Interview With FBI Whistleblowers | PBD Podcast | Ep. 276
PBD Podcast Episode 276. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by FBI Whistle Blowers Garret O'Boyle and Steve Friend, as well as the Hometeam - Vincent Oshana and Adam Sosnick.
-----
Get Your Tickets for The Vault 2023 NOW ⬇️⬇️ The BIGGEST EVENT in VT History!
*TOM BRADY, MIKE TYSON & PATRICK BET-DAVID on one stage!*
https://thevaultconference.com/
----
Guests
Subscribe to Garret O'Boyle's Substack "Last Line": https://bit.ly/3C63Zn7
Pre-order Steve Friend's book "True Blue": https://amzn.to/3N7B7Bp
Donate to Garret & Steve's GiveSendGo: https://bit.ly/3oJ6OHM
----
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
-----
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Why would you bet on Goliath when we got vet taved?
Value payment, giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we can't no value to hated.
I just run, homie, look what I become.
I'm the one.
Okay, so today's podcast is a special one.
Obviously, if you've turned on the TV or you watched clips on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, you have seen these faces of these two gentlemen who are going through an interesting phase right now as they're coming out as FBI whistleblowers against a lot of different things that's going on.
And so let me properly introduce them and then we'll go into them sharing their experiences and we'll go into a bunch of different topics.
First, we have Steve Friend, who is not the actor from a few good men.
Steve Friend is an FBI agent since 2014 and recent whistleblower.
He grew up in Savannah, Georgia.
He graduated from University of Notre Dame with a bachelor's in accounting.
He transitioned from business to a career in law for law enforcement in 2009.
He was sworn a sworn police officer in Savannah and Puller, Georgia, for four years before joining the FBI in 2014.
He spent seven years in the FBI investigating violent crime and major offenses occurring on Indian reservations in Northeast Nebraska.
Friend was also a member of the FBI Omaha SWAT team for five years.
He transferred to Daytona Beach in 2021 to investigate child exploitation, human trafficking, and child sexual abuse material.
Friend was reassigned to domestic terrorism casework in October 2021, and he was indefinitely suspended as an FBI special agent following his whistleblower disclosures in September 2022.
And we'll get into that.
And then we have Garrett Boyle with one of the best hairdos out there.
Got to give him credit for that hair boy.
Obviously, O'Boyle.
I'm sorry.
Oh, Boyle.
Yes.
Garrett O'Boyle.
He is a Christian, a husband, a father, indefinitely suspended FBI agent, former police officer, infantry veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, truth seeker.
He's a special agent, was given a new assignment in September of 2022 in Virginia.
He was stationed in Wichita, Kansas at the time.
So he and his wife sold their home in August, lived in Airbnb for a few weeks during the time the baby was born, then in an RV for six weeks before finding rental property in which to live.
Garrett then reported to his new assignment in Virginia on September 26, 2022.
The FBI waited until the time to suspend him.
He was escorted out and suspended without pay.
They intended to close on a home shortly after, which of course fell through as well because Garrett is still an employee of the FBI and they have prohibited him from earning wages that are more than $7,500 per year.
I mean, even Bernie Sanders will be pissed off at that, right?
That's like, that doesn't make any sense.
They did not allow him to get everything they owned out of storage in Virginia for six weeks.
Garrett's family, now with four young daughters, were living out of suitcases for those six weeks without proper clothing for the weather or even toys for their children.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being a guest here on PBD Podcast.
Thanks for having me.
So first of all, if you don't mind taking a moment and kind of walking through the process of you're kind of sitting here like, do we really want to go through this or not?
Do we really want to do this?
I feel like the phase you're going through is when you want to become a whistleblower and there's talks that these guys may be coming on and they may be sharing stuff.
They first have to defund you in a way where you don't have any money.
Let's get these guys to be broke.
Number two, they have to discredit you.
They don't know what they're talking about.
You're not true whistleblowers.
Then phase three is demonize you.
I don't know if demonizing phase is even here yet.
I don't know what's to come next to you guys.
It's going to be very ugly with you guys.
And then at the end, if you're right and your testimony, your arguments, and people fighting on your side, then there's vindication, right?
I think you're right now in the discredited demonizing phase that you are.
But what was the process you guys went through in saying, look, do we want to do this or not?
And I know there's a George Hill, there's a Gary Shapley, and there's a few other folks there as well.
But maybe walk us through what made you guys say, you know what?
I'm doing this.
I'm not holding back anymore.
Go ahead, Garrett.
For me, it got to a point where there had been numerous things in the FBI that I saw over just the short time I'd been in it.
And it boiled down to a conversation I ended up having with my wife in, I think it was roughly October of 2021.
And I said, you know, this agency truly isn't, they truly don't care about doing the right thing.
I know that is the main talking point of the FBI.
And they drill into your head, fidelity, bravery, and integrity from day one.
And we see it on TV shows and everything.
We're all led to believe that this institution is beyond reproach.
And it's not.
It's as simple as that.
It's not above reproach.
They are sinful human beings, just like me, just like every other.
But then there is malice or hubris or a goal to strive to promote.
And those things aren't often aligned with the Constitution, with the oath we took.
It's not aligned with how law enforcement is supposed to properly function in this nation.
And when you start seeing those things, at first for me, it was like, maybe that's just a personality quirk of that person or that supervisor.
But then over time, it's repetitive.
Maybe different instances, different things that occur, but it starts to build.
And then there's a mountain of evidence where there's a lot of wrongdoing going on.
And so I had this conversation with my wife and I said, you know, I don't think they want someone like me.
They don't want someone who's willing to point out the errors of the agency because I had initially, this is one of the smears that they tried at the hearing where they said, oh, well, you never went to your chain of command.
Or actually, that was in my deposition.
But that's false.
It started with them.
And I made numerous complaints to them, even bringing up Supreme Court case law, bringing up federal statutes, even just simple morality.
And it was always like, hey, yeah, maybe that's a good point.
But nothing ever happened.
And so I talked to my wife and I said, I think I'm going to go to Congress with some of my concerns.
And I did in November of 2021 is when I first did that.
And then every time after that, whenever another instance of malfeasance or areas that I had a reasonable belief of wrongdoing was occurring, I would recontact Congress and say, hey, here's another example.
Here's another example of what's going wrong in the FBI.
And I think Congressman Jordan nailed it on the head at the hearing when he said something to the effect of they became aware of my whistleblowing activity in regards to the school board threat tag.
And they said, we got him right where we want him.
He's in the middle of this transfer.
If we can get this guy, then nobody else is coming forward.
And I truly think that that is what happened.
Of course, I don't know for sure.
I'll probably never know because the FBI won't release any of the information about why I, regarding their investigation into me.
They're making an example out of you.
Is that what you're saying?
I believe that's the case, yeah.
I have a follow-up, but I want to hear yours as well.
And then I got a couple questions for you.
Go forward.
Well, I never really had the thought of I'm going to become a whistleblower.
I've always just prided myself on being a professional and going about my job the right way.
And my motto is paint the fence.
And I kind of view the mission of the FBI as a giant fence.
And if everybody paints a section of the fence that's in their yard, this whole fence is going to get painted.
So I'm going to focus on what's in front of me, control the controllables.
And the FBI gives you specific training on, you go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, you go to the MLK Memorial.
And the point of that is it's drilled into your head that these type of atrocities and civil rights violations only happen when law enforcement is out of control.
It becomes a weaponized apparatchik of a politicized arm of the government.
Or when good people do nothing.
Correct, correct.
And I had concerns once I was rolled from child pornography investigations into domestic terrorism because that initial phone call, I overheard my manager talking to the higher-ups, and they said child pornography was not going to be resourced anymore.
And I know that that's a significant violation, but again, paint the fence.
I'm a team guy.
I'm going to roll into that.
And it was very apparent early on once that happened that there was just not a lot of work to do.
And eventually, when things came to a head and we were going to be making these arrests on subjects, I had two concerns.
One was the FBI was departing from the rules.
And as a professional, when I go to trial, I want to make sure my case is buttoned up.
I was taking it on good faith that those were righteous prosecutions.
I hadn't had a chance to work them.
They'd been sort of worked before my time.
And I didn't want to be in a position on the stand where I was unprepared.
And I don't care about the other cases, though.
They've been successful.
So you should be successful too.
I'm painting the fence.
I want to make sure I'm buttoned up.
There's some exculpatory evidence.
We need to hand it over to defense because that's the right way.
And secondarily, we were going to be using a SWAT team or large-scale arrest operations with lots of dozens of agents.
And it was for people who were either accused of misdemeanor crimes or even if they were accused of felonies that they had pledged to be cooperative with law enforcement.
And I just put myself in the position of it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, Waco, or Ruby Ridge, and say, well, I would have said, hey, guys, this is a mistake.
I felt like I was that guy in that situation.
And I said, look, this is going to happen.
And we have been lucky so far that nothing has transpired where there's a risk to our personal safety or to the subject's personal safety.
We can just call this guy on the phone and brought that to my supervisors.
And immediately it became apparent that I was in over my head because the response that I got from three levels of management was, you have a really great reputation and great career ahead of you.
Are you sure you want to do this?
Wow.
So, you know, it's interesting.
I remember being in the Army and I'm looking at everybody at the unit I was at to see where politically they're at.
And you're kind of like, okay, cool.
And I wasn't a guy that followed politics, but I'm like, okay, that's where they're at.
I don't even say anything.
I'm just going to do my job.
I'm good to go.
I'm at the Hunter First as well.
And hey, this is what I'm going to be doing.
I'm good to go.
All right.
Then you get out of the Army and you're working at an environment where in the company I was a part of, nearly 50% of the guys I worked with were LDS.
So there were Mormons.
And I'm learning about, hey, you know, Gordon B. Hinckley and these are virtues and this is this.
And, you know, here's what's going on in Utah.
And I'm, okay, cool.
Respect.
This is what these guys are doing.
No problem.
I go to Harvard for a business program.
And it was at the same time when Hillary Clinton and Clinton and Trump had their first debate.
And the one where you'd be in jail.
I don't know, whichever one's, it's either the first or second.
I don't know which one it was.
Because you'd be in jail, right?
We're watching this at the Chow Hall.
Chow Hall is not the military Chow Hall because that's what I thought it was spelled.
Chow Hall is a man's name called Chow and Hall.
So I was so confused.
You understand what I'm saying?
If you literally go Harvard Chow Hall, you'll see it's a guy that's a very...
Can you Google Harvard Chow Hall place?
That is so funny.
It's a very wealthy man in Harvard.
The building is called the Chow Hall.
So all the military guys were like waiting for some ghetto food with whatever.
But no, it's actually fantastic.
So we're watching the debate, and I'm sitting quietly on the sideline.
This is eight years ago.
And I'm watching.
I'm like, every, when I tell you, 99% of the people were rooting for Hillary at Harvard, which is an institution of thinking.
And, you know, it's advancement and you got critical thinking.
Nope, 99%.
And every time Trump got her, boo, boo, boom.
And I'm like, wow.
This is pretty ridiculous.
I like a good debate.
You guys are all on one side.
This is not a university.
This is a shit show here, right?
So, but eventually, you do one of two things when you're in an environment like that.
You either sit there and you say, well, I better not say anything because I know where these guys stand, or you sit there and you risk saying something.
And if you do, you're going to create a lot of enemies.
Did you both have a moment like that where you're sitting there saying, well, I kind of know every one of these guys are, they hate Trump.
Every one of these guys can't stand Republicans.
Every one of these guys, I better not say anything and try to be as level-headed as possible on my argument.
Or you're like, no, everybody knew where we stood and I still gave my argument.
What was it like?
For me, where I was in Wichita, I'd say most of the people there were reasonably minded people.
But it boiled down to, so there's a passage in the Bible in Ephesians where it talks about the armor of God.
And a key theme of that is standing firm.
And that means standing firm in your faith against the schemes of the devil and standing firm for the truth.
And you mentioned it's not easy.
It has not been easy.
You can only imagine.
And I'm sure it will get hard again.
I'm sure the spiritual forces at work are mounting an attack.
And I'm certain the FBI is mounting some type of attack on me and Steve and others for speaking out because like you said about Harvard, the institutional rot, it's everywhere.
It has been infiltrated everywhere.
And so I wouldn't say it was like a watershed moment of like not, this is the hill.
You know, I think that the hill is picked for us and we just have to obey the supreme commander, Christ.
And if we don't do that, then we will have to account for that at the end.
And so it was more, for me, it was more of that aspect.
And then locally in Wichita, it was, I would bet, most of the people there agree with me about most of these things.
For instance, the school board threat tag.
My boss himself, when that threat tag came out, came to my squad because I worked JTTF.
So, and it was a criminal and a CTD, criminal terrorism division threat tag.
He straight up said to us, we will not be going to school board meetings on this squad.
Now, we never got tasked with actually having to do that.
So my question is if the pressure came from above, because in the FBI, that's my stance, is that HQ level, senior staff, executive staff level, that is where the institutional rot is the worst.
And the headquarters level, that's where it's the worst.
So if that pressure came down from above, would he have stood firm on that belief that we wouldn't go to those school board meetings?
I don't know, because I'm pretty sure Steve was one of the agents who was ordered to go to one of those school board meetings.
Yep.
Yeah, we actually surveilled a subject, a January 6th subject.
We were told that he was going to be going to a school board meeting that was going to be expected to be kind of rowdy.
There was some pornographic material that was discovered in the school library.
So a lot of parents were going to it.
And it was sort of clear to me at that point that there was an attempt to marry January 6th domestic terrorism to school boards.
We wound up going to the parking lot and watching this guy, and we were attempting to document anybody who he was meeting with to get their license plates.
