Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 14, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:33:32

Hegsetnh Confirmation Hearings Recap; Jack Smith Report Recap! La Fires Recap & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All wondering, will his microphone work today?
	Will he be on the right mic?
	Will he be muted?
	Who knows?
	But let's start with a little nails to the ear.
	Senator Duckworth grilling Pete Hegseth.
	Please describe to me, Mr. Hegseth, you talk about DOD passing an audit.
	Please describe to me a time or an organization that you led underwent an audit.
	Because you say you're going to hire smarter people than you to run this audit.
	I'm not asking you to be an accountant.
	I want you to be able to tell me what kind of guidance will be given to those employees, what will happen whether or not you pass that audit.
	Have you led an audit of any organization, yes or no?
	I don't want a long answer, yes or no.
	Have you led?
	An audit of any organization of which you were in charge.
	Senator, in both of the organizations I ran, we were always completely fiscally responsible.
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	Yes or no.
	What are you afraid of?
	You can't answer this question.
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	Do you not know this answer?
	Senator, every part of my leadership of these organizations has been misrepresented.
	I will take that as a no.
	Please describe to me, Mr. Hegseth.
	I've got to say, if your goal was to convince Pete Hegseth that he was wrong on his position of women in the military, Elizabeth Warren, Gillibrand, Juniro, I forget her name, or Hawaii, and Duckworth really didn't do justice today to prove Pete Hegseth wrong.
	You're not an accountant.
	Did you lead an audit?
	It's beyond words as to how preposterous, outlandish, insane, insulting, demeaning, condescending, and beneath the dignity of human intelligence, what we witnessed today.
	I was listening to this while I was driving to do the episode of The Unusual Suspects.
	Within five seconds of anyone speaking, I could tell if they were Democrat or Republican.
	Within the five seconds of determining whether or not they were Democrat or Republican, I could predict there was one exception where the Democrat wasn't cognitively challenged.
	There was only one Democrat who was not toxic, foul stupidity.
	Today was Pete Hegstest's confirmation hearing.
	I don't think they've held the vote yet.
	I have to double-check when the vote is.
	We're going to get to that.
	And we're also going to talk about Jack Smith.
	Phenomenal report that he has been authorized to release.
	The citizen Jack Smith, unlawfully appointed as a special counsel, somehow gets to release his report.
	We'll get there.
	Also, we're going to do the latest updates on California.
	But before we even get there, good afternoon, people of the interwebs.
	Let me see that we are currently live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	That I can tell because we're here.
	And I'm going to go over to Rumble.
	Free Speech Rumble.
	Make sure that we're good over here.
	We should be.
	We're looking good.
	We are.
	And Commitube, we're here.
	The link to Rumble, people, is in the pinned comment on YouTube.
	Tonight, 6 o'clock, Unusual Suspects.
	It will be airing, and I will be on it.
	Talking about the stolen Humvees, eh?
	We did cover it yesterday, that they found two of the three Humvees, but not the armored Humvee.
	Oh, I'm just reading.
	Toxic foul stupidity.
	Viva bag of jargon.
	Me likey, says shiant visage.
	I have to double check when the hearing is.
	But before we even get started for today's show, everybody, we start off with stuff that makes you want to puke, and then we're going to get into the stuff that will wake you up in the morning and be the exact opposite of stuff that makes you gag.
	1775 Coffee.
	Speaking of supporting a company like Rumble that supports free speech, 1775 Coffee is the partner with Rumble.
	And they make delicious freaking coffee.
	I knew that I had gotten our new order this morning because I looked at my wife and said, Mary, coffee doesn't taste like Jamaican Me Crazy.
	What was it?
	It was not vanilla.
	It was like hazelnut.
	I said, this doesn't taste like...
	Jamaican Me Crazy hazelnut coffee because it was $17.75 coffee and it was delicious.
	My taste buds, drinking two to three cups in the morning could slash your risk of death by 29% and cut your chances of heart complications by nearly half.
	But if your coffee tasted like it was brewed by someone with blue hair, a nose ring, or any one of the Democrats grilling Pete Hexeth today...
	Those benefits aren't going to be doing you any favors.
	Enter 1775 Coffee.
	This isn't just coffee.
	It's a rebellion in every cup.
	Handpicked at the high altitudes and sourced from single-origin farms, 1775 Coffee delivers bold flavor and benefits that the Starbucks sugar company can.
	Starbucks is basically sugar in a cup.
	Boost your metabolism, protect your heart, stay sharper than ever.
	Whether it's beans, grounds, or pods, every sip of 1775 coffee tastes like a stand against mediocrity.
	Head over to 1775coffee.com.
	Promo code Viva gets you 15% off.
	Make mornings great again with coffee that fuels bold flavor, uncompromising quality, and the freedom Rumble stands for every day.
	And check out their Tesla Cybertruck giveaway.
	I have verified.
	I am ineligible.
	I am ineligible to submit, people.
	Gosh darn it.
	At least that was my understanding, but I would not even submit even if I were eligible to win that Cybertruck because someone out there wants it more than me, deserves it more than me, needs it more than me, and I am kind of in love with my Bronco with the doors off, driving that thing around.
	It's like being on a roller coaster.
	It's like an adrenaline rush every time you drive a car, and I'm not sure that that's healthy, but it's fantastic.
	The link is in the description.
	So, are we following?
	Have you been following this today?
	I didn't live stream, but I probably should have.
	I'm going to definitely live stream the Tulsi Gabbard and the...
	Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. confirmation hearings, which have not...
	They haven't been scheduled yet, but we've got more hearings tomorrow.
	And I may or may not do that because tomorrow I've got Caelan Georgescu, the Romanian presidential candidate who has seen his victory snatched away from him by a court that...
	He's invalidated, undid the election results of the first round of those elections to be determined if they're disqualifying him from the second round.
	He's coming on tomorrow at 1 o'clock Eastern, so it's going to be amazing.
	When is the Pete Hegseth confirmation vote?
	I think it's today.
	Does it not happen typically right after the debates?
	Let's just see.
	The confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth is today.
	However, the specific date for the confirmation vote by the full Senate has not been explicitly stated in the available information.
	Typically, after the committee hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee would vote on the nomination.
	If it passes, the nomination would then proceed to the full Senate vote, given the current date is January 14, 2025, at 137 Pacific.
	It's likely that the vote would occur in the near future, potentially within the next few days or weeks, depending on the Senate's schedule.
	That is what Grok has to tell us, people.
	In the chat, just let me know who watched it.
	It's so disgusting.
	I think I like Pete Hegseth.
