Tumblr on surveillance in a dozen states in 2017. Right now, you can use promo code, Kyle to get 10% off and free shipping over $50. Now, we all want a hot or a cold beverage to stay that way, hot or cold. These days, I carry a 30 ounce Tumblr for smoothies and I have a 19 Oz coffee mug on my desk. When I'm recording if I'm out
with my kids. I've got the 1 gallon jug so I can refill their water bottles and keep them Cool. Spring is upon us and summer is coming soon. If you are in the market for a high quality piece of outdoor gear. That's going to last and support your values. Please check out Patriot coolers.com. And for either a hard or soft sided cooler, if you're doing an RV trip, you're floating the
river. Make it a long Costco run, or you're sitting on surveillance, check out, patreon coolers.com, your purchase is going to support our show and disabled vets. Patriot coolers is given nearly 400,000 dollars to updating the homes of post 9/11 Disabled Vets so that they can enjoy the liberty and freedom at home that they fought for over there. Again, use promo code k. Yl e for 10% off and shipping over $50 is always free. Thanks for checking them out y'all.
All right, so let's talk about section 702. There is nothing more boring, but nothing more scary than the fisa section 702. And when I say it was boring, I mean I spent two years dealing with this thing. It is an awful entity and it is very difficult for most people to Fathom. One of the things that we know about 702 is that it is a tool that is almost impossible for law enforcement to use in a law enforcement way and making that available to the FBI is the reason.
I've made some whistleblower disclosures about how it shouldn't be a tool that's available to folks in that sort of that venue. It's not a new topic to be contentious Senator. Mike Lee has been someone who was called for its abolition. And luckily representative Jim, Jordan is actually doing the same thing at this point, hopefully, because of some of the information that I've shared
with this staff. So I want to bring up a quick article here and we're going to discuss how and why it cannot be used in a way that is even remotely. Appropriate. This is one from company or a
website called cyber scoop.com. I'm not familiar with them before but I was reading about it and the stuff I read in there is is worth reporting on. This is an older article coming back from about two weeks ago and it says the White House faces deep deeply, skeptical Congress as it advocates, for controversial, surveillance tool section 702 of the foreign intelligence, surveillance act expired, December. Perhaps the most precarious position.
It's been in yet. Thank God for that by the way. Way, it should be in a precarious position because it can't be used in a way that is a remotely appropriate. So this article this is written by Tanya Riley again at Cyber scoop, and it says, the by demonstration begins its campaign to urge Congress to renew a controversial surveillance provision that authorizes. Intelligence agencies, carry out warrantless data collection.
This is going to be the real thing that we're talking about here warrantless, it will face a skeptical Congress, where the distrust of government spying runs deep. Fisa 702, which was safe in the brink of sun setting by Congress twice before isn't perhaps its most precarious position yet. As we said, leading House Republicans including house, Judiciary chairman Jim Jordan Republican Ohio have singled strong opposition to renewing this surveillance.
Meanwhile of course the Democrats have to just contest everything that they're doing so House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries Democrat of New York voted against reauthorization in 2018 while other Democrats made it clear that it would be something that they Port. Look, the 702 is one of those things that most people have no idea what they're talking about. I'm fairly confident people in Congress. Don't really understand how it works.
So I'm going to try to explain it to you in a way that makes sense. And then I'm going to give you an analogy that should make you very uncomfortable with how it works. So 702 is a kind of a bizarre entity where it's collected by the NSA, but it's used by the FBI when we request access to it when I Saw it it was in a position or was coming out of a software that was called DWS. I don't know if it's the same one anymore, it doesn't really
matter. It grabbed, whatever it could anything that touched American phone lines and wires with something that we had the potential of having access to now, rarely did we get phone calls on it? That wasn't very common. What we got oftentimes was email, we got Skype calls, anything that was kind of a digital nature but the primary thing that I saw were emails and the way that 70 to Is you have to nominate a potential foreign
adversary? Someone who is either connected to a foreign intelligence surveillance or rather a foreign intelligence state sponsored entity. You know, whether they are a spy or whether they're co-opted by this group, they have to come from one of our threat countries. And then they have to not be in the United States. So that's a really big and important part of it. If I had, for example, a spy from Russia and that person had been nominated for seven.
No to coverage and we were collecting on them using fill in the blank email services that are based in the United States, really matter which ones. And then that person were to get on a plane from Moscow and fly and land at Dulles the minute.
That I knew that they were in US airspace or that they touch down in Dulles, I would have to discontinue the collection of 702 and I'd have sort of a blank spot now, they could use their email, all they wanted inside the United States and we wouldn't have access to it in theory and then when they left then we could but Screw you think about that when you're in the United States, doing your emails on let's say Gmail or something like that they stay on Gmail like I guess they could
delete them but mostly people just archive and leave stuff because they don't know they're nominated for this type of coverage so they would come the United States. We wouldn't be able to look at it and then they would leave and then we'd be able to look at it. We see what they did while they are in the United States, that's problem. Number one, I don't know how to fix that, or if we should fix it, but it is something that is difficult to handle under the
way that the regulations work. The second part of it is, who will be most interested in. Do I really care? What? Let's say a Russian businessman is doing that has some sort of connections to the intelligence Services, FSB, or Gru, or whatever. Do I really care what that person is doing? If they're going to be in Russia, and they're going to be working out of Russia and I'm not going to be able to see them in the United States or do anything about it.
Well, as a law enforcement officer in the United States, I'm most interested in people who are betraying my country and doing things that are active in my country. So, if they're sharing information or trying to gain information or by intelligence information from someone here that's far more interesting to me. So that's what I would be looking for in that type of
coverage. At least that's what a logical, you know, route to conclude the value of that intelligence collection would be And yet, if I go looking for Americans, specifically, that's called reverse targeting and reverse targeting is actually outlawed inside federal law and I cannot do it. It's expressly forbidden to use the tool, the way that it is most valuable to law enforcement. So that makes you wonder, what
is the purpose of it? And I don't know, I don't know the answer and I used it for two straight years and I'm a pretty bright guy when I ask people what our job was and why we gathered intelligence. The information that I got from the assistant special agent in charge of counterintelligence that I answer to in Washington DC, which is the flagship of counterintelligence in the United States.
