Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 30, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:35:01

Live with Lawyer David Clements: Tina Peters CONVICTED! Justice or Corruption? & Jan. 6 Jake Lang

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Think about this.
	My 80, now 85, 83-year-old mother is somehow going to enjoy more rights than Ella?
	It's wrong.
	This is all because of Donald Trump.
	He ran on a platform of women should be punished for seeking an abortion.
	He said that.
	There's video.
	He ran on a platform of appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v.
	Wade. They did just that.
	And he is for a national abortion ban.
	Make no mistake.
	Where he says, I will be the protector of women, that is yet more lies and more gaslighting.
	He also says, women won't have to think about it if I'm elected, which...
	Women meant we should be furious about this gaslighting and furious and turn this anger into action.
	First of all, you are probably going to say Viva was two minutes late and you're probably going to wish that I was five minutes late.
	We're not always starting off with something that's going to make you smile.
	Sometimes we're going to start off with something that's going to make you a gag.
	This lazy-speaking, drooling fool makes me want to puke.
	Now, there's like a list of people whose voices I physically cannot stand.
	Justin Trudeau, Christopher Freeland, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Jagmeet Singh is right up there, and now Doug Emhoff.
	This lazy, whiny little turd who gets out there and does nothing but lie.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's like all they can do is lie.
	My 83-year-old mother is somehow going to enjoy more rights than Ella?
	It's wrong.
	This is all because of Donald Trump.
	He ran on a platform of women should be punished for seeking an abortion.
	He said that.
	There's video.
	Why don't you play the video?
	I'm going to find that video and I'm going to play that later on.
	Because, spoiler alert, that's not what he said.
	Look at Jen Psaki.
	Jen Psaki just looking at him so amorously.
	In this interview, by the way, Jen Psaki actually suggested that this weaselly little sniveling drool was redefining masculinity.
	You want to know why?
	Doug Emhoff is so fixated on abortion.
	It might have to do with him banging the nanny and getting her pregnant.
	Maybe this guy wants to be able to avail himself to abortion left, right, and center so that he doesn't get his nanny pregnant and have her come to term, carry to term.
	But just listen, and listen to the end, by the way.
	People need to take action.
	He ran on a platform appointing Supreme Court justices who had overturned Roe v.
	Wade. They did just that.
	First of all, I don't recall him running on a platform of...
	Appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe v.
	Wade? Pretty sure that's a lie, but I could stand to be corrected on that one.
	And he is for a national abortion ban.
	How many times does he have to come out and say, I'm not for a national abortion ban?
	As if it needs any clarification, given that Roe v.
	Wade being overturned in the Dobbs decision kicked the abortion issue back down to the state level.
	The exact opposite to a national abortion ban.
	But when he says, make no mistake, let's be clear, you know, what follows after that?
	Rubbish. Make no mistake.
	Where he says, I will be the protector of women, that is yet more lies and more gaslighting.
	He also says, women won't have to think about it if I'm elected, which...
	Women meant we should be furious.
	Women, men, we should be furious about this gaslighting.
	Furious. And what should we do?
	And turn this anger into action.
	Well, it seems that two people already turned that anger into action.
	Doug Emhoff.
	Two people.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	The gaslighting and the lying coming from the guy who gaslights and lies left, right, and center.
	There's a damn good reason why Doug Emhoff wants to make sure abortions...
	You can have abortions until the third trimester because you never know when you're going to bang a nanny and get her pregnant and find out past potential certain limits in certain states and want that nanny to get an abortion.
	Oh yeah, the man's redefining masculinity.
	Apparently this is what masculinity means to Democrats.
	Infidelity and immorality.
	Good morning.
	No, it's not morning.
	It's afternoon.
	Good afternoon, people.
	We got one heck of a show today.
	There's going to be a lawyer on named David Clements who's going to talk to us about Tina Peters.
	Everybody, I listened to the chat, and I know a lot of you have been pinging me about Tina Peters' case coming out of Colorado.
	She was recently convicted on eight of ten charges as relates to, oh, what was it?
	Pressuring public officials.
	We're going to get into that.
	And Jake Lang, January 6th, a prisoner of some people, whatever people think of him.
	I think he's a victim of the January 6th persecution.
	Now he's going on almost four years in pretrial detention because he hasn't stood trial yet, and apparently this is going to be his last interview before his trial.
	So he's coming on in a bit as well.
	Love, David Clemens, says Q Trooper.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Clemens is not one of the lawyers in the file, and this is by design.
	I don't want to...
	Prior to sentencing, I don't want to interview Tina or any one of her lawyers who can get disbarred, sanctioned, whatever, for giving public statements.
	Before we get into any of that, people, we must thank our sponsors of the day, and I'm sure you saw as you came into this stream.
	It said this stream contains a paid promotion, and it's our fine sponsor at Monetary Gold.
	People, two things, by the way.
	In as much as the intro video makes you want to retch, you still have to...
	Take care of yourself and protect yourself.
	And it's no secret that we are living through very uncertain, volatile times.
	The dollar is collapsing and faith in our monetary system is at an all-time low while inflation is skyrocketing.
	But if you ask the Biden administration, they brought it down to 3% after two years of rocket sky-high inflation.
	No one has a crystal ball when it comes to the future.
	And the truth is, no one really knows what's going to happen.
	But it's important to protect yourself financially.
	I give myself the financial insurance of investing in physical assets like gold and silver.
	The good thing about silver...
	You can get a lot more of it than gold, so you can play poker with silver chips.
	It's beautiful.
	Historically, gold and silver have been one of the safest investments, and it allows me to hedge my bets against runaway inflation.
	I urge you to take a closer look at protecting yourself and your investments as well.
	I personally trust the fine folks at Monetary Gold.
	They're legit.
	They'll take care of you.
	You can move your IRA into gold and silver.
	Just tell them you came from Viva.
	And they'll give you a limited time offer of $5,000 free gold and silver for qualified purchases.
	Sleep well at night knowing that you're protected.
	Give Monetary Gold a call now.
	800-476-1303.
	800-476-1303.
	And the third time is the charm.
	1-800-476-1303.
	Monetarygold.com for the website.
	And while you're protecting yourself financially, you must also protect yourself physically.
	The fine folks at the Wellness Company are looking out for you.
	The world feels like it's on edge right now.
	Tensions over the upcoming election, economic instability, supply chain shortages, and health threats popping up left and right.
	With the new talk of a pandemic on the horizon, if you're waiting for the medical industrial complex to protect you and your family when things go sideways, you're making a huge mistake.
	You have to take action and be prepared.
	That's why I'll tell you about the Wellness Company's Contagion Emergency Kit.
	It's a lifesaver.
	Quite literally.
	Put together by real experts like Dr. Peter McCullough.
	Inside, you've got medications like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, and even a nebulizer.
	It's amazing that we can actually talk about these medications on YouTube.
	Once upon a time, you couldn't even call it HCQ.
	The other one there was...
	I forget what the nickname for Ivermectin was.
	These are critical medications they always wore, and now it's come back into the spotlight that they...
	Always will be.
	They treat respiratory illnesses and so much more, especially heading into the flu season.
	Can you imagine when you're a loved one that needs some medications, are you really going to be risked being told no?
	Don't let anyone play gatekeeper with your health.
	Just a few clicks and the kit is delivered right to your front door.
	It's peace of mind for you and your family in uncertain times.
	Get one today.
	It's only available in the US, by the way, so Canada, I don't know what you got to do, but TWC.health forward slash Viva and the promo code Viva gets you $30 off and free shipping.
	TWC.health.
	Promo code VIVA for $30 off and free shipping.
	Don't wait until the next crisis hits.
	Be ready, not reactive.
	Get your kit today and take control of your lies.
	All right, people.
	First of all, share the link.
	Blast it around social media.
	We are going to get David Clemens in.
	Now, when he comes in, you're going to have to tell me who he reminds you of.
	He's got, I'd say, luscious, beautiful beard.
	Oh, you know, I'm already making it feel uncomfortable.
	David, I'm bringing you in.
	Stir. You do remind me of an actor from a movie, and I want to say George Clooney, but I can't remember.
	What do you get more often than not?
	I don't get compared to anyone that handsome, but I'm not a big fan of George Clooney anymore because he's so woke.
	But that would have been a compliment about 20 years ago, for sure.
	I know.
	They've all destroyed themselves.
	George Clooney, Robert De Niro, like the great actors.
	Who's the guy?
	Mark Hamm.
	Who's the guy from Mad Men?
	Not that I even like that.
	John Hamm.
	Jon Hamm.
	It's a wild world.
	They say never meet your heroes, and now I don't even have to meet them for them to go from hero to zero.
	David, ordinarily I delve into childhood and who you are and everything to get to know the person, but this is going to be about somebody else.
	But for those who don't know who you are, I guess so they can be satisfied with your credentials and how you came to be where you are in terms of the Tina Peters trial.
	Yeah, Cliff Notes version.
	I'm one of the new cancelled.
	People out there.
	I was a former law professor, had subject matter expertise in consumer protection.
	So the jab and all things mandate related crossed my doorstep.
	And before that, I was a longtime prosecutor.
	And I decided to talk about the two things that you're just not allowed to talk about, which are elections and COVID.
	And after a few years of doing that, if you Google my name.
	Nothing nice is being written about me, but I try to stand with other whistleblowers and courageous people, and Tina Peters is certainly that.
	So you were a prosecutor for how many years?
	For about a decade.
	Out of Colorado?
	New Mexico.
	So Lincoln County, home of Billy the Kid.
	I oversaw six law enforcement agencies.
