Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Kash Patel & Dan Bongino Confirmed as FBI Directors | Featuring 2 Police Officers

Episode Date: February 26, 2025

Tonight, we break down the stunning confirmation of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino as the new leaders of the FBI. This move marks a seismic shift in federal law enforcement—one that could change everything from the way investigations are handled to the relationship between local police and federal agencies.To get a frontline perspective, we’re joined by two experienced law enforcement officers, K9 Officer Michael and Officer Bob. They share their thoughts on what this shake-up means for everyday policing, the future of law enforcement, and whether this new leadership can clean up the corruption inside the FBI.

Welcome back to Investigator with podcast. We got a big one tonight. If you've been paying attention, you already know, President Trump just made some major moves at the FBI, appointing Cash Patel as the new director and Dan Bongino as his deputy director. And let me tell you, Washington is losing its mind. And for years, we've watched the FBI get more and more political. Whether it was the whole Russia collusion mess,

the way they handled January 6th, or even the blatant targeting of political opponents. The trust people once had. in the bureau, it's gone, and now Trump's stepping in and making good on his promise to clean house. Now Cash Patel, this guy was behind exposing the Russia hoax when he was with the White House Intelligence Committee, and he's been in the trenches fighting corruption at the highest levels. And Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, former NYPD, and one of the most outspoken critics of FBI corruption, these two aren't going in to just shake things up, they're going to tear it down and rebuild it. But the big question is, what does this actually mean?

for law enforcement? How are local police departments and sheriffs going to handle this shakeup? Is the FBI finally going to be what it was supposed to be, an agency that works for the American people, or is it just a deep state gone too far? Tonight, we got two active police officers join us to break it all down. They know this kind of leadership change could mean on the ground and how it might impact everyday policing and whether this is a real step toward restoring law and order or just another fight waiting to happen. Guys, welcome to the show. It is a February 25th, 2025. And I think this is going to be a great show. We've been, we've talked about Cash Patel. We've talked about a lot of Trump's appointment since he has come in. You're talking

about A.G. Pam Bondi, obviously, Cash Patel. You're talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Is for what many people have said, it's kind of a dream team. This is something that the American people resoundingly voted for. They voted for Trump. They knew the people likely he was going to potentially appoint. And so tonight, we do have two. active police officers on the show that work in policing every single day. And what I want to more so talk about is their thoughts on Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, but also how it's going to affect their everyday jobs on a daily basis. Guys, welcome to the show. I want to also go ahead and point out before we get into the show, if you want to follow us, follow us on X. That is the main platform

that we post most often to. We also do have Facebook and Instagram, but if you want to see what or what we're doing on a regular basis, please go follow us over on X. So, guys, without further ado, we're going to go ahead and introduce our special guest tonight. Michael, how's it going, man? Welcome to the show. Awesome.

Thanks for having me, guys. Been listening for a while now, so it's kind of weird being on the show. Yeah, right? Michael, just go ahead and briefly tell me a little bit about what you do. You're a police officer, but do you have, you're a canine officer also, right? Yep.

This is my 10th year as a. police officer. I started on patrol, obviously, like everybody else. And then I did a few years in the traffic world doing reconstruction stuff. And then I've been K-9 now for almost a year. Nice. And then we also have Bob, which is Sherry's brother. Bob's been on the show quite a few times. Bob, how's it going? Welcome back. Hey, guys. You're Chad. How are you doing? Thanks for having me back. Howdy, Michael? Good to see you. How are you doing? Awesome. Good to hear from you. And I must say hi to you. Hi, too. Hi, guys. This is Sherry, by the way.

I'm Sherry. You're Sherry. Wow. I know I know that. So anyways, we've obviously had a pretty crazy four to five years, right? You had the 2016 to 2020 president Donald Trump that had, you know, went through the ringer, essentially with the Biden and Harris administration. Many people thought that a lot of the attacks on Donald Trump was politically motivated

on the behalf of the Department of Justice. Biden's Department of Justice. And then so in 2024, you had Trump come in. He not only has the House and the Senate, but he had the popular vote. And this was a mandate by the American people. Many people believe that, you know, hey, we want things to be different. We want the White House to be different. We want our rights to be restored. Many people thought that either freedom of speech or maybe a tyrannical government was coming. And I think it scared a lot of people, which is why Trump had such the margin of victory that he did. But there was this thing called Project 2025.

Everybody on the left tried to use this against Donald Trump. And essentially what Project 2025 was and what they wanted to outline to the American people over at Project 2025 was, was a system to allow Donald Trump to be a dictator on day one. That was what they were trying to say to the people that this plan from the heritage, Foundation, which Trump distanced himself from, was a way that he could basically kick out all the workers, the bureaucrats in Washington, and replace them with his own bureaucrats. Now, we've talked about this on the show many, many times. And some people are even saying what he's doing now is very similar or reminiscent to some of the policies or the recommendations on behalf of Project 2025.

But if you look at Project 2025 just in whole, well, what the Democrats have had for quite a Wow, actually, if you look at bureaucracy and the bureaucratic agencies in Washington was Project 2025. It was just on the other side. It was to benefit Democrats. It was to benefit their political agendas and also their lawfare, which we saw play out, or at least many people think is what happened during between 2020 and 2024. I want to first get to this and then we're going to get back to Michael and Bob on what

they think about Cash Patel. But I want to play to you first. Cash Patel's acceptance speech when he was officially sworn in in the White House the other day. And this is what Cash Patel had to say in the White House. Listen. First and foremost, we were just with President Trump. And I just want to thank him. I know he's not here in the room right now.

But what a ride we have been on. What a courageous warrior he has been. And the faith and trust he has put in me to lead the FBI is the greatest honor that I'll ever have in my life. And to General Bondi, that sounds pretty first. freaking cool. Pam, you're my sister, you're my mentor, you're my friend, you're my boss, and the confidence you have placed in me, I will never violate a trust. The men and women of the FBI will be led under your leadership through one standard, the Constitution. So thank you for entrusting me, Pam. Oh man, this is effing crazy. So obviously, you don't

get here alone. You know, I'm here because of God. I'm here because of my family and I'm here because of my friends and you're literally in this room because you made it happen. My sister, Nisha, and my nephew, Orion, flew in from London just to be here. My beautiful girlfriend, Alexis, is here. Yes, I agree. My aunts and uncles are here. They've come from all over the country. I am living the American dream.

And anyone that thinks the American dream is dead, just look right here. You're talking to a first-generation Indian kid who's about the American dream. to lead the law enforcement community, the greatest nation on God's green earth. That can't happen anywhere else. To the senators and the men and women of the United States House of Representatives, you placed an enormous trust in me, an enormous leap of faith. One that I didn't know that I could possibly earn back, but I'm going to spend every single day on this job doing so. The fact that you placed, the confidence you did in me, has inspired me to reach new heights at this job. I promised you the following. There will be accountability within the FBI,

and outside of the FBI. And we will do it through rigorous constitutional oversight starting this weekend. It's great. We all used to live in the same freaking house. Yeah, I don't have any prepared remarks. I wish I could go around the room and, you know, tell the story about how each and every one of you have magically touched my life to put me in this position. What a roller coaster ride it has been.

I do know this. We are in this room together because you guys have a love of country that is truly inspirational and it bleeds out everywhere we go. And if you look around this room, you see civil servants, you see warriors, you see attorneys, you see great husbands and fathers and mothers and wives. And we're fighting for the same thing, our future, our children, this guy. And there is no greater mission. I wish I had more words to thank every single one of you. But every time I look at every single one of you, you guys know the stories you can't tell. more importantly the ones you can

you know this this is Pam and I were just talking in the back and we're like do you believe this like you know we were on the campaign trail together we were attorneys in the first administration together now we're here she's the Attorney General and the director of the FBI like this is insane and I don't really fully believe it yet

I hope to but you're going to I'm just not here without you guys And look, I know the media's in here And if you have a target, that target's right here. It's not the men and women at the FBI. You've written everything you possibly can about me

That's fake, malicious, slanders, and defamatory. Keep it coming, bring it on. But leave the men and women the FBI out of it. They deserve better. And for those of you think that there's going to be a two-tier system of justice, not with Attorney General Bondi. There's a singular system of justice for all Americans, and there will be accountability.

And the reason that this mission is so important is simply the following. 100,000 people last year raped. 100,000 people died of CCP fentanyl overdose and heroin. 17,000 homicides. Violent crime is out of control. We cannot have a United States of America. where that is acceptable, where someone dies every 30 minutes, where someone ODs every seven,

or someone's raped every six, that cannot be allowed to continue, and it will not be allowed to continue. Our national security mission is equally as important. Anyone that wishes to do harm to our way of life and our citizens here or abroad will face the full wrath of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And if you seek to hide in any corner of this country, or any corner of this planet, we will put on the world's largest manhunt, and we will find you, and we will decide your end state, not you. We will uphold the Constitution. We will uphold ourselves to the Constitution. The men and women at the FBI, I have your back because you have the backs of the American people. You will be held to the same high standard. Any deviation from that standard will not be tolerated at this Federal Bureau of Investigation. The men and women at the FBI, who make us safe, deserve better. And they are going to get it with our leadership and your support.

God bless America and God bless every one of you. I love this country. So there was Cash Patel's acceptance speech. Michael, I want to go to you first. I want to first ask you what you think about Cash Patel's just overall personality. And obviously, Cash Patel has been one of those very outspoken or outspoken people of leadership that has been involved with Trump's team. already. He's been on multiple podcasts. He's talked a lot about the Epstein files and you name.

He's been very transparent. But what do you think about overall his personality and what he's going to bring to the FBI? Well, I haven't really been following him a whole lot since probably when Trump announced his name after he got elected. But he reminds me of supervisors that I've worked with before that are like you said, outspoken, but genuine and humble, it seems like. I don't He just talks like most of us probably think he's not sugarcoding it or try to make this fallacy and basically do it for himself. It sounds like he really wants to do it for the American people and he's not going to leave any rocks unturned. And I think that's what we've been needing for the last four plus years because there's been a lot of secrets, a lot of corruption. And I just, I don't know, I think he is going to put us in the right direction.

