From the Kitchen Table: The Duffys - Whistleblower On How The FBI Became The Democrat's Police Force

Episode Date: June 1, 2023

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government recently held a hearing with three FBI whistleblowers, outlining the partisan bias throughout the organization. FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend joins to discuss how the FBI has turned against the American people and reveals why he is speaking out against his former employer. Later, Steve talks about his time working in the counter-terrorism unit, how his superiors attempted to force him to open investigations into American citizens without any evidence of a crime, and lays out how he would reform the FBI.   Follow Sean and Rachel on Twitter: @SeanDuffyWI & @RCamposDuffy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA.

BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Hey everyone, welcome to From the Kitchen Table. I'm Sean Duffy, along with my co-host for the podcast, my partner in life and my wife,

Rachel Campos Duffy. It's so good to be back at our kitchen table, Sean. And today we're going to tackle an issue that you and I have been very concerned about. And that is the FBI becoming basically a police force for the Democrat Party. And to discuss this and get more information, boy, do we have a great guest. senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America. He is a former FBI agent, and he's been one of the most important voices among all the whistleblowers coming out and exposing what's been happening. So with no further ado, Steve, thank you for joining us at our kitchen table. Thank you very much for having me. Of course. Before you came on, Steve, we complimented you on your wonderful background, which you gave

compliments to your wife. It looks good. Stars and stripes. It's fantastic. All great things comes behind me, and the woman's behind me as well. So otherwise, you'd have a boring office space. Well, that's what wives do. You have a book coming out, by the way, Steve. It's coming out, I think, next month.

Am I right about that? Yes. June 13th. It's on presale right now on Amazon. It's called True Blue, My Journey from Beat Cop to Suspended FBI Whistleblower. It just serendipitously worked out that it's come out now that these hearings have just transpired. But I was ready to talk to Congress nine months ago.

But that's just the publishing process that took that long. And Steve, just to get into the FBI and your whistleblower status, but before we do that, what's in the book? What do you lay out? What do we learn when we read the book? Well, I get to write the perennial. Somebody should write this book from a policeman's perspective. So I reflected on my time as an officer in Georgia and then as well as some of the work that I got to do in the FBI. And that led me up to becoming a whistleblower and the details of that. The FBI responded back that they want me to redact

all of those portions. So as I've pledged to do online, I'm not going to do that. It's radical transparency is the only way to correct the course that we're on now. You're exactly right. And so I've always been concerned, you know, probably since we started hearing about Russia hoax and just sort of the involvement of so many different agencies in politics. But the FBI, I think I started to get super alarmed that it was getting out of control when I started to hear that they were going after, you know, people, first pro-lifers, and then actually infiltrating into Catholic churches

and trying to get informants in there. And it all just seems to have gone off the rails. Tell me what you saw inside of the FBI as you were doing counterterrorism and how it switched from being about terrorists and about really surveilling and really intimidating American citizens who just don't have the same opinion as the Biden administration. Well, I think that this is all derivative of a mission creep that happened since September 11th in the FBI. And that certainly predates my employment with them. But I was part of the latter half of that since I came in in 2014, did about nine years. So after September 11th, the mission on national security was focused on foreign terrorist actors. And our military did a fantastic job of

basically taking them out of the fight. So the FBI got all this funding and was focused on it, but there was really no work to do. And it's federal bureaucracy, you have to justify your existence. So they refocused, reshifted, and started to look at homegrown violent extremists. And those would be American citizens or first generation American citizens who were still inspired by al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, something like that. Did a really good job there tamping that down. But again, you got to justify the budgets. The budget's got to increase every single year. And the FBI devised a scheme where they're going to look at domestic violent extremists. And then you pair that with this integrated program management that I was talking about

in the hearings a couple weeks ago. IPM is a metric system that the FBI has had on the books for the last 10 years. It's essentially like a ticket quota for a traffic cop. And they have metrics that they have to hit. And it's all across the board. It could be cases opened, arrests, specific tools that they have to use every single year, and that the check the boxes on those. And the most alarming part of that is it's tied not only to the budget for the agency, but it's tied to financial compensation for the senior executives in the FBI. So they have this

perverse incentive to pressure their underlings to do their bidding. And did that system start after the Patriot Act and 9-11? When did that weird system that seems to incentivize finding stuff on American citizens happen? IPM was initiated about 2013. So we've had about 10 years of it. And I don't think it's any mystery why the number of domestic terrorism cases has quadrupled over the last 10 years. It's not because there's an additional threat. I don't think it takes much more than looking outside your window to see that there's not these wild terrorists running around the streets and committing these horrible attacks, which they do happen, but that's part of being in a free society.

I don't think there's been a 4x increase in that, but the FBI has utilized the tools to not only target Americans for otherwise First Amendment protected speech and activity, but also juke the stats. So you have a situation where, let's say you do have a legitimate terror cell of four or five individuals, that would righteously be one case, but the FBI will open a separate case for every single person so they can say, well, we have four or five cases and now Congress has to send us hundreds of millions of dollars more. Did this program originate in Congress to say, let's incentivize the finding of domestic terrorism? Or was this money that went to the FBI and the DOJ and they crafted this program themselves, a self-directed new priority of the agency and the bureau?

I believe it was derivative internally. And they reached out to some consulting firms that wanted to put numbers on marking success. And I understand the motivation behind that might not be nefarious. You might want to just ensure that nobody's sitting around doing nothing and doing work and monitor your success. But the problem is law enforcement is not sales. You can't meet a quarterly quota and metric. And if you put that incentive out there, be it financial or for some sort of a claim or the ability to promote up to the ranks, people are going to work smarter and not harder. I mean, just even in my own personal actions, I had situations where I was told to hold off on

indicting subjects because we'd already hit our numbers. And if I took them, then the numbers would have to be matched the next year and put pressure on us to do more work. Plus, we want to take those credit for those numbers next year. So wait a couple of months to indict those. So when did you start to notice that the FBI went from trying to find homegrown Islamic terrorists here in the United States to white supremacy and that system being used to extend or make it look like there's a lot more. When did you start to see this transition?

Well, I was basically focused on the criminal side of the house for the majority of my career. I transferred after seven years working on Indian reservations. I transferred to Florida to work on child pornography investigations in 2021 in the summer. And then as we came up against the fiscal year, I was voluntold that I needed to move over to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in my office. And look, I'm a team guy. Whatever the threat is going to be, I'll hop to and go and do it. But I was concerned about the cases that I was working. I was a one man show in my office for child pornography. And if you ask me, every agent could work child pornography

all the time and still wouldn't be invest. It's just that threat is that big. And I was told that that was not going to be resourced anymore. It was going to be considered a local matter. And then I needed to focus on domestic terrorism, which in my office meant just January 6th investigations. There really were no threats. There were three individuals already on the task force. And I would joke once it was four of us that between the four of us, we had about 15 minutes of work to do in any given week. It was just kind of waiting. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that counterterrorism should be more of a sentry on the wall looking for threats. And if they don't happen, then that's a good thing. I think that counterterrorism should be more of a sentry on the wall looking for threats. And if they don't happen, then that's a good thing. And if they do happen, then you're

on the wall to address it. I'm just sick to my stomach to think that, especially with the border open, and we know that there's been an increase in child trafficking and all kinds of human sexual trafficking going on, that we're taking resources away from that to try and find white supremacy, domestic terrorists, really basically from January 6th. I'm just disgusted. So they have priorities every year. And the top four priorities for counterterrorism, two of them are, one is anti-government extremism, and the other one is radical ethnic extremism. And parenthetically, that means white nationalism. And I don't think it's any surprise that if you go back to President Biden's address in front of

Independence Hall last September, he characterized first MAGA Republicans and then all Republicans as being anti-government and white supremacists. So essentially he's saying that two of the top four priorities for the premier law enforcement agency in the country are Republicans. His political enemies. And Steve, I spent nine years in Congress. I was Republican. And if you look at most Republicans or conservatives, they are not anti-government, but they're anti-big government. They want less government, which means when you have less government, you have more individual freedom. And there's always that balance.