	So if there was a felony that was going to be charged, it had to cross my desk.
	And I spent some time in three or four of the border counties here.
	So right here.
	Dealing with drug trafficking.
	That was something that I was very, very familiar with.
	And so I was on the other side.
	I was actually, you know, I thought someone that was wearing the white hat going after bad guys.
	And then 2020 happened.
	We might have to do an entirely separate episode on you because I can delve down these rabbit holes for easily two hours, but limited time.
	And we're talking about the Tina Peters case.
	Yeah, because...
	People have been asking.
	I don't think people fully appreciate what's been going on with that.
	So we'll come back to you in another episode.
	But how did you get involved in Tina's case?
	Or not in it, but you've been following it.
	You watched the trial.
	You've been commentating on it.
	So you're intimately familiar with all of the details.
	I am.
	Well, actually, I was the person at the first cyber symposium.
	I was on stage when Tina decided to become a whistleblower.
	So there was this pivotal moment in 2021 after she had taken a forensic image of...
	The election management system that she was the custodian for.
	And we ended up finding all kinds of deviations and alterations of election records.
	And so that was a pivotal moment where I got to know Tina right out the gate.
	I got involved in the election integrity movement early on and have worked with people.
	We put out a documentary called Let My People Go.
	And so we've done audits.
	We've done canvases.
	We've done examination of Dominion machines in my own state.
	Be knowledgeable about what's going on in election integrity without coming across Tina's story because the MESA images that were taken under her control and custody, there's so few people that had access to kind of the digital side of things.
	And so like anyone that's interested in elections, we wanted to look at the MESA reports.
	We wanted to look at the claims that were being made.
	We wanted to have our own experts look at her work.
	Three years later, all of the findings that were in the MACE report still check out.
	They haven't been debunked.
	They haven't been rebuked by anyone with serious credentials.
	Dr. Walter Doherty and Jeff O'Donnell were the two experts that basically looked at the systems, and they saw that about 29,000 election records were either deleted or altered.
	And that's really what drew me to Tina's involvement in the election integrity movement.
	And now, just so people appreciate, this is Mesa County in Colorado, not Mesa in Arizona.
	And some people might be not confused, but confounding the two, which makes this even more understandable in terms of the political nature of this.
	Colorado is Jenna Griswold's territory, where they tried to bump Trump from the ballot on the 14th Amendment issue.
	Corrupt as corrupt can be out of Colorado.
	So the bottom line of, I want to know before we even get into what she was charged with and convicted of, what anomalies, what did Tina allegedly uncover by way of anomalies in the election or Dominion system out of Colorado?
	Because it wasn't vote flipping from what I understand, but what did she observe and what was she blowing the whistle on in her mind?
	Well, things were brought to our attention about whether the Dominion systems were connected to the internet or that they could be breached.
	And as a clerk who really just wanted to put the rumors to rest, she's like, you know, I'm tired of people accusing my office of, you know, being in on some, you know, election conspiracy.
	So she decided to have an expert take a forensic image of the election management system.
	And that's what she was the custodian of in Mesa County.
	Before Dominion came in and performed what's known as a trusted build.
	And then they took a second image after the trusted build.
	And when they compared them, that's where they found alteration of records, alteration of or deletion of records that are supposed to be maintained under the law.
	And so that's kind of the surface level.
	If you want to get more substantive, I can probably get into it.
	But that was basically the gravamen of what she was dealing with.
	All right, let's see if there's anything wrong here.
	And she was getting all kinds of directives from the Secretary of State.
	Don't you dare preserve those records, at least not in a way that was satisfactory under the law.
	There is a code under Federal Law 52 USC 20701, which requires retention of all records, digital, paper, you name it.
	And Colorado has the same equivalent.
	And that responsibility is thrust upon Tina and Tina alone.
	It's not something that someone else can satisfy.
	And it was in that larger drama that she found herself in the crosshairs of an SOS that really was very, very nervous about Tina looking under the hood, so to speak.
	SOS is Secretary of State?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, and now she is or was a Colorado clerk.
	Was that a full-time employment or was that strictly for the election?
	And what does that imply by way of obligations and duties?
	Yeah, so Tina Peters was an elected official.
	She was, for Mesa County, effectively the custodian of all things related to elections.
	So she had the authority to look at systems, to make sure they weren't being breached.
	And so someone that's on the ballot who had a public trust legally with the people of Mesa to ensure that their votes were accurate and honest and that the methods and processes were transparent.
	Is that a full-time job in between elections or is it specifically for the election that she was elected?
	Well, it's a full-time job.
	The clerks, while there's only a handful of elections, whether it's primary or the general, There's still a nine-to-five component of getting prepared, doing logic and accuracy tests, doing post-audits of that nature.
	Okay. So official function, elected function by way of overseeing or participating in the carrying out of elections.
	Leading up to the forensic imaging of the system itself, which we'll get into, specific concerns or allegations that were being brought to Tina Peter's attention were what?
	Well, I think it was similar to what we heard everywhere.
	Like after November 3rd, 2020, people were wanting to look at records or paper ballots to see if there's something wrong.
	And I'm not suggesting that Tina had a full understanding of the different ways of subversion, but experts were bringing deviations to her attention that potentially violated the state law of Colorado and federal law.
	And the only way that you can...
	Figure it out is to actually get those records.
	That's why getting the forensic image of her election system was so vital.
	So there are many experts across the country that saw anomalies in this thing called a cast vote record summary, which evidenced a PID controller.
	And basically, for folks that don't know what a PID controller is, anyone that's ever used cruise control in their car or used a thermostat on the wall, there's a set point that something is trying to get to.
	And when you look at the records in a certain way, we found out there was a linear drive of how votes were being cast that were reaching towards a predetermined set point.
	We saw that in over 300 counties across the country.
	Election night reporting, we saw similar algorithms that defied what you would expect out of a normal data set.
	And so these are the types of things that people want to scrutinize and look at.
	And part of your inventory of doing audits would necessarily include looking at an election management system, the system log files, whether something had been breached.
	How can you account for these predetermined set points without looking at the machinery?
	And I think that's where people became more and more curious, asking for the clerk to say, look, there are public records that you can request under the law.
	Let us examine them and see if something is wrong in Mesa County.
	Well, she did that.
	And sure enough, when the experts started looking at that forensic image, they found out that there's a creation of two new databases that weren't there before.
	And when they started doing a reconciliation between the initial forensic image and compared it to what happened after Dominion got their hands on it, they found that entire project files were deleted.
	Things were altered.
	The numbers couldn't be reconciled.
	And so that's consistent with...
	You know, fraud.
	And so at that point, there was just this great kind of flash mob conviction where Tina became, she went from being a gold-starred mom of a son who died serving his country, someone that was the gold standard in Colorado.
	She was loved by everyone to being public enemy number one because she dared to tell the truth.
	So people come to Tina and they say, let's just to put it broadly.
	The same concerns they had seen everywhere.
	Some of them were, I'd say, more or less substantiated than other concerns.
	The vote flipping was one of the concerns raised which may or may not have panned out to hold water.
	But they come to her, and does she go to higher-ups and say, can we do something of a formal analysis audit?
	And they say no, or does she immediately, for lack of a better term, take the law into her own hands?
	Well, it depends on which law you want to look at.
	The SOS certainly wanted everything in the hands of the vendors, and so this would be Dominion reps.
	But once you've been put on notice that the vendors themselves are potentially violating your law by deleting election files, she's got a fiduciary responsibility to protect those records, and that's why she brought in someone that was independent by the name of Conan Hayes.
	She had an IT.
	A representative that was local by the name of Gerald Wood.
	And those were the two people that were responsible for procuring the forensic image.
	Now, obviously, people from Dominion, the SOS office, didn't want that to happen.
	But oddly, they also would not send an IT official from their own office to be there under public scrutiny.
	And so there was kind of this dance that they were doing that no one really wanted her to get.
	The image done in a public, transparent way.
	So what I can tell you is that the law requires, under Colorado law, it's 17804, and again, federal law 52, USC 20701, there's a legal requirement that all election records be preserved.
	And that was Tina's requirement.
	She was not allowed to present that.
	In her trial.
	Instead, what they did is they constructed a bunch of kind of duplicative charges like criminal impersonation, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, influencing a public servant.
	And basically, this was all around, you know, this idea or notion that when she brought in this outside IT expert that Because they weren't following the explicit directives from the Secretary of State's office, that was tantamount to deception.
	And there was an improper influencing of, I guess, what they wanted done.
	And so it's really weird the way that they constructed the prosecution against her because...
	If she did something wrong, if she breached the system, there are charges that are actually much more on the nose than what she was charged with.
	Instead, you're basically looking at corruption issues.
	And the people that are claiming corruption were all members of the Secretary of State's office, basically saying you have to do it this way, even though the law does not declare that you have to do it the way that they're directing.
	In fact, the law is explicit that Tina actually has the authority, not the SOS.
	It's amazing.
	So she would have had to or did go to the SOS.
	It's Jenna Griswold at the time, right?
	This is 2020.
	I have to double-check when Jenna got elected.
	But we all now know who Jenna Griswold is, as if she would have ever done anything to investigate to show that or if Trump, in fact, should have or ought to have won in Colorado.
	Okay, so let's just say she gets stonewalled or there's no meaningful progress on her requests to...
	Do what she thinks is required to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of the election.
	Tell us how she goes about, in as much as you're able to, mandating an expert to mirror image or...
	What's the word that you use?
	To forensically image.
	To forensically image.
	What is being forensically imaged and who does she get to do it?
	How does she get to do it?