So I'm pretty excited about him. Michael, do you think leadership, you know, especially, you know, let's just talk about the past four years, right? Where the trust of the FBI deteriorated so bad that, you know, when you heard the word FBI, it was almost like the American people, especially the Patriots of the United States or America, thought that the FBI was against them rather than actually going after criminals. Do you think leadership is the main problem in the FBI or, you know, and obviously, and I've said this before on. the show before. I don't think that you devote so much time and effort into getting into the FBI to betray your country or something. I think many of the agents in the FBI, similar to the Border Patrol, they want to do their jobs if the leadership would let them. I mean, do you think leadership plays a big role in this? Yeah, I think it always trickles down from the top. I mean,

just my experience at different police departments, if we have poor or shaky leadership at the top, that goes down towards the line level people. And, I mean, there's always bad apples in every profession. So I'm not going to say that that doesn't happen in the FBI. But I think a lot of the agents in the FBI, probably most of them, are good people. And like you said, want to do their job. But it's kind of hard to do that when the boss has their hands tied because they're tied up in a political mess, kind of ran by higher ups and even potentially

the last president. So, yeah. Yeah, and Bob, I know that I think you've taught leadership classes and stuff before, if I'm not mistaken. But what do you think about the leadership aspect of Cash Patel? And I'll ask you the same question I ask, Michael, do you think leadership was more of the problem in the FBI or the agents themselves? Well, I think the FBI, first of all, when we put it this way, the people that I've worked with, the people that I know that are FBI special agents are 100 percent. in it to protect and defend the United States. So if you think that there's criticism that's due to the FBI,

it's not to them. They are legit crime fighters. So you have to go up the top. And for a leadership question, you know, you can have different motivations. My opinion, if you're a leader and all you do is, talk about how good you are, you're probably not really leading. You're probably just trying to build a reputation or sell a book or find another job that pays better. But to lead, you've got to be

motivated by the right thing. And if you look at Cash Patel, one of the things that's kind of interesting about him, he's pretty good lawyer, started out as a public defender, like what I did, and then switched kind of like what I did. So I can relate to that. And his devotion to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I think, is refreshing. We have not had a public defender, as far as I know, be the director of the Federal Bureau of investigation. Now, if you go back to the first director, Jay Edgar Hoover, he was probably as corrupt as corruption can be and yet tried to develop this error of, or error of untouching

Well, many of his agents were untouchable, but he wasn't. And I think that has had implications throughout history that the leadership have been the problem in the FBI, not the agents, not the workers, not the people trying to fight crime and defend our country. So I would caution people when they complain about the FBI. My experience in working with agents, I have never. never met an FBI agent or a DE agent or an ATF agent or a secret service or a postal inspector that had anything but crime fighting as a motivation and that looked at as their

primary goal trying to defend the Constitution and defend the people that live in our communities. So leadership, I think, is key. And when you look at Cash Patel, I think you see that genuine, genuineness that Mike was talking about. That, that, that's not something you fake. That's not, you know, go to acting school to figure that out. He's, I think he's the real deal. Yeah. I think he is too. And I just want to address the big elephant in the room for just a moment. And I know it's kind of putting you guys on the spot as far as being in law enforcement yourself. But do you feel like leadership roles are based on political affiliations and they can go one way or another based on what political affiliation is? And if that's the case, is there a way to make it less political?

I mean, I've always worked in municipal police departments. So I haven't really seen as much politics. But, I mean, even sheriff departments, they're all. elected officials. So I think that kind of ties into the whole federal side that we're talking about because most these people are getting voted in or the person that is appointing them got voted in. So I don't think it's going to be pretty hard to get politics out of that the way the structure is built. Yeah, and especially if you look at the FBI. I mean, obviously every FBI director is appointed by the president. And yet, you know, and yet they say that, you know, the FBI should be a political or, you know,

the DOJ or whatever, but how do you put, how do you possibly say that federal agencies like that? And with heads that the president is appointing to get his agenda done, how is that not ever going to be political is the question. And it could be good on one side or bad on one side. I mean, some people may say that although the Biden Harris administration seem like we're, we're sending the FBI and whoever after the American people more so than they were actually trying to fight crime. But then, you know, there's a lot of people worried about asking. Trump comes in and appoints these very law and order type leading officials that they're worried that they're going to overstep some of their boundaries as far as the law and order aspect of it.

You know, where does the line draw, or where do you draw the line here and, you know, what's the right thing to do? I want to ask you guys a quick question as well. Cash Patel said in his open a statement that 100,000 people are raped, 100,000 people die in a fentanyl, 17,000 murders in the United States. Michael, you have been in law enforcement for 10 years, and then we're going to get to Bob as well. But have you saw an uptick? Obviously, you're a canon officer, but let's first start with you in terms of fentanyl.

What does that affect on the place that you work? And has it obviously ramped up in the past 10 years he'd been working? Yeah, I mean, I would say the first half of my career, I'd never probably even ran into fentanyl. It was mostly meth and heroin. It kind of goes through waves on different drugs that I'm seeing on the street. But yeah, fentanyl has definitely gone up, definitely have responded to medical calls from people overdosing from heroin. Like we carry Subox, or not Suboxone, I'm sorry, Narcan in our car just for that reason. And if we get in contact with it, we also have it for ourselves.

But, yeah, I mean, crime has been in the last five years just on a steady incline. And I think a lot of that has to do with the judges and the district attorneys in cities and states across the country that are just not hard on crime right now because a lot of these people are getting booked on $50,000 bonds and they're out the next day or that night even. So I think if we need to change the punishment on some of our crimes and hold people accountable like Cash was saying, because you check these people's rap sheet. Like when I arrest somebody, I checked their history for certain charges. And it's just like pages and pages, like the last one I had with, like 15 pages long. And he's doing the same stuff he's been doing for the last 15 years because he's never been held accountable. So these people just get slapped on the wrist and it's a never-ending cycle. So they either die from overdose or die from violence in the streets with dealing drugs or whatever else.

But I don't know. Something needs to change within the courts as well, not just the, law enforcement side of it. Does the FBI and the fact that we have new directors in the FBI, will that change potentially how, you know, whether it be the local courts or whatever, release people? Is there a way the FBI could maybe supersede or oversee, I guess, court systems to say you're not going to release people if they have, you know, extended rap sheet or they've been arrested on the same charges?

And the second part of that question is, do you see people that you may have arrested last night the same like the next day? I have seen that before. Not for anything super crazy, but yeah, I mean, DUI have arrested the same person back-to-back days on DUI, but I have seen other people get out and contact them within the same work week for other crimes like breaking in the cars or whatever else. As far as the FBI and the courts go, that's probably a better question for Bob,

But I would suppose that that's just going to be on a state-by-state basis. I mean, they could pressure these courts to do different things, but legally, I'm not sure how that would change by their input. Yeah, Bob, I'll ask you the same question. I ask him, 100,000 people raped 100,000 deaths from fentanyl, 17,000 murders a year. You know, how much have you seen it incline? And also back to the question I asked, Michael, is there a way the FBI can do something about how the, local systems let out people same day next day, etc? Yeah, well, let me answer the second question first, so you can get that out of the way.

There's a big difference between local and federal law enforcement. And there's, I mean, basically the reason is this concept of posse comitatis, which was a law and created, I think, shortly after the Civil War, that said that you have to have this division between the federal government and state governments, and you can't have the power to federalize local law enforcement. And so there's also this concept of what we call separation of powers where law enforcement is an executive function of government.

And the courts obviously are from the judicial branch. And those two have to be separated and have to be able to stay in up against each other as part of our constitutional checks and balances. So when you have an executive branch jump ship and try and demand or change the way things are done in a different branch like the judiciary, it actually violates the Constitution. So you can't really do that. And likewise, the things that we see, and to answer the first question a little bit, I agree with Michael.

It has definitely been noticeable the increase in crime and pervasive drug use. And I would say that that goes back probably the last. last 12 years, which is probably consistent with how the country, not just where I live and work, but how the country has accepted casual drug use. And you've seen this push throughout the state governments throughout the country to accept different kinds of what they call lower level drugs like marijuana and mushrooms. And now there's people that are trying to promote the idea of using LSD and other drugs that are psychoactive that will have an impact.

Now, some of these drugs may be effective in a medical situation. Like if you're suffering from depression, you're bipolar, you have some disassociative problem, these drugs might be a good thing. Or you're the government and want to create an MK Ultra type of experiment. I don't know if you want to go down that road. But if I mean, think about it, cocaine has been used in dentistry for almost 100 years, right? I mean, if you go to the dentist and you have like a numbing medication put on your gums when you're getting a shot, that's a derivative of cocaine.

I didn't know that. It's a different mix. It's still used in medicine. So some of these drugs are needed. Like fentanyl, I mean, I had surgery. I was prescribed fentanyl. I mean, it has a medical need. It's just the fentanyl that we're seeing isn't fentanyl that you go to the drugstore and steal from.

It's fentanyl. It's being created in China. It's being shipped to Mexico. and then, you know, burrowed through the border and then sold throughout the United States by cartels. So that's what we're, I mean, if you go to it, you know, the United States, thanks to President Trump, designated the cartels in Mexico as terrorist organizations. That opens a lot of doors for the federal government to be able to try and, and interdict and fight those cartels and the gangs that we're seeing in our urban centers

throughout the country. So if you look at the big picture, it's not just the FBI. It's not just Cash Patel. I think you have to look at the entire administration's approach. Some of it's been criticized. Some of it I don't necessarily agree with. But overall, the concept of trying to solve problems that have been passed over for a long time, I think is refreshing. Yeah, absolutely. I want to ask you guys another question because we have a lot

of listeners. And Michael, obviously, if you've listened to us for any amount of time and anybody else has listened to us, they know that we hold the government accountable, which is what the people of America should should do. And that doesn't just mean the FBI. It doesn't just mean the president and the executive branch. It means all aspects of government. And, you know, that includes local law enforcement. That includes, you know, all aspects of government. Michael, with listening to our podcast and kind of some of the stuff we've talked about before, and then also just kind of your mindset on the fact that, hey, you know, you

think cash-phtel is a good thing. You think that what has happened over the past four to eight to how many every years has been kind of going into direction of, you know, not a good thing for federal agencies, how does that affect you in how you communicate and treat people that you work with on a daily basis? And we're talking about the public, the citizens that you actually deal with on a daily basis. How is your mindset different and how you approach people just based on your mindset with the way you look at the world? Because there's oftentimes I see videos. I see encounters with law enforcement from people that it seems like they try to overstep their

boundaries. They violate people's rights on a regular basis. Does that play in your head to where you want to police, you want to make sure that you uphold the law, but also are you just as consistent with upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens that you serve? I think most cops would agree with me that we have the best interest in everybody's rights, safety, everything on the menu. Like, we're looking out for the public 100.000. I mean, with the culture and kind of climate of the last four years, and even a little bit during Trump's presidency, like people just don't like cops these days. Luckily, I work in an area where people actually do like the police, so it makes my job a little bit easier. But like when I put the police head on every day and go to work, I have to remind myself sometimes, like, the person I'm talking to right now is experiencing probably the worst day of their lives.

