Take a look behind the curtain with a real whistle blower, an American patriot prepared to embrace the uncomfortable truth. Because this program has no time for comforting lies. Here is civil liberties enthusiasts, Second Amendment defender and recovering FBI agent Kyle Seraphin. Hello my friends, welcome to the Kyle Seraphin show. Today is Tuesday, August the 8th.
It's 88. If you're Frank Figluzzi, the former FBI assistant director of counterintelligence, this day has vast significance to you in your white supremacy ladled brain. But for those of us who are regular people, it does not. It's simply a Tuesday. And it's a Tuesday when our government is engaging in malfeasance and going after regular citizens and infringing in the 2nd or the 1st Amendment protected activities like the freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press.
Not surprising to any of you. Before we get into my guest today, we're going to be bringing on Steve Baker. He joined me for my first and probably longest video interview where we went over 3 hours, where we were going into Joe Rogan territory. We had to break it up into three pieces for you. And I will put the link below when we finish the show so you guys can go see that. If you haven't seen the original discussion, we have. But we're going to bring it back on because there's been some
important developments. And one of the things that we know is that the FBI listens to this podcast. And if we are going to thumb our nose at anybody, we are going to do it here on this show. So thanks for joining us, everybody. Thanks for being part of the show. Let me pay some bills real quick and say thanks to my folks over at Catholic Vote. You guys know that you can sign up for the Loop. There's my copy of the Loop right there coming straight out
of my e-mail. I'm going to look at my phone here today, Tuesday the 8th. We've got issue #1 is on the ballot in Ohio. Folks, if you want to go out and vote on that, check out the Loop. First of all, you just go to catholicvote.org, put in your e-mail address and your zip code. You'll find out that you can go vote in Ohio on their constitutional amendment about abortion rights. Trying to get rid of that or trying to add it rather very
important stuff. Library director resigns over pornography in Virginia libraries. I think that's going to be relevant to you all. The Boston Mayor is gaining Bass is banning gas power in city work. Fantastic. That seems like a real smart move by Mayor Wu, the Democrat out there. And a couple of things about the Gallup poll the the resurgence and that what we're seeing is more and more LGBTQ plus people identifying in every generation.
There's a whole list of that stuff like that handful of others, cashless society, the fears that we have Australia as a harbinger for some of the ills that are coming down the line and a new loop cast, which is their podcast. So check out the loop. Go see my friends over there. And of course, you can always join our our free the merch type, our free the cup type brands. Actually got his in his post office box.
I don't know if he actually went and grabbed it, but you can go to Patriot coolers dot com, Patriot coolers.com with promo code Kyle, Kyle or click in the show notes right below here. You'll be able to do it. You don't even have to load the promo code. I've actually got it loaded in there for you. You'll get 10% off. So if you see something like there, by all means, check it
out. Without too much further ado, I want to bring on Mr. Steve Baker, the pragmatic constitutionalist who has a locals account you can find will add that to the to the notes. Steve, thanks for joining me, bud. And I see that you are wearing your team colors today. You're in Team CIA, apparently. Absolutely. I'm I am part of the agency. The the agency as it is known by those of us who work in the government, would you say that you trust the CIA now more than
you do the FBI? I'll tell you what, the only, the only possible rationale for that is that still technically the CIA is supposed to work overseas more than here domestically. So maybe. I guess so, yeah. I've got buddies who are who are CIA whistleblowers who literally told me that they have more faith in the agency that they've blown the whistle on that has fired them than the agency I used to work for. That is amazing. That's great stuff, right?
Yeah, I mean, as far as I know, I haven't been moved on by the CIA yet, but I have been moved on by the FBI. So I have a real problem with your former organization. Yeah, you and me both. All right, let me just start off by asking folks if you are in the live chat, and many of you are, if you want to add a question you'd like something answered that Steve may have a unique perspective on, please add it in the comments below. So scroll below the live chat,
put it in the comments. It's easier for Ryan to screenshot them and bring him on screen later on, and we'll get to those as they come down. And why don't we start off with just letting people know a little bit about who you are? So not everybody saw the original interview we did, although we spent an awful lot of time on it. So give people a rundown, maybe, you know, from your early youth and then kind of how you ended up sitting here on the show again. My my early youth.
Well, before I start that, I will tell you all of your viewers they need to go listen to that first interview. That was actually one of the most enjoyable interviews I've ever done because we went pretty deep. Yeah, we had a lot of fun there. Yeah, especially what by the time we got to the third segment, 3rd hour, we were, we were into some pretty deep esoteric stuff.
So I enjoyed. It that's true and and also we were deep in the bladder territory where it was, we were going to have a a time clock after the run out. That's right. Well, my, you know, my, my youth. If I have to start there. No, I'm a I'm a lifelong musician. I have been a trumpet player and vocalist most of my adult life. I started touring when I was a kid. I left school at 19 to go on the road and travel all over the world and did that sort of thing.
In the process of that, I got involved with some organizations that were doing work behind the Iron Curtain of ministry organizations, missionary organizations. I, I got involved in groups that were, you know, smuggling printing press parts and, you know, tape duplicating machines, recording the gear, all this kind of stuff to support the underground dissident movement inside the Soviet Union. And that's a long story in and of itself.
But then while I'm doing all of that and traveling back and forth from being on the road and being home in my home state of Louisiana, my father is also a private investigator. So this whole thing of is in my blood. It's a it's kind of Adna type thing that's been handed to me. And then I started writing just as a hobby back in the 80s.
And then and when we by the time, by the time the Internet came around, I was flourishing online, you know, started off on CompuServe and AOL and then all of that became Myspace and then Myspace became Facebook and then Facebook became A blog. And here we are today, right? So, you know, that was that was
the kind of the genesis of this. But for most of my quote UN quote writing career and political analysis and commentary and that sort of thing, that was just a hobby for me. And it wasn't until COVID came to town and they locked the country down. And particularly here in North Carolina, where I live now, I wasn't allowed to work for a year and a half. I mean, live music is my business. It's what I do to pay my bills and it's what I have done for
most of my life. So I was suddenly not allowed to work. And so after, you know, 2, two weeks to flatten the curve became two months. And then I realized it could be as long as two years. I thought, well, I better, I better monetize this hobby of mine. And so I kicked that into high
gear, started doing that. And, you know, it didn't really change anything that I was doing other than obviously I was obsessed with COVID and writing and investigating all, all things related to that, that farce. But when, when January 6th rolled around, that was just part of my schedule. You know, by then I was writing full time. You know, I wasn't playing
music. So I was, I was travelling the country, meeting with my bloggers or my blog followers all over the country during the lockdown. So I travelled to 28 States and we would have meetings in defiance, you know, we like, we would create speakeasies where they didn't exist and we would meet up and. What were those meetings like out of curiosity too?
It was phenomenal. You know, the, the, the very interesting thing about those meetings, some of them were in people's homes, some of them were in businesses that weren't open because they were locked down, but they, but the owner would open them for us. Some of them were out in, you
know, rural counties. So, so it would be outside of a major city where they were completely locked down, but then they would be in a county where the sheriff didn't enforce the lockdown, which happened all over the country, as you know. And so that those were the kinds of places that we had made. And of course it was, it was liberating for everybody because, you know, we weren't able to do anything back home depending upon where your home was.
And so for most people, this was a liberating time to be able just to go out and and meet with other people. Yeah, isn't, isn't it so interesting that just meeting up with strangers and sharing ideas was the defiance? And in many ways it's probably a lot like what you were doing when you were running around behind the Iron Curtain where you're running around the Soviet Union. I mean, you got to experience tyranny on on 2 fronts. I'm sure you probably didn't expect it coming back home to
the United States, though. No, I, I, I never did. And, and in fact, I'll tell you a quick story. I was sitting in a a dissident leaders home in tall in Estonia. This was 1983. You say in Estonia? In Estonia, OK, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic back then. And I, I was, I was secreted to his home by just, I mean just like you would see in a movie. I mean, they, they, I, I, I met in a cafe and then they, we jumped in a cab. And then from a cab we got on a,
a trolley. And then from a trolley into a private car and from a private car back into another cab. And then finally after dark, we end up at this leader's home. All the lights were out. The, the windows, of course, were covered. And then after sitting by myself in his living room for quite some time, he comes wandering out from the dark backroom and he walks in, he sits at the couch across from me and and he he holds up a pen just like this
is actually a pencil. And he says, he said here, this is what the government tells us the truth looks like, he said. But because we can get finished television across the the Baltic from here, we know the truth looks like this. I've never forgotten that and I never dreamed that I would be living that today here in our own country. Where the government literally is spinning truth and trying to, to influence public perception. I think they've always done that. So I'm kind of curious.