	How do they get access to it?
	So the forensic image is basically a bit-for-bit clone of exactly what was on the hardware at the time.
	And so it's, you know, you basically have a copier clone of everything that was there.
	So once you get that forensic image, it's like you're accessing the system as it existed at that time.
	So all of the menus, all of the dropdown files, everything that was in the system logs would have been visible to experts to take a look at.
	As far as the irony here, It's odd, Viva, because If she had turned a blind eye and did not take efforts to make a forensic image, a law enforcement official could have gone after her for that.
	So if she would have stood by and had knowledge that the trusted bill being performed by Dominion was going to delete system log files or project files, there would have been a basis to go after her under the law.
	And so that's why this is such a kind of duplicitous situation is that she's damned if she does, she's damned if she doesn't.
	She would only have to bank on the fact that no one would ever damn her for not doing it because what they wanted in theory was the outcome to be a certain way and so they would never have investigated whatever chicanery went about that would have otherwise been sanctionable.
	And you asked another question, but I think I might have.
	Who did she get for the expert and how do they gain access to the Dominion database or the software?
	So Gerald Wood was, I think, a Mesa County IT employee or someone who had at least a subcontractor type status where he had a badge and he had access to parts of the clerk's office that most people didn't.
	It's unclear whether Gerald Wood actually had the technical expertise to do the forensic image.
	And so they brought in someone by the name of Conan Hayes.
	Now, if you listen to the mainstream media, Conan Hayes is some surfer.
	Someone who's not qualified.
	But if you do a little bit of digging, you find out that Conan Hayes is actually an FBI informant, someone that has technical expertise.
	And this was learned in a deposition out of Michigan brought about by Matt DiPerno.
	And so that presents other questions because if you're a confidential informant.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry, just tell me how there was a confidential informant or an FBI agent.
	What role did this individual have within the broader scheme?
	Well, he was put into touch with Tina, and I want to say it was done through Patrick Byrne, because Patrick Byrne, I think, had some relationship with Cohen in the past.
	Patrick has also gone on record that he's been an FBI informant in the past.
	He might still be.
	But this raises tremendous legal questions because if you're a state prosecutor and you find out that you've got a federal agent, then there's issues of potential entrapment.
	There's issues of whether or not there's giggly material where if you've got an informant and someone's been untrustworthy in the past and hasn't testified or has participated in shenanigans, the prosecution actually has to disclose that as a matter of law.
	You've got Brady versus Maryland considerations on whether or not there's exculpatory evidence that That suggests that Tina's actions were innocent and she was relying on someone.
	I'm not saying that Conan Hayes entrapped anyone.
	I'm just saying that he was introduced, he had a CI status with the federal government, and he obviously had the skills to conduct and create a forensic image because it was done.
	Okay, so his name is Colin.
	I have trouble with names, but this guy is a confidential informant.
	As of what year?
	Like, well predating all of this?
	I think according to the testimony in some of the proffers, because he didn't testify at trial, I think from 2018.
	So it was before 2020.
	So this guy's already an agent, an asset, an FBI, whatever, a confidential informant.
	When Tina is looking for someone to do the forensic imaging of the Dominion database, this guy pops along.
	Like, who offered him?
	In order to enable her to make the forensic image of Dominion?
	I'm not absolutely sure of that.
	What I can tell you is that in Patrick Byrne's orbit, Conan Hayes is someone that materialized.
	And this came to light during a deposition in Michigan.
	Because in Antrim County, there was another massive anomaly where 7,000 votes that were meant for Trump were allocated to Biden.
	And so there were experts that were brought.
	To Michigan to investigate both Dominion and ES&S.
	And for whatever reason, Conan Hayes' name came up in a deposition there.
	So I don't know the methods of introduction or how that happened.
	But when I found that out, there was this idea that somehow we had to keep, not we, because I wasn't part of the investigation, but the royal we had to keep his identity secret because they didn't want...
	Yeah, that would be Conan.
	And so there's this kind of sleight of hand projection that somehow...
	Conan Hayes is impersonating Gerald Wood.
	That wasn't the case.
	There are signal communications where Gerald was part of this team effort.
	In fact, after the quote-unquote breach from Tina's team, if you want to classify it as that, there is a text message from Gerald Wood saying, I was glad to help out, and I do hope that the effort proved fruitful.
	So this is a guy that was in complete agreement.
	And allowing his access badge to get into the facilities to have Conan come in there.
	And just so people know, this is not unusual.
	I was a longtime prosecutor.
	Every time we had an interview in our facilities, you had to have someone that had the security clearances to open certain doors.
	That doesn't mean that you're impersonating the sheriff if you happen to go in there and be interviewed.
	And so it's a very specious argument.
	Well, it's fascinating, actually.
	So Tina Peters is the one.
	She says, something's going on.
	I've been apprised of this.
	I need to make or I would like to make a forensic image of the Dominion software, whatever.
	I don't have the expertise to do it.
	This guy, Conan, does.
	So I'm going to go ask Gerald Wood, who's the gatekeeper to the access point, if my expert can come in and make a forensic image and whatever, for whatever purpose.
	Gerald Wood says, yes.
	And then...
	This FBI agent or informant goes in who's working with authorities.
	I want to know how she gets arrested in the first place, but we'll get there in a sec.
	Gerald Wood allows entry to Conan and is going to then later on say, Tina duped me as to this guy's credentials and the authority that he or she ever had to access it, and I'm just the victim who let them in, and that's the evidence of one of the charges, which was influencing a public official.
	Well, yes, in a way, because now it's disputed, right?
	Because at first, Gerald is...
	He's part of the team.
	He wants to do the right thing by America.
	And then at some point, he gets pressed and starts changing his story.
	And so when he's cross-examined during the trial, it becomes very, very apparent that he's got selective memory.
	I don't remember being on a signal chat, even though they were able to confirm that the number in there was his.
	And so he changed his story.
	When Tina's team wanted to do further Rebuttal examination of Gerald Wood.
	He was served in open court with a subpoena to make sure that he could stick around.
	The judge actually wouldn't allow Gerald Wood to be served with the subpoena in open court.
	I didn't think you could serve people in court.
	It might have been a Quebec thing at least.
	That's a hazy memory.
	It's kind of weird because if someone followed him out the door...
	And attempts were made, but it's almost like this tag, you're it.
	I don't have to take the subpoena.
	But the intention was clear that Tina's team did not release Gerald from the trial.
	Now, he was subpoenaed by the prosecutors.
	They were going to release him, but it's like they got what they wanted out of him, and then they want to get him out of the courtroom as quickly as possible so he can't be scrutinized.
	And so to avoid that...
	Tina's attorneys basically are sitting there going, you're not going anywhere.
	Here's a subpoena.
	And I think that was legal error on behalf of the judge to not honor the effectuation of service or at least have some type of ability to have him come back on the stand as a rebuttal witness.
	What does Conan do after he mirrors the Dominion?
	After he mirrors the Dominion system, what does he do with the mirror?
	Is that when he goes to the authority and says, we got her, she let me in, and she did it, and now we go arrest her?
	Well, I don't think that's what Conan did.
	I don't know Conan Hayes very well.
	I'm actually very, very wary of any time an FBI informant, good or otherwise, is involved.
	My spidey sense starts tingling because there are legitimate questions about access to these systems.
	My understanding is that even though Conan performed the forensic image.
	He did not do analysis on the image.
	That was then turned over to people that had a greater degree of expertise, and that would be Jeff O'Donnell and Dr. Walter Doherty.
	And I think Tina tried to provide that information to the DA's office.
	That would be Rubenstein, the guy that actually prosecuted her, was trying to provide information to the Secretary of State's office, vindicating what she did.
	And instead of them...
	Looking at this from, I think, a more just point of view, which is, let's ask the question of whether the system was deleted or altered.
	They basically said, we're not going to deal with any of that.
	We're going to ignore it.
	The threat to the system is you, Tina.
	Yeah, we're going to say, whatever might have come, what you did was illegal in the first place, allegedly.
	Let me bring up the charges.
	Didn't watch any meaningful portion of the trial, other than some clips that I saw on the internet, but attempt to influence a public servant.
	These are the co-defendants?
	Were there two defendants in there?
	At least in this charges document.
	By the time he got to trial, I don't know if Belinda was part of the proceedings.
	Trying to understand.
	So there's multiple charges of attempts to influence a public servant, which I presume means various public servants.
	She got convicted on those.
	Conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, she got convicted on, but not on criminal impersonation, which I found interesting.
	So it's attempt to influence...
	Identity theft?
	Did she get convicted on the identity theft?
	No, she was not.
	She was found not guilty on identity theft.
	So what is it?
	She got convicted on influencing, what was it, a public official?
	I mean, what were the officials and what was the evidence of the illegal influence?
	I don't even understand how that can exist.
	Yeah, so the named individuals in the jury instruction was a guy that was a Secretary of State employee by the name of Jesse Romero.
	There was a Mesa County employed by the name of David Underwood and another Secretary of State employed by the name of Danny Casillas.
	And I think what happened was that when Tina was notified that there was going to be a trusted build of some kind, these individuals gave directives on exactly how they expected things to be done, on who could be there.
	On whether it was open to the public.
	And by the way, they don't have the legal authority to close these things down from the public.
	They don't have the legal authority to tell her how to preserve records or stand by because Mesa County owned the equipment.
	And Tina was the legal custodian that had government authorization to preserve all the records.
	And so you've got this kind of conflict of powers between the Secretary of State's office and Tina's.
	And this is one of the things that people don't understand is that you run the elections through concurrent jurisdiction.