or the worst moment in their lives in this certain point of time. So I have to treat everybody the same way that I would want to be treated with compassion, integrity, and put trust back in law enforcement because it's been diminished over the last half a decade or so. But I don't know. I don't think the change of guard at that level really changes my mindset or my way of working. I stay true to who I am and try to get my mission completed. and it's just refreshing that now at the top,

it seems like we all have the same mindset and the same goal because I could tell you just a few months ago, we were on opposite paths and wavelengths, and I don't know. I just feel like a lot of police get a bad rep because of the things they see on the Internet or TV or whatever else, but that goes back to the last presidency where I think that's what they wanted people to see

is they wanted to highlight those and they don't want to highlight the good things. that cops are doing for people and that there actually is a pretty good pretty decent relationship with the public and police I would say I've been doing this 10 years and I mean obviously I've seen some bad things or had bad interactions but I think the good ones probably outweigh the bad ones yeah for sure yeah and that's why I just wanted to ask because it just seems like you know especially with what a lot of people felt about the FBI and kind of how that was all politicized also mainstream media talked about FBI DOJ and what they did to Trump and you know

people started to kind of assimilate that in some way, shape, or form with just all law enforcement. And that's why I wanted to ask you that question. I wanted to make sure that people understand that it's not all law enforcement. And it goes back to this, not all FBI agents. And yes, there is leadership that can influence how a department or an agency operates. I mean, I've had interactions with people where they're all pissed and yelling and screaming about the government and they're talking about the FBI or feds or whatever else. And like, I have to remind them like, hey, I'm not one of them.

and I agree with you. Like, I totally agree what you're saying. It's not right. It's wrong. There's corruption. And my vision for America, like, I think it's going to happen eventually in this term. But, like, going forward, I wish that we would just cut the fat of the politics and blend the party lines. And we can just work in unison as two parties.

Like, I don't care. I don't vote just one way because that's what I vote for. Like, I vote for policies and, personalities and how I think those people will lead. And I think we need to go back to that and focus on that rather than the D versus DR. Let me go back to what Michael was saying. I've seen a shift in law enforcement over the last 15 years where officers, police officers and deputies, I think are even more empathetic to the people that they interact with.

I think the average cop on the street realizes that people want to be heard, respected, and valued. And if those three things are accomplished during the interaction with the law enforcement officer and a suspect or a victim or anybody else, then I think things kind of end up going the way they're supposed to. But when those three pillars, if you will, of law enforcement contact are not followed, that's where you get negativity and that's where you get people reacting poorly to the interaction. And so we in law enforcement training try and establish that as being the precedent that we want to set from the moment a recruit comes to the police academy, all the way through FTO, all the way through their entire career, that look, you are here to police, but it's a social contract, and your power, your authority is given to the police officer by the people they police.

So if you don't value that, if you don't respect that, if you don't listen to that, if you're not empathetic to it, you're not going to be effective. Yeah. Now, I agree with that. And I'm going to ask another question. I was about to play another clip, but I want to ask this question. question because this will be a good one for our listeners. We've had so many people that have written in and talked about law enforcement and all that stuff. Michael, we'll go to you first.

Let me ask you, if say that a presidency comes into office and they start this tyrannical government that we all feared and always fear, I mean, that's literally the reason why the constitution was written. But you go back to Nazi Germany and all that stuff. And they were saying, oh, we're just following orders. Like, how does, do you guys ever think about that just being on, on the ground level and policing on an everyday basis? Like, how would that, although I know that there is definitely a separation of federal and state, and that's for good reason, but what happens when a tyrannical government

does actually get into the administration and they start commanding law enforcement? Do you see that that would be a massive either fight or do you think a lot of law enforcement agencies would still uphold the Constitution versus the government? Yeah, I mean, I've definitely thought of those scenarios, and I can tell you if it goes against my beliefs and state and federal laws, and they're overriding that with their own agendas. I'm out the door. Like, I've already told myself, if I, if I'm told to enforce things that are one unconstitutional or something I don't believe in that I swore an oath to, like, I'm going to quit and I'm going to

you'll find a different job because I'm not doing that. Now, what happened? I couldn't sleep at night if I had to enforce things that I knew were wrong and that were against human rights and constitutional rights. And I think even with that being said, I think the biggest thing that most people would relate to what I'm asking maybe from the very first step of a tyrannical government would be the Second Amendment, right? So where they start implying or imposing these laws and they say,

hey, you've got to go take away all the guns and you are a police officer and here's the new laws, even though it's completely against the Constitution. That's one of the things that I can't even tell you how many people have written in about and said, you know, with all these things. And it was actually just the other day, which is very interesting that Pan Bondi was talking about with Donald Trump, where Pan Bondi said, well, look, I think what we're going to try to do here with this mental health thing is that, you know, if law enforcement comes into a situation, say that, I don't know, say that your wife or your husband, vice versa, could be whoever calls. And it kind of reminds me of red flag laws, but differently.

And where that you get called and law enforcement determines that you may be a mental health case or a mental health type call, they are then going to be allowed to take all your weapons. and then at that point, the law enforcement agency would determine whether you get those weapons back or not after you go to the hospital, get evaluated. But it just starts getting into kind of muddy water or the gray area here. And we've got a lot of emails just since Pam Bonnie said that. Like, where do you, like, where does, I guess, police officers draw the line with the Constitution versus what is going to be brought down?

I know this is a hard question. I just, is it something you've thought about, especially like red flag laws in particular? Yeah, I mean, I've experienced red flag laws like at departments I've worked at. So I haven't been on the search warrants per se, but I know friends and other partners have been on those calls. And I don't know, hearing it for the first time, and originally when red flag laws came out a few years back, I was pretty skeptical and it was sound like a big infringement. and I think they can be used politically or in the wrong way. But there are some people out there. And I mean, these have to be signed by judges first.

It's not my understanding that just police get to make these decisions on the fly. As far as I'm concerned, or I know that it has to go to the court. They have to look at it. And then they issue these red flag laws. That's just my understanding of it. But some of these people should not have guns in their hands. And I think if we focused on the right people and focused on other things than banning magazine capacity and barrel lengths or whatever else, like some of these people that, one, tried to kill President Trump or these kids that keep going into schools and killing a bunch of other kids,

if we put our focus in time and making sure that the kids around them and the people around them are safe, I think we'd be better off. And those red flag laws might actually be put into use in the right way. Yeah, I mean, that is a difficult question about what you asked. I don't know anything about what the Pan Bonney. Yeah, I wasn't aware of that one. I haven't heard of that yet. And to clarify that, she did say that, you know, at that point, if, you know, if evaluated that the law enforcement agency could go at, essentially, I guess, petition a court to say, we do not believe that this person should have the firearms back.

you know, after whatever their stay is. That might be the case now, Bob. We'd have to clear that up, but I'm pretty sure we can still do that as of now, make a suggestion. Because, I mean, theoretically, if you're not being safe on the street with a gun, I mean, we can stop you and seize it momentarily.

So it's just like a longer seizure at that point. But I don't know, Bob might have a better answer than I do. Yeah, if you think about it, like we already have laws that allow us to deal with people that have guns. If you think of someone who's been a felon, right, they carry a gun or an ammunition, well, they can go to prison for up to 10 years just by carrying the gun. That's a second amendment right, but they've not, I mean, so the question is, are these rights in the Constitution absolute?

And I would tell you probably not, because in that situation, the Supreme Courts are already come out and said generally, I mean, there's some exceptions that we can get into on the state side, but generally, you can do something that limits your rights in the future. So you're a felon, you're not going to be able to carry a gun probably. If you, if you're a felon, you might not be able to vote. I mean, those are fundamental universal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. and, you know, we're able to limit those. So it's not an absolute right.

And Michael's correct. Law enforcement is able to, like a law enforcement officer in every state can have someone committed because there's no other authority available to do that. So if someone's gravely ill or if there are harm to themselves or others, like they're homicidal, but they really want to kill somebody. You kind of want law enforcement to be able to take that person into protective custody and get them help and get them the opportunity to be analyzed and see what's going on. And if you don't have that, then you're not going to be able to maintain law and order

with a very small percentage of people that suffer from a mental health issue. So you have to have that give and take. Now, here's the take part. I can arrest somebody if they're showing signs of being homicidal or suicidal. Here's the give part. The courts have to be able to look at what I did and say, yeah, I had probable cause to believe that. And it's reasonable that they are placed in protective custody. The same thing's true with a red flag law.

It's the same thing as a seizure in other cases. The government has reserved the right to intervene when if that intervention isn't taken, someone's going to get hurt. And so that's where the rights have to be balanced with the good of the common good, if you will, of the nation. Now, that makes sense. But why would people even be against that, though, Chad? I guess because they think it's against the Second Amendment. Well, okay. So yeah, that's a good question you have, Sherry, because, you know, even to what Bob says, although I 100% get what Bob and Michael both say on this subject, they're definitely absolutist out there, right? And that is called an absolute absolutist constitutionalist. And those people believe that the moment you start having gray areas in the Constitution, you open yourselves up for interpretation of the Constitution, whereas people think that there is an absolute Constitution. So, you know, obviously we can't necessarily go back and ask our founding fathers.

And, you know, the Constitution writer is what they actually meant by this. And especially given the scenarios and circumstances of today. But I guess, you know, there's a lot of people out there that just think that, you know, the moment you start opening it up for debate, that's when things go gray area. And although I 100% get, for example, that if you have, say, for example, you've been convicted of attempted murder or murder or whatever the case is. And maybe it's with a gun. Maybe it isn't.