And that's just another downstream collateral damage effect of this growing domestic intelligence agency that the FBI has sort of evolved into.
But to the original question for me, just sitting in the room with these people, I felt like I had conviction about what I believed.
And no man can serve two masters.
They were attempting to please their higher-ups because their ambition and their passion for the FBI is to promote.
That's really what it is.
Once you get into those management, not leadership, management ranks within the FBI.
Promote from within.
Promote.
And it's a very systematic process where it's every 18 months you need to be filling out your resume and doing it in a certain way, pleasing the right people to go to the next role.
So they're never actually doing the job they want to do.
Their job, in their mind, is get to the next job.
So they just didn't have the conviction that I had where I say, this is not an easy decision, but it's simple.
And when I was bringing my concerns to them, some of them were genuinely perplexed that I would put this out there to them when I could just simply do what I was told.
There were some true believers.
My special agent in charge, she certainly used some choice words with me.
She called me a conspiracy theorist, and she said that I represented a fringe belief and that I couldn't possibly understand anything that happened on January 6th because I wasn't there.
But she was there on the seventh floor, which is FBI internal code speak.
If you say the seventh floor, that means the FBI director.
It means you're an important person by proxy.
So she says, I was on the seventh floor that day that those people tried to seize our democracy.
And that phrase, that language choice to me, says that she's really a true believer.
And that was in keeping with things that she had done.
We're now in the blessed month of June here.
And she put up a gay pride flag display in our office in Jacksonville.
And after the Dobbs decision was rendered, she put an email out talking about women's rights potentially being lost.
So definitely was not hiding her left politics.
First of all, I want to thank both of you guys for your service.
Both law enforcement and military.
Me and Pat are both veterans.
And I saw the entire hearing last night.
We flew in from Texas.
And it was not only embarrassing, it was disgusting just to see how, from everything you guys have done, it takes one second.
I think it was you, Gary.
You said that you swore.
You didn't swear an oath to the FBI.
You guys swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, which states all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This is the domestic.
That's them.
That's the domestic.
So I want to ask you guys a question.
In regards to January 6th, I think I read something that they didn't want to lump everybody in just as one case.
They did it individually.
So these people, when they went home, they could go after them in all these states to make it seem like white supremacy and this terrorism was widespread.
Is that one of the directives that they told you guys that?
That's my whistleblower complaint.
That's it right there.
They said, let them go home, and then we'll get them individually so we can make this whole January 6th.
It's not just, it wasn't just this one event.
It was across the nation.
Yeah, the way that the FBI rule book says is if the offense occurs in a location, you're supposed to open it in that location and investigate it.
You can do what they did, which was they open a separate case for every single person, assigned them to the areas where they lived for logistical purposes.
However, once that decision is made, and it's very dubious that they made that decision, it's very clear that they're juking the stats.
Of course.
But it's still allowable.
Where they then departed from the rules, and it's definitely a departure, is they stood up a task force in Washington, D.C., which was giving directives to the agents in the field who on paper were supposed to be in charge of those cases.
So there was a situation, and I expressed this to my bosses.
I could go on the stand and a defense attorney will say, agent friend, did you do anything in your case?
Did you make any decisions?
And I would have to honestly say, no, I didn't.
And then that puts the federal prosecutor in a position where he has to impeach me.
And we could be in trouble.
And we could have a guy who was doing something legitimately wrong walk on that.
It has nothing to do with January 6th.
It has something to do with the process.
And then this just represented the largest, most egregious example of what the FBI does with statistics pertaining to domestic terrorism and all across the board.
I mean, it's all a numbers game.
And I'm sure you'll appreciate this.
This is something that's been around for 10 years.
It's called integrated program management.
This is a metric system.
Think of it as the traffic cops got to write his ticket quota.
The FBI implemented it about a decade ago.
No surprise, domestic terrorism numbers have quadrupled in 10 years.
And it is not only tied to funding requests from Congress for the agency, it is tied to executive compensation.
Senior executive service members get somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 because their subordinates are able to open up a certain number of cases, use certain tools.
So Garrett can speak to this.
You're pressured to open up a wiretap, the most invasive investigative tool, legitimate tool, but you're pressured to because we have to have at least one wiretap this year so boss can get his bonus.
Does FISA warrants fall under that too?
They do FISA warrants under that.
Like if you put a warrant on somebody, they're like, you get a bonus?
Like, is that insane?
So a Title III wiretap and a FISA are what the FBI considers sophisticated techniques.
It's part of this IPM structure that Steve was talking about.
And it's part of the metrics that they have to meet.
Every field office has to meet.
And it's basically a check mark system.
Red, bad.
You didn't meet the standard.
Green, you met what you set out to do.
Gold, you exceeded.
So say for any given year, the Kansas City field office says, hey, we need to get three wiretaps of either sort, FISA or Title III.
So of course that pressure is going to then trickle down onto the people doing the actual work because the boss wants to get that gold check mark so you get that bonus.
And it's, especially in law enforcement in the alleged land of the free, you have a system in place where you're giving a monetary bonus for law enforcement work.
That is not how the scales of justice are supposed to tip because in law enforcement, you seek the facts.
You find as many facts as you can because that is going to get you as close to the truth as possible.
With any given case, you may not ever know the entire full truth, but you can get close enough.
And that's why we have a court system and different standards of, you know, you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt and all these things because you may never get 100% of the truth.
But when you have the highest ranking member in any field office really in the forefront of their mind thinking, man, I know I have a really nice SES salary, but I can get that bonus bumped up even more if we can get a lot of these sophisticated techniques or numbers of arrests or whatever.
And it's like, that's not how law enforcement is supposed to work.
That's how sales works.
Like a sales team is like.
Who determines that comp plan?
Who comes?
Who created that complant 10 years ago?
The federal government.
Oh, the IPM structure?
I'm not sure, but there is a federal statute across all federal government for all SES employees.
Who created that conduct incentive?
Who led it?
It's all across the FBI.
It's all across the board?
All across every federal government institution.
It had to be the government pass.
It was an outside consulting.
I don't know if it was McKinsey or somebody like that that they brought in.
I believe it was actually multiple consulting companies kind of came up on this system.
And it's not even just opening up in a certain number of cases and using a certain number of tools.
And then you start playing the sales game of, I've had situations where I was told, hey, we already hit our numbers for this year.
We don't want to exceed them too much because then we're going to have to hit higher numbers next year.
Can you delay indicting that case for a couple of months until the new fiscal year?
And by the way, I can see that happening because in sales, it's called sandbagging.
So what that means is, say you have end of the month, you already beat everybody, but you got 28 deals you can wait and hang on to for five days to report on the first of the next month to start off strong, and you've already hit your bonuses for the month, so you sandbag.
But that's in business and sales.
If there's anywhere there shouldn't be sandbagging, is the FBI.
Well, you're putting the public at risk of fraud and force.
And I think it would be interesting, and I've never done this, but now that you've mentioned that, maybe do a statistical analysis of how many cases get brought in the first week of October.
Interesting.
Wow.
Yeah.
That's a good question.
Because that's Q4 is what you're saying.
That's fiscal year rolls over September 30th to October 1 is the new fiscal year.
So I wonder how many search warrants get loaded up on October 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, just because those squads are saying we're holding this back.
And then at the first possible moment, because at their core, they're still cops.
They want to go get the bad guy.
And then they just unleash at that point.
That's actually a great point.
I doubt the FBI would ever release that information, but I'm sure Steve can attest to that.
Well, anybody who's worked in government, at the end of the fiscal year, what happens?
Hey, we got this much money left.
We got to spend it, spend it, spend it, spend it, or we're not going to get it next year.
There's a few things I would want to know.
And Adam, I'm going to say this and then I'm going to come to you because I think you want to say something.
There's a few things I want to know.
You know the data that shows for every conservative professor, there's 11 to 13 liberals in college universities.
Great.
It's good for us to know that.
And in the stat that says for every, you know, out of 100 teachers, K through 12 in public schools, 97 of them in English teachers, 97 out of 100 teachers gave to Democratic Party, three gave to Republican.
And then you go to health teachers K through 12, it's 98 to 2.
And then if you do math and science, it's 87 to 13, right?
Where we know at least math and science, 87 are Democrats, 13 are Republicans, conservatives, great.
What percentage of FBI as a whole would you say are Democrats or Republicans or Independents?
That's a tough one to put as a whole because there's some great divisions within the FBI.
So there's about 40,000 employees in the FBI.
Only 14,000 are special agents.
So the majority of the population is support staff.
It's different culturally for support staff.
I think they tend to lean, and especially in the intelligence analysis field, they tend to lean left.
Those are the people that are writing, essentially their profession is writing college term papers.
And they're very overeducated college mindset.
So you've seen like that Richmond Field Office radical traditional Catholic memo came out from an intelligence analyst, definitely only using left-wing sources on that.
As far as the administrative staff goes, I never really dug into politics with too many of them.
I think from the agent population then, you also have to split between the rank and file, boots on the ground guys that just want to be cops.
And they tend to be moderate to conservative.
I think that that's it's gun culture.
I mean, obviously the Second Amendment comes in and that's going to be a good guide, a plumb line for politics.
And if you're comfortable carrying a gun, you probably support the Second Amendment.
You're probably conservative.
But the management structure is left-leaning.
And I attribute that to the way that that process works.
It's very self-selecting because in order to become a manager in the FBI, you have to be, one, be willing to go back and forth to Washington, D.C. all the time.
Family roots aren't there.
Secondly, you have to initiate something that is new and novel.
Do something with a splash to put on your resume.
And the nature of a conservative person is what's the waste, fraud, and abuse that I can cut and just do the job.
The person who's left-leaning is not opposed to a new initiative.
And that's where, you know, I made the comparison to the movie Jurassic World, where Vincent D'Onofrio's character wants to use the Velociraptors to go after terrorists.
And it's funny, but it's true because it briefs well.
You put it on a PowerPoint.
We don't need a drone strike.
We've done that.
I can't promote off a drone strike or send it in a SEAL team.
I'll use Velociraptors.
And that's how somebody would promote within the military and within the FBI.
Is it a similar structure?
Like when you're in the, by the way, if you're watching this and you're enjoying and you want more, you want to hear more from what these gentlemen have to say in a long-form podcast where they can talk freely.
It's about them today.
It's not about us.
If you give it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel and share it so other people can see it as well.
We've grown quickly to 10,000 people live watching it right now.
I think more and more people need to hear what these gentlemen have to say.
In the military, you know how HHC or headquarters would look at field.
They would look at grunts like you're dumb.
You just carry a gun.
And I'm an officer.
My boots are always shining clean.
Look how dirty your boots are.
You know, I'm always, I got my stuff from, you know, quartermasters.
I got my crease, everything.
You look like, you know, dirt.
You don't look good.
You don't do this.
There was a certain like, I'm smarter than you.
I'm better than you.
And then when you would say, yes, sir, to enlisted, they're like, hey, don't tell me that.
I work for a living.
Is it that kind of a mindset where the guys at that level think, you guys are just, just listen, go do the work, but we're going to tell you what to do.
Is it kind of like that kind of a culture?
Yeah.
Okay.
You know, because I can speak to the Army side of things too, a very similar experience.
I had a couple really good officers, but by and large, that type of hubris, it has infected the FBI at the senior management levels.
Yeah, that's a problem when that happens because when it's a top-down and the guys are doing the work.
And by the way, you both worked under Comey and you worked under Ray, right?
I was just under Ray.
You were just under Ray.
Okay, so you got involved what year?
2018 I got hired.
2018.
So he's 2017 August, I think, is when he came in.
And right before that was Comey for whatever four years he was in.
How different was it?
Was there an immediate feel of a difference in culture under Comey or Ray?
Or no, you didn't feel nothing.
It was the same thing.
Well, I didn't really feel it.
I was in a small office.
Got it.
But I do think that there was a cultural change that happened.
And we were talking about this actually earlier after September 11th when Bob Mueller became the FBI director and the transition to the intelligence agency that you now see through its full fruition began.
And the people that came in under Mueller in the early days, they're now in a position of leadership in the FBI.
So they came in.
It's a very patriot act, neocon mindset that maybe inspired them to join.
Then Comey comes in and he brought in the, I'm ethical beyond all reproach.
Unethical?
I am ethical.
Unethical.
Got it.
And I think the story is that his lieutenants and the folks that were around him and are now ascending these very high levels, they were called the College of Cardinals because they are true believers in their utmost morality.
You cannot question.
They've never sat, looked in the mirror and said, am I the bad guy?
And now they are the executive assistant director.
What an arrogant way of doing that.
Oh, my God.
That's disgusting.
I've been around people like that.
I've never met anybody that's, you know, there's people like that in church.
There's people like that in schools.
There's people like that everywhere.
And they're very annoying to work for and work with.
There's a big gap also in their experience on the ground with people.
So take Jennifer Moore.
She's just about to retire as the executive assistant director.
She's been in the FBI since the mid-90s.
She came in before her time.
She was not an agent.
She was a support staff and then eventually became an agent.
She worked FBI cases from 1999 to 2005.
In a 30-year career, six of them were spent actually doing the investigative work that she is now having this managerial responsibility of overseeing.
And I think that that just leads to a tremendous disconnect between the management class and the rank and file.
I want to get back to this concept of being a whistleblower, right?
So the definition of whistleblower is a whistleblower protection act of 1989.
The law protects federal employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse, which you guys are doing.
All right.
Under this act, federal employees are protected from retaliation when they disclose information that they are reasonably believed shows evidence of wrongdoing.
All right, cool.