My, my dad is in his mid 70s or early to mid 70s and, and I'm in my early 40s. And you're kind of in between there. I grew up with a fundamental distrust of the government. I think my dad grew up with the opposite of that, but kind of saw that, you know, growing during the Vietnam anti war movements and so on. What was your feeling about the government's involvement and and whether or not they would be truthful with the citizens in the United States as you grew up?
Well, when when I grew up, I think that we were all much more trusting. First of all, we may not have liked the other political side or depending upon which side of the aisle you voted for, but we were more trusting that, OK, all right, the other guys won. But they're going to tell us the truth and they're going to take care of us and they're going to be, they're going to be somewhat forthright and honest. Well, obviously we had our scandals.
Watergate was well, you know, when I was in junior high school and, and, and of course then we, you know, we've had to go through the end of the Vietnam War in 75 and then we had to go through the Carter administration. And then suddenly things began to, as I grew, you know, I was growing older, I was growing more aware and, and becoming
more perceptive. I think of, of the reality that one of the inherent functions of government is, as you've mentioned before, it's just to color the truth. They're not going to be honest with us on a, on a macro sense by any means, as they, they can justify any lie and they'll do it for, for secure, you know, national security reasons or are, are, oh God, I mean, look, look at where we're look at, look at what we're facing right now.
And in terms of what they're trying to spend for security reasons. And then the, the other, the other reality is, is that once you get a little bit older and you become even a little bit more aware, you, you become much more attuned to the fact that they're probably not telling you the truth about anything. At at least everything, as you said, has a spin to it to some degree and to some extent. And that's coming from every side. And that's been, you know, that's been the most stark
realization in my career. I as a, as a writer and as someone who is now moving in the circles and meeting with Congress members and meeting with congressional staff members on a regular basis, you, you just don't know what is real, what's not, and what's you don't know what's being taken back. And you don't, you don't know when they look you right in the face and tell you how serious they are about, you know, following through on this particular issue.
You've made your impact. You've seen their eyes light up. You've seen them drop their jaw when you tell them that you know something they need to know. And then they, you know, they write down your name and your number and they give it to a staffer and say call him. And then you don't ever hear from that staffer again. I think that's the big thing where you feel like you've made the impact like a normal human
being would. If you and I had had that impact made on us, then we would be making that call in a in a couple days and and then there's nothing. There's just no follow through. I'm get I'm getting somewhere with this. So what was your relationship growing up? You said your dad is a private investigator. What was your relationship with the FBI even either by reputation or or any interactions with it until 20/21?
Well, you know, my, my perception of the FBI came from Ephraim Zebulus Junior and, you know, in the, the the 1960s, seventies television series, I grew up with that and that's I am that old. And so they were the good guys. And then of course, the untouchables, you know, Elliott Ness, I was, I mean, I was all over that, you know, played by Robert Stack. That was awesome. So that, that was the kind of thing that I grew up with. And my perception is, is that they were, you know, they were
the white hat guys out there. And that there was, there was, if there was truth justice in the American way, it was going to be performed and, or executed by those guys. And, and certainly you, you thought of maybe these guys as being a little bit spookier in, in the background there. And then when I was working behind the Iron Curtain, I, I, well, I'm, I'm the only guy that I know in my entire life who's ever been strip searched by the KGB.
Well, you're looking at him. I don't know if you know anybody who has been, but. I'm not off the top of my head, but I've run into enough circles I probably could find somebody as well. You're probably not unique in that, but it's not common. Right. You probably could. But point being is, is that I was engaged in activities that eventually led to that. Yeah, sure. That I certainly during that time thought that these guys and the FBI were the good guys.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a natural. It'd be hard to do a lot of the things that you were involved in or think the way that we did, I think up until very recently. How much has post January 6th shaded your your impression of of what our government is involved in? I have a new axiom related to January 6th that came afterward. I I I have. I have lots of operational working axioms in my writing career.
My first, my, my first lead line is always as a, as a basically as a political libertarian is that there's the world we want versus the world in which we actually live. And I say that, and that's why I, I call myself a pragmatist, is there is the world that we want. I if you put me, if you, if I took the test, you know, I'm, I'm probably a political anarchist, but I'm, I'm more rational than that. And I know that that's just as unworkable in humanity and human nature as is communism, that
neither of those extremes work. And so, yeah, that's the world that I want, but that's not the world in which we live. We don't live in a world where we can have open borders. And of course, that's so, you know, that's a that's a libertarian flag. Well, yeah, I would love a world with open. I would love a world that was safe enough that we could have a more open force. We don't live in that world. So that's what that axiom means.
But the one related to January 6th that popped up since then was that I will never again believe anything that I don't see with my own eyes. But then check the videotape. Because what you saw, and it's not necessarily what actually happened to. That's correct, because I took hours worth of video that day and it wasn't until after I did, you know, 5 days of frame by frame analysis of my own video that I just became aware of what was going on in that crowd.
Sure. Well, I had a book of quotes I grew up with. It was like one of those toilet reading books. You know, you reach back and you read a quote from famous people. And one of them that I've always stuck with me since I was a teenager was if you, if you want to know what history is, go talk to two different people that were involved in an automobile accident and then try to figure out whether anybody knows what happened. And it's something to that effect.
I'm, I'm, I'm butchering it in a little way, but, but essentially that the fact that we all bring a significant lens to whatever happened and we brought our emotions and our expectations and our assumptions to it. And then, you know, then there's what actually happened on the videotape. Like you just mentioned, I put out a tweet earlier this week and I think it got some traction because I think it resonates with a lot of people. It upset a lot of people as
well. But one of the things that I, I've been sort of musing on, you know, the, the sphere of Twitter is like how, how condensed can you get an interesting idea? What I said was is the United States I grew up in would have invaded the United States that I live in.
What do you think about that? You know, be, again, being a libertarian, I would hope that we would not have been dated, but I think we would have probably been compelled to respond and attack probably in a treaty we had with somebody because of the malfeasance that the United States that we live in today is participating in in their country. So we probably would have had a had a treaty with somebody that we would have had to attack. I just, I, I, I see things like
urgent fury. I see things like Just Cause as sort of examples from the 80s and I was a little kid from a lot of that, but I still have recollections. I actually jumped out of an airplane at Fort Benning on the 20 year, 20 year, yeah, the 20 year anniversary of of Just Cause with guys who jumped into Panama. So I had jumped, you know, guys from my from my stick were, were, were jumpers in there as well. And they were doing kind of a memorial jump.
And I don't know, for some reason, it's just, you know, when you start stepping into the Banana Republic realm and you start delegitimizing all these, these institutions that we sort of grew up trusting. I mean, even in the 80s and 90s, I grew up trusting these things in the way that you probably
remember as well. And then and, and even things like Ruby Ridge, even though they bothered me, and even things like Waco, which my dad was intricately, you know, involved in having talked to the guys inside the compound, it still didn't shake me the way that I feel like what's been going on with January 6 is shaking me. I I have one of my closest friends in the world. I don't remember whether we mentioned him in my our our three hour marathon previously, but he's a wounded veteran, lost
an arm in Sinai desert. He stepped on a landmine on a peacekeeping mission back after Anwar Sadat was assassinated. What was that, 81 or 82 somewhere in there? And we he was a Ranger and also 101st Airborne and he was Lieutenant leading a Recon in the desert. And he triggered one of those, what they call them bouncing Betties or, you know, jumping Judy, whatever the hell it got. So yeah, bouncing betties is what I've always heard of
called. He, he triggered that and then he ordered his guys to retrace their steps and get out of the minefield that they had wandered into. And this was a mine that had been planted in the Yom Kippur War back in 69. And so the circuitry had degraded just enough that once he, his guys were clear and he made a break for it to try to get away, expecting to die, but he wasn't, he managed to get far enough away. It didn't kill him, but it took his arm off, almost took one of
his legs off. He's 100% deaf even today, as you know, the cochlear implants, tons of other, you know. Medical problems related to that. He's lost 1/2 of a foot from that as as well. Let me just jump in to tell people with this, with this landmine situation. Is it so it's a, it's a spring loaded explosive device that lives under the ground. It's buried down there. And then when you put enough pressure on it, a human pressure, it activates the
spring release. So when you let lift a foot, it bounces up chest high, waist high, face high, etcetera. To make the most explosive, as opposed to blowing up from the ground where you get a limited cone of explosion. It gets up and and detonates so that it causes the most amount of damage. Really nasty stuff, things that people are not supposed to use in most war zones right now.