And so now to classify that, to say, well, if you're not for big government, if you're not for more programs, more spending, more debt, you must be anti-government. And therefore, we need to look into. And again, this is a political debate that this country has had for decades, if not generations. What is the size and the role of government? And to now see that that's been weaponized and the FBI has to classify that as a domestic threat is, I find that to be outrageous. And I think the end result of that is it does silence people and their willingness to speak out on a government that they think is too big and too intrusive and unsustainable.

I agree with you there. And I've just sort of been mulling over this idea the last few months about the actual FBI's purpose and role in our system. And if you look at the history of the FBI, it's pretty aconstitutional, if not outright unconstitutional. I know Congress went back and sort of retroactively authorized it. But in its history, in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s, and even into the 60s, the FBI addressed communism. And I think the average Joe American then viewed the FBI as being very pro-constitution, pro-traditional America. But in essence, the FBI was just about preserving the status quo. And the status quo in our government

at the time was very anti-communist. Now flash forward to the 21st century and as government's grown, and certainly in the last few years where it's become increasingly radical left, the FBI is still fulfilling the role of maintaining the status quo, and it has to go against the enemies of the perceived leadership. And that, in essence, are constitutional conservatives who have views about pro-traditional marriage, pro-life, pro-border sovereignty. And those are the three issues that were in that radical traditional Catholic memo that the Richmond field office put out a few months ago. Yeah, it's such a great explanation because so many of us are trying to make sense of what we're seeing, right? We're seeing the FBI go raid the home of a pro-life homeschool family and, you know, in the middle of the night using SWAT teams and rifles and it just seems so scary,

right? And then we're seeing the infiltration in Catholic churches and we're seeing all these things and we're trying to make sense. How does this happen? Is it just that Joe Biden came in and you give such a long view of it to go, look, the agency was doing what the people in power wanted to do back in the 50s, which was an anti-communist perspective. But now, frankly, in my view, the radical left is in charge and now they're pushing this other agenda and they're just doing that now. And so it is a longer view. this other agenda, and they're just doing that now. And so it is a long review. And, you know, I look at even like the IRS agency, the IRS, you know, under Lois Lerner, going after any group that had liberty in their name, or, you know, freedom or whatever, and being weaponized against them. So I'm looking at this, and I'm saying, what did you see when you got moved to counterterrorism

in addition to this sort of understanding of how it worked institutionally? But what did you see precisely that made you go, I don't want to be part of this or I've got to raise an alarm because this is so egregious, this is so wrong and so un-American? Yes, thank you for that. It's actually a two-prong complaint that I have. First was the statistical manipulation that's going on with the January 6th cases, where the FBI, instead of opening one case in Washington, D.C. with lots of subjects, whoever needs to be investigated for committing whatever crime, has instead opted to open a separate case for every single person that day, essentially making one case into

thousands to backfill its demand for domestic terrorism stats and let everybody get the budget and the bonuses that they want. And then spreading those cases to the field to so if somebody lives in Florida and happened to be on the Capitol that day, now Florida has a case and it looks like there's domestic terrorist threat in Florida when it's really just a trespasser on the Capitol grounds. And I thought that that departure from the rules, which are in Appendix J of the DIOG, the Domestic Investigations Operations Guide, the rule book for the FBI, was exculpatory evidence that should be provided to defendants. I'm a believer in due process. Regardless of what you're alleged to have committed, you're entitled to amounts of defense for yourself. And I think the FBI needs to be buttoned up. And my concern was not necessarily because I was sympathetic to anybody that was being investigated or prosecuted. It was that

if I go to trial, I want my case as buttoned up as possible. If I use the wrong color tape on evidence, a defense attorney will rip me to shreds. What's a defense attorney going to do if they get the information that says the FBI is not following its own very simple case management rules? So that's one aspect. And then the other aspect that I think has kind of been caught, I was happy that Congress sort of focused in on, was the risk to public safety. So there were some subjects that my office was going to be arresting, some were alleged to have committed misdemeanors, some felonies, but all were promised to cooperate with law enforcement. And because of the nature of these cases being essentially run behind the scenes from Washington, D.C., we really weren't in charge of our own cases, again, outside the rules. There was a backlog on swearing out warrants against these individuals.

It was a year and a half later, and we're going to go with a SWAT team or a large-scale arrest operation with 30 plus agents all wearing body armor with lots of uh of slung rifles and these were people that we could just call on the phone and say hey surrender yourself and they pledged to do that and i thought if you're the guy in the room the day before waco and you foresee what the potential was it's incumbent on you to do that we can all monday morning quarterback w. I really wanted to be that guy in this situation. And I thought, look, we could get in trouble. Our guys could get killed. They could get in trouble. Their people could be hurt. And I'm concerned that this is a risk to public safety. And so I brought those concerns forward to my frontline supervisor and

then up the chain of command. Unfortunately, they didn't share my sentiment and actually told me that, you know, he got a nice career here. It'd be a shame for you to lose it because your duty is to the FBI, not the Constitution. Let's unpack it a little bit because I think it's interesting. You mentioned you have defendants that will turn themselves in on their own volition, and instead you send armed SWAT members to arrest them. One, that's very intimidating. Two, it's a show of force that I think everyone else sees. It's almost a police state tactic. You mentioned earlier the pro-lifer in Pennsylvania, Mark Houck, who was in contact with the FBI and said, listen, this is a violation of the FACE Act. He was protesting in front of an abortion clinic. He and his son were approached by one of the pro-abortionists,

and vile things were said to his son. And I think Mark Houck pushed the guy back after being pushed. But they came to his house after he said through his lawyer he would turn himself in. Early morning raid, SWAT team, kids are there. By the way, that case went to trial, and he was found not guilty. But what's happening, you know, Steve, inside the FBI that there's all of a sudden this philosophy that we have to use this overwhelming force on people who really are not that violent and are willing to turn themselves in? Why are they doing that? What's the rationale behind that in the FBI? And maybe explain, too, how that's never been done before. Was the SWAT team, that kind of overwhelming force that Sean's talking about, ever been used on somebody like

Hauck? I think that the process in itself has become the punishment for so many of these people that are deemed to be problematic. And I was on a SWAT team in the FBI for five years. It's a perfectly legitimate law enforcement tool. I could tell you, though, that the matrix for using it, the decision tree that executive management has at its fingertips is overly broad. I mean, essentially, if somebody has a firearm, SWAT could be justified. Now, they might not be a prohibited person. If you come to my house now, I'm no longer a law enforcement officer, but I have a Second Amendment. If you come to my house now, I'm no longer a law enforcement officer, but I have a Second Amendment.

And just knowing that I have a pistol here, you're telling me that a SWAT team could be deployed for a misdemeanor offense. So the FBI is, again, weaponizing the tools at its disposal. And I think it's just for this overwhelming show of force. And it's something that Christopher Wray talked about, that they're going to leave no stone unturned in this giant dragnet as it pertains to January 6th. And then it's expanded out to domestic terrorism writ large, which is now, I think he, at the last budget appropriation request, he said there's 2,700 active domestic terrorist investigations.