So when I think of the concept of a whistleblower in simple terms, it's almost like a referee, like the referee in sports.
I'm a big sports guy.
Your job is not to root for one particular team.
Your job is to basically call balls and strikes, blow the whistle when you see a foul and let the game be played out.
So the nature of the job of the FBI is to, what, investigate crimes, defend the homeland, defend against national security threats, right?
Not supposed to be apolitical, no ideology whatsoever.
Just blow the whistle, balls and strikes, be the referee.
So when you think of whistleblowers over the last decade or so, who comes to mind?
Edward Snowden, he blew the whistle on the overreach after the Patriot Act and basically the mass national surveillance that was going on on a global scale, everything with Julius Sange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, everything that happened with that.
I mean, the most famous whistleblower was Deep Throat, right?
With Mark Esper with the Nixon, the Watergate situation.
So in simple terms, I'm just kind of framing this for you guys, in simple terms, when they look back at what you guys have done, when people tell your story, what are you blowing the whistle on exactly?
So there's been a handful of things for me.
One of the main ones that I like to talk about, we've touched on a little bit is the stat padding.
So because Steve said in the last decade, domestic terrorism stats have gone up 400%.
Well, I have an example proving just that.
So I had a case, it was technically one case, but the FBI had me open up four cases because there were four individuals involved who were all part of the same group.
So if you multiply that across all field offices, you know, in my individual example, it's a 400% increase.
But multiply that across, and it's like, it shows this picture to America that there's this huge domestic terrorism problem.
The January 6th example that Steve has is another example of that because then every field office is opening all these separate cases and then the FBI can say, look, we really do have this huge domestic terrorism problem when in actuality, it's not really showing the whole truth or the real facts of what's going on.
We talked about the school board threat tag.
That was another one for me that I blew the whistle on.
And then another threat tag, it was threats to SCOTUS 2022.
That was shortly after the Hobbes decision came down, reversing Roe, which in that instance, the left were the ones who were up in arms, you know, protesting outside of Supreme Court justices' homes, which is a federal crime, which to my knowledge, even to right now, no one has been charged with that.
But when the FBI sent out that threat tag, part of the information was to focus on people who have a pro-life ideology.
And again, my boss was the one who brought this threat tag to my attention.
And he said, you know, part of the guidance says to dig into parole life people.
Why would we do that?
They are going to be happy about this.
They're not going to be attacking anybody.
And this threat tag is supposed to be about protecting Supreme Court justices, not about some firebombing attack on an abortion clinic, which also, if you're pro-life, you're not going to attack at that moment because you're counting that as a win.
And then what multiplied that for me, which is why I blew the whistle on it, is then I got tasked with questioning a CHS of mine, which is what the FBI calls a confidential human source.
So that's in common parlance, it's a CI, a confidential informant.
And so in that one, I was like, okay, we just got this threat tag.
Now I just get this tasking to go talk to this guy.
And even him, when I asked him these questions, he was like, why are you, is this just like a yearly check-in or what?
And I'm like, well, no, I was tasked to ask you these, and I know they don't make sense because in light of the Hobbes decision, you know, you're probably happy, right?
And so all of that combined.
And then I had a January 6th one where the FBI was trying to get me to serve a federal grand jury subpoena when I had no indicia of evidence to do so.
And then on top of that, during that lead that I got, I also had a facial recognition match.
They claimed it was a facial recognition match.
They used a driver's license photo from about 25 years prior to say, here's your facial recognition match.
And that's inappropriate law enforcement activity.
And even when I was pushing back on that, I still had a guy saying, you have a match.
And I was like, but I don't, because here's the current driver's license photo.
And the guy looks way different.
He's bald.
He's 150 pounds heavier than the match.
And it's like, this is wrong.
There's no due process here.
And then that one was also based off of an anonymous tip, which holds very little weight.
Noverette versus California is a Supreme Court law that gets into anonymous tips in law enforcement.
I'm trying to think what else I can talk about because there's been a number of things.
But you said padding the stats.
You also mentioned that.
Is that exactly what you're blowing the whistle on?
Yeah, that was that.
And then the concern for public safety where they were going to be using the SWAT for a guy who said, I'll cooperate.
I thought put him at risk.
And then in the ensuing time since my suspension, I think we're both kind of become whistleblowers, at least in the public sphere, recently for Garrett, about how the law you're citing is not being respected or adhered to by the FBI as far as we're experiencing tremendous retaliation.
And the FBI has found a hack to circumvent that law.
And they use the security clearance suspension process to do that.
And Steve, you were going after child exploitation, human trafficking, child sexual abuse.
They take you off of that to put you on.
We've got to make sure these people get in deep, deep trouble for January 6th.
That was what you were actually doing, like real work, real change, and they take you off to do – Yeah, and then to elaborate on that just quickly, I was on those cases.
I was told that, hey, just make yourself available for these terrorist cases because there's really not a lot of work to do.
So for actually, I was told to commit essentially time card fraud, which is a felony.
And on my time card, I was saying, I am a domestic terrorist agent.
And I wasn't really doing anything because those cases had been already worked.
They were sitting in D.C. waiting for them to tell us what to do.
In the meantime, I kept working my childhood cases to the point where I got an award about six weeks before I was suspended for my work on child porn cases, which I wasn't supposed to be doing.
Wow.
Cause you guys both a question.
All we keep hearing from the left is with Biden, all these, it's just like every day it's the same BS, that the biggest threat to this nation is white supremacy and domestic terrorism.
I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Do you guys believe in that?
And if you had to pick one that obviously is not that, what would it be?
The biggest threat to us as Americans.
So I was a domestic terrorism agent.
That was what I was assigned to.
And I'm not saying it isn't a threat and that there are threats in that realm.
But white supremacy, I didn't see it.
Domestic terrorism as the biggest threat.
I didn't see it.
It's just the boogeyman for today.
And I put it like this.
Go back through the FBI's history.
1920, we had the Palmer raids, which the FBI rounded up a bunch of communists and deported a bunch of them without due process.
There was like one in 100 who got charged with anything.
Fast forward to the 30s.
The FBI rounds up Japanese in this country and puts them in internment camps.
Fast forward a little bit more.
FBI tries to get Martin Luther King Jr. to commit suicide.
Fast forward a little bit more.
It's Weather Underground in the 80s.
Fast forward to the 90s.
It's domestic terrorism, like Waco and Ruby Ridge and all that.
2000, Patriot Act, which, by the way, would be Hoover's wet dream.
Because he was big on intelligence too.
Patriot Act opened the floodgates for the FBI to gather intelligence on everyone.
And Patriot Act supposedly was for international threats.
It has been.
So now we fast forward after the Muslim extremist threat is over.
Now it's turned inward domestically.
And so it's just the current boogeyman.
His speech that he gave at that college is absolutely ridiculous.
So if you had to pick, and I want to ask you, Juicy, what would you say?
Is it still just actual outside terrorism?
That's the number one threat to the American public?
I think the number one threat to the American public is a government weaponized against its people.
I was going to say that myself.
There's an article here that was written, Why the FBI and Democrats are attacking whistleblowers by Alex Gutentag and Michael Schellenberger.
I don't know if you guys have read this or not.
So you mentioned the CHSs, you know, the whole, what do you call them, the confidential human sources, right?
So in this article, it says, court documents indicate that there were at least eight FBI informants known as CHSs, four confidential human informants in the Proud Boys, which was one of the groups that organized the January 6th protest.
There's evidence that FBI also had CHS and oath keepers.
Another January 6th activist group and former FBI supervisor intelligence analyst George Hill told the subcommittee that the Boston office asked for video footage from the six protests.
The Washington field office said they could not give access to the 11,000 hours of video footage available because there may be UCs, undercover officers or CHSs, which will be just talked with, confidential human sources, on those videos whose identity we need to protect.
And it wasn't just the FBI who had undercover informants and agents in the crowd.
There were undercover agents and informants from other law enforcement agencies, including the Washington, D.C. Metro Police, who were acting like Trump supporters.
Indeed, there may have been hundreds of undercover government agents and informants, both local and federal, in the crowd on January 6th.
Some even said there were 100 to 200 Secret Service agents alone at the Capitol Hill before and during the breach of the police barriers.
One court filing alleges that there were at least 20 FBI assets at the Capitol.
So when you see stuff like this, you know, and you're one that's on the other side.
And we watched, you know, the last 10 years, eight years, 15, 6, 16.
So what, eight years since seven years since 16?
Russia collusion Trump.
Oh, man, why did you do, you know, so even the average person that's kind of sitting there saying, oh, my God, the guy I voted for is doing this.
You got to be kidding me, right?
Democrats obviously ran with it.
You know, all these guys, oh, we have 100% evidence of what happened here.
And you're like, that wasn't right.
Oh, you guys just, a Durham report.
Ah, it's not a big deal.
Let's just move on.
You know, the dossier was paid for Hillary Clinton.
Let's just move on to the next topic.
And so Obama was what Obama knew all along while they were investigating Trump.
Yeah, but you know what?
Everybody knows because he's the president.
And Mar-a-Lago, let's go do this.
Yeah, because he has these documents.
You know, January 6th, look what he did.
It's terrible.
The more and more and more they try to spin this.
And then it comes out two, three years later as being bad.
The credibility keeps taking a hit to the point where now they're talking about, you know, people are running for president, talking about getting rid of the FBI because it's messing up the nation and dividing us, right?
How much of what Alex and Michael wrote were you guys aware of where they are saying, hey, we want you guys to go there undercover and join these organizations to kind of work like, you know, what our friend did with the mob back in the days in the 80s.
What's his name?
That the movie came out, Donnie Brasco.
Yeah, like undercover.
Joe Pistone.
You know, like he was six years he was undercover, five years and 10 months.
How much of that was happening with January 6th and the Trump organization?
I think a tremendous amount of that was going on.
And let's just, we can remove the January 6th aspect to it.
Let's take another case that's a little smaller in scale.
Let's take the Gretchen Whitmer Wolverine Watchman case, which I actually had involvement in.
The governor of Michigan, you're saying homegrown terrorists were going to kidnap him.
That story.
Okay, yeah.
And so the demand for domestic terrorism in this country is from the political elite and the people standing at the lectern, it vastly outstrips the supply that actually exists.
And the nature of the FBI that has now evolved from law enforcement to domestic intelligence collection, our friend Kyle Serafin puts this really well.
Criminal investigations are linear.
Beginning, crime happens, middle, investigate, end, there's a conviction.
Intelligence operations are circular.
You open an investigation up to get more intelligence.
Where does that get you?
More intelligence.
Where does that get you the ability to spin out other investigations that are more intelligence?
So because there's a demand for domestic terrorism, and then there's these intelligence operations that go on, you infiltrate these groups that are deemed to be problematic, or they could be a threat.
They could be a domestic terror group.
So you take this group of guys in Michigan who is not predisposed to doing this, but you infiltrate it with undercovers and informants.
And the thing about informants are they know they're an informant.
Nobody else does.
They don't know.
If Garrett and I have both infiltrated the Wolverine watchmen as informants, we wouldn't know that.
So then you get a situation where they're in the room and I'm like trying to report back to my guy so I can get paid.
Hey, you know, it would be a good idea.
We should maybe come up with a plot here to do something.
And then he's got to one-up me because he wants to report back to his handler and he get paid.
And that's how the thing can snowball out of control.
And that's why you see these situations like on January 6th or back to Whitmer, where these guys were not predisposed to engaging in something that was going to be violent or anything that could be construed as terrorism.
And in fact, at one point in that case, the group was breaking down and the agents were telling their informants, hold it together, which is not in keeping with the tradition of law enforcement.
If there's a plot to rob a bank and on the way, one guy's like, nah, let's not.
You don't arrest them for robbing the bank.
Now, on January 6th, I'm very confident that there was infiltration from informants and undercovers on not just the FBI, who gets painted with the brush of being federal law enforcement, everything.
The Department of Homeland Security has 10x the budget of the FBI and has a nexus to terrorism and national security.
So see, we saw that guy, Ray Epps, which he was all over the internet.
All we kept seeing is this guy who looked like a carbon cutout of a freaking agent, MAGA hat, gray khakis.
He was verbally on camera saying, we need to go.
We need to attack the Capitol.
If that's not inciting violence, apparently they interviewed him and then they let him go.
Everybody else that was just on the bus showing up was arrested.
The FBI went after them.
Do you guys have any idea who that guy is, what agency he might have worked for?
Because it looks pretty apparent to people like us who that type of guy is.
Did you track on his responses to the questions?
I did see him messaging his nephew or something.
I forgot what was he saying?
He's just like, I started it.
I started it.
So how does the FBI not go after that guy, yet they're going after people that barely, they were just there.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
So I think it's clear to anybody paying attention that the only answer is that he's working with the government to some degree.
Because now, I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but it doesn't take a suspended FBI agent to see that information and be like, oh, yeah, he's got to be involved somehow.
And there's video of him like pushing gates and saying, go, go, go.
And the night before saying, we're storming the Capitol and the text to his nephew, but he's not charged.
Instead, he gets a puff piece on 60 Minutes a few weeks back, especially when we know the media is controlled by the government and the left.
And we're finding out in the Twitter files and things that continue to come out that the CIA has involvement with our own media.
So it seems very clear to anybody who's been paying just even a small amount of attention that he's got to be.
His answers were very lawyerly.
He always says, I didn't work for the FBI.
The question should be, have you ever worked for the government?
True.
Well, and this.
So as agents, when we have a CHS, when we talk to them, we have to, and I think this actually came out of the church committee hearings in the 70s because back then, because some of the informants back then testified publicly.
And the way they responded was, I was working for the FBI.