But let's just say in this circumstance is with a gun. You attempted murder with a weapon. You eventually get out of jail or prison in that case. And should you just be allowed to go and buy another gun? Because the likelihood of you may be doing another murder at that point, not attempted this time. You're going to be like, damn it, you know what? I'm going to actually do it this time because I've been in prison forever. But the point is.

But in that sense, when you are a convicted felon, you're not allowed to carry a firearm. period. Well, no, that's what I'm saying. But I'm talking about the gray areas as far as mental, like mental capacities. Like, why would people be against law enforcement removing guns from people that have mental issues or let's say they're on a meth run or something? You know, they're going crazy in their head. Or why would people be against that? Well, I just think, I think so many people, and this is my opinion, you guys can give your opinions on this. I, I, I guess from my perspective, it just feels like that a lot of people think that the government, because a lot of people do not trust government in any way nowadays, will utilize that for their control, right? And so whereas we might see it on a smaller scale, right, on a particular instance that maybe Michael goes and deals with or Bob goes and deals with, and this is an everyday thing that happens in America on a daily basis.

but then think about how that may be utilized in a either government control or tyrannical situation, even if you go back to the COVID vaccines and how they were trying to mandate companies to make sure that you had to have this, although so many people disagreed with that, but they still mandated this thing. They made companies mandate this. And so I think this is where people disagree with this. So I know we could go for days on this. Briefly, Michael, if you have anything to say about you can right now and then we're going to

get to a clip. Well, I just think it's like everything else. I mean, people don't like new things, like they're nervous about new policies or new ideas. I mean, and everything that the government implements can be abused. So, I mean, I think if used in the right, correct way and used to save other people's lives and potentially even the person that's a part of it, the subject of it, I think it could be a beneficial law. But again, it can be abused, just like we're taxed. Taxes were implemented. And I think at this point, taxes are being abused.

We're being taxed on too many things and too high of a rate. So that's just one example. But if they use it the correct way and they keep it in balance, I don't really see anything wrong with it. I mean, I'm a gun guy. I have a safe full of guns that's overflowing. So don't get me wrong. I love guns. And I think everyone should have the right to have guns.

but there's got to be a line if we want to live in a safe environment and a country that upholds safety in the law. And I think that that might need to be a part of it. Very true. Bob, you get anything? That was a great answer, Michael. Thank you. Bob? Any final?

Yeah, sorry. Michael, Michael really did as good as a job as I can in answer. It's really, I mean, just think about it, this analogy. if you have the biggest party you've ever had and you drink more than you've ever had in your life and then you walk in downtown Charlotte and you have an AR-15 and you start shooting at the moon

do you think a police officer should be able to take that gun away from you? No, because the moon's fake. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I don't think the moon's fake. I thought it was the moon landing, not the moon. Either way, Either way, if you have this all or nothing mentality with the Constitution doesn't work.

We've been arguing about the contents of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution since 1803, when the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, and that was what gave the power of the Supreme Court to determine what is constitutional and unconstitutional. And ever since we've had the same discussion. And that started when the founders were still alive and we're giving their opinion. So just because the founders aren't here, we still have the ability to look at precedent. We have the ability to look at the federalists and the anti-federalist papers. And we can determine based upon the fundamental principles of the Constitution, that of reasonableness, of appropriateness, whether or not something should or shouldn't be done in our society.

I think that's what we kind of have to look to. Yeah. And keeping also in mind, I mean, if you are a felon or someone that's committed murder or attempted murder, you guys definitely can go to Haiti. There is a leader down there that will have you. His name is Barbecue. And I'm sure that they don't have gun laws there necessarily for felons. But you also look at kind of how some of these third world countries operate, right,

when there are no laws and there are none of these safeguards at all whatsoever. And so you could either potentially be burned in the streets or executed, you know, based on what maybe your belief systems are or whatever the case is. And I think it goes back to, I understand out there everybody, there's absolutists on the Constitution and all these things. And I understand there's some people out there that absolutely do not trust government in any way, shape, or form. I get all those people.

And they rightfully have that reasoning to do so. That's why I always think you have to evaluate every situation as you come upon it. And that's why I know we're a little off topic, but I did just kind of want to dig into that because I know our audience will be, I guess. They will appreciate that. Yeah, they'll appreciate the conversation that we just had about that because, like I said, I think there is a lot of mistrust in law enforcement. And I know so many officers and cops that I, you know, every one of them I know. primarily are awesome people, you know, and this people that you would want to hang out with and shoot a shit with. You just don't necessarily want to be on the other side of, you know,

the law on hanging out with them. Before we get back on topic, I do have one question to ask both of you. It's just this is kind of a lighthearted question. Have you ever been audited by somebody that tries to tell you about the Constitution like you see these videos? Yeah, like a police auditor. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I don't want to to tip my own horn, but I,

I'm nice to everybody. So if they want to do their whole little spiel, listen to them and let them talk. But yeah, I'm not one of those guys you see on the bad side of those reviews where they're throwing their phone across the parking lot or whatever. But yeah, I've only had to happen a couple times. And you just kind of, I mean, it's their right to do it. So, I mean, respect the fact that they have the right to voice their opinion or test my integrity or whatever else. But, yeah, I mean, I take it probably as lighthearted as you ask the question. And by the way, like, there's so many people that, like, there's so many officers that are put in those positions.

The Second Amendment, or, sorry, the First Amendment auditors or the Fourth Amendment, whichever it is. And these officers know that are being recorded. And I think there's so many officers that just don't understand the power of Internet today. Well, I mean, yeah, it's been going on for almost 10 years now, so you'd think they get the point. Yeah, like, just, you know. Let them do their thing. And make sure that you know how you're reacting. into them. If anything's taught me patience in this world, it's being a cop.

Oh, I'm sure. Be patient with these people. I mean, a lot of them are baiting you. There are groups of people that bait cops to try and do this to get a reaction out of them, and then they go back and sue the department. And a lot of the times they're getting money for it. So it's a game. Yeah. It can be a game. And I'll chime in, too. I'll tell you that I've had plenty of people that have argued the law and the Constitution with me. And the benefit of being a constitutional lawyer and having gone to the United States Supreme Court for a petition of registered certiorari, I get it. But I'm always interested in discussing what the Constitution means. I mean, like I mentioned, Marbury v. Madison, yesterday it was the, what, the 22nd, yeah, 22nd year anniversary of that case when Chief Justice Marshall delivered his opinion saying the Supreme Court.

had the authority to interpret the Constitution. So I wish more time could be given to law enforcement in like the police academy so that we could teach a lot of constitutional law. We do a lot in the academy, but, you know, it's not three years of law school. But anytime anybody wants to contact me with a constitutional law question, I'm all about it. Oh, I would hate to be stopped by you. We'll set up an email. I'm going to drive out to where you. I'm going to drive out to where you're at just to test you. I'm going to go 150 miles an hour. I'm like, well, I constitutionally am allowed to do this, bro.

Yeah. Let's do it. Let's do it. That'd be perfect. All right, guys, I want to get to something real quick. Before we move on to Dan Bongina, because I know that we don't have forever today. But here is a, here is an actual clip of Cash Patel. And this was a monumental moment for Cash Patel because this is not only after all of his

podcast, he had went on and kind of talking. about what his viewpoint on America is. And this was even far before that he was being considered for FBI director, which, you know, there's a lot of people that were pushing his nomination for FBI director. And I feel like actually in today's world, especially Trump's picks for his executive branch, man, the people have made so many decisions for Trump. I mean, I'm talking about the, when X came out in mass and they said, no, nobody but this person. And if you pick anyone else but this, we're done.

Pompella, whatever is the most. Pompeo, yeah. Mike Pompeyer, like, no. Do not go with him at all. No, absolutely not. And so he was considering him at one point in time, not for that, but I think it maybe was for, I don't even remember, maybe CIA director or whatever. But yeah, so when the people came out and they said, oh, hell no, not Mike Pompeo for

that position. And then when they were considering someone else for FBI director, the people came out in mass. And they said, only Cash Patel. And I think there was actually a trending hashtag. tag that said only cash. And so I 100% believe as much as Trump utilizes social media and listens to social media, he made a lot of his picks on behalf of the American people that had this massive push to say, hey, we trust this guy, put him in this position, let's see what he does.

And I think that if you want to know why the American people trusted Cash Patel, this is just one of the speeches he had. And we'll react to it before we get to Dan Bonito. Listen. Just think about it. In the 21st century of the United States of America, did you think a political party would illegally spend campaign dollars to hire a foreign intelligence asset from overseas and funnel fake false information into the Federal Bureau of Investigation only to have them go to a secret surveillance court, lie to a federal judge just so that they could illegally surveil their political opponent? After you, he's just standing in the way. Well, I'm here to tell you it's time for us to stand with him and behind Donald J. Trump.

Because if you don't think those government gangsters have quieted down, you haven't been paying attention just last week. What did we hear from the Department of Injustice in Merrick Garland and Chris Ray? It's Russia, Russia, Russia all over again. They've illegally surveilled hundreds of thousands of citizens. The government gangsters in Washington, D.C. have one main operational arm. That is a two-tier system of justice that they choose to weaponize and politicize because we care more about America than they do. And they fear the presidency of Donald J. Trump because entering his first term when I served under him, he was out there wiping out the corruption in Washington, D.C. And if he comes back, it's not a Republican or Democratic thing.

It's a unip party swamp monster thing. If he comes back, Donald Trump will permanently retire the swamp monster class. We are facing the biggest projection con artists of our lifetime with Harris in the radical left wing. They accuse us of every single thing they are doing. They try to imprison our great leader illegally time and time again. They raid our houses of worship. They tell us where our children can go to school and what they should learn. Well, I don't know about you, but I want our future generation know history, math, and economics.

I don't want them to know gender fluidity at the age of 10. We have the greatest leader. The costume is built, and Donald J. Trump is our champion. He is our juggernaut of justice. But we have to martialize behind them because we have the truth. They don't have that. Kamala Harris does not have a single national security policy that is better than President Trump's. If she did, she would have implemented it four years ago instead of stealing his ideas.

And when it comes to national security where I was serving as a deputy director of national intelligence or his chief of staff, the mission was simple when I walked into the Oval Office. President Trump said singularly, we are going to kill the emirs of ISIS. We are going to wipe out al-Qaeda senior leadership. We are going to end the Forever Wars. We are going to crush the narco-traffickers. We are going to stop the CCP fentanyl. And we are going to restore American diplomacy overseas.