My question is how many of those are January 6th criminal investigations, which is just parading in a restricted area. And that's not a legitimate, as you would think, in the spirit of terrorists. There's not a cell that's planning attack because there's some ideology behind it. But again, now we're back to predicate ideology where I questioned, well, why are we not pursuing anything against like an Antifa? And I was told that's not a predicate ideology. We're not going to be investigating them as terrorists. But if you post on social media, stop the steal, that is an ideology as opposed to just a perspective on an election outcome. It just seems so it's so obvious what's happening. In fact, Terry Turchy, he's an FBI. He was the first head of the counterterrorism at the FBI. He's one of the many former FBI agents

and special agents who have come out in defense of you, which is, I'm sure has to be pretty reassuring to you. But he said the FBI has become a police agency for the Democrat Party. And when you see you talk about what ideology would be warranted an investigation or SWAT team raid versus what is, it's so obvious. So you're a whistleblower. How many, there's been what, maybe 30 other agents. I don't know how many other agents participated in these kinds of raids on January 6th people, some of them grandmas, elderly people who, as you said, just trespassed. Some of them weren't even at the Capitol. What does it feel like to be an agent told to do that? What does it do to the

morale of your colleagues and everybody else? What does it feel like to be in a system doing this to your own citizens? Well, I was certainly very concerned about it. It was something that just didn't sit well with me. I took my oath very seriously. It was a major moment in my life that I can remember very clearly taking and swearing out my oath to protect the Constitution. And I think that too many people now sort of perceive that to be compared to checking yes on the latest iOS user agreement. It's just something that you do to get access to this very lucrative career with a lot of esteem attached. It's government. You don't have to do that much work. You just got to put one thing to the file

every 90 days and you're in the good. I know after I objected to the operations that were going on, and I was assigned to actually be AWOL the next that day. So I didn't come to work, but then returned before they ultimately weaponized the security clearance suspension process to walk me out the door. But the conversations I kind of had, it was very uncomfortable office environment. I was in a small office, but they were kind of just shared my sentiment, but sort of came to the conclusion that they had to pay their bills. And I think after the treatment that I received, there's going to be definitely a dampening down on any willingness to come forward. Sure.

Which is why I've made myself available to people. And I've been able to actually expose more information from the outside than I ever did on the inside. They launder the information to me. But, you know, I was suspended without pay indefinitely, needed to request the FBI's permission to seek outside employment, which they denied. They leaked my private medical information to the New York Times. They told the New York Times I was accused of firing a weapon. They put a gag order on me, told me I wasn't allowed to talk to my attorney or even my wife about the nature of my investigation. And they refused to even furnish my training record. So if I wanted to use them for

other sort of employment, they're rendered useless at this point. So that's a lot of weaponization against one person. when all they had to do, and that's really stipulated within 5 U.S.C. 2303, the whistleblower for FBI agent law, is I have to have a reasonable concern of waste, fraud, abuse, or risk to public safety. I don't have to be correct. They could investigate the veracity and the merits of my disclosure and my declaration and say, Steve, you are wrong and here's why. And I would go back to work. And I was willing to do that.

And they could say, Steve, you're right. And we're going to fix it. Here's how. And I would go back to work. But instead, all the resources were put on the messenger, which in my mind means that you get all the flack when you're over the target and they would not want any of that exposed. We'll have more of this conversation after this.

target and they would not want any of that exposed. We'll have more of this conversation after this. Help turn off hesitation, turn off doubt, turn off fears. With your support, the YMCA of Greater Toronto helps people turn off whatever's holding them back so they can let their potential shine. Help turn on confidence and connections and possibilities from youth shelters to job training, mental health counseling and beyond, the YMCA offers hundreds of programs that empower people to shine their brightest. See our charity's impact at ymcagta.org slash charity. Steve, I think it's fascinating when we look back

to the whistleblowers during the Trump era. Alex Vindman was a great example. They were hailed as heroes and American patriots, and every whistleblower needs to be believed. It's amazing how the left-wing media has shifted. And now they look at you and say, well, actually, you're a scourge on society, a scourge on the FBI. You don't need to be believed and you don't need to be supported because you're saying things about the FBI that liberal media and liberals in government don't really like. So again, I think what we learned from this is they love whistleblowers who agree with them and they hate whistleblowers who disagree with them, which is shameful. I think as a former member of Congress, we should let all

whistleblowers come forward. And again, we should judge them on the merits. We should investigate. And to your point, determine whether it's true or false, but it should be evaluated and you shouldn't lose your job. And what you said was fascinating to me. And I think Mr. Boyle was testifying as well, who said, they stopped paying me, but wouldn't allow me to get another job. I couldn't feed my family. I can't pay my mortgage. The power that that has over a man who has a family is unbelievable. And the next guy who might think about coming forward will go, listen, I'm not independently wealthy. I can't afford to survive and feed the kids that rely on me, the family that relies on me, when they won't allow me to get a job. It seems like the punishment is extreme for anyone who steps forward and tries to expose the rot of the FBI.

Without a question. And it was the most outrageous part there to have Dan Goldman, who's worth how many millions of dollars, sort of accuse me and Garrett of being bought and paid for because a charity gave us $5,000 at Christ time. And, you know, you don't have time in the hearing to say what I really wanted to say, which was, sir, if you think that I gave up a six-figure salary in the hopes that one day, several months later, a person who I've never met would have their charitable foundation give me money to buy my kids Christmas presents, I think that you are ill-equipped to be in the position that you're in. But I didn't have that opportunity with Mr. Goldman.

All I could do was just sit and take it until his time elapsed. But the great thing that came out of that was we had this give-send-go that we established to support Marcus and Garrett. I'm fortunate enough now that the Center for Renewing America has a position for me, and I resigned to actually accept it. So my family's good. But those guys, and Marcus especially, he hadn't been paid in almost a year and a half.

And he told us ahead of time that he was a couple months from having to sell his house to financially survive. And we started this Give, Send, Go. It accrued about 30 to $40,000 in the last nine months. But then after the hearing, it surged. And as of last night, it was a little over half a million dollars that we were able to raise and going to furnish to those guys to make sure that they're on their

feet. And then also keep a war chest back for the next person if they are not financially independent and they're beholden to that paycheck a little bit more to know that their family is not going to go hungry. We're going to be there to support them because at the end of the day, you got to do the right thing. It's not easy, but it is simple. them because at the end of the day, you got to do the right thing. It's not easy, but it is simple. So it's so fascinating to me to hear what it's like to be a whistleblower, what you go through to understand why others aren't. But I still can't get over the fact that I'm disappointed that there weren't more whistleblowers. And by the way, I felt this way during COVID when the few brave doctors came forward and told the truth and they tried to make

examples out of them and threaten their licenses and ruin their, you know, careers that they worked so hard for. And I thought other doctors would support them. And if they all came out and told the truth about, you know, we all did believe in natural immunity until about a day ago, like what happened? And they just weren't there. And it's, it is amazing. Even doctors who you presume have a lot more money than an FBI agent, you know, they just didn't want to give up that career, whatever they work for. They didn't want to risk the social shame that came with it. So that's been really disappointing for me in the FBI. So, that's been really disappointing for me in the FBI.

