Joe Kent, former NCTC director, warns that FBI obstruction regarding the Tyler Robinson case and unchecked Israeli influence are driving the U.S. toward a catastrophic war with Iran. He argues that regime-change strategies and military options like bombing Iran or deploying troops to islands risk massive civilian casualties and harden Iranian resolve, advocating instead for lifting sanctions and negotiating security arrangements. Kent denies leaking information to Candace Owens while criticizing the administration's isolation from dissenting views, urging an "America First" approach to remove external pressures before 2028. [Automatically generated summary]
Party peoples of the interwebs, we should be live.
And as you can see, I'm sort of out of studio, but in studio at Longboat Keys.
And we've got Joe Kent, who's in the backdrop.
I don't want to waste any time because we have limited time.
And I want to make sure we get to all of the questions that may not have been asked in the interviews that Joe has been doing.
Robert Barnes is in the backdrop.
Gentlemen, bring yourselves in and we're going to get this started.
For those of you who are living under a rock, Joe Kent is now the former director of National Counterterrorism Center, having resigned in a way that You know, cause some waves.
We're going to get into it.
And Joe, I'm going to put you over on the right hand side because I think you need the big square here.
Joe, how goes the battle?
Going about as well as it can, I think.
Yeah, no, I've actually been pretty surprised by the outpouring of positive support I've gotten.
So, the way we're going to go through today is first, you know, quickly on the Tyler Robinson case, but then transition into what, you know, several areas of your expertise, the logistical risks of the different operations that the president is.
My understanding is looking at today to determine what happens this weekend.
And so, the but first up on the Tyler Robinson case, the you were head of the National Counterterrorism Center, effectively number two under the Office of Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who rumor is they're trying to get Trump to sack within the next several weeks and blame her for the Iran debacle, by the way, which is absurd, but we'll get to that in a bit.
But in the Tyler Robinson case, there were connections to what I colloquially call and others call Trantifa, the Antifa movement aligned with the trans movement.
The people who had predicted online that they knew it was going to happen before it happened.
Antifa is, we were on with the Duran.
We'll be on with the Duran next week with Joe.
You know, Antifa is a global terror organization, has been designated as such by the State Department in many capacities and contexts.
And there were clear Antifa ties, including to the Salt Lake City Group and Tyler Robinson.
On top of that, there were suspicions of foreign agent or foreign government involvement.
And this was clearly a terroristic act of murder meant to send a political message of a civilian to other civilians.
Given that from open source information, it was clear there were available leads that your role really required you to investigate.
What happened in that investigation and was it ever conducted, to the best of your knowledge, into the potential terror ties, including foreign government potential ties, even if to simply vindicate or clear those foreign governments, for example?
Were you allowed to investigate that?
The short answer is no.
So, whenever there's an act of terrorism in the US, NCTC will assist with the investigation and especially looking for foreign ties.
So, any kind of foreign nexus that could be foreign governments, that could be a foreign terrorist group, or even just foreign entities, foreign individuals.
So, we were starting to look into some of those leads.
And then that's when we were basically stopped from doing so pretty early on in the investigation.
I got to ask this what does being stopped from looking into it mean?
Because I don't think people understand necessarily what the director of National Counterterrorism Center does.
And how the FBI either puts a stop to it or doesn't pursue it.
How did that materialize?
So, because the victim, Charlie Kirk, was an American citizen, the FBI will take lead.
And so, the, I guess for lack of better terms, the repository or like the database where everything is being consolidated, the case file, it's held by the FBI.
And so, for us, NCTC, to say, hey, we would like to look into any aspect of the case, the FBI would be who we would go to to ask for the data.
There's a little bit that we could look into.
But to fully run down any kind of foreign ties, we would need access to the FBI case file.
And because, again, the victim is an American citizen, the crime happened here in America, the FBI has the overall purview.
Now, if it was overseas, it would depend on who was targeted, et cetera, but we'd have a little bit more leeway there.
But because it was domestic and because Charlie was an American, the FBI would be the lead agency for that.
That's why we had to ask their permission.
So when they said, hey, You guys stopped looking into these potential foreign ties.
That's why they were able to do so.
So, the transitioning into one of the major influences and one of the areas of conversion that I've had during this first 18 months or so, or 16 months or so, the presidential administration is what Professor John Mearsheimer wrote many years ago, one of the great geopolitical realists in the political science and historical fields, called the Israel lobby.
And I, early on, was seeing people that, in some cases, we both knew.
Regime Change and Leakers00:13:42
We're getting sacked or denied positions of influence in the administration solely because they'd ever voiced a single skeptical word of any kind about Israel.
It's now public, for example, Jeremy Carl, an old buddy of mine getting back to Yale, he was Jewish, by the way, was denied his position by the Senate because he had voiced any kind of concern at all about Israel, even though he's generally pro Israel.
And that was the first sign, and Tucker Carlson started realizing this was a major risk.
That there was a major lobby effort afoot within the administration to make sure that President Trump did not hear from anybody who had ever voiced any concern at all about whether Israel's priorities aligned with ours.
Was that your experience as well?
The sense that critical potential allies in making sure the president got accurate intel and information were removed from his hearing space, if you will, because they weren't even, in some cases, they got in and then were sacked afterwards by people who had a different government's agenda as their priority.
I mean, the short answer is yes.
There were definitely folks who were prevented from getting jobs in the admin because of previous comments they had made, usually just questioning in general the Israeli influence in our government.
And then as we got into the administration, especially once we were making decisions about whether or not to go to war with Iran and what our relationship should be with Israel, there was a good deal of gatekeeping that took place there.
And ultimately, that led to, I think, the president having a very small circle of people he got advice from that led us to get into this conflict that we're in right now.
Joe, I got to back up on one thing.
Well, in this particular question, people were recycling clips of you being very supportive of Israel, supportive of AIPAC, looking for money, donations, and whatever, saying, you're a hypocrite now, you've gotten bitten by the Candace bug.
The question is, what did change?
And what changed from your personal experience after having seen what goes on behind the scenes, if anything, to explain what some people refer to as hypocrisy, others might refer to as evolution?
Yeah, so I've never been for regime change in Iran.
I've always spoken out against us getting involved in regime change wars since I entered the public light.
I'm fine with us taking out Iranian terrorists like President Trump did in his first administration, like Qasem Soleimani.
I think falling into regime change and long drawn out conventional fights like we're in right now, especially against Iran, that's always been bad for our country.
There was, I would say, especially when I was running for Congress and when I was at the, I guess, the operational end in the intelligence community and in special operations.
I'd say a relatively favorable view of the Israelis.
They're a very competent intelligence service.
They have a very competent military in terms of counterterrorism operations.
And that's still a place where I think we can partner with the Israelis.
We just have to understand when their strategic goals and our strategic goals diverge.
I had never seen the amount of Israeli influence because I was not making policy when I was in special forces or in the CIA.