I think they actually had one of those things in Bad Boys too, now that I think about it in in that scene at Guantanamo. But it's it's a horrific device. And to be standing there basically on something you assume is going to kill you is it's got to be probably one of the most harrowing decisions. And of course, heroic to have your guys walk back out of it and run. But that's that's what we're talking about. OK, so he, he lost an arm. He's and he's, he's thoroughly banged up.
Yeah, he, I mean, he, he thought he was going to of course, die. He he, he was air backed to Israel. The Israeli doctors were much more experienced back in that era with that type of trauma and they saved his life. And years later, I mean, guys had an incredibly productive life even, you know, as a double amputee and has I mean, he's scuba diver, he owns 2 boats. He's had a, you know, a great
career otherwise. And he he told me when we were watching some of the results of these, these Oath Keeper trials, for instance, related to January 6th, and we were together and he just broke down and he just started bawling. And he was so upset by that because he saw what the government was doing to these innocent men and the manipulation. And he said this is this the country that I gave up this for, right? No, it has to be truly troubling and I think a lot of veterans
are looking in the same way. And that's what that was so troubling about that particular day. Give people a background and we'll then we'll dig into the modern, the updates to it. But you know, what was your involvement in January 6th and kind of the, the Cliff Notes version or if you want to put the bullet points out there so people can kind of do it. And then I'll, I'll refer them back to our our long form because we talked about that
obviously at length. Yeah. The, the, the, the real quick elevator pitch on that is that is that as I said, I was now out of work in my other job. So I moved my political analysis and writing and commentary investigative work into the, you know, the captain's chair of my life. And so January 6th was put on the calendar. You know, Trump announced something wild was going to happen on December 19th of 2020.
And me and another very successful writer friend of mine from here in Raleigh, we decided to go up together and check it out. I, you know, I had, I had no idea what to expect that day. I was, I was thinking maybe because there was all of this talk about the, the, you know, the election potential election fraud and that they had all these investigations that they do been doing and that there was going to eventually be the release of the crack.
And if you remember that, Yep, thought, OK, well, if they're going to release the crack and it's got to be on January 6th, you know, we're down. We're down to the, you know, down to the two weeks before the actual inauguration of president-elect Biden at that point. So if you're going to release a crack and it better be there.
So we loaded up in my car and we rode up to DC and you know, got a got a room in Arlington did that whole routine went over there the next morning froze our butts off and you know, 30 mile an hour cross went in January Wednesday. We, we were completely unimpressed with every person that was on the stage, me not being a Trump supporter more so
than even my friend. And then we decided about halfway through Trump's speech to start working our way towards the Capitol building, which thousands of people were already peeling off and doing that at the time, because there were announced events that day. And this is something a lot of Americans don't understand is that there were scheduled permitted events at the Capitol, right to follow.
And, and Trump, he, he messed up even those because he messed up the schedule because he didn't take the stage until an hour late down at the Ellipse. He was scheduled to speak at 11. And the 1st events were to begin around 12:30 or, or one at the Capitol. And it's quite a long walk. And the, you know, there was no car traffic open that day because of the size of the crowds and it being a major
protest day. So the, the bottom line is that by the time we got to the Capitol, it was already after one O clock. Trump was still on stage. He didn't leave the stage till 1:16 PM. And we could see the, we could see the, from our vantage point near the reflection pool, the peace monument area. We could see the flat, hear the flash bangs.
We could see the tear smoke. We could see a rival of DC Metro police, their, their fluorescent, fluorescent vest coming down the steps, you know, feverishly arriving and their sirens going off. And we're like, man, what is going on? I looked at my buddy, I said, well, that's where we're headed. And we, we raced it up there to the West terrace. And by the time we got there, there are the, the battle had already been engaged for some
time. You know, because the first, the first barricade breach was at 12:50 to 12:53 PMI turned my camera on at 1:19. So it was, you know, nearly, you know, it was over 25 minutes after violence had begun before I started filming. And then once I captured about an hour's worth of video, not knowing that there had been a breach now of the building itself, but there was now a free flow of humanity going up the the steps.
There were those you've seen, the scaffolding that were covered with canvas that had been ripped off by the protesters. And now people are just moving up as freely as, you know, in a mall. And I finally joined behind several 100 people and went up there myself. When I got to the upper terrace, I look over and there's hundreds of people moving into the building. And so I, of course, never saw the breach of the building, never saw why the doors were
opened. But once that was clear that people were going in, I joined in the line and went in. And so I started the process of doing nothing more than behaving as a journalist. In fact, I've seen myself on Capitol CCTV stopping and taking notes. I would, you know, video. I've taken backpack off. I had AI had a I had my camera gear, I had a tripod. I had, you know, extra batteries.
I had my man on the street microphone because that was what I was planning on doing that day was interviewing people about if the Kraken got, you know, unleashed. I had no idea that this was going to happen, but I had to you know, my instincts were to follow the story where the story went. So I you can as I said, you could see me in the inside the Capitol building. I'll, people are moving around and I've, I've shut my camera off and I've got my phone out. I, I'm standing against the wall
typing for 10 or 15 minutes. I don't even remember doing that. Talking about memories of, you know, in a right crime or something like. That how, how, Yeah. What was the, the physiological sensation of being there? What was the the either the sympathetic reactions or you know, you know, what was your your memories that you do have? What do you remember the feeling of being in that crowd? Well, when the, when I, when I first started filming on the battle line on the West terrace.
But my, my feelings were I, I had, I had no, and I, I would say I had no identifiable emotions of any kind. It was just I had one intention and that was to capture the best that I could on film because I knew that history was being made. You didn't have a team that you were going, you know, go police, go rioters or go go Trump, guys.
No, because because I, I had, as I said, I, I didn't know what I was seeing except, you know, because your mind can only take in about 5% in a highly violent kinetic situation like that. And then you're looking through a small lens anyway. And then when you start getting hit by pepper spray and you start getting hit, you know, you're downwind from, from the
spray. I was never doing anything to have it aimed at me because I was near assaulting police officers or attacking the the line in any way. But down when you got a 30 mile an hour north wind coming and you're on the South side of that, you're going to catch some of it. And so I, I eventually moved over to the north side so I could avoid that spray, which put me in that position underneath where that
scaffolding was. And, and now I'm over where some really violent activity is taking place. And now the guys over there, they've got the, the rubber bullet guns, they've got the, you know, the, the, the grenade flash bang grenades, all of the quote, UN quote, less than lethal munitions that they were using, including those big tank, you know, tanks of pepper spray. And so I've got, you know, camera in one hand and my eyeballs on those guys with
those big tanks of pepper spray. So because I, I do, I don't want to be near anybody deserving of him pulling the trigger on them. So your, your brain can only take in so much. So there was a protective nature going on right there, you know, self preservation. I did get hit by one of the flash bangs. It, it exploded about 3 feet off to my right. Shrapnel came up, hit me. I had a bruise on the side of my knee for about 6 months after
that. So just being in the area, there were, there were those kinds of concerns, but I didn't have any. I, I felt no political oriented sensations whatsoever until I left the building. Because when I left the building, I saw the and filmed and video of the extraction of Ashley Babbitt out of the building by the EMT units. And I I'm the only cameraman that did capture that. So many people will have seen that footage and, and it's out there in lots of different places, as we know.
Well, let me just before we go in and talk about inside the building because I think that's going to be critical to discussion why DOJ is interested in you. I think, I think we got a, we had a question that was put out there by Jigsaw Massacre. One of our regulars says, did you witness the flare being shot over the Capitol building at 2:45 three PM? And if so, do you have any idea what its purpose was? 2:45 No, I was inside the building. OK, So at that point you're
you're marching around inside. OK, fair enough. All right. So you're inside. Clear we got. We got to be really precise in our speech here. I was not marching. Yes, you. You were walking around and and observing and and documenting things as a charm. Infuriating is an actual misdemeanor charge. Isn't that amazing that we are in such a strange, silly world of that? All right.