	It's not like the Secretary of State comes down there and counts your ballots and certifies your tabulators for use.
	That's all on the local officials.
	So they're trying to flex in this way that you're going to do this.
	And when Tina pivoted from their directives to uphold her legal responsibilities, they saw this as influence, as deceit, as grounds to go after her.
	So it's a very amorphous way, but it's basically an old public corruption statute.
	This is when you think of bribery.
	This would be the statute that you would use.
	Well, when I think of bribery, there's an underlying crime, which is, you know, the actual bribe.
	I presume with an attempt to influence a public servant, there has to be an illicit method of the influence.
	Like, what was the illicit method through which Tina was attempting to influence these various public servants?
	So they are arguing that by grafting N. Cohen and Hayes into the process, that that was the illicit.
	But there's no legal breakdown on who you can hire, who you can bring in.
	This is basically them just making up out of whole cloth violations that aren't codified.
	And so what you'll find in most, you know this as an attorney, but in many cases you have specialists.
	Most of your garden variety IT experts at, even at a sheriff's office, wouldn't know how to do a forensic image.
	of an election management system.
	There's very few people, at least at the time, that were capable of doing that and making sure that they observed the law.
	So it's not unusual for me as a former prosecutor to bring in cyber experts with a specific field, but they weren't employees of my office.
	They're someone that they would come in and effectively had a kind of special investigator status that was temporary.
	Not all of this is done in paperwork.
	It's not like you've got a letter of engagement.
	Sometimes it's more formal than others.
	But for Tina to be the legal guardian of the system, to bring in someone with system expertise and have the watchful eye, at least for some of the time, of Gerald Wood, that's not a deceptive practice.
	Was she probably not trying to put Jenna Griswold on high alert?
	To notify her of what she was doing?
	Probably not, because she was probably concerned that as a whistleblower, as a potential whistleblower, Jenna Griswold was going to send people there to shut her down, to not comply with the preservation that was required under state and federal law.
	No, because I do view it...
	Two things can be true at once.
	It could have been secretive, but not illegal.
	I don't understand what the conspiracy to...
	Hold on, the conspiracy to...
	Commit criminal impersonation and the criminal impersonation.
	What was the allegation of her criminal impersonation?
	And how do you get convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, but not criminal impersonation?
	Like you're planning it, but you never get away with the actual criminal impersonation?
	Exactly. So conspiracy is kind of just a step down where there's a shared agreement.
	So you may not be the person that actually effectuates the impersonation, but because you had a discussion or you were on a signal group.
	That, hey, we're going to go be a part of this trusted build.
	We're going to observe and we're going to see what Dominion does.
	That someone could argue that that was part of the basis for the conspiracy charge against her.
	What you'll find, though, is that even though there was 10 charges, the factual underpinnings for most of the charges are the same.
	So there's also an issue of duplicative charging here where it's like, okay, aren't we kind of saying the same thing over and over and over again?
	And in fact, they are.
	Now, the question is this.
	We'll get to the accuracy of the forensic image.
	Now that we know it's a confidential informant who's making the image in terms of what might appear to have been deleted, I would ask questions as to whether or not we can rely on the forensic image itself.
	Someone over on Twitter, Ecus Gluteus, says, Vivo, what about the issue of the forensic image being uploaded to the internet?
	So, I don't know about this.
	You'll tell me, because I understand that...
	Even if people are inclined to think that Tina is a righteous patriot in this, and I think many people are, there's a question as to whether or not she might have legitimately made some mistakes, which I'm not asking you to admit or deny, but was the forensic image subsequently uploaded to the internet?
	I've read.
	I don't personally know, but I've read something to that effect, and that could be an issue.
	It's kind of like WikiLeaks.
	Julian Assange.
	People can be upset about the process.
	I think there's a trigger, though, Viva, that when you've tried to bring things to the proper authorities, that at some point a whistleblower can take on certain protections and their last recourse is to get something to the public.
	This was something that was debated fiercely with Edward Snowden.
	He signed security agreements.
	That said, thou shalt not do this and not do that.
	And then he found out that there was massive subversion of the Fourth Amendment rights, which violated his oath to the Constitution.
	And so you have this tension between your oath to the higher law, and yet you sign a piece of paper that might criminalize your conduct.
	So all I can say is I think Tina was in a similar place.
	But if you've got fraud that's being facilitated through Defective processes or defective machinery and the people that are in charge for foisting that defective process or defective machinery on you are the ones that are trying to keep you silent.
	You have to ask the question, what was the only available recourse that Tina had?
	Either she can be buried in the darkness or she can get it out to the public.
	And so I think that's worthy of litigation.
	That's something that she probably...
	Would like to raise.
	But in most whistleblower instances, you're basically gagged and silenced through certain security agreements on what you will and won't do.
	And in most cases, I'd say that's valid.
	You want to protect the integrity of an office.
	But when the substance of what you're trying to reveal shows that you've got complicit actors in Dominion, in the SOS's office, and you've got massive subversion of your database.
	Who do you take it to?
	And here's the other issue.
	You've got built-in conflicts because your district attorney appears on the ballot.
	Your sheriffs appear on the ballot.
	And so there's a vested interest to actually not investigate the architecture, which could lead to an election being undone.
	And so a lot of the people that were prosecuting this case had no business prosecuting the case because they were on the ballot that concerned the system that Tina was actually tasked with safeguarding.
	Yeah, that is totally not predictable, but a fundamental flaw.
	There's no question about that.
	The issues, the charges compared to what I would have imagined the charges being, impersonating, influencing, whatever.
	If the scheme here, as alleged by the state, is that she improperly accessed a database and then made a copy of it, I would imagine the charges would have been theft, fraud, something along those lines.
	The influencing a public servant.
	I view it as specious as the fake slate of electors, which they were never fake, they were never fraudulent, but they got called that.
	The illicit influencing of a public servant sounds to me like they all were in agreement to do this because they all believed in the end goal.
	No one was being improperly influenced.
	Nobody was being criminally impersonated.
	You're spot on, and I think that was a deliberate...
	Way of doing things on behalf of the prosecutor's office, because if there was an issue of authorized access, then she would necessarily be able to raise the defenses that were provided to her under federal and state law.
	So instead of doing that, they constructed a prosecution where that's not the issue.
	Access isn't the issue.
	And so that allowed them to go through these more amorphous, weird theories.
	And then have the press editorialize and basically concoct a headline that she breached the system when she was never charged with that.
	I still think that those defenses should have been raised because it goes to our mental state.
	And anytime you're dealing with a prosecution, you've got to deal with the actus reas and the mens rea.
	And if she has an innocent framework that she's working with that, yeah, you can say that I'm influencing a public servant.
	You could say that I'm violating a duty, but I was not.
	I did not have the requisite intent to violate those laws.
	I actually had the intent to abide by another law.
	And that was not allowed by the judge either.
	The makeup of the jury in this case?
	I mean, other than the fact that I presume we can go statistically as wildly Democrat demographics, who was in the jury?
	For eyewitnesses that were there, it seemed like an unusually young jury, mostly 20, 21-year-olds.
	Most of the most compelling arguments, though, were done through proffers on arguments that tried to get evidence that was exculpatory for Tina, but it was all done outside of the presence of the jury.
	So there were jurors that were polled later, and one in particular was told about that provision under federal law to preserve the records.
	He's like, had I known about that law, I would have voted differently.
	You know, so that's the kind of stuff that we're dealing with, is that the people that were watching live streams of the trial were more informed than the jury was.
	I just don't even understand.
	I'm reading the charge.
	I don't believe any jury members could possibly understand the charges in order to convict on them.
	Let me see if I can bring this up here.
	That's the indictment.
	That's not what I want to bring up.
	I mean, the charges are not opaque, but like...
	Wildly confusing.
	Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit, threat of violence, or economic reprisal?
	What evidence was there deceit?
	It sounds like they all did this very willingly, knowingly.
	The only difference being the dude making the image is a confidential informant.
	I would question whether or not any jury members could possibly understand those charges, but this sounds like it was built to be convicted from the get-go.
	They just couldn't get all...
	Throw enough charges in, we'll get her on some.
	The jury instructions that were written, they weren't uniform instructions.
	That's the other thing.
	A lot of people that have done trials, they know that the safest place to be is to use a uniform jury instruction.
	And any time a judge deviates away from those UJIs, usually they're very, very nervous.
	And so my look at the jury instructions shows that they're very, very much fashioned to match the talking points of the Secretary of State's office.
	And just because you've got a website that tells you your processes doesn't mean it's the law.
	It's not statutory.
	So that was another problem.
	So how long did the trial last?
	I want to say it was about a week.
	Jury selection on Friday or Monday.
	I think Monday.
	And then the prosecution had the full week to conduct their case.
	And Tina was given about one day.
	And many of the witnesses that she tried to get to testify weren't allowed to testify.
	I was one because I oversaw an audit in eight counties that used the same Dominion systems in New Mexico.
	And we actually confirmed that our project file for 2020 was deleted illegally.
	So we had a crime scene in New Mexico.
	So her concerns were valid.
	You had someone like Clay Perique, who is a whistleblower forensic hacker that used to do testing for...
	The voting systems like Dominion, like ES&S.
	And his testimony was limited where he could barely testify.
	Why and who limited Tina's evidence witnesses?
	Well, it was primarily, you know, it was the judge.
	The judge makes the call.
	And that was the other thing that was odd is that the state prosecutor seemed like he had another advocate in the courtroom through the judge's behavior.
	So there was actually another Clerk in an adjacent county that did the same thing as Tina, who was not prosecuted.