I was working with the FBI.
We have to explicitly tell CHSs now, you can't claim that you work for or with the FBI.
Like, it's not a job.
We have to tell them that.
So when someone answers, I've not worked for the FBI, he's remembering what he was told by his handlers, potentially.
Yeah.
For you guys, take off your FBI hats for a second and just be regular good old Americans.
All right.
We're talking about January 6th for a second.
How do you process what actually happened that day?
And what do you think the FBI did right?
And what do you think they definitely did wrong?
What do you think?
I think that it was not, this wasn't a perfect puzzle piece that went all together.
I think that President Trump's ascendancy brought a lot of people who were novice and new to the political process.
He got a lot of people very excited, voting for the first time, engaged in politics, couple that with the 2020 shutdowns where essentially politics became sports and entertainment for a lot of people.
And I think that there was genuine belief by a lot of people that they were going there to exercise their First Amendment and that they had the opportunity to pause this transfer of power, this certification of the election, because they just wanted to quote unquote, stop the steal.
Stop the steal.
And there was questions that were never really answered after the election.
There was definitely some questionable things that happened and nobody ever got a satisfactory answer to that.
And I can understand them being upset.
I think that there were people there that were there for that purpose.
I think that there were some groups there like the Proud Boys who after 2020 watching cities burn said, I think Antifa needs to get a butt kicking.
And they went there prepared to get in a fight with Antifa because they were just pent up rage at that point.
And that has now been weaponized against them in these prosecutions that they were there for violent purposes.
And then I think there was also a government infiltration aspect to it because they had these groups infiltrated.
They had undercovers there and might not necessarily have been saying, hey, we're going to plan to start an incident that's going to allow us to investigate thousands of Americans and initiate a seditious conspiracy charge against a candidate for presidency.
I don't think there was a master plot in a back-filled, smoke-filled room with a guy with a cat.
Yeah, you're thinking of Dr. Evil right now?
Okay.
So, and then to the FBI's involvement in this, what do you think they did right and what did they do wrong?
Oh, that's hard to get one right.
And it's kind of hard.
The FBI didn't do anything right.
I don't think that's true.
Because it's hard for me to remove that FBI agent hat.
I know.
Because of how because now I have knowledge, you know, and I have lots of video that I watch when we're getting those leads.
And so there were people that day who absolutely should have been arrested.
There were people that day who were fighting with cops or pushing through or whatever.
But then there were people who walk into the Capitol and there's no fracas going on.
And I know of one case that I don't know where the guy came from or whatever.
And I think he's even like a Marine veteran.
He walks in and you see on video, he talks with a Capitol police officer.
And according to him, the Capitol Police Officer told him he had to leave.
And so he left.
And he got charged.
That was the video I believe Tucker played.
And he got charged.
Why is that guy getting charged?
So you're saying it's important to delineate between who was actually doing criminal activity, fighting with cops, really doing certain stuff versus a guy who just kind of was there grazing through the Capitol.
Right.
Or we've seen the pictures of the people basically in line, like they're at the Capitol for a tour.
And sure, misdemeanor trespass, maybe at the most for a lot of those people, but is the FBI really and the DOJ really going to be doing a full court press on all those people?
Well, they are, but why?
Because they're actually altering the way they're perceiving.
And there were conversations that I was told about that happened where they said, Stop the steal is going to be a predicated domestic terrorism ideology.
And, oh, let's put a pin in this case right now.
Let's go back through the code book and see if we can find anything else to charge him with.
That's find me a man, I'll find you the crime.
And now the whole, if you went into the four walls of the Capitol, you were going to get this four pack of charges, one of which is an Enron case, crime, like ridiculous.
But now they say they're going to charge anybody that was on the lawn on the outside because the lawn is going to be retroactively made a restricted area.
Gotcha.
Well, to use an analogy, you brought up the COVID riots, George Floyd protests, everything like that.
It'd be like going to one of the protests and just holding up a sign, you know, free speech, whatever it is, hands up, don't shoot, whatever it is, versus actually being one of the arsonists blowing up buildings.
Correct.
There's a big difference there.
One is legal and within your right, and one is highly illegal.
Is that essentially what you're trying to delineate between January 6th?
If you're walking through the Capitol peacefully, all right, cool, you're protesting, versus someone who's actively has weapons on them fighting with cops, what have you.
Is that essentially your point?
It is.
And especially for the people who were there, but didn't go in the Capitol, were just in the area.
What are they getting investigated for?
So those people are being investigated.
And that's what you're blowing the whistle.
That's essentially padding the stats for domestic terrorists or domestic extremists.
It is, yeah.
And your point about 2020, I think, is a poignant example of how the FBI got January 6th wrong because none of what we have seen with January 6th happened in 2020.
And I know the naysayers would say, yeah, well, because those protests didn't happen in the seat of power of this nation.
I say as a law enforcement officer, that doesn't matter because there were people traveling to those protests in Portland and Minneapolis or wherever.
So when you travel when you're not from there, that's an interstate crime.
If you engage in criminal activity, that makes it a federal crime.
But we didn't have these massive task force set up to try to get all the people who were burning down police stations.
But for January 6th, it's go arrest every single person who was even on a lawn.
My family was on the lawn the night of the hearing.
And we kind of joked about it.
And it's like, oh, is the FBI going to be coming for them just because we were here?
And I think that's a general sentiment that a lot of Americans have right now.
The FBI is the actual boogeyman, not this trumped up idea of domestic terror.
And to go deeper on those riots, for example, even when George Floyd was killed, the whole narrative was like, listen, not all cops are bad.
These are a few bad apples, the whole bad apple thing.
Hey, all these teachers aren't indoctrinating.
Kids is a few bad apples.
All these athletes aren't beating their wives.
There's a few bad apples.
This whole concept of being a bad apple.
But sometimes the apple is actually rotten to the core.
So you hear the concepts that the FBI is being the politization of the FBI or the weaponization of the FBI.
So regarding the FBI, are there just a few bad apples and bad actors?
Or is the FBI rotten to the core at this point?
And what would you say?
I'm back to the disconnect between the rank and file and the management class.
And the fact that those guys have to go back and forth to D.C. all the time and their priorities are within self for their self-promotion and not for the good of the American people.
They're not about the case work.
I think there are people that do genuinely good work in the FBI.
I think that that work can be done by other people just as effectively.
So if you asked me, you made me king for a day, the FBI wouldn't exist anymore.
And I'm not a defund the police guy.
I think that you can empower local law enforcement in a way that you deputize locals and make them give them federal authority.
And there's a whole thing we can get into with that.
But I think as far as from the leadership standpoint, you can't just take out Christopher Wray and expect it all to get better.
Now, Christopher Wray needs to go.
And just quick math on him.
$9 million salary the year before he became the FBI director.
Gave that up to become the FBI director for 10 years.
So he essentially gave $90 million up to become the FBI director.
Is that what the tenure is for 10 years?
It's a 10 years.
I'm wondering why Biden didn't fire him because Trump hired him in 17.
Good question.
Right.
So you would think that if Trump appointed him, he's acceptable.
And I think that he sacrificed $90 million for the cause.
And that's why he got into an interview, he was with an interview with Red Bearer, and he was asked very directly, what about the FBI's negative image?
And he said, well, we have a record number of applicants.
So it's all good.
And guy, it's a down economy and inflation is through the roof.
And you're bragging about your number of applicants for a job where people can make six figures to do if they were a cop, they'd be getting paid a third of that.
So I'd like to ask you guys a question.
So as far as back, well, I'm going to go back to where Pat said 2016, from the Hillary obstruction to CrossFire Hurt to all the fake collusions.
Like every couple months, it's just FBI messing up, messing up, messing up, messing up.
What is it going to take?
I know it's an upper echelon of the managerial, but what is it going to take to change that?
Like what needs to happen to make that grasp on it break up and be more like less biased?
Because that's all we're seeing with bias with Peter Struck with all these, it's like they're embedded in there.
What's it going to take?
They are.
They are embedded.
I think at a minimum, you have to clear house all of headquarters, definitely the seventh floor, probably all of headquarters.
You have to clean it out and start from scratch.
A lot of the people like Steve talked about earlier who get attracted to the managerial positions in the FBI, they're that type of person who likes the DC life and the notoriety or whatever.
There's this talk of the FBI getting a new headquarters building.
They shouldn't get one.
That part of their budget should be scrapped until the FBI is fixed.
If they ever are allowed to have a new headquarters, it shouldn't be in D.C. because it's attracting too many people who care too much about the politics.
I mean, look what they did with the Russia collusion.
And nobody is paying for it.
No accountability at all.
The Durham Report basically said Obama, Biden, the AG, FBI, CIA, everybody colluded to try to cheat the real cheating of an electron and zero accountability.
Nobody's going to see.
I was telling Pat before he walked in there to all the young people out there that they're in crime.
You want to steal.
You want to be corrupt.
You want to don't do it.
If you want to get away with it, become a Democrat, be a leftist.
You can do all that shit and never go to prison.
You're right.
So that, I mean, that's a coup.
That's a bloodless coup.
And I know people go, oh, that's extreme.
Read the Durham report.
Look at the facts.
The FBI offered Christopher Steele a million dollars as a CHS payment if he could corroborate that dossier.
And he wasn't able to do it.
And the FBI still went straight ahead and opened a full investigation on then a presidential candidate and then kept it going on a sitting president.
Isn't that treason?
Like, are they, that's ridiculous.
The hell with the elect.
That's the election that was really.
But then we get accused of treason.
Exactly.
For those of the bad guys.
Yeah.
That's all.
PBD.
How much of what they're saying as far as like the seventh floor is reminiscent of the book, The Barbarians to Bureaucrats?
I mean, that's what it is, though.
That's what I'm asking.
The market is filled with bureaucrats and aristocrats.
So go back, and you said something about 9 million, 10 years, 90 million.
So why did Trump appoint him 2007, August?
Exactly.
So what point were you trying to make about Chris Ray?
I think that who gives up that?
And by the way, just for the audience that's watching this, if he can go put Chris Ray, $9 million, he was with the law firm King and Spalding.
He made $9.2 million working as an attorney for the law firm King and Spalding.
And then he chose to become a FBI director.
So go ahead.
Well, I think there's obviously esteem attached to that.
And he would probably argue that it was a financial sacrifice on his part and for his family because he wanted to serve America.
But what he won't tell you is he gets to live the life of a billionaire now, flying a private jet all over the place for the price of the lowest Southwest ticket that one of his staffers can find for him.
He gets that ability.
So he gets to have the esteem of being the FBI director.
But if you just go to the simple dollars and cents, I think that that sacrifice on his part represents conviction when it comes to seeing the full weaponization of the FBI come to fruition underneath his tutelage.
It's something that, well, give me the ring of power and I'll make sure that it goes for good, for what I deem to be good.
He's a Republican.
He was, so he was, he was appointed by a Republican president.
He was recommended to Donald Trump by Chris Christie because he helped Chris Christie fix the Bridgegate case.
He's a fixer.
And in my conversations with folks who I work with now who work at the Department of Justice, he's not an intellectual titan.
He's just got a really nice, you know, nice haircut and will do.
You don't make $9.2 million just with a nice haircut.
If that was the case, I got like 50 francs.
I'm telling you, they should be getting paid way more than they're making right now because they have nicer haircuts.
So they should be too.
Yeah, you definitely need to be.
You're a billionaire look right there.
But going back to it, like, you're not going to be a dummy making 9.2.
So I'm really, I want to know about this Chris Ray guy because you're making 9.2.
You drop it.
You get your job by Trump recommended by Christie, you know, and now Christie's flipped, obviously.
Yesterday I saw the funniest meme that said Christie should run, but he just should run all the time.
So going back to it, this guy's not a dummy.
No, I mean, he's obviously an educated guy.
But I think if you go back a few months, he's taking that trip to the World Economic Forum now.
And he wasn't getting that with his $9 million.
And what I mean, by the way, I'm not a World Economic Forum guy, not a fan of Klaus Schwab.
Can't stand ESGD, ICI, corporate equity, equality index.
I'm not a fan of HRC, Human Rights Committee.
I'm not a fan of Open Society Foundation.
So this is not an endorsement of that.
But okay, if you are going to be the director of CIA, you're probably going to go to World Economic Forum.
You're probably going to go to a lot of these weird meetings.
So what?
Why give up that $9.2 million and you get the job by Trump?
Like, let me kind of put it this way.
Whenever a CEO, Trump is a CEO, whenever a CEO is hiring a C-suite, a director of FBI is a C-suite.
I think there's got to be a more thorough investigation into assigning that job to somebody rather than that, you like that guy, put him in, right?
So to me, you know, if the other side also says, hey, man, so why did you give him the job?
You had other options.
You had other people to look at.
So if he did, Trump's not a person that doesn't have experience doing this.
He's hired tens of thousands of people over his career, not low-paying jobs, million-dollar salary, half a million-dollar salary.
Why does a Trump, who's a shrewd businessman that's a street guy, he sat with the toughest of the toughest, done the biggest of deals?
Why does he pick him?
And if he did, he must have seen something in this guy, no?
He had that interview, I believe, about a month ago, where he was asked specifically that.
And he said that it was recommended to him, and he wanted somebody that was going to be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.
And that was really what his thinking on it was.
I think he took recommendations from people who he trusted on it.
But I think then the question is, is it a Trump issue or is it a Chris for Ray issue?
I think Chris Ferray took the posting because it allows him to have access to the seat of power and maybe financially fed himself later on.
But it ultimately boils down to he is now in a position to impact our country that he wasn't going to have that opportunity at working at the time.
Listen, I mean, there are a few jobs that are powerful jobs.