I said, Roger, that boss. Who wouldn't want to sign up for that? We are going to stop behind Donald Trump's brilliant leadership. I have seen more courage and conviction in this man's one finger than I have seen in 10 lifetimes in 10 countries. This man is proud to stand for America. and we will stand with him. We will stop sending money to the forever wars. We will take care of our 55,000 homeless veterans first.

On the thin blue line come first. Our teachers come first. Our first responders come first. Our children come first. Illegal immigrants do not come first in this country. There is a legal way here. And just like thousands of view, I found myself legally here in this country.

My father fled a genocidal dictatorship and had the American dream for his children. That American dream is alive and well in Donald Trump's America for each and every one of your children. That American dream is not alive for Kamala Harris. She wants to rob you of that dream and seize the truth from you and establish a dynasty in Washington, D.C. that tears apart this world. Well, I want a president that goes overseas and ends the forever wars. I want a president that doesn't fund the Iranian mullahs and $7 billion of terrorism funding activities. And you don't have to gamble on Donald J. Trump.

He took them on over and over again and ask you this. Who do you think the current hostages, Americans and others that are being held by the terrorists who invaded Israel and started over the World War? Do you think they want Kamala Harris? Or do you think they want Donald Trump who rescued, who rescued 54 hostages and detainees around the world? That is more than every president before him combined. I'm going to stop here just because it goes on for a few more minutes, but you get the gist. And what I wanted to play in this video was Cash Patel's very passionate stance on not only Trump, obviously, he 100% believes heavily in Trump. And, you know, Sherry's always been very, very, all pro Trump.

And I've, I've been pro Trump. I just, I always want to hold every elected, sorry, elected official accountable for sure. But I want to ask you a question. Michael, do you, what do you think about a deep state? Do you think the deep state's real as far as, you know, when Cash Patel talks about stuff like this? I mean, even if we go back just for briefly a second, if we're talking about the last FBI director, which was Ray. And the relationship between Christopher Ray and Donald Trump had insane tensions between them. And Trump nominated him.

He did. But like Russia investigation, in December 19, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report on FBI's investigation. or Russian interference in 2016 election. The report found no political bias in the FBI's actions, but identified procedural errors. Now, it's come to find out with a still dossier and basically political witch hunt. There was absolutely no evidence for Russia collusion or Russian any of that as far as Trump goes. You also had the Antifa and domestic terrorism in June 2020 amidst nationwide protest. Ray described Antifa as an ideology rather than a structured organization.

Although, if we go back to social media post, the, Facebook, Instagram, and all those would allow all of these groups to be to be active on their platforms and where they were actively planning all of these demonstrations. And yet any demonstrations or political protest on the other side was always banned. Then you had the Moralago search, how the FBI conducted a search on Trump's Mara Lago residence to retrieve classified documents and raise authorization of this action intensified Trump's accusations of the FBI's political persecution. and then you had his resignation and then also how he handled January 6th, all of that. What I'm asking you, Michael, is do you think there is a deep state and do you think this war is over for Trump? Like if people that voted for Trump, I don't know if you did or not, it doesn't matter. But if people that voted for Trump, do you think the war is over between the deep state if you think it's real?

I think it's 100% real. And I think just the last few weeks of Doge uncovering all these. different uses of money. Like I just saw one last night that there's $2.7 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare going to places they shouldn't be going to and places that aren't even eligible to receive them. So I think there's been proxy people and I think there's been private businesses that have been proxies for these deep state. If you want to call them politicians and I mean, you look at the Soros family and even the news station. You track them all back to crazy left-wing liberals. They're all intertwined.

And I think it's just been hidden so well or just been on the other side of the news where nobody's really talking about it because they've got a bigger, brighter toy for you to look at on the TV. So I think now that it's being exposed and more and more people, American people, like citizens are becoming aware of it. I think it's just inevitable that it's going to more and more going to be in. covered, but I don't think the war against Trump's ever going to end until he's, unfortunately, not here on Earth anymore. They just hate him so much. And it's because he's their, he's like their greatest enemy. What's, what is it, Superman? What's his thing? Cryptonite. Trump is, Trump is the left kryptonite. He wants to take everything down that they stand for. And unfortunately,

they don't stand for the American people. They stand for themselves and they're the money that they've been getting from their dirty deeds. So, yeah, I totally think that's a real thing. Bob? Yeah. I don't know if you guys have heard of this, but there's this Italian philosopher in the, I don't know, 15, 16, 17th century. I can't remember when he wrote this book called The Prince, but the guy's name was Machiavelli. I don't know if you've heard of him.

But he wrote a book about government and bureaucracy and power. And he said that power corrupts. and I think you've seen that. And then he followed up by saying absolute power corrupts absolutely. And if you look at bureaucracy in how government works, unfettered, that means without any leash, without any controls on it, government by its nature must grow to gain power. in in 1774 when well 7073 i guess when the uh the american colonists started to fight this idea of power being taken from them um they launched a revolution and a similar revolution was launched in france about what power should the government have and what power should the people

have. And so that's why I kind of go back to this idea of constitutional law and in this experiment that we've been involved in since the founding of our country, that if you can't limit government, and Ronald Reagan was a great proponent of this, if you can't limit government, it will take over. And I think without calling it, you know, these cryptic names, you know, you can come up with whatever explanation you want. But any department in the government is going to try and get more of a piece of the pie so they can do more things. But hey, we need more employees so that I can rise up in the ranks. We need more money so that we can do more projects so that we can have more of an impact,

so we can have more people. It's a non-ending battle. And so I go back to Reagan and I say, you know, this is, and if you think about it, there's all this turmoil, when President Trump on the first day had fired a couple of the auditors of the government.

And people forget that Ronald Reagan had fired every inspector general on his first day of, being inaugurated. And those inspector generals, they play an important part. But sometimes their mindset is based upon the people that put them in power originally. So the way the administrative law works in the United States and the way we want to limit power and sometimes reserve power for the states and sometimes reserve power for the federal government, we need to be mindful of who elected whom.

And so President Trump was elected in this election. I don't think the park workers or the people at, you know, the Department of Gadgets and functionality or whatever you want to come up with, whatever federal worker you want to think of, they were not elected. So what we're seeing, I think, is the will of the people being in. posed on the bureaucracy. Yep. And you're seeing a backlash.

No, I agree with that completely. And I'm going to ask you guys a question after this clip. This clip is about the bombshell new report. The FBI whistleblowers are revealing that FBI is actively destroying evidence after Cash and Bongino takeover. Listen to this clip. And I'm going to get your opinions on this. But I have a question for you guys.

And my question I want you to think about before we play this clip is, if you were Cash Patel, what would both of you do the first two weeks of being director of FBI, especially given all of the mistrust of the FBI of the American people? And we'll get your answers right after this clip. Listen, give us a closer in perspective as to what the subversion is happening inside of the building right now. I mean, it's obviously you're going to have like an antibody reaction to somebody like Cash. I'll give you a big one that I heard that I heard recently, which was already passed on. is that there are FBI servers that are sort of stand alone.

And people inside the FBI have been working night and day to destroy files on these servers. And I was told that once these files are destroyed, the way they are set up that even Elon Musk could not restore them. So that's happening right now as we speak. That's happening with Kasputal being the director. It was happening before he got there. And so that subversion, like I said, started immediately. And it's only going to continue. These people, here's another example, I was told.

Last week, right out of the gates, Cash Patel came out and said 1,500 people, 500, you're going to Alabama. You're still going to be headquarters personnel. You're going to Alabama. A thousand of you, you're going out to the field. He said this long before the election even, that he said, if he was in charge, he would say, let cops be cops and so go. Go out and be cops. Already people are saying, we are not going to comply with that. We are going to make it seem as if we transferred.

We're going to do what they call quote unquote paper transfers, and we're not going to obey these lawful orders. I don't know if you heard Stephen Miller in the last few days. He came out and has given a great civics lesson on Article 2 of the Constitution. The FBI falls under the executive branch. And you have these career bureaucrats who say, nope, we answer to no one. Well, hopefully that's going to change. And I think under Cash Patel and Dan Bongino leadership, I think it will.

But they've got to root out this subversion first. Somebody who works inside of the West Wing came up to us in a private setting when we were in D.C. and said, you would not be, you would not believe the number of times that my office has to be swept for bugs. That's crazy. Inside the White House has to be swept by agencies to figure out if there's electronic monitoring that's happening right, you know, to us on a daily basis. All right, so there you go. So that was Benny Johnson. He's talking about the report from whistleblowers in the FBI that the files are actively

being destroyed. And I've said this on the podcast for probably two weeks. As they slow walked Cash Patel's confirmation. And I said there's a reason, obviously, they are slow walking the hell out of Cash Patel's confirmation because likely they're destroying evidence. I said this before this report ever came out. And I said there's no way. because you can think about the FBI.

The FBI are the ones that has housed the Epstein files, the Epstein list. They have also have all of the video evidence or files on the Diddy parties, the DETI sex scandals. Yeah, they partly have some of the JFK stuff. I think CIA probably has a lot of that. But either way, we know that even in Epstein, they went in. We know the FBI has all the actual video evidence of whatever Epstein was doing there in the blackmailing scheme. they have all of that in a vault somewhere. And likely that's probably destroyed forever now.

And because they have to, they have no option but to destroy it, especially if it implicates people that they were using for some type of blackmail scheme. So I'm going to go to Michael first. Michael, I'd ask you earlier, what are some of the first things if you were nominated and then also confirmed as FBI director that you would do in the first two weeks, given everything that we talk about and hear about the past four years about the public's mistrust of the FBI. I think he already reiterated his mission statement to the American people, but I think he needs to reissue it to his people in the FBI and make sure that they're all on the same page.

I don't know how that works with that size of an agency, even if it's going to different areas of the country and having meetings with the higher ups of those departments and then getting that message across and changing different policies and SOPs where it's going to eventually make those who aren't comfortable with it, weed themselves out, and hopefully keep the good ones there. But yeah, I don't know. That's a tough question just because of the size of the agency. But that's pretty much all I got on that one. That's a difficult question for me because that's a large agency and he's got a lot of problems

to fix. Yeah. And do you think, you know, obviously you have. I have Christopher Ray that was there, and many people believe he may have been corrupt. But how many people do you think potentially he put in leadership positions under him throughout the country? Kind of like a spider. Probably a lot. Yeah.