	He was called to testify.
	And as soon as the judge knew what he was going to testify about, he basically limited the questions and he got to answer one or two questions and then he was dismissed from the witness stand.
	And so there's probably four or five credible technical experts that could talk about what happened.
	That were far more technical than me.
	As a former prosecutor, I had to do memorandums and guidances to many clerks and commissions in my state.
	And so it was very easy for me to look at Tina's evaluation of her legal standard or the legal conduct that she was required to conform to.
	But experts would be good or useful for determining the legitimacy or the accuracy of the mirror image or the image of the data.
	But the issue here, at least from the charges, is what was the deceit and fraud or threat that Tina used to pressure or influence public servants?
	And who was the criminal impersonation that Tina was convicted of conspiring to commit?
	Who was ultimately the one who criminally impersonated anybody?
	That charge was against Tina, not about someone else, and she conspired to criminally allow someone to be criminally impersonated?
	So the conspiracy was an easier way to lump her because obviously she wasn't impersonating a male by the name of Conan Hayes.
	So they didn't get very far with that charge, is my recollection, but the conspiracy on somehow having someone provide their access badge to allow him to To make the forensic image, Tina was grafted into that via the conspiracy charge.
	Yeah, I think that answers your question.
	Yeah, and so the conspiracy, sorry, the criminal fraud or whatever, for goodness sake, conspiracy to commit, let me just get the wording of it, criminal impersonation.
	It was Conan, allegedly, who would have been the one criminally impersonating, and it was Tina conspiring to facilitate his criminal impersonation.
	That's what I should understand.
	I think that would be the prosecutor's view of what.
	And the criminal informant was obviously never charged.
	The criminal, the confidential informant.
	Yeah, isn't that crazy?
	I mean, and that's the major question.
	Like the person that actually did the accessing, not charged, wasn't a co-defendant.
	And while I've got you a captive audience, this is the same thing that's happening in Michigan.
	There was a private investigator.
	That accessed some of the machines that were tested out of Michigan.
	And the people that are going to trial in two or three weeks are Matthew DiPerno.
	He's an attorney.
	And Stephanie Lambert, another attorney.
	These are the people that work legally through the processes to have experts come.
	And the very person that grabbed the equipment, facilitated that, is testifying against them, hasn't been charged.
	And so there seems to be this MO of...
	Informants materializing and conveniently helping people.
	And when the proverbial shit hits the fan, they're never around.
	And the person that's left holding the bag is a righteous person trying to get truth.
	That happened in Mesa, it appears to me, because Conan should have testified.
	And for the life of me, I don't understand why, because even the prosecution had an ethical responsibility to investigate the nature of his informant status as a prosecutor.
	Because I'm very, very worried about someone accusing me of violating Giglio and Brady.
	I would have a full vetting and interview this Conan Hayes to figure out if there was any potential reasons why we shouldn't be charging Tina Peters.
	That wasn't done.
	It's like the prosecutors pretended as if this Conan Hayes guy didn't exist.
	They would talk about him in the newspapers.
	They would refer to him as the surfer or something else, but they never did their due diligence.
	So there's lots of question marks, for sure.
	She got convicted.
	Sentencing is what?
	Is it the day after tomorrow?
	October 3rd.
	So that's close.
	It's this week.
	I don't know if September has 30 or 31 days.
	Now, I guess this is the million-dollar question.
	All of this is for naught if the forensic image shows nothing.
	I guess the question is going to be, what do those who say the forensic image confirms by way of...
	What does it show or what is the smoking gun that is revealed from this forensic image compared to what Dominion produced?
	Okay, so there's lots.
	And one, the first thing that I think was documented was that 29,000 election records were either deleted or altered.
	That's a breach of your system.
	Two, the fact that project files were missing, that was a crime.
	That shouldn't have happened.
	Dominion facilitated a crime.
	Sorry, if I may stop you there.
	That is to say that Dominions, after they got access to it, the allegation is that there were files missing from what they produced or what they possessed versus what was imaged by the confidential informant.
	So the change to the system that revealed alterations and deletions and the emergence of two new databases materialized during the trusted build, which is what Dominion does.
	It's like basically under the auspices of us changing out the batteries were happening to basically reprogram everything and change things and basically cover up our tracks.
	And the experts were able to take a look of the image pre and post trusted build.
	I'm just trying to check if Colorado is even close in 2020, but to play devil's advocate, someone might just argue...
	That Conan's forensic imaging was bad itself.
	And so you can't compare anything to that because who even knows if he did it properly in the first place?
	I mean, if he's there to set up Tina, whatever he produces by way of forensic imaging could be absolute crap.
	How do we even know that it was done properly in the first place?
	Well, I'm not saying that Conan set up Tina.
	What I'm saying is that there are questions that are raised when an FBI informant enters the foray, right?
	And I think that's-Well, he intended to set her up.
	He certainly set her up.
	Now, he might not have been, he might have been participating, but- It raises questions that should be asked.
	As far as the technical accuracy of how the forensic image was being done, Dr. Walter Doherty and Jeff O'Donnell are...
	Like top, top level experts.
	So Dr. Walter had already had his PhD in computer science from Harvard.
	He's teaching emeritus at Texas A&M University.
	So these guys' credentials are through, you know, they're just, they're amazing, amazing experts.
	And so the way that you deal with whether or not they did a good job or not, it's what you always do in a court system.
	It's an adversarial system.
	You can get another expert to do an examination.
	And the Colorado officials opted to not look at the image.
	So I think you can take it as an accurate representation of what was on there because that's all that you got to work with.
	And I think if there was an opportunity to say that the image was somehow lacked credibility or lacked, you know, certain...
	Certain safeguards on how it was done.
	That would have been brought to the line.
	Anytime there's a misstep from someone in my camp on election integrity, it's a front page story because I'm an election denier.
	Tina's an election denier.
	So if we have even the slightest misstep on any of the methods or methodologies, it comes to the forefront.
	You'll notice that no one's talked about whether or not that forensic image was a good image or not.
	So I think you can take it to the bank that it was.
	But then the issue is, Tina's gone through all of this.
	She's going through all of this.
	By all accounts, it looks like she might get sentenced to time.
	I don't know if it's going to be long or not, but they certainly want to make an example out of her.
	But what would be the smoking gun of election impropriety?
	Out of the forensic image that Tina got through Conan versus what Dominion did, that they deleted 26,000 files.
	I mean, it was a 400-plus thousand vote difference in Colorado in the first place.
	For all of this work and for all of the hell that she's going through, what was the smoking gun of election impropriety that she was able to evidence through all of this?
	Well, the challenge you've got, Viva, is that the goalposts are always moved.
	I'll give you an example.
	When I say that 29,000 election records were either deleted or altered, or if you've got access through Microsoft SQL Server, which was on the system, which shouldn't have been, those are all violations of federal law.
	So you've got Obama declared elections to be critical infrastructure.
	So the fact that I'm pointing out that these deviations took place is a...
	Black letter law violation under the law.
	You've got the Help America Vote Act, and that only allows you to have one tabulation error for every 125,000 voting opportunities.
	So a lot of people get caught up, well, what's the margin of error?
	How many votes went to this guy?
	HAVA doesn't look at that.
	HAVA looks at whether or not your systems themselves are trustworthy.
	And if you've got an error that's greater than one for every 125,000 voting opportunities, you've violated HAVA.
	That is a smoking gun.
	So when we talk about 29,000 issues that are documented in the forensic reports, that's a smoking gun.
	I think the easiest one to understand is that the law requires you to preserve all records, and they weren't.
	That's a smoking gun.
	The fact that people just walk past it is the thing that's the most nauseating thing for me.
	And there are other records that corroborate that there's been manipulation, not just in Mesa, but across the country.
	And that gets back to the cast vote record summaries that I mentioned at the outset of the show, where if people want to test our theories, there are records that tell you how those machines performed.
	And they're now making it illegal to retrieve these records that are reflected as public records under federal law.
	So, you know, pick your poison.
	There's so many different ways of attack to the system.
	And I think the take-home story for Tina is that she didn't point out that there's potential vulnerabilities for the system.
	The forensic image shows that the system was breached, that things were changed, and that the law was broken.
	Now, obviously, she's going to appeal this regardless of sentence, or maybe not regardless of sentence, but okay.
	Yeah, there's an appeal in the works.
	I got to see the appeal, I think, last week filed by Dan Hartman, who is the attorney on the case.
	There was an ask for a stay and continuance to allow the appeal to be heard before sentencing.
	That was declined by the judge.
	So if that's any intention, it does look like...
	Not a good indication.
	Yeah. And the other thing I'll say is this, that she's 69 years old.
	She's a grandmother, no criminal history.
	Someone that was just adored and respected in the community until the flash mob conviction.
	So even a lighter sentence of five years, depending on what the exposure is, could potentially be a life sentence for Tina Peters.
	Well, we'll see.
	Fingers crossed that it's not going to be...
	Maybe the refusal to stay pending the appeal is that there's going to be no jail time, so no harm, no foul.
	But we'll see.
	David, you'll come back on because there's a lot more that we have to explore that we didn't get into.
	But that's been the overview, everybody, of the Tina Peters trial, conviction, and the entire situation.
	So now everybody is all the wiser.
	David, you'll come back on, please, and we'll talk about more stuff.
	Yeah, I would love to be here.
	This was a lot of fun.
	I apologize.
	It's super heady.
	It's super technical.
	It's super in the weeds on the law, but it is what it is.
	No, I mean, that's as good of a summary as we can possibly synopsize as to the charges in the trial and what Tina was doing in the first place.
