Tell everybody who you are for those who are meeting you for the first time.

Yeah, well, thanks for that opportunity.

I definitely am in like the Garfunkel camp.

Kyle Serafin is a Simon.

I like to give him a ribbing about that.

But I was an FBI agent from 2014 up until technically 2025, but essentially worked on Indian reservations for about seven years in Iowa, was working on the reservations that were in northeast Nebraska.

transferred in 2021 to Florida, where I currently reside, just outside of Daytona Beach, to work on child exploitation cases, human trafficking, but then was transferred over to work on domestic terrorism cases because that was right around that time where we were investigating every single person that went at or near the Capitol in January 2021, January 6th.

How do you get involved in Biden's FBI and walk us up to the age of the disclosures or the whistleblower and what led up to that?

Yeah.

A little bighorn, 76, 77, somewhere in there.

So he's coming out of the Civil War.

He's this war hero.

Democrats are starting to poke him and say, hey, how would you feel about running for Congress? And ultimately, he just wants to go back to the battlefield.

And he winds up going west.

He loves nature.

Wilson as president?

What is the federal crime that Swalwell could potentially be under investigation over, given what we've learned about his connections to Fang Fang and her CCP involvement and also some of his personal conduct and what women have been saying?

my understanding everything that pertained to the relationship with fang fang is kind of off the table at this point i think the fbi is getting involved in this sexual assault allegations but the problem is like you alluded to the federal crime nexus just really isn't there because if these crimes did occur they happened in the bay area and that is not a special jurisdiction where a sexual assault charge would actually fall within the federal government's purview I think they're really leaning on a deprivation of rights charge, 18 United States Code 242.

But then again, you're up against it, because was he in his official capacity working for the government there? What I think would have been the more optimal solution here was to let the local police authorities take on this, let the local prosecutors take this on, but also be there in a liaison capacity, be there in assistance capacity.

If you have the ability to exploit the technological resources that the locals get via their search warrants, then you could be there.

And if you happen to find something else that relates to a federal crime, then you would take that on here.

I think they may have jumped the gun here, and they will be at risk of actually subverting what a local prosecutor would bring forward a judicious prosecution against somebody who might have engaged in something that's pretty deplorable.

What type of response do you think Joe DeVette and Jennifer is going to get to that invitation for agents who were raiding Mar-a-Lago to sit down for a voluntary interview?

Well, the invitation right there is not really a compulsion to go.

And can you just give us kind of an elevator, like a thumbnail sketch here, Steve, of this ruling that came down?

Yeah, so this came down just heading into the July 4th weekend.

It was that whole week leading up to a whole bunch of Supreme Court decisions came out.

Now, this is the geofence warrant decision or kind of decision that we got.

Now, anything that pertains to the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure, when it relates to do you need to get a search warrant in order to get that? Really, there were two decisions that had to be made.

One is, is the information being voluntarily provided by somebody? And the other question is, is it a general warrant, which we kind of don't like in this country.

We kind of fought a revolutionary war over that.

Explain why it got kicked down and how if this is actually the win that we think it is.

Um, uh, how much more work lies ahead to really uproot the politicized nature of the FBI?

I think that it is an unscalable mountain at this point.

I mean, if you look at the Durham Report, the actual takeaway from that is there's no amount of training or new policies that you can actually implement.

It ultimately comes down to the personnel.

The personnel, they are vetted for having integrity, and we just haven't seen the necessary turnover there.

I mean, you cannot do reform with the same people, and that's not to ascribe some sort of mo- malice intent to most people who work for the FBI.

But I think there is a fair amount of people who are just good Germans, good Americans who are willing to put their nose to the grindstone and just follow orders, and they have the ability to do that because they can say, "Well, this is legal.

What are you tracking there, Steve?

So what are the lingering questions that we have about this?

Uh, there are a plenty on this one.

Uh, well, there actually are a plenty on just about every single FBI terrorism arrest that happens now when, uh, not just under this FBI, but under privi- previous administrations as well.

Look, the FBI has a playbook that it likes to run on terrorist cases, and I should actually start with there are no terrorist charges on this.

It's all criminal violations.

But the joint terrorism task forces were involved, and about a dozen different FBI field offices that were...

Tho- those were the resources that were being used for this plot.

I mean, that's immediately what popped into my mind.

Mm-hmm.

This is a talking point that the FBI director uses all of the time.

FBI Director Kash Patel, who I call, uh, FBI Director Medium Password Strength, because he signs his autograph, his autograph.

He autographs things.

Capital A, lowercase A, dollar sign, H, number nine, because he's the ninth FBI director and he thinks he's a professional athlete.

So FBI Director Medium Password Strength.

He likes to tout how the FBI has rescued thousands of children.

Easy

Like, are you justifying this?