There are more embassies and consulates and so on more foreign actors in Washington, d.c. than anywhere else that matters with the exception of maybe New York and if they didn't know how to answer it, other than say, if we were looking for intelligence, what are we going to do with it? Well, then we'll know more things and I said, no, that's not what we're going to do. That's what we're going to have.
That's what we're going to know. Are we going to do with the information and they said we're going to use it to get more information. Now, if you're an action oriented person and most special agents in the FBI are there, sort of operations driven? They're not analytical types per se. Although there's a fair number
of those growing. I would say in that Cadre now but most of them come out of a background of wanted to do investigations of wanting to find out, who's the bad guy, who's betraying our country, and how do we stop them. And yet, we're not allowed to use that tool in that way that should trouble you in. Many, many respects. And here's the analogy that I like to use.
Imagine if you were a TSA officer and let's say you were good at your job and you were really interested in protecting the American Homeland from another 9/11 and no one's going to sneak anything like a weapon onto an aircraft on your watch. Okay. So that's a fair thing that you could do and you're given some tools and some of those tools are an x-ray to go through all the bags and one of them is a metal detector or a body scan that all the people.
To walk through. So let's say you're on the body scan and your job on any particular day is to make sure that no people walk through your checkpoint with a weapon that they're going to put on a plane. And you're going to use the body scan tool, but what you're told is that you cannot use the body scan tool to look for weapons. It's only to scan for scan
people's bodies. No further information, what its actual purposes, you're just doing it because that's the job, but you're also tasked with making sure there's no weapons on the plane. What are the odds that you're going to be able to ignore the weapons that you see that show up on the body scan. And if that rhetorical question, sounds absurd, that's how absurd. Section 702 is when it comes to allowing the FBI to use it. It doesn't make any sense to give them a tool and tell them.
It can only be used for information purposes and not to identify not to identify potential subjects. So you should be very concerned about what that looks like. And why that is a thing that is available out there, this has got some additional coverage here. I found another article that comes from Slate magazine.
I don't want you to think, I only look at right-wing sources although I often do, they're the ones that seem Have more in common with my perspective, but let's hear what other people have to say as well. This is another article that's written by a guy named Fred Kaplan, knowing what, you just
know. Now, that I've explained to you about 70 to and let's, let's take a look at this article, which is entitled why Biden wants to keep that the law that allows nsa's Mass surveillance and why Republicans want to kill it. Like why is this even a public? A partisan issue is beyond me, but again, Fred Kaplan,
reporting, couple days ago. This was just at the beginning of the month, March 1st and it says a debate is a Erupting in Congress over whether to renew or repeal a law that officials say is vital to combating terrorism cyber crime and disruptive foreign Espionage, but others to cry as a violation of the Americans civil liberties. Now once again we can't use it to actually Target people who are involved in Espionage and the Espionage only works.
If there's two parts to the coin, one is a foreign actor that's incentivizing somebody and to is the person that actually has the information to get to them. We can't go after number two, we can only identify number On and track what they're doing. And then we're supposed to imagine that the other part doesn't exist. It's completely antithetical to any realistic understanding of how to use this tool but so be it.
So continuing on to the PC or the law section, 702 of the foreign intelligence, surveillance act allows the National Security Agency to intercept Communications of foreigners. Even if that means tapping into Network, or servers that are based on us, soil, without a
warrant. That's the big piece it goes on and talks about Edward Snowden revealing, some of the stuff in 2013, next paragraph, down here, subsequent analysis revealed that the program was really aimed at foreigners on foreign soil but that some Americans did get swept up in the gigantic data suck and this occurred mainly as an unavoidable consequence internet technology, although it was sometimes the result of bureaucratic overstepping, not so much by the
NSA, here it is. But rather by the FBI, we learned that there were about 3 million queries of this database that were not authorized under law. And yet there was no request for them to be authorized after the fact We found that out a little bit later on, I think that should be a big problem for people. People should understand that. This is not how it's supposed to work, but there's no real way to use it in a mate.
Like in way, that makes sense as an FBI agent and so they're given this tool and they don't know how to use it legally. And so, of course, they're going to use it in a way that's inappropriate that should bother you. But it's not necessarily an indictment of the people that are doing the tool because I don't know how to train someone to do that, in a way that makes sense.
So it says the revelations of FBI Blues abuse have turned many Public ins against the program in keeping with her General. Hostility towards the FBI for its investigations which they see as politically motivated. They are politically motivated.
That shouldn't surprise. Anybody here a former President Trump. It's not about trump, it really isn't Trump the investigation and the mirror logger rate were symptoms of a much broader problem with the FBI which is that it is not being run in a way that is constitutional and it's not being run in a way that is a political. If you follow this podcast, you already know much about that. Unless Congress votes to extend section 702 by the end of the
year it expires. So we're going to have a kind of a hard-fought discussion about this for a while. It sounds like The Binding ministration is pushing hard for its renewal it's really strange. Why would they want to maintain this thing that they were against a little while ago? And that their House minority leader was against and it's because it's about power. I think it's a lot about power and it gives you a lot of ability to Target people including your political enemies.
So it says this week, attorney general Merrick Garland and the Director of National Intelligence Intelligence also known as the dni Avril. Haines, we're going to be hearing more about Avril. Haines for a while. I'm pretty sure sent a letter to Congress or the urging the reauthorization as a top legislative priority and offering classified briefings to anyone who doubts. It Haynes will be testifying an open hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees that already
happened. This is obviously written, like I said, two weeks ago, so then they talk about prism which is some of the stuff that came out from Snowden, the implications of intelligence gathering more profound ever. Digital devices, supplanted telephones, radio signals and microwave transmission CNS a it's been having a hard time monitoring foreign Communications which is and was the nation of the agency's primary Mission.
I may actually do another little segment at some point in the near future with my friend, George Hill, FBI whistleblower, who has gone forward and testify in front of Congress and will specifically focus on 702 and what it does and what it doesn't do. But I think that you'll find that my analysis have it is pretty accurate. Age had more time with it and he also had time at the NSA. So maybe he can shed light on some of the value that it can add in the true and purely intelligence function.
But when it comes to law enforcement, it's incredibly dangerous. And the reason why the second piece of it that people are not familiar with and I was in a Twitter space. The other day, talking about this, there's a concept known as parallel construction and
parallel construction. It was brought up and it was misunderstood by the individual who was talking about it on this face whose Name Escapes me at this point, but parallel Construction, Is the idea that you learn something in one way, and then you build the evidence of it in another way. Now, the problem is once, you know that something is there, you can almost always figure out a way to find it in a legal way.