	To me, the whole trial is garbage.
	I mean, the charges sound like garbage, convoluted.
	Just throw enough of these random charges and a jury will convict in a politically prejudiced jury pool, and that's what Colorado is.
	But at least people can understand it now and we'll see what happens by way of sentencing.
	Yeah. Well, thanks for having us.
	I know Tina appreciates it.
	After she is sentenced, we'll all get her on.
	I don't want to have any role in exacerbating whatever sentence is ordered.
	So when she is more free to talk, she's going to come on.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Great. Well, thank you.
	We'll talk soon.
	All right.
	Take care.
	People, that's one political injustice.
	And we're going to jump right into another one, which is Jake Lang.
	You might remember him from such political prisoners as the January Sixers, who's currently, I guess, out of solitary confinement.
	He's been on the channel now a few times.
	And I know he's a controversial person because some people don't at all want to be associated with any January Six rioters who partook in any actual violence.
	And I don't want to put words in Jake's mouth, but he explained what he did.
	And there are some who say, look.
	There are January Sixers who are bona fide political prisoners because they committed no violence, etc., etc.
	And then there are others who are controversial, such as Jake.
	Doesn't matter.
	Punishment has to fit the crime.
	And when it doesn't, we're dealing with a two-tiered system.
	And Jake is out of solitary.
	And he's in the backdrop.
	I'm going to bring him in.
	Jake? Three, two, one.
	Hey! Viva, my brother!
	That's not funny because I just got off Joe Oltman's Conservative Daily and he introduced me as a controversial figure too and I have no idea where this pseudonym, this adjective comes from.
	I'm as white bread and as easy going as they come.
	Dude, I can tell you where it comes from.
	When I didn't know anything and I have you on and then people are DMing me and saying, watch out for that Jake guy.
	I was like, dude, I'll interview him and I'll come to my own conclusions as I have.
	Yeah, I can understand why people are saying there were grandmothers who were let in and did a roundabout and took selfies.
	And then there were the Jake Langs who, you know, a baseball bat manifested and you got into a confrontation with police officers.
	You have your own defense as to why and how, but there are some people who don't want to confound the two.
	And then there's other stuff like...
	Whatever. Some people saying, you know, you're provoking reactions in jail and then complaining about it.
	That may or may not be true, but the bottom line, Jake, for those who missed the first three interviews, a 30,000-foot overview as to who you are and what the heck has been going on for the last 1,372 days.
	Well, thanks for that quick overview.
	My name is Jake Lang.
	I'm a Jan Sixer.
	I'm a proud American patriot that got set up by the United States government.
	We were called to the Capitol to protest, use our constitutional right to redress your grievance.
	I showed up completely unarmed.
	I was wearing business clothing from a business meeting I was in in New York City.
	The police officers attacked us in a historic murder.
	I mean, it was kind of like the Boston Massacre, modern-day version.
	Four unarmed Americans died at the hands of the Capitol Police.
	I myself got caught up in a defensive scenario where I was trying to save people's lives.
	Two men have come forward and said I did save their lives, caught on video.
	Other people, you know, I tried to prevent their deaths like Roseanne Boylan tried to save her life.
	She died in my arms.
	Obviously, I'm a young man.
	I'm not just going to sit around and watch.
	I don't care if you have a badge on or not.
	You're not going to pulverize and shoot and tear gas and pepper spray my brothers and sisters, my American brothers and sisters, without me reacting.
	So me and actually one-third of January Sixers have assault charges.
	We're talking about a very substantial amount.
	Out of 1,500 people, 500 January Sixers have assault charges.
	And out of 1,500 people, 1-6 have assault with the deadly weapon charges.
	So we're talking about 250 Americans, not just all, you know, wild January Sixers.
	We're talking about former firefighters, Marines, carpenters, you know, the best that America has to offer.
	Share these charges with me in defending our Constitutional Republic versus a communist coup d'etat that was happening inside the Capitol.
	So I'm proud to wear my charges.
	You know, of course, I never want to hurt anybody.
	Nobody does.
	But when push comes to shove, I'm willing to stand up for my country.
	I'm willing to fight against tyranny.
	And that's why they have me for 1,351 days without a trial.
	It's been 1,370.
	Two days since January 6th, but I've been held.
	I got arrested 10 days after, and I've been held without bond, without trial, 850 days solitary confinement, 15 different prisons, and the trilogy goes on and on, but God's grace is real, and I have obviously persevered through it all, and I'm here to tell the story.
	Some people who accuse you of being a fed like Guyvermectin in the chat.
	I love Guyvermectin.
	Your name is awesome and I love him.
	I just love these people.
	They're my fan club.
	They're my fan club.
	I asked you this the first time.
	How are you doing this out of jail?
	Does it result in you getting thrown into solitary?
	I will be in less than 24 hours.
	In fact, we may have a live SWAT rating right now on my cell because Guy Vermectin's in the chat and other, you know, less than loving people.
	I'll just say that.
	You actually know Guy Vermectin from prior streams?
	He's all over Twitter disparaging me by helping me.
	It's just like there's no such thing as bad publicity.
	And I've had many people come to me and tell me, the more they press against you, the more you seem to rise up and level up in this movement as far as we help more people, we grow stronger,
	more people see through you know just the kind of you know schoolyard dramas and stuff like that that happens and you know we have a separation between people that are trying to detract and people that are trying to help the movement and push us forward raise money secure the pardons secure media attention for I mean, we've done...
	Today I have 15 interviews because tomorrow I'm in solitary confinement.
	But the amount of impact that these interviews have from four years of telling the story, and it's not just me.
	Many other Jan Sixers are brave and do them too.
	But the impact that we've had has actually shifted the needle from the very first week of January 6th.
	You know, you had Kevin McCarthy and all of these other rhinos saying, oh, they should be condemned.
	They're the worst people ever.
	And we've won back the public opinion.
	We have won the trench warfare of the, you know, propaganda and made it so Donald Trump has now seen it as appropriate and as politically expedient to say we will pardon the January Sixers.
	That has been through the media efforts of you, Viva, giving Jan Sixers a platform and other like-minded conservatives.
	No, I mean, I've become good friends with Adam Johnson.
	And, you know, when people look at him and what was done to him for, they called it stealing the lectern.
	By the way, here I go.
	I got to auction this one off still, but stealing the lectern.
	And then they hear the story that, yeah, he moved it 20 feet for a photo op within the building and left it there.
	And then they charged him.
	You know, people look at some and they say, this is an absolute egregious injustice.
	And then they look at others and they say, Fafo, you know, fuck around, find out.
	And you play stupid games and you've won your stupid prize.
	But I still say like four years in pretrial detention and people saying you weren't in solitary.
	Everybody who was taken at some point went into solitary in the early stages, if only for COVID protocol.
	So don't tell me that he doesn't look like he spent time in solitary.
	Adam Johnson spent, I don't know how much time in solitary, but they all did.
	You certainly don't act in such a way that's not going to want them to stick you back in there.
	Why are you going back in tomorrow?
	So, obviously, the outreach that we do, the fundraising, the interviews, the podcasts, the organizational efforts that we lead with our new organization, Federal Watchdog, which is spun off from J6 Legal Fund to file lawsuits on the federal government.
	We have a $150 million lawsuit for the...
	Injuries that we sustained on January 6th from police brutalities.
	We're filing a $400 million lawsuit this week on wrongful incarceration, which we've talked about at length.
	The 15-12 obstruction of Congress has been overturned, and many people have done unjustly years in prison from January 6th.
	That comes with a huge price tag.
	I mean, the average going rate for a year incarceration of, you know, when a case is overturned is like $1 to $2 million.
	So times that by about 150 January Sixers that have done extra time in prison, years, for 1512, you have, you know, one of the largest lawsuits ever brought against the DOJ that Federal Watchdog, our new organization, is about to file.
	And so through these efforts, they have...
	They've seen me as public enemy number one for the January Sixers, and they have constantly come after me.
	We keep on getting more access to cell phones, which is a blessing.
	They have me in the ghetto in Brooklyn Federal Prison, where the guards bring in fentanyl and cell phones, and you name it, they bring it in.
	They place me here.
	I'm just using what's at my disposal to get the truth out, and who can blame me?
	When does your trial come up now?
	November 4th, the day before the election.
	What a slap in the face.
	So they arrest me before Joe Biden is inaugurated.
	They hold me his entire presidency without a trial.
	And then just as like this signal to the American people.
	We're in control.
	We're the tyrants.
	And if we want to drag you out of your household, hold you for four years, and then the day before the election where the next political candidate can come in and right the wrongs that have been done by the current regime, we're going to give you your trial then.
	It's laughable.
	It's crazy, but only this story could write.
	It's stranger than fiction.
	November 4th, is jury selection starting?
	Jury selection.
	I don't even know how this is going to work because I've got my family, my extra witnesses, mitigation people all flying out there.
	And then they miss election day.
	I just don't understand what the judge is up to, what these people are up to.
	How can they be good citizens and go cast?
	Also, I mean, friends, family, everyone traveling to come to my trial.
	So it just is what it is.
	We're going to just have to go through it and fight through it.
	It is going to be an epic battle.
	And, by the way, How long is your trial scheduled for?
	Originally, they wanted me to have two to four weeks.
	And that's a long trial for I'm a single indictment, you know, I'm a single person on my indictment, just myself.
	And then I dropped the bombshell on them that I'm also going to be first chair as my own attorney doing my own cross-examinations, my own opening and closing arguments and stuff.
	So I threw a whole monkey wrench in their plans.