I think, like I said, he's got a big mess to fix. And they've been working on years on this. And I think they've been working on the last since November to cover up stuff and delete stuff and try to save themselves before cash could come in. And it is inevitable. they knew cash was coming. They could prolong it however long they wanted to. But like you said, they were most likely deleting files and covering up all the things they've been doing

the last four years plus. So, yeah, he's going to need a lot of help uncovering all that. But Bonino and him, I'm sure, can get a team together to do the best they can and get all those whistleblowers interviewed and witness statements from everybody that's seen stuff so they can backtrack. Yeah, absolutely.

Bob, from a leadership position, what would you do in the first two weeks if you're cash Patel to weed out the corruption? And especially, especially not only just the corruption, but like, you know, given answers to the American people, whether it's Epstein or the Russia Collusion or any of the other stuff they're hiding, how do you, how do you go about that? Well, it is a good question, but I think it's answerable and I think you have to realign the premise a little bit. So I don't see agents going around deleting files. Depending on what the files are, that's a felony, and that's a long time in prison. And it's pretty easy to figure out who did it. So I don't see that as being a thing.

Maybe someone that's not super smart that wants to go mess with some evidence and wants to go to prison and we'll find out. I mean, Akash Patel is a pretty good lawyer. He'll be able to figure that part out. and prosecute anybody that's been involved, it's pretty easy to follow that trail. But if you're going to ask how to reform the agency, I don't know if the agency is full of corruption. I think the agency has lost direction,

and those are different things. And so part of that loss in direction has given the American public this idea that it's corrupt. And I think that is accurate. But I don't think that's the basis for it. So how do you bring that back? Well, I would tell you that you need to be transparent and you need to show that the FBI is true to its mission.

And so I'm reminded of, oh gosh, 20 years ago or so, this fellow named Howard Schultz who created Starbucks, had retired and watched the stock. dump in Starbucks opened too many stores and was failing throughout the world. And Eric Schultz came back and he came up with a plan and he closed down every Starbucks for two weeks and retrained the entire company on how and what it means to be a barista and how to how to sell coffee and how to be able to go back to those roots of being a local coffee shop. Now we might not see it now or we might. I don't know, based on your opinion of drinking coffee, but he was very

effective. And so that's doable. You can be a change agent. There's a process that you probably have to use. There's a book that was written by a Harvard professor named Cotter that wrote a book called The Heart of Change. And it goes through eight steps that you have to take to change an organization. And I think if Director Cash uses that philosophy and he shows that there's transparency and he earns the confidence of the American people, I think you'll stop hearing about corruption as much as a lack of leadership. And I think it's really the lack of leadership. I don't know if Christopher Ray was corrupt. I remember he was nominated and pushed by President Trump. So I don't think he's part of that deep state.

But I do think that the leadership part of it was lost. And so I think that's where we have this mistrust. Yeah, for sure. And I think the entire thing, too, is like if you listen to Dan Bongino, guys, you know, so many people have talked about Dan Bongino and he's been so outspoken about the corruption. and the conspiracies, right? I mean, we are a conspiracy podcast. We've done this for six or seven years now.

And it's so funny, like, looking back at almost everything we've talked about on this show. What? And it came true? Yeah, I mean, that nowadays, it's like even the JFK stuff. I think that was like the first year we did this podcast. We did a JFK series. It was a two-part series. If you can call that a series, I don't know what you would call that.

But it was two episodes. And we talked about how. likely the government was involved in that. Now we're maybe going to find that out based on the committee that Anna Pauline and Luna and all of those have put in place that now they're going to declassify the JFK files, the Epstein list, all of this other stuff. But the conspiracy theories, they tagged this word, especially over the past four years. You know, under the Biden-Harris administration, conspiracy theory word was demonized.

It was like you were a domestic terrorist if you were a conspiracy. theorist. And not only did they utilize that word for COVID-19, that's where they really pushed it. They said, if you're a conspiracy theorist and you're trying to tell people this, then you are killing people. You are destroying people's lives, right? This is what they wanted you to believe. And now the more that we find out about all of these various things we've talked about for six years, the more that it's no longer a conspiracy theory may have been conspiracy, right? Because the definition of a conspiracy is where people get together doing a infarious thing for a bad reason, right?

That's conspiracy. And there's multiple people involved. You can actually be charged with conspiracy, right? That is a crime. And it's only a crime, though, if it is a crime against the citizens in the large part. But if it is part of the government, then that's just a theory at that point. You know, that's only when a conspiracy becomes a theory is when it involves government or politicians are in a deep state. But if you, yourself, as a citizen, are involved in a conspiracy that is a crime.

You can be put in prison for that, right? We've seen this in many cases. But the more we start finding out about these conspiracies, the more we're starting to understand that, hey, a lot of these things that we always thought were conspiracy theories and they wanted to demonize are not actually theories that seems like they were more than likely facts. And I always go back to this. If you have a mask and senses of people over years and years and years that review evidence, they look at everything possible, and they try to analyze this with their brains collectively, because there is a power in collective thinking. And which is why I believe for many years that, especially the past four years, they wanted to ban and censor people that collectively thought. And that's why when Elon Musk took over X, that was a collective thinking. platform. And when you have a collective thinking platform, you can uncover and investigate and

determine and solve a lot of stuff. Now, there's all, you know, obviously there's a lot of BS on there as well. But when you collectively think, you can uncover a lot of things. And this is something that Dan Bongino had talked about. And we're going to get to Dan Bonino. I know that you guys cannot be here for very long. So I want to get to this briefly. But this was when Dan Vonjino was on Tim Poole talking about the Epstein list. Listen. About a year and a half after that, I'm in a green room at Fox, and I'm not going to say who because they didn't give me permission to share it. But the short story, but not who they are. Says, you know, Epstein's an intelligence asset for people in the Middle East, right?

I'm like, no, I didn't know that. I'm like, you sure of that? The person, let's say, is like, I'm absolutely sure of that, that he's either a winning or unwitting asset, intelligence asset, meaning his plane and that island, the cameras, there's a big assumption out there that these videotapes were exclusively in the custody of Epstein. That's a huge mistake. The reason they wanted this story to go away is because there's an assumption like, oh yeah, Epstein had him. No, he wasn't the only one who had him, according to this source. These assets, that's why this blackmail story makes so much sense. Which Middle Eastern countries they are, I don't know, but this person who is a very very

very, very good reporter. I mean, Aces, right? Swore Epstein was either a winning or unwitting intelligence asset, and they may have had his plane wired up, and they're the ones who have all this stuff. So the point is, to sum it up, how do you know some of these countries aren't going to some of these power players who aren't making decisions? Because, hey, he wouldn't want this video out there, right? How do you know? 100%. So there you go. There's Dan Bongino. And by the way, this guy's the deputy director of the FBI now. What do you guys think about it, right? And I said this on a show the other night and I said,

Cash Patel is kind of like us. We call it like we see it. And I think that's why everybody loves the fact that Cash Patel is now the FBI director. And that's also why I think the left and Democrats are losing their minds because what they wanted to dictate or depict as conspiracy theorist over the past four years, now you have these people in leadership positions, including Dan Bongino. What is your thing? thoughts on Dan Bongino, Michael? I was going to say before that video started, I just think that

the left changed the definition from objective reasonableness to conspiracy theory. Because a lot of people that are objectively thinking reasonably and talking as a conglomerate, like you said, on X and all these other things, that's why it's taking away from their message and now it's a conspiracy. But as far as Bongino goes, I think the left sees him as like Alex Jones Jr. So they're freaking out because his ideology or his way of speaking

is the truth. Like you said, he's like cash. He doesn't lie about any. Like, I'm not sure if he lies or whatever. But he likes to say how it is. And he won't hide the fact that if someone is doing the wrong thing, he's going to blast him on it. And he's been silenced like

Trump has been. He's had to move to like rumble and all these other like variants of streaming just to get his message out because he's a target of the left because he wants to put the truth out and doesn't want the American people to keep hearing their BS and one side from the news stations that are the mainstream media that are all fed the same script and put it out at the same time across different networks. So I don't know. I think he's going to be a good addition to cash and I think they're going to work well together because they kind of seem like the same same dude almost.

Yeah, for sure. And Bob, I know I know you're more. kind of black and white, but what do you think about like these people in power positions now that might be what some media alists would call conspiracy theorists? What do you think about that? Well, let me back up for just a second. You had said that there's not a way to protect citizens from the government. And I'll just offer this. I mean, leadership issues, that's one thing. Like if you don't agree with who's elected, okay, I get that. I agree. You're kind of stuck because you get who the people elect.

But if someone's violating your rights in the government, we've got the statute on your Title 42 in the United States code. It's 42 USC 1983. And cops like Michael and I know it is, a 1983 action because that's what people use to sue law enforcement when their rights are violated. And basically, if someone commits a conspiracy under that, then they can be held liable for any violation. And usually we see that in like a use of force or someone goes to prison because someone lied. There's these laws that kind of jump out at us and offer protection when our rights are violated.

So if you go back to just the last four years of the, the controversy of everything that we saw under the prior administration, you're starting to see some of those citizens that had their rights violated file these kind of claims. So I would just tell you that I think the government can overact and has overacted throughout its history. And that's why we need statutes and judges and lawyers to protect our rights, just like this statute. Yeah. 42 U.S. 1983 statute. So yeah, I mean, there's that. I don't know as far as Dan Bonchino. I mean, he seems like a pretty

good, a good guy. I've watched him on TV. I've listened to him. He's a secret service agent, not an FBI agent. They do very different things. I don't know. I mean, for both. I mean, at least with cash, he's he's a lawyer and has that, um, that background that gives him the ability to say, hey, we're going to, we're going to go forward with the FBI and we're going to protect people's rights to begin with. And I think you'll see that just given his, his background and his experience. Um, in hearing what Dan Bond Gino says on, on his podcast on the, on Fox News,

whatever, it seems like he has that same motivation. So I hope that's the case. I know quite a few Secret Service agents. I haven't heard them complain about Dan Bongino, so I can't offer any insight to that. And by the way, I want to make sure I make this clear. When I talk about conspiracy, that's technically the law is seditious conspiracy, which is under U.S. 18 U.S.C. 238.