I was in the intelligence community or I was on the pointy edge, the bleeding edge of that policy.
So I read Merschmeyer, I read Waltz, I was aware of.
That school of thought.
I generally thought that it sounded right, it felt right.
I just didn't think that the Israelis had as much influence as I learned they did once I was in the room, once I was a Senate confirmed presidential appointee, participating in the National Security Council process, working at the deputies committee, occasionally being in the Oval with the president.
Based on what I saw and what I've described in my other public podcasts, that led me to believe that Israel does have entirely too much influence on our government.
So, for me, I guess it's an evolution.
I understand where people are kind of cherry picking some clips.
I still feel the same way about Iranian proxies, and I think we can deal with Iranian proxies.
I'm of the frame of mind that we can conduct effective counterterrorism operations without getting bogged down in regime change wars.
And I can confirm both Joe's experience and Joe's information that I know many high profile people in the administration, some that tried to get in, they got excluded, some that did get in, they got kicked out, and some that are still there that have had the exact same experience about the influence of the Israel lobby.
And I was high profile in defense of Israel, defended them and debated Nick Fuentes concerning it.
And to be blunt about it, I was wrong about the scope and scale of their influence and how much they would derail our national security interests for their own.
Speaking of which, you know, Klaus Witt said that our.
War is politics by other means.
That you're, when you look at a military agenda or military means, the question is will it actually achieve the political objective you seek?
Will the risk be less than the reward?
In that context, you've been trying to highlight to people Israel has a very different agenda in this conflict.
That Israel's agenda is as a small country surrounded by hostile countries that once feels it needs to expand to protect its security, it needs to destabilize.
The entire region, in order to have no rivals in the region.
Hence, their objective, as you highlighted, has been, has happened what, the third or fourth time now?
Anybody that's thought about negotiating from Iran with the United States, Israel has targeted for assassination.
Happened again just yesterday.
Because for Israel, a stable, peaceful, democratic Iran is not in their interest because that's a powerful rival for them.
Can you explain how Israel's interests are simply completely different?
Their political objective with this conflict.
Is totally different than what our objective is supposed to be.
Yeah, that's a great point.
I think one of the big mistakes we made in getting into this conflict is we didn't clearly state what our goal and our desired outcome was.
You've heard the Secretary of State list off kind of like a punch list of things we want to bomb.
We want to take out their Navy.
We want to take out their ballistic missiles.
We want to take out the IRGC.
I mean, those are mostly, I mean, they have a strategic impact, but they're mostly tactical targets.
We didn't say what we want Iran to look like at the end of this.
We've heard President Trump then say, we want to be able to negotiate with them.
Maybe we did regime change, maybe we didn't.
So I think we still had a lot more work to do.
In clearly defining what we wanted Iran to look like.
The Israelis, on the other hand, since we came into the administration over a year ago, they've been crystal clear.
They have said that this is the time for them to take out the entirety of the IRGC, the Ayatollah, to have complete and total regime change.
And the Israelis have a high tolerance for chaos.
If the whole region falls into some kind of chaos, they're completely comfortable with that.
They think that is a price worth paying, whereas we do not, because if you look at what's taking place in the Straits of Hormuz, The effect that's having on energy prices, et cetera.
It's pretty clear that we have a very different view than Israel does.
But I think just because of the conditioning of the US government writ large, but especially the military and our intelligence services, we've been kind of just led to believe that like us and Israel always have the same goals.
We're bombing the same targets, so therefore we have the same goals when we don't.
I mean, the president basically, since week one of this conflict, has sought to have some form of negotiation with the Iranians.
And as you pointed out, I've pointed out, others have pointed out.
Every time we're going down the path of negotiations, the negotiators end up getting killed by Israel.
And the president's come out and said that, like, we can't say who we're negotiating with because the Israelis will kill them.
And then just we saw that 24 hours ago, they just took a swing at one of the negotiators the vice president was supposed to be working with, wounded him, killed his wife.
And so, look, we have to acknowledge to ourselves that the Israelis are not an equal partner.
Number one, they're never an equal partner.
We're paying for all of this, we're the ones bleeding and dying for it and paying for it.
But number two, they have very different goals than we do.
And so, in order for us to accomplish our goals, the president kind of gave himself a lot of space in that speech last night, saying that, like, hey, we can only go for two more weeks, then we leave.
We could leave now.
I think he wanted to give the appearance that he's very much in control.
And the U.S. should always be very much in control.
However, if we don't get Israel under control, the president won't have as much decision making space as he thinks that he does.
So, for me, the main issue we have to address in this conflict is getting Israel under control so they don't take away the president's decision and negotiating space.
All right, now, Joe, this is going to be a tough question.
I've been thinking about how to phrase it.
Pam Bondi was fired today.
You know, I hypothesized a while back that Bongino and her were butting heads and that, you know, if he left, he would leave and be polite about it and, you know, do his thing and still support the administration.
Your resignation went the other way, where whether it was the intention or not, you had to have known it would cause political damage to the Trump administration in the manner in which it's done.
And, you know, I said, you know, when Bongino resigned, I didn't think he was going to.
Burn the ship, burn the bridges, and throw Bond into the bus.
He'll do it politely and share his disagreement, if any, privately.
You went the other way.
And how do you address the claims of people who say, regardless of whether or not you believe this and whether or not you have legitimate points, because I think everyone should acknowledge you do, you resigned in a way that you knew was going to cause political damage and undermine the Trump presidency?
I think because the trajectory our country is on right now, hurling headlong into this war, and the fact that the president had himself so isolated around with just a select group of advisors around him, this was the only way that I felt I could get through to him.
And I knew it would make him mad, and I knew people would attack me, and I knew that even the president would have to attack me to a certain extent.
But this needed to be said and needed to be said publicly.
We needed the amount of influence that Israel has, that we needed that issue to be called out and brought to the public.
And I wanted the president to be.
To be aware that the American people could see it as well in an effort to have us take a different trajectory in this conflict.
And I understand where people are going to say that was the wrong thing to do.
But for me, this goes back to my background of fighting overseas so much in the global war on terror and being very frustrated that nobody from within, even when they knew the war was wrong, even though they knew that we were lied to to get into the war, that no one spoke out.
And so for me, I felt this was a very critical juncture where people needed to actually hear the truth.
And we needed to do everything that we could to get off the track that we're on right now.
So I understand the criticism.
It's a risk that I took and that I felt that I had to take.
And speaking of which, to what degree, when you're stepping forward, a lot of the reasons, like people ask me often, why don't more people step forward?
Why don't more people do this?
And I'm like, well, ask Daniel Ellsberg, ask Edward Snowden, ask Julian Assange.
These people get to fame their lives, they attempt to destroy their public reputations, they smear and try to censor them.
They run illicit leak campaigns against them.
They try to get them criminally indicted.