	This thing could go on over a month because I'm just going to filibuster every single one of these Capitol Police officers that says that I injured them, did this.
	I'm just going to say, I know where I was at and I know where you were at.
	And you tell me exactly how you remember me out of four years ago, out of tens of thousands of people.
	And I'm going to hammer these guys because, honestly, you know, it was a skirmish.
	No one was truly, I mean, other than the Jan Sixers that died, these people were fully armored.
	They had helmets, gas masks, elbow pads, you know, chest plates, everything.
	And we had PVC pipes and, you know, and bats and stuff like that.
	I mean, you can do an experiment, hold a garbage can lit up and have somebody smash it with a baseball bat.
	You're not going to be injured.
	It was just kind of the, you know, people...
	Bashing each other with riot shields and against, you know, plastic on plastic kind of combat.
	And nobody was permanently injured.
	So how are you going to try to throw me in prison for 20 years for, you know, permanently injuring a federal officer when there's video that Julie Kelly has published of that man walking around the Capitol for hours later.
	And he says that he, you know, the one injury that I'm alleged to have says that this man is never walking again correctly when he's walking around the Capitol for hours afterwards and stuff.
	I mean, give me a break.
	I was shocked.
	I did not walk out of January 6th.
	I was carried out of January 6th.
	I know what a permanent leg injury feels like.
	If he says what's true, he wouldn't have been walking around.
	I was injured on January 6th in the leg by them, not the other way around.
	So we're there to prove it.
	I've asked the question in the chat.
	For everybody saying that you're a Fed, I would like to know, A, what they mean by Fed, like define Fed, and then explain, just clearly explain why they think you're a Fed.
	And choose, heretic choose.
	I think I've seen you before.
	Viva, the reason people suspect J6 people of being Feds is because it is well known that there are hundreds or 200 or more in the crowd is what they're saying.
	I agree.
	There were definitely feds in the crowd.
	The feds that were in the crowd are not sitting in jail for four years.
	So the question, the only question I'll steal, Jake, some people are going to say, question whether or not you are feeding information to the feds and you become fed adjacent by becoming some form of informant.
	Others are going to ask if you're being paid.
	I mean, you know, it's easy to get offended at such a preposterous accusation, being somebody that has suffered 850 days of solitary confinement.
	But I'm not going to take that kind of, like, easy way out of being all affronted and stuff like that.
	You know, you can tell a tree by its fruit.
	An open proponent for January 6th from day one refused to take the plea deal.
	I've gone through, you know, all of the struggles and trials of being somebody that is being pressed against by the government.
	You know, there is a certain pattern that federal informants take, and that is not the way and the operation that I've taken.
	The podcast, the fundraising, the giving back to the community, the years of solitary confinement, the being transferred to 15 different prisons.
	Being held without being able to see my family for 18 months and stuff like that.
	So you just have to look at the fruits of what we've been able to create.
	The documentary that we created on January 6th called The Truth About January 6th.
	It's reached over 2 million people on Rumble.
	The number one viewed video ever on Rumble.
	Exposing. I produced that.
	I narrated it from my prison cell with my team.
	Exposing the federal informants and the January 6th setup.
	I just don't understand the fruits that we put in.
	I set up the legal fund.
	We're suing the federal watchdog.
	How does any of this make sense?
	I'm not the Rothschilds funding both sides of the war here.
	I'm just a political prisoner.
	No, it's not just that.
	First of all, it's not only Corn Pop in the chat, by the way, but it doesn't matter.
	You can ignore Corn Pop.
	The bottom line is, some people say you're not in jail.
	Don't believe your lying eyes.
	I believe you're in jail.
	Which jail are you in right now?
	I am in the jail where the rapist P. Diddy has just entered the building.
	Have you seen him yet?
	Me and P. Diddy are here.
	We couldn't be more polar opposites.
	I'm a born-again Christian conservative, white Republican male, and he is...
	Pretty much the opposite of all those things.
	So you're just seeing now that the places that they've set up to hold the worst of us, they're throwing...
	The January Sixers.
	And so I've been robbed at knife point multiple times for having these cell phones.
	You know, I don't run in a gang.
	I don't run with...
	I mean, first of all, I'm the only white person in this 100-person unit that I'm in.
	So I couldn't even run with the white boys, even if they were here.
	But I don't run like that.
	I run as a Christian.
	I try to show love and show compassion to everybody.
	You get taken advantage of when you do that in prison.
	And so I've gone through my...
	I've been pressed against.
	I still have a smile on my face.
	I love my enemies.
	I pray for them.
	And anybody that comes to me and needs, even after they've stolen from me, and they need something, a prayer, a soup, a mackerel, whatever they want, I'm there for them, trying to show them the love of Christ.
	And so it's not easy walking in that spirit through the trials that I've been through.
	So, you know, just pray for me because it's gotten pretty dangerous for me here recently.
	I will be in solitary confinement tomorrow.
	They'll probably stick me in the cell with MS-13 again because I have a domestic terrorist tag on my case.
	And MS-13 has been labeled domestic terrorist.
	So when we're in solitary, I'm not allowed to be with regular prisoners.
	I have to be placed with a domestic terrorist.
	So I'll be in the cell with an MS-13.
	Most of them are Christians.
	And one-on-one, they're okay to deal with.
	But you get those guys together and they're liable to chop somebody's head off.
	Well, it's quite literally...
	Not survival of the fittest, but it's a question of survival and whatever that people...
	Oh, it's survival of the fittest.
	Has anyone seen my Twitter post a couple days ago?
	I posted a shirtless selfie of all that solitary confinement working out I've been doing.
	It's survival of the fittest in here.
	I wasn't going to say anything.
	I didn't want them.
	I didn't want them, but I've had to defend my life a couple times.
	I was going to say, as you're scratching your neck, these are the traps, right?
	The lats are...
	Which one are the...
	The lats, I think, are down here.
	The traps are up here.
	Your traps are looking good.
	Thanks, brother.
	God is good, and I've had a lot of time to work on my mind, body, and soul.
	I've been in the Word of God every single day, and I've really refreshed myself constantly.
	I'm trying to come out of prison a much stronger and better man than I came in, and I think God's worked that through me, so I give Him the glory.
	Jesus is my Lord, and I'm just going to continue to do as He calls me to do in the face of adversity, in the face of disparagement, even in the face of sometimes our own movement, the people I consider closest to me sometimes have turned against me.
	I'm still here for every single one of those people, no matter what they need, a prayer, a car payment, whatever we can do as my organizations and as a friend, we're here.
	Water under the bridge.
	Let's move forward.
	We've got a country to save.
	You are your own attorney right now for the purposes of the trial.
	You don't have counsel?
	I do have counsel.
	Like I just said...
	I'm skipping around here because I'm supposed to be on...
	Lou Dobbs' show has been taken over by John Fawcett.
	And I'm supposed to be on Lou Dobbs right now, but I'm having such a good time with you.
	No, no, no.
	We'll end it up.
	But they're throwing you for solitary.
	So how are you going to prepare for the trial?
	I'm just going to walk in there and just use the truth.
	I mean, they've got 40 videos of me from every angle doing what I did.
	There's no point in saying I didn't do it.
	The only point is to say why a man would be pressed to do such a thing is defend his country and defend the people around him.
	And maybe I'll have one MAGA grandma as a holdout for a hung jury.
	That's all.
	I mean, that's what I'm hoping for.
	That's what, you know.
	We're planning for it.
	So Professor Clements and Stephen Metcalf and Anthony Sabatini are my legal team.
	And we're going to go in there with the armor of God and we're going to fight, fight, fight.
	And then we're going to rely on Trump to save us because it's a crazy time.
	I don't want to be cynical.
	The trial is in D.C. or is it in Virginia?
	It's in Washington, D.C., in the belly of the beast.
	Pray for me.
	November 4th, if you guys want to attend, anybody that's around, it's on 333 Constitution Avenue, Judge Nichols' courtroom.
	It'll be happening for weeks after November 4th.
	So stop in and see Daniel in the lines then.
	Jake, we'll do another catch-up later on, but we'll be in touch offline and be good and stay safe as much as you can.
	Fight, fight, fight.
	Never surrender.
	God is good.
	God bless you, Viva.
	Okay, I'll see you soon.
	That's Jake, people.
	Holy, sweet, merciful crab apples.
	Yeah, let me see here.
	How can we get info on how to send letters, card books, necessities?
	His website is on his Twitter feed.
	Let me just see if I can get this right now.
	Twitter. Hold on.
	My computer thinks very slowly.
	Jake Lang.
	His Twitter handle is...
	How do I get to that?
	Like this?
	Okay, I'll give everybody his...
	It's JakeLangJ6.
	And I seem to have just gone from here to here.
	Link. I know you can find it from his...
	This is the easiest way.
	From his Twitter feed, all the links are there.
	And that's it.
	Well, we're not done yet.
	But hold on, hold on.
	We're not done quite just yet.
	There were some super chats, some questions that I wanted to bring up.
	Q Trooper, thank you very much.
	Now, hold on.
	Hold on.
	Okay. Okay.
	Okay. Okay.
	Hold up.
	Hold on.
	Let me just go to Bill Murray.
	First of all, I saw Bill Murray or there's another actor.
	It doesn't matter.
	There's a number.
	I saw some of the suggestions in the chat that I wasn't going to bring up because I didn't want to know.
	He's got a good sense of humor, David.
	Some of them were.
	Okay. King of Biltong.
	Back in the house.
	Thank you very much for the crumble rant.
	Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world.
	Packed with B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and more.