That's definitely one of them.
So if somebody calls you and says, listen, we're thinking about offering you the director of CIA job, you have to consider that.
That's not a lightweight job.
That's a job that comes with a lot of different director of FBI.
It comes with a lot of different responsibilities, but also at the same time, you're in the thick of things.
You know what's going on.
You're one of the 50 most powerful men in America that's making these types of decisions.
So I get why he would entertain that.
I think this is the clip you were talking about.
If you want to play this clip about Chris Trump, we are all examples of that.
I can't think of a more sobering way to end a hearing.
I yield back corruption weaponization.
Rob was watching a movie on Netflix on the background.
So we just interrupted.
Rob.
Apologies from our behalf.
It's okay, please.
It's all right.
We messed the entire thing up with the movie he was watching.
About things that they are doing that are wrong.
That's not it.
There it is again.
That's Pat, while he's looking for that.
How much Jarrett is doing his thing?
Pat, what would make you, as a business guy, and you're making $9 million a year for this, what would make you give up being almost a $100 million man to do that?
Oh, you definitely would do it.
You definitely did.
To be just the power of it.
The responsibility of a man is to do the following.
If you're a true American, number one, make your money.
Number two, protect your wife and your kids.
Set aside money for her and them, where they're taking care of.
Number three, take care of yourself financially.
Number four, give back to the country, the country that gave you this incredible life.
Public service comes in many different ways.
One is church, one is military, one is nonprofit, one is government.
You pick and choose which one you want to do.
So I totally understand why he would say yes to that.
Life is not just about making the 9.2 every single year.
This is a heavyweight job.
And there's almost a duty when you get a call from the top, especially president, offering you a job, whether you like it or not, you have to really take it for consideration because it's a, listen, you get a call from the top saying, hey, you got orders.
You're going to Camp Casey.
I'm going.
You got orders.
You're going to Afghanistan.
You're a coward if you don't take it, right?
There's an element of that.
So there's some of it that's public service.
But do you think it was any of it was kind of magnifier where he's like, okay, I'm going to get in and now got to.
I don't know the guy.
I don't know the guy.
All I know is, look, if Rob, if you can figure out if you got that clip to go back to it, if it's still messing up, don't worry about it.
But before you even play this clip, if you can do me a favor, go to Statista with the report I just sent you with the trust American people have in the FBI.
This is just from 2019 to 2022, okay?
Blue is Democrats to have the same amount of trust in FBI as they did in 2019, as they do today.
Dark Navy blue overall is down from 57 to 44.
Independents are down from 48 to 41.
That's down seven.
And then Republicans are down 46 to 26, down 20.
So Democrats obviously love what the FBI is doing because they're targeting the guys that they hate the most.
By the way, there's nothing about this that's a Fox News poll.
This is Statista.
There is nothing about this that's emotional.
Now, if you go to the other statistic that I sent you with it since 1985, I don't know if you have that one as well.
That blue line means that blue.
Everybody still wears a mask on that blue line.
I just want you guys to know that.
That blue line, everybody's still wearing a mask.
Yeah, I think it's a problem when it's 100% your political party over the country.
Like to me, I'm sitting here asking questions about Chris Ray.
He's a Republican, Trump.
And I'm like, you can't just say, oh, it's everybody on the other side as fault.
No, there's some decisions that respond.
I texted to you, Rob.
You have it.
Go to your text.
You don't need to look for it.
It won't load.
Oh, it won't.
Okay, then don't worry about it.
And then go to the video.
Go to the video.
I'll try to send you a different link with that.
Let's see what Trump had to say about hiring Chris Ray.
You happy with Chris Ray?
But just so you understand, I put Chris Ray in because I wanted to have somebody in there that everybody, including the other side, really wanted.
It may not have been the right move.
Let's see.
Time will tell, okay?
But I wanted to have somebody in the FBI because I'm an honorable guy.
I'm an honest guy.
I may have made a mistake, but I put somebody in that the other side, everybody agreed to.
You know who recommended him to me?
Chris Christie.
Okay, he recommended him.
And that's okay.
I don't mind that.
I've taken Chris Christie's recommendations before.
And other people wanted Christopher Wray.
And people from the other side wanted Christopher Wray.
But now I think the uninvestigating.
Yeah.
So I remember.
I remember.
How recent was that?
This is not too long ago.
No, this is like a this has got to be like a couple months ago, right?
It was March of 2023.
There you go.
Yeah, this is a couple months ago for him saying that.
Yeah, so for me, going back to it, saying, well, Chris Ray this, Chris Ray, that, I got a follow-up question for you here that has to do with the public.
You were kind of going through with the question is we the people, right, with where we're at, at what point do you see, like, you know how the government is ran, you got the president, and then the governors get to decide how they handle COVID.
We're going to shut it down in California and not essentially, what are we going to do?
Ford's like, no, no, no.
We're opening schools.
We're opening this.
Hey, here's what we're going to do in South Dakota.
But here's what we're doing in Illinois.
Michigan, shut it down.
New York, this is what we're doing.
But this is what we're doing in Tennessee.
And this is what we're doing in Texas.
Okay.
So the states kind of get a chance to make the decisions for themselves.
Is the FBI really going to let officers war cases rather than DC's HQ controlling you?
I mean, is it time like for the FBI to roll up into the DHS or is it time to kind of just, you know, disband them and move on?
What do you think they need to be doing?
And will they do that?
Will they allow, you know, different markets to kind of do their jobs without saying, no, we're going to step over you and here's what we need to do.
I don't know that they'll allow it.
The FBI has, ever since Hoover, really, they've grown into this entity that even within the DOJ, they basically are in charge of themselves.
They always essentially have been, and they will hold on to that power as long and as much as they can.
And I think part of the issue with Ray might be he was a DOJ guy before his lavish career as an attorney.
That's another problem, I think, with the FBI and the DOJ is the FBI directors continue to come from DOJ.
And so now you have like this, it's basically like this intercession where the head of the FBI was a DOJ guy.
I think that's problematic because that limits the checks and balances potentially.
But overall, the FBI doing the right thing and giving up some of that control.
I don't see it happening.
And I don't know if there's enough.
Well, look at what's happening in Congress right now with this source reporting.
The FBI just literally does whatever they want.
So I don't know if there's an entity that could even make them break up and limit some of the power and control that they have and cede it over to DHS or somewhere else.
That would be my fear about we're going to massively reform the FBI because they would be clinging on to the power that they have.
Now, as far as being regional with the way that cases are investigated, they are done to a certain extent that way now.
And you have a case, you have the office in El Paso.
They're going to have a lot more drug trafficking and border-related activity just geographically than Omaha, Nebraska.
So they're able to sort of drill down on what they want.
Now, what I would like to see happen is I want to pair back the domestic intelligence collection.
And maybe we could model something after the way that the UK does their law enforcement.
Because currently having a law enforcement slash domestic intelligence agency, that's the stuff of the Stasi and the KGB.
That's secret police stuff.
If you go to the UK, they have MI5.
That's domestic intelligence.
And we can debate whether or not what the extent of the powers they have.
But they don't have guns.
They don't have the enforcement power.
All they can do is bring that intelligence over to Scotland Yard and make recommendations and assist them in their law enforcement.
And then Scotland Yard can use their discretion as far as bringing criminal charges.
If you did something like that, that might be something that could be debated.
As far as the nuts and bolts of operating, the FBI only has 14,000 agents.
The majority of the work is not done in the big cities.
It's done in the resident agencies like Wichita, Kansas, and Daytona Beach or Sioux City, Iowa, where I worked.
Those cases are brought in by these small offices that liaise with local law enforcement.
It's impossible to do the work of federal law enforcement without assistance from your local partners.
In Daytona, we had eight agents for an area and they encompassed 1 million people.
Can't police that with eight people.
You have to rely on your sheriff's offices, your police departments, and there's nothing, the task force officer deputization process that goes on where essentially you bring guys in, the FBI pays their overtime and deputizes them as U.S. marshals, gives them federal arrest authority in addition to their state arrest authority.
They bring in the local knowledge and the local cases.
They say, hey, that would be great.
Can we bring some Fed charges against this organization or this occurrence that happened in my community?
And that's what the FBI should be there for, to assist the locals because they know where the usual suspects are.
The FBI is just nerds that are sitting in an office for the most part.
That's a chart right there, by the way.
So we just learned to the FBI agents are nerds, but probably the biggest reveal today.
So this is public trust in the government from 58 to 2022.
And if you look at that, from Eisenhower, Kennedy, say flat a little bit higher.
And Eisenhower, you know, warned about military-industrial complex.
Kennedy comes in.
They definitely don't like the Kennedys with what they have going on.
And then boom, he's out.
Then Johnson comes in.
He loves power and control.
So that goes down.
Nixon comes in.
Trust goes down.
Obviously, Watergate, all of that.
Ford comes in flat.
Carter comes in down.
Reagan comes in.
He increases the trust in the government during that eight-year.
Bush comes in, goes down.
Clinton comes in, increases.
Bush comes in down.
Obama comes in flat line.
Trump comes and he increases it.
Now Biden's in here, and you don't have the 2022.
This is the number I give you was one showing how dramatically it's dropped the last three years.
The other one that we were looking at, which kind of shows a completely different perspective.
So when you see this, you know, the closest institution that I can see as a case study to the FBI is the mob.
And in the mob, there's something called Omerta.
Omerta is when you never share what's going on on the inside.
You essentially don't whistleblow in the mob.
And if you do XYZ, they're going to come after you and all this stuff, right?
So there's a threat of never one of the code of honors of importance is not coming out silenced in the face of questioning by authorities or outsiders and non-cooperation with authorities, the government or outsider, especially during criminal investigations and willfully ignoring and generally avoiding interference with it.
I mean, this sounds like Hillary Clinton when she was getting help, you know, when she would not answer anything.
Yeah, no, no.
Hi, Plano.
No, no, no.
No, right.
And when Comey's going through all this stuff, 33,000 emails, what's the big deal?
What's the big deal?
You delete emails all the time.
What is the difference between she broke her computer?
Maybe she was pissed off at Bill.
What does that have to do with you?
Anyways, they were talking about yoga pants, right?
Obviously, that's what the emails were all about.
She wiped it with a rag.
Yeah, that's it.
Sweetheart, right?
But here's the part.
Is there an Omerta model in the FBI where, hey, guys, whatever we're doing, there's one thing you can't ever do as an FBI agent.
You can never whistleblow.
And then behind closed doors, you're being trash to say you guys can never trust them because they whistleblow if you talk to them, just assuming they're recording the conversation, just assume they're going to say this.
Is there that kind of a vibe and energy in the FBI as well, or no?
Tell them about the training, the new training.
Yes, there is that vibe for sure.
And you got to tell them about your ASAC and what he said to you.
But every year, every federal employee has to have, it's mandatory by government, whistleblower training every single year and insider threat training every single year.
And my whole time in the FBI, they were always separate.
This year we found out, because thankfully there are still some good people in the FBI, that that training was merged into one.
So the FBI didn't even, they didn't even say, you know, whistleblowing is good and you can do it like they used to.
They used to say, yeah, it's protected.
Now they combine those trainings overtly saying whistleblowers are insider threats.
I mean, that was the takeaway from the people we know in the agency who took that training.
That slide deck was released to the public so we can go see it.
It's online.
And it's like, okay, so the FBI is not even trying to hide the fact that they will retaliate against you.
And I think that's government-wide.
Look what's happening with the IRS, whistleblower and his squad right now.
But the FBI has a culture.
They have had a culture since Hoover's era of FBI first, no matter what.
And if you go against the FBI, I can see that.
We're coming for you.
Well, I applaud you guys for speaking truth to power, right?
You're shining light on justice.
There's a lot of people that probably do not want you talking whatsoever.
Who would you say is at the top of that list?
What names, what people, what institutions are like, Garrett, friend, get these guys, silence these guys, muzzle them right now.
Who's at the top of that list?
I think the DNC as a whole, we were in-person recipients of that at that hearing, the things they were saying, the way they were twisting things and lying about us and about our whistleblower status and comparing us to people who committed espionage and whatever else.
And then I think the mainstream media as well, because they're lackeys of the political elite and the political elite are typically on the left.
And so my deposition that I went to in February really stands out for me because I was led to believe, just like I was with my transfer, I was led to believe in good, and I accepted both in good faith that everything was kosher.
So I go to my deposition.
A couple weeks later, I get a call from my attorney and he says, hey, buddy, I got some bad news for you.
I got a call from CNN and they have your name and they have some information about your deposition.
I was told, don't talk about this deposition unless it's with a privileged party.
And so I left that deposition thinking like, you know, hopefully they will investigate this.
And I told them there to the Democrat attorneys as well who sat in on the deposition because that's what I agreed to do because it's not a partisan issue or it should not be a partisan issue.
But we're seeing that it clearly is.
It's a right or wrong issue.
It's like, bro, you have a soul.
You want to just be a good person.
You're a Christian.
And it's like, bro, we talked about this many podcasts.
Evil right now.
I don't care what anybody thinks out there.
Evil is winning so hard and it's embedded in our government, the governments of the world.
And I feel like it's, we need people like you, but their power is so freaking strong.
They've all sold their souls to the devil and the price is not cheap, bro.
I got to hold up that bargain.
Who else would you put on the list?
You got the DNC, you got the mainstream media.
Obviously, the FBI.
Okay.
At the FBI as a whole, the Ray, the Bureaucrats, every other agent.
SES level.
Yeah, at least.
Or HQ as a whole, most likely.
Okay.
Who would you say?
Yeah.
I would agree that the executive levels and also at the Department of Justice, too.