	I think I know when people are treated unfairly and Pete Hegseth is being treated unfairly.
	Unfairly is an understatement.
	I'm going to play all of Duckworth's five or seven minutes.
	Let's see.
	A lot of people say they watched it.
	Saw about 45 minutes, says Sally Yankee, in our locals community, and it looks like most people on Rumble, above average people out there as well, watched it.
	It was disgusting.
	I mean, I'll summarize it.
	We don't need to go through all of them.
	I'll try to pull up some other highlights that I have on the back burner.
	They're going after Pete Hegseth, who's Secretary of Defense.
	Tapped for Secretary of Defense.
	Let me just make sure I'm not making a mistake on that.
	Secretary of Defense.
	And it's Pete Hegseth.
	Don't want to make a mistake.
	When we made a mistake on the Medal of Secretary of Defense.
	Okay, Trump's Defense Secretary.
	We made a mistake on Medal of Freedom versus the Medal of Valor.
	Our locals community and Rumble community were on our back, and rightly so.
	The tab for Secretary of Defense.
	He's going to manage the military, and there was lots of talk about doing an audit.
	Lots of talk about Pete Hegseth's infidelity.
	Lots of talk about what they like to pretend is not an anonymous complaint, but it's anonymous to people who don't know who the complainant is about his alleged sexual impropriety at a hotel at a conservative convention back in 2017, which was manufactured into an accusation of impropriety, assault of the sexual nature.
	I listened to the highlights.
	Doc Worth got on my nerves more than...
	What's her name?
	The Hawaiian one.
	When I was growing up and I used to watch these things with my father and he said this is a dog and pony show.
	It's for grandstanding.
	They don't really care about anything.
	They just want to get their sound bites in there.
	And I didn't really understand it back then.
	But holy hell do I understand it right now.
	Some of it was so damn insulting.
	Some of it was so damn demeaning, degrading, that you have people out there, people in the Senate weighing in on Pete Hexas' ability, credentials, to be Secretary of Defense.
	Because they were asking him, like, how many people have you managed?
	How many corporations have you been involved in that would grant you or give you the requisite credentials to be Secretary of Defense?
	This is a man who served.
	This is a man who has, other than the infidelity, which is a whole bag of hypocrisy that we're going to get into, they're trying to undermine his credentials to be Secretary of Defense.
	I guess I have to...
	We're going to go through...
	What's her faces?
	We're going to go through Duckworth first because it's...
	It is enough to make you want to vomit and it's enough to make you realize...
	We're governed by idiots.
	We're governed by idiots.
	Listen to this.
	I'll stop through this periodically.
	This is my personal repulsive highlight of the day.
	And I'm going to pull up Hirono afterwards.
	And then we're going to pull up some jokes.
	Senator Duckworth, you're recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And also, Secretary Mattis had to have this waiver as well.
	But I pay attention to how long she grandstands for.
	Before asking her first disingenuous, dishonest question.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I know that I'm prone to viewing Democrats as lying, dirty, rotten scoundrels.
	I just want one of them to prove me wrong.
	I'm waiting for it.
	Mr. Hexer, this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
	And one of the qualifications, to answer my colleague's question, is to actually win the votes of every member of this committee and to be confirmed by the United States Senate.
	And you need to convince us that you're worthy of that vote because the people of the state of Illinois voted for me to be their senator so that I could cast that vote when it comes to picking who is going to be the next Secretary of Defense.
	And you know what's funny?
	The people of America voted for Donald Trump so that he...
	Could appoint who he thinks should be the next Secretary of Defense.
	I agree that technically they got a vote on it.
	And the people of Illinois did vote for Duckworth to vote on that.
	But she doesn't follow her own reasoning here.
	The people of Illinois voted for her so that she could decide whether to vote yay or nay on Pete Hexeth.
	The people, 77 million of them, voted for Donald Trump because they want his team in the White House.
	And that involves who he thinks should be picked for Secretary of Defense.
	Set aside that hypocrisy.
	We're 33 seconds in.
	I don't hear a question yet.
	This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat.
	That's because you don't stop asking the question of Pete Hegseth.
	It's not because of him.
	It's because of you.
	So hijack the hearings.
	Make it all about statements he made about women serving in combat.
	Statements that not many people, if they stop to think about it, would really disagree with.
	By and large, if you have certain physical thresholds for criteria to fight.
	Some women will pass it, but by and large, men will pass it way more often than women.
	Okay. And not about whether or not you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.
	And let me just say that the American people need a SecDef who's ready to lead on day one.
	You are not that person.
	Our adversaries watch closely during times of transition.
	And any sense that the Department of Defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who is wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk.
	And I am not willing to do that.
	She's not willing to do that, by the way.
	They've got a demented, absentee, lame duck president, and the world is falling to pieces.
	Does she not put that together?
	Having someone who's unfit for the job in a position of weakness is bad for me.
	I'm not willing to do that, but I wholeheartedly support Joe Biden and the way the world is falling apart under his absentee, incompetent, degenerate, mentally unfit leadership.
	By the way, what are we at now?
	We're at a minute.
	I haven't heard a question yet.
	Mr. Hexeth, I want you to try to explain to the American people, this committee, who have to vote for you...
	And to our troops who are deployed around the world, why you are qualified to lead the Department of Defense.
	By the way, she's got a whole written statement.
	You're going to see her flipping through this the entire time.
	You think her mind is made up?
	You think these are sincere, genuine questions to get information to allow her to come to the proper...
	No. This is motivated reasoning by a partisan hack who came with a foregone conclusion and nothing is going to change anything.
	She wants her grandstanding.
	She wants her moment.
	She wants her sound clip.
	Her decision is made.
	And now it's just a question of asking the questions to justify that foregone conclusion.
	Maybe not even to her, because who the hell knows what she thinks, but to her constituents.
	We already know that you've only led the largest 200-person organization.
	We already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after your organization, we already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after you left, they had to bring in a forensic accountant.
	A forensic accountant?
	This is all a lie, by the way.
	This is a lie based on other evidence that was submitted.
	They're trying to make him look like he mismanaged the funds of the not-for-profit that he was working for.
	It's all a lie.
	And by the way, you need to have an accountant.
	I think certain corporations by law are required to have audits.
	So a forensic audit is an audit.
	It's not an evidence of wrongdoing, but these filthy scoundrels can't ask a question without loading it with bullshit accusations.
	To figure out what went wrong.
	And the largest budget you ever managed was about $18 billion.
	You know, that is about 51,560 times fewer, lower than the Department of Defense budget of $825 billion.
	$16 million.
	I think she doesn't even know what she's saying here at this point.