Uh, well, just from a rationality of who's voting versus the online space.

I think when it comes to Epstein, you have the, the announcement, the sort of the stealth announcement that the DOJ and the FBI are not gonna look at it anymore.

"We're closing it down," and that was over July 4th of last year.

Over the July 4th weekend, nobody paying attention.

I think nobody paying attention to that is sort of reflective of what the actual voter base is because what you wind up happening is essentially amnesia over that versus the online space where it is top of mind for so many people.

If you go into a social media post, anything that you see, uh, that is coming from an FBI or from, uh, the, the president, something will...

That's a great example.

[laughs]

...

I think that her background, bringing that subject matter expertise to the Department of Justice is just, it was too much of a gap to bridge there.

Look, she went forward.

She tried to do everything she could to, uh, do as I like to call it, the MAGA land acknowledgement, uh, where you come out, before you say anything else, you express fealty to the president right now, and then you hope that that is going to pad over any sort of the ills or any sort of the mistakes or bumps in the road that you've had, and she just didn't do a really good job of communicating that.

So I think the death knell for her finally was when she testified just so poorly in front of both houses of Congress during those hearings there.

But this has been a long time in coming.

What could she have done, do you think, from day one that would have s- that would have made Steve Friend a fan of Pam Bondi?

You can't do reform with the same people.

And Steve, that was the argument, right? We're, uh, we heard from Kash Patel that, "We're gonna shut it all down.

We, we gotta shut it all down." And there's so much rot, there's so much corruption, something you would have gone in there and helped root out.

And has any of that happened? No.

No, it hasn't happened at all.

I mean, I think any of the, the firings that they've touted have been for things that were well beyond any sort of statute of limitations.

I mean, they were hurting their shoulders patting themselves on the back because they wound up terminating the individuals who took a knee for BLM.

Steve, what do you make of that? Do you think Alex Jones is correct that that's the strategy here? Like, we're gonna go attack the independent media that's America First or, or whatever, holding this administration to account for the things that they promised us? That's the way that he can rebuild his audience?

What do you think? Is he just vacationing in Austria? Is this report accurate? Is he that worried because there's an investigation now into all these clowns?

You know, unfortunately, I'm not as bullish as you when it comes to this because I think that, frankly, the challenge is going to be finding an ongoing criminal conspiracy and underlying crime to get us back into the statute of limitations.

And unfortunately, what we're seeing now is a lot of messaging, a lot of PR, a lot of scratching the belly, the id of the MAGA right to give them that red meat, to give them the names, the Comeys, the Brennans, the Clappers, the Obamas, the Clintons, and then the... opportunists that we will see over at the legislative branch are unfortunately going to be holding their hearings.

They're going to give us our viral moments.

But ultimately, I want to see what the vice president articulated, and that is a legitimate indictment of a crime.

Thank you.

And I'm fearful that we're going to be outside of that.

That was me.

What's your take?

I think that's a fair theory and it's completely plausible because we had a lame duck period after Donald Trump was elected president the second time.

And we know for a fact from other whistleblowers, like my buddy Garrett O'Boyle, that there were documents being destroyed over at the FBI.

Who's to say that they weren't manipulated? But I wanna go back to what you mentioned about having promises, making promises of having a deliverable, and then on a specific delivery date, and not doing that.

And it's not limited to just Epstein.

We were promised information about the January 6th involvement from personnel at the FBI, about the January 5th/6th pipe bomber, about the Dobbs leak, about the White House cocaine.

It, the list just seems to go on and on, and they're failing to deliver on these and, and kind of come around to the belief that the word transparency is a code word for people on the GOP, on the MAGA.

Have we gotten rid of any of them? Have there been any positive reforms? Have you seen anything good coming from inside of that building? Please tell me yes.

They knew, they helped, they're all guilty as hell.

I think I'm in your camp as well.

I mean, I had my suspicions about this because Susan Rice, I think one of the last actions that she took before the Trump administration part one came in was sending herself an email on a government server.

I don't know why you would do that other than to memorialize the fact, according to her, that Barack Obama had ordered a law enforcement investigation to be done by the book.

So he was certainly in the know on this.

I think there's a couple other things that are worth bringing up.

The fact that the National media was used willingly as useful idiots to help with this entire ordeal, where this information was leaked specifically to the media so that they could report on it, so there could be secondary resourcing here.

And them coming after her, putting her on that do not fly list and everything else, probably made her even more adamant about nailing them and getting to the truth, do you think?

Do we not have files? Did we have files and they got deleted? Is somebody making them cover up the files? I don't even know what the hell to think anymore, Steve.

Look, I've got tremendous concerns about this, and I know you can get sucked into the vortex that is this story about Jeffrey Epstein, but I think the best thing we can do is take a step back and sort of just give an analogy that would explain the amount of outrage and umbrage that the American people have with the DOJ memo.