And that even goes down to the management structure, even ASAC level.
So assistant special agents in charge that are still on the GS scale because they are climbers.
Don't ruin my gig for me.
So I'll name check Colt Markovsky and Sean Ryan as the ASACs who sat in the office for me.
And when Colt Markovs, when I said to him that I took an oath to protect the Constitution and he responded back to me, you have a duty to the FBI.
That was just a watershed moment for me.
When I took my oath, I swore that oath in front of God and my family and people who sat around me who I thought were my friends.
How uncomfortable is it to actually name names?
At this point, I mean, I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire.
Wow.
Here's my question to both of you, since you guys were in the FBI.
Do you think because you guys have come out, you're doing this, are they monitoring you guys?
Do you think, is there a possibility?
Because you guys would know of anybody.
Are they doing what they actually do for a living?
Yes.
Are they tapping you guys on how they monitor?
Are they making sure you guys don't go?
I mean, I don't know the depths of how much information.
I'm pretty sure you guys have information, but you think they're watching you guys?
I don't know for sure, but the day I got suspended, I had a very odd thing happen with my phone while I was talking to an attorney.
And it basically cut out.
And then I couldn't get back in touch with him.
And I was getting an automated message.
And once I did get back in touch with him, and this guy, this attorney, he's a retired FBI agent also.
And I said, hey, I explained to him what happened.
And he goes, oh, yeah, they probably tapped your phone.
Who do you think is watching this right now?
Headquarters, right?
Security Division definitely is.
I know that for a fact.
I did an interview with them and they were very tongue-in-cheek about, oh, we were big fans of that podcast you did.
I was like, I'm glad you gave it.
Did you give him a like?
Okay.
Yeah, guys, quick reminder: like, subscribe to PBD podcast.
Leave a five-star review.
Yeah.
Going back to what you were saying when I asked the question about the Omerta, the code, and they trained you.
It's FBI above this.
You said, you know, you got to tell your story.
What was the one story you wanted to share?
That was the, he said, my duty was to the FBI and not to the Constitution.
Do you have the clip about, you know, where I believe it's, I want to say, which one is it where it says they will destroy you, they will crush you and your family.
I think you have the clip.
If you can play this clip, on, yeah, it's that one right there.
This is, Garrett, is this you talking in this one?
Yeah, that's you.
Just play the whole clip.
I want the whole thing.
We have a 20 second one, but play this one.
All of the hardships you've gone through.
If one of your really good friends, your former colleagues, came to you and said, I have this thing that is being covered up, and I think the American people need to know about it.
What advice would you give them?
I would tell them first to pray about it long and hard.
And I would tell them I could take it to Congress for them, or I could put them in touch with Congress, but I would advise them not to do it.
So you would legitimately try to protect one of your colleagues from doing what you have done.
Absolutely.
And how do you think that solves being able to shine light on corruption, weaponization, any kind of misconduct that exists with the American people?
It doesn't solve it.
But the FBI will crush you.
This government will crush you and your family if you try to expose the truth about things that they are doing that are wrong.
And we are all examples of that.
Man, that's pretty powerful.
I can't think of a more sobering way to end a hearing.
I yield back.
So you would tell them not to.
So now if you go back a year ago and you're having that conversation with your wife, whatever the timeline is when you, when you wouldn't have done what you've done already?
I'm not saying if I had a crystal ball, I don't know because how do you sleep at night then?
And, you know, I have four little girls now.
Back then, we had three.
And I had a conversation with my ASAC at one point, and he was trying to walk me off the ledge a little bit.
And I think he was acting like me doing the wrong thing, so just towing the line, was caring for my family.
I think that that's cowardice.
And in the book of Revelation, it tells us that cowards will be judged when they sit before the Lord.
And how could I then, as a man, raise my daughters to be women of integrity and to do the right thing even when it's hard if I wasn't willing to do it?
So I'm not saying I wouldn't have done it, but the congressman asked me if one of my really good friends came to me with that information.
Not only would I do what I answered for a friend, I would do it for somebody that I don't know in the FBI if they were too unwilling or too afraid to do it, but they knew that they had something that needed to be brought forward.
I made my oath many times, twice in the Army, once when I re-enlisted as a police officer, as an FBI agent, I meant it.
And I was willing to stand in the breach.
I'm in the breach now.
So bring it to me.
That's fine.
I'm okay with that.
And we will get it to Congress or whistleblower attorneys or wherever it needs to go because the American people need to know this stuff.
Yeah, there's no question about it that we need to know this stuff.
But it ruins lives, meaning people like you, it ruins your life.
And you know, Silvia Garcia, I think it was a congresswoman from California, was trying to say, you're not a whistleblower, you're not a whistleblower, you're not a whistleblower.
And I think Debbie Wasserman, who comes across as a total sweetheart from Florida, she was talking about how this whole thing is about the book and you're doing, you know, just the book.
And then another lady comes out and says, you know, I cannot believe what you guys are doing.
This is defunding the police on steroids.
She was the one from U.S. Virgin Islands, Blackett, Blastits.
Yeah, when she said that.
So you see this stuff.
Obviously, this is the part of discrediting, right?
Defund, which was phase one.
We're suspending you with pay, right?
If they're suspending you, you're not getting paid.
And then $7,500, which, by the way, strategically, it's the dumbest thing to do.
If you want somebody to go away and not, typically, what would happen in business is, here's a severance package, sign this defamation, hold harmless, and move on.
They do the opposite.
So these guys would be terrible in business.
They're dummies if they're not doing this.
The way to do it is that, listen, we're going to give you one year of this.
Good luck to you.
We're sorry it didn't work out.
Wish you nothing but the best.
But no, they cornered you where you have to do this and come out and talk about it.
So also, you know, running an organization is not a wise thing that they're doing.
The other thing I want to play, if you can play James Comey here, he was being interviewed this week and a question is being asked.
And by the way, this is a guy that loved being interviewed a lot when this book came out.
He was everywhere, right?
Come, call me, call me.
And then all of a sudden, he's disappeared a little bit, you know.
And but this was an interview that was done, what?
Is this like a few days ago, a couple days ago?
I don't know what the exact date on this is.
It's not too, this could have been a couple days ago.
If you just play it, see what he says here.
Really honest, honest, loving guy to a penny.
So much people.
In law enforcement, which matters.
So as for the Durham report, 300 pages, four years investigating the investigators.
One of the things that did come out of it was that procedures, regular FBI procedures, were ignored, that steps were missed along the way in this investigation.
In fact, Director Ray said when the report came out, yeah, we acknowledged that a couple of years ago, and we've changed all that.
Those changes are already in place.
Do you acknowledge perhaps that some mistakes were made along the way?
Oh, definitely.
And they were found four years ago by the Inspector General.
So there's nothing new in this new document.
What were some of those mistakes from your point of view?
Oh, that the FBI didn't communicate clearly the status of certain sources.
They didn't double-check certain information before putting it in a court application for a foreign intelligence wiretap and a bunch of others.
And so do you believe now, as some of these politicians call for defunding of the FBI, that that has been corrected and that now the procedures are in place to avoid those kind of mistakes in the future?
I think so.
But in complex investigations, there's always going to be mistakes.
It doesn't mean the FBI is incompetent, honest, and independent.
So, Director, what does this mean now from your time with that?
Honest, incompetent, and independent.
This is your former boss.
How do you feel about what your former boss is saying here?
Well, he's doing the same thing that the FBI did after the initial release of the Durham report.
It's that moveon.org move where this is old news.
This is already addressed four years ago.
We can't tell you how we did it, but we did it.
And again, back to his College of Cardinals mindset of I'm beyond all ethical reproach or questioning and anything.
There's no personal accountability there.
He never says, Yeah, I messed up.
He never takes any sort of responsibility for something like, I'm going to direct agents to go and talk to Mike Flynn because I hope that he lacks candor and we can charge him with a process crime.
And I'm going to brag about it openly.
Isn't that the player's code?
You know, like guys, you know, when you're a player and you have a lot of girlfriends and you're coming up, you know, the code is you can never say you did anything wrong.
You didn't do this.
If James Comey was a guy that he shows a lot of signs of a player, you know, Playboy type of a guy.
So I feel like he listens to a lot of RB and hip-hop.
He just kind of seems like that kind of a guy.
But going back to it, so for him, yeah, it's not a big deal.
So, you know, it's not a big deal.
We've addressed it.
We've gotten better.
It's cool.
Is it the mindset of never, ever admit and just kind of be casual and cool about it and move on?
Or is it more a cultural thing of the FBI or is it just him that's doing this?
I think it's the culture of the FBI.
And he just embodied it.
I mean, you just, the reputation for the FBI is everything to it.
Protect the shield at all costs.
When I was accused of making this recording of my meeting with my ASACs, which I did, I was asked about it in my interview, my compelled interview, which I was not allowed to have an attorney actually assist me with, just sit there and watch.
They tried to get me to lack candor so they could charge me and do a search warrant and arrest me.
I had said, yes, I created that.
The natural follow-up for anybody, and these are FBI agents who are asking me these questions, is, can we get a copy of that?
Because I was making some rather huge revelations to them that I was being possibly compelled to do something that I felt was a civil rights violation.
They never asked for a copy, which means they have a copy.
As I suspected, my ASACs recorded the conversation as well.
And they were not worried about what those guys told me.
They were just worried about the exposure.
Reputation is everything.
By the way, can you look at Yelp to see what their online reviews are for FBI?
How many positive reviews are you?
Can you Yelp FBI?
This needs to be a half.
Well, they got four and a half stars.
Is it really?
That's got to be a joke.
I was actually just joking.
Can you read the reviews?
Go to the bottom.
Tell me this is a joke.
This has to be a joke, right?
My family and I were given a tour.
Oh, it's a tour thing.
Experience.
Okay, go down.
Is it actually FBI?
Some of the FBI needs to go.
Ray should be the first.
I had no clue.
By the way, if you have bad experience with the FBI, go write a Yelp review on FBI.
He said, get rid of the boss and give him three stars.
There's no chance to throw.
Go a little lower.
This is actually comical now.
I couldn't even believe it.
Five stars.
So it goes as though I have a confession.
My dream job even now is to work for the FBI as a field.
It seems so exciting, fun, and interesting, saving the world and fighting crime.
This is what, 2016, what a lot has changed since then, Miss Maggie C.
So go a little lower, Jerry Lee.
Okay, keep going, keep going, keep going.
So is this one?
Walking past the back end building, I turned to my husband and said, I bet this is the FBI headquarters.
I feel like I'm an episode of the X-Files.
Lo and behold, lo and behold, when we reached the front, it was, I wish we could have gone inside, but it looked like closed.
It looked closed.
Not sure if it was a secret thing.
Perhaps it was even open.
Like Wally World from Natural Lampoon.
I'd love to see what Trump left as a review of the FBI.
This place is correct.
Stupid.
I would never come here again.
Durham Report.
Let's do the Durham Report before, you know, I got a couple other final questions here before we wrap up.
So the Durham Report, one of you guys, let me read this one.
This is an article from May 16th, page 4.
So whistleblower detail, distorted and twisted FBI and weaponization claims right at the top.
FBI special agent Garrett Boyle, a whistleblower, revealed the retaliation he faced after testifying to Congress.
I won't hold my breath there.
Whistleblower, John T. I'm something excited.
He stated, I won't hold my breath there because I'm sure they are going to ramp up the pressure to try to get rid of me even more now.
O'Boyle described a two-tiered system within the FBI, starting at the headquarters level, within which we have talked about that as well.
But it follows up with the story.
Where is this one here?
Whistleblower.
Is that the video that says FBI whistleblower?
Steve Friend explains how the FBI evolved into an intelligence agency after 9-11.
We talked about that as well.
The Durham report, when it came out, it was just kind of like, hey, yeah, cool, moved on.
Nobody really did anything with it.
How much was in there for someone who actually wants to do investigative journalism to go deeper to this, to hold some people accountable?
Because there's a part of America that thinks, you know, there are people in jail today that sold weed 20 years ago that they're still doing time.
There's people in jail today that did a crime much smaller than what some of these folks are doing at the top with the different families, Biden's, you know, Clintons.
You hear these types of stories, like, how are these guys getting away with it?
There was a moment where it's like, is someone going to be held accountable?
So when you guys being former FBI agents, when you read the Durham report, did you go and say to other agents inside and say, listen, guys, did you guys read this report?
What do you think about this?
Did you see what was said?
And then if you did, what was the reaction from your peers?
Was it like, no, it's not a big deal.
What are you talking about?
We can't even bring that up.
Yes, did you bring it up too?
If you did, what was the reaction of your peers?
So I was out of the FBI already after the Durham report came out.
But as that investigation was going on, James Comey mentioned how, or Chris Ray, I forget one of the clips we watched, where they implemented years ago fixes for these things.
Okay, well, if people of integrity and character were running the investigations, those procedures would have never had to be fixed anyways because they wouldn't have been broken for one.
But in my circles, while I was in the FBI, everybody had the opinion that the Russian hoax was exactly that, a hoax.
We knew it already before the Durham report came out.
And now that that report is out, I think it's very damning of the FBI.
But like you said, it's just washed over in the media.
Nobody really cares.
Nobody's paying attention unless they're digging on their own.
And I think that's also problematic about the DOJ and the FBI as a whole.
James Comey himself refused to be interviewed during the Durham investigation.
Why?
You were the director of the FBI at the time, but you're not going to interview for that?
And then he acts like, oh, not a big deal.
We already knew all this.
It's that hubris that's especially at the top.
But that hubris, people of that character are attracted to the FBI for whatever reason, and it has infected the agency.