They try to get them sued.
They get them blacklisted from business, private enterprise.
Now, you're someone with 11 combat tours, I think six bronze stars, someone whose wife died in these conflicts because the military refused to obey the instructions to get us out of Syrian time.
So, you're someone who sacrificed extraordinarily.
So, maybe you're uniquely situated.
But if you were talking to someone that's in the administration right now that has whistleblower information, That knows that if they step forward, they're more likely to stop this war from escalating, what I call the escalator to hell.
It ain't the escalator to heaven.
What would you tell them about why you made the decision you made and why it's the right one?
I would just tell them to reflect on what we've learned from these past wars, especially in the Middle East, the wars of our generation, the post 9 11 wars that defined our generation.
If we would have had courageous people within the Bush administration in the early phases of Iraq or Afghanistan speak out about how we were on the wrong path, just think about how many lives could have been saved.
So I think there's a certain security in staying on the inside and telling yourself you're trying to make a difference that way.
And I understand that school of thought.
But I think just having an administration full of people who salute and move out and do exactly what they're told, I mean, that's the recipe for exactly what we've seen over the course of the global war on terror.
And I feel that we're heading in that direction again, too.
So I think now is the time for people to start stepping forward.
Joe, when you wrote that email and you announced your resignation, I said it wasn't a Nostradamus prediction.
They were going to go after you with everything.
Then they leak an alleged investigation into you for allegedly leaking allegedly classified information.
Nobody knows what it was, to whom, whatever.
Do you still have your security clearances within the government?
Once I left the government, I did not.
I was a presidential appointee, so I didn't retain those.
But I had my security clearances up until the moment that I chose to walk out of the door.
There was no investigation on me.
If you're under investigation, they suspend your clearance.
There's an entire process.
And if they were investigating me, they wouldn't have leaked it.
They would have continued to gather evidence and then they would have actually done a formal investigation.
So I always viewed the leaks about me being a leaker.
It's kind of funny how that works.
Like they had to leave the FBI.
Or whoever had to leak to the media that I was a leaker.
So I always viewed it much more as a media counter narrative, especially because that story broke right as I was going on Tucker Carlson's show.
Nuclear Capability Concerns00:15:31
So I think it's pretty much nothing.
It's the wrap up smear.
The only question I would additionally have is would you have any idea who within the administration would have been the leaker of your purported investigation, but ostensibly non existent?
Do you have any idea who would have leaked it?
No, I have no idea.
Probably some poor kid in one of the communication shops who they said, hey, just call and say Ken's a leaker.
I mean, that's my guess.
Speaking of using military means to try to achieve a political objective, despite, you know, we have the big issue of a disparity between objectives between Israel and the United States in this conflict.
But one of the things is so the president has laid out recently that the objectives are to destroy their capability of having nuclear weapons, their capability of having ballistic missiles, their capability of supporting proxies in the region, their capability to control the Strait of Hormuz.
And the question I've had all along out when I get into discussions, like even if we imagine all four of those are, say, desirable objectives.
What is the likelihood that we have military means available to achieve those objectives?
I think our soldiers are often put in an impossible position as to achieve things that cannot be achieved by military means.
What is your sense about the probability of achieving those objectives by those means?
And by contrast, the risk that we actually increase the probability, for example, they get a nuclear weapon now because the fatwa is gone, the moderates are gone, the restrainers are gone, and so forth.
Yeah, I think your last point is key there.
Iran, under the previous Supreme Leader before he was killed, there was a fatwa, there was a self regulation that prevented them from developing a nuclear weapon.
And this was something the entire intelligence community agreed on.
Iran's a country full of smart people, very capable.
They could have had a nuclear weapon a long time ago.
The previous Ayatollah prevented them from doing so.
And this is why it was really key for the Israelis to take him out because he was on the pathway of getting a deal with President Trump.
This is why the Israelis had to move the red line from no nuclear weapons, which the last Ayatollah agreed on.
To no enrichment.
And so, like, the further we go down the chain of continuing to kill off negotiators, continuing to kill off Iranian leadership, we're seeing two main things happen.
Number one, there's a rally around the flag effect.
So, even Iranians who don't like this regime, who were on the streets in January protesting because of the economic conditions, they are now rallying around the flag, which I think is just basic human psychology 101.
None of us here probably like the Biden administration, but if a foreigner would have invaded America under Biden, I would have, you know, gone to war for the Biden administration, right?
I think it's just basic common sense.
Combine that with the Shia martyrdom.
Culture and the Persian pride, you're only hardening the regime.
And then if you kill off the moderates, look, the moderates were the ones that for a long time were having an internal argument with the hardliners and saying, we can negotiate with the Americans.
We basically just won the hardliners' case for them by killing off the moderates.
Now the hardliners are going to say, like, we got to get a nuke.
Look at North Korea.
They're not getting invaded right now.
And we got to go on the offensive against the Americans and against pretty much everybody, which is what they're doing right now.
So I don't think we can literally just bomb these guys back to the Stone Age and get our desired effect.
That just doesn't work.
And also, like saying that we're going to take away all their ability to enrich, we're going to take away all their ability to have ballistic missiles, that is just a trap.
That's a recipe for like a never ending conflict because what is a capability to enrich?
Are you saying like if any remnant of the uranium is buried somewhere under the rubble, like they still have the capability, like any ability whatsoever to produce any kind of ballistic missile, they still have the capability?
It sounds like one of these moving goalposts that we could forever chase.
And 20 years from now, we could be engaged in a war in Iran still.
And be like, why the heck did we get in this thing in the first place?
The way we found ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, again, we've got to state what our strategic goals are.
And I think just because of the stranglehold on world energy and how impactful this is to the rest of the world, the president's got to restrain the Israelis, get to the negotiating table as fast as possible if we want to resume the world economy to anything that resembles normalcy.
Joe, I mean, some people are going to ask, you know, what's your source and what's your evidence for the rallying around the flag stuff?
Because nobody has access to information.
Internet's been down in Iran.
That's Part one of the question, but the second part is more of the broader issue as to what information you had access to before they cut you out.
Part of the smear or part of the leak is that Trump had cut you out.
People thought you were going off the deep end.
And so you actually had no intel leading up to this.
You weren't part of any meetings, but you were part of the presidential daily briefs.
The flip side argument to that is if Trump actually went and started an excursion with Iran, one would think that they would want to get the feedback of the director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
So, I mean, what was your access to information up until your resignation?
And then the end of that is what's your source for people rallying around the flag in Iran?
So, I had a full top secret, you know, I had access to the PDB.
The National Counterterrorism Center writes pieces that go in the PDB occasionally.
Now, the president can choose who he wants to have in his inner circle for the decision making.
In the lead up to the 12 day war, there were quite a few robust debates and a bigger group that was around him.
And I was part of that group.
Post 12 day war, that circle tightened quite a bit.