	I think she just said $18 billion.
	Now she's down to $16 million.
	It's 51,560 times smaller than the defense budget.
	Please describe to me, Mr. Hexeth, you talk about...
	By the way, we are a minute and 55 seconds in.
	She hasn't asked a question yet.
	Audit. Please describe to me a time or an organization that you led underwent an audit.
	Because you say you're going to hire smarter people than you to run this audit.
	I'm not asking you to be an accountant.
	I'm not asking you to be an accountant.
	I want you to be able to tell me what kind of guidance will be given to those employees, what will happen if...
	Whether or not you pass that audit.
	Have you led an audit of any organization?
	Yes or no?
	We are two minutes and 18 seconds into this unhinged tirade.
	And now she got her first question.
	I'm not asking you to be an accountant, but have you led an audit?
	I don't want a long answer.
	Yes or no?
	Have you led an audit of any organization?
	This is the face of a man like...
	I can't believe I have to sit here and be subjected to this.
	Which you were in charge.
	Senator, in both of the organizations I ran, we were always completely fiscally responsible.
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	Yes or no.
	What are you afraid of?
	You can't answer this question.
	Yes or no, did you lead an audit?
	This makes anybody else want to puke?
	This is so juveniley performative.
	Do you not know this answer?
	Senator, every part of my leadership of these organizations has been misrepresented.
	I will take that as a no.
	What were the findings?
	Though there were no findings because you've never led an audit.
	What guidance did you give the auditors?
	None, because you've never led an audit.
	But you're not an accountant.
	I don't expect you to be an accountant.
	Nobody expects you to be an accountant, Mr. Hexath.
	What we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this Pentagon budget process that is absolutely necessary to outfit our warfighters.
	Look! The Secretary of Defense is required to make quick decisions every single day.
	What's she doing with her papers?
	With high-level information that's being provided for them.
	A Secretary of Defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge.
	Right now, I am concerned that you have neither.
	What is the highest level of international negotiations that you have engaged in, that you have led in?
	Because the Secretary of Defense does lead international security negotiations.
	There are three main ones that the Secretary of Defense...
	This is unhinged, hysterical.
	She's not even breathing, let alone stopping in between her questions.
	And signs.
	Can you name at least one of them?
	Could you repeat the question, Senator?
	Sure. What is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led?
	And can you name some that the Secretary of Defense would lead?
	There's three main ones.
	I have not been involved in international security arrangements because I have not been in government.
	Other than serving in the military.
	So my job has been to...
	Maybe I'm not the best person to make this accusation.
	Is it very difficult to let the man actually answer the question?
	He's not there to answer questions.
	He's there to be verbally abused, and that's all these filthy Democrats did all day long.
	The three main ones that the Secretary of Defense signed.
	You're talking about defense arrangements.
	I mean, NATO might be one that you're referring to.
	Status of Forces Agreement would be one of them.
	Status of Forces Agreement.
	I've been a part of...
	Teaching about status of forces agreements.
	But you don't remember to mention it?
	You're not qualified, Mr. Hexeth.
	You're not qualified.
	You talk about repairing our defense industrial complex.
	You're not qualified to that.
	You could do acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements.
	You can't even mention that.
	You've done none of those.
	You talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit, and I'm glad that you mentioned it.
	Can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN?
	And what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations.
	And how many nations are in us?
	Can you understand?
	Name one of the nations.
	How many nations?
	Name the importance of the nations.
	Ask CN.
	Oh, it's so nice.
	It's nice.
	She has her handwritten prepared notes.
	She's going to get them on this.
	She's going to get them on the spot right now.
	Look at this.
	She thinks she's got a checkmate.
	CN, by the way.
	I couldn't tell you the exact amount of nations in that, but I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan and in AUKUS with Australia and trying to work on submarines with them.
	None of those countries are in ASEAN.
	None of those three countries that you've mentioned are in ASEAN.
	I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare.
	I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare.
	That makes total sense.
	Well done.
	You had a written statement and you still screwed it up.
	For these types of negotiations.
	Do your homework before you prepare.
	We ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time.
	We ask them to go into harm's way.
	I'll skip this.
	I can't stand the rest of this.
	Let's just get to the final berating here.
	Women who've earned their place in their units.
	You have not earned your place as Secretary of Defense.
	You say you care about keeping our armed forces strong and that you like that our armed forces are meritocracy.
	I don't understand what you just said.
	Then that's not lower the standards for you.
	You, sir, are a no-go at this station.
	Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
	I would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by Mr. Brian Marriott that says...
	Anyone who would claim that Pete mismanaged funds at Vets for Freedom is ignorant of the facts.
	Vets for Freedom.
	It's an amazing thing.
	And the problem is Senator Duckworth is an injured veteran.
	And for that, for the service, for her sacrifice, she is, I don't know if the word is owed, but deserves everyone's respect.
	That doesn't mean that she gets to act like an absolute ass and then hide behind her military service and her military sacrifice to become an absolute abusive.
	Unhinged lunatic when it comes to treating other veterans with the requisite degree of respect that they deserve.
	It was so shameless and so humiliating.
	I mean, the thing is, I don't know who looks at that and says, that's my senator.
	Way to go, Duckworth.
	That was totally sane.
	That was totally hinged.
	And that was totally value added and productive.
	I feel bad.
	Do I put on baby gloves to deal with Senator Duckworth because she's a military veteran who has sacrificed more for her country physically than I have for my...
	Okay, that's true.
	And two things can be true at once.
	That was disgusting and unhinged.
	And I would dare say disqualifying from being a senator.
	Disqualifying from representing your country when you treat veterans and your political adversaries with such egregious disrespect.
	But the worst thing, it wasn't even that.
	I mean, that was, at the very least, substantive in the sense that she's going after Pete Hegseth's qualifications to manage the defense, to be the Secretary of Defense.
	Let me bring this one up here.
	Is this the one?
	Is this Gillibrand?
	Let me see here.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Hegseth, to you and to your family.
	Thank you for the meeting that we had.
	We talked about a number of things.
	No, this is not Gillibrand.
	Hold on.
	Let me get Gillibrand.
	No, we're watching this.
	We're watching this.
	Nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense, and having a safe, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances and, as you know, deters our adversaries.
	Nuclear deterrence has been, and you and I, I believe, agreed on this, it must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the Department of Defense.
	But deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and credible.
	All three legs of our triad are undergoing that generational recapitalization programs, and we cannot afford any more delays in those programs.
	We're moving forward.
	Who worked with Mr. Hegseth in Iraq.
	Without objection, that will be entered.