Four, seditious conspiracy involves two more persons conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force's authority convictions for this charge are rare and slightly more gravity of defense. Now, there are actually quite a few people that were charged in J6th was a seditious conspiracy, including Enrique Torio, or Tario, how are you say his name? the proud boys founder. We actually just had a J-Sixer on not long ago and where we talked about like what his view on the proud boys were,

which was not like a militia or some, you know, seditious group. But my point to this is a lot of people look at this and you see people there are charged with seditious conspiracy. And there's also other conspiracy charges that you can be charged with. But if you also look at USAID and all the findings coming from that audit, from Elon Musk and Doge, and you look at what it seems to be that they are funneling all of the U.S. taxpayer dollar money out to go to foreign nations in various things. And I think a lot of this is based on fraud.

How is this not a conspiracy? But yet J-Sixers or people that went to the Capitol because they believed whatever they believe, whether it was just a protest or maybe some of them believed in a certain way, shape, or form. I think the problem is the two tiers of justice. And unfortunately, as you look at how Elon Musk and Doge and even as Cash Patel comes in and Dan Bonjino and these others, you know, start to implement the actual laws of our constitution and our government, it's like there are definitely two tiers of justice. And whereas like if you're on the political side, if you're in the deep state, you're working for the bureaucrats, you're not. you're protected no matter what you're protected you were good and even even if trump is in with cash

patel and all those others i still think you're protected because i think there's a deep say i think there's a darker class behind the government that runs the government in whole and i think that even reflects in some ways how you had biden that was you know seemed like he should have potentially been in a nursing home in some way i mean he you know i mean i have a stepdad that that has some dementia, but it's not as bad as Biden, I don't believe. And I would never and encourage my stepdad to go be president for sure because I'd be like, that's a very bad thing to do because, you know, it's just, it's just, you know what I'm saying? It's like, don't do that. Like, I worry about you driving from here to the grocery store, much less being president of the United

States. But the problem is there is a very definite two tiers of justice. in America. And I think that even though Trump is in office right now, and he's appointed these leaders, Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, do you name it. Pete Hegseth. P. Heg-Seth. It's not over. The war is not over. And I think it may only get worse. I think the next four years, I know we've, I know a lot of people thought that, hey, we've been through a lot of stuff in the last four years. I think that you better get prepared for the next four years. Because I think that, you know, if you believe in what is quote unquote the deep state, if you truly believe that exist, they're not just going to lay down and roll over and everything's good.

Oh, Trump's in now. We're good. We're good. Everything's good. Cash Peltz in. Dan Bongino, Tulsi Gabbard. If we thought that the leaders highly influenced the power of political situation, I don't even think, by the way, Christopher Ray or Merrick Garland or any of those, I don't even think

they were the ones making decisions during the Biden-Harris administration, even against Trump. I think it was people behind them. I think there is a clandestine group of people that are behind them, whether it be through foreign influence or otherwise, whether it be through China, whether it be through, I don't know, some Middle Eastern country. We don't know. But all I'm saying is that I think the war has only just began. And I'd actually talk to someone, which Bob, I was going to talk to you about briefly.

and I know that Michael's got to get going just a second. But Michael, can you just kind of sum up your thoughts as a police officer? Are you excited about the new administration, Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, and does it make you feel better about your position as a law enforcement officer? Yeah, I mean, can hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Okay. I'm excited for it as far as just getting the truth out there because I think, America has been lied to for so long.

And there's a lot of people on the left right now trying to intimidate citizens saying, oh, we shouldn't have billionaires in this much power. This is dangerous. Honestly, it's almost reassuring to me that there's Donald Trump, multi-billionaire, and then Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, I'm pretty sure, working for free, uncovering the truth. So you can't tell me that they can't. can be bought like the people in before them because that's what was happening. All these people

were being bought by rich corporations or rich individuals and they got together and put out their policies and agendas to get their structure out. And I don't think that's going to happen again with these two, at least Trump running the country and Musk doing all these doge operations or he's uncovering fraud and whatnot. But yeah, so I have. I've reassurance in that that I don't think I have to think my government is going to come behind my back and even try to indict me or family members, but law enforcement as a whole. I mean, obviously, I think cops doing the wrong thing need to be indicted. But I don't know. I don't think it really trickles down to my side of policing as far as, like I said earlier, with new leadership at those levels.

but I think just as a as a dude I think I'm a little I can take a fresh breath of air again because it felt like I don't know if you guys can agree but it felt like there was a weight on us the last four years and the night Trump got elected it just felt like that weight was lifted off and it's like all right now it's time to go back to work and be an American and recreate the American dream and do what we're supposed to be doing instead of worrying about oh what's the next scheme or what's the next pandemic plan or the next thing so there's a There's going to be a next thing as far as Trump goes, like I said earlier, too. They're not going to end this fight until he's dead. They've already tried to kill him twice. I'm sure there'll be more, unfortunately. But I think that's their only way to stop him because all he does is win. And he keeps bringing in people that are going to help him keep winning. So, yeah, I'm super excited about it.

Yeah, Michael, by the way, I'm glad you came on because I want people to understand that, you know, the law enforcement officers you may deal with on a daily basis. And I think actually most of those guys are probably similar thinking of you. Like the people who listen to this podcast. Yeah, I think most of them are similar thinking. I mean, most guys do not sign up for law enforcement on the left. I mean, I'm just saying. I mean, typically.

There's a few of them. Like, I've had a couple sergeants and a few others. But, I mean, I get along with everybody. Like, I have friends that are Democrats or whatnot. But, I mean, that's what I'm. I was saying early about objective reasonableness. Like, can't we all just have a conversation, listen to what we're saying without the back of your head, like, firing up and turning into the storm of crazy thoughts because you don't agree. It's like we're all objected to have our right,

or our own opinions. Like, I don't know why that ever went away, but that seems like that's gone now or has been. No, I agree. I agree completely, Michael. I, you know, and my thing, my whole deal to this is, is that, you know, you have to understand that the world is different than what mainstream media wants you to believe it is. And, you know, so when you encounter law enforcement, don't utilize what you've seen on social media necessarily to depict your opinion on that person that's pulling you over or whatever the case is, but also it's the same way with anything. And like I said, there are people, and we have best friends that are Democrats.

I mean, they are completely opposite of us, which is why when we hang out with them, we do not talk about politics. We do not talk about any of that. Because if we do, it's just, you know, no, it's not going to work. And we've- That's not worth it. Yeah, we've determined that. So, Michael, I know you've got to go.

I know you got to go and check out some doggies, some doggies. A new canine. Yeah, but we just got a new one. But listen, Michael, we definitely appreciate you coming on. We'd love to have you back on in the future. And also, thanks for being a listener. I'm glad that we have people like you to listen. and we appreciate what you do, obviously, in law enforcement,

and obviously stay safe because the world's crazy as hell. And we'd love to bring you back on to talk about more about what you do and some of the things that I had so many other questions, which you want to bring up tonight, but maybe we can do that in a future episode. Yeah, I'd totally be up for another episode or a couple other episodes. And again, thanks for having me, and it was fun. Definitely going to keep listening.

That's what you and Joe Rogan keep me awake at night when I work. graves so nice nice um even though i believe uh hey let me get let me get the last thought do you believe that mike baker you've i'm sure you saw mike baker that come on jerrogan do you believe that the cia sends him there just to make the cia look better do you know who i'm talking about mike baker was that a recent episode or how long ago was that well he's been on like three or four times but he was like an ex-c i officer and he's always coming on there It's like the guy that kind of tries to relate and rational the thinking of whatever's going on in the world. Oh, so you think it's like a CIA sci-op kind of thing to get him on Rogan?

Absolutely, for sure. Dude, I mean, the CIA has done so many crazy things. I don't know if he was on the episode talking about it, but somebody else was. But back when the Berlin Wall was being torn down, the Scorpions apparently came out the song relating to that. And there's like this whole thing about how the CIA basically wrote that ballad for the Scorpions. Like it wouldn't, it wouldn't blow me away or surprise me at all. Well, and I said this on X the other night, I said, I said, guys, you got to be very careful of the creators or influencers you listen to because, you know, I think most people realize that mainstream media is dead. Most people do not trust mainstream media.

So you have to understand that if you have these clandestine operations underway by CIA, which has been happening since freaking the beginning of CIA, even before CIA was CIA, you know, this is what they've all. always done. And so you have to start thinking that the media movement has completely changed now. We are in a podcast world. And so be careful still with the people you listen to because you don't know who is infiltrated and you do not know who is being influenced by the same people that influence mainstream media. Yeah, they're going to latch on to whoever they can. And if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Yeah. And by the way, neither of these guys that we have on our show right now are CA. So you don't get rid of that? They're good. as you know.

Yeah, sorry to see. That's for us to know. Yeah, we don't know for sure. But Michael, thank you so much for coming on.

We really appreciate it. Yep. Thanks for having you guys. No, not a problem. Bob, Bob, I got one more

last thing to ask you since Michael's gone now. Have you heard about the, this is what I wanted to ask you. I was talking to someone the other night. And they were Mormon. And,

but I think this may relate. in some way to Torah. I could be completely wrong. You're talking about the book of the Enoch. Kind of, but this has to do with the Gadiant and Robbers. Have you heard of that, Bob?

What's it called? They're called the Gadianton Robbers. It's a G-A-D-I-A-N-T-O-N and then Robbers. And so what this, what this theory or I guess prospect lays out in the book of Mormon and I think maybe it somehow relates to other biblical

scripture in some ways you perform but he essentially says that with someone like Trump for example right and we've had a lot of people you know reach out to us and say hey I know I know that you know if Trump gets in fine but

whatever is written is written so however the world is going to play out is going to play out and just because Trump's in now doesn't mean that that's going to last forever. And so the Gattianan robbers, I guess, is essentially an historical text to where it says that every time a new king or new person comes in, it's always going to be upended by the end result of, say, the end times or, you know, the kind of lead into the last days. That's kind of the Gattie Ant Robbers.

That's why I was asking if you knew anything about what that meant. But I guess the bigger question to that would be is that although Trump is, although Trump is, in now, how do you see the future of America? Do you think this is going to last? Or do you think that there's going to be someone or some faction that comes in and destroys what maybe some people believe Trump's doing really good at right now? Oh, that's a good. No, I don't, I don't know anything about that concept. And our tradition is a little bit different. So I'm not sure how that interacts. But as far as the president goes, I mean, I hope for the best, just like I hope for the best, just like I hope for the best of the prior president.