That would be, say, Dan, a bank was robbed near your house by somebody who met your physical description and characteristics, and they drove away in a vehicle that you were known to drive and had a license plate matching the vehicle that you drive.

Does that mean, Dan, that you robbed the bank? Well, no, it doesn't, and you would have to do an in-depth investigation to determine that.

And let's say that we heard from the police that they were doing an in-depth investigation into this bank robbery, and years and years and years they said, we have Dan nailed on this.

And then, a couple years later, we got a memo that said there was not even a bank robbed.

That's the frustration that we have with the American people because at its core, it's not really even about child abuse, child sexual abuse.

And so my question is, if Cash and Pam and Dan are all claiming there's no files left or there never were, I didn't hear the vernacular if it was there never were or there's none left, Could it be that stuff's been deleted, erased, and hidden since 2007? They've been covering for him for years.

What do you think happened to this information? Or did it not ever exist and we were just told it did for years?

Well, I can only surmise a couple of reasonable explanations that don't extend the boundaries of the logic of any type.

One is that the file list exists, and now you have the attorney general and the FBI director lying to the American people and saying that it doesn't exist.

That's not good.

Another is that the list does exist, but it's being withheld from the attorney general, the FBI director, and they're being told by their underlings that, no, it, in fact, doesn't exist, in which case they don't have control of their own agencies.

Again, not good.

Another would be maybe the list was destroyed.

Anywho, I'll let you continue on, Steve.

Mm-hmm.

... that the Iranian threat, actually, assassination, you look to Asif Merchant, who you will see named all the time.

And the background on that is he is an Iranian who was living in Pakistan, who flew to the United States.

Now, did we allow, allow him to arrive here because w- he was a terrorist and we were gonna arrest him, and Pakistan wouldn't extradite him, so he gets off the plane and bam, we get him? No.

FBI Dallas sponsored his arrival and allowed him to travel into the interior of the country and go to New York City, and remain there for months on end, and actually talk to undercover agents in New York City about his plot.

And Asif Merchant's plot was to recruit dozens of people to go out and do fake protests outside of politicians' houses.

At the same time, he would send a female into those politicians' houses, Mission: Impossible style, to steal classified material that they just happened to be have around and then escape with it.

At least they're, that's what we're told that's what they're doing, right?

Steve, good to see you again.

Well, thanks for having me on, especially under these circumstances.

It's pretty crazy.

But look, the motivation is going to be useful when it comes to a prosecution.

You need to know the means, the motives, and the opportunity.

This individual is now in custody.

I think those sort of details will... be fleshed out when it does come in time for a prosecution.

So will this all be a local and state investigation, or will the FBI then help out?

How's all this work? The floor is yours.

Yeah, it absolutely can be done.

This is a complex financial investigation that you would hope the premier law enforcement agency for the country, the FBI, would be all over.

The problem is the, the time it would require to do that, and also there are added complications of the fact that so many of these organizations are funded by the US taxpayer via the, uh, the NGO that exist and then seek out grants, and then there's all these relationships that are crossing over, uh, between former members of the federal government and then lobbyists who, uh, go to Congress and get them.

So, it is a complex investigation.

It is something that you would hope they would endeavor.

Uh, the issue I think that most people are seeking is a more immediate remedy to the situation.

Okay.

With all the technology today, I haven't heard anything on this case at all in a long time.

Well, what we've heard is that the FBI had the cell phone geofence data, but it was corrupted, only to then find out that the cell phone company said that, no, it wasn't corrupted at all.

And I know people that were on a person of interest related to the pipe bomb who were called off and said to abort that sort of interdiction and go back to the office and work calls about grandmas walking through the Capitol.

So I think this is a priorities issue.

This is the only individual act that could be... characterized as a weapon of mass destruction, legitimate potential terrorist attack on January 6th, 2021.

And the fact that this person hasn't attacked anybody else in four years and there's been no progress on it is tremendously disturbing.

This is a good one.

I understand that the administration's upset with him, but I just wanted your take as a whistleblower with a former director's actions, the way he's been speaking and acting the last couple weeks.

How can we rank what we need to know as, uh, to feel safe right now?

I think they need to start with things that are not gonna compromise national security matters or ongoing investigations.

The, the Epstein list, look, it's not gonna affect your life or my life or anyone in your audience's life unless, of course, Bill Gates or, uh, Prince, uh, Edward is in your audience, which I presume they are not, uh, to find out who was on the Epstein list.

What would- would go a long way is to say, "Look, we've stood up a task force.

We're investigating 200, 300 individuals.

We don't wanna compromise those ongoing investigations," and I think we would give them that grace, because that's something that we think is an objective good, that the premier law enforcement federal agency that we have, that we staff and we fund with over 10, $11 billion at this point, we want them to go ahead and do those things.

