All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 26, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:21:17
The Joe Kent "Wrap Up Smear" w/ Former FBI Kyle Seraphin! Canadian Tyranny w/ Veteran Jeff Evely!

Kyle on X: https://x.com/KyleSeraphin Jeff on X: https://x.com/JeffEvely SUPPORT VIVA! GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CRYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm For advertising inquiries please email [email protected] THAT IS ALL!

|

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, I have shaved and gone totally clean.
I'm just kidding.
This is Chase Hughes.
If you don't know him, you should know him with some amazing insights about what it means to be a potentially inadvertent, not a Patsy, but a tool, asset, or agent of the state.
Behold.
So when I'm saying like somebody's an operative or whatever word you want to use, they're not like walking around on their off time, pulling out their secret CIA ID card and badging into the main building.
That's not what happens.
Even if you go back to Project Mockingbird, they're just getting some talking points in a letter every once in a while.
They're just saying, oh, you know what?
Don't have this guy on your show or don't allow this to be spoken about on your show.
Or if they talk about this, you're going to cut it out.
Just simple things like that, some very basic instructions.
And the way that somebody like a Gen Z person might get recruited is, let's just use you as an example.
Somebody comes up and says, hey, man, I love your podcast.
Yada, yada.
They're in a restaurant, a bar, whatever.
And they say, I have a serious question for you, though.
Are you a patriot?
Would you consider yourself a patriot?
Now I've got you locked into identity, right?
And then I say, well, I have an offer for you.
But before I show you anything, I just want you to say, yes or no.
Would you be willing to entertain the offer and look at what I have?
And it might be uncomfortable.
Would you be willing to look at it?
Sure.
Yep.
Stage one is I show you all of your browsing history.
Uh-oh.
Captures from your webcams on all of your phones and computers of you doing the most compromising shit you could ever possibly imagine.
Every bad thing you've ever done recorded in some way.
Gotta pause it there.
Gotta pause it there.
Embarrassing and bad are two different things, but this is an amazing tactic that Chase Hughes is describing.
I'll let it play.
I like your podcast.
I think you're doing a great job.
And I want to protect you.
And I want to keep all this from the public eye.
But we also want to give you $20,000 a month.
So now you feel like you chose all of this.
So you walk away not feeling like I shoved this in your face.
Well, I pause.
I would feel that I'm attempting, that they're trying to blackmail me, extort me, and intimidate.
I don't think, but I'm a little bit more neurotic than most.
And I would A, see through this and B, view it as exactly what it is.
This is how the massage of extortion works.
This never happened to me, which means I'm either not important enough or they've seen my search history and don't care.
For those of you who don't know, by the way, Chase Hughes, he's been on the channel, behavior panel, amazing, retired U.S. veteran at 20 years.
He's not on the channel today.
I just wanted to start with this.
We've got Kyle Seraphin coming on.
And then at four o'clock, we've got Jeff Evelyn with an update from the Madness in Canada.
But he wrote a book.
I think he's the one who wrote the book, Six Minute Body Scan or something along those lines, ellipsis manual, behavioral ops.
He's amazing.
And everybody should listen to what he has to say.
I told you it was going to be stressful and you agreed to it and you agreed that you're a patriot and all the other agreements.
And now you're, if you say yes, the reason that you're doing this on your podcast is for your country because you're not going to call yourself compromised.
We have this thing called cognitive dissonance that keeps our brain from thinking I'm a bad person.
So now, even though you're being asked to silence people, not have certain people on the show, leave something out of your podcast, you're telling yourself and this, whoever's your handler, is telling you this is for the greater good.
Well, I'll play it out of the way.
You kept Americans safe by doing that.
And you'll tell yourself that.
I always tell my kids this, that the easiest person on earth to lie to is yourself.
And what Chase Hughes is describing there is something that, on the one hand, probably is ubiquitous in that it exists everywhere, not with everybody, but it exists in all walks of life in all fields of politics and intelligence.
And it's almost a little more insidious than what Chase is describing there in that sometimes they don't come to you and say, we've got everything that's on your computer and you're going to be very embarrassed.
And here's $20,000 and just play along.
Sometimes it's more insidious in that it's implicit.
If you say anything bad about us, you don't get invites anymore.
You don't get access anymore.
And that is how they buy off people's influence without actually having to exchange any currency because it's not the state that's exchanging the currency.
It's not actors.
It's the monetization of access that people have.
And the second they are critical, the second they call it like they see it, not as they want it, well, then they lose that access and then they no longer are denied cash from the person who was never paying them in the first place.
They lose access that they were subsequently monetizing to justify what they're doing.
So they give favorable coverage and they tell the line and they justify to themselves and say, well, I believe this anyhow.
And, you know, it's better to play ball and have access than to be honest and potentially lose that access.
This was a long-winded segue, not to say that I'm describing Kyle Serafin or myself for that matter, who has no privileged access and does not say anything that I don't truly fundamentally believe,
even if it gets me in trouble or makes some people unhappy.
And we're going to talk about a few of these things today because I had on Steve Baker, the Blaze journalist who broke some amazing news that is not favorable to an administration that we all need to succeed.
And people say, Viva, if you say the administration needs to succeed, then you need to support them at all costs.
That's not success.
And that doesn't work.
That is, in fact, what gets administrations defeated come election time because you can't treat everybody like they're stupid, dishonest, and don't have access to the truth or have two eyes on their face.
And so Steve Baker broke some news and I want to talk about the following from that with Kyle Serafin, who's also ex-FBI, although some of you say no one's ever ex-FBI, no one's ever ex-intelligence.
And I also want to talk to him about an exchange that we've been having on the interwebs about the Charlie Kirk assassination, the trial coming up in Tyler Robinson, and what I believe to be an orchestrated smear campaign against Joe Kent.
And I say orchestrated smear campaign in the sense that it's about as organic or it doesn't have a direct head and a direct leader pulling the strings as what Chase Hughes was describing to open this show.
People get access.
People know they lose access if they don't toast certain lines.
And also, high school never ends.
It just gets bigger.
People want to be on the winning team and know a mob when they see it and want to be on the right side of that mob.
So without further ado, everybody, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
My full name is David Fryhead.
I love when people say on Twitter, idiots who are either stupid or new to the channel or don't know how to use freaking Google.
Why do you hide behind an anonymous avatar?
Morons.
Sorry, now I sound like Judge Judy.
Morons.
This is the afternoon show, three o'clock daily on Rumble.
And we have guests.
I cover the news.
We cover legal stuffs and we cover important stuffs, as we're going to do today.
Kyle Serafin.
Whenever you're ready, Kyle, come on in.
I hated high school.
Dude, I went to three high schools in five years.
I hated high school.
High school hated me.
And when I got out, it was the greatest exodus of my life.
Kyle, sir, how goes the battle?
It goes.
It continues to go.
You're going to have to tell me if I'm coming in too hot on you guys, too.
I'm going to find out on our locals page.
Is that audio good?
Kyle, 30,000 foot.
Everybody knows who you are by now, but just in the event that they don't.
Former FBI whistleblower under Biden, reprisals under Biden, never made whole under Trump.
And you've got an axe to grind with the current FBI leadership.
I have a ask to grind with the government, period.
It's not specific to the FBI's leadership, although that's my area of expertise.
My issue is that I want smaller government.
I want government that's accountable to the people.
I want non-weaponized government.
And I want a government that knows that its mission is to serve the people that paid their bills.
And I don't think that happens.
So I don't really care who's in charge because you can't do reform with the same people.
And you can't tell me that you fix something when 99% of the same people work there.
You are a very vocal critic, I would dare say.
You're not a vocal.
Not even nice.
Yeah.
Can I tell you something really funny about that?
Please.
I had a meeting with DOJ because I have an ongoing lawsuit with them.
If I may, I'm going to cut you off just so you explain the nature of the lawsuit if you're allowed to, because I think people need to understand what's going on.
Yeah, I have sued the, I've sued the DOJ proper.
We did it while Chris Ray was in charge and while Merrick Garland was there, but it's continued on under Bondi and Patel.
By the way, I had one ask of Kash Patel when I was helping him get into the office and I was helping him get in and I have the text message to show it.
But I said, look, I don't want anything from you.
I don't want to work for the government ever again.
I don't like working for the government anymore.
I don't believe in the government.
I don't actually want it anywhere near as big as it is.
If you want to do something solid for me, settle our lawsuit on reasonable terms for everybody because we're right.
And it's not even debatable.
Like it's black letter law and I'll take it in front of a jury if I have to.
The law was suing over the religious discriminations that took place under COVID.
And so these were Biden-era policies.
And my three claims are the biggest is constructive termination.
So loss of job, loss of pension, loss of future, employment, et cetera.
The second one underneath that is a failure to accommodate under the mask and testing policy.
DOJ wanted us to wear masks everywhere, even though everyone could get COVID.
And they wanted us to test for COVID every 72 hours, even if we didn't get the vaccine shots, which I didn't.
And then the last one was a disparate impact claim, which is that even though they weren't potentially maybe trying to go after Christians, those were the people who were affected.
It was Christians who said that we had a religious problem with the vaccines as they were.
And just so everybody understands, constructive termination, constructive dismissal, they changed the terms of your employment in the course of the employment to terms that cause you to need to leave.
And instead of firing you, they changed the nature of your work enough that they make you leave and then say, we didn't fire you.
And that, I presume, was by mandating the jab.
No, no, it was actually worse than that.
They told me I couldn't come back into work under any circumstances unless I did what they said and they stopped paying me for 14 months.
So I would say I was constructively terminated when they stopped paying me.
They called it suspension, but it wasn't a suspension.
It was termination.
Unpaid leave is called fire.
It's even worse because I presume you might still be under some form of a contract where you're not at liberty to do certain things.
So in addition to not being paid, you're still constrained by certain elements of a contract.
I presume, but maybe I'm wrong.