	Need a healthy snack?
	Get yours at BiltongUSA.com.
	Viva10 for 10% off.
	Game is available.
	Biltong is like prosciutto made out of beef.
	It's flippin' delicious.
	And then we got Denise Antus has been following David for a while.
	CanCon has had him on several times.
	He does great work.
	Yeah, there were some trolls in the chat, but I don't...
	Trolls can still sometimes ask legitimate questions.
	David does have a great beard, plus he has hair, says Pasha Moyer.
	Then we got Big Pete S saying thanks for covering Tina Viva.
	Now I hope everybody has a better understanding of that trial.
	We got that one, and then I think I brought this one up for once.
	What did I bring this one up for?
	Daisy Atnep.
	Judge wouldn't let Dominion's name be brought up by Tina and says she could not tell her story to the jury, only answer yes or no.
	It's an Alex Jones-type trial.
	Dictating what a defendant can say, limiting their defenses like they did with Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro.
	They've got the blueprint now.
	They just keep rerunning it, mutatus mutatus.
	She's done the right thing by not getting on the stand.
	Hope she appeals, and she definitely will be appealing.
	Now, let me go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and see what's going on here.
	We got 124 people here.
	Will Forte, Missy McDougal.
	It's funny.
	I just started watching a movie yesterday with Will Forte that was wildly inappropriate for kids, given the title of the movie.
	Good Boys or something?
	Old Boys?
	Encrypted says, I have a great beard, but no hair.
	I can attest to that.
	And Bill Brown says, I got a beard.
	It's not very great, though.
	Average at best.
	People, let me see what's going on in Rumble before we head on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for the after party, and I'll give everybody the link to there.
	Link to Locals.
	So I hope that sheds some light on it.
	The Tina Peters, I mean, these charges are opaque.
	They throw a bunch of crap against the wall, get a politically prejudiced jury pool, and then get some conviction on some while effectively skirting around the substance of the issue, which was whether or not improprieties were performed as relates to Data that was intended to be or legally required to be kept, but not kept.
	Because Colorado is not the only place where we saw or heard allegations of destruction of records that needed to be kept for, I think, a period of two years.
	And, you know, whether or not Tina deceitfully got her foot in the door to make the forensic image with a confidential informant, this smells like Gretchen Whitmer entrapment scenario again.
	Get your Your confidential informant to act as the forensic expert, the only one who could do it, and then facilitate the perpetration of a crime, alleged crime, via Tina Peters so that you can then make an example out of Tina Peters and say, don't anybody ever do any whistleblowing ever again.
	Otherwise, we'll lock you up.
	The question is going to be whether or not they intend on sending a 69-year-old woman.
	No criminal record and a wonderful...
	History. To jail.
	Can you imagine sending a 69-year-old woman to jail for a non-violent, non-crime?
	All three branches of government are guilty of sedition and treason.
	Treason has to be wartime.
	Sedition undermining the authority of the state.
	How can the government undermine its own authority?
	Viva, Trump is currently live on Fox.
	YouTube looks like a press conference, I think.
	Well, let's see if we can bring that up.
	Hold on a second.
	We are going to go over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com in a second.
	Anyhow, let me go to Commitube and see what the Trump live is.
	Oh, there's live hearings in Georgia today.
	Oh, well, I'll check that.
	Oh, that's all.
	Okay, so GoodLogic, by the way, who just hit 100,000 subs and had his party yesterday.
	Is live.
	So you might want to head on over there afterwards.
	Let me see here.
	Trump live today.
	Okay, let's see here.
	We got something with Trump live.
	We're going to get...
	Thank you.
	Comrade Kamala Harris.
	She has no policy.
	No solutions.
	But the one thing her campaign has is money.
	They get it from a lot of people that you don't want to hear about.
	These are not the people that you agree with.
	He looks younger than he did eight years ago.
	Okay, we're going to skip this and let's just see what's going on here.
	I'm presuming they're doing a prayer, but fake news is going to say Trump fell asleep at his own conference.
	By the way, I was right about that when I was on Tim Pool.
	Thank you very much.
	As you know, our country is in the final weeks of a hard-fought national election.
	But in a time like this, when a crisis hits, when our fellow citizens cry out in need, none of that matters.
	We're not talking about politics now.
	We have to all get together and get this solved.
	We need a lot of help.
	They have to have a lot of help down here.
	We look out for one another.
	We pull together.
	We pitch in.
	We persevere.
	And we pull it through.
	That is really the American spirit.
	That's what made America originally great.
	And that's why today I've come.
	To Valdosta with large semi-trucks, many of them, filled with relief aid and a tanker truck filled up with gasoline.
	We have a couple of the big tanker trucks filled up with gasoline, which they can't get now.
	And we'll be working to distribute it throughout the day.
	And I want to thank, again, Franklin Graham and everyone at Samaritan's Purse.
	You people are fantastic, by the way.
	And people appreciate you very much.
	For the incredible partnering and work that they've done, not only here but all the time, they always seem to be the first ones at areas that need help.
	A short time ago I received a briefing on the situation here in Valdesta from FEMA and the National Guard as well as a number of state and local officials, quite a few of them.
	It's amazing the way it's just all been pulled together.
	Really amazing.
	I want to thank Mayor Scott James Valdesta, who's...
	Where is Scott?
	Really great job.
	I want to thank Lieutenant Governor Bert Jones and Agricultural Commissioner Tyler Harper, representatives, as I said before, Austin Scott and Mike Collins, and all of the others present.
	I also want to thank Governor Brian Kemp, who's working around the clock to get this problem solved.
	He's working hard around the clock.
	We also have a salute to the incredible first responders, law enforcement heroes, and they are heroes.
	Doctors, nurses, firefighters, Coast Guard, National Guard, who have been serving with such extraordinary grace.
	And the work is incredible.
	Nobody thought they'd see something like this.
	You're the best.
	You are truly the best of America, and you're appreciated by America.
	Sometimes you don't feel that way, but you're very much appreciated by America.
	And I know each and every one of you is giving to this community of everything you have.
	You're doing things that you wouldn't normally even think about doing.
	The people on the ground are doing the best they can in every challenging circumstances.
	We do need some help from the federal government.
	They have to get together.
	Ideally with the governor.
	That governor needs to...
	He's been trying to get them, and I'm sure they're going to come through.
	But he's been calling.
	The president hasn't been able to get him.
	But they'll come through, I'm sure.
	And Georgia and North Carolina need the help.
	Probably worst of all, but North Carolina has really been hit.
	They have really been hit.
	They say nobody's seen anything like that at all.
	Every part of these...
	Communities has been affected by this brutal storm and countless Georgia cotton and pecan farmers.
	The farmers have been affected, Kelly, very, very badly.
	Very, very badly.
	And I love those farmers.
	And we're going to take care of the farmers.
	There's no question about it.
	Their crops and their livelihoods have been so badly affected.
	Swift actions needed to get the farmers access to loans and disaster recovery aid to help.
	them quickly get back on their feet so they can help our nation prosper.
	I always support our great farmers and agricultural communities and just go out.
	I know that the help is going to be there and help will soon be on its way.
	There's no question about that.
	With the path to full and complete recovery, we will work very hard.
	It won't be easy because this one is so bad, but we know our In our hearts, God is with us.
	God is strongly with us.
	And the American people are stronger than any challenge that stands in our way.
	We have a lot of challenges in this country, more than we should have, frankly.
	But the American people are very strong and very smart.
	Working together, we'll overcome these hardships.
	We'll endure.
	We will rebuild Valdesta and every other town that has been so badly hit.
	And we'll merge stronger, more united, and more prosperous.
	Than ever before.
	You're going to be stronger, better.
	You're going to learn a lot from it.
	And again, we pray to God for those that have been so badly injured and for, in particular, for the people that are no longer with us.
	And God bless everybody.
	And Franklin, I want to thank you very much for your being here so quickly.
	Very, very quickly.
	Always very early.
	And Franklin, maybe I could ask you to say a few words.
	Franklin Graham, thank you.
	I'm going to put on pause and we're going to head on over to Locals and talk about some other stuff.
	This is live so you can check this out.
	Everybody check it out.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you're so inclined.
	We're going to have our after party there and I pulled up a video that I want to watch with our community there.
	And we'll talk and we'll take some questions about Jake Lang and Tina Peters.
	Everybody, it's Monday.
	I will be live tomorrow.
	There will be clips published.
	What else?
	The podcast, I'm trying to figure out how to set up Spotify for the podcast, but right now it's on Podbean.
	So the podcast from yesterday will be up now.
	It's up now.
	And this podcast will be up as of this afternoon on Podbean Stitcher.
	I don't know, wherever the hell podcasts go.
	So you can catch it that way if you want.
	And that's it.
	Snip, clip, share away.
	And I'll try to get out a car vlog later this afternoon as well.
	I don't want to end the stream.
	I want to end it on locations.
	Let me see what's going on in the chat here before we get out of here.
	Invivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	No, we're on Rumble.
	Sorry, just going to see what's going on in the chat here.
	Apparently, we'll watch a video in Locals.
	It'll make your blood boil.
	Ending on YouTube, ending on Twitter, ending on Rumble, and come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and live tomorrow.
	Same bad time, same bad channel.
	12.30 daily, except when it's not at 12.30.
	But we're sticking to a schedule, and I think we've been doing good.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Right now.
	Okay. And then we're going to go end on Twitter right now.
	And we are going to end on Rumble right now.
	And I will see you all tomorrow.
	How do I end?
	I can just remove it?
	Remove. Okay.
	Rumble over.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.

▲