But let's reveal things that are not going to compromise those ongoing investigations, things that people have an appetite to find out about, like the Butler Pa- Pennsylvania assassination plot.

(laughs)

Arguably the highest asset detainee the federal government had at that period of time would have been given and had access, uh, under surveillance, Steve, to commit suicide? Where, where would the methods of suicide, the tools to, to, to, to culminate that, where would those have even come from? How would he be allowed such things? Is that a valid question?

I- it absolutely is.

And, look, you have to really strain credulity to come up with a, a feasible answer at that point, because he had been on suicide watch.

I know that some sort of PhD level person came in and said, "No, we can take him off of suicide watch, but we're gonna have very special circumstances.

Epstein's gonna be in the cell with somebody else.

Someone's going to check on him every 30 minutes.

And yet again, we have these fail-safe measures that seem to all of coincidentally, serendipitously, providentially all happened where you have cameras going out and you have people not doing the rounds because they fell asleep." So I, I think...

So, um, uh- uh given your experience though, which how you understand the detention process, how difficult would it have been for him to acquire the methods of committing suicide on his own in your view?

I mean, we had to let go of that guy in New York because he was just publicly bragging about, "No, I'm not gonna do that." Why are they so confident?

Look, if there's anything that I know about federal workers is that they will lick their fingers and put it in the air to see where the winds are going, because wherever the momentum is, that is where they were following.

You're talking about James Denihy in New York City, who was issued a directive to hand over the Epstein list to the attorney general and to the FBI director and refused to do it.

And when he was forced to retire, and collect his pension mind you, he was walked out with a color guard formation and a bagpipe ceremony to the standing ovation of hundreds of employees.

There is no fear here because I think the approach that's gone in is a mistake.

Look, we're going in and trying to win hearts and minds rather than using shock and awe.

And you're a veteran, Jesse.

So you're worried these changes are not coming for the FBI? Instead of patiently waiting, you think that these changes aren't coming at all?

Uh, I'm sure given what has happened to you under the previous regime of the FBI that was kind of poignant, and we would be remiss if we did not, uh, maybe, uh, just kind of get your thoughts, because I'm guessing you wouldn't mind being offered a chance to have your station restored over there at FBI headquarters as well, uh, given what the previous administration did to you.

949 days of, uh, unpaid indefinite suspension for me and for my, my buddy Garrett O'Boyle, it's, uh, one week less than that.

He actually, uh, hit 31 months last weekend.

So we've been waiting, we were really encouraged to see that sort of action at the DOD, which is a far larger bureaucracy than the DOJ and the FBI.

The FBI only has about 38,000 employees, the DOD has three million, and I think I can draw a line to the people who were, uh, removed, we'll say, from duty a- and directly, the people who objected to injecting the gene juice into our arms.

It seems like every single whistleblower and person who was removed from station, uh, all the, the Venn diagram, the Kamala Harris Venn diagram overlaps as a complete circle with people who did not get the ju- gene juice and also just refused to put their heads down than just follow orders because it was unethical and out of step with their oath of office.

Whose departure do you think will ultimately be more impactful, uh, the deceased Pope Francis or the defrocked Klaus Schwab? What say you?

To me, it's unquestionably the pope because Klaus Schwab going away, it's- it's reminiscent to me of late 2023, early 2024 when we had Elise Stefanik go at the Ivy League presidents and, uh, everybody on the right was cheering how they finally got a scalp because the- the president of Harvard was eventually defrocked from her position for plagiarism.

Oh, the same stuff they're accusing Trump of doing, which he's not.

Well, tyranny is the arbitrary despotic abuse of power.

That's how it's defined.

And this is certainly fits that description entirely.

It's only 15 pages, but this is, as you said, it's a blueprint for what really went on there.

I've looked through it pretty thoroughly and I had to jot some things down just to bring to your attention here that I don't think anybody is bringing up.

This laid the groundwork for them to debank people based on their political ideology.

That was in those pages? They could call me then a domestic terrorist if I'm out there complaining about my government.

Like, I'm not surprised here.

There's certainly a lot of red flags around this individual.

I think one of the most disturbing elements of it is the fact that he had an open line of communications and was actually putting things out on social media.

I think when the investigators started to dig around and have conversations with his associates, they were telling the FBI things, like this guy was talking about a plan in order to acquire a firearm and a plan to execute his parents and a plan to travel overseas.

Then the question then becomes, why did those people feel threatened? like it wasn't incumbent on them as good American citizens to come forward with those concerns.

Politics aside, a sitting president or even just the guy's parents, those are innocent citizens.

So you would hope that somebody would actually come forward and do it.

What did I hear about this kid was talking to somebody in Russia, too? Did you read that in the report?