	Senator Gillibrand.
	Here we go.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Listen to this.
	Thank you, Mr. Hegseth.
	I do want to thank you for your service.
	I want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity.
	But I know more than you, and you're not fit to.
	I have many concerns about your record, and particularly your public statements.
	Because... They are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the U.S. military.
	Pause. A, I don't care if they're hurtful if they're true.
	A. B, who told you they're hurtful?
	Do you think there's anyone out there who found it hurtful to say that by and large, men are better fit for combat than women?
	In a sense, there's a reason why wars have been waged by men throughout the history of humanity.
	There's a reason why men commit...
	The vast majority of murders.
	There's a reason for it.
	Did anyone actually complain about being hurt?
	Insulted? Was it the 5'2 lady who couldn't cut it?
	Was it the obese man who couldn't cut it?
	Oh, sorry.
	I'm going to shut my big mouth and let Gillibrand keep talking.
	Harmful to morale.
	Harmful to good order and discipline.
	If you are saying that women...
	Shouldn't be serving in the military.
	And I'm going to read you your quotes.
	Combat. Because the quotes themselves are terrible.
	You will have to change how you see women to do this job well.
	And I don't know if you are capable of that.
	So I want to press on these issues that my colleague Jean Shaheen brought up because she said it so well.
	She said it terribly.
	First of all, you answered your questionnaire.
	Do you believe that any American who wants to serve their country in the military and can meet objective standards set by the military should be allowed to serve without limitation?
	You've said yes to that question.
	But then in all of these other circumstances, you've denigrated active duty service members.
	We have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry.
	Lethal members of our military.
	Why is she screaming?
	Like, why do they have to scream?
	Military, serving in the infantry.
	But you degrade them.
	You say, we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units.
	Is there something offensive about the idea that you don't want to have moms in combat units?
	I mean, I presume that means for a certain period of time where you might not want to have a woman who has a newborn or a young child in combat.
	Who finds that offensive?
	Show of hands.
	So specific to Senator Cotton's question, because Senator Cotton was giving you layups to differentiate between different types of combat.
	And specifically, as secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the combat arms exclusion for female service members, knowing full well you have hundreds of women doing that job right now?
	And the standards, your two mile run, Tom, is about the Army combat fitness test.
	It is not the requirements to have an MOS 11 Bravo, which is the infantry.
	She has no idea what she's talking about, but she's got her notes that are written up by whatever intern she has, and she's reading the words on the paper and thinks that she's coming off as an expert.
	These are the requirements today for people serving in industry, men and women.
	They are gender neutral, and they are...
	Very difficult to me.
	They have not been reduced in any way, and our combat units, our infantry, is lethal.
	So please explain, specifically, because you will be in charge of three million personnel.
	It is a big job.
	And when you make these public statements, and I get you were not Secretary of Defense then.
	I get you were on TV.
	I get you were helping veterans.
	I get it was a different job.
	But most recently, you said this in November of 2024, knowing full well you might have been named as Secretary of Defense.
	By the way, when she made the assertion that they haven't reduced the qualifications, and I'm just going by a grok here, but...
	We all know the answer.
	Physical fitness standards.
	There have been modifications to physical fitness standards.
	For example, in 2022, the Army revised its physical fitness test to allow women and older soldiers to pass with slightly reduced standards in some events.
	This change was made following a RAND study, which suggested that the test was better used to assess general fitness rather than job performance, and that tiered standards could reduce punitive outcomes for certain groups.
	Recruitment and training programs.
	The Army initiated programs like the Future Soldier Preparatory Course to help recruits who do not initially meet weight or aptitude requirements for service.
	So at least you're trying to train it out of them.
	Readiness and standards.
	There's been a debate and concern over whether the military has lowered standards due to recruitment challenges.
	The Army's top general expressed in 2022 that lowering entry standards could be dangerous, emphasizing a focus on quality over quantity in recruitment.
	This suggests an ongoing tension between maintaining high combat readiness standards and filling recruitment quotas.
	In summary, while there have been adjustments in physical fitness standards and entry requirements to help with recruitment, the core combat requirements in terms of operational demands and the expectations of soldiers and combat solutions have not been explicitly reduced.
	Instead, these changes aim to expand the pool of eligible recruits while maintaining combat readiness throughout different means.
	Let's get back to Gillibrand here.
	Gillibrand. Please explain these types of statements because they're brutal.
	And they're mean.
	Oh, they're mean.
	And they disrespected men and women who are willing to die for this country.
	How long has she been talking for without asking a question?
	Well, Senator, I appreciate your comments.
	And I would point out I've never disparaged women serving in the military.
	I respect every single female service member that has put on the uniform past and present.
	My critiques, Senator, recently and in the past, and from personal experience, have been instances Where I've seen standards lowered, and you mentioned 11 Alpha, 11 Bravo, MOS, places in units, and the book that has been referenced multiple times here,
	The War on Warriors, I spent months talking to active duty service members, men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms, and what each and every one of them told me, and which personal instances have shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, Overt and subtle.
	Standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions.
	Give me one example.
	Please give me an example.
	I get you're making these generalized statements.
	...
	to have a certain number of female infantry officers or infantry enlisted, and that disparages those women who are incredibly capable of meeting that standard.
	Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry.
	That does not exist.
	It does not exist.
	And your statements are creating the impression that these exist, because they do not.
	There are not quotas.
	We want the most lethal force.
	But I'm telling you, having...
	Been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
	Women were essential for many of those units.
	When Ranger units went in to find where the terrorists hiding in Afghanistan or in Iraq, if they had a woman in the unit, they could go in, talk to the women in a village, say, where are the terrorists hiding?
	Where are the weapons hiding?
	and get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle.
	So just you cannot denigrate women in general, and your statements do that.
	We don't want women in the military, especially in combat.
	What a terrible statement.
	So please, do not deny that you've made those statements you have.
	We take the responsibility of standards very seriously, and we will work with you.
	I'm equally distressed.
	Put on pause here for one second.
	Again, diversity goals versus quotas.
	There are diversity goals and initiatives aimed at increasing the representation of women in various roles, including combat arms.
	These goals are not quotas in the traditional sense, but rather strategic efforts to ensure the military reflects the broader population and to tap into all available talent pools.
	The Department of Defense has been criticized for setting such goals, with some interpreting them as quotas, though the officials have clarified that these are not explicit quotas.
	And this is coming from The government website.
	Female activity, duty, personnel.
	It's a phenomenally disingenuous thing where they deny what's going on but then celebrate it at the same time.
	You know, diversity, equity, and inclusion, we're not doing it, but it's a great thing that we are.