That is different. So, the examples, this, I find out that fill-in-the-blank person person X is involved in some sort of Espionage type activity or illicit. Foreign contact for cash and information and so on, all the sort of Hallmarks of a Espionage. And we find out that that person is involved in that through a fisa through 702, for example, and it's coming in through emails, on a public server somewhere, blah, blah, blah, whatever that may be once that happens.
Now, I know that person is identified. So first of all, I didn't even know who person X was until I had access to it. But now that I know who person X is, I can do a deep dive in person. X is finances. I can do things called national security letters. I can request bank records, toll records, and so on. Now all of these things, Be in the National Security realm, where I'm literally only building, an intelligence case, a counterintelligence case at
that. But when I have them, and I know that they exist and I know that their damning I can turn around and I can bring a potential indictment to a grand jury, why going through and asking for subpoenas. So, if we go to the grand jury, we say, look, there's an allegation that this person is involved in this thing. We can't tell you why blah blah and we go. And we said we'd like to see their Finance records.
We like to see this because we like to try to establish whether or not they're receiving money and this and that, and then we can go. When we can rebuild all the national security letters, subpoenas on the other side of the criminal side, which is a totally different animal. And we do it through legal process that we don't have to disclose the secret. And otherwise, non admissible, non, you know, warranted type searches and I can build it all up. That's parallel construction.
So I have a case over here on the Intel side, and I build it up in the same side, or in the same way on a criminal side. Once you've done that, you know, once you know something you can't unknow it as a criminal investigator, it's not like one. Side, does it? And they just say, hey, by the way, check out person X. It's the same person that can do the same cases. So, parallel construction is the
danger. It's the thing that leaves us in a really sort of nasty spot, and We can't have 702 and still have this sort of sense of privacy and freedom. That most people have and 702 is not the ex parte Hearing in front of the fisa court that many people might be familiar with this is the sort of thing that we heard about with President Trump. People got out there and they, you know, they lied about it and all this kind of thing.
No, 702 is written up very, very quickly and its proposed by special agent at the front lines. You know, if we want to cover somebody down I Ed nominate them and identify them as a Frontline gs-13 or a GST. Ten special agent and then it gets approved by a supervisor and it goes up and maybe like an like an, a sack, a gs-15, or maybe, the SES does, but it's not leaving the office and it comes back down and then we get it going. And it can happen in a couple of days.
It can happen in shorter than that and it only takes maybe an hour or two to write up the justification for it. So it's a much lower burden than what we would call the full fisa, which is on, you know, a noted individual that's domestic and dealing with a foreign entity where you have to go in from a fisa. You have to argue the probable cause and actually get the warrant. This is not that sort of thing. This is a warrantless search.
There's no doubt about it because we're theoretically looking at, non US citizens, not on us soil and not therefore protected by a lot of the stuff that would otherwise, protect them, truly troubling. And so you wonder what in the world is the opposite side of that.
For me and I'm making an interesting connection here but bear with me, I think there's an interesting connection to the Aleut opposite side of that coin, which is the sort of gross transparency about the most personal things that anybody could expose, which is sort of the leftist identity identity politics game. So maybe that makes some sense, maybe it doesn't, but when we start seeing people pushes the opposite side, well, why is this thing out there?
Like is it because they want to remove our privacy and that's why they want to continually expose. Weird things about their own privacy. I don't know, but it's a thought process. Douglas Murray wrote a piece in the New York Post that I want to expose a little bit about. And like I said, the flip side of the coin of us being able to keep things secret is people who are staring things about their sexual proclivities and their racial identities. The Grievances and their mental
illness. I keep seeing people putting strange things like, you know, that they have PTSD out in public like this is nobody's business. This is not something that you need to be sharing with strangers on the internet. What are you thinking about where they'll tell you about their other? You know, the fact that they're bipolar like I saw a guy the other day who was listing this in his bio?
What is the upside to that? Like are you warning me or are you just out there bragging about things that have nothing to do with anything? I can understand and I'm going to go with the it's probably the latter.
So in this piece That Douglas Murray said this, he's blaming the diversity Equity pushes on what's starting to push and potentially crash our economy as many people are aware the Silicon Valley, Bank had a failure and the risk manager was more interested in whether or not she was promoting lesbian causes and you know racial and equity in these kind of things
then looking for actual risk. So I'm gonna give you this piece a little bit of coverage and we're going to talk about a couple of the little strange things out there. Things that they are putting at risk that are Beyond just the financial system. In the FBI, of course, why not so putting diversity and Equity? First nearly crashed the economy. Again a piece by Douglas Murray and will quote, the piece here, several years back.
I being Douglas asked, what it would take to Halt, the diversity inclusion, Equity Obsession and America. What would it take to get back to Excellence and competence as the only criteria for employment the so called meritocracy? Right. What would it take for that? So he says, perhaps it would require the falling or Bridges to start falling down and then he suspects that that if they did certain people would claim that they had fallen because of
structural racism. He's probably correct, that's pretty sad and funny and then in this week we got a good reminder of how over tolerant we have been of this insane anti Excellence agenda because although Bridges have not yet started to collapse, the banks have and one of the reasons that banks in question prioritized Equity over excellence.
The D IE. I've always heard it called D EI. So, I don't know why he says it this way, but maybe there's a, there's a reason that he's saying it as the die again, de which is quite funny constitutes an absolute obsession with the exact representation or preferably over representation. As noted of women in senior positions, including board positions in American companies, this obsession with female representation is only an issue with high status jobs. Of course, board seats.
Hollywood stars hype a Things. So on, there's a picture here of this. This woman, Jay, I'm going to put your her last name. So, her Sapa, who was the, the head of risk management read the and ran a program on pronouns gender and a Blog. And then Isaac, emphasizing mental health, awareness lgbtq+ youth.
Again, I don't, I don't know why the mental health is always thrown in there, but they act like this is like, a new minority group, like, it's strange because it certainly doesn't Not seem to affect their interest in including veterans, who suffer from, you know, at least the normal amount of mental health issues after dealing with the military for a number of years. But that's not what they're about. So it says there's no movement that I'm aware of. This is again.