No, that was the case under their terms.
They gave me this weird thing where they suspended me forever.
Then they wrote in the next letter they gave me that I had been removed of all my duties and responsibilities as an FBI agent.
But then they also made demands on like what I could and couldn't say and whether or not I could get other employment outside of it.
So I actually started launching the podcast while I was a forever suspended FBI agent, which is kind of the weirdest part of all of it.
And then they came at me and they gave me a list of like 14 grievances to include felony charges.
They said I was in misdemeanor violation of federal law using an upside down badge and the seal of the FBI, which is public property.
It's owned by the federal government, which means we own it.
And I used it in like a wrecking ball that was smashing into an American flag brick wall.
And they said that was a misdemeanor.
They also said that I was in felony violation of tax statute that I had built a suppressor, which I actually ordered.
It was like the precursors to a suppressor and I sent it to the FBI's field office so we could look at it and have a discussion about whether or not it was a dangerous thing for CT.
It went to the FBI's office.
The ATF came to my house.
They never found it because I didn't have it.
And then they were like, oh, you're a felony tax evader.
By the way, they've removed that tax since then.
So that's even funnier.
But anyway, like they basically came at me with everything.
And I said, you know, I'm not, and they were doing it under the guise of an internal investigation because I was still an employee who hadn't been paid in 14 months.
And so at the end of it all, threatening me with felony investigation, you know, arrest, they ended up going and doing another series of grand jury subpoenas for all my emails and my text messages, my Gmail, my social media DMs and so on.
And they grabbed all that stuff.
under the guise that I was an employee, even though I wasn't, and I never had social media while I was legitimately an FBI employee.
I would say that the day that I went to talk to Dan Bongino publicly and I outed who I was and said my name, and that was in September of 2022, that was a pretty public breakup with the Bureau.
They considered me an employee all the way until April of 23, even though they didn't pay me from June 1st of 2022 until April of 2023.
And they didn't pay me, by the way, for like November, December, January, February of 22 as well.
Anyway, it's a mess, but like all of that is to say, I met with this guy from DOJ.
This is the setup to it.
And this is the lawsuit.
And when I met with this guy, he's one of the top litigators for DOJ in the civil rights area.
And I'm not going to say much more about it.
Really productive meeting, really nice guy.
And at the end of it, he shook my hand.
He said, it was really nice to meet you.
People told me that I wouldn't like you when we met in person.
And I go, which people?
And he goes, oh, it doesn't matter.
And obviously he wasn't going to say.
And he goes, but I'm glad I got to meet you.
And I'm like, yeah, well, this is who I am.
The person that you see on Twitter is not the human being that sits behind the microphone and speaks on a podcast every day.
And I think I'm a pretty reasonable person.
And everybody I meet who thinks some sort of like preconceived notion about it, if you sat next to me, I'm a father, I'm a husband, we have all those things in common.
I'm an American.
I'm a military veteran.
I was a paramedic.
I did like, I used to work with my hands.
I served restaurant tables for years.
I managed restaurants.
I've done all these regular jobs.
And that was distinctly different from a lot of the people I've met in the FBI.
So when I would go out, I used to do sales too as well.
So when I would go out and meet people and try to get them to share information with me, they'd always tell me, you're not what I expected when I met a Fed.
And I'm like, oh, they're a bunch of effing nerds.
And then we would all laugh, except the person that was with me, that was a Fed.
And then they would like look at their shoes and not know what to say because it is funny.
Like a lot of the people that work in that space are not very personable.
And you seem to find a lot of FBI agents that are basically cleaved one of two ways, people who deal with regular people and you'd meet them and you'd like them.
And then like the people that you think are there, which are like nerdy, elitist assholes who don't understand that the mission that they're doing is actually a service mission.
So anyway, that's what it is.
And so you met with the DOJ.
I don't, I don't want to pry into the state of negotiations.
The current DOJ, I don't know how Pan Bondi is still there, but she is and the current FBI have not yet remedied, righted the wrong that the past prior FBI inflicted on you and other whistleblowers.
That's correct.
Yeah.
And not just whistleblowers, but also, you know, other members who still work for the FBI.
I mean, there's people there that are still, that were aggrieved and were damaged by the things that were done.
And so, yeah, it's still an ongoing problem.
I think it's more positive than it has been.
And I'm willing to say when they do a good job and if they actually end up meeting on some reasonable terms and we can close this chapter, I'll be grateful and I'll say it publicly and people will hear it.
But I'm not going to stop criticizing things that are problematic.
And those are not necessarily the same groups of people.
And I think that the ongoing discussion about FISA 702, which is now being debated again, and we're hearing Donald Trump suddenly switch sides.
That's super scary to me, by the way, to have a man who is a victim of FISA say he wants to pass a clean FISA.
It should be eliminated.
And I will, that was one of my whistleblower disclosures to Congress under, you know, when Jim Jordan was running the weaponization as opposition party.
And maybe that goes to my broader thing.
David, I think MAGA is just really good as an opposition party.
They really like to be the people that complain about what's going on as long as they don't have the ability to fix it.
Because when they get in, we recognize very quickly that the blob is the blob, government is government, the status quo is basically undefeated.
And so you end up seeing very little of the reform that many of us hoped.
And I think that's a disillusionment that people who put on the MAGA hat.
I'm not one of those guys, but I understand what you voted for and I understand why.
And I voted for Donald Trump two out of the three times.
And the third time I didn't vote for Hillary, I'd vote for Gary Johnson.
So take that for whatever it's worth.
I'm not the enemy of a MAGA person.
I think I wanted more of what MAGA was promised.
And I'm more disappointed because I sit way to the right of where MAGA is.
Like I'm far more to that.
I don't like, I'd be fine if women couldn't vote.
And my wife and I make a joke about it regularly.
And when I tell her to go vote, she asks me who to vote for.
And we kind of have this discussion, what our household is behind.
She's like, not looking into the candidates.
It's what I do for a living now.
And then at the end of it, she was like, don't you think women shouldn't even vote?
I'm like, as long as we're playing the game, we better play by the rules that are there.
So go get your vote in, lady.
Get your ass out of here.
And I'll, you know, I'll take over the kids.
I mean, that's how far to the right we are.
We're a very traditional household.
We have one income.
We've always had one income ever since we had kids.
So, you know, I'm not MAGA's enemy.
And I did want Donald Trump to succeed.
I'm really disappointed with where they're at right now.
It is wild.
And you're disappointed from a very personal and a very monetarily affected perspective in that this administration was supposed to right the wrongs of the past and not leave them alone or continue to pursue them.
And at the very least, as relates to your lawsuit, which the more they drag it on, that is insult to injury and additional injury to injury.
If it ends well, it ends well.
But for the time being, that hasn't ended.
And that might explain a few things to others as relates to your perspective to the players here.
I mean, I told the DOJ guy, the representative from DOJ, and I said it to both him and to someone who was even, I think, more ranking or more accessed.
I said something really simple.
I was like, look, when the FBI came after my family, which is what they did, when they threw me out and I had to sell my home and my kids left their childhood home and, you know, I stopped having a career.
We stopped.
Like, I did over 10 years of service to the federal government and various military and civilian service.
So you broke faith with me.
And a lot of people at the table that we were sitting at agreed, but that was the issue.
And when you break faith with somebody, when you betray the trust of somebody, I was like, I took it personally and I'm going to take it personally.
And I made myself a promise.
I promised God, my wife, and then myself that every day I wake up, I'm going to put my feet on the floor.
And the first thing I'm going to do is look for the injustice that this agency did.
And I'm going to be their enemy for the next 50 years.
So I've got a lot of those years left still.
It's 40, 46 years left.
That's what's going to happen.
And so anyway, yeah, it's personal, but I also see that as a, that's my job as a dad looking at looking at a country where my kids are going to inherit a crappier United States than I grew up in, which sucks.
It's absolutely, it's the worst.
Like nobody wants to see, I grew up in the 80s and the 90s, and America was the good guy.
And like, we're not even able to claim that at home anymore to most people.
So they took that from us.
All of us.
You mentioned the disillusionment or disenfranchisement with what they call the MAGA movement.
And look, I lived through it and I'm having these debates with people in real time now where they're saying, if you support Trump, you're going to support the things that you specifically did not, policies that you specifically did not support in 2024 during the election.
And like what we're seeing right now, the word betrayal is a very heavy word, but what we're seeing now is not in line with what we thought was going to happen.
It's not consistent with set aside the war, Iran, regime change.
There has been no deep state accountability at all, whatsoever, period.
The Epstein files was a massive debacle.
And for people to say, because it is better than the alternative, and it is, I don't think anybody would deny that it is better than the alternative.
At some point, people might start saying, well, I'm not so sure anymore.
I'm not there yet.
I don't think anybody, most reasonable people are.
But they have not done the basics.
And then what's going to get into the perfect segue, they haven't done the basics either because they don't know how to or because they can't or worse still because they don't want to.
Yeah, I think it's all those actually at once.
I'm not sure they're able to.
I'm not sure they're willing to.
And It's such a damning indictment because, as has been said by other commentators, like we outsourced the violent revolution that was being, that was brewing in the United States in 2024.
If people don't remember the attitude, it was semi-revolutionary.
You had guys like Vivek Ramaswamy talking about a moment, a 1776 moment.
That's a violent moment for anybody who doesn't know what that means in America.
It's freaking violent.
That's what it's saying.
I wouldn't say I'm a pacifist.
I would only engage in conflict when absolutely necessary.
On July 13, when many of us thought Trump might have just gotten killed, I was like, oh, this is, I will sign up for whatever front mobilizes after this, if he's in fact killed.
Like, that's why I said, like, I'm Canadian, not a citizen yet.
I would have signed up at that point in time.
And then we go from that and the fight, fight, fight to we're now going into the midterms and then nothing's been done.
The very institutions that led to that moment still intact.