There was a special agent named David Baldovin, 25 years in the SWAT team, and he says the current use of the SWAT teams on nonviolent political dissenters is an abuse, is outrageous. He said, quote, your SWAT colleagues who agree to participate in these police state tactics are doing the same things as those in Germany who participated in war crimes. They say, I'm only following orders. So have you felt disappointment at how few of your colleagues have come forward? Or do you think that what you're doing now and some of the other whistleblowers, I think there's now, what, 40 of you or so? Do you think we're going to see more of them come forward to the point where there's now, what, 40 of you or so. Do you think we're going to see more of them come forward to the point where there's a groundswell here and maybe we'll get some change? Well, we get actual training in the FBI Academy on that. And that's something that I cited. We go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum. We go to the MLK Memorial Museum, not Memorial,

not the museum. And the point of that day is to emphasize, home, that those sort of civil rights and genocide atrocities can only occur when law enforcement is complicit and nobody is willing to raise their hand and sound the alarm. So I thought I was in keeping with my training when I came forward. And as far as others, I am I'm really disappointed. I mean, I have still some friends in on the inside, and I do think that it's necessary to have people on the inside to be able to give me information. And I've gotten my share of that. But I was talking a few months back. I said, I really thought I was going to have that Captain America endgame scene where I would get on your left and look over and you would see all these people that were coming forward. Now, hopefully the hearing was successful. I know that the members that were part of it

told us afterwards that they were really concerned that it wasn't going to go well and that it did go well enough that they thought that maybe more people would be willing to come forward. And hopefully now that we have this financial war chest that we can protect anybody who's willing to put that on the line, they'll be more apt to do so. But yeah, just back to my own personal situation, I was saying, I'm really tired of hearing about the good men and women of the FBI. I didn't join the FBI to retire from the FBI. I joined to do the job. And the job at that point was to raise the alarm. So

I did the job. Yeah. You had more of a Jerry Maguire moment, I think. I took the fish with me. I think it's interesting because is the country better off now that you're not in the FBI? I don't think so. I think having good men and women still in the FBI that are willing to be a force for good and a force to say, listen, we did sign a note to the Constitution, not to a political party. I think that's a positive, you know, and maybe with you stepping forward, we may not get more whistleblowers, but maybe there's going to be more pressure within or maybe I'm just, you know, being Pollyanna-esque about it. But that would be my hope. I want to talk to you about where do we go from here? So I think most people, at least

most conservatives, look at the FBI and go, this has become a political arm of the Democrat Party. Again, a SWAT team goes to former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago to look for boxes. They didn't SWAT team Joe Biden when he had the same boxes. They didn't SWAT team Mike Pence when he had allegedly classified information or even Roger Stone. They haven't SWATed Hunter. But they SWAT even Roger Stone. They haven't swatted Hunter, but they swatted Roger Stone, early morning raid, CNN's there to film him, you know, come in and armed in a fully blacked out agents coming to get him. What does the Congress do? And again, I've heard you say, we don't defund them, but at some point, if there's too much money in the FBI where they're looking for things to do, looking for threats where threats don't exist, again, a traditional

Catholic mom, we go to Latin Mass on occasion. These are the least threatening people you can find on the planet. Or pro-life activists. Or pro-life activists. Or someone who says, you know, I don't think that we should be teaching little, you know, eight-year-olds about sex. We should teach them math and reading and science. And if you go to the school board and say that, all of a sudden you're classified as a potential anti-government extremist. And so there has to be a role for Congress here. They have to do something to push back. They have to do something to push back. And my question for you is, if Congress was to move, what do they have to do to get their arms back around the FBI and make them be lady justice who is blind and applies the law equally, no matter what your political party is, no matter how much money you have?

It's equal application of the law for everybody in the country. What does Congress have to do to get us to that point? They're going to have to have some courage and some common sense and actually listen to the people on the inside that know where the bodies are buried. This country existed before the FBI. It can exist after the FBI. I'm not saying that we need to defund federal law enforcement, but I do think that there's a better way to do it. And the FBI is currently doing that to a small degree, where they deputize local detectives from sheriff's offices and police departments, and they make them task force officers, and they're cross-deputized as U.S. Marshal deputies. So those people are technically the most powerful people in the FBI. They have state arrest authority, and they have federal arrest authority. And that way, if somebody runs away or commits a

misdemeanor local, they can actually make the arrest where the agent can't. But they also bring a lot of institutional knowledge. They know their communities. They know where the threats are. And the FBI, just most of the people are just nerds that sit at a desk all day long. And they aren't out there on the street. They don't know the threats in their community. They're following these metrics that are predetermined by lobbyists on K Street, whereas the local guys know the threats that are on Main Street. And those big FBI cases where they historically have come forward, where they put all the dope on the table and all these guns and money, and they say, look at this big case we brought down. That initiated from a local cop who just didn't have the resources and the manpower to work this big

organized crime drug enforcement case that he had. And so he came to the FBI. Now, there's no reason why we can't go to local agencies and say, hey, we will fund the overtime, we'll fund the salaries of some of these guys. They should be deputized as federal agents, as well as state. They can do whatever's best for your community. And we're here to help you. That's what the FBI should be for. We're supposed to be there to support the local partners where we can really make the impact. Now, you can take it a step back too. And I think there's been this debate of the domestic intelligence apparatus that the FBI now has, what's essentially spying in America. And I think when you pair that, historically, we've never had domestic

intelligence paired with domestic law enforcement. That's secret police stuff. That's Stasi. That's KGB. Maybe we need to think about if we're not going to do away with the FBI, if there's not enough courage there to take that step forward, well, let's just take away the 1811 criminal investigators. The armed criminal investigators are completely removed. We've defanged the enforcement arm of the FBI. They can collect tactical intelligence that will help with investigations, and then it'll be up to the discretion of the law enforcement agencies to take that information and just say, hey, there's no case here because X, Y, Z. Or, yeah, that's information that we can use to further a case that we have where there's an actual criminal offense. But ultimately, if you made me... Go ahead. I'm just asking, it sounds like you're saying that you're OK with the FBI being defunded. We had Vivek Ramaswamy on a couple of weeks ago, and that's where he stood. I feel that way. Sean's a little less in that direction. these groups to help you, like, what is it, the University of Dayton, where they're developing a

pyramid of far-right radicalization. And by the way, I'm on like three of the tiers, like I think. I'm definitely on some FBI list. It's really obvious to me. I'm on Fox News. I'm in the Republican Party. I like CBN. I like the National Rifle Association. I love PragerU. I mean, I'm at Turning Point USA. I'm on these lists. And so if there's enough money, like, first of all, why are we paying other outside groups to develop this? That was Homeland Security, to be clear. Yes. Let me make a more point.

But they're working with the FBI to do this kind of stuff. So Rachel and I have some disagreements. So when we say defund the FBI, we mean let's get rid of the FBI. And I don't think you want to do this kind of stuff. So Rachel and I have some disagreements. So when we say defund the FBI, we mean let's get rid of the FBI. And I don't think you want to do that. I do think the FBI has too much money. And so you can cut some of their funding back and make them become more focused. That's one solution. And I've heard others talk about the intelligence and the investigative wings being separated. So you have two different branches of the FBI that aren't all under the same roof, and that could do a better job of maybe a check and a

balance with, instead of having an all-powerful, which again has been, I think, corrupting, and all the cash has been corrupting as well for the FBI. Where do you fall on kind of all these options, what we should do? Well, I could see the merits of sort of transitioning it into the MI5 model that the UK has, where they essentially have domestic intelligence that's supposed to be tactical, and they can bring it over to Scotland Yard for enforcement, which is what I was sort of talking about before. But knowing what I know now and how the FBI is the brand of it itself. And the brand is everything to the FBI, which is why they tried to redact major portions of my book, which are public knowledge.

The brand is so tarnished to the point where I don't think it's the days are far where you will have a federal case that goes in, in a red area, let's say, and the jury just by natural pool, the juries tends to be conservative and says, whatever the FBI brings forward, I'm going to acquit this guy. I'm not going to say guilty because I perceive that you probably manipulated the evidence somehow. You're no longer legitimate. This is a Giglio issue for me. The fact that you're an FBI agent is.