Douglas Murray speaking. That is pushing for equal, female representation, among Road layers in America. But for at least, 15 years, diversity has been everything goes on to talk about how this woman J. Is the head of this risk management 4S Be didn't do her job and then she would talk about what it was like to be a queer person of color and a first-generation immigrant on a
working-class background. That was working for this major Bank. Apparently what it was was about incompetence and do its job so be it. So she spends all this time, sort of interested in her preferred causes and the result is a pretty, you know, pretty predictable which is that she wasn't doing the job of risk management. And then we watched a basically, I fail in front of our eyes, kind of a funny story, to is one of my best buddies, who I grew up with his Dad.
I think is the longest-serving federal employee at the FDIC and hasn't had a solid bank failure in a while. At least not one of those priority. He's kind of like the most senior guy and I think he's been out of the field for a little bit and but when we were kids, he used to run around all the time. And we'd always wonder where the heck did where did Bob go off to? And he would always tell us he was a spy because he's a funny guy and he's looks like a tall
kind of nerdy accountant. He's one of my favorite people. All he's incredibly lovable and very, very funny and he wears a little round glasses and has a beard and he's tall kind of athletic guy, but but it doesn't necessarily look. He looks like an accountant and he was sort of a man who did
that sort of work. So anyway, he got shipped off to Boston to go look at the Silicon Valley bank failure and some of the branch work out there and anyway he got called into action because of this, he was a priority because Bob unlike the people that were running, this bank is a high-level professional at the thing that he does he is. Probably one of the best in that sphere and sure enough. You bring out the best when people start failing and
breaking things down. So it is an interesting sort of issue that we're dealing with but it's not. The only sphere where I feel like this Administration is trying to over represent people that have no business being in positions. And obviously, Silicon Valley has been quite woken and and been very focused on these things for quite a long time. We're hearing that the B Administration has the most representation of LGBT You plus people, whatever that is 14 plus percent of the cabinet.
Now, and high-level political appointed positions are in there. That clearly is an over representation of who these people are in the general population. But that doesn't stop buying from getting involved in that and it's also not the only Spectrum where they're willing to push these people for it. So I'm going to talk about the FAA which I think is interesting that affects probably more of us than Silicon Valley Bank. Not many of us probably were invested in there, had money
there. If you are a.com startup type and You happen to listen to this podcast. Feel free to hit us up in the comments and tell us otherwise that you are also deeply offended that I was not considering you as one of my audience but unlikely I think what's also interesting though is that it doesn't just matter to that. So this is a little bit more recent. This is actually coming from yesterday on Fox News and they're talking about a the number of GOP pilots in Congress, which is a fair
number. I think it's like 14 different aviators of the 50% of the house. Our concern that Administration and Joe, Biden particular has nominated a director of the FAA, the Federal, Aviation Administration, who they described as quote unquote entirely unqualified, the gentleman's name is Phil Washington, and there's a little picture of him here.
If you're looking on the rumble Channel, you can see says he's the chief executive officer of the Denver International Airport. Well, that sounds like somebody who has something to do with Aviation, but only superficially, because he has no Aviation experience. What? So ever, he served 24 years in the United States Army. He was an enlisted guy and left and retired as a sergeant major. So, fair play there, but he's not a pilot, his 0 Aviation experience.
He was never tied to an aviation unit in the Army and they claim that he's entirely unqualified to leave a federal agent Aviation agency, that's responsible for keeping our public safe and flying. Now, I think I remember at one point, there's hundreds of millions of people that fly in the United States. Every year it's probably A lot of the same people turns out especially if you're used to
doing these commuter flights. You see the same faces are going the same places but unless you're Chris wragge Chris,
right? He just flies private but it is a thing that many people expect that if you jump on a plane that you were going to be dealing with and Aviation Administration, that's funded by our federal government, that's going to maintain safety and they're certain standards and qualifications including air traffic control and their standards for pilots and so on. So it's interesting that we're going to have a nomination for this guy.
And this is the thing that the the aviators in Congress wrote, they said quote, the FAA cannot afford to be led by someone who needs on-the-job training, especially at a time when our Aviation system is facing tremendous safety challenges, such as multiple near misses by airliners. And the first Nationwide ground stop of aircraft since 9/11. They are having a difficult time.
Staffing, air traffic controllers, they're having a difficult time, getting Pilots because of the mandates that went out in a number of Pilots are both health conscious and Interested in their own medical Freedom. There's an entire group that I joined up with that that does that off kind of full-time. Now it's called move freely America and they bring up all the issues about do you know for flight crew? This is not just the pilots but
also the crew that are in there. So why are we trying to put somebody out there that has no experience? And for those of you who are not watching on the rumble Channel, I'm going to read you from them remarks as they were talking about who was ready to lead. This says, this is remarks that
were from the Commerce dot. Senate.gov this is Senator Maria cantwell's opening remarks talking about the confirmation hearing or at least the questioning hearing of this gentleman Philip Washington. So she talks about three years ago, Congress said there needs to be some Aviation process ravana. There needs to be some FAA oversight and I worked with my colleagues and blah blah blah blah, blah blah. We worked with the tragedies, the 737 Max and try to help figure out what's going to be
Landmark safety. You know, legislation, we are going to try to keep everything safe. The FAA is very complex group. They have 45,000 employees. Fleas and different lines of business day in and day out. It goes on and on and on and we're like, okay, so who is this guy? And why is it relevant? And then you get to the point where it says after he retired from the military 24 years in. Here you go he said he had a great career and we appreciate that.
He was a 24 veteran. 24-year veteran of the United States Army where he rose to the rank of command sergeant major. So he was the top noncommissioned officer rank that enlisted Soldier can get to and that he would be the first African-American to serve as the FAA administrator. What does that have to do with anything you wander? First of all, are we still keeping track of these firsts like does it? Is there any reason why anybody should care about whether you are the first black guy to do
anything at this point? Like all the things that are important to be done, I'm pretty sure. And now we've got this and they said here's this here's his history of Y so since 2000 when he retired. So this guy retired in 2000 after 24 years, he was probably 18 when he enlisted so that put him at like 42 years old.