My buddy Steve friend mentioned, and I know he you've talked to him at length and, and one of the things he said is that you, you're going to be charged for, for upsetting a bench inside the Capitol. And, and and that was one of the things that I think that they were really honed in on. You've been interviewed by the FBI at least once that I'm aware of. Was there another interview?
There was an attempted interview that was aborted prior to my actual 2 hour interview in which my attorney and I showed up at the field office here in Raleigh and they met us at the door and said, hey, we may not be able to do this interview today. And we're like, OK, they said, just give us a few minutes. We'll be back in about 10 minutes. We're on the phone determining whether we can do this or not. I had no idea what was going on. So they went back in the back.
We sat in the lobby and they actually, it took on about 1/2 hour before they came out. And when they came out, they said, yeah, we can't do this, you know, because of your status as a journalist Press, where we, we can't do this interview without express written permission from the US Attorney General's office. I, I didn't even know such a code existed in the federal code, but it actually does.
And so as a result of that, it took about another two months, actually over two months before we actually did the interview, because it took that long for the letter to, of approval from the US Attorney's office in the negotiation with my attorney. And then the final proper letter that was that we agreed to for the interview. All right. And then you've had recent contact. This is obviously why we're back out here talking about this
again. So we've entitled this episode The Subpoena. You had a text message. It showed up on Twitter that you posted from your attorney. Just walk people through what that was, what the emotions were of getting it, and then what it turned out to be.
Yeah, 10:25 AM this past Friday, I get a text from my attorney who and it's my Raleigh attorney, not my DC attorney, telling me that he was contacted by the one of the agents that interviewed me two years ago and said that they had a service of process that they needed to get to me and did they need to go through him or, or execute that right directly to me.
So he said I don't know, you let me, let me, let me check with Steve. So he, he called me right up and or I called him right back from the text and I, you know, what the heck's going on here, man? He said I, well, I don't know, I have no idea what it is. It's just they noticed me, notified me service process and I said yeah, call him back, tell him you'll take it. But ask them what the hell it is and it turns out it is a subpoena from the District Court
there in DC demanding access. Not access, but demanding copies of all my videos that I took on January 6th. Now, that doesn't sound so ominous, except if there's a problem. A couple of key legal technical details you you might be intimately aware of. The first thing is, is this is a grand jury subpoena. A grand jury is not seated for misdemeanor charges, right? Only for felony charges, even in January 6 cases.
You know your your former colleagues may SWAT people for misdemeanor charges, but they are not sent there by a grand jury decision. Sure. The other problem with this subpoena, once it was picked up by my attorney yesterday morning, is that this particular subpoena is signed by the actual assistant US attorney who was handling my case over 20 months ago. Meaning after my DC attorney saw it and he called me up and he said, OK, he said, you probably already figured it out, but this
is not good. And I said, OK, why is it not good? And he said, well, three levels #1 as you know, if there's a grand jury looking at you, it's not for a misdemeanor, it's for some felony. Second thing is the fact that this particular AUSA is the signatory means that this is your case. They're not looking at your videos for somebody else's crime or, or case or, you know, and I said, OK, well, you know, what's
what's the third thing he said? Well, he said the other thing that makes it evident that they're looking at you is that is that if they were looking at you specifically, they would have to subpoena only your tools of trade, the video itself. They can't subpoena you on your case, right? So they can't bring the suspect into the grand jury.
He said that that means he said that they are in fact, he could, because if this was just a witness testimony, if they just needed to know what you saw and you needed to authenticate your video, they could just call you in to testify on somebody else's case, Said The fact that they're calling your video in means they're looking at you. So 3 steps, yeah. So let me just break that down three steps. You're saying 1 felony because it's a grand jury.
OK, I can get behind that. Two, you're saying that there is it's targeting you specifically because the assistant United States Attorney, the prosecutor that was looking at you initially is the one who signed off on the subpoena. And then the third is because they are not asking you to testify. It is likely specifically about you. They are just getting information, data that you have and not your personal testimony. I think, I think it's a fair, I think it's a fair guess.
That is still kind of an educated guess. Obviously it's not conclusive, right? But it. Is not, it is not conclusive from the subpoena itself, but you and I both know that I've been really hard on them for the last 20 months. As, as is appropriate right now, there's some interesting things in the subpoena and, and I think you have it in front of you or you have at least the text of it. Do you want to do you want to read some of that interesting stuff? Because I think people will find
that to be the most concerning. Yeah, I I want to and I'm absolutely going to be straight up front with this is that back in our following my original FBI interview. Let me let me I should probably lay the groundwork for this. Is that following my original interview? It was another month before my attorney received an actual letter or e-mail from the assistant US attorney that was
assigned my case. Her name is Anita Eve, she's out of Philadelphia, and she actually sent him the e-mail on November 17th of 2021 in which she said your client, that would be me, is going to be charged within the week that was her. That's an exact quote. And we and we talked about it just after that. Yes, yes. So your client is going to be charged within the week. This was November 21. So that's almost two years ago.
And then we did a media offensive, did press releases, sent out about 200 press releases to media sources of all sizes. And and then we, we, I engaged my DC attorney that same week. I actually for the first time had a Congress member, a senator call me Senator Ron Johnson called me on Tuesday night of that week and asked how he could help. That's how, that's how fast the
word got out. And and then and then on the follow, the Monday following Thanksgiving of 2021, my new attorney who is a 22 year former federal prosecutor himself, he contacted Anita Eve who is with has acquaintance with and sent her an e-mail. First things that I'm now representing Mr. Baker and would love to talk. And then she didn't respond. So he placed a phone call to her on the Monday after Thanksgiving. She did not respond and we never heard from them again for 20
months. Over 20 months has passed until this Friday and they all all of a sudden popped up again. Now you, yeah. And, and you've had something of an obsession about January 6th since then, I think rightly so. Can you talk about some of the things that you've been digging into in the in the interim that may have triggered some some
animosity from DOJ? Well, first of all, if, if, if you start in my, my earliest work, I was certainly looking at some of the those odd bird characters in the crowd who nobody been able to figure out who they are yet. You know, there's a lot. I spent a lot of time obsessing over the interesting unindicted provocateurs that were in the crowd and have written stories about some, some have who have been identified since and some who haven't.
Some who have been identified and are still not arrested. Some who have been identified and are now on the Lam overseas.
Think things of that nature. And so then of course, it ended up as my investigative trails naturally developed, I ended up in relationship with quite a few of the Capitol Police officers, ended up developing whistleblowers out of the Capitol Police, Some who have actually come out and become whistleblowers and then others of course, who are still unnamed sources that would would come out if they genuinely believe they would get protection for for doing so.
What do they think will happen? Out of curiosity, what's that? What, what do they think will happen if they come and speak out and and what do they base that on from your every? Single one of them who has either come out or not, says our lives will be destroyed. Destroyed.
And this is despite the fact that in the last two weeks, there's been two separate House Administration Committee meetings in which the existing House existing Capitol Police Board, as well as the new police chief have both promised the country. You know, right there on C-SPAN, right, come hang out right out of, you know, the, the, the, the hearing rooms that whistleblowers will be respected. They will be protected.
And that is of utmost importance to them to be sure that the rights and the protections and the procedures are followed for capital whistleblowers. To which, of course, I get on the phone with the acquaintances that I've made within both retired and otherwise within the United States Capitol Police, and they all had exactly the same word for what those men said in those hearing rooms. Bullshit. Yeah, it sounds a lot like what Chris Wray said. Yeah, I don't. And I and I and I don't have to
send them a script. That's the first phrase that comes out of their mouth. Yeah. And so nobody has any faith in the whistleblower protections because we know there's no teeth in them. And I'm I'm assuming they're seeing what's happened to other people. They've seen what's happened to
you guys. They've seen the, you know, that they've seen the weaponization committee hearings in the way that they were treated, obviously, particularly by the, the Democrats on that committee, but also how you guys have been treated otherwise. They've seen the IRS whistleblowers and how they were treated. They, I mean, look, even even the, the, the Twitter Files guys, you know, Taibbi and Shellenberger and all they there to have to have congressman calling them so-called
journalists. Right. You know, and and and I'm like, hello, you know, me too. Right. About a me too movement right now. And, and so these are the, these are the kinds of things that they're, they're that those guys are up against. And then I don't know where we left off on, on my particular story here getting to where we
are today. But when we got the, when I, when I got the, Oh no, I've got to, I've got to go back to, I've got to go back to November of 21 because there was an exchange between my attorney, my Raleigh attorney and this assistant US attorney. And part of that exchange was, was when my press release went out on the Monday of Thanksgiving week. That went out at 9:00 AM on Monday morning, Thanksgiving of 2021 by 115.