And so I was not around then for a lot of those discussions.
I was still in charge of the National Counterterrorism Center.
We were putting terrorism related pieces of intelligence into the president's daily brief and into the intelligence chain, for lack of a better term.
I was still participating in the deputy committee meetings, the National Security Council process.
So, yeah, I mean, anybody in the administration can easily say that only two or three people were involved in this meeting or that meeting.
I think that the president just had a very, very tight group going into this last part of the war.
And I think because that group was so small, I just don't think he heard a lot of dissenting voices.
Ahead of making such a consequential decision.
And to me, like people are suggesting that was somehow an endorsement.
It's like that's a sign of a bad decision making process that the president is not listening to our own national intelligence report, which confirmed, for example, as Tulsi Gabbard has now publicly testified to under oath, that the nuclear enrichment capability had been obliterated and that there had been no evidence of any effort to return to it for the purposes of developing a nuclear weapon under the now dead Ayatollah.
Now, going into the specific military operations, there's about a quartet of options that have been publicly discussed.
There probably, of course, are more that are privately being discussed.
But can you talk about the logistical, as someone who has done this, been on the ground, helped organize?
I mean, there's other people that have also spoken out.
Colonel McGregor's done this.
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has done it.
But as someone who's been on the ground extensively in the Middle East, about what the risks are of success and the risks to our soldiers of things like how do we get there, whether we're talking about the islands, whether we're talking about the coastline.
Whether we're talking about removing the enriched uranium from an identified facility, there's always the issues of whether it's actually accurately identified, the risks of how you defend your position once you're there, the risk of how you get supplies in to stay there, and the risk of being able to exfill out what some of the high logistical risks are for any of the military operations the president is currently considering.
Yeah, immense risks.
I realize I didn't answer the question that Viva had about the rally around the flag effect.
I would say that they are rallying around the flag because we haven't seen any of the multiple Iranian resistance groups or popular protests against the regime materialize in anything significant.
We've had the president and then others that have encouraged them to do so, and we're simply not seeing that.
As a matter of fact, we're seeing rallies in support of the regime.
We're seeing that the prime minister and other folks can, or the president, And other Iranian leaders can go out and participate in those rallies as well.
Time will tell.
But in general, the assessment was always that this was going to create a rally around the flag assessment.
But again, I can't share anything classified.
I don't know.
Actually, right now at this point, I don't know anything classified.
I would just think for the amount of resistance there was against the regime, if anything was going to materialize, we would see it soon.
And so we're simply just not seeing that.
In terms of military operations on the ground, look, Iran's a massive country.
They've already shown a capability to be able to project power.
A very impressive use of their drones, of their ballistic missiles, of their ability potentially to even use mines.
We know that they're very effective asymmetric fighters from having to fight them in Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, and other places.
So, if we were to go put a conventional force in into the islands or even into these enrichment facilities, we've got a major issue because it's not just a matter of getting them in and having us take the physical ground, whether that's the Iranian nuclear facilities or whether that's the beachhead on the islands.
I think we could do that, but how do we hold it?
How do we hold it, especially, and how do we defend the airspace?
We're kind of demonstrating right now, unfortunately, that we can't defend all the airspace around our own bases that we've had a permanent presence at in the region.
So I believe, because the Iranians are pretty smart, they would let us come into either the islands or the nuclear facilities.
I think they would let us land there.
I think they would let us take the facilities pretty quickly.
But then they know logistically we have to get our people out.
In the case of the uranium facilities, they know that we have to get about 1,000 pounds of the uranium.
Dug up from the earth and then extricated.
We have to build a runway.
There's all kinds of things that we would have to do to make that mission happen.
So I think the Iranians basically would bait the trap.
They would let us come in and then they'd give a couple good volleys of drones and ballistic missiles.
And then they would say to us, like, hey, your guys are basically our hostages now.
And they wouldn't really even need to go and put their hands on them.
They would just say, look, we can take these guys out.
You can't come in.
You can't get your air in.
They're now cut off.
And we would lose a ton of our leverage.
It would be a national embarrassment.
It would be a disaster, loss of life.
There's basically no good outcome for us putting boots on the ground anywhere in this conflict.
And I can't emphasize that enough.
I mean, I put out a call to action the other day encouraging people to call the White House comment line, call the House, call the Senate, because I believe that President Trump is being pressured right now by the Department of War, by the pro Israel lobby.
We heard Mark Levin making the case the other night.
I mean, Levin didn't come up with that plan on his own.
Someone fed Levin that plan.
The president told everybody to go watch Levin.
And then Levin and the guy from the American Enterprise Institute basically laid out this very complicated military operation.
Advocating for.
So these things are being considered.
And I think that it'd be a massive mistake.
Am I going crazier?
Did I notice Levin and Dinesh D'Souza now seemingly changing tact a little bit?
Where Dinesh, I'm not so sure about, but Mark Levin was for boots on the ground and now he's for arming the Iranians with a million rifles and whatever.
Are they feeling a bit of the pressure blowback within the administration or are they just covering their butts because they see how badly this is going in the eyes of the public?
I think probably a combination of both.
I mean, look, Levin, I'm not sure about Dinesh, but I mean, Levin is getting talking points directly from the pro Israel lobby.
And I think Levin is being used basically as a weather balloon to see what people have the tolerance for.
So I think he's floating various ideas out there to see what kind of popular support that they get, knowing that the president watches Mark Levin.
So I think in the last couple of days, we heard a couple of people, Lindsey Graham, too, say, oh, we don't need boots on the ground anymore.
Whereas the weekend before, he was advocating for like an Iwo Jima.
You know, on one of the islands in the Straits of Hormuz.
I think we're going to hear this kind of back and forth to see what they can, what there's trade space for with the American people and then also with President Trump himself.
So, even the idea of arming the Iranian people and the resistance groups, I just think that would be absolute insanity as well.
Because if we awash the place, you know, with arms, that could lead to an even more chaotic situation.
That could lead to just absolute chaos breaking out, a mass migration crisis, et cetera.
So, Again, the best thing that we can do is restrain the Israelis, get to the negotiating table with the Iranians, and stop trying to come up with a scenario where we can swoop in there some way, shape, or form and do a clean sweep on the regime, because clearly that's not going to happen.
The other option the president is talking about, and I was disappointed to see Secretary of War Hegseth put it out as an ex post, is to bomb them back to the Stone Age.
And no, three different risks with that.
One, to me, that's quite frankly a war crime.
I'm, you know, from your training, In the military, I assume they explain that taking out purely civilian infrastructure to disproportionately harm and lead to the mass death of civilians has been a war crime since we established it with the Nuremberg Code after World War II.
What are your thoughts on that?
And what happens if a soldier refuses to execute it because they're under an ongoing obligation to not obey a patently unlawful order?
The second aspect, and that could create its own political blowback for the president.