The very people that are responsible for everything that we witnessed from 2016 and earlier to 2025 and later are still there.
And then people say, well, get on board and pretend that it's all hunky-dory as though that's going to win midterms and future elections.
It's so simple.
Steve Baker, who's my friend and your friend and came on your program, was it yesterday or the day before?
Day before.
He brought up something that people should understand.
99% of the FBI that did the things that you would be upset about if you're listening to this program and you have any sort of inkling, libertarianism or conservatism, if that affects you, those people still work there.
Okay.
The people who arrested the Proud Boys, they still work there.
The overwhelming number of people who investigated the J Sixers and moved those cases along and the supervisors that approved every serial and every interview, those people still work there.
The woman who prosecuted Michael Flynn, the Proud Boys, the Jan Sixers, Jocelyn Ballantyne, is still there.
And then you bring it up and you say, how the hell can that be?
And then people who are, I don't want to say drinking the Kool-Aid, but they've got to convince themselves that, you know, they have to go along with it.
They say, oh, well, they need her now because she's, you know, she's a corrupt prosecutor and we need a bad prosecutor right now to go after our enemies when A, that's not how it works anyhow.
But B, she's not even doing that.
She's still going after an autistic 30-year-old kid who they're framing for the pipe bombing.
So 99% of the people who are part of the persecution that we've been raging against for the last decade are still there.
Right.
Now, here's where the real problem comes in.
The people that are attempting to do the reform that you, you as a Trump voter, if you're listening, wanted.
And by the way, I wanted to.
The Tulsi Gabbards, who I will tell you with no reservations, was my most skeptical member of Trump's administration, bar none.
When she was being named, I was like, what is this big tent bullshit?
And why are you bringing on this leftist, you know, Democrat presidential candidate, you know, faker, anti-gun chick?
What are you bringing on?
She's pretty and she's well-spoken.
And that's good enough for you guys.
You have no principles whatsoever.
And they were bringing her on.
And I was 100% skeptical is the nice word to say about Tulsi Gabbard.
And she's gone out and done the mission more than anybody else.
And I'm going to tell you why I think it is.
And I did read her sub stack that she posted.
And if you have never read it, read it.
It explains her differential.
Listen, I'm open to conversions and I'm happy to see someone do a conversion.
There's plenty of people that do.
Usually the answer is if you convert to a movement where other people were already there and they understood it, shut the F up and listen and learn what they have already known for years and what they've been discovering.
Tulsi Gabbard might be one of the few people who I'm not as mad at because one, she's walked the walk and two, she did the same thing that she experienced the same thing that I did, which is that she served the country for a long time, longer than me.
She might have showed up for political reasons.
And I think that's actually probably well documented that she joined the National Guard and there was a political benefit to it.
But when the mom, when the minutes counted, when the ships were down, they came after her under the Biden administration.
They terrorists watchlisted her and they specifically decided to make an enemy of her because she parted ways as a dissident in her own party and she was separated.
And that is a very clearing moment.
I didn't think the FBI was my enemy when I worked there, but I always thought the FBI was like potentially problematic.
I didn't think it was a good place, but I thought it might be a necessary evil.
And if you listen to FBI agents who work there today, and I did this just a couple of days ago, I sat at a table with people who look at the agency, even retired agents, and they go, it's a necessary evil.
And I go, no, it's not, because you've never actually seen what happens when it mobilizes against you.
And I have.
Tulsi Gabbard got to see what happens when the federal government, the weaponization actually happens.
And there's a reason why she has eliminated more people in her purview under ODNI than is common.
And also, it turns out that ODNI oversees the 18 or so intelligence agencies in the United States, and they are overwhelmingly against the agenda that you guys think that you voted for.
They are the ones who represent the positions of the deep state, if you want to call it that, the administrative state, the bureaucratic static.
You know, it's the, it's the, the, the, the blob, as Mike Benz calls it.
Like it's there.
And so when we see that somebody experiences it, by the way, I reached out to Joe Kent.
I don't have a lot of experience with Joe Kent, but I know a little bit about his professionalism.
And he has access to me and he's followed me on Twitter for a long time.
We never really had any interchanges.
And I got his phone.
I don't know why I have his phone number.
Somebody gave it to me, or maybe we interacted.
I think I did.
I think I said, I have some information for you about January 6th and some other things.
And he said, oh, by the way, if you ever want to reach out directly, here it is.
So we had a connection.
And the only time I've ever used it was when I found out that the TSA administrators who personally were responsible for approving Tulsi Gabbard on the watch list, you can imagine the higher the profile of the person, the more approval you need.
The individual administrator at TSA that agreed to watchlist Tulsi Gabbard was up for a bonus in October, I want to say, or September of last year.
Maybe it was like November.
I don't know.
It was somewhere in the last couple of months.
A $40,000 senior executive service bonus for continuing on his federal employment because he still works there.
Okay.
They haven't fired the guy that watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard at DHS.
And so I passed that name and information because I had a whistleblower reach out to me and say, by the way, this guy is the guy who did it.
Here's where he's at.
And I said, Joe Kent, you know, do you want to know this?
He said, send me some info.
I did.
He said, thank you very much.
And my response was, you know, no expectation of any information coming back or any actions.
All I want to know is that I passed you the information, you received it.
And so his Roger that was good enough for me.
He was very professional.
It was like, here's some information that you may not have.
He wanted to know more about it, which is an investigative sort of personality.
That's a general curiosity.
And then it was like, cool.
Now it was operational.
It was out of my hands.
I wasn't entitled anymore.
And I got no more information back.
That was the last of our conversations.
It seems keeping a lot of bad people around.
Well, it's the treatment of Tulsi highlights one thing that in a cult, and this applies to everybody, you know, enemies are not to be trusted, but apostates are to be punished and excommunicated.
And she was an apostate and they went after her much in the same way that some apostates on the other side of the political aisle right now are being tormented and ruthlessly abused and excommunicated.
But one of them, I don't know if I would call Steve Baker the apostate, but they've come down on Steve Baker with the full force of everything they have.
And when we talk about the bad players still being there in the FBI in particular, the bombshell that Steve mentioned the day before yesterday, as at the, you know, as of now, what day is it?
It's March 26th, is that when he was investigating the pipe bomber story, because of all of the bad players who were still at the FBI, they hadn't been purged, expunged, excommunicated.
He didn't want to take any of his information to the FBI.
So he took it to ODNI and gave it to them, information which the ODNI didn't have.
And the news now that's being leaked to the press, I presume it's coming from sources within the FBI or sources familiar, are trying to paint Joe Kent as a leaker of information from the ODA and I to Steve Baker,
which is a lie and in fact the inversion of the truth.
Is that effectively now have digested that element of the story?
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And the funny thing is they're dead giveaways.
Three sources familiar with the matter.
I just want you to consider this audience.
Just let's do this little thought exercise, please.
Okay.
Because when Steve Baker came on here two days ago, he said that at 9.30 at night, I just listened to this interview again the other way.
At 9.30 at night, a Daily Wire reporter called him up and said, I had three independent sources from the intelligence community say that you're the person that Joe Kent leaked information to, including the classified technology.
And we want to comment.
By the way, this is the setup for the hit piece.
I'd like to talk to you.
I got some information and you're implicated.
That's how these things go.
By the way, I did an anatomy of the hit piece story.
If you guys want to go to the end of my Friday podcast, which is available on Rumble, it's available on YouTube and so on.
You guys can go listen to it.
I taped John Solomon of Just the News and his reporter called me with the exact same bullshit story.
Not about that.
It was about a different bullshit story.
It was a made-up story that was exactly the opposite of truth.
And they got information and they were asked by Kash Patel, which I have him on tape admitting, that they were going to do a hit piece because of the effectiveness of my criticisms of the FBI.
And they said, hey, we have this information and we'd like you to comment on it.
And when you're Steve Baker and you know, you did the right thing and you have all the information, or you're Kyle Serafin and you know all the information because you were physically there and the implications that they're making are so ridiculous and out of line.
It's like Steve said, they accused him of bringing technology that ODNI doesn't even have, that they don't even have over at the NCTC.
So how could you, how could you claim that he was given class of eight technology when the place doesn't even have the original, like the originating place doesn't have it?
And so for the same reason, they accused me of shooting at somebody.
And I said, you know how I know it didn't happen?
Because I'm sitting here talking to you on the freaking phone and I'm not in federal prison, you dumb.
Like it's the dumbest thing you've ever heard.
But these are called whisper campaigns.
And then allow the audience to do this thought process.
Okay.
Imagine you're the Daily Wire reporter and you get a phone call from an intelligence community source saying, hey, by the way, Steve Baker, a little tip for you.
Steve Baker, you've gotten tips, right?
Right, David?
People will give you tips.
Yeah, I err on the side of they're all crazy and I very, very rarely get back to anybody.
Any tips that I receive.
That's fair.
I get tips from people that work in the federal government and I also am very suspicious of them.
I'm very suspicious, but you know what I never get?
Three people from independent agencies reaching out on the same day to tell me the same piece of information.
That's called an information op.
And if you are so unsophisticated that you run with that story, that means that you are exactly what Chase Hughes talked about.
You're freaking compromised and you have to run that story.
That's why you made that call.
It's the wrap-up smear, how they do it, and the useful tools who are the useful ones who post it.
And then the typical useful tools who repost it and share it and amplify the wrap-up smear.
And so they, and then this is coming back to the fact that, you know, enemies are not to be trusted, but apostates are to be punished.
And Joe Kent right now is an apostate to the administration.
And so they're coming out with this smear campaign.
And I, Steve Baker was quite clear.
He can only attest to this aspect of it, whether or not Joe Kent received and divulged classified or confidential information from Andrew Colvey or others.
Nobody, we can't talk to him.
Andrew Colve can't give classified information because he doesn't work for the government.