He joined the Denver Regional. Channel District RTD and then that was a rapid transit sort of situation where they had annual ridership over 40 million and in Denver he implemented the nation's first and only 2.2 billion dollar public transit private public Equity partnership called Eagle P3. The basic connection that he has to the aviation world, is that in 2021? He became the CEO of the Denver International Airport, which may be the third business airport in
the world. But What does it have to do with flying? It actually turns out that running the airport has almost nothing to do with flying because the flying is actually managed by Air Traffic Control by the pilots by the airline's by the people that actually do Aviation. You know, his thing is that he's got a bunch of people that come in and out. They've got a security protocol they've got baggage, which used to actually chop baggage up and end of the day.
You know, the man was responsible for doing something that is like running a business but it's not running an airline and it's not running Aviation. So when we're worried about this sort of thing, it makes me nervous that we are just interested in the color of his skin, that he's a political Democrat. He's in a, you know, a blue State at this point, which Denver has become that or at least Colorado is because it's controlled by Denver and his
qualifications have nothing to do with Aviation what solar? I'm actually a better qualified person for fa a-- director because I'm actually a credentialed air traffic controller and I have no business running the FAA. But I would be a more more appropriate pick and probably have less at least on the Republican side who care about safety. I at least know what the safety issues are. I've run radar, I've run visual I've done Tower controls so that is what it is.
The last little thing we're going to talk about here is of course, the diversity and Equity push that happens in the FBI because we can't have anything without the FBI. Also jumping into the game. And so let's talk about it today, or yesterday, rather it is We did have this sort of horrible picture and I'm going to share it with you right now. Because what are you going to do?
This is a picture that was sent to me and I know it's a real picture because I know people that have sent it before. But it was just recently sent to me again by an ATF agent because we have this chat group where we are constantly trying to decide who is the worst, and I'll tell you who the worst is, it's almost always the FBI. Now it's just that's what it is.
So the FBI is trying to run to the bottom and people started asking me because it's gotten 40 plus thousand views at this point, I think Dinesh D'Souza may have retweeted it. People are trying to find out. Hey is this the real thing? Like is this a real picture? You know and then the most Salient question came up that I thought was the most important.
So if you're not seeing the picture right now it's a bunch of FBI Personnel. Wearing shirts that say FBI on the back in rainbow lettering, carrying an enormous American flag done, with rainbow Colours, and so the question popped up and it made me consider this. Someone asked me The question, I
don't have an answer. Did the FBI ever Force employees to show up, wearing American flied, flag, Pride t-shirts, you know, with the American flag, striped across the logo of the FBI for President's Day, for Fourth of July, for Veterans Day for any of the American holidays that we would all understand to be pretty nondenominational issues. And as far as I know, I've never heard of an FBI agent being forced to go to any of those things.
At least not in a uniform. I have had to work them in covert fashion and I've had to work them in overt fashion, but I've never I've been told show up in March in a parade of any kind to be proud of America, but we are sending people out to be part of these Pride, parades. And it's not. This is not the only instance that happened. So someone asked me is this even real?
And the answer is, of course, it is, and that means that they're not following some of the things that I've been putting out. So here's some more stuff that's coming out, this is from a FBI training. This person tweeted a gif of a cat that is saying I can't even process. This this is an FBI training that was put out in. I want to say April 20-21, they actually pulled it down because it was so tragically bad and it was poorly reviewed by FBI
Personnel at the time. And this one is a slide that says personal beliefs focus on appropriate behavior, and not your beliefs refer to, the FBI's non-discrimination policy core values and the mission to protect the American people. And uphold the Constitution focus on accomplishing the mission. And the picture is a bunch of sort of like tubby looking people.
Different color skin like that matter as I'm sure that's part of the reason why they did it. They're all holding like Rainbow stuff at a table that has the FBI logo. FBI jobs, dot-gov and Fidelity bravery and integrity on it there on some Waterfront. I don't know what city this is, it doesn't really matter. They're out there promoting the diversity equity and agenda issue. Here's where it got really spicy in that training knowledge.
Check number three, this is 52, slides long by the way there. If you want to go and try and dig it up, it's in either the Daily Caller, the New York Post, maybe in October, something like that, I exposed it to them. It says, quote G is new to the Gin and use the pronouns, they them there and then the answer that somebody filled in, for this one was wrong and it says incorrect FBI. Employees, should always use the
name and pronoun. That transgender person uses repeated intentional refusal to use an individual's chosen name and pronoun could be considered harassment as contrary to the goal of the FBI treating all employees with dignity and respect such conduct should be reported in accordance with the existing FBI policy and you go. Is that enough? No it's not an up. Where can I find Find more information, maybe you are listener, maybe you are Rumble.
Viewer would like more information about this as well. Well, here's where you can find it. You can email the bureau equality program which is Bureau equality at fbi.gov on unit which is the unclassified email. So feel free. If you feel like you want to reach out and know more about the diversity equity and inclusion agenda for the lgbtq plus IA, whatever groups, within
the FBI, by all means. And if you're a government employee and you want to know more and you have access to the December net side, you can go be0 Bravo, Echo at fbi.gov, dot-gov. Those people who know how to use that, know how to use that tells you that there's many all kinds of local chapters and issues and that you can use those and they can be apparently accessed while you're at work, why not? There's another thing on here, it's a slide that says the extra
mile make your support visible. Continue self-educating participate in Regional Pride events and support field office lgbtq+. Ants. I thought we had a separation of church and state. I thought that we weren't supposed to be forcing a specific secular religion on the employees but we are doing this thing. And if you're not watching on Rumble again, there is a picture on this Slide. The extra mile that shows again a bunch of very unimpressive
people. Most of them women, some of them with multicolored hair, some of them with significant extra body weight and they are Marching any Pride Parade Strewn with rainbow Flags, including stickers on their bodies and rainbow socks and FBI t-shirts and a couple of them are carrying a banner that says Federal Bureau of Investigation www.fbi.gov. And then, the most fun part for me is the hashtag unexpected
agent. Unexpected agent is the is the the push that they're having in order to recruit people who think that they would not otherwise qualify as FBI agents? They wouldn't qualify as FBI agents, probably only a few years ago and many of you would be disgusted to know that they are a last little piece here. I'll show is it from FBI jobs, March 15th you just you can't help it. The Jacksonville field office is holding yet another diversity agent recruiting event add our event.