She already had a copy of the press release because she's monitoring my comms or somebody is sure and she sent a copy of that press release to my attorney and said we're not happy about this. To which my return, my attorney responded, well, why are you saying that my clients are forgo forgo his First Amendment right to talk about the persecution that he's potentially about to undergo from the federal government? To which she responded and said,
no, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that a judge who eventually handles his case will not look favorably upon this. And so I'm just, you know, concerned for him. Let's say let's hang in that little space for just a moment, if you would. All right. So the First Amendment says that Congress can make no law that bridges our our freedom of speech and assembly and the press and so on, right? And so we have this belief that the government is not supposed to weigh in on that arena.
And yet over and over, that's what we see. Like there's no other way around it. The FBI is involved in First Amendment protected activities, whether it's going after, you know, parents at school board meetings who are speaking out and have that right or people that are in a Catholic Church that want to do the Latin Mass.
And and that's their, you know, they they should be free from government intervention or journalists who are engaging in a traditionally protected activity of covering newsworthy events. I mean, was there ever a time that you recall journalists were being prosecuted for being, let's say, on the wrong side of a riot when they were capturing
footage of said riot? No. And, and of course, just being a journalist is not carte blanche to be anywhere at any time, you know, whether whether we're talking about state law as it applies to journalistic activities or federal law, you, you do in fact not have the right to cross a restricted area line or prior or to enter a private facility from whoever owns that, you know, that that property. And, and the same thing is true of even if it's an arbitrary restriction at the Capitol that
day. I mean, they were under quote UN quote, COVID protocols. So technically the Capitol was not open to the public. And then technically, even though the Capitol Police had issued permits for protest on the lawns and indeed on the steps of the Capitol, which were then set up arbitrarily inside restricted spaces, it still doesn't technically give a journalist a right to access
there. On the other hand, as is adjudicated, you know, innumerable times, both state and federally, is that when a journalist does safely and behaving themselves professionally does follow a, a, a riot, a crowd or or a crime scene into a restricted area, they're generally, it's like, OK, you know, we understand why. There's that kind of newsworthy exception that has always. Sort of existed exactly. And not and not and. And there are exceptions to that as well.
There are times when their journalists have been prosecuted for for trespassing. Sure. Now one of my acquaintances is Bill Shipley, who's been defending a lot of January Sixers and has taken on and set up sort of legal defense for them. Former federal prosecutor has articulated the following.
And I think it, I think it's worth noting that in his view, and I, and I think it's the right view, the federal government doesn't have any skin in the outcome of a prosecution that people like me who did my old job, their job is to go out and uncover whatever truth it is, build whatever the strongest case it is, including exculpatory evidence, if if that exists. And they are supposed to put
that out. And the judge's job is to mediate things fairly and to make sure that they are in, you know, consistent due processes is done. And the prosecutor's job is to mount a credible prosecution. And the defense's job is to make the best defense possible. And the jury's job is to sort out which is true, which is false, and whether it meets the standard as given by pattern jury instructions. And nobody really has any skin
of the outcome. The outcome is sort of supposed to be outside of the emotional realm of whether or not we won or we lost. It's not about that sort of thing. Or the financial realm. All those things are not supposed to really come into it. There's not a punishment aspect of the of the prosecution. We don't really we're supposed to be agnostic in in the way that the the process is meted out.
In fact, the government's only interest according to Bill Shipley, and I think it's very, very interesting, is that fair process is supposed to be done. That's the government's primary interest. The rest of it like the outcome, you know, guilty, not guilty, acquitted, mistrial, hung jury, all these things are are not really part of the government's interest because why would it care the government. Exactly if, if it is indeed the Department of Justice, then that
should be the only end goal. That should be the only end game, right? That's not what I have seen in these January 6 trials. I have seen first hand with my own eyes sitting in the courtroom. I have seen the deliberate manipulation of evidence.
I've seen the deliberate expungement or the, the, the courts block the judges in a highly prejudicial way, allowing inculpatory evidence and excluding exculpatory evidence that was equal and opposite and should have, should have countered each other's in any fair minded jury's eyes. And, and I've seen that block, I've seen the, the, the DOJ and the judges collude. I've seen, witnessed and heard the FBI agents lie on the stands. I'm talking about bald faced lies.
And as you know, I've had access to the 41,000 hours worth of videotape And one of my stories is, is I am going to show that. And conclusively I've got the smoking gun. I have the kill shot to prove a case where that happened in one of these trials. On top of that, they're telling you to be quiet and there was something in your subpoena I, I believe that mentioned something very similar to what the, the Instinct devil were not happy about you speaking out with your
original press release. Can you kind of flesh that out for people? Yeah, I'll just, I'll just read it. This is this, this came is pinned by the same AUSA who told me that they were not happy about my press release 20 months ago and the cover letter of my subpoena actually says this in the final paragraph before her signature. And I quote, although you are not required to do so, you are requested not to disclose the
existence of this subpoena. Just let that set in for a minute, Kyle. Yeah, just read that again. I think that's worth that's worth a repeat. Although you are not required to do so, you were requested not to disclose the existence of this subpoena, not let me keep going from there. And any such disclosure could impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law. They're threatening you with obstruction. Absolutely.
That, that, that that's all that paragraph was designed for was because she knew that the last time they threatened me with prosecution that I executed a media offensive against that threat. And they decided to just go ahead and draw the line right here. They put a red line down. And so they admit in the first before the 1st comma that it's, it's not illegal for me to do so. Although you are not required to do so, it says you are requested not to disclose the existence of
the subpoena. We hear about grand jury subpoenas all the time in the in the news. Well, the first thing is they sent you a non sealed publicly available through public means. They sent you a letter, a document that you have physical, you know, they didn't come and show it to you and say, hey, we're showing you this and then we're taking it and you need to comply with it. There's nothing classified about what was there. There's nothing that gives them the right to conceal this
information. And once it's in your possession, you can do with it whatever you like it. It reminds me of something that happened to our friend Steve Friend. He was the on the recipient end of a investigative target letter from the Internal Affairs unit that basically said you are are being told in no uncertain terms that you are not allowed to disclose the existence of this particular investigation into you to your spouse. You can't disclose this to your attorneys.
And and none of these things have any legal standing. And yet they're out there, you know, they're out there going and attacking people in the public space simply under threat of force. And, and for me, this is where it gets really, really scary because who in the world told them that this was a technique that they could utilize? And how high up does it go to approve that sort of thing?
How, how far has our government fallen where they think that they are able to weigh in on people under threat of, of essentially violence, right. Because we're talking about men with guns coming to your home. And this, this is not just a a warning not to exercise my First Amendment privilege as a journalist. This is a warning against my First Amendment privilege. Privilege as a citizen writ large, in this particular paragraph, in this.
Well, and there's, there's no legal distinction in the Constitution of what is and what is not the press. You know, there's some case law that is basically established what we would consider regular press. People use the term citizen journalist, but I think it's wrong. I think we're all just citizens and you have the ability to engage in journalism should you choose to. Yeah, you can start a news.
I mean, whether you're Ben Franklin or Thomas Paine, you can start a, a flyer, you know, campaign or you can start a newspaper. And neither one of them had to apply for a permit or a license to do so. And we're seeing that in the in, in a really weird way that the, the sort of sycophantic government, you know, mouthpieces that exist in the media right now, They're running their stories by the government. They're getting their stories from the government. I've seen this in our own sort
of releases. We, we've shared some information and I'll just kind of, you know, let you kind of a pine on this in a second. But some of the things that I have have exposed Chris Wray doing some of his work and, and, you know, flying around in the jet and all this kind of thing worked with a journalist, you know, for Daily Wired, Brandon Dre, good guy. We went out there, we put together a piece. I gave him all the background information. I told him where to look, what
to dig. He came up with it. The FBI issued a statement and he included the gist of the statement, but he didn't directly quote them because the direct quote was sort of bullshit, as you mentioned earlier. It, it just was, it was false. They, they denied everything and then and they said it in a pretty way. And so him not quoting them got him another phone call saying we're really displeased with the fact that you didn't include our entire quote.