So anything that he has, any of his text messages or any of these allegations, which by the way, I don't know who else he shared them with.
And he was really light on details and that's why I gave it to one person.
Why did you take the screenshots then?
That's what I've been asking in terms of, you know, people are, again, running the lie, which is Andrew Colve said I gave it to Joe Kent and only Joe Kent.
And I'm like, no, I listened to that clip.
I listened.
He said Joe Kent.
He specifically did not mention whether or not he gave it to anybody else.
I presume he had to have given it at the very least to investigators.
And in which case, you've got the entire FBI with it right now.
And what would they want?
Let's add to that too.
Has anybody substantiated?
And this is going to go to something we're going to talk about in a second.
Has anybody substantiated that the screenshots that are alleged to have been leaked to Candace are the same metadata and screenshots that were coming off Andrew's phone?
Because I don't know that that's true.
They may have the same content, but the same content can be shared by anybody that was in the chat group.
And by the way, everybody in that chat group has the opportunity and the ability to share it because there's nothing classified about a freaking chat group with Charlie Kirk and his friends.
Nothing.
It's not even protected.
No, for sure, but people are going to say classified versus confidential is one thing.
Michael, no, no, no, no.
There's nothing like, listen, classified is a category of information and it is broken down into confidential, which is actually a classification, then secret, and then top secret.
So to say that something is confidential, you have to decide whether you mean it is U.S. government stamped confidential or you're saying that it is just, it is personal and confidential, which is a different thing.
And that's not, that's not protected.
They're not attorneys.
They're discussing it with their clients.
So again, this is easily shared and who cares?
This is like a, that would be a breach of personal trust, potentially, with a guy that, you know, is now running around with Charlie Kirk's show's name underneath his banner.
I have the feeling everybody's using the confidential or even classified in the colloquial informal private.
And he shared private stuff with Candace and whatever.
My issue is, on the one hand, and I think I've asked basically publicly is, you know, can Andrew confirm who else, if anybody, he gave it to?
If anybody else gave it to anybody else, I presume investigators have to have that information.
And if your goal is to come out and smear Joe Kent, I'm not saying they did it or have done it, but it has been done in the past.
Well, then you would leak it.
And then you would blame it on Joe Kent, have someone within some investigative bureau who has access to all this, leak it to somebody who knows Candace is going to get it.
And so you can say, oh, I didn't, I didn't say Joe Kent was the one who gave it, but I gave it to Joe Kent, not specifying if anybody gave it to anybody else.
And so it's the perfect setup for the wrap-ups on Joe Kent.
And so this journalist from what was the, what was the Daily Wire.
Daily Wire calls up Steve Baker and says, I've got three sources telling me that Joe Kent leaked you classified information.
And Steve Baker's like, I'm the one who gave it to them.
And what he said, which blew my mind as well, I gave it to ODNI because nobody trusts this FBI.
Still, and that's open secret.
And the reason why is because the FBI demolished its own credibility.
And I have a little bit to do with that over the things that I've been saying, which I've been saying for years now.
And I said them when Joe Biden was president and I'm happy to do it.
And when Chris Ray was in charge, and I'm happy to do it when it's not Chris Ray in charge, I don't really care.
Kash Patel didn't keep the promises that he made to me that he was going to fix the animal that was broken.
What he did is he's reaffirmed that he's basically a man for that agency.
He's defended that agency.
He made that clear within the first week of being at that agency and he did not enact the reforms that needed to be done.
So that same FBI is going to come for him next.
And that's really obvious to me.
Like this is like playing for keeps and acting like you somehow, just by just by virtue of having the ball means you've won the game.
And these people are going to come for Donald Trump and his family.
They're going to come for your audience.
They're going to come for you and me in some level over the next whatever number of years, because this was a generational opportunity to fix an incredibly dangerous animal.
And it didn't get done.
It's not getting done.
And so my complaining is like, do it.
Do more of what you said you were going to do.
Guys, this is not like a this is not some kind of fun game.
And if we lose it, then we all shake hands and get beers after the end of it.
This isn't, this is playing for keeps.
The other team plays for keeps.
They don't tend to miss.
They've already tried to kill Donald Trump once, they being whoever it is that thinks that's acceptable.
And by the way, the answer that you got from this FBI and from this Secret Service is that there's nothing to see here.
Move along.
Wouldn't I tell you if there was Dan Bongino?
That is, that should be credibility destroying.
And it in fact is, but it should be, it should be devastating for people to go, there's obviously more to it.
Ducker Carlson was the one.
Think about why he's on the shit show radar.
Why is he on the shit list?
I mean, what did he do?
He proved that they were lying about Butler.
He said there's a lot more to it.
He had an online history.
You guys claimed he had none, right?
There are a lot of things that we can demonstrably prove.
We have Kash Patel saying under oath that there was no client list and that Epstein trafficked to no one.
And yet somehow he must have because he was being investigated for child trafficking.
And you know what we don't see?
We don't see any of the counterintelligence investigations, the prohibitive access files, or the things that are meant to be disclosed under law.
They've showed us at every turn that the people who are in charge are not the people whose names are on the door or whose names are on the top of the stationary.
They're just not.
This is my theory.
If it ever calls it a prediction or just call it a possibility, if it ever comes to fruition, remember this day and snip this clip.
That Kash Patel has already been set up to take the fall when they decide it's his turn.
And that probably very well will be the January 6th pipe bomber.
And they're going to say if that case blows up, if that case blows up, Kash Patel is done for.
And when it's not if.
Look, I'm very confident in that too.
And I think you probably are.
You could be cautious.
I won't be.
When it blows up, because there's so much information, and we covered more of it on my podcast yesterday with Steve.
How about this one, for example?
A man named Marshall Yates, who was Tom Massey's lead investigator on the pipe bomb.
And you wonder why is someone who works for Massey so interested in that particular topic?
It turns out that on video, Steve and his video investigators are able to cooperate that Marshall Yates, former staffer for Tom Massey, physically walked face past face of the pipe bomber on the night of January 5th, 2021.
Okay.
We had an eyewitness to that pipe bomber.
And Marshall Yates, who has been involved in the investigation for years, most likely was the person that went to Barry Laudermilk and said that it was a white male.
Which you would easily believe that the previous person that was called out by Steve Baker, you definitely believe that that could have been a male, just by stature and by appearance.
In fact, when I saw it, I was like, that's a dude.
What are you doing?
So, long and short, the person who was Tom Massey's chief and lead investigator believed it was a white male, who also, by the way, was a marathon runner, a private conversation that he had with Steve Baker over many, many hours of looking at video and talking and discussing this issue.
And then that man went from being at Tom Massey's office to being the assistant director of congressional affairs for the FBI with zero qualifications to do that, had no business being there.
And by the way, he since left in about a year.
He's left and he's apparently in his late 30s going to spend more time with family.
That's his excuse for leaving.
The only problem is that his wife works for the freaking FBI.
Okay.
And he's going to go spend more time with family while his wife is working for the Bureau.
It's totally illogical.
The number of these little things that keep popping up.
They knew it was a white person that was the bomber.
They knew this person was five foot seven.
We know that Brian Cole is not.
There's all these problems, shoe size, and so on.
It's like it's going to blow up.
The question is, how bad will the fallout be?
It should be fatal for Bondi, for Piero, for Kash Patel, and probably for Dan Bongino, even after he's left.
Well, they must know what the story is.
This is the one lingering question that I've always had, and there's been no good answer: is why the FBI or intelligence, whomever, has only released the highly pixelated, reduced frame rate.
Like, I'm to believe that in the hundreds of or thousands of hours of video footage of all the cameras, they can't tell me if the person's white or black.
I mean, I believe that, I believe that it's demonstrable somewhere in there, but we have now is pixelated, like, you know, two-bit graphics coming out of it.
And there's no, there's been no good explanation for why.
Let me give you even a bigger timeline zoom out.
On August, I'm sorry, on October 9th of last year, I had Joe Hanneman, who's the counterpart to Steve Baker and his writing partner.
And we had him on my podcast with Steve Friend, former FBI agent, whistleblower.
And we broke down the problems with what the government was trying to do.
Now, listen, I get whispers all the time from people that I actually trust that I've known for close to a decade and people who have known me long before I had a public voice.
And they have an opportunity sometimes to share things like, hey, this is what's going on.
So you're aware of it.
We went out and pre-bunked a story that the FBI and that the intelligence community was trying to launder into the mainstream.
And before they were able to do it, we pre-bunked it.
And a lot of bad things happened to people right afterwards.
So it goes something like this.
October 9th last year, we shared that the FBI had the intention of blaming it on a training exercise.
People like Julie Kelly were going out and talking about it.
Dan Bongino had talked about how if I was going to try to get away with it, I would claim it was a training exercise.
I think, in all honesty, that the actual players that were involved on the ground on January the 5th and January the 6th probably actually honestly believed that they were getting an authorized training exercise because that's a thing that somebody could do.
I think that the person who placed the pipe bombs was in fact operating under the duty and authority of a training exercise, which is a normal operation and you'd feel totally justifiable.
And I'm going to give you one sort of visual reference.
When you watch the pipe bomber footage, and Steve Baker's seen a lot more of it.
I've discussed it with him, but you guys can watch what you see.
You don't see a person that's doing this and looking over their shoulder and feeling a lack of confidence in what they're doing.
They feel authorized, entitled, and they have a duty to do the thing they're doing.
And I'll give you the example that I know from my own life.
If you, David, were driving somewhere and you decided to pull over on the side of the road and swap out your license plates because you knew you were about to go do something where you didn't want someone to see your license plates, would that make you feel like a little bit of guilty knowledge?
Yeah, for sure.
I have a very guilty conscience.
Not a guilty conscience.
Most people do.
By the way, most law enforcement people do.
This is the thing.
Like if you're doing the wrong thing, you know it.
Your heart rate accelerates.
You have this, you have like a physiological reaction.