The second aspect is the logistical difficulties of actually achieving that in the sense of can you destroy someone's full capacity and capability?
Iran has a mosaic decentralized defense structure and a mosaic electric power grid structure.
And even if you took out a whole bunch of it, what's going to stop them from firing rockets like the last soldier in Japan defending the island?
And then third, I don't see anybody talking about the retaliation.
The president's kind of, and he's been lied to clearly, or he believes things are just patently wrong.
They can't do anything about it if we take it out.
Yes, they can.
They can take out all of the water desalination plants and power grid and oil of the entire Gulf countries.
And then we've got a whole nother environmental and humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.
Can you talk about what some of the downside risks are and limits of power are of that?
Put them back to the Stone Age strategy.
Yeah, I mean, look, the idea of bombing them into the Stone Age, like, that's nothing new.
And if it worked, I mean, we would have won Vietnam.
We would have won the Iraq War, Afghanistan.
It just, it simply doesn't work.
I mean, we can debate the morality of it.
And I'm sure some military lawyer can say, well, you know, if the civilian infrastructure is being used by the enemy, then it's legitimate to target.
But to your point, too, like, Iran is a big country, it's a mountainous country.
We would have to have basically unlimited bombs and be willing to bomb Iran, you know, indefinitely, which I know, like, Lindsey Graham probably wants.
But I just don't think there's a lot of tolerance for that.
And so, this threat that we have of like, yeah, we have overwhelming air power and we can bomb you into the Stone Age.
We can bomb the crap out of you, whatever.
It sounds good.
And I think it scares people for about 24 to 48 hours.
But after a while, it's just not an effective tactic.
And again, back to hardening the more that we bomb and the more civilian targets that we take out.
And Trump was talking about taking out the electric grid last night.
It's like, okay, well, if you take out the electric grid, I mean, you're just going to make life for people there miserable.
People are going to die in hospitals, et cetera.
Diplomatic Pressure on Iran00:04:34
And at no point are these people going to become so miserable.
That they're just going to say, like, okay, fine, like I tap, like America, just come do whatever you want.
No, we're going to harden them.
That's going to speak to the amount of blowback, the amount of blowback terrorism that we're going to see here in the United States.
And then also, the Iranians then are going to probably become even more unhinged and they're going to start targeting, like you said, the water treatment plants in the Gulf, which is going to create more of a crisis, which is going to put more political pressure on us.
So I just think this tactic is very, very dangerous because it sounds appealing.
Like we have all these bombs and these bombing capabilities.
But at the same time, it is not effective.
It will just accelerate things and it won't give us the outcome that we want.
Joe, a lot of people say now, okay, well, what do you propose to do now?
Saying I wouldn't have gone in is one thing therein.
Saying I wouldn't have gone here, they're there now.
In your opinion, what would be the wisest course of action right now for Trump in order to not even mitigate the damages that presupposes perspective?
What should he do now?
And what would you do now if you were in charge?
So, number one, restrain the Israelis.
Tell the Israelis they're done going on the offense.
We'll give them what they need to defend their country.
We won't let them be harmed.
However, they are done going on the offense.
This is our war we're paying for.
This is our war that we're bleeding for.
So, the Israelis have got to be restrained.
And I think we're going to have to get pretty tough with them because they've never really been told no by us before.
So, I think we're going to have to start taking away a lot of their defense capabilities that we provide them so that all they have is the ability to go on defense.
From there, while we still can, we've got to go to the Iranians and say, hey, look, number one, like, Open up the Straits of Hormuz.
We will lift sanctions on the oil to introduce the oil to the world economy.
I think we're going to need to offer that carrot because that's going to help them start to rebuild their country.
And then I think we need to negotiate in a very, very serious and meaningful way with the Iranians and try to figure out how we can have a security arrangement in the Gulf that allows the Straits of Hormuz to open and for the energy to flow.
From there, I think we're going to have a lot of diplomatic work to do with the GCC countries because basically, one of the deals we have with the GCC was that we would defend you.
In a time of war.
Well, that didn't happen in a very big way.
We started a war and then we weren't able to defend the GCC countries.
So we need to convince them to continue to strengthen and use the petrodollar because the Chinese are chipping away at the petrodollar right now.
So again, but this is going to all have to be done through diplomacy.
So we've got to stop the shooting initially and you've got to restrain the Israelis to do that.
And then getting the Iranians to the negotiating table, I think, is key.
Even throughout all of this, it seems, it appears, anyways, that the Iranians are still willing to have some degree of dialogue with us, but I don't think they'll take us seriously.
Until we can actually get a ceasefire, and we can't get the ceasefire until we actually restrain the Israelis.
And speaking of which, sort of as we wrap up, the sort of longer term aspects in the political dialogue and discourse that we've let the Israel lobby in the United States dogwalk us into a wide range of conflicts in the Middle East that I think are ultimately to the detriment of Israel's own security interests, but are also, but are clearly detrimental to our own domestic political agenda, to our international agenda, to our peace and prosperity.
What kind of conversation do we need to start having in the country about rebalancing the relationship between the U.S. and Israel?
Yeah, I think any foreign government having influence over us and over our policies, especially in terms of who we go to war with, is a major issue.
So I think the amount of influence that, like, APAC, for instance, has, that needs to be dealt with.
And I think the only way to truly deal with that is to have an informed public who really starts holding their elected officials accountable and saying, like, they will not vote for people that are taking, you know, the hundreds of thousands of dollars from APAC and these other organizations that have a foreign government's best interest in mind.
And then I think we just have to be very realistic about how much access.
We give the Israelis just because we have an intelligence sharing relationship with another country, that doesn't mean they get basically unfettered access to the principles of our country, the principal decision makers of our country.
And then also, their intelligence we have to look at from the lens of they're giving us this intelligence to inform us, but also to influence us.
And I think we've forgotten that a lot with the Israelis.
A lot of times, because the Israelis are a competent intelligence service, they're very good at what they do.
Refusing to Testify00:05:05
We will just view the intelligence that they give us as basically like just great intel, as opposed to they're giving us this intel to inform, to influence us towards the outcome that benefits them and not necessarily us.
We have to have a lot more skepticism when it comes to dealing with the Israelis.
Joe, do you have a few more minutes?
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
If I may, I should come back to what we started at the beginning.
Charlie Kirk, if I don't get this question out, I'll be frustrated.
People are accusing you of, say, betraying Charlie Kirk.
You know, the rumor was that you were.
Prepared to testify for the defense.
My understanding was the defense was thinking of calling you as a potential witness, as they can subpoena anybody.
But if you can address that in a second, but also the big one everyone's accusing you of having leaked information to Candace Owens and fomented her conspiracy theories or what some people believe untenable, outlandish theories about Egyptian planes, the Israelis behind it.
The text message at issue you've denied communicating that to Candace Owens.