As though they had some right to explain to people how that they were supposed to frame an argument against what was said and that they had some right to tell people how to think. And a lot of this goes in. Have you, have you been following this sort of CISA development, this sort of cognitive infrastructure usage? Are you familiar with that? Not not not sure. Well, let me let me bang this
off you. So in 2018, President Trump signed into law the creation of the new federal agency is the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Administration, CISA. And CISA, like every other government agency, has been involved in mission creep, right? They've been slowly gaining authorities and they've been basically pushing themselves into space that didn't exist
previously. And one of the things that they have written, they've committed to this in writing because infrastructure is their mandate that they actually have a duty to act in the cognitive infrastructure space. Now just think about the government doublespeak that's involved in that. But what would you imagine cognitive infrastructure looks like? You're a smart guy. You've you've been around government doublespeak for a while.
Well, yeah, I, I, well, first of all, if, if they say cognitive infrastructure, I would say that would be all-encompassing. I don't think that there's any limit on that nomenclature at all. And, and the way they frame it is essentially they're talking about your brain matter, your your Gray matter between your ears. They're going to police what's going on in there and make sure that it's safe and the way that they do it.
And this is critical to what we just spoke about again, and I'll let you kind of come back at me with that. But by by protecting the cognitive infrastructure, it gave them license to censure. It gave them the license to make sure that what goes in is only the safe ideas. This is a big piece of weight where the Twitter Files and the
Missouri V Biden case is gone. And even in your case where they tell you don't, don't go out there and share this information, they don't want any of the bad information to go out without their spin. And, and I'm not even, and I'm not even opining in here. They're literally just telling us this in real time. We can go out there and observe in their own words that they think that they have a right to tell you how you should think because it's the safest way for
the government. Now they're telling you that you can't even disclose the existence with with threat of force and under threat of investigation for for obstruction, but with no right to do so. Literally, they're explicitly forbidden from doing that by our Constitution, which in theory they actually swore an oath to
and. And, you know, one of the things that we have done over the last four days since I was notified that the subpoena was coming was, you know, spent hours on the phone with both my attorneys. And we're just perplexed at what this felony try because again, it's a grand jury and they were going to charge me with a felony 20 months ago that I don't know if you remember in our first conversation, I told you they were going to charge me with
Interstate racketeering. Right, because you made money off your video. Right. It was absurd on his face. I mean, every single independent journalist on the planet either has a sub stack or a locals page, or they license their videos if they're a videographer to. And my videos were used in HBO documentary, the New York Times documentary, as well as news agencies all over the world licensed use of my video. And that's just the, you know, that's the way it's done.
I mean, on January 7th, I had, I had licensing agencies calling me saying we want to represent your video, right? Why? Why did they know to call me
Kyle? Because I was already established as a guy in the media, independent though I may be. I wasn't working for a big company, but I was already established enough to know that by the time my information went out in the, the, you know, the, the, the interwebs on the evening of January 6th, that there were people that were attuned enough and aware enough of me and my work to follow me and, and begin calling me.
I mean, the first call I got the next morning was from Fox News and said, Hey, we want to, we want to, how much for all your video? And then the next call I got was, you know the, the aggregators, the story full and I ended up signing a deal with them directly.
And so the. And just for people to really just dig into that, literally, you were threatened with a charge of racketeering, which is to say an organized crime that you were in this conspiracy to travel between Interstate lines and videotape something that you could not have known was going to happen because nobody else seemed to. Because apparently even the Capitol Police missed it. And so did all the intelligence agencies, although we don't
necessarily believe that. But there was a, you know, apparently it escaped law enforcement, but it didn't escape Steve Baker, who traveled between states with the intention of videoing something to make money off it. Right. You know, I'm, I'm one of those smart guys. That's it. So and, and, and that's, that's the absurdity of the claim. That's why it's absurd on its face.
That's right, because either they admit that they couldn't have seen, foreseen this, or it was foreseeable and they failed. In which case there's a bigger problem than you. Very. Very nature of an Interstate racketeering or racketeering charge is that first of all there has to be collusion. First of all, I had to have for knowledge of a criminal event and then I crossed state lines therefore to profit or to, you know, be remunerated for the my participation in that criminal event.
Sure. And and so with, you know, with a charge of up to 20 years in prison for that. And so that's what they notified that I, that I was going to be charged with the first time. Obviously our assumption at the time was that they were just trying to scare me into a, you know, quick plea deal down to the glorified trespassing charge and and get their notch on the belt and send me on my way.
And in the earliest conversations with the AUSA and my attorney, the question was from her, your, your clients not really planning on going to trial with this is he and she in my attorney was like, well, you seen the shit he writes. He's not going to he's not going to bend the knee.
And that's where we're in here we are 20 months later and that's exactly where we are again, a grand jury investigation as you know, and this is this is mind block boggling to me. And you know it more intimately than I, you know, even though I've, I've read hundreds of January 6 charging documents, you always have the Afient.
It's almost always a, you know, an FBI agent who writes up the criminal complaint and describes in detail the reasons why they believe that there was a crime committed or 4 or 8 or 11 crimes committed that this particular person needs to be charged with. And then that's handed over to the DOJ. They make the decision, it goes through a grand jury, whatever.
And so that's the process. So as as my attorney met with him yesterday morning to ask this particular FBI agent, Special agent Noya's and he says, So what, what's going on with my client is are are you guys, I mean, are y'all reopening up the case against him or whatever? He go? Oh man, I, I have no idea. I don't, I mean, I don't know. And I'm, I'm thinking to myself,
you, you, you lying bastard. First of all, you were the guy after my first interview who wrote up this document that you felt like that there was sufficient grounds for me to be charged with Interstate racketeering. Are you effing kidding me? What did you see in our interview that gave you any idea that that would be? A valid assertion or criminal charge, I mean.
And what makes me different than any other journalist paid by any agency anywhere in the world from the New York Times all the way down to like a Substack subscription based journalist? What sets me apart that I get that because I'm the only one out of the over 1100 people charged with January 6 offenses to this point, I've never seen the word Interstate racketeering associated with any other defendant.
What what made me different? What did I know and, and what you said earlier is exactly I should take it maybe as a badge of honor or a compliment because if they're if their intelligence failed them that day of Capitol Police intelligence failed them that day. If Metro P DS Intelligent failed that day and I'm the only one that knew. You're it. Yeah. You're, I mean, you're the only guy in the know in America, apparently. Good me, good for me.
Yeah, well done. And it it is, it is kind of a stagger. Like I said, I as someone who doesn't have an interest in any of this stuff, when I used to do investigations, it's like, can I disprove my case? That's the way science works. That's the way that a real investigator works from a skeptical position. It's like, let's start with the supposition that he did these
things. Well, if he did, then he would have had to have the jump on all the intelligence agencies, on all the different law enforcement agencies. Well, that's illogical. And that's going to be the first line of maybe I'd be a good investigator for a defense attorney because so many of these times I see these, these, these questions and the line of questions should be really straightforward. It's like the gotchas are the
same on either side. If you, if you start with one premise and you go to disprove it and it's really easy, that's a really bad case. That's not a case that I want to go on and and move forward with. And I used to shoot down cases all the time when they would, they'd pitch them to you, They'd go, well, you know, this person got defrauded out of this money. And it's like, OK, well, where's the fraud? Well, someone showed up and said these things and then they
signed a document. So they voluntarily engaged in transactions, didn't receive payment for it, thought they would broke the terms of service for their credit card company for accepting, you know, credit cards with no Idi mean it sounds like a bummer but but is there a crime here and can I actually prove it? And I don't think that I can.
And so if you go into those attitudes like that, you should be basically trying to walk away from cases, not because you don't want to do cases, but because they're not good cases. And and what is the case against you in that case?
Like I said, you're gonna have to argue basically that your knowledge and your intelligence base as an independent journalist running around the world with a sub stack and with a with a local's account and and some independent subscribers were able to get the jump on the entire U.S. law enforcement apparatus that was running in the Capitol on that day. It's it's absurd on its face, one would think. And yet don't obstruct them, please.