You have a sympathetic nervous system reaction.
And people look over their shoulder and they act, you know, anxious.
What you'd see on that pipe bomber video is not that calm, collected, athletic movements.
Here's what I've done.
I've changed plates.
I've driven with no license plates, which is a damning thing to take off your license plates in your driveway and then drive off and know that you have them.
I've had police officers try to pull me over when I had no license plates on my vehicles working for the FBI.
I felt supremely comfortable with what I was doing because of the supremacy clause, because I had a duty and authority to do what I was doing.
And I felt no worries whatsoever.
They'd pull up next to me.
I'd wave at them.
They would get behind me, turn on their lights.
I'd just ignore them.
Like I acted in a way that showed that I had the authority, the duty, and I was doing what I was, what I knew was right.
And if you're doing an operation where everyone is on board and they're like, hey, your boss said, come in on this day and you're going to pick up these devices.
You're going to go drop them off.
Here's the pre-described route.
We need to be able to do these things, carry them in a backpack, come back here, blah, blah, blah.
You know, we're testing the camera systems.
We're doing a vulnerability check.
We're going to do our dog sniffs and see what's good.
Imagine that's the orders you got.
And so you went and did it.
And then about three days later, you start reading the papers and you find out the FBI is looking for the person that did this thing.
They want a $25,000 reward on any information to their arrest or capture.
And you go, well, holy shit, we better tell them it was a training exercise, right?
And then that warm hug comes in from the CIA that you'd applied to previously.
And they say, hey, by the way, you're about to start about to start your new job with us.
And I'm just going to let you know that thing that you did the other night, we really appreciate what you did.
And the operation went very successful.
You had a limited part to play in it.
And you will never speak of this again or you will never speak again.
Is that pretty clear?
And the person gets the unwavering understanding that this is not something that you're allowed to talk about again.
And then you get hired onto your job.
And everything is fine for years, literally years.
There's no patsy.
There's nobody else taking the blame.
It's just an unsolved case with a $500,000 reward for a training exercise that wasn't a training exercise and all this kind of crap until Steve Baker comes along and screws it up.
And it screwed up in a couple of phases.
Number one, we debunk the training exercise, which would be the excuse you would use because then you'd have to explain.
And we broke out all the problems with it.
Like, oh, you'd have to explain why the FBI was offering a $500,000 reward for a training exercise.
You'd have to explain why nobody was notified.
There was a training exercise and there was no deconfliction.
We went through all of it.
We pre-bunked the story.
A month later, they released their story showing that they believed that the pipe bomber was, in fact, a U.S. Capitol police officer, female, that was a marathon runner and white who walked around and did these pipe bombs.
And the stories are still out there talking about how it's been thoroughly debunked.
By the way, David, they've been thoroughly debunked by three sources, familiar with the case, familiar with the alibi, and a video of her playing with puppies on the night of that no one has ever seen.
Puppies, plural, three sources.
That magic number.
I'm just telling you, this, we debunked their problem on accident.
And then a month later, Brian Cole Jr. was arrested and he looks nothing like, he sounds nothing like, he moves nothing like.
And by the way, he has none of the connections that even like people like Dan Bongino talked about for years.
He doesn't look anything like the thing he should be.
At the minimum, he should be connected to the government in some way.
And he's not.
It wouldn't even be that to say he would need to be connected to the government, but the alibi, the debunking.
Oh, Bongino said for years.
Yeah, well, but he's connected to the government.
Yeah.
No, no, I mean, we've seen his tweets and, you know, his argument will be, well, now I've seen the evidence from the inside and I was wrong, which we haven't really heard unequivocally.
No, that debunking, playing with her puppies, the CBS article, which came out, when did that?
That came out.
I've got all the articles if you want to see them.
No, no, we've gone over.
So, but the bottom line is now.
So Steve comes out with that story.
He has his health crisis, publishes this other groundbreaking piece now that he was working on when he had his heart issue about the shoe size, not possibly being in the same ballpark,
and then is basically told by some powers that be that he can't really publish this story or he can't, he can't confirm.
He can't come up with certain elements of the story.
Not he published it, but that they were very reluctant at the Blaze to publish this.
I know, I'm not going to say what I know about the Blaze because it's not my story.
And more importantly, I don't want to, I don't want to betray any confidences.
But yeah, I think that it would be fair to say that the Blaze was reluctant to put that story out because anything that touches this particular topic is radioactive for media.
And you can tell by the way the story is covered.
Like anybody breaking that the size of the shoe of the person that's been arrested by the FBI is multiple sizes different.
And it's demonstrably not the same foot that was walking around on that night.
That should be big news.
And if you had an honest media and press, they would all run and cover it.
You have a congressman in Tom Massey, which you guys may think he's not, you know, you may not like him because he's on the wrong side.
He's an apostate.
He's an apostate now.
He's an apostate.
He's also smarter than almost everybody that works in government.
And you can watch objectively that he stays on the right side of almost everything.
And when he has a problem with the bill, it's because it's going to end up screwing you in some way that nobody else has read because they're lazy and stupid.
And we elect lazy, stupid representatives, which if you guys don't think your rep is lazy and stupid, try to sit and have a meeting with them sometime and then decide because most of them are really unimpressive human beings in person.
They're just not impressive.
They're not the best of us.
They're the most easily understood and compromised of us in my experience.
And they're the ones that are willing to go along and do what they need to do.
They all kind of play a role.
End of the day, Brian Cole Jr., because he is autistic, because of some of his body proportions that are totally out of whack.
And by the way, I've talked to FBI agents who saw him and thought the same thing.
I've spoken to people who live on the street of Brian Cole Jr., watched him walk thousands of times.
They all said he couldn't be the pipe bomber, as did the guy who worked at the shop, the 7-Eleven down the street that he went to every single day.
He's like a very regimented, routined human being that doesn't go into Washington, D.C. ever.
The FBI wasn't able to prove that he ever went and scouted or reconned the route.
And somehow he was able to walk through all of these unknown kinds of secret areas, avoiding cameras and navigating in Washington, D.C., which is not an easy place to walk around.
I've done counter-surveillance work in Washington, D.C., in the National Mall, and I have a pretty good sense of it.
And even I'm not that good.
And I've done it hundreds of times, hundreds of days walking and jogging and doing fitness out there.
He's there like once a year tops for the last three years.
He has no familiarity with that place.
And supposedly he's able to pull off all this stuff and disappear and avoid the cameras and park where there are no cameras and all this other kind of nonsense.
It's just, it's not, it's not plausible that he did it.
And again, people who see him, who know him, nobody believes it.
It's just not credible.
And apparently we're going to hang our hat on that.
And I've got more to it too, which is that the alibi that supposedly kept Shawnee Kirchhoff from being the person that they looked into, and her name is in the Washington Post stories that say that it was debunked and her attorneys were representing her by name and saying she wasn't it because they found videos of her playing with her puppies on the night of January 5th,
2021.
They can't even keep their own story straight because we debunked their story on that.
She only had one dog.
It was a retired greyhound.
It's not a puppy.
It's quite the opposite of a puppy.
You want to see?
I've got an archive version of that if you guys.
Yeah, no, I'm going to bring it up just so that everybody knows.
Oh, good.
You're doing it.
I know.
Very good.
Here we go.
Again, and it's always three sources confirmed.
This is your kind of your dead giveaway on this thing.
In this particular story, there's another one, the CBS one might be the one that helps you most.
I can send it to you via text if you want.
Yeah, no, I can find that.
I just wanted to see this.
Here we go.
It was last week, several Republican lawmakers latched onto the claim.
This is going back to the leak of the ODNI memo that identified.
And look, this whole story is a hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard for whatever it's worth.
Yeah, I said it at the time because they were trying to make her look like a crazy conspiracy theorist supporting person who this is from the Washington Post.
Yeah, the name is still public, people.
So like people avoid it because they're scared.
They're worried about being sued and other things like that.
And that's fine.
But at the end of the day, the story and her name is public.
It was public.
It's shown up.
It's still published.
And by the way, you can still find Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman's story on the internet archives.
You can go to archive.ph and type in blaze.
You can type in blaze baker bomber and you will get to the story that they wrote on November 9th of 2025.
It's still totally available.
You can read the whole damn thing.
And I went and looked at it today and I was like, oh man, those screenshots they have and those side-by-side pictures, they're really, really close.
When you look at them next to right, what I love also, just reading this in with the retrospect here, Steve Bunnell, an attorney for Kirchhoff, voluntarily identified his client by name in a statement to the Washington Post.
This is them covering their asses for mentioning the name in their own article.
That's right.
This is, it's, it's, it's wild.
I have been saying also, just, you know, she, she physically, if, if it's her, and, and, um, you know, you can come to whatever conclusions you want.
That's right.
She literally cannot sue, period.
Like she cannot sue if it is indeed her, because it would be revealed undoubtedly that it was.
If it were not her, I would have figured that she would have already sued.
I don't draw these negative inferences.
Well, why hasn't I Peter Hotez sued RFK?
Oda, why hasn't Fauci sued RFK Jr. if the real Anthony Fauci was false?
You don't always have to sue everybody who says something stupid about you.
But if it is in fact her, she literally cannot sue.
And I found it curious that in all of the threats and the bluster, there has been no, there has been no lawsuit as of yet against anybody.
You want to hear more about that now?
Oh, yes, I do, sir.
Please.
I know you do.
All right.
We've talked about this.
That was the segue.
That was the segue.
Look, we've talked about this.
So I'm happy to share this with your audience.
Hold on.
Allow Chrome bypass something.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think I can share this with you.
Yep.
Are we on it?
This is a letter that I received.
I've received it twice via email, and it's from Shawnee Kirchhoff's attorneys.
There are a couple of things that need to be mentioned for starters.
First of all, the company is called Claire Locke.
You guys can look them up.