Aunt Dar and it shows a black lady in a white lady talking about I guess becoming FBI agents. Again this hashtag unexpected agents, pretty awful and pretty strange. But this is the thing that they want to do this is what they're going to be pushing on us. And so that is the thing that we have to deal with. Speaking of unexpected agents, speaking of people from the Jacksonville field office, I'm going to be bringing on the interview that I did with Stephen friend.
We're going to be talking about the balls and Strikes when it comes to the proud boys, totally unrelated to this stuff. But at least a little bit more uplifting as you go into the weekend and stand by for a little interview, from our friend, Stephen friend. All right, I've got my guest, Steve friend here, and Steve has some experience with criminal process, as an FBI agent for eight years as a cop before
that. But more than most FBI agents, he had the pleasure, the benefit, the experience of working in Indian country. Crimes. Which means he had close to what 200 criminal prosecutions. Is that correct Steve? Yeah, open about 200 cases about 150, arrests, 150 arrest, 200 cases. And how many of those did you end up taking to trial? Do you think? Six or seven in my seven years, okay? That's one of year. And generally speaking, most people, plea in the federal
system that's kind of the way. The system is set up. There's a couple things that came to light in some of the discovery that was turned over by the Washington field office in one of The Proud boy cases. Now, Julie Kelly has been pretty astute and accurate on analyzing a lot of this stuff and getting it out to the public. There's a few things I think that are a little bit Miskin misconstrued, maybe a little bit inaccurate. So I want to run this by you.
One of the Is that people are getting really riled up about is the FBI destroying evidence. Does the FBI destroy evidence as a regular course of business. Not while the case is open, okay? But if you saw something on a link chat stating how, you know, the boss is telling me I got to go out and Destroy 338 items of evidence. What would your initial reaction to that be? I would hope that, that case was closed.
And the sentence for the individual was was complete, or maybe there was no prosecution done. But if there was ever a situation where even the person was convicted of a crime and sitting in prison, the arrest eliminating evidence is a no-go. And why is that? What is the the process that sort of governs that interaction the justice for all act which essentially guarantees anybody that's convicted of crime, this opportunity to appeal.
There's a there's a substantial amount of time that has to pass it elapsed before this appeal process window closes and then they They kind of have to just take their time. Alright. So if they served a sentence if they were convicted in the sentence is over we could destroy it. Correct.
Yes. What about if the ausa declines Yes but there's also the question of is the evidence something that needs to be returned or if it's something that maybe we're going to have you know more about this than me if it's an intelligence-gathering case we're going to spin off about it. Maybe we're going to preserve it for that purpose. Sure. Yeah generally speaking I don't know that there's a lot of the stuff in there.
Give people an example of one of the items that might be destroyed that nobody would think twice about destroying and it sounds like it's a big deal destroying evidence but the evidence might be something so invaluable or we Call de minimis that it doesn't matter. Well, I mean could be stuff that you created yourself. Like, if you took photographs had an audio recording, there's no sense in having a disk sitting around, you can just dispose of it that way, physical
evidence. If you have a bloody sheet or a piece of clothing that after a certain amount of time, what are you gonna do return? A, an Old Sock to somebody doesn't make a whole lot of sense, you can destroy it. Okay. And so there's also some depending on the the field office I think, but they'll describe destroy things that are Biological tainted evidence. So if it's got biohazards or blood, or if it's got, you know some other kind of fluid on there.
Sometimes I'll toss those things out to you. Yep. And drugs. Don't forget we have to have the big giant drug burn. Tell people about what that looks like because that that's another thing that is commonly destroyed, and they schedule every month or a lot of places will scheduled on a regular basis to do that. Yeah, it's controlled environment and they obviously have to make sure that there's no fumes going into anywhere, that's populated as we've seen.
Some of these reporters that are standing outside the will Catch a whiff and then suffer the effects of it. But I never will be didn't know that happened. They will make sure that yet seen secure and they'll do a controlled burn. Make sure that those materials are destroyed properly, when you're working in Indian country, did you see people collecting things before your time that were completely illogical and then you were burdened with getting rid of them.
Like I remember seeing a case where there was like 50 individual beer cans that have been collected for some reason and a piece of a screen door and then like the headliner From an 88 Jeep Cherokee. And it's like we and a bag of glass from a windshield like stuff like that. Was that common in? Europe are a yes ight and I mean I was inheriting these cases or be contacting and the sentence
will be done. I was actually given the knife that was used for a for a murder and was told to return it to the family of the victim because it was their kitchen knife. Did you reach out and see if they wanted that back or if they want to destroyed some people want to buy articulated? To my higher-ups. That might be a bad idea because the guy was out of jail and there might be some sort of like I do retribution, the emotional trigger, which he got my number
with yeah. Okay, so so on its face, if somebody said we are going to be destroying a large number of items of evidence. There are plenty of plausible explanations. Why? That could be correct? It's not necessarily related to the same case when people were on link Jack. Can you explain what the link chat is?
Because there's been a lot of I can for that I've seen at least on the Twitter sort of reporters, feared discussing what it is and they don't really know because they've never used it but you and I have yeah it's on the Secret side, on the red side, it's think of it as the old-school.
AOL Instant Messenger were you have access to anybody who's happens to be active on that side of the computer systems and you can just chat back and forth with them and you can preserve those chats if you want and you can log them on to load them into a case File if they're relevant or continuous. You know, you just chatting with your buddy. Hey, how's your day going? And people use it to also have audio conversations with each other and you can also do video
as that that sort of capability. And it's good for sort of teleconference calls where you don't actually have to get up off your desk and you can talk to a whole bunch of people same time. Alright, so basically the same thing people are using Skype for same.
Like we're using here, there's a messaging for function and audio and visual let's say you know I didn't meet each other while we worked in the bureau, but if we did, I could hit you up on there and Ask you something about your kids sports? I could check in how your wife is doing sick. We could talk about that case that we were thinking about referring off to your office and it would all be in the same chat, right? Yeah, absolutely.
Did you ever you didn't really deal with things that were that were classified in your case work. So you didn't probably have to deal with them showing up in your link. Is that more or less true? No, no, everything. I was deal with those unclassified and yeah, just, it didn't really wasn't really relevant to the cases that I was working. However, like every FBI employee, probably got the marking classified documents thing once a year on the Virtual
Academy training. Yeah, the portion markings. Yep. Where they have to go through it to make sure that you know, what is a secret? No, foreign classified law enforcement sensitive. Yep, very familiar. So one of the, the pushbacks that the doj that the US attorney's office did in this probably weighs case had basically stated that the, you know, the agent incorrectly hid instead of deleted files.