	There are not quotas because we're now changing the word quota, we're changing the word vaccine, we're changing the word racist, Nazi, whatever, so that we can say it's not there.
	There's no quotas.
	There's an initiative to ensure a broader representation so that your firefighter looks like you when they're saving you.
	Because everything that you want, what you obviously want is a five-foot, five-and-a-half firefighter dragging you out of a burning building.
	Or a 250-pound firefighter dragging you out of a building.
	And it went on like that all day.
	These were the fairest in terms of the substance.
	I'm not even going to dignify the other ones where they were going after Pete Hegseth's faith.
	There was one jackass.
	Who actually suggested that Pete Hexeth has only recently found God.
	He's not a true Christian.
	I forget who the character that he was comparing him to on his way to Jerusalem.
	And they're attacking his assertions of his belief in his faith.
	They were then going after his infidelity.
	Hold on.
	They went after his infidelity as though...
	I mean, look, infidelity, morally, it's wrong.
	By the time it occurs in a marriage, typically there are a great many other things that are going wrong in that marriage that the infidelity is a symptom of a problem and not the cause of the problem.
	And that is not to whitewash it or to explain it away.
	And my fundamental belief is that you cheat on your spouse, you are asking to wake up with something pointing at your face and not genitalia, if you know what I'm saying.
	They went after his infidelity, that he had this incident after his wife had recently given birth.
	It was the most disgusting smear campaign I've ever seen in my life.
	And it is not to say that there's nothing wrong with infidelity.
	We've already put the asterisk on that, or the asterisk, however you pronounce it.
	It was nothing more than putting it on blast, trying to interfere with what I understand is his salvage relationship with his current spouse.
	And to put on blast his immoral, improper, whatever you want to call it, unethical behavior.
	What does it have to do with being Secretary of Defense?
	Absolutely nothing.
	There are probably a great many people who might say, yeah, a man who's a woman's man.
	Or is it a man's man?
	A man's man, a woman's man might be the type of person you want to lead.
	I've never been in the military, but I've seen movies.
	And, you know, I don't think sleeping around...
	Is the biggest taboo in military life?
	I don't think...
	In law, it wasn't the biggest taboo.
	And so they went after that, asking, you had sex with another woman after your current partner had given birth and you had a young child at home and you were performing acts of infidelity?
	Disgusting. Then we've already covered the Hegseth smear campaign as relates to the accusations that it was somehow not consensual with this woman at the conservative conference in Vegas.
	I forget where it was.
	2017. And then they try to make it as though he's guilty of a crime.
	Never charged.
	Fully investigated.
	Yes, the woman went to get a rape kit afterwards.
	The video evidence that they referenced there that nobody's ever seen except for them, and they know what it shows.
	It shows this alleged victim leaving a bar with him late at night, smiling, going back to his room willingly, only then to wake up the next morning and say, yeah, it was not consensual because I didn't get back to my husband in the same hotel room, in the same hotel by four in the morning, so maybe I've got to think of an excuse as to how I've just been disloyal to my husband.
	It was disgusting.
	But I don't know how it's going to go down with the vote.
	That's what it was.
	It's enraging to sit here and watch even the highlights.
	It was enraging to listen to this in real time, trying to destroy a person in real time because politics.
	This was a funny montage, by the way.
	And I had to double-check that they were actually accurate.
	But they were.
	This is what he had to put up with.
	Okay, we're going to take it.
	That's the stuff of nightmares.
	Straight up, people.
	So anyways, my overall assessment, it wasn't a 10 on 10 for Hegset.
	It wasn't a 10 on 10 for Hexeth for one specific question which made the rounds as well.
	Hold on, let me see.
	I'll pull this one up.
	Because people are passing it off as a burn on Elizabeth Warren.
	I'm 50-50 on it.
	I mean, it's funny in a way, but I don't think it necessarily makes the point that everybody should be making.
	Here's the burn on Elizabeth Warren.
	Listen to this.
	In other words, You're quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years?
	You're not willing to make that same pledge?
	I'm not a general, Senator.
	You'll be the one, let us just be clear, in charge of the generals.
	In other words, you're quite...
	So that's funny.
	He got a laugh at the expense of Elizabeth Warren, but...
	When it comes to the substance of that question, he'll be above a general.
	Secretary of Defense, should he be able to go into defense after he's done?
	Make sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years.
	You're not willing to make that same pledge?
	That's a fair...
	God... I mean, I loathe Elizabeth Warren.
	But the same concern for generals going into the defense industry should apply to the Secretary of Defense.
	Someone's going to have to convince me why that's a wrong instinct on my part.
	So yeah, it's funny, he got a ha-ha at the expense of Elizabeth Warren because he's not a general, but he'll be the Secretary of Defense.
	Someone try to convince me why I'm wrong in thinking that that should be even more true of the Secretary of Defense, that you should not be making...
	Relying on favors for when you're out of office and that you should be subject to the same restriction of going into the private defense industry as Secretary of Defense than as a general.
	I'm actually, I'm curious to see what people think about that.
	But I don't want to get too...
	That was one question I would have appreciated the answer being, yeah, nobody should be, when serving their country, be investing in their future to go into the very industry that has unholy, I won't say unlawful, but...
	Unholy connections to the government.
	The military-industrial complex and its stranglehold over American government and American foreign policy is a problem.
	And as much as presidents shouldn't be running around going to banks and giving speeches after they're out of office, I'm not convinced that the right answer is, I'll think about it for myself because I'm not a general.
	Because, Viva, most high-ranking officers gear their entire career to get into the defense industry to cash in.
	But I agree, but isn't that Isn't that more true of the Secretary of Defense?
	As in, it's true of generals, and it's the insidious nature of the capture.
	So why wouldn't that be even more?
	His answer should have been, no, I think it should apply to everybody who serves.
	You're not investing in your future when you serve.
	You're making a sacrifice for the country.
	So that was an own, but I don't think it was the right answer.
	And there was another...
	There were some times where it was clear that he had some prepped lines and he was just going into prep line mode.
	But Viva Frye, this is from NeuroDivergent1.
	He'll be there for four years at the most.
	He deserves to make a living when he gets out.
	Generals are career military.
	But then that's, I don't know, I'm not convinced by that argument because then basically what you're saying is only because of the duration.
	I'm not convinced by that.
	That might even be a stronger argument why, you know, for his four years, which are limited, he might do even more to secure himself a hefty, well-paying position in the military sphere when he gets out.
	Okay, well, look, at least my thought, my reflex was not totally stupid because nobody's out here saying, Viva, you're an idiot.