Claire Locke is about $2,000 an hour, $1,800 to $2,000 an hour attorneys.
She can't afford them.
Period.
The end.
Now, there's a couple of possibilities.
One possibility is that the CIA is paying for it.
And that's what my wife has concluded.
I'll just share that with you.
I don't know what the answer is, but this company, yeah, people are asking why I'm looking down because I'm looking at a computer screen that's in front of me.
I'm just not at my desk.
They represented Dominion voting systems.
They represented Dominion voting systems.
Sarah Palin, a lot of the Me Too related defenses.
So they big names.
And this is a, this is everybody has heard of Claire Locke, even if they don't process it because they've been involved in extremely politically relevant cases and clients.
Okay.
And they make like nearly billion dollar settlements with Fox News.
Like there was three quarters of a billion dollars settled in the Dominion defamation case.
These guys do big stuff.
They also don't work on contingency.
Contingency is one way you could bring your case to an attorney where they say, we're not going to take any money, but we're going to take a cut of the winnings because we think the taste is really good.
They don't do that.
They're a $50,000, $100,000 retainer minimum.
Shawnee Kirchhoff doesn't have that.
Even if she's got money, she doesn't have the money to do this.
Okay.
I'm going to read you from this letter if you're cool with it.
By the way, that's the address where I used to live.
They served it to my last address that I worked for the FBI.
I'm sure they, I don't know, it's the last time I owned property.
So there you have it.
But this is Claire Locke sending to me representing RE Shawnee Kirchhoff.
So we'll read her name from their letter, which I've made public yesterday on my show.
Steve Baker knows nothing about it.
Yeah, I say this was also your information to share.
And this is mine to share.
I watched you yesterday, not the whole thing, but a good portion of it.
Dear Mr. Seraphin, Claire Locke LLP is defamation counsel to Shawnee Kirkhoff.
And I'm going to also respond to what they're asking for here because I think it's totally reasonable.
And I'm a reasonable person who has no malice in my heart against Shawnee Kirkhoff or anybody else.
Like I just want to know what the truth is.
And I think that if you've done something that has harmed America, then you should pay for it.
And if you haven't, and we can help clear your name, I want to be part of that too.
I don't have an agenda.
Claire Locke LLP is defamation counsel to Shawnee Kirchhoff.
Ms. Kirchhoff has retained us following your repeated false claims that she planted pipe bombs in connection with events of January 6th, 2021.
I actually didn't make any claims.
I just read stories that were in the news and I've commented on them as is fair.
Those false accusations were first published in Blaze Media's since updated November 8th, 2025 article.
Blaze Media relied on you as a key source for its now debunked allegations.
That's objectively false.
They didn't rely on me.
You can go read the story.
I'm not a source.
I just had information that was in addition to the things that they uncovered, but it had nothing to do with them.
And the things that I said were all true.
And I love the now debunked based on the GPS article.
There's a lot of what I would call conclusory allegations in this.
That's the way that my attorneys in my other defamation case, which is also a pain in my ass.
But when you conclude something is true by stating it's true without any facts or evidence, and there is no evidence that I was a source at all.
I just said things.
I said, I shared information with them and they quoted my actual words, which are my actual words, like welcome to America.
Okay.
Even after Blaze Media's false claims were conclusively disproven, I don't know how they were conclusively disproven.
You have continued to reference and repeat those same allegations on your podcast, X page, and other media appearances, including in the X post recently on January the 8th of 2026.
Your republication of these allegations after they were proven false, they have not been proven false, and your willful disregard for exonerative evidence, this is where it's going to get fun, is strong evidence that you subjectively knew they were false or at a minimum recklessly disregarded their truths or falsity.
I will happily sit in front of a polygraph and let you know that I don't believe the allegations were false.
This is a bullshit letter.
This is meant to scare you.
I looked them up right away like anybody would and been like, holy shit, this is a real, every like real deal defamation attorney.
Now, what do they cite?
They cite Joe Hanneman and Steve Baker's letter.
These are the footnotes.
They also have a real Alex Jones post.
I've shared this information that I received this from Alex Jones.
And then they have my ex-post, which I don't know what that one is.
It doesn't really make a difference.
Now we're going to go on.
To be clear, your allegations about Ms. Kirchhoff are untrue.
And there's no dispute as to their falsity.
Well, there might be because it seems like we can keep disputing it.
And the reason why is because the exculpatory evidence that they claim is not in the public and it's certainly not in my possession.
And so I'm willing to evaluate it because I'm a reasonable person.
If I'm wrong, I want to be right.
Okay.
Ms. Kirchhoff had nothing to do with the attempted pipe bombing on January 5th, 2021.
I think my allegation is that it wasn't even a pipe bombing.
My guess is that it probably was a training exercise.
And I was told from the very beginning by the FBI, by the way, which can be corroborated by other FBI agents who heard it, that these bombs were not legitimate.
They were not, they were not viable as the FBI claims.
They were not even devices that were going to be possible for detonation.
The way they were described to me as looked very bomb-like.
I've said that going back multiple years.
You can find it in the Daily Wire of all places.
So here we go.
Okay, there's no dispute.
That night, as video evidence conclusively demonstrates she was at home caring for her dog.
Now, David, is there a difference between puppies plural and her dog?
What do you think?
Well, it's wild.
And it's just interesting that they say video evidence conclusively demonstrates nobody that I know of has seen any such video evidence.
No one has seen it.
There's literally no one has seen it.
Let alone who's metadata.
Okay, this is a CBS story.
And it says the device, the FBI has ruled her out as a suspect in the 2021 plot.
I know you said the same things at the time, according to three sources, again, the three sources, but only after her name circulated on social media.
Okay.
According to which three sources?
FBI sources, intelligence community sources, her mom, her brother, and herself, the dog got away in, or the dogs plural, which are puppies.
Okay.
Playing with her puppies is a very specific thing.
I've had multiple dogs and I've had one dog at a time and I wouldn't ever be confused about what they were.
And no one who saw me playing with a dog would think that I was playing with puppies.
And no one who saw me playing with an old greyhound would think I was playing with puppies and vice versa.
If I was playing with multiple dogs, you wouldn't be like, oh, it's just your dog.
There's obviously more than one.
Whose dogs are those?
Those are my friends.
Whatever.
So this is interesting.
She was caring.
She was at home caring for her dog.
Caring for her dog is not the same as playing with puppies.
No one's seen this video.
I'd like to review it.
I'd like to put it in front of a forensic analyst to get it at the real time.
And then I'm willing to say, well, like, hell, I'm convinced.
Good enough.
Like, that's good to go.
But if that's not the case and it hasn't been, how would anybody say that it was conclusory?
On December the 4th, 2025, the FBI announced that it had apprehended and charges the real, I've never seen this in a legal document, by the way, the real suspect.
I thought we had a presumption of innocence in America.
Well, he's a real suspect.
He's just not a real guy.
He's the real suspect, but the real is put in parentheses, which is also really funny.
It's a funny device in and of itself.
Heny he's admitted to planting the bombs.
We've also pointed out he's autistic.
He was in a badgering thing.
He denied it for several hours.
He was beaten into submission there.
And I think we're going to find that that confession ends up being inadmissible.
They've already done some hearings to basically try to get that route.
All right.
That same day, Blaze Media updated the article, removing its false claims of Ms. Kirchhoff and admitting that the values of fairness and accuracy require retraction.
AKA, they are cowards and they backed off their story, even though they had the goods on what they had.
And there was no reason to retract it in that way.
Like they could say, this is the reporting we saw.
This is the actual accurate information that we presented to you.
Their retraction actually is pretty damning on the agency, but not on Steve Baker.
And for whatever it's worth, people can go find it on my ex feed.
Steve Baker has retracted nothing.
And he stated it as such yesterday.
And he and I have had phone calls related to this.
He does not retract the work that he did on this.
Did a lot of work on this and he had a lot of interest in it.
And if you think that simply the fact that the Blaze, his organization that paid for him to, you know, for, you know, pays his paycheck, their retraction does not indicate the retraction of what he did.
Anyway, he says, your false, your, your false reporting has caused Ms. Kirkhoff enormous harm.
I don't know what that harm is.
She still has a job.
She doesn't have a job that can pay for this law firm, but she has a job.
It's subjected to law enforcement scrutiny.
By the way, if you work for the FBI, if you work for the CIA, you always have law enforcement scrutiny.
You have to do background checks on what the hell they're talking about.
It damaged relationships at work in your community.
We've talked to people at Capitol Police.
She ghosted all those people.
So I don't know who it hurt.
And it permanently brammed her with allegations of violent criminal conduct.
There's nothing violent about placing things that are inert.
Placing inert devices for whatever reason is not violent.
And it didn't turn out into violence and nobody was hurt.
So none of these things are actually real.
And then they said, we demand that you unequivocally retract your allegations against Ms. Kirkhoff in the same prominence and fairfair for which you defained her and publicly apologize to her for the harm that your false allegations have caused.
Refuser to do so would be evidence of your actual malice.
So that's not true.
That's conclusory.
But I do have no actual malice and I would love to talk to Shawnee Kirchhoff.
I would be more than happy to.
No one's going to believe an apology into the ether on my podcast because I got a freaking letter like this, which I've made public to you now.
You guys have seen I've been demanded.
I'm more than willing to talk to her.
I'm more than willing to evaluate evidence.
And I am happy to say that I understand and I apologize to her.
If in fact, the evidence justifies it.
And what I'm not willing to do is be bullied into saying something that I don't believe and nobody would believe it anyway.
So if they want this to be true and they Claire Locke has access to very big programs where they can show me all the evidence, convince me on their own, and then I'm more than willing to sit down on Fox News or on Tucker Carlson's podcast or whatever other strings they want to pull to get me in front of it.
And I'm happy to apologize for someone if it's justified and warranted.