And then if that happens, then what can the FBI do other than enforce in certain areas of the country and not large geographic swaths? So there's that whole mistrust issue that's now happened. And if you made me king for a day, I think the FBI would, if it was not gone, it would be largely eliminated. And I don't think that the American people would miss very much from that. I mean, just take the headquarters component. Now they're pushing to have this new headquarters that they want built in either Virginia and Maryland. It's double the size of the Pentagon. There's 40,000 FBI employees.

There's a million people in the Department of Defense. And you're telling me that we need a facility that's double the size when there's a $2.5 billion facility in Huntsville, Alabama currently that was scheduled to be the headquarters. But going to Alabama seemed too yucky to too many people who live in D.C. To give you an example of just how much the idea of – I mean, I used to grow – when I grew up, I thought the FBI were the good guys. In October, Halloween came along, and my son, who wants to be a police officer, was looking through Amazon, all the different costumes. And the coolest looking one was the FBI agent. And I was like, no, not this year. So, I mean, that's a sad thing. It makes me sad to say that for you because I know you were a

good guy in there. But as a Catholic pro-life mom, I don't want my kid to be an FBI agent on Halloween. That's just a really basic level of this whole degrading of the reputation of the FBI, at least for half the country. They don't trust them. Let me ask you this. What do you think of Christopher Wray and what should happen with Christopher Wray? Christopher Wray made $9 million the year before he became the FBI director. And that is a 10-year appointment. And he gets paid about $200,000. So essentially, he committed $90 million to the cause of weaponizing the FBI. And we know that he's committed to that. And we know that he's content with what happened because he sat down with Brett

Baer a few months ago and told him that he knows that everything is good at the FBI because they have record number of applicants in a down economy with inflation spiraling out of control. He doesn't know the temperature of the room. He himself has said that he's sort of bubble-wrapped and insulated from what's going on. And I don't think that he's equipped to be the guy at the helm. And I think that that's actually not just him. It's a larger pattern. It was Jim Comey sort of brought this ethical beyond all reproach. I know that his deputies were called the College of Cardinals because they just seemed to hold themselves as so moral and beyond any sort of questioning. They never thought, oh, are we the bad guys?

And then you go back another step and, you know, obviously you had the interim of Andy McCabe, we all know about that. But Robert Mueller brought and institutionalized this domestic intelligence operation that happened after after September 11th so there's been this long trend of directors that were members of the DOJ and if I was going to make a change at the top I think we need to rethink who that is I don't think it needs to be something from the DOJ I think we need to look at a police chief from a large department that has similar manpower because just on its face, the goal of police work is to bring crime down. The goal in the FBI is to bring the crime stats

up. That's how you get the budget. And if you put the guy in charge who is used to- Boy, that just encapsulates the problem. So Steve, this kind of goes to my next question. So let's say the next president, whoever it may be, is like, Steve Friend, would be great to run the FBI. And we're going to let him at it. So let's go down this pathway. Can the head guy at the FBI root out the corruption? Can they root out the politics? Can they root out the politics? Could they say, you know what, I'm going to fire the bad guys who are partisan on the left or the right. I'm going to keep the good guys who have a blind eye towards justice and law enforcement. Could one director get the agency or the bureau back on track? Or is it so far gone that even if you brought the right person in who knows how to handle

the bureau, they still can't right the ship. How do you see the head and a change made by the next president? Can it fix it? I think it's kind of a six on one half dozen on the other. Do you eliminate it and rebuild, or do you just pare it back? Either way, it's going to end in a situation where you need to be narrowly focused on and have a mandate for the FBI to do criminal investigative work and to view its national security role as more of, as I said before, this century on the wall and looking for the, we're looking for threats, but not necessarily being guided by having to open a certain number of cases because the recipe there is just disaster. I mean, you have, again, personal

anecdote. I was pressured to open up an ISIS investigation on somebody who had no connection to ISIS because we needed to have an ISIS case. And that's somebody who's forever going to be, you know, if I was steadfast and refused to do it, but it had been somebody else, that's somebody who's a subject of a national security investigation from the FBI for the rest of their life. So I think we need to be more narrow in what the FBI's mandate should be. And ultimately, we need to be there to support the locals, empower them to do the work that they know because they're with it and they're in that pool every single day. They know where the threats are. They know where the problem guys are. There's a reason that that movie was made, The Usual Suspects. The police know who the usual suspects

are. It's a small percentage of people doing all the crime. And the FBI has no ability to know that. They're sitting in ivory towers in Washington, D.C., or they're in an office complex in a major city, and they're waiting for the phone to ring, and they can bring a whole bunch of resources to bear. But they're not really on the streets pounding the pavement. So, Steve, I was in Congress, I told you, for nine years. Worked with all the guys that, most of the guys that questioned you when you testified. And there becomes this, and I only noticed it once I got out, but there's this group think that happens in the body, in the Congress. And sometimes there can be inertia, inaction during your testimony, but also in the conversations you've had outside of

the C-SPAN cameras. Do you think the Congress, or at least the Republican members of Congress, understand the threat that the FBI poses? And do you think they're pondering, how do they reform it? How do they actually make it work for the country? How do they take the rod out? Do you think that thought process is happening? Because it takes time to develop a strategy if you're going to fix it and then to implement that strategy. And they couldn't do it now because the Senate probably wouldn't pass it. But the House should be thinking about what reform looks like. In your conversations, are they doing that?

They seem to be genuinely interested, especially after the hearing where they all get the five minutes to speak. And they basically use that time just to sort of monologue. A lot of them did. And a lot of them made good points. But and then we were able to answer some questions. But really, it's sort of a show. But in my conversations with them when we we took a recess and then afterwards, where they actually started to pick my brain and Marcus's brain and Garrett's brain about actual problems. And you could just see light bulbs going off in their heads when they were now hearing it from us as opposed to being filtered from their staff. And they're sort of singularly focused.

And I've had some outreach from them actually afterwards where they said, hey, what would be some suggestions for the appropriations, which is going to be in the Republicans' hands here? What can we zero out that would be just waste that the FBI is engaged in? And I'm more than happy to give them some things that, you know, you can nibble around the edges here and then get that toe in the water. And then maybe I can encourage you to take the plunge in and make some major changes. Well, maybe they should start by zeroing out a new FBI headquarters

that's going to be twice the size of the Pentagon. That might be a nice start by Republican Congress. Yeah. Yes, yes. And that was something that Jim Jordan mentioned to us first off the bat. He said, obviously, we're going to try to fight that. And I brought up the Huntsville facility that's already in existence. I suggest that they maybe make an unannounced visit there to see what it looks like.

Because Huntsville is a nice place to live. And I think as much as people that like the D.C. lifestyle, if you prefer that to actually being in a position ofization of the FBI against, you know, political dissenters? Or do they all see the, for example, the January Sixers as truly, you know, insurrectionists? I mean, we all know it's such a joke, but what is that? We didn't have any allies on that side. And I knew that going in, I was sort of admonished that they were going to be on the attack. But when they came up, and then I was sort of, I had an inner peace because I didn't think that I was actually going to face too much fire having been more out and having spoken publicly. I was a little more comfortable in that setting.