Did you communicate anything to Candace Owens, any information whatsoever, classified or not, that people would say whether or not it's illegal, it's a betrayal or something to even entertain that thought?
No, I didn't.
No, I understand exactly what you can and what you can't disclose.
There's nothing I gave to Candace.
So that's the end of that.
And now, the question about testifying, about being called as a witness, is that people are saying now you're going to help Tyler Robinson get acquitted because of the doubts or whatever theories that you're raising?
What was the context under which you were either contemplating being a witness or being called to testify for the defense?
Do you know?
No.
So if the defense in any case that NCTC or any federal agency has touched, the defense, actually the prosecution too, can subpoena that.
So the defense can look at anything that we did and subpoena it as evidence.
Now, obviously, some of it's classified, there's a whole process for that.
But this is kind of the threat, essentially, that the FBI will kind of always use.
They'll say, hey, if you guys are looking into this, You could be called to testify by the defense.
And I think that may get some people to back off saying, oh, I don't want to be called by the defense in any case.
I always said, like, I don't have any problem with testifying if I'm called to testify.
I want to continue to investigate.
So I will not allow the threat of having to testify on behalf of the defense or anybody, the prosecution for that matter, to stop me from finishing the investigation and seeking the truth.
Now, my words have been twisted and people said, oh, Kent's volunteering to testify for the defense.
Like, I'm not volunteering to testify for anybody.
My premise was that there is major issues still with being able to run down all the foreign leads.
I think that still needs to be done.
I don't think it was done completely.
As to any of the work that we did in NCTC, I have no problem with testifying if I am called to do so.
But again, I wasn't going to be intimidated and back down just because the FBI came and said, Hey, if you keep investigating, you're going to be called to testify.
I said, Okay, fine.
If somebody wants to call me to testify to show the work that we did, I have full confidence that we followed all the right procedures and that we are looking at viable leads.
And I want to continue to investigate.
So that's kind of where that came from.
It's more of a, hey, back off now tactic.
It's a soft way of getting you to back off.
And then they come back around and they leak that and they say, oh, everything you're saying now could be used by the defense.
Well, to me, it's like, do we want to get to the truth or do we not?
And I have always said, I just want to get to the truth of what happened to Charlie Kirk.
In two aspects, there.
One is it's an old government conspiracy or government strategy or scheme, which is, well, we don't know.
We don't have to disclose.
Ha, ha, ha.
It's not been a very effective one for honest and thorough investigations.
The second part is it's often, if there's no there, there, it helps vindicate.
It helps exonerate.
It helps be a, hey, here's the National Counterterrorism Center that did a full investigation into this that said that this theory is completely wrong just to debunk it.
The fact that they didn't want, I mean, I am still yet to hear a plausible explanation as for the extraordinary security lapse that day, where the university told Turning Point, don't put somebody on the roof, don't put somebody to guard the roof, don't put a drone over the roof because we have it completely secured.
And then they never did.
And the prosecutor hasn't investigated that.
The FBI hasn't investigated it.
There's serious problems that all they do is give ammunition to conspiracy theories if you think they're deranged or off.
That's where that fuel is coming from.
Don't want it there?
Do a full, meaningful investigation.
Just like the Epstein files.
You don't get people to quit talking about it by trying to hide it and bury it.
All that does is create the Barbara Streisand effect.
But just my two cents.
The last question.
Epstein Files Investigation00:09:29
First, I want to say you've been a courageous and extraordinary man of extraordinary character for a very, very long time, Joe.
I've watched it for years.
Great admirer and great respecter of what you've done.
And I think it's critical and essential to avoid what could be the most catastrophic war decision in American history.
And I do not say that with exaggeration.
I say that somebody who wants Trump to succeed.
Who wants this military effort to not go awry and all the rest?
So much credit to you in that regard.
And anybody who comes after you legally, you might have some free legal defense out there, just FYI to people who may be thinking about it.
But what's the future for Joe Kent?
You got the near short term doing everything possible to keep us from making a catastrophic decision.
But hopefully the president wakes up, wisens up, returns to his roots, returns to his MAGA wife away from his BB mistress and gets us back on the right track.
What then is the future for Joe Kent?
Remains to be seen.
I don't know.
I kind of knew I needed to leave when I left.
I believe in advocating for a true America First policy for getting foreign influence out of our decision making process and actually having a national security apparatus that supports the defense of the country.
So I want to continue to work on those issues.
I'd be happy to serve in an administration again.
Obviously, I don't expect Trump to call me back after the way I left.
I understand that.
But I passionately care about these issues.
I think this issue of getting Israeli influence out of our foreign policy.
Is going to be a critical issue going into 2028 for both the Republicans and the Democrats, too.
And I think with a younger generation of voters, people that are my age and younger, the issue of getting the Israeli influence out of our foreign policy is going to be very, very critical.
And I think we can find a lot of common ground with people who understand that one of the most important things that the president does is foreign policy.
A lot of people feel disconnected from foreign policy and they want to hear the president talk about things that affect their daily lives.
But a place where the president has probably the most unilateral power.
It is in the foreign policy realm.
Your governors and your senators and your congressmen and your state legislatures, they have a lot more to do with your daily life than the president does.
And this is why presidents, I think, spend so much time on foreign policy.
So I think it's absolutely critical that we get people who understand how the national security state works, where the influence points are, how the Israelis have infiltrated a lot of our foreign policy decision making.
And we work towards rooting that stuff out.
That's where I would like to put in a lot of effort.
Exactly how I'm going to.
Do that going forward.
I'm really not sure.
I'm hoping that we can bring this war to Iran with Iran to an end here quickly.
That's my main goal.
Joe, actually, maybe two quick last questions.
Any aspirations of potentially running for office in 2028 or beyond?
No.
Look, I'd never rule anything out.
Like, I want to serve my country.
But, like, I ran for Congress twice.
I'm not in Congress.
Running for office was a great experience.
I hate asking people for money and just the sheer volume of fundraising you have to do for, like, running for a national office is not anything I have any desire to do.
I think staying in the realm of national security and hopefully serving a future administration at some point, I'd be willing to do that, or at least just advocating for the policies from the outside as well.
And this will be the very last question, I promise.
A lot of people think that they noticed a change in trajectory of Trump's presidency.
What started off in the eyes of many as being purely transformational turned into something that's been a little disappointing, whether or not firing Bondi will change the trajectory for the midterms.
Is there a moment that you can identify as when you started noticing?
The trajectory of the MAGA, MAHA, America First presidency started taking a turn that you didn't see coming.
You know, it was in the lead up and the aftermath to the 12 day war.
In the lead up to the 12 day war, I really thought that the president was just going to tell the Israelis to kind of pound sand and that he was pursuing the negotiations because I truly believe that Steve Witkopf was on the cusp of getting us a deal that would have been historic with the Iranians.