And if it's not, no one's going to believe it and no one's going to scare me into it with this with this letter, which actually is making new, you know, whatever allegations of exculpatory evidence that no one's evaluated.
So there you go.
And not to try to get you in trouble.
You can back it out now.
I think the rest of it is just failure.
Yeah, there's nothing else really interesting.
This letter was from January 2026.
January 16th at 26.
January, February, March, January to February to March.
So we're over two months into it.
I'm not trying to get you in trouble.
I know that you happen to retract it, apologized, or whatever.
And they have not, I'm not trying to jinx you either.
You have not been sued yet.
No.
And you know what?
They reached out to my other counsel at one point and they said, hey, we'd like to serve Seraphin with some information.
By the way, I'm really easy to find.
I'm not that hard to find.
It turns out other people were able to give me legal process when necessary.
I've had James O'Keefe subpoena me to go give testimony and I did it.
No problem.
His process server was able to easily get there.
Same thing for Kash Patel's attorneys who work on behalf of his girl who's a friend.
And all of that was fine.
It's like, I mean, they have no legal status, right?
So let's just call it what it is.
He likes to have a status.
She's a girl who's his friend.
They don't even live in the same house.
They're not even cohabitants.
So long and short of it is, yeah, you can find me easily.
They haven't given me this in paper, but I have it by email and they asked me to preserve my records.
And I did.
I'm happy to comply with that.
There's nothing you're going to find.
What you're going to find is that like when I talk to people like Alex Jones and I talk to people like Steve Baker, that we actually believe all the things we're saying because we're not dishonest operators.
No one's ever showed me my browsing history.
And if you did, you'd find out that I like women who are shaped like my wife.
I'm interested in my wife and that I don't have any sort of things that I'm particularly worried about hiding because when I got married, I made some real like honest commitments.
And more importantly, I've held a security clearance at a secret or a top secret level for like over a decade.
And so good luck.
Like I predate the internet.
Like many people who are in their 40s, I'm 44 years old.
I predate the internet.
So all the stupid things that I may have gotten into when I was a youth, when I was in high school and making bad decisions or, you know, speeding or doing whatever dumb things like kids do, petty theft or something to that effect.
Like I've already admitted to them under oath to the FBI.
I'm like, hey, here's the worst crimes I've ever committed.
And they're like, dude, shut up.
Shut up.
Nobody cares if you snuck into a building when nobody was there.
I'm like, okay.
And there's no video evidence.
No video evidence that exists forever on the internet, like kids these days documenting their own stupidity and then being bogged down with it for the rest of their lives.
So, no lawsuit, no nothing.
That was the letter of demand making allegations, which are conclusions and arguing from them to argue innocence.
I'm curious.
I'm not open.
I'm not saying that that can't be true.
I mean, that's possible.
And just because we don't think Brian Cole Jr. was the person and the evidence that I've seen is convincing that their client is, doesn't mean that there's not exculpatory.
Look, I've seen people that I thought were dead to rights doing something in violation of federal law.
And I've investigated them.
And when you do a conclusive and you have access to the resources that you have as an investigator in the federal sphere, you can sometimes disprove things because you get a clearer picture.
Where if you're just imagining this, you zoom in on something and you see a straight line and you're like, aha, I've got it.
One point to one point.
That's it.
You zoom out a little bit.
You're like, oh my God, that's so straight.
And as you continue to zoom out, you realize you're zoomed in on a circle.
The damn thing is a freaking, it's a loop and you're not even close.
So more information that you have and more perspective, you can find things that look very damning upfront until you get farther back.
I'm more than willing to evaluate their video evidence if they want to share it.
I think it'd be a really big deal.
I think people would find it very interesting.
Absolutely.
I mean, look, you're exonerating to be able to share that in public.
I just think that's it.
My go-to for that is, you know, Derek Chauvin, I know what I saw and I know what I thought and my impressions from the initial video.
And then I watched the trial and then I changed my opinion based on the evidence.
Nicholas Salmon, I didn't jump on the bandwagon from the initial images.
And so I never came to any wrong.
He's the one smiling in front of Nathan Phillips, the native guy.
That always looked like a yeah, that always looked like no, no, like Derek Chauvin.
I was like, oh, yeah, this, this looks ugly and it looks bad.
And then I saw the evidence and the additional evidence and I, and I changed my opinion on it.
If you saw five minutes of footage, you'd be like, that guy killed that dude and he didn't care.
And if you zoom out to like the 30 minutes that's available and all the, you know, the pre-call information and where his he ultimately was.
Yeah.
You're like, oh, okay, obviously, like that guy was just holding down a shoulder blade and this dude died of a drug overdose.
And we, we saw rioting.
Yeah.
It changed the course of politics and culture.
Yeah.
Well, it changed the course in many ways of my life as well because I was physically present for a lot of the political rioting that went on.
I was in Portland when they were rioting there.
I was in Washington, D.C. for the kneeling, which was over BLM, which was all as a result of the George Floyd riots that spread to Washington, D.C.
So I saw all this stuff as a federal investigator.
And I was like, my agency is a bunch of pansies.
They have no guts or principles whatsoever.
They are not willing to just do what's right.
And if somebody takes a knee on behalf of George Floyd, like they should at least be reprimanded and told, like they were given hugs and freaking Applebee's gift cards.
By the way, I got those people fired under Kash Patel.
I have like 40 scalps under my belt right now.
And I don't think they should have been fired five years after the fact.
I think they might have been fired the day of, but it turns out the corrupt people that were involved in this stuff, you know, they didn't do it and they got protected.
And now, just for whatever it's worth, anybody who's seen these quote unquote, like people that were terminated and the public firings Kash Patel did, they're all going to get their jobs back.
They're all going to get either that or they're going to get back pay and they're going to get paid out.
Get back pay, get compensation, and they'll have their umbrella or their parachutes.
Like, who was the one that Trump fired?
And then he got some massive payout.
And then you have the guy in the text messages leads to Peter Stroke, who got a million dollars paid.
They all get paid.
Because look, the blob rewards the good loyal foot soldiers, whether it's with a job or whether it's a payoff.
Andy McCabe, he got fired for lying to the FBI, his own agency as the deputy director.
He ended up getting all of his salary back.
He got his back paid.
Do you know that in his settlement agreement, he demanded they give him his retirement FBI cufflinks that are for deputy directors and senior executives?
And he got the fucking cup links.
David, he argued such petty bullshit and he got everything, even though he was accused of lying to his own agency and fired in accordance with the terms of the agency.
So these people all end up made whole.
And it's also that that element is just like the pure idolatry.
Like, I just give me, I want the badge.
I want the trophy and I want, I want the thing that is respect.
Can I tell you, can I say something else?
Because I shared this with the DOJ guy last week.
It's fresh in my mind.
November 22nd of 2021, I was told that I had to test for COVID three times a week or I couldn't come back into the office, even though I had no symptoms, simply because I was an unvaccinated, filthy person.
I was like the, you know, the Udermensh or whatever that they, they, they claim you're unclean.
And I took off my badge from my belt.
And if you've ever seen an FBI badge, but a lot of law enforcement, they have like a leather carrying case and it clips on.
Well, a lot of times the badge is just a pin on the back end of it and it's meant to pin on like a lapel.
Back in the day, FBI agents pinned it on the lapel of their heavy jackets and they would roll out with like a trench coat or a men's coat.
And so I took, I opened up the pin and I took the leather out of it, put the leather in my pocket.
I took the pin and I left it open and I put it in my desk drawer.
November 22nd of 2021.
And I have a picture of it going into the drawer, front and back.
And I left it there when I left the office, thinking I would never come back.
And I didn't want them to come to my house to get my badge from me.
I was like, I'm done with it.
They can collect it from the desk.
And then I got to come back in on March 4th of 2022.
I got to come back in because Joe Biden changed the rules like arbitrarily.
And I came back in and I took that badge.
And my boss goes, by the way, you've been fired from our squad.
You're no longer to work here.
You have to go over to the national security side because they thought I was leaking or I was an insider threat.
So they moved me from the criminal squad to the national security side where I was going to be around all the sensitive information, whatever the hell that meant.
They literally put me in a corner on a desk by myself for six weeks where nobody talked to me.
I sat by the freaking copy machine.
And while I was there, I put up a picture of Donald Trump riding on a tank with a bazooka and I put up a picture of Ronald Reagan riding on a Velociraptor shooting Uzis.
You guys have probably seen these cartoons.
And I got written up for that when I got fired or suspended forever.
And I took my badge and I put it into the bulletin board with the pin and I stabbed it in there and it sat there until the day they came from my badge.
And so like there are people that worship that badge that wanted everything to do with it.
It was their entire identity and it was never my identity.
And I was one of the only people I ever knew that was like that.
And I found a number of people that did that and they were all whistleblowers.
Every one of us has been betrayed.
And I would say that Joe Kent is also betrayed.
So for all of you that believe the slandering and the lies, a 28-year-old White House, you know, press secretary who's not even been alive as long as Joe Kent was putting bodies in the ground for this country, whether you agree with it or not, he was doing what he thought was honorable at the time.
I guarantee it.
Like you should check yourself.
You should check and have a little bit of suspicion, just a little bit, because the information op that's going on is very aggressive right now.
And it's so obvious the smears are being done by people that I know are better people than the people smearing them.
Let me ask you the one question, the last question.
We're going to have a new guest in a few minutes.
I'm sorry.
No, no, no, please don't worry.
This is this is it's it's very very important and very uh Liz Wheeler.
I'm not accusing her of being a bad faith actor at all.
Full stop, no, but I presume her question is legitimate.
Trying to understand the lone shooter argument here that there was more than one shooter, or at least some of the press was being misrepresented.
Joe Kent is saying that there was more than one shooter versus he doesn't believe the lone shooter.
And I said, this is the argument, not that there were two shooters, but that he wasn't the lone actor.
And then, you know, just to say like, there were posts made in advance of the shooting suggesting that people had knowledge of it.