Select them properly for Discovery and therefore gave thousand lines of everyday conversation plus a bunch more that may or may not be related to the case and their argument to try to retrieve all. That was it's classified. What do you how do you, how do you sort that out? Like does that ring true to you that there's likely a bunch of
classified material? This woman was discussing with her her peers, I doubt it. Because first of all there's no portion marking which would indicate that it's classified. Just enlightened, my experience, using that link system, you're not typically having super Secret Squirrel conversations via link. You would probably move that over into a more secure. Secure place to have this conversation, then you wouldn't necessarily be typing them out.
And I think that it's yeah, I think that's the real thing. It's like, people are not necessarily typing them out although I did cut and paste occasionally but they would have portion marks from certain documents if we were trying to get like a linguist, like hey, what does this mean, or can you give me some context? You could see that being a thing
but yeah. For every day at people can imagine the AOL chat that's not the way you do it usually send an email over and say hey did you get my email? Do you want to do a link call about it, you had link calls about policy and procedures and case determinations, I imagine right? Yeah yeah yeah.
Definitely have those especially if you know you're covering a lead or something like that, you just will be sent to you by some individual, you had no relationship with and you just want to get some clarity on it and it's always just easier to have that. Calling that way. You're not trying to fight with cellphone receptions and you can look at the case together and sort of getting clarity. Yeah, that's a good point. It's like a collaboration tool
between offices. So if someone in d.c. were to send you a case or a lead saying, hey, would you go interview this person and you get it and receive it, you could look them up on the link system, dial them up on that, that system. And then talk about things all the way up to and including secret classifications.
So you're pretty covered on most most actions you would do in any case you're not, you're going to be in a secured environment where you're not trying to like walk around and have somebody over here. What you're getting involved in? Yeah yeah yeah. I mean there was always where you You said you think you're the guy in the cube next, he was just talking to myself and then you realize he had the headset on and he was having a link called with somebody fair
enough. All right, so some of the things that they mentioned, destroying the evidence, we don't really think much about that. The, the possibility that doj said that it was all classified. That's probably fall. So now, we've got one kind of the attorneys are probably over. Overreaching on one thing and then doj is probably overreaching on the other, the last piece on there that Julie Kelly reported and I think this one is probably the most Into
the government's case. In the case of The Proud boys is there is interactions between the case agents. And this case, it's Nicole Miller out of the Washington
field office. And then another agent who I don't know that we've seen identified and they're discussing the likely tactics that the defense is going to employ, based on listening to jail, phone calls between the attorney and the, and the client who's in jail, can you kind of expand on your experience of Catching Jail phone calls, what people do and do not have an like, kind of what's inbounds?
And what's not? Yeah, I mean, I've listed a lots of jail phone calls and well, in my experience, I wasn't even able to cheat to listen to a phone calls between an attorney and a defendant. The the jail system would block me from even accessing those they would if you put your hover your mouse over that call, it would not be available to select because those are privileged conversations the government's not entitled to those. So ever.
But fortunately for us in a lot of these times, these guys would talk to their attorney and then immediately call somebody and give the details of their conversation with her attorney. So if we wanted to develop some sort of strategy or insight into what the defense was planning to do, we could, but I think that's them just being irresponsible with with their phone calls because you pick up that Jail phone call and it says this is recorded and it's available to law enforcement.
So if you make that decision, that's on you. All right, I'm gonna kind of Replay that back at you. If somebody were to call and talk to their attorney, you didn't have access to it at all. You could not listen to it under any circumstances, it was not available to you. However, if that person got off the phone with their attorney turns around and calls baby's mama, which I'm sure is the the number one call that that gets done.
And then you know, the attorney said this and I told him this and all these things and then they do like a recap of it, that's no longer privilege because they're no longer talking to the attorney. That's how you correct pick that up. But if the government Made the argument that every single jail, call coming out of the January 6. Defendants system in DC has a caveat in order to use that phone. It looks like there's a kind of a terms of service on there.
It's three or four paragraphs, if you want to use this thing and one of the lines in their states that you basically give up your right to attorney-client privilege. Do you know if there's ever been any case along that, does that seem like a fair play by the government to be able to waive your attorney-client privilege? Just in order to use a phone, where your otherwise on covid, lockdown and isolation. Yeah, it sounds completely completely extra-constitutional,
it does not sound legit. And especially when you have this, this phone, hang over people's heads, and you're saying, well, it must you agree to this. Then you're not gonna be able to talk to your family. I mean, that's just is gross disgusting and it's definitely, I would question the legality of it. I've never seen anything like that. There's just certain rights that you can't simply just wave away.
Even if you wanted to, I mean, it, you can do the right to Liberty. Well, I wave that I want to be a Slave It doesn't work that way, right? Can't waive your right to free speech. You can't Rave your right to Due Process necessarily like it is part of the due process that you could waive your right to a trial and you could plea. But you can't say I'm fine with the government infringing, upon my right to due process by doing
something else. Yes. Yes. And that's just a dangerous precedent, especially with the shore this privilege that you're going to have me with the attorneys. Because where does it stop? I mean, well, if you're going to have a conversation with your attorney inside of an FBI facility that we were, don't worry, Record that and we're going to have access to it. Because you in order to have access to space, you're gonna have to agree with that and we
invited you into the space. May be correct. Correct. It's just completely completely in traps these guys and if they did that they're going to can have some consequences. I would I would hope we would hope you. I maybe not in DC, but in theory, they might have consequences somewhere in the judicial system if they end up getting a change of venue, you said, you wanted to drop something on me.
That was a little bit. I see sounds like it was written about by Miranda Divine on Thursday afternoon, or Thursday during the day. What is it that you found out about your complaint? Because this evolving case of I've been watching tiny bees feed as well and it says cherry-picked is their favorite thing.