Right. Well, and this is, this is what my suspicion is. And I, I, I, I having seen so many of these trials related to January 6th, is that my suspicion is that they are trying to entrap me in a process crime of some sort right now. I think that that's what they're up to. Like, for instance, there's been over 20 months since I had that. It's been, well, almost two years since my interview with the FBI.
Sure. And in that too, you know, when I left that that when I left the interview that day in a closing comments, you know, we're laughing, joking with the agents and friendly shaking hands and telling stories just, you know, being a bunch of guys. And so one of the things they said, you look, look, until this thing is all settled, be sure don't delete anything from your devices. Don't delete anything from your phone. Don't delete anything from your computer.
I'm like, OK, you know, no problem or whatever. Well, Kyle, it's been two years ago. I have a new phone. I have a new computer, right? I before, I mean, the the reason I got a new computers, I was running out of memory in my old computer. I, I trashed, you know, untold numbers of gigabytes worth of data out of that computer. Sure. As as people do, as they move forward, technology continues to move forward. Your abilities, your needs are going to change. Most people swap a phone out
there. I mean, here's the other thing. You go out there after a Steve Baker and say, listen, he, you know, he got rid of his phone and we believe that's an obstruction or we believe that he was trying to conceal evidence. And then you go, what's the regular turn around rate that that is an exchange program with T-Mobile for a phone that is being used. Oh, it's 12 months, you're eligible for an upgrade or six months you're eligible for an upgrade.
So the average American can go and live his life, but Steve Baker has to live in pause in in 2021. Is that what has to happen? And that's absurd. And so I, I am absolutely convinced that this subpoena for my, my videos, because first of all, all right, if they're looking at me, Kyle, they've got me on hundreds of hours of other people's videos that day, right? They've got me on 17138 CCTV, you know, Capital cameras that day. They've got me on all manner of cell phone video that they have
captured from that day. They've got me on Metropolitan Police body cams that day. They have enough video on me to determine whether I committed any crime of any kind that day. I've already said yes, I was inside the Capitol building. OK, so our first of all, are you going to selectively prosecute me and not the other 80 to 100 mainstream media journalists that followed the story into the building that day? OK, so you are going to do that because why?
Because I didn't work for one of those cartel journalists that provide you guys with information every day? Or is it because I was independent? Or is it because my narrative did not comport with the Pelosi establish and preserve the narrative of January 6th theme? Yeah. What? I mean, what is the reason why I'm being selectively prosecuted? But more importantly, you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt there is. It's irrefutable by all available evidence that I did no
violence, I broke no stuff. I did not attack any law enforcement officers. I did not parade. I was not wearing Trump gear. I didn't carry a flag. I didn't chant. I never chanted USAUSAI, never said whose house, our house. I never sang the Star Spangled Banner. I behaved as a journalist that day, from the moment I arrived arrived until the moment I left that building. And what are you looking for?
And there is no good answer. No where is the felony in this except that they're trying to create one right now and that's what I think that they're up to. Sadly, I think you're right and I think that's the country that we're living in, which is why they've discredited one of the things that has bothered me so much. And people get really upset about Nazi references, but, but they're so easy to make.
That's so easy to draw parallels between what happened in the Third Reich, what happened during COVID, tyranny and so on that they, they're almost a 1 to 1 mixture. And one of the first things that went on in the Third Reich was a undermining of the judiciary and the credibility of the judiciary. And so I've covered it on my program, the 1st letter to judges, how they expected the
judiciary to rule. And we are seeing a very similar sort of action plan and the fact that they're all being charged in, in DC, that they're all being charged under, you know, under a very favorable situation to the government.
As you mentioned, the government has basically made arguments earlier on that there's so much video, there's no way they could give access to all of it. And so people are not entitled to a, a, a strong defense, a fair defense that they've thrown out Brady decisions that they are not giving access to the exculpatory information that should exist. And then we have people that are perjuring themselves. And I'm not seeing Giglio being revealed after all those things.
It, it, it's just mind numbing. Where does this go? That's the other real question. You've got more years on the planet than me. You've got maybe closer to the fire, but also you've been kind of a disinterested observer who's trying to document things. Where in the hell does this go 'cause I think people are just absolutely flabbergasted and
people like me include. We may have talked about this in our our previous marathon, but the bottom line is, and this is the most important thing that the American people need to know and this is what I got since I've talked to you, I've actually met with Jim Jordan. I met with Representative Mike Johnson from Louisiana, I've met with Troy Nell staff, but the, the most significant conversation I had was when I had with Jim Jordan. This was two months ago.
And I got in his face and I, you know, I said, Sir, with all due respect, and I was addressing the fact that he had no intention to address January 6 issues in the weaponization committee. And I said, with all due respect, you do not know and understand what's going on in these courtrooms. And I said, let me just give you a couple of examples. And I did. And I, I not only told him that I had two stories that I couldn't bring to the American public without his protection.
Why do I need, why does a journalist need congressional protection to tell a story? It's because of the weaponization of the government against people like me. That's the first thing. But the second thing is, then I said this, and this is where where I'm going is that the most important thing that we're seeing in these January 6th trials is the weaponization against the 1st Amendment. It's not. They're not.
They're not they don't care that somebody took a a flagpole to an officer or sprayed them with some bear spray or whatever. If you if you took a flagpole to an officer and whatever, whatever that crime qualifies you for in terms of your sentencing if it's 24 months in jail or whatever the case may be. If you also additionally posted on your Facebook page videos and you chanting and you taunting the police and you're doing other things like that, then you
probably got 48 months, right? All right, if you were a grandmother and you're 60 years old and you walked through the Capitol and for 10 minutes and you took a couple of selfies and you walked out, you probably were able to plead down to two years probation, $500 fine, you know, 50 hours community service, whatever like that. Go back home and try to repair your life because you were kicked out of all of your clubs and your organizations and, you know, your church and everything
else. So after your arrest. And so if you were a grandmother who walked into the building for 10 minutes and you took a couple of selfies and you chanted USAUSA, you got two months in prison or 6-8 maybe. If you're an independent journalist and you work for and you're an independent journalist, let's be very clear about this. And you only had a cell phone in your hand and your name is Luke Mogilson. And you walked through a smashed window. You didn't go through an open door.
You went through a smashed window and you went into the Senate. And you've caught the famous iconic video of the Q Anon shaman praying inside the Senate chamber. If that was you and you submitted your story to The New Yorker and you use the word insurrection and insurrectionists in your story, you haven't been charged with a crime.
But if you were a professional videographer from Pensacola, FL and you showed up with all of your high end expensive professional camera gear and you went through the exact same window at almost the exact same time as Luke Mokelson. And then you paralleled him throughout all the entire Capitol and into the Senate chamber, recording the same
events that Luke Mokelson did. But when you went in and you were a Trump guy and you got caught up in the moment and you said, USAUSAUSA, you got eight months in prison. That's the only difference between those two men's activities that day. So what are they suppressing? The same thing that they're trying to suppress in the cover letter of my subpoena. They're trying to take this away from us. They're trying to take our words, our speech, our thoughts, our cognitive, cognitive
abilities. And that's what these trials are about. I mean, these are, these are look, the the Oath Keepers were were, were convicted of bot crimes. They were convicted of violence. Yeah, they were convicted of conspiracies that didn't actually happen. I've talked about this with prosecutors. I've never seen conspiracy.
The only conspiracies that I've ever seen charged when the actual crime did not go down was a crime of violence that was in progress and interrupted because of some special knowledge the government may have had. The great example of that would be you have a wire up. You know, there's a conspiracy to move drugs around and do this other thing. And then in the middle of it, they say, by the way, we're going to go off this guy and we're in route.
And then you go interrupt them because you have a duty to sort of protect the public or you have a duty to to stop and notify this person that there's imminent harm coming their way because you know about it. And so the government will go and arrest people and route to a conspiracy to commit murder, let's say innate of racketeering or so on. And then they'll get hit with a conspiracy of a thing that didn't happen but was progressing.
We have after the fact, no interdiction conspiracy charges that were done without the conspiracy ever being enacted. Whatever that conspiracy was, the thought of it was enough.