So I think the way that the Israelis were able to come in there around May, June timeframe, I think that was significant.
I didn't have a front row seat for the Epstein files, but the effect.
That the blocking of the Epstein files, the fake rollout with the media, and then President Trump being very defensive and combative about it, there was a turning point there.
Again, I wasn't in the room.
The Epstein files and all that was under the DOJ's purview.
So we didn't really have access to any of the inner workings there, but there was definitely a real shift in the course of the administration from my perspective then.
Where can people follow you on social media, Joe?
You can find me on X.
It's Joe Kent, 16JAN19.
I'm on Instagram there as well.
Fantastic.
Thank you very much, Joe.
Joe, I'm going to kick you from the studio.
Don't take offense.
And then Robert and I will talk about Pan Bondi right now.
Joe, thank you very much.
It's been fantastic.
Thanks, guys.
I appreciate it.
Godspeed.
Robert, is that a real American?
Not some of these keyboard warriors that have decided to troll the chat.
That's a guy who served 11 combat tours overseas.
That's a man who lost his wife to a man that the president decided to bring into the White House and spray with a real terrorist.
The real terrorist.
Ain't in Tehran, the real terrorist, was in the White House being shown off Trump cologne.
The man that went around with pictures that had a $10 million bounty on him two years ago with people's heads, because he's literally the keen head chopper around.
So, Joe's a real American, unlike some of the keyboard warriors and fake patriots that are running around.
I read some of the chat.
The trolls were, I call them trolls.
I don't think you're bots.
You're just, you know, you take advantage of the fact that I didn't put it on slow mode.
Anyone says, Viva, you lost subscribers.
And anybody accuses me of being a grifter, and I've never looked at metrics on Twitter.
I don't care about followers.
And if you think that I care that what I've said has lost followers, goodbye and have a great day.
It's a reflection of your own priorities and not my concerns at all.
You're going to have no influence, bro.
We've been trolled by the best.
No, besides, it's upset, Robert.
Trying to think, oh, we'll go in and troll them and change their mood.
Good luck.
It ain't working, bro.
No, but I've been going back to my best of in terms of.
Fire Bondi, Fire Bondi, July 13, September, Fire Bondi.
Here's a list of reasons why.
Were we proven right again?
So Christy Nome would be out?
People were really hammered.
Oh, Barnes, you said by April, Pam Bondi would be out.
Well, okay, it happened on April 2nd.
Actually, she was fired on April 1st.
So once again, proven right again.
All the naysayers can put their losing bets back in their pocket.
Robert, hold on.
Do you see the regular screen or do you see a page now?
You see nothing different when I talk.
I see the chat on the right hand.
Okay, no, that's fine.
I'm using a different setup.
So I didn't know if I surf screens, if it actually is coming up on what the audience sees.
But let me bring up, because I want to bring up the tip questions over on Crumble, which I didn't have.
I'm going to bring them up on the side here.
I think I got to everything that people were asking, but I couldn't get to all of them.
Andrew Piscadlo says Does the entire administration believe we are simpletons who cannot see these insider trades on war?
It's not just Democrats who they angered.
Some of us can see the difference between the insider trades, and we will identify them.
We think, what does it say?
Do you think this is Russia in plan for?
Okay, fine.
And there's, oh, hold on.
Let me see if I can go into Viva Barnes Law.
See, now I think I'll be able to see this.
Okay, Robert, do you see this now or you don't see anything?
I do see it, yeah.
Okay, so let me go.
Is it occupying the entire screen?
No, only 80% of it.
Okay, well, I can't see.
Hold on.
Let me see what I can see.
Oh, okay, I can see what we're seeing now.
So this is a screenshot of some of the insider trades that are being made on these things.
We got Bill Brown who says, Arm the terrorists to destabilize the current regime, then try to negotiate with the same terrorists, shaking my effing head.
Well, the argument that, you know, this is how we armed Osama bin Laden, the other guys there, the Mujahideen, you know, to the extent you give them, I don't know, small arms and don't import via, what do they call it, you know, crisis humanitarian refugees, you know, at least you're arming a problem that's going to be local and around, but you're still creating a problem.
What do we got here?
We got Bill Brown with a, with a, okay, we got Dapper Dave says, please, Joe, Asked you why he was not allowed to participate in key meetings.
Okay, I did get to that one.
And I think because they closed, they shut, Trump shut everybody out he didn't want to hear from.
Joe's being very generous about it.
I heard about it.
We, you know, we talked about it back when I was up in the White House in January.
And the word was from a range of people that Trump is becoming memento memory, that he only wanted to hear positive, that everybody was told, don't share anything with him that he'll interpret negatively.
And anybody they thought would rain on the parade was systematically excluded from the conversation.
That's an indictment.
Of Trump's methodology in this war, not an endorsement.
I got a text, won't mention, doesn't matter.
Israel lobby, hit your chat hard.
LOL.
Energy Import Questions00:02:12
Well, oh, my daughter just said she saw a dolphin.
My goodness.
So we're at, we're at, where was she at, by the way?
I was thinking she's in school.
She's still on spring break.
Is there a dolphin coming into the school?
What's going on there?
We played hooky and now we're at, you know, Longboat Key.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, that's cool.
It's amazing.
Let me see here.
Viva Fry, can you ask Kent the strategic pros and cons?
I can't read what I just brought up here.
The strategic.
Can Joe confirm any of the reports of KSUAE Israel have blown through a ridiculous number of missiles already?
I think we got to a lot of that.
There were too many questions.
If Trump exits this war and the Strait of Homers is still closed, that will be a war crime.
Lack of that oil will lead to a lot of people starving.
Well, I love that the idea there would be he's just created a problem for other nations to the extent his excuse is, well, we can become energy independent.
And that's an interesting way of forcing Europe to ally itself with Iran.
Especially given Europe's Islamification, as many people have called it.
And then there's two issues with it.
One is we're not as immune.
First of all, there's certain kinds of oil we actually import.
We're not, you know, that there's certain things that we have an export edge in.
There's certain aspects of energy we have an import in.
So there's that aspect.
The second aspect is oil and gas is a global market.
Go to your local gas station if you don't believe me.
And then third, there's all the input cost.
Oil and gas go into all these inputs.
And then you have the derivatives.
You have petrochemicals.
You have helium.
You have a range of things that they make that are derivative of it, that you have key fertilizers.
That goes into the global food supply.
That goes into the inputs into the whole supply chain that come back into the United States.
And if China feels squeezed, they'll just cut off our rare earths.
And what does that mean?
A lot of those weapons that we're supposedly going to try to scale up and make, we can't make because we need the rare earths to make.
So pretending we're insulated from the Straits of Hormuz.
Is unfortunately more illusional than truth.
Let me read this.
King of Biltong says Biltong is one of the highest protein snacks in the world, boasting over 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
January 6th Bombing Plot00:07:57
Biltongusa.com.