Yeah, I didn't, I mean, I was already gone when the Durham report came out.
And unfortunately, my FBI contacts are Garrett and the other whistleblowers at this point.
They're the guys I spend the majority of my conversations with.
And so we have our opinions on it.
But I do know from experience that a lot of agents are just, that's above my pay grade.
I'm not even aware of it.
Helpless?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, and even when we were in the hearing, we had it from multiple people say, people didn't even know you were testifying in front of Congress that day in the office.
They were like, no, no, no.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Willfully.
Willful ignorance.
What?
Yeah.
How can that be done?
We see that at the top, too.
So last week, Jill Murphy, another assistant director, was testifying before I forget which committee.
And she straight up says, Eli Crane, I forget where he's from, but his questioning of her is particularly poignant, I think.
And there were some other ones who asked her some questions.
She's never read the Twitter files.
She's never read the Durham report.
She's not giving answers.
Based on her own program that she's in charge of, she's not able to provide answers.
And she's in charge of it.
And it's like of counterintelligence, I believe, is what she's an ADN.
And it's like that also that willful ignorance or maybe it's even coerced ignorance to not pay attention to the things that are going on in this nation.
When I got hired by the FBI, I thought it was going to be a national effort where you're paying attention to the things happening.
You're doing your best to do what's right no matter what, but it's simply not the case because people are too comfortable.
I think as a nation, we've gotten too comfortable.
It's that whole cycle of hard times, great hard men.
And I think we're in a place where before too long, we're going to be on really hard times.
Are there more whistleblowers, other guys who are on the inside that reach out to you and are saying, hey, man, I want to come out, but I'm afraid, you know, I got a wife and kids to take care of.
I got to figure out a way to have a little bit more savings before I do this.
And I don't know what job I'm going to do after this.
There's no way anybody's going to hire me.
Are those types of conversations being had right now?
Yes.
Yes, yes.
And a lot of people are actually on the inside giving us information that we're able to come out with.
So like yesterday, I was able to come out with the fact that they gave all FBI employees three paid hours per week for wellness.
Now, you combine that with the three paid hours per week for physical fitness.
For wellness?
Mental wellness and physical and taking a break or something.
Metaphysical things.
Yes.
You could do yoga and color and whatever.
But you can combine that with three hours for physical fitness, paid lunch.
FBI agents are supposed to work 50 hours a week.
Most work 40.
So now you're talking 11 hours out of 40 per week that they are paid to not do their job.
27.5% of the time of an FBI agent to not investigate.
Why would somebody leave that job then?
Correct.
Okay.
So you're saying what you're doing right now is you are the chief recruiting officer for FBI.
They just got 17,000 applications right now.
I'm going to the FBI.
Hey, listen, I heard you guys are paying well and you don't expect me to work.
That's awesome.
I'm in, right?
I want that job.
When it comes to FBI salary, what's a starting mid-top-level expectation of what salary and benefits of what you receive being an FBI agent?
So it's the GS pay scale.
You start as a 10-1, but you also get availability pay, which is a 25% bump in pay.
Talk numbers though.
So it's about 70.
Yeah, as a 10-1.
Yeah, that looks about right.
And then you're at about 78 grand.
Right.
That's where you start.
Start.
And then after five years, you get promoted to GS13 step one.
And so you get the law enforcement availability pay, which is 25% bump.
This is agent salary.
It's different for the other positions.
And then depending on where you live, you get locality pay.
So one of the smears they've put out against us is, oh, well, they're paid hacks from Kash Patel.
Okay.
Go ahead and say that.
He paid us money right before Christmas from his foundation because we had been suspended without pay already.
And our whistleblower activities had already happened.
The retaliation had already happened.
Where I was headed to Virginia, I was going to be making about $132,000 a year because I would have hit my GS13 coming up here in like another month or so.
And why would you give that up?
And the benefits, the salary of the job, it is one of those reviews on Yelp.
Oh, it looks like such a cool job.
Yeah, it was.
It was a great job.
Steve and I were both SWAT guys, which added an extra element of service, but also a more fun aspect instead of sitting in the office all the time.
Instead of being a nerd like Steve Tunker.
You get the cool guy back.
And so, you know, the new unit I was heading to, I was really excited about what I was going to be doing there.
And but so yeah, for people to say, oh, they're just grifters and paid hacks and all this, like not further from the truth.
And but yeah, I've told my wife, just read because all of this, you know, we were we were probably getting to a point where we were the callous was forming over a lot of what has happened.
And now in a very public way, it's all back, you know, and I'm talking about it every day, which is fine.
I hope that is part of the healing process for me.
But this journey has not been easy.
And if I could pick, snap my fingers, yeah, I would be making my $130,000 salary and I would be more or less an anonymous FBI agent.
I don't think I really look like an FBI agent.
So I blend in well and we were comfortable, you know, but now everybody knows that face, that beard, that hair, cover of GQ out here.
But getting outside your comfort zone is also a good thing.
And I never thought my belief in that would lead me into something like this.
But as strange as it is to say and probably to hear, I'm grateful that the Lord has put this opportunity in front of me because I can only go forward and hopefully glorify him in the process.
That's awesome.
I will say that you do have the Adam Sandler Zohan look, though.
I know that look.
That's a legit look.
I can't get it out of my head right now.
That's all I'm thinking about with the hair doing all this stuff.
We got a few good men and we got this off.
So if you want to just show the picture, I mean, there is an element of a little bit of Zohan stuff going on there.
It's a good looking guy.
Okay.
So a couple things here.
ESGDEI, has the FBI been bullied by the ESGDEI stuff or not yet?
Are they sitting there saying, hey, we need to make sure the people we're hiring, a third of them are from an underrepresented community, whether they're part of the LGBTQ, disabled, black?
You know, I was hoping they'd have Middle Eastern in there.
They don't have it, but Native American, some things like that.
Is there anything like that happening within the FBI?
It's rampant, right?
Is it really?
Full-fledged.
I know you said about the pride flag that was in there, but what do you mean full-fledged?
Unpack that for us.
Intern in my office, she came in one day and was a he with blue hair, and we all just had to move on.
This is somebody who needed a security clearance to work in the facility.
She needed a security clearance to go from a she to a he.
No, to work in the FBI facility.
That's why I can't, I couldn't be an FBI agent anymore.
They suspended my security clearance for looking at the employee handbook improperly.
And this being came in and obviously had some mental issues.
Yeah.
And that was something that we had to accept and just move on from.
A trans woman, you're saying.
Yes.
Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just, okay, sorry, you're an FBI agent.
My bad.
The Academy now has issues where there are females that are claiming that they're male, but they still want to use the female standards for the physical fitness test.
So they're having to deal with that speed bump.
How about from the top?
I mean, that's stuff I can see happening because it's a little weird today.
The market is a little weird today.
How about from the top?
Are you guys hearing stuff from the top?
You know, the headquarters, Ray, people from the top saying, here's what we need to do moving forward when it comes down to recruiting, guidelines, et cetera, et cetera.
Is that happening?
Yeah, that's a full initiative that we need to do diversity hiring.
They've reduced the standards for some matters of hiring because they wanted to increase their pool of minority applicants.
And if you just want to go on a strict gender basis, FBI is majority male.
It's law enforcement.
However, they want equal representation amongst the management class to be male and female.
So there's a disproportionate amount of female representation within the leadership structure because there aren't a lot of females that join the FBI to begin with.
So a lot of those females are elevated very quickly because they have to fill those slots 50-50 or close to 50-50.
How much of this has trickled down from the stories that used to come down from J. Edgar Hoover?
Everything, you know, the stories, this is the FBI building.
Cross-dressing, high heels.
We don't talk about that.
Oh, now this is the one thing you can't talk about, really.
It's strict fair voting.
Wow.
You're joking?
I'm assuming you're joking, right?
Most people in the FBI don't know the history of the FBI.
Yeah.
How's that possible?
It's a government.
It's a government agency that you might as well be working for HUD.
For most people, it is a government job.
Based on our conversation.
What does that mean?
You don't know the history of the FBI?
You don't know about Hoover or COINTEL PRO.
They work in the Canadian Hoover building.
You guys know more about the FBI than most FBI employees, Gary.
Correct.
How is that possible?
Willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance.
And I think a lot of people that join, I mean, look, full disclosure, I saw a point break that looked like an awesome job.
Keanu Reeves.
An FBI agent.
But I also wanted to be Fox Mulder.
So that was the inspiration.
Yeah, there's J. Edgar Hoover.
But I think a lot of people, it's a very high-paying job with a lot of esteem attached to it.
And there's a great opportunity to be underworked and overpaid.
Even as an agent, you only have to do one investigative activity per case every 90 days.
That's very unfortunate that they don't teach the history of the FBI to, you know, it's like what we see running rampant with kids.
They don't teach everything about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, everything that how government works.
You see these man on the street interviews.
Can you name the three branches of the government?
They're like, I don't know.
Well, let me ask this question.
I'm about to post this.
And by the way, if you can put this, I'm going to put it on Twitter as well, Rob.
If you can ask this question and comment below, just anybody that's watching a pod, post this poll.
What would you like to see the FBI actually investigate?
Like, here's what I would like to see the FBI investigate.
And I'm wondering if any of that even came up or talked about.
How much, how actively are they investigating the list of names from Epstein?
How much are they investigating what happened with Epstein?
You know, Jelaine right now, story came out yesterday.
She's worried because she told on a couple of the people that are within the jail.
She's worried for her life.
Who knows if she's saying that or somebody else saying it on her behalf because this week is the week where she's going to be meeting the St. Peter to decide whether she's going to hell or heaven.
Who knows what's going to happen to her this week?
There's a lot of people in that world that can predict someone's lifespan.
It's actually very good technology they have.
How much of the investigation into Epstein is currently happening?
Or when you guys were in there, that was a guy that they were looking into.
I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but I would bet not a whole lot.
And you guys probably know this, but who was the prosecutor assigned to Jelene's case?
James Comey's daughter uh in in law enforcement um I learned quick quickly that there's not uh crazy there's there's not very hold this up real quick There's not very much coincidence.
I'm at a point, especially combined with my faith.
I don't believe in coincidence at all.
I think it's all happening for a reason.
And the FBI and Epstein, I mean, why is that story not front and center until we find out about every single person on that list?
But we don't ever hear about it.
Nope.
Yep.
And mind you, they took you off of that type of investigation.
Like you were investigating those type of cases, right?
And they're like, no, no, go after somebody that was on a bus that wore a MAGA hat.
Check this out.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Maureen Comey is one of the lead prosecutors in the case against Ms. Maxwell and had been due to try Epstein prior to his death in 2019.
The daughter of the former FBI, James Comey, is the head of the SDNY violent and organized crime unit and has been with the office since 2014.
And by the way, isn't the Comeys very good friends with the Clintons?
You think so?
No, no, I'm curious.
I know he was wearing the Clinton gear in 2016.
He was taking pictures.
I don't know if he's got a relationship.
Oh, yeah.
And remember, him with the, who was it?
Who was the Attorney General?
Loretta Lynch.
They took the charge from gross negligence to extreme carelessness.
And he was just like, Yeah, whatever.
Bro, yeah, exactly.
Well, dude, I agree with you 100%, bro.
It's like, I believe in God.
I think God, you know, chose you to be this person.
But these people, bro, they're so intertwined and it's solid.
That's why my question earlier.
I'm like, is it going to change?
I think it'd be an act of God because these people are so let's stay on this, though.
Let's stay on this.
I actually want to know this a little bit more.
Rob, if you can pull up the shirt for some people that want to buy this shirt, we want to make sure we give a shout out to the folks that want to buy this shirt that James Comey was wearing with great marketers and we have to, as capitalists, if there's great shirts, we want to help contribute towards people buying these shirts.
This is James Comey's Instagram account in 20, I don't know what the exact timeline was.
This is on Instagram when he posted this.
The exact date is 2018 or something like that.
He posted this, Elect More Women.
I think that was Hillary Clinton's.
August of 2020.
There you go.
So that's that shirt.
But going back to Epstein, that is something people want to know.
That is something people want to know.
People want to know what's going on there.
Who's behind it?
So maybe let me ask the question a different way.
So you guys were both FBI agents.
If the FBI actually wanted to investigate and look into what happened with Epstein, ask former agents, how would you go about doing that to get the intel to find out exactly who was on the list?
Who did what?
Do we have enough information?
Do we have enough access to stuff where we could get that kind of stuff?
Who would you talk to?
Would you go to Jelaine?
What would be the procedures to learn more about what's going on with Epstein?
I think from what we do know, I mean, there's enough reasonable suspicion and probable cause on many people on that list where you can open at a minimum a preliminary investigation, which opens up some of the FBI's capabilities in investigating people.
And I think very rapidly you would be able to open most of those into a full investigation.
And then so the FBI is very powerful.
There are some wizards in the FBI when it comes to technology or investigating or just digging into a case to get as close to the truth as it can.
And the way the Epstein case has been treated and essentially brushed under the rug should be alarming to everyone because that should be as big of a case in the public sphere as any case that has been in the last 10 years at least, because of the type of people on that list and the type of bizarre things that have happened along the way.
Yeah.
But give me steps.
Like for what I'm looking for is the following.
So for example, I come and I say, listen, guys, here's what's going on.
I've had a person living in this house that I own for the last three years that paid rent for two years.
The last 12 months, they've not paid rent.
I'm trying to ask him to leave.
They're saying they don't have to leave.
Every time I go to the door, they don't even open a door.
They're doing this.
They're doing that.
The house is trash.
As a lawyer, what are my next steps on what to do?
You would say, step number one, we have to apply for this.