And hand-picked as their other favorite thing they were hand-picked journalists and Cherry Picked and the so-called journalist so-called whistleblowers is kind of a, the meat of the Democrat argument against your legitimacy, you found out something kind of Key about what's going on at the what the office of the Inspector General, is that correct? Yep. The doj is Office of the
Inspector General, you? So, I, that was one of the offices that I submitted my whistleblower declaration to, and I perceived in December, notice from them that they were not going to be investigating the, the matter that I brought for to them and kind of figured, well, that's that I'm all done. And then that can February went through my in the middle. February went to the deposition for The select committee and then the Democrats had their strategic coordinated leaks with
a media. And one of the details that they said, was that the, the oig was refusing to even look at the veracity of my complaint. And that was sort of one of the, the big, the big bombs that they threw in my direction. Fortunately, for me, Jason Foster Bauer oversight has some some contacts and has been pressuring the oig and finding out and, and watch the Chagrin of the That's the oig.
Actually, before my deposition had agreed to investigate my declaration to speak, to me about the details of that. And also my retribution that I suffered as a whistleblower. They want to schedule an interview with me but then they interesting nugget that I have recently learned is that the rejection letter that I initially receive seeing as how that's very inconsistent with what the oig is telling me now that is automatically generated by a computer.
System. How's that the oig that regardless of what you send in, in order to avoid, being accused of ignoring declaration from whistleblower, you get the the rejection letter. And then I guess at a later time, they can assess if they want to reopen it. Okay. With. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna pair it that back again because that sounds craziness. You were told in deposition that you had not been, your complaint had not been selected by the oig, the office of the Inspector General to be in.
Estimated that was a period. You found out. That was not the case. But that was at odds with what you'd gotten in process because you'd gotten the letter stating that they had rejected your investigation or your complaint and thanks for trying kind of thing.
And you found out that that is a, a automatically generated sort of compliance mechanism that comes out to every single whistleblower and says, we're not interested in investigating just in case they wanted to follow up on it, at least they know that somebody wrote to them. But they can still go back and investigate that thing. Yes, there's, there's 400 Attorneys at the oig. Obviously, you limited bandwidth, what you can do?
I mean that seems like a pretty healthy population but I don't know what, you know, the quantity of complaints that they get coming in, but if you don't have somebody who's an advocate for you, who's has dogged as Jason Foster has been for me, I can just see a situation easily arise where you bring a legitimate and maybe a major accusation forward. Nothing that's transient. And Small, but because you get that letter, you think. Well, that's that.
I guess I have to find new pastures and your resign and walk away and then maybe months or even years down, the Laura lauro, the oig contacts you and says, hey, you know, you remember that allegation about, you know, they're being major Espionage it going on in the FBI we'd like, to talk to you about that and now you've changed and disrupted your entire career path and it's too late for you to really go back on that.
No, I think. Yeah, that's a wild is being a potentially catastrophic problem with the oig. Have you ever heard of anybody explaining this before or that? Do you know, anybody that's ever heard this and going like, oh, yeah, that makes sense. No, no, I blown away.
I'm just thinking about how many people that didn't have adjacent working for them that this has happened to and and there's there's a lot of serious allegations that have come out and maybe they just Were never pursued because the person to said like, Hey look, it's been a year, I got a new job, you know, I moved. I'm not really interested, you know, kind of f. Those guys, the government can't be fixed. I'm just going to go onto the private sector. How often is that happened as a
result of this? Yeah, probably a lot based on what I mean. There's allegations going in if they've got 400 attorneys work in there and you figure that you've got ATF and DEA and the Marshal Service and the FBI and people can make allegations from the inside of the agency but also from the outside of the agency and can Can choose to just abandon pushing these things like legal process.
ATF just makes you think what about like like a John Dodson who comes forward with the Fast and the Furious accusation? What if he just sends it to the oig and Jared rejected? And yeah, how corrupt would that would that make you think everything? Is it also probably explains why some people choose to take their case to the media and because what are the what is the way that you can do anything when you're told that the the oig is not interested in following
down. You complain like you got No other recourse other than either go public or shut your mouth and go back. And as we used to say in the military, shut up in color. Yeah, exactly. I made and then if you go to the media, then that's not one of those one through seven aspects to being a whistleblower. That's a protected disclosure. No checked it out to that point.
Yeah. So then if they were to terminate you then then you're definitely on Fairgrounds probably probably like me. I'm on Fairgrounds to be terminated this point. Doing my thing, I am the media I guess cells. Right. Or you them you during the investigation. It is. Yes. In me for sure, give me journalistic protections for my sources which may or may not show up on my podcast but I really appreciate you sharing this information with folks.
I appreciate you sharing your experience because I think it is timely and it's necessary for people to know we're going to call balls and Strikes. When the FBI has done something we think is wrong, we're going to call it out. But when there's something that is maybe a little bit more innocuous like destroying evidence because that is something that gets done in law enforcement. They Don't just keep it forever and they don't have infinite Warehouse spaces like Raiders of the Lost Ark.
It can't just keep it in the warehouse Forever at some point is got to go away. So thanks so much for sharing your experience been, you got it. And it's always good to hear from Steve friend. He brings truth and maybe a little bit more sober perspective than some of the the nonsense that we've been talking about ladies and gentlemen. You have been listening to the Kyle Serafin show. Please consider, hitting the Subscribe button. On rumble on Apple, on Spotify.
On, I heart radio or any of the other dozen places that you could find podcast. We just added a couple more this week. So please consider subscribing. If you enjoyed what you heard, share it with a friend, you can share it with 2, you can share it with 50, it does help us grow the audience. And the number of people who have access to this kind of first-hand information sources,
like Steve friend and others. And if you do like what you hear, we'd appreciate a five star review on Apple podcast. The link is always in the show descriptions and if you do send one of those, we will read one on the show. So Stand By and I will read one right here for you. Now, here we go. This one says, it's from Sun Drop 32, says excellent. Love your show. I started following you after hearing you on the dark to light, Right. That's Tracy beans podcast.
By the way, it's nice to hear a courageous trustworthy. Truth teller, in an upside-down world of constant lies in Scandal. I pray for our country, I pray for you and your family stay strong Kyle. You're doing a great service. Well, that's sort of self-congratulatory for us, but we do appreciate you Sundrop 32. And folks, if you want to have your review, read on the air, send one. If you have a zany title, I like those easier. They stand out to my eyes.
Again, you've been listening to the Kyle Surf and show and we will see you again. Next time. Thanks for listening to the Kyle Serafin. Show be sure to follow him on Twitter and Truth at Kyle's seraphin.