Use code AVIVA for 10% off.
I've got to remind King of Biltong my new address because I think he's continually sending some great Biltong to the people who live in my old address.
They're probably like, hey, this is great.
What a bonus.
Let me see here.
No, Joe is a loser just like Bongino.
You can have a good past and still turn into a bitch, says, and then me.
You'd have to substantiate that accusation.
That's probably a bitch.
Let's be honest.
That commenter is a real bitch.
Confession through projection.
Very useful filter.
Well, you know what I was going to say?
And then me.
I don't know if it's a male or a female, but men can be bitches too, people.
So don't ask them to trick yourself.
See Dan Bongino.
I say, look, Dan Bongino is going to be mildly vindicated now that Pan Bondi's been fired.
The only problem is some of his.
Post deputy director behavior on social media might piss a lot of people off where they would say, You might have been better off just, you know, not tweeting out and just let, you know, let it settle.
Who did you see?
I mean, the case he took the biggest credit for.
I think you covered it extensively yesterday that what we said from a get go is more and more proven correct.
It's effing amazing that the, um, the defense team, we're going to talk about it more on Sunday, but the defense team made a filing indicating that Kirchhoff, uh, allegedly failed a polygraph when the FBI had identified her as a person of interest.
That the alibi video that we said, why haven't we seen the video of her playing with the puppies?
Apparently it's just a video of her puppies with a voice in the background that they've, this is all allegedly because maybe it's just not true and they've alleged something false in the, in the motion.
I, oh, maybe we're going to have to talk about it now, but then they make a, uh, who was it?
Jocelyn Ballantyne then files a motion for contempt against the lawyer for the filing.
Who is that prosecutor again?
No, just a note.
Just remind everybody for the backstory, for those people who may not know, the person who likely did the J6 pipe bombing was working for the Capitol Police, may have been, I suspect, always working with the Intel community, now is on the payroll at the CIA, right on the verge of her being publicly identified to the world.
They went in the counterfeit cash, and then Bolas Bongino.
And pay for play now, ex attorney general Pam Bondi decided to blame a black autistic kid Trump supporter instead, who's completely innocent.
The defense has now filed legal papers documenting that this same CIA spook failed a polygraph test on whether she was the one who did it, and that the person taking the polygraph test said her physical reactions were strong indicia of deception.
The you know, maybe that would be.
I hope that video ever gets public because then the behavior panel can do a breakdown.
Well, they're gonna have a field day, put Jayce Hughes in there.
Greg Hartley in there, Scott Rouse in there.
It's going to be wowzers.
So, the, and now they're the prosecutor prosecuting the case is the same prosecutor who engaged in lawfare against January 6th defendants and General Flynn.
And that is the one for now attacking the defense lawyers for spotting this and identifying it.
The only thing the defense lawyers did that was wrong was include the addresses and the subpoenas that they, I say, potentially wrong.
Everybody can say it's public information, but there's a difference between public and then putting it on blast.
In a filing that you know is going to be made public.
There's allegedly the Capitol Police officer allegedly received an email death threat.
Kyle Serafin went over this today and astutely observed that the threat that Kirchhoff allegedly got by email was like a few minutes after, I think it was before the filing was made public, but shortly after it was filed, as if someone's sitting there following Pacer to see when the filing gets made.
Kyle Seraphim, I was a little surprised, came to the defense of Bongino and said he assumes or suspects that neither Bongino nor Patel knew of this FBI polygraph of her that they identified, that they probably had no idea, which is why allegedly,
when Bongino thought it was Cole Jr., allegedly threatened to finance a defamation suit, threatened Massey with this, they probably didn't even know this, which leads to my theory that this is Dirty Rats, the old.
Deep state within the FBI that we're setting them up to be humiliated when this thing blows up.
And we're getting there.
I mean, it's Bongino's out, but Patel's going to have to answer to this.
Bondi's out.
She's not going to have to answer to this.
Did they know that there was a failed polygraph as this person was identified?
And five days later, they go after Brian Cole?
And the alibi is, like I said, thinner than a butterfly's wing.
Well, we'll talk about it more on Friday and I'm going to do a follow up vlog because the contempt was wild.
Um, what did the lawyers respond in the follow up to the contempt?
Oh, did you see the filing, Robert, that they filed in response to the contempt?
It said, it said, uh, we weren't prohibited from, uh, identifying any of this when we were on the phone.
We said that sensitive material would involve any, basically any naming any assets who were working undercover in the context of January 6th, either the investigation or January 6th.
I forget which.
And the, the implication being it wouldn't include Kirkhoff, unless she was working undercover in the context of January 6th, or they just misidentified.
Yes, I did.
I did see that.
Yeah.
I mean, I did love the.
Because wasn't it the government?
The first out of government was like, they're trying to get into someone who was working undercover on January 6th.
And it's like, did you not realize what you just disclosed?
That this CIA spook on the official payroll of the Capitol Police, they're admitting was undercover, which would mean that the allegations against her are likely true.
But it wouldn't shock me.
They're not the brightest bulbs over there.
No, it's amazing.
And look, I pick everybody's brain, even the brains of people I disagree with.
I've come to appreciate Kyle's insights where he said, to the extent it was allegedly and innocent until proven guilty, she might have just been told, we're running a training exercise.
We don't know for sure.
But when she shows up working for the CIA later, it's like, by all accounts, from everything I've heard, that she's a very nice person, like a wonderful person on a personal level.
And might just have been thrust into the middle of this, and nobody knew it was going to explode the way it did.
And now the cover up is exacerbating the initial crime, which itself is, you know, potentially ending of democracy.
And we're on it, we're following it, and we'll talk about it more on Sunday.
What day is today?
It's Thursday today.
Well, let me see something here.
Oh, yeah, I was going to say, everybody, get over to Locals.
Support the work that we do at Locals.
You can, as Robert says, you can troll if you pay the toll, but it's 10 bucks a month, 100 bucks a year.
An amazing community.
If you want to get some merch, Viva Fry or 1776 Law Center to support Robert Barnes, you know, the actual legal side of things.
Robert, what are you up to today before we go raid redacted?
Oh, hold on.
Do you want to stick around?
We'll do an after party with locals and Rumble Premium.
You got a few weeks?
We can do an after party at Viva Barnes Lot.
Locals.com.
You can look up the latest hush hush on who was it that might have talked Trump or convinced Trump to go into war and somebody that nobody is talking about.
You can look at that or the other 80.
Seven plus hush hushes that are up on a wide range of alternative narratives of historical events.
But go over to vivobarnslaw.locals.com where everybody's above average, even the trolls.
And now we're going to go raid.
And I appreciate now why some people say the raid is a little bit, you know, and it bumps you out when you don't opt out.
When I hit confirm raid, you can opt out of going to the next channel if you want to stick around if you are Rumble Premium or come to Locals.