Step number two is we have to send this letter.
We have to document this.
You need to show this.
Do you have that?
Do we have to take pictures?
We have to send this to this person.
Within it, once we get this back from the city, I want to know steps.
So if right now, say Chris Ray changes and it's a new guy comes in, okay?
And you are now replacement for Chris Ray, minus the $9.2 million income that you made this year, you to make that money.
But you become the new Chris Ray, okay?
And one of your top things you want to find out about is parents in America have concerns with pedophilia, okay?
Child porn, all of that, which by the way, I think at one point I read an article in 2016, FBI was the biggest distributor of whatever access to child porn that they had.
There was some article that was written about that.
Rob, if you want to look for this, but say you have two things on your list.
One is child porn, getting to the bottom of who's doing that, okay?
And then the other one is Epstein.
How would you go about doing it if you are now Chris Ray today?
Well, I think that they have to avoid the temptation that they had with the Trump investigation where they look to headquarters and start a task force there for people who haven't investigated crime for a very long time.
I would get somebody like Garrett, who has no connection there, to do the work that he's been doing his whole career.
From the outside, not from the inside.
No, from the inside.
There are investigators who have experience, and there's some great investigators who know, that's all they've done for decades.
So I think staffing is number one.
You can't just say, well, this guy, you know, he's in charge of this division, so he must know what to do.
That's not how it works.
It has to be the guy who you don't know his name because he spent his entire career arresting bad guys.
Actually, functionally, what you would have to do is you'd have to either consider reopening the Epstein investigation or starting anew.
If it was my case, I'd be probably arranging for some sort of a proffer with Maxwell, where she'd be queen for a day and reveal what she could to me and then go off of there and start knocking on doors for the individuals she names because those are people that are in positions of power and influence.
They have a lot to lose.
They will want to cooperate fully with their own proffers if they can.
And you're just really going to have to, at the end of it, pick your snitch.
What would you do?
Similarly like that, I mean, I guess if it was handed to me and said, all right, your turn, take over, first would be a wide sweeping search of the FBI system on everything related to Epstein.
And this is how I always worked my cases anyways.
I would get all the background information or as much as possible that already existed in the FBI system.
And, you know, shockingly enough, there's a lot in the various type of systems that the FBI has.
And with a case like that, I mean, there's so many people involved.
So I would start, I'm certain the AFBI has some information.
Then I'm going to start going for each name, each name that's in the case, in the case file, no matter how thinly associated to it, I'm going to dive into each one of those to find out more what the FBI already knows.
And then once I have as much knowledge as I can about what has already been investigated, I'll go forward from there.
And I would imagine there's enough information to investigate more people involved, the prison where Epstein committed suicide and whatever else.
And then we have the overseas connections and the money too.
That's a big one.
Follow the money.
It's always money.
And Epstein is a money guy.
Most of what I know of the Epstein case came from MartyrMaid podcast.
He has done a really good long-form series on Epstein, three parts.
If people are interested in this case, listen to those.
It's, like I said, there's no coincidence in law enforcement.
The Epstein case is a primary example of that, going back historically to who he was, how he got started, his connections with the Clintons going forward to his death.
And so it's a big, there's a lot of meat on the bone with that one.
And so only knowing.
Okay.
And I'm sorry, go ahead.
Only knowing.
Only knowing what we know in the public sphere, I mean, that's one layer.
And so there's a lot more beneath that.
And do you have access to enough Intel, data, contacts, relationships that you could actually get to the bottom of what happened with Epstein?
If I had access to FBI assistance.
You are the director of FBI, and one of your top three issues was, I really want to find out what the hell happened with Epstein.
Do you have enough access to find out exactly what happened and come out with the intel on that?
Maybe not exactly what happened, but pretty dang close.
And how long would it take you to be able to give that report to the American people?
Case like that, I don't know.
I mean, it depends on how many people get brought in.
And I mean, and then also you're getting with finance, you have to do subpoena bank records, and there's a lapse in time there.
I think you could probably do a pretty good job in a year.
Pretty good job in a year.
Yeah.
Okay.
So within a year, you could get that intel to us.
Especially if you had, you know, I don't know, five really staunch case agents and an intel analyst or two, and that's all you worked on.
This is why he could never be a manager, because he wants to investigate perhaps the biggest, most important case in the country and says, I could do with five people.
If I had five people.
A manager would want 500.
That's true.
So, okay, let me ask another question.
So you guys are on the inside.
You've seen what's going on.
What do you think the FBI should be investigating today?
Like, if they were to truly do their job of what their job is for, that we as taxpayers pay them to do, what do you think are the top three things the FBI should be investigating today?
Top three.
I think fentanyl coming across the border.
I know we have the DEA, but FBI, that's a big part of what the FBI does because cartels and whatnot.
I think that's a big one because it actually impacts the American people everywhere.
Let's see, what else?
Election interference, actual investigating it.
The FBI, it's what one of our purview is, but I've not really seen much actual investigation in it.
Instead, the FBI is interfering with elections themselves.
So that's a problem.
And then third, probably gang violence and that type of thing, because that has only exploded more since COVID.
Really?
Gang violence has exploded.
It's gone up.
Okay.
So three, are you in the same top three as well as him?
I mean, I would put child pornography.
Oh, yeah.
Because you could assign every agent to child pornography all the time.
Let me fix my list.
I got to add that in because that's that rampant, is what you're saying.
Can you unpack that?
Like for some of us, we're not in your world.
We don't know how bad it is.
All we do is we either read about it or we don't read about it.
That's the one, right?
Yep.
2016, FBI ran a website sharing thousands of child porn images.
This is from USA Today.
This is the one I was talking about 2016.
Okay.
So the operations whose detail remain largely secret was at least the third time in recent years that FBI agents took control of a child pornography site but left it online in an attempt to catch users who officials said would otherwise remain hidden behind an encrypted and anonymous computer network.
In each case, the FBI infected the site with software that punctured that security, allowing agents to identify hundreds of users.
The Justice Department acknowledged in court filings that the FBI operated the site known as PlayPen, February 20th, March 4th, 2015.
At the time, the site had more than 215,000 registered users.
Wow.
It included links to more than 23,000 sexual explicit images and video of children, including more than 9,000 files that users used to download directly from the FBI.
Some of the images described in court filings involve children barely old enough for what?
Kindergarten.
The approach is a significant departure from the government's past tactics for battling online child porn, which is instructed that they should not allow images of child being sexually assaulted to become public.
The Justice Department has said that children depicted in such images are harmed each time they are viewed.
And once those images leave the government's control, agents have no way to prevent them from being copied and recopied to other parts of the internet.
So, okay, this irritates and frustrates a lot of different people.
All you have to do is be a parent.
You got four kids.
I don't know how many kids you have, two kids.
Boy, girl, what's the boys?
Okay.
I got four kids, boy, boy, girl, girl.
And as a father, you see this.
One, you're paranoid naturally.
The level of paranoia goes up the day you have a kid.
But why is there not a deeper investigation into issues like this?
I think, and he worked it, so he might be able to talk to it more.
But I think it goes back to what we were talking about with the stats.
The FBI seizes a site like this, and instead of shutting it down and trying to get into another site, which they can do, this says software, another way it can be done is if you catch someone who created such a site and now you give them a deal or turn them into a CHS and say, give us access, and then the FBI can take it over that way as well.
But instead of just shutting it down and moving on to the next one to try and shut down the next one, they leave it open so then they can get more users into the site so then they can slap them with possession of child porn instead of digging deeper.
This is where you need your good knuckle-dragging investigators who are out there doing the grunt work because, okay, yes, possessing child porn is horrible.
It's awful.
Yes, arrest those people when you can, but don't allow them to access a site that you're in control of so you can do it.
Go find the people who are producing that type of child porn and get them.
The users and possessors of it are going to be able to find it.
So yeah, it's like whack-a-mole when it comes to possession of it.
But allowing, seizing a site and allowing people to use it, I think goes to that stat padding and honestly goes to a particular type of evil that the FBI is participating in.
I think there's a cultural component to this that there's not a lot of appetite even from the public because it's so egregious and gross.
And nobody, we just want to think about it.
I want you to have your press conference where you put a dozen guns and a big pile of dope on the table and all the money and say, look, the FBI is doing a good job.
I can live with that as a citizen because good job, cops.
But if you start talking about images of six-month-old babies being sodomized, I've seen, that's not your reaction right there.
That's not going to be good for my image, even if I'm talking about putting it.
Who wouldn't want that job?
Like, I don't even want that visual.
I didn't want that.
What a freaking job.
But it is a necessary.
I'm going to stand the breach.
And I'm going to do that because it has to be done.
And we need to have our lawmakers have the courage to stand up and pass the laws that are necessary to actually punish these guys.
And look, the laws for federal child pornography creation, it's like 15 years for an image.
It's, I mean, significant.
Show me the lawmaker that is going to be a nay vote on capital charges for possessing or creating child pornography.
Who would be, though, left or right?
There's some judges that were arguing to lower the sentences because it's easier to access it than it used to be.
So you should be a lower.
That should be irrelevant.
Yeah.
What's the criminal profile of these types of people?
Obviously, this is absolute sickos, but is there some uniformity to actually who is watching this child perform?
I mean, for us, it was typically male, almost universally male.
I think I talked to some more experienced investigators than me, and it was, oh, I had one female.
It's that rare.
Predominantly male.
Family male.
Age, race, anything.
All over.
It's old, creepy, chest of the molester guy down to 18-year-old kid who's just starts on that path.
And I remember seeing this explanation for it once where he, I mean, you don't want to be sympathetic to this guy, but he explained it honestly.
And he said, look, when I was 13 years old, I liked the 13-year-old girls.
And then I was 15 years old and it just froze.
They got older, but I still liked the 13-year-old girls.
And then I was 17 years old, and then she was 13 years old.
And I was 20 years old, and she's still 13 years old.
He's like, my preference for women never advanced with my age.
And so you have these guys who are 18 that are dealing with that.
And then just all the way up the gambit.
And then it's very common to have the hands-on offenders that are trying to, they rationalize in their head, well, I'm not hurting a child.
I'm keeping these desires away by watching it.
So I'm okay.
And that's why you see all the time these guys, my theory is they have this red in their ledger that they feel so horrible about, which is why they're doing all this community engagement and they're a deacon in the church and they're a little league baseball coach.
I mean, they might be trying to actually find victims, but I think a lot of them just feel so bad about it that they think, I'm going to rack up as many wins as I can so this one blemish will be erased.
But universally, they all confess.
I mean, just because it's ones and zeros for one part, they know they're caught.
And then a lot of them just are honest and they don't have a criminal background beyond that.
That's it.
But it's every true.
Every time an image is shared, that child is a victim again and again.
It's always.
Horrible.
It's a terrible job to have.
Someone's got to do it.
It's like the job where in the military, you have to go tell the family your son has died.
Nobody wants that job.
It's the worst job.
And it has to be the right DNA wiring of a person with a gentle voice that comes in, that's understanding.
Imagine every day.
Today I have to do it to four people.
Today I have to do it to three people.
Today I have to do it.
Nobody wants a job.
Someone's got to do it.
Gentlemen, first of all, I applaud you guys for what you're doing.
It is not easy to be where you're at.
I don't think I speak for myself alone.
I think there's a lot of other people that don't trust what the FBI is up to, that they're wondering, we don't mind having an FBI if you actually do your job to protect us and get the bad guy, which is kind of what we think your job is.
And if you do that, we're okay with that.
We don't mind funding it.
And you're seeing nowadays where a DeSantis is talking about child rape is a death penalty, and that's actually creating momentum.
It's like, wait, actually, that kind of does make sense.
Why wouldn't you want something like that to somebody who's doing this?
And that's a topic of discussion for 2024 presidential election where they're talking about these types of things.
Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday allowing for the death penalty for child rapists, setting up a potential Supreme Court challenge, the bill which will become law October 1st, make sexual battery of a person under 12A capital crime.
Can you show the one with Newsom what he signed?
I just sent you the link on this one.
A new California law protecting pedophilia is vial.
This is a couple years ago.
A couple weeks ago, Governor Newsom signed a law that would allow judges to decide whether or not to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal with a minor.
This bill has been appalled, has appalled many as it should.
And yet some have failed to realize that it is simply meant to expand the discretion that was already granted to judges in the past.
You see stuff like this, and it's so extreme that you're like, yeah, this is not real.
This has got to be fake.
Now you can go Google this for yourself and do your own research as we're going through this stuff.
But folks, if you watch this with these two brave men, Garrett O'Boyle, as well as Steve Friend, who came out to share their ideas and thoughts in more of a long form where they can speak freely, I recommend you give this video, share it with others, and ask them, what are your thoughts on this?
Give it a sub, give it a thumbs up.
And at the same time, go to Steve Substack.
I think, Steve, you have a substack.
Corner, Garrett has a substack that's called lastline.substack.com.
That is his substack.
Let's put the link below for that.
And then, Steve, you have a book that's coming out, I believe, June 13th, True Blue, My Journey from Beat Cop to Suspended FBI Whistleblower.
That is coming out here June 13th in the next shy of two weeks.
Place the order.
Support these gentlemen as they're going through this phase right now.
And once again, fellas, thank you for your work.
Thank you for the sacrifice.
And I got a lot of respect for you guys for doing what you're doing.
We need more folks like you, and I'm sure more people are going to be from your background are going to be giving you guys more intel as you're sharing that with the rest of us.
We can kind of see that this is becoming normal for them to be held accountable because I think especially an institution that we pay their salaries, they need to be held accountable.
You and I are paying for them.
Once again, thank you so much for coming on to the podcast.