But obviously, Garrett had testified in trials before, had done grand jury. So that room was not as intimidating to us, I think, as maybe somebody else. I knew they would probably go at Garrett, but he obviously, he stole the show there and did an outstanding job of just emoting and then also expressing his whole story, his horrible, his horrors his family's had to go through. But there was really no appetite for any sort of reform. And that's unfortunate. I mean, that's something I point out in my opening statement that you can think that I'm a grifter or that I'm a political partisan. It doesn't matter because I have a reasonable concern of waste, fraud, abuse, risk to public safety. It's incumbent on you to do your job because I

sacrifice mine here. I would like to see you actually look at these problems and address them. And if there's, again, if there's not a problem there, then explain that to me. But the fact that you can't even do anything beyond just dismiss me and suggest, as Stacey Plaskett did, that I'm engaged in some sort of espionage or something like that. It's scary to know that there aren't. Yeah, it's just scary to know that there are, only in Congress that, you know, that they're so partisan and they don't care about civil liberties and all these kinds of things. But I think what's really scary is we have a generation of young people who are totally OK with the police state, it seems to me. I'm going to ask you this straight up. Was the FBI involved in January 6, in your opinion, in terms of infiltrating? this straight up. Was the FBI involved in January 6, in your opinion, in terms of infiltrating? So now we're in the arena of opinions. But here's if I could just give my opinion of what happened that day. I think that there were people that went to attend the president's speech. There were multiple events that were scheduled. There was a security failure that was catastrophic on the

part of the Capitol Police. I think that there were infiltrators that were both independent, like your Antifa provocateurs who were then going to don the MAGA hat and sort of try to incite things. I think there were a lot of organizations that were there that had infiltrators, and again, back to the thirst and the hunger for domestic terrorism stats. So there were informants and undercovers, not just from the FBI, but from all law enforcement across the board. Could be from DC Metro, could be from Department of Homeland Security, which has a budget that's 10 times what the FBI's is.

Right. So they've sort of eluded the spotlight and everybody just says FBI. And I think that all of that produced something. And on top of that, you had folks that were righteously upset and had questions about the outcome of the election. And many, and President Trump brought a lot of novices, political novices, people who were new to the process and excited about it to the forefront. And they were active and they were engaged and they were excited and energetic. And it just took one or two sparks to get them to think, hey, like, we could actually stop this from happening, because we think our guy

won the election, and we have questions, we want them answered. And then all of that was sort of this perfect storm. And there were crimes that happened that day. But it certainly doesn't justify the last two and a half years of a dragnet, which is pulling in elderly women, the last two and a half years of a dragnet, which is pulling in elderly women who may not have even gone into the Capitol. And it's weaponized all law enforcement across the board. I mean, I had a conversation with a whistleblower from the Federal Air Marshal Services. And according to her, there was an effort on behalf of the TSA to pull the manifest from all air flights to and from the Capitol around January 6th. And you might have lived there, you might have been going there on

a field trip, didn't matter. You are now deemed to be a potential domestic terrorist. And there are air marshal missions being flown with six-year-old children because mom and kiddo were flying to Baltimore that day. So it's out of control. And the way that we can stop these allegations of, well, you're selectively editing and well, you're just pulling this out of context. Let's have the full context. I want all the hours made available. These sedition hunter groups represent something that they're attacking one side. There can be equal groups that just crowdsource and view this evidence and then highlight the things that we all need to see. Yes, that's what I've been saying.

Why doesn't Kevin McCarthy just release all the videotape, let the American people do it? And I think that's, you know, when Fox aired part of the footage, and I think what was so shocking with Chewbacca, that's his name, is it was one narrative was presented on what he did and what his role was. And then here, when you saw additional footage, you had a more full picture of what he did and what his role was. And did he still, you know, should he still have been charged? Probably. Should have he gotten the sentence that he got with the fuller picture? Heck no.

Probably not. And I would agree with you. I think there were crimes that were committed that day. And those crimes, those who committed those crimes should be prosecuted and punished. But a lot of people went there and they were peaceful. They didn't, yeah, they might have gone to the Capitol, but they weren't breaking doors. They weren't storming into the House chamber. They weren't storming into the Senate chamber.

They were walking through the guardrails in the Capitol. Senate chamber, they were walking through the guardrails in the Capitol. And to call all of those people domestic terrorists or insurrections, I think is a step too far. Again, on the flip side, when you'll have Antifa in the streets of America, beating people up all in black and masked up and real violence and real threats, taking over federal buildings themselves, real violence and real threats, taking over federal buildings themselves, attacking law enforcement, those folks don't get looked at at all. Or even when the Black Lives Matter protests were happening in the streets of all these cities and buildings were being burned and people were beating up, they, you know, sitting in an outside restaurant, having a meal and being attacked.

I think if you applied it equally, I think more people on the Democrat Party might say, well, hey, listen, let's have a more nuanced look at what's happening. But if you're a Democrat, you might go, well, it's being used to my benefit because it's going after Republicans and supports a narrative that I believe in. And you're not going after the people that support me and my party. And so the FBI is fantastic. Now, we're losing our country, Sean. I mean, that's the real problem. The prisons that these people are in.

I mean, to me, when I think about it, I mean, I grew up thinking about the gulags and about the prisons in Cuba as a Hispanic person. I can't believe we have people who are in jail for that amount of time with so little justice being served, with the system and the books being thrown at them because they have a different political opinion, because they had questions about an election. I never knew that was illegal. Steve, I was a prosecutor, too, for 10 years. And the fact that exculpatory evidence wasn't provided to the defense. I mean, this is basic. Give them all of the evidence, whether it's in their favor or not in their favor.

The defense gets to see it all. of the evidence, whether it's in their favor or not in their favor, the defense gets to see it all and that the FBI didn't provide everything to the defense is outrageous. And more judges and more prosecutors weren't more noble to say this is not how the American system works is stunning to me. I agree with you. And it was something that I was alarmed about. And, you know, I was sort of a black sheep in the FBI as far as my experience. Most FBI agents don't have the number of arrests that I had when I worked on Indian reservations. They don't go to trial that often. I went to eight trials in seven years, which is pretty involved for most FBI agents. And I had those lessons in my career that I took with me when

I transferred. And I said, look, I don't care. And when I raised my concerns with my supervisors, they said, well, we're winning all these cases. So what's the problem? You don't think your case is buttoned up? And I said, look, the victory is the process. The judicial process is what the DOJ should be about, not the outcome. Obviously, if you have a righteous prosecution, we're all human. You want to put the bad guy in jail. But the process itself is a victory. We have to play by the rules, and we're not doing that. And I feel like if there's any case that has Steve Friend's name on it, it needs to be buttoned up to the maximum extent possible. And I can tell you that I'm looking at this case, and I know that it's not.

So in good faith, I don't think that we should bring this case. Good for you. Good for you. Well, listen, Steve, I got to tell you, I appreciate't think that we should bring this case. Good for you. Good for you. Well, listen, Steve, I got to tell you, I appreciate, and I know Rachel does, and America appreciates that we have good men or had good men like you in the FBI that are willing to stand up and expose the corruption. I don't know if we get it fixed. I don't know if we turn the corner. But if there is a hope to turn the corner and remedy this rot that's happening in the FBI and the DOJ, it's going to come from men and other women in the Bureau that are going to step forward

and tell the stories to the American people like you have. And so as an American, I appreciate what you've done and what your family has had to go through, what your colleagues, families have had to go to, the sacrifice that's still made. And by the way, I'm grateful that so many Americans have gone to Give, Send, Go to help support folks where they're trying to tell the truth about what's happening and are being punished for it, and their spouses and their kids are being punished. So thank you for your service. Yeah, I think you're an American hero.