	Of course, there's a good reason why he should be able to go into the defense industry.
	So that was it.
	That was the highlight of the day, peeps.
	The question is this now, and I'm going to go to the chat.
	I don't think this is something to place a bet on because I think it's even more than a coin flipping.
	The question is going to be, how is the vote going to go?
	And it's an impossible thing to even reasonably predict.
	The most common or the three biggest markets or the three most likely odds are 51, 52, 53 votes.
	54, it starts dropping off.
	And then 55 and up, you know, it's infinitesimal because it would require more than two Democrats to flip and vote for Hegseth.
	Dewitt says, Viva, you're not thinking this through.
	That is a conclusion and not an argument.
	I've read the comment.
	It would have been so much more useful if you're not thinking this through and here's why.
	Tell me why I'm not thinking it through.
	That is a statement of opinion, not an argument.
	And not a fact.
	So I want to see what the answer to that was.
	That's Dewitt.
	I'm looking for Dewitt's follow-up to explain to me why I'm not thinking this through and what I haven't thought through.
	It's very, very possible.
	Okay, now the question that I was just talking about was the vote.
	Numbers in the chat.
	What do you think the vote is going to be?
	Is it going to be 52, 53?
	Or does he not get confirmed because they've managed to convince three?
	It has to be four Republicans.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay, let me see here.
	Well, we'll get it afterwards.
	That's basically, those are the highlights.
	You don't need to watch it now.
	We've done the best part of it.
	What we are going to do, however, before we continue, is we're going to go over to Rumble.
	I'll take some questions.
	Viva, her parents weren't Indians, but she claimed to be.
	So why does he have to be a general?
	No, no, no.
	That question was...
	First of all, his...
	Okay. While everyone makes their way over to Rumble, I'll give everybody a link.
	Make your way over to Locals if you want to come as well.
	When they were saying, what corporations, what have you managed in terms of number of people?
	And he's like, you know, I had my not-for-profit.
	We had a team of 200.
	We managed a lot of...
	We did great things.
	Amazing initiatives for helping veterans.
	Oh, you've never...
	What the hell are they saying?
	You want Jeff Bezos now?
	Who doesn't have military experience but manage a big multinational corporation to be Secretary of Defense?
	And then, I forget who it was, he's a ball buster and he's amazing.
	Pete Hegseth has managed more people than virtually all of the senators out here.
	You sons of bitches think you're in a position of authority to judge his credentials?
	He has more work experience than you.
	People are saying 53. 53 seems like the...
	But then, you know, some people are suggesting maybe Fetterman flips.
	DeWitt, not thinking it through because short-term rules will still have to make a living at the end of the short term.
	Okay, so you've rationalized the potential for corruption and maybe even enhanced it because it is so short-term.
	The bottom line, you're making a sacrifice for your country.
	It's not a question of making a living afterwards.
	But it's a question of placing restrictions on it.
	The president is only president for four years.
	The president shouldn't be allowed to go out and immediately cash in through corrupt investments in their potential future speaking gigs.
	Nobody pays you $600,000 an hour to speak at a bank unless you've done some favors in advance.
	So the presidency is only four years, maybe eight.
	That's not a good argument.
	Respectfully submitted.
	Yeah, so that he hasn't handled a big...
	That Duckworth as a veteran is somehow in a position to judge Hegseth as a veteran.
	Just disgusting.
	But the dirtiest, nastiest stuff was going after him for his infidelity and accusing him of sexual assault, sexual crimes when he had never been convicted, let alone even charged.
	And it's just the same shit over and over and over again.
	But yeah, like the chat says, we'll see dirty when they get to RFK Jr. and...
	RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
	We have a new member of our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Wombats subscribed to Locals!
	Enjoy and welcome!
	You shall enjoy the community.
	It's amazing.
	Crash Bandit in the house says, let me see here, but as we work our way over, Viva, I can't wait to see how vile these people will be at RFK and Tulsi.
	My hatred of politics was not enough after watching that clown show today.
	They're bad people.
	I mean, that's the bottom line.
	They're bad, shameless people, but I suspect in their own minds, they're the heroes of their own story.
	Can anyone identify Senator Duckworth's speech?
	Is it an accent?
	What the hell is it?
	I think she's, I think it's an accent.
	If I had to guess.
	I don't want to say anything more.
	That might be offensive.
	I think it's an accent.
	I don't think it's a speech impediment.
	Let's make all those women in this comedy sign up their daughters for the draft, like I had to do in high school.
	I will laugh my ass off when they change their tune.
	Now, some of Hex's argument for why women in combat is a bad thing are totally legitimate.
	A distraction for male soldiers?
	Something of a burden?
	I mean, there are some women who can pass the requirements undoubtedly.
	Period. But if anybody's going to argue that the bestest, most ruthless of violent killers throughout humanity have historically been men, there have been some exceptions.
	There's a reason for that.
	And it's physiological, biological, and that's not even to say that I could pass those.
	There are probably many more women out there who could pass the infantry or combat requirements than I...
	Maybe I say that, but actually I'm...
	I can run a pretty decent mile.
	I can run a marathon.
	I ran 50 miles.
	I can do 10 chin-ups.
	I can do 60 push-ups.
	But no, I wouldn't take it as a personal insult if I couldn't.
	It's reality.
	It's biology.
	Okay, now, on that note, over on Commitube, there is a one old guy's opinion.
	$20 Superchat said, display of how Dem's philosophy, my shit don't stink, slick with Clinton, Joe...
	Bush. Joe Bush.
	Oh, Joe.
	Oh, Bath.
	Bathe. You don't have to censor here.
	Maybe you have to censor on YouTube.
	Bathe with his daughter.
	My Hunter.
	My dead brother's wife.
	Oh, yeah.
	Hunter Biden banged his dead brother's wife.
	Hillary eliminate witnesses.
	It's the infant.
	Oh, the showing up to work drunk.
	These MFers, smear merchant extraordinaires.
	All they do is operate an innuendo smear.
	That you can't even defend against once the accusation is out there.
	Oh, reports that you showed up repeatedly drunk to work.
	First of all, fuck you.
	I'm sorry.
	Do you never have a Christmas party?
	Does that count as showing up drunk?
	Does that count as getting drunk at work?
	When you go to a Christmas party?
	When you go to a Sankassette?
	When he's working with Fox?
	I'm not even saying that he showed up to work drunk.
	All of those accusations have been countered by people who know Pete, who've worked with him for years.
	Anonymous reports of him showing drunk to work bullshit, first of all.
	And second of all, what does that even mean?