And I think that's something that Michael is talking about early in the conversation when he said, you know, I vote for people based on their philosophy, their programs and their personality, not based upon whether they have an R&D, and that we all need to just talk and have that objective reasonableness concept. I think that's a brilliant idea. we got to be really careful of also what you said, listening to people and not realizing who is dictating what they say. And what I tell, you know, I teach at community college,

and I teach these kids, I tell them, look, you can't just listen to the radio. You can't watch TV. You can't go on the internet. You can't listen to a podcast without thinking and doing the research yourself. And I don't care what it is. You've got to be able to logically analyze everything that's put in front of you and put it through the truth test, right? And it's based upon what you believe. I got in an argument with a friend who has different viewpoints.

And that friend completely accepted something that was spread on legacy media, that is clearly. not true, but didn't bother to look into it. And so when I questioned it, I was kind of attacked because really didn't believe that was a polite thing to do. Well, I say question everything. And we need to be careful of that questioning that we don't say we're going to influence you by our questions. We're questioning to look for the facts, look for the truth. That's, I think, the basis of your whole show. So look at the president in the next four years. I pray that the president and the administration and Congress and the judiciary, everybody's successful. And we have peace and prosperity in a return of the possibility of the American dream. There are things that I

mentioned beginning in the show. I don't necessarily agree with. And there are things that I super support. So I think I'm kind of the run in the mill person, kind of like most of America. Yeah. And get back to that backbone part where we can talk about it. And I've said this on your show before. You've got to have opposing ideas, if anything, just to sharpen the logic of your idea. We tried that. We tried that the other night with a debate. Yeah. So you were not here for the debate. night, but it did not work out like I wanted to. Well, I mean, at least you tried, right? So there's that. But yeah, there are so many things that could happen.

And if you want to bring in religion to it, you know, there's the idea of predestiny versus free will. And that conversation probably could take several weeks to go through. So, I mean, there's that element. And then you've got, you've got Donald Trump, who I think has. gone on a incredible mission, a whirlwind, if you will, of change. And he probably can't continue at that same pace throughout his administration. So you'll see this massive push to try and implement his ideas.

Those ideas that are going to pass constitutional muster, I think will impact the country and those that won't, then, you know, just like the last president who issued, I think, 18 executive orders that were found unconstitutional. Every president has been challenged on their executive orders. So that's nothing new. But we vilify this president because we want to vilify it. So that, I think, is a – I think that's a disservice to the democracy. The other thing I was going to tell you, and I know we're running out of time, but you'd mention the J-6 people,

and I don't want to get too far in the woods with that or in the weeds. But if you remember, I think there were only 18 people out of the close to 1,500 that were charged with conspiracy to commit sedition. I did not personally look at their cases. I don't know what the probable cause was in their cases. I would tell you that you got to be careful with that pendulum when it starts swinging and you start, we start as collectively, as a people start pounce it on certain ideas and push it and push and pushing

because we'll make that pendulum swing and what happens when it gets to the apex of its swing, it's going to swing back, right? So we got to find that basic middle ground to try and live together, work together and govern together. Yeah. So we're not focused on the past.

I mean, I can tell you that my congressman came out and was quick to discredit the president on his January 6 commutations and pardons. I don't know if anybody was actually pardoned. I think they're all too many. But he didn't mention anything about the prior president's commutations for death row inmates, including a cop killer. Yeah. But they're talking about people that resisted arrest on January 6th as being the same thing.

I don't think that's an equivalent. I take the Constitution seriously, as if you can't tell by now. And if you're going to commit sedition, look, there's a time when we hung people that committed treason, I don't have a problem with that. I have no room in my heart for treason or someone who's going to commit treason. If people were committing sedition, then let's look at those cases and then discuss it. I can't because I don't know the basis of what they were convicted of. Yeah.

And I think to your point to that, Bob, is I think that it would be so hard to even look at those cases because of how politically motivated J6 was. Right. And it's just, I mean, especially how they put into the courts of, you know, far left. We mean left. Yeah, they could not even get their court cases moved to another city or state. Yeah, they were treated very unfairly. I mean, and by the way, I've always said this. I'm not saying that they were, you know, everybody in J6 was right, right?

I mean, that's not what I'm saying. But I think there were a lot of people that were politically prosecuted and put in jail for their political beliefs. For sure. And I think that even goes back to Trump and all the stuff he's been through. in almost every single case. But regardless of that, I go back to what Bob said earlier, you know, if you listen to a podcast, especially now that people are not listening to mainstream media, I do encourage everybody, even with our podcast, you know, we try to say the best we can to the best of our knowledge,

what we believe in our opinions, right? But, you know, our opinions are our opinions. And you guys are subject to our opinions. But I always encourage everybody to go research for themselves or evaluate. with our opinions. And that doesn't mean just going to Google. You've got to go to other search mediums like Gandex and places that are not censoring or politically motivated. Yeah.

Yeah. And I do believe that, yeah, like I said, I mean, I think we're on here to find the truth, but we're on a journey together, right? We're not the all, you know, the be all truth. Everything we say on this show is not, hey, this is the fact as it is, unless we're actually showing facts. But even nowadays, it's hard to even say that. in a lot of cases, especially like with FBI data, with crime statistics and how the Biden

Harris administration basically stopped especially Democrat cities from reporting certain crimes, violent crimes, so on. We don't have the same data we used to have. And that'll be also another interesting concept as Cash Patel comes into FBI to see how that's revamped and see who is actually reporting stuff. But it's interesting concept. We will. there's a lot of stuff we could talk about this. I'm glad that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino's in. I'm glad that we have this, but we still got to hold those people accountable. Just because they are Trump's appointees does not mean that they are the saviors.

They're Jesus Christ or whatever. You still have to hold them accountable because they are part of government. You got to hold all elected officials or all people that are appointed in government accountable. And I think that you have to do that because they are the, What is it, the, I don't know, 2% of population, 1% of population and you are the people, which is what the Constitution, I guess, was originally written for. The government works for the people. You don't work for the government.

And I think that there are very strict regulations that you follow to work for the people. And I think, Bob, you probably know more about that than I do. But it's just a point of, I think that we're in a better place, at least now. But that doesn't mean that the war is over. And whatever that war is, you can decide for yourself. but a very interesting show, guys. I appreciate Bob you for coming on as well. And Michael, Michael was great.

I think he had a lot of great opinions. I want to bring Michael back on. Obviously, Bob, you're always on here. And one day, maybe Bob and I will have a debate. I like it. You know what, Chad, that's the cool thing is you and I, we can have differences of an opinion on some things and still respect each And I think that's the message is that that's what we're trying to push for.

Yeah, for sure. I would have to probably debate the thing I would want to debate Bob on, it would probably have to be religion. And I'll tell you why religion. No, listen, that would be the most controversial. But it's also one of the most controversial things that Sherry and I face as a married couple. Yeah, that's what we argue about the most. Yeah, it is. But listen, but it's not to say that I'm right, by the way.

like with like when I when I offer my opinions or whatever or my thoughts or beliefs, that's not to say 100% I'm right because I think most people listen to our show know that I've been on a journey. Sherry's still on a journey too. I think we all are. It's just there are different people that are on different aspects and different stages of their journey. And wherever we end up, I don't know, but I just have different opinions. I, Bob, I said this on a show the other night. We did a biblical series as just, you know, not obviously evangelist or preachers, but we kind of went through the biblical history based on like 10 different scholars. They all wrote this book. And so they basically go through the Old

Testament. Then they get to the New Testament. And as I was going through the Old Testament, there were a lot of things that I just did not agree with. There was a lot of things that I was like, and listen, Bob, we're not going to get in this right now, but essentially the Old Testament is the Torah, right? The Torah is a part of the Old Testament, if you want to call it. Okay. Well, there are three parts of it. There's the prophets, judges, Psalms, all that is not in the Torah.

That's part of the Jewish Bible, though. Okay. So as I was going through the Old Testament, there was just so many questions I had. And then, you know, we didn't even get to a New Testament in that series. Yeah, because we gave up. It was too much. No, so I said. I don't want to do that anymore.

Well, so I said, and I told people, I said, I'm going to. pull back from this because I don't want to guide people the wrong direction. Right. Right. And that's what I felt like I maybe was doing. And I didn't want to offer up my opinions to what my just, you know, kind of instinct, like the first reaction beliefs of something I'm listening or reading to. And so maybe that's where one day we can do a debate where I grew up Christian,

you grew up Jew. And we can have a debate, respectively. And maybe it actually really accomplishes something for someone. I don't know. Maybe it's, maybe it's you actually. Maybe it's your wife slash sister. Maybe it's Sherry. Maybe it's, maybe as someone listens, but I still think it'll be kind of cool to do. We just have to figure it out. Let's do it.

We'll do it. But listen, guys, that's going to be it because this is already at two hours in, like I said, I appreciate so very much, Bob. And I definitely appreciate Michael that came on. You guys, I do appreciate your service in the community because it's, without you guys, people would not be safe. We would be lawless. Yeah, we'd be lawless.

And, you know, I'm also kind of down for that. I got plenty of guns and all that stuff. But we'd rather have cops. I don't want the purge. Sorry, bro. Yeah, the purge. But Bob, thanks so much for coming on. Well, hey, you guys, thanks for having me on.

Thanks for your support. Thanks for your support of law enforcement. I look forward to the next time we get a chat. Absolutely. Thanks, Bob. Love you. Yeah, thanks so much, man. All right, guys.

So that's going to be it. The name of this song is this over now by Gloria Tales. Until next time, we love you. Peace out. Peace out, guys. When everything felt so. Just scared to walk away. Ghost of yesterday.

When everything feels so right. Grace or do we keep chasing ghosts? Try to fill an empty space. Is it over now? Can we say goodbye with great? Or do we keep chasing ghosts? Try to feel an empty space It's off something we forgot

You remember what we just lost Everything felt so right Try to feel an empty space Yeah, yeah, keep chasing Yeah Try it over now Try to feel it over now Is it over now

After Spain Over now After Spain Or do we keep chasing ghosts Try to fill an empty space Feeling empty space