I really do. And Sean often talks about how it takes one person to say something and do something courageously. And, you know, it does inspire others. I'm sad that more people on the inside haven't come forward and swarmed around you just as I was during COVID with the doctors. But I still think that what you and a few of your colleagues have done and the former agents who have come around, there's been quite a few former agents who have come out and publicly supported you. And I'm glad that you've been at the hearings. I think that what's happened at the FBI, what's happened with the way the January 6th prisoners have been treated, what's happened with pro way the January 6 prisoners have been treated, what's happened with pro-lifers and Catholics and everything else. This is one of the greatest

signs of our decline as a nation and as a functioning democracy. And I think it's people like you are going to save us if we are to be saved. So thank you. I think you're a hero. Well, thank you very much for saying that, both of you. I really appreciate the opportunity to get this out. And that Give, Send, Go is Give, Send, Go slash Kyle Serafin. He's sort of the go-between here. He's awesome. We have him on too. He's a great guy. He's not getting any money from it. He just took the initiative on there. So if anybody, I know times are tough, you know, it's a tighter economy now, but if you feel anything on your heart to donate to that cause, that'd be outstanding. And final plug for the book. Yeah, please do. True Blue, my journey from beat cop to suspended

FBI whistleblower on presale on Amazon. I'm going unredacted. Everything is going to be exposed for everybody to see. And hopefully this will get in front of as many eyeballs as possible, including Christopher Wray. So if you do come across an extra couple of dollars and want to buy a second copy, you can ship it to FBI headquarters at the Hoover building as an early Christmas present for Christopher Wray. So pre-sale now, it comes out June 13th. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'm going to leave you with one last piece of advice. So you testified, you know, members of Congress, oftentimes you'll sit back and wait for them to reach out to you. I would, if I was you,

be a rabid dog. If you don't hear from them in a month about what they're doing with reform for the FBI, I would reach out to them. I would get to know their offices. I would push them and have your other colleagues push them as well. There's a lot of things that come on their plates. They're dealing with a lot of issues. You should keep this one at the forefront of their minds. And you do that by being a pest, if you will. So do that. Keep reaching out to them and make sure that this is still a top priority because I think the country doesn't survive unless this is reformed. So. Great. I'll be, I I pledge to you I'll be a squeaky wheel. That's a better word than past.

Squeaky wheel, Steve. Steve Friend, thank you for joining us on The Kitchen Table, and thank you for your service. We appreciate it. We really do. Thank you. We'll have more of this conversation after this. Shop Cyber Monday deals now on Amazon.

With up to 35% off home goods to deck their halls, toys to stuff their halls, toys to stuff their stocking, and electronics like noise-canceling headphones to silent their nights. Shop Amazon Cyber Monday deals now. Listen, I got to tell you what, he's a fascinating guest, and we've said it a number of times, but he's a patriot. And having men and other women step forward to expose what's happening.

And again, we know it's happening. We know what's going on. But to have our inclinations validated, it's kind of like, I know I'm getting censored on Twitter and Facebook and Google. I know I'm being censored. Well, until the Twitter files were we verified and going, yes, you were being censored. And yes, the FBI and the DOJ, or the FBI, not the DOJ, were involved in that censorship of your material. And so this is so important. And you mentioned what I would say is courage begets courage. And the courage may not be in more whistleblowers, but the courage might come from other people inside the Bureau continuing to fight back and push back against what they also see as a rot and

a politicization of the Bureau, which is what's going to be necessary, as well as Congress, to make sure you get the reform that brings them back to an institution that is worthy of our honor and support. I say defund. I'm totally there. I have no problem saying it. It's not just the harassment and the traumatization of like little grandmas that had their home SWAT raided and the kind of social shame that it's supposed to inflict on them. As he said, the punishment is in the process. But there were people who, young people who didn't do really anything there was a young man who didn't even go inside but uh the capitol but they kept harassing him and and using these obscure charges against him and he got through one one round and they were going to do another round

and he killed himself yeah um that's traumatic it is. These are real people. These are real Americans. And I think what makes me sick to my stomach, it actually makes me want to cry, is that we have people on the left who don't give a shit about our constitution, don't give a crap about the weaponization of our government against other people because they have a different opinion than them. I know I would stand up against that kind of treatment on the other side. It's wrong. It's wrong. And I just, I'm disgusted.

I'm glad that there are people like him that have stepped out. I don't have, the fact that you say we have to harangue members of Congress in order to get them to do action saddens me because I don't know what's more important. Because the whole system, our whole country was founded on the idea that you can't harass people because they say or believe things that the regime doesn't. The people in power don't. Again, there are so many things going on right now. I know. So, again, so many things going on right now. I know. So, again, we just dealt with a debt limit.

You're working on appropriations bills. You're working on all kinds of different issues that come up. You're working on a farm bill. You're working on – there's issues that come up. And you're right. This is important. But I think it's important to keep it on the forefront of members' minds, which is why I think it's important for Steve and his friends to keep reaching out and be squeaky wheels, no doubt. I don't know. I'm not there on the defund movement yet. And I think the politics of that

can be pretty nasty. And I think you have to, it's not what do I want to get done? What is the art of the possible? What is possible to get done? And that's where I, maybe because I sat there, I see you have to look at where you can get a majority of members to say yes. And I don't think you'll get a majority. Again, you have a lot of people from very, you know, moderate districts. You got to get, you got to get people that can get to yes. And I think that means a restructure. That means refinancing, targeting the financing of the FBI and the DOJ. Those, I think, are the keys. But again, I look at Chris Wray. What a disappointment.

What a disappointment Chris Wray was. And again, this is a Donald Trump. Disappointment. Like worse than that. Listen, but again, I love President Trump. And I think President Trump did wonderful things. But he had some really bad calls on staff. Christopher Wray is one of those really bad calls.

Yeah. He should have fired James Comey way earlier. You know what he did? He probably should have brought in Chris Christie, whether that was at the DOJ or the FBI. And we all know why he didn't bring in Chris Christie, because Jared Kushner hated Chris Christie because Chris Christie had put his dad in jail. So in prison. There's a lot of good cops or prosecutors out there that could do these jobs and be faithful to the Constitution. And that's not happening right now.

We talked earlier, Sean, about the amount of money that the FBI gets but also Homeland Security. about the amount of money that the FBI gets, but also Homeland Security, because when those cases come from Homeland Security, then the FBI is in charge of, you know, swatting these people or looking into them, investigating them. So what they did is they got, you know, I think something like $40 million that they doled out to these independent groups to sort of do some of the assessment of what is white supremacy. Because, of course, this was a political priority of Joe Biden to prove that the real problem is climate change and white supremacy in America. So this is the pyramid you talked about before, right? Yes.

And so this organization out of Dayton University. It's the pyramid of far-right radicalization. So you can see there at the top are like these neo-Nazi groups. And then as you move down, you see on the second to the bottom pyramid, a slice of the pyramid, you have PragerU, Turning Point, Breitbart. Apparently Fox News, not as bad as Breitbart. We're on the net. Fox News on the one underneath.

Heritage. You have a hat on there that says, make America great again, a red hat. So again, this is, you have Fox News and the Republican Party in the same classification as Nazis and white supremacist groups. This is the viewpoint of the, of the, of, of what was the university? I think it was Dayton University that came up with this. So, but on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. So this group that they hired that put out, that produced this pyramid of terror, far-right radicalization, that I'm on multiple tiers of now, they had put on a conference.

And they used this conference where they talked about how they deal with anti-fascists as basically an audition tape to get the grant from the Homeland Security. I want you to see what happened at this conference because this conference was used to go, I want you to see what happened at this conference because this conference was used to go, see, we're the right people to give the money that you hard earned, you earned, your tax dollars, went to this group. Listen to what they said. We manufacture a lot of infighting. That's real effective. And that's much more effective to paralyze organizations than exposing Johnny. Because when Johnny leaves, he'll be filled by someone else.