	If you're at a Christmas party or a holiday party or five to seven, does that count?
	Who was the guy from Texas that was doing the Speaker of the House thing and he was slurring his words drunk?
	These scoundrels who have more DUIs than you can count, some of them kill people with their cars, all of whom sleep around like it's nobody's business, boning their interns and inserting things into their genitalia.
	And these MFers are going to sit there and judge Pete Hegseth, a man with combat experience who Lord knows what trauma has led to whatever issues in his life.
	Scum of the earth.
	Now, what's the exact opposite of scum of the earth, people?
	The Biltong that will make your taste buds melt.
	This is not an ad.
	The sponsor of today's show is 1775 Coffee, but you know what goes great with coffee?
	Biltong. Biltong says with his $25 crumble rant, start your health journey this year with some tasty high-protein meat snacks.
	Biltong is packed with B12, iron, zinc, creatine, and more.
	Get some at BiltongUSA.com.
	Promo code VIVA for 10% off.
	Most career politicians are full-blown degenerates.
	There's no question about it.
	Most. Not all.
	Infidelity is an issue.
	It becomes an issue when people try to feign morality.
	And then you're like, doctor, heal thyself.
	And that's it.
	Okay, the modern stoic over in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Women commit violence by proxy to have been involved in starting every war in history, but we do not record these things in books.
	At the risk of using an analogy, first of all, women do commit a lot of certain types of crime, especially when it comes to...
	Actually, I should double check.
	Let me go ask Rock here.
	When it comes to infanticide, who commits...
	More infanticide between men and women.
	My reflex is to say women by a statistically significant proportion.
	But I might be wrong.
	The question of who commits infanticide between men and women is complex with various variations depending on how infanticide is defined, which include...
	Let's go to the conclusion.
	While mothers are predominantly responsible for neonaticide, the broader category of infanticide or filicide shows a more balanced or even distribution.
	Women's story.
	Yeah, the men fight the wars for the women.
	No, I'm trying to think of something else that would have been funny.
	No, I was going to say the analogy, which might get me into trouble, but tough shit.
	You know, like pit bulls.
	Chihuahuas probably bite more often than pit bulls, but pit bulls put kids in the hospital or people in the hospital or underground more often than chihuahuas.
	And so everybody looks at a pit bull and says, the pit bulls are more dangerous than the chihuahuas, although chihuahuas bite more often.
	Take that analogy exactly where I meant to go with it.
	All right.
	I am about equality, says Encryptus.
	That is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
	That's right.
	It's the difference between equality and equity.
	If the woman can meet the same physical standards as men, go for it.
	If they can't, they can't.
	Simple as that.
	Absolutely. If a fat man can't cut it, neither can a healthy, skinny girl, woman, if she can't cut it.
	Period. It's not even controversial.
	What is controversial, segwaying into our navigation over to Hrumble, Gavin, the ever-jittery, gesticulating Newsome.
	Now, before we go, because we're going to tune it down on Commitube right now, locals, come one, come all.
	If you want to bypass it and come right over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, it's over here.
	Go, but we are going to end on...
	Commitube. And I want to see the number.
	I would love to see the number.
	Get below 1,000 before we do this.
	Rumble is where all the cool kids hang out.
	It says Polish dog.
	And Polish dog.
	And then King of Biltong agreed.
	Okay. Good.
	Let's just see the number go below 1,100 on Commitube.
	And YouTube just tomorrow.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Kalen Georgescu.
	Viva Frye.
	Mine has bacon.
	Viva Fry hates YouTube, says Chris Banks.
	All right, we're doing it.
	Pete is a winner.
	I want a winner.
	Military. He was very good in terms of talking about, you know, they use the word lethality quite a lot today.
	And I can tell you one thing in terms of what, was it Duckworth?
	No, who was it?
	It was the other one.
	When the military sees the world, no, it was Duckworth.
	When they see a military that doesn't look prepared, yeah.
	When they have furries in the military, when they have TikToks of trans-military men, yeah, I'm inclined to believe that the world is watching that as well.
	Ganthet says, regardless the hypocrisy of those calling in to question his infidelity, if a man can't honor a sacred oath to his wife, who in the right mind wouldn't question his integrity in keeping it to a nation?
	me, let me, let me.
	Because one is, well, I can steal men that argument both ways, but some might even say biologically it's natural that men are not monogamous.
	But no, in terms of it being irrelevant, that's like saying if anybody's lied to their kid, what's to say they're not going to lie to the country?
	We're talking about two different things and they need to be treated differently.
	Have you ever lied?
	Yeah? Well, then what's to say you're not going to lie about your oath to the country?
	Well, you've lied.
	Okay, that's it.
	You're out.
	Boopsie says someone who drinks now and then can relate to and support military and veterans.
	Someone who drinks like Winston Churchill might still be able to.
	All right.
	We've hit that low number on Commitube.
	So we're out.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	Five, four, three.
	Boop! I can't stand Gavin Newsom.
	Holy cows.
	I do feel a little bit nervous because in as much as I make fun of Hakeem Jeffries for talking with his hands, and in as much as I make fun of Gavin Newsom for talking with his hands, I appreciate that I talk with my hands.
	I like to believe that my hand gesticulations are a lot more on point with what is actually being discussed than Gavin Newsom, who seems to be doing his own real-time sign language.
	To what he's saying.
	Yeah, I move my hands, people.
	First of all, it's within the realm of normal behavior.
	Hakeem Jeffries is not within the realm of normal behavior.
	The way Gavin Newsom gesticulates his body is not within the realm of normal behavior to the point where I believe that it's a sign of something else.
	I have to actually address this one before it goes unnoticed.
	Wow, Viva with the bad men cheat based off biology.
	I don't believe the argument.
	Okay, parentheses on Gavin Newsom's hand gesticulation.
	I don't believe the argument.
	I don't think it's fundamentally untenable that biologically a man's genes want to reproduce as much as possible and we don't have to carry the child for nine months.
	The argument is not outlandish.
	I still think, going back to my initial argument, that in terms of survivability...
	And the expectation of survival, you greatly increase your chances of being murdered by your wife if you cheat on your wife.
	You greatly increase your chances of being murdered by a woman's partner, husband or boyfriend, if you cheat with that woman and she has a husband or a boyfriend.
	So some people say from a self-preservation, you want to spread your seed out, Oliver.
	From a self-preservation, you want to keep your schmeckle in your pants and your wife.
	And that's it.
	That's where it stays.
	So, I don't believe the argument.
	I don't think the argument is crazy, however.