No proof. In fact, in the Oath Keepers trial, all 7 FBI agents who testified, testified under cross examination that never one single time did they ever find evidence of an order from Oath Keeper leadership to enter the Capitol, to storm the Capitol, to harm Congress members, to interdict the certification of the election.
That they and then once the prosecution realized that they were getting their butts handed to them by the defense about 1/3 of the way through that nine week trial, they switched gears and it became a conspiracy of that was hatched on the Capitol steps in the moment. It was a conspiracy of mental telepathy, right? It's it's instantaneous conspiracy people. And, and that was, it was a spontaneous combustion of conspiracy with no words spoken between any of those individuals.
And, and, and I'll, I'll never forget. I was there for the sentencing hearing. And Judge Amit Mehta said to Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, And this is a paraphrase, but he said, he said, you're smart, you're eloquent, and you know how to lead men. Therefore you're a danger to society. I'm going to put you away for 18 years. That's it right there.
Right there. I think so much of these, these prosecutions have not just been going after people, but making examples in order to say that don't ever do this again, don't ever gather again, don't ever speak out again. This is what it feels like for me. And, and I'm a little bit too emotionally involved in this for, for any kind of journalistic activity. This is, this is certainly not that. This is advocacy at my, you know, I'll, I'll own it.
And it's definitely, it's an emotional opinion that I have, but watching the way that people are treated, watching the subjugation of, of whistleblowers and, and making the examples of them, the way that my buddy Garrett said, he went out in front of Congress and said this government will crush you. This government should have no interest in one thing or another. It should only be interested in providing the service that it does and be limited in that that scope.
And instead it is aggressively, aggressively pursuing actions that benefit not the people, but the government specifically, like the the agencies of the government are out there pursuing their own ends. That that is the definition of weaponization to me. Do you have any? Do you have any thoughts on on where this where this ends for you? Where, where it ends for me
right now is still an unknown. I, I have, we have made the decision, as you know, in this, in this, in a subpoena for my video, I have the ability to opt to send that to them electronically or to actually hand it over to the agent in charge. And so I in consultation with my attorney yesterday, we decided that I'm going to appear, I'm going up next Wednesday and I'm going to face the grand jury. I'm going to say what the Hell's up.
They do have the possibility of at least asking questions during that, which is a possibility, so that might be interesting for you. Yeah, it should be interesting, but it would have the easy route would have me would have been for me to just hand them a flash drive with my videos on it. But I've decided to making appearance there next Wednesday and see at the district courthouse. So where it goes from there, I don't know Where I go from there. I don't know.
You know, I, I'll, I'll tell you that I've, you know, I've had I, I, I told my children more than, you know, two years ago. They're, they're adults. I told them I said you're there's, there's a because of the work I'm doing. I said there's a high likelihood that, that your father will not finish his life as a free man. And I've prepped them for that,
you know, for a long time. And, and you know, I'm, I'm not, I'm not either patting myself on the on the back or, or trying to execute a grift here of some sort. But Kyle, I think, you know, I think I've told you offline before one of the stories that I'm working on and it's explosive. And I have read House Weaponization Committee investigators have been read into this story. I spent 4 1/2 hours with them
two weeks ago. Investigative members of the Heritage Foundation have been read into the story, as well as a couple of other friendly journalists. So that if anything happens to me, if I'm Clintonized or Arkansided or whatever you want to call it, the story is still going to come out. And it is a January 6th story
that is explosive. And everyone who has seen this story so far has said that this is going to be the first a cornerstone of the House of Cards to be pulled out from the January 6th narrative and the most significant part of the story. And This is why I don't believe that this timing of this re engagement of our re initiation into prosecuting me some 20 months later is that I have I have absolutely no doubt that they are not aware of this
story. And it specifically implicates the FBI and the DOJ in conspiracy and cover up specifically in these a couple of these trials. And not only that, but the fact that we know that senior FBI executives were pushing the specific narrative that I think that you can pull out on, you know, amongst other things, but that they are committed to it. They committed their careers to it. And they rode, they rode that wave up to the top of positions that they shouldn't have ever
been holding. And then and they have a vested interest in in concealing it, I think. So that's where where this leads is is interesting. It's it's what a time to be alive, huh? A strange time indeed, and a strange time. Sad time for the America. Like I said, I do believe that the America that I grew up in would have invaded the America that I live in. And I will say it again because it's this is what the Banana Republic looks like.
And when you start undermining your judiciary, then you end up in a world where you can't trust it. Tell people if they're interested in your journalism where they can go and do that. We'll throw that up there. It's going to be in the show notes as well. But give them kind of a verbal if you would. Yeah, the the, the easy way and the short way to type it is just to go to tpcforusa.com, tpcforusa.com and that is my locals community. It's free to subscribe, but for
as little as $5 a month. As we mentioned before, you can support the work that I am doing. And I've not set up a Gibson Go yet. I'm I'm not going to do that unless I am indicted. But yeah, there, there we go. There's the image for that. And then of course, with the same exact handle TPC for USA, you can find me on Twitter and Facebook and True Social. So it's, I've, I've simplified it in the course. Obviously my Rumble channel is where I put all my videos out.
And the Rumble channel is the same thing, TPC, the number 4 USA, they can go and search that and they'll find that you did a really good interview recently with TK Johnson as well as a bunch of others. And some of your some of your digging into what did and did not get investigated on the January 6th the front, which is a lot of things that did not that seem very interesting. And a lot of things that have been have investigated that have yet to be revealed.
That's fair. Couple of juicy bits coming. Well, I hope that folks, I hope you can share this video. And then the reason why is because the noise is part of the safety cloud that we build for guys like Steve, for guys like me. Honestly, this is one of the reasons why I do what I do. It's one of the reasons why Steve has no choice but to do what he's doing. Why people like Garretta Boyle and and and Steve friend, not like my buddies who have done the the verbal cover.
We have the media cover is that they know in the in the Court of Public appeal. The case is already being waged and, and they're trying to stifle it literally in Word, they are putting it in writing that they would like to stop that sort of thing. So they can just have you shut up and take your lumps and and the government can continue on with its weaponized process. So that's really scary stuff. Steve, thanks for sharing a lot of stuff. Thanks always for being candid with us.
And you know, anytime you want to come back on and chat, we can do it for a long or short as you like. And we will promote this not as much. I'm going to try to get some other some other podcasts and some other types involved. So we'll keep getting your story out there. And then your, your handles on truth and Twitter are the same. The TP #4USA TPC #4 USA, which I follow books. You'll see me post some of us. Steve, stop. Thanks so much for joining me
this morning, buddy. I'm going to go down and shut the day down and then panic about the how bad our, our existence is right now in this country, which is, which is terrible. Every time we talk. It's not, it's not a great feeling, although I enjoy your company. But we're we're in it. We're in it for the long haul. That's it. Yeah. No other choice on that. All right, ladies and gentlemen, you've been listening to the
Kyle Seraphin show. We are stream live from Liberty Hill, TX. So we do want to thanks a couple of people. First of all, we're going to thank you for being here and for joining us. We want to thank all the new monthly subscribers that we have on Rumble and we've got a five star review. As you know, you can post them on Apple. Nearly 650 strong so far and we appreciate all every one of them including this one from Page NORI. Don't know if there was more to that, maybe Page Noir.
It says always informative Kyle and all. I love your podcast. I learned so much and I enjoy your guests. I hope you enjoyed having Steve friend Steve Baker on here rather the pragmatic constitutionalist, ladies and gentlemen, TPC, the pragmatic constitutionalist, the #4USA TPC #4 USA. Don't forget to like this on Rumble if you haven't done it already. Scroll down, hit that like button. Leave us comment there.
If you have something, you can always go and you can tweet or you can truth it at Steve Baker and you can give him your support as things go on. You can sign up for his locals if you like and please make sure that you are not, if you're not subscribed to our Rumble channel, that you do. So we really appreciate those as well. Until then, we'll see you guys again on Wednesday. Sorry to leave you on a heavy note on this Tuesday, but we went a little long because I think the story involves a
little bit more than normal. Again, we'll see you again on Tuesday and I hang in there. It's going to be an interesting day. Thanks for listening to the Kyle Seraphin show, streamed live weekdays on rumble.com/kyle Seraphin. Follow Kyle on Twitter, True Social and Instagram at Kyle Seraphin.