So we try to really focus organizational. Basically, deplatforming is denying far-right fascist folk any sort of public sphere access. You know, denying them the ability to speak. Because the belief is, the argument is that hate speech is more than speech. It's materiality, it's organizing, It's mobilization. It's not an exchange of ideas in the marketplace and best one wins. It's something else. It's the strategic deployment of organizational energy and power. And so to deny people that, to shut down their websites, to close their meetings,

to physically prevent them from assembling in public. This is the belief. And that is exactly what they did to everyone who went to the, a whole group of people who went to the January 6th rally, who were peaceful. They want to de-platform. Many of these people, they had their bank accounts. They worked with Bank of America, the FBI did, and collected all that data, financial data. They were prohibited from, you know, that data was then used to make sure that some people, some of them couldn't get on flights, some of them couldn't, you know, get an Airbnb because they were called insurrectionists, basically domestic terrorists.

I mean, it is crazy. And the more surveillance information that our government gets and technology, the more they're going to be able to control us. And this truly is a social credit score system like in China. Listen, so first off, let's be clear. This is not just about January 6th. They're talking about deplatforming people who disagree with their Marxist agenda. This is a socialist, Marxist, communist agenda that they're promoting, and they don't want anyone to push back against them. So if you don't want argument, if you don't want debate, you need to de-platform people, shut down their voices on social media, shut down their websites.

They said it directly. They said it right there. But not only that, in a later clip, which I don't have for you, they also indicated, well, how do you engage in the fight? Yes, you can help with votes, but they thought it was really important to give money because they're doing things, basically they're doing things that are illegal. Yeah, he said it in the conference. Some of the stuff we do is illegal. We know we'll get in trouble by the law, but just give us money. So we can fight when we're prosecuted. So again, this is what the Department of Homeland Security is funding, as opposed to actually the Department of Homeland Security should be making a referral to the FBI to go, hey, I think you should investigate these people because they are anti-American, they're anti-constitution.

They're doing things that shut down our fundamental rights of free speech and assembly. We should take a look at them. fundamental rights of free speech and assembly, we should take a look at them. Maybe they're violating the law themselves, as opposed to your tax dollars funded these crazies to put together the pyramid that we showed you earlier. That's how far astray our federal government is going. And by the way, they're not protecting our border, which is what Homeland Security is supposed to be doing. So a lot of this comes back to the Patriot Act. And one of our very, very dearest friends, a Wisconsin congressman, wrote the Patriot Act. And when they wrote it, he was, they're a peer of heart, right? They thought that we needed more tools in the federal government to

make sure that another 9-11 doesn't happen. And so they gave the government these tools. And when the Patriot Act was written, you heard a lot of people on the left say, listen, we're concerned that the tools of the Patriot Act won't be used for Al-Qaeda and other foreign entities. The Patriot Act and its tools could be used against American citizens. That's what the left said. And the right was like, no, no, no, we need these tools to keep us safe. You fast forward 15 years after the Patriot Act passed, and it has been contorted. Our friend would tell you this was not the intent of the Patriot Act. The law has been contorted. And the predictions of the left have come true, that it is being used against American citizens, but not against liberals. It's

being used against conservatives who actually advocated for the law themselves, who didn't see the threat of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is being used against them because they go to church. They might go to a school board meeting. They may be pro-life. They may disagree with the regime. And this law is being used to punish them. So what was initially thought of as a really great idea, again, if you don't think it through and see how nefarious minds can use your law, oftentimes you will not draft good law with the right guardrails and restrictions in there. The Republicans created their own weapon.

They did. To be used against them. And yes, the Patriot Act was a deviation from the way Americans have always done things. And the excuse was, well, we just had 9-11, and so we have to do things different. It's a new world. Remember, they kept telling us, this is a post-9-11 world. We have to do things differently. And now it's been used against us. And I think that that's a great point. And I think also what Steve Friend, you know, this explaining how the agency started and how it is used to basically protect whatever regime is in power at the time. And so now that's what it's doing. And it's being weaponized against conservatives. They're using the Patriot Act as well to justify it and to. And also, Sean, when you brought up that point about how they're like, give us money in the

GoFundMe account, this leftist, this anti-fascist group, because we're going to do things that are legal and we need to fight it. But now you also see why they need to put in, why they need to actually change the justice system and put in judges who will give them the results they want, judges who are political, who have an ideology that supersedes their devotion and their commitment to the Constitution. Yeah. And when I look at this, Democrats are a party of government. They love government and they're able to infiltrate every corner of government, which gives you the deep state. Right. The deep state is made up of all these bureaucracies that are full of left wing Democrats, which populate these agencies. And that's why when a Republican president may win, it's really hard to get things done because they're thwarted by the deep state inside of all these agencies. And if you had some thought about the Patriot Act, you might go, well, if they've taken over every other agency of government, if I make a new one under the Patriot Act and I call it Homeland Security or the Department of Homeland Security, maybe they're going

to populate that too. And they're going to take that one over as well. And they're going to use it for their political purposes. And they did. But it wasn't unforeseeable. It actually was foreseeable that this could happen, and there should have been better drafting around the Patriot Act. And by the way, I'm just going to be honest. Some good liberals foresaw it. I was supportive of the Patriot Act. I'm embarrassed to say that, but I was. I thought it was noble. It was a good idea. And now I see again how nefarious that law has been used. So again, I want to come back to this point. We can fix this. Republican Congress can fix this. They're going to have to put a bill out this year. They can't pass it through the Senate, but it has to circulate, it has to foment, it has to be discussed, then it has to be rewritten and rewritten and rewritten until we get a law that's going to actually put the FBI and the DOJ back in a box and back in a role that is

enforcing the law blindly without political purpose or outcome. Seems to me like you're going to need to have Republican Congress, Republican Senate, Republican president. But you can't wait for that. You can't start to draft a bill when you get that. You have to do the legislation now. You have to discuss it now. So when you get it, you can put it forward and pass it right away.

If you start once you get the Congress, you only have two years. It'll be very challenging to get it done in that short a period of time. So listen, Steve Friend, a great patriot. Troubling times. Yeah, I mean, he's so great. And yet I left feeling a little down. Me too. Because there's only a few of those Steve Friends out there.

But hopefully we can only pray that more will come forward and more pressure on our government to reform this. Steve Friend, a whistleblower, has been kicked out. He has not been replaced by another Steve Friend. Oh, no. He has been replaced by a left-wing, probably activist who's going to do the job. Or just somebody who cares about their retirement. As he said, it's a pretty cushy job. It's got good benefits. I'll just follow orders. Like you said, a lot of the FBI, they're not the hard-charging agents that you

think of or see on TV. They're nerds that sit behind desks. I thought that was the unique description. That was. It says a lot. So we appreciate all that he's done. He's been on your show on Fox and Friends, and we appreciate him coming on and sharing his insights at the kitchen table. We want to thank all of you for joining us at the kitchen table. We appreciate it. If you like our podcast, you can rate, review, subscribe, wherever you get your podcasts. You can go to foxnewspodcast.com if you like it. If you subscribe to it, we'd be grateful. We'd appreciate it. All right. Bye, everybody. Bye-bye. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members can listen to the show

ad-free on the Amazon Music app. The Fox News Rundown, a contrast of perspectives you won't hear anywhere else. Your daily dose of news twice a day. Featuring insight from top newsmakers, reporters, and Fox News contributors. Listen and subscribe now by going to foxnewspodcast.com.