So conspiracy.
The roof was left vulnerable.
Not suggesting Charlie Kirk's team, because it wasn't his team that was supposed to cover that roof.
I'm talking campus security, who might have deliberately left it open.
People in the chat, George Zinn, you know, there are arguments that he might have been the lone shooter, but not the lone actor.
And you, in response to that tweet, put out, or I said, Joe Kent had a falling out because he argued the FBI wasn't following through on his request to analyze an international angle.
And in his interview, he's asked, what foreign governments do you think might have had a role to play in that?
And he said, I don't think any in particular, but everyone thinks he means Israel and I don't give a sweet bugger all.
You replied, Secret Service, what is the Secret Service dismantles telecom threats that could have crippled UN General Assembly in response to my argument that we still don't know who's in those Discord chats and there might have been a foreign country involvement?
Might not have been Israel, might have been China.
Most likely.
What does that mean?
Your screenshot there.
Notice it's the DHS, that's Secret Service, and not the FBI that did the dismantlement up there.
Now, there was a senior Secret Service official that was targeted by a swatting campaign.
Some of you guys are going to have to go back in your memory.
Friends of mine, like Owen Schroyer, Alex Jones, Brianna Morella was targeted.
There was a bunch of others that were being targeted in a swatting campaign that took place about the time that this was all going on.
And the Secret Service had a senior member of their management team that was also swatted.
And so they had a personal interest in finding who the hell it was.
And so they did uncover a like a multi, I think it's like 300 servers with 100,000 SIM cars each hiding in an apartment in the tri-state area.
And then they found out there were others.
And what these things were doing was they were creating internet personas.
They were creating botnets to go out there and they were domestically located, but they were internationally controlled.
And the ties that I'm, as I understand it, kind of reading between the lines, it looks like China.
Now, that goes to the point that the expectation is, is that was not a one-off event and it wasn't a lone thing, that there were actually like dozens and dozens of these, as many as 100 of these botnet server farms are located around major cities in the United States.
They'd be relatively easy to find if people wanted to find them.
But the way that they go about business is they don't buy directly from the Verizons, the T-Mobiles, you know, whatever your AT ⁇ T types.
They actually go to the Patriot Mobile, Charity Mobile, whatever, Virch Mobile, all these other companies that buy time on those towers.
And they line up all these different servers.
They punch them all in together.
And then they can create verifiable profiles on Reddit, on Discord, on Facebook.
They can do so.
You see scams like this all the time, on Craigslist, on any place where there's an interaction where you may be able to interact with people.
And the goal of these company, the countries that are looking to destabilize the United States, they're not pushing for any specific outcome.
Chaos is the outcome.
So having infighting amongst people that are American disagreeing about something, assassination of a controversial figure that allows people on the left to get really excited about him dying and people on the right to be absolutely traumatized.
Like that is a victory for people that are trying to create chaos.
If you want to divide the United States, you divide them in purpose and demonstrate that there's not common value.
Okay.
And so what I think happened is that there's a decent chance and it needed to be investigated whether or not there was an ulterior motive, whether there were people that were non-human or foreign state actors that were involved in the Discord channel that were like the people that knew in advance.
What if those are like, there's 12 people in a chat room that are on Discord and seven of them are all bots working on behalf of a Chinese plan to basically seeing if we can get this person to do the dumb thing they said they were going to do somewhere else.
They have unlimited patience.
They have unlimited ability to wait and to manipulate.
And they all would be able to share knowledge and information because they're just a bot.
It's not a real thing, but they're siloed to act in a personality that can move it along.
So now you have all these fake friends telling you, we're with you, we're behind you, we back this up.
This is the best play.
Here's another thing you might have thought about.
You can get planning, you can get logistics, and you can have somebody who has never shown a propensity for violence suddenly do like a really freaking violent thing, like climb up and take a shot.
And they're not a lone actor at that point.
They're not a lone gunman because they have an entire network of people, which may end up being just a bot motivating them.
Now, as Joe Kent said, he's not saying that was the case.
The question and the allegations that were swirling at that time was, was this happening?
Was this a concentrated effort, which was of a foreign nexus?
Doesn't even have to be an individual.
It could be, I mean, it doesn't have to be a nation state.
It could be a non-nation state, like a terrorist regime.
And so that could be anything from the Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Israel, take your pick.
But could also be like some faction like Hezbollah.
It could be Al-Qaeda.
It could be al-Shabaab, anything that adds to the agenda they want to do.
And you investigate it under that.
Now, everybody who says NCTC is not an investigative agency, that's correct.
They don't have an investigative charter.
What they have is an intelligence charter.
And all intelligence is done through, wait for it, gathering information and doing investigations to try to put that into one place.
They just don't bring prosecutions.
So anybody that's making these dishonest claims, like, oh, like his agency didn't have investigative problems, what do you think the CIA does overseas?
They gather information and they present it.
And then the findings are presented to someone who can do a kinetic action or does some statecraft.
In the United States, if they present it, maybe we have a prosecution.
In external places, it might be a drone strike that we go and we take out like some, you know, Russian hacker conglomerate.
It might be a drone strike.
You knock somebody out in Iran or in China or whatever, or maybe they're working in some third world country, Yemen or whatever.
So you can do certain things.
And NCTC definitely has that charter and they oversee all of the potential counterterrorism things.
I think that the smear on Joe Kent has been a pissing match because Joe Kent wanted to look into something and Kash Patel wanted the easy victory and the win and wanted to like basically do the lightest possible lift.
And he was massively incompetent on that investigation.
I have friends that were on the call where he was quote unquote scream crying.
So that was, I think all of this stuff about Joe Kent being a traitor in the league and all this stuff, this is all personal and it goes back to Charlie Kirk's assassination.
It just turns out they wanted to set up over the dumbest thing possible, which was the pipe bomber, where we also embarrassed them.
We being the people that have been talking about it and won't let it go.
All right, that's, I think that's a good sum up.
Kyle, that's amazing.
I've given everybody your link.
We're going to, I'll call you later tonight.
We'll, we'll talk.
This has been amazing.
And I'm going to pin your links up in the front.
Kyle Seraphin show daily on Rumble.
Kyle Serafin on X.
All of those links are going up there.
Kyle, thank you as always.
I always enjoy talking to you.
Thanks, buddy.
All right.
I'll talk to you soon.
Godspeed.
And I do that.
Okay, now hold on.
I was doing one thing before we bring in Jeff Evely and somebody else who's coming in with him.
We're going to talk about the forest fire ban and other stuff going up in Canada, where Jeff Evely was the guy who recorded himself walking into the forest and then coming up with a $23,000 ticket.
You guys know what to do if you want to support the channel.
We're going to go to the Rumble's Premium and the locals, viva barnslaw.locals.com afterparty.
Right now, we're going to raid Redacted and stick around for another segment, which I'm going to publish separately.
But whoever's Rumble Premium and VivabarnesLaw.locals.com is going to get the benefits of the after party.
Now, you want to support locals?
Come on over to locals.
Here's the link.
I won't share it with locals because you guys already have it.
Here's the link to locals.
And I know NeuroDivergent, who's the mod out there, is doing great work letting everybody know.
That was amazing.
That's amazing.
That letter from the lawyer.
January 16, February, March, two and a half months.
And he has defined, I don't want to put any of that juju in the world.
Nobody wants to get sued, even if it's an abusive lawsuit.
It's lawfare for a reason.
You don't have to be right to win lawfare.
You just have to have deeper pockets or a bigger army and win by attrition.
But you got some interesting info today, peeps.
So that is it.
We're going to update.
We're going to go rumble premium, vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Before we do that, that's what I wanted to do because I'm a senile buffoon.
We're going to read the tip questions before we update.
King of Bill Tong says, try our selection of Perry Perry.
Pitti Pitti Biltong.
Great Bill Tong flavor with added mild heat, over 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and much, much more.
Billtongusa.com, use code Viva for 10% off in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
I know I saw something.
Let's bring it up right here.
Roosting.
Let me see.
I'm just going to go like this.
If it's Ruse, ask Kyle about Kash Patel's custom Nike shoes.
I can't get to that one right now, but Rustang says Owen Schroyer and Jimmy Dore did searing podcasts calling Bro Bongino, among other unflattering things, a weak man.
They clearly see him for what he is under all that bravado and blaster.
Bluster.
A lot of former fans of Bongino no longer kiss the ring of the self-professed podfather.
What's taking see, Rustang, you have a I don't want to say a malicious spirit.
Some like I told you, like if I get blackpilled, I'll probably just stop talking about something.
I don't feel the need to go out and shit on people.
And to the extent that what Owen Schroyer and Jimmy Dore are saying might be true, a weak man, you want to go pile on, go pile on.
I don't feel the need to say things which, even if I believe them to be true, and even if they are true, serve no better purpose.
So take that for what it's worth.
I'm not the one who's going to jump on a bandwagon out.
You know, Gavin Newsom, to the extent he wants to be president, well, then Viva's going to talk.
Although I've been not ignoring Gavin Newsom, but yeah, so look, I happen to think there's a lot of ego and pride involved in a lot of human frailty.
What more do you want?
I'm not making content of dumping on Candace Owens either, even if I disagree with her on certain things.
Who's another fun one that people seem to be?
I'm not going to make content dunking on Nick Fuentes, even if I disagree with a lot of his things.
It's not who I am and it's not what I like to do.
So there.
Let's bring him in.
Jeff, deact or react.
And by the way, Jeff, sorry, this, this is why it's always a scary.
It's an iffy thing to book.
I don't have a producer and I don't do the back-to-back interviews.
I like to talk a lot.
But let's bring Jeff Evelyn.
Come on in when you're ready.
And you know what I'll do maybe while he's coming.
Oh, and now I'm going to update the stream.
That's what I'm going to do.
Hold on.
Updating to locals and
▲
Export Selection