	And, you know, the same argument when What's-His-Face Tate makes the argument that married men have lower testosterone and it's, you know, getting married pacifies and docile, whatever that word is, a man, and therefore don't get married and have sex with lots of women.
	It's, okay, it's an argument.
	I want to one day have this discussion with Tate or whomever.
	It's a stupid argument because quite clearly...
	Even assuming that it's true, and I looked it up and it is true, men's testosterone drops radically when they get married.
	Your natural biology is telling you to settle down.
	It's trying to get you to find a woman with whom that you can settle down into a long-term monogamous relationship.
	And that's why it happens.
	It has its use, it produces its value, and then it tapers off to make sure that you don't go screw around, get divorced, bankrupt yourself, and make yourself miserable.
	To the extent that your testosterone causes you to go and find women, if you get into a monogamous relationship and your testosterone drops off, that's the natural way of saying, mission accomplished, now raise the family.
	Not mission accomplished, go bone other women.
	It's crazy.
	And besides which, the proponents of this theory, not to judge people, I'm just saying in terms of family and reproduction.
	The people giving this stupid advice don't necessarily have the best track record to show for the efficacy and long-term success of their proposed theory.
	Okay, back to crazy man moving his arms.
	And no, we're not talking about what we were talking about.
	Gavin the Gruesome Newsome.
	doing victory laps while his state burns as a result of his corrupt Egregious incompetence.
	Look at this.
	This is real.
	This is Peter Stroke-level psycho.
	We're dealing with a myriad of issues.
	I was just talking to Josh Green, the governor down in Hawaii.
	You had some ideas around some land use concerns he has around speculators coming in, buying up properties and the like.
	So we're already working with our legal teams to move those things forward.
	And we'll be presenting those in a matter of days.
	First of all, you all know who Green is?
	You all know who Green is, right?
	Governor of Hawaii.
	Governor Josh Green.
	Hawaii governor.
	Let me just see one thing here.
	I hate to do it, guys.
	Governor of a Josh Green.
	Thank you.
	Green was born.
	It's amazing.
	You go to Wikipedia.
	Okay, don't ask why I'm asking.
	I'm just asking how a good...
	Is he from New Jersey?
	I just want to know where he was from.
	Josh Green, currently...
	Yeah, yeah.
	He's the governor.
	Let me just make sure I'm not getting the different Josh Green here.
	He's the governor of Hawaii.
	Joshua Booth Green, born 1970, is an American politician and physician who has served since 2022 as the ninth governor of Hawaii.
	Green was born on February 11, 1970 in Kingston, New York to a Jewish family.
	He was raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	All that I was looking at is I thought he was from New York.
	How the hell does a New York boy become the governor of Hawaii?
	Set that aside.
	Some people have hypothesized, pontificated, conspiracized.
	I'm making a lot of words up today.
	Some people have conspirified that the fires in Lahaina, if they were not...
	Jewish space lasers.
	I'm saying that glibly.
	If they were not directed energy lasers from space, which I'm also not making fun of as a potential theory because it wouldn't be the craziest thing out there.
	Some people are saying if it wasn't deliberate, at the very least it was exploited and exacerbated by human incompetence.
	So when they didn't sound the alarms to tell people that there were forest fires burning that killed a bunch of people.
	Destroyed some amazingly valuable land when they didn't sound those alarms because they didn't want people thinking a tsunami was coming.
	That's human incompetence of the criminal negligence type.
	So some people hypothesize if it wasn't space lasers, if it wasn't directed energy, if it wasn't arson, it was certainly weaponized by way of a natural disaster exacerbated by human incompetence.
	And now the government comes in and claims the land based on the legal theory of eminent domain.
	Disaster, wasted land.
	We'll clean it up.
	We'll take a few.
	We'll turn it into a 50-minute city.
	We'll redevelop it.
	BlackRock, whoever the hell knows, Vanguard comes in.
	We'll redevelop it and sell it to the Zuckerbergs of the world, the Oprah Winfrey's of the world.
	So some people believe that Hawaii was deliberate, man-made, specifically for the purposes of claiming the most valuable land on Earth.
	And that Josh Green is the governor at the helm of that sinister plot to steal land.
	At the very least, he's the governor of that sinister incompetence.
	That will result in the government having claimed the land.
	So the end result is the same, we just don't know the intention.
	Why on earth Governor Gavin Newsom is talking about meeting with the other incompetent dipshit that actually resulted in killing people and talking about grabbing land in Los Angeles before the fires are even out?
	Why he would even talk about this or think it's a good idea to mention this is beyond me.
	Unless, as my theory is, this mother effer has got what we call the duper's delight.
	He is rubbing in your face that he is stealing land and that they are corruptly exploiting this tragedy, which he himself has exacerbated through his failed, criminally negligent policy.
	Watch this without the sound on.
	Well, I'm a big, fat, stupid piece of shit.
	I've destroyed the country.
	Oh yeah, now we're going to talk about...
	Watch his shoulders.
	Watch his shoulders.
	Nani-nani-poo-poo, you can't catch me.
	That's what he's saying to you right now.
	Look at the hand right here.
	There you go.
	I'm screwing you guys.
	I'm screwing you hard.
	There's nothing you can do about it.
	One more time with the sound on, just so we can appreciate what he's saying.
	It's not just weeks.
	We're dealing with a myriad of issues.
	I was just talking to Josh Green, the governor down in Hawaii.
	You had some ideas around some land use concerns he has around speculators coming in, buying up properties and the like.
	So we're already working with our legal teams to move those things forward.
	And we'll be presenting those in a matter of days.
	They're talking about stealing the land while it still burns under his grotesquely criminally negligent government.
	It's amazing.
	And he said it with a smile, says Hoppity Hooper.
	It's a known thing, the Duper's Delight.
	I can't even get the chat to slow down in here so I can do this.
	It's Duper's Delight.
	That was encrypted.
	That wasn't the one I wanted to bring up in here.
	But that movement.
	What was the other one?
	I got another one that's hilarious and then I got a joke.
	At least we can have a bit of a laugh.
	What was this one?
	Governor Newsom.
	Oh yeah, so check this out.
	This will make you laugh.
	But only after you cry a little bit.
	He had some ideas about some land use concerns he has around speculators coming in.
	You know, the ultimate irony of this hilarious thing is that even the drummer guy is not bouncing his shoulders from side to side like that.
	But it's phenomenal.
	It's phenomenally outrageous.
	Corrupt. Let me get the Peter Stroke.
	Peter Stroke Psycho Face.
	It is the Peter Stroke Psycho Face.
	And we all remember that one because it's the stuff of nightmares.
	I mean, they slowed it down so it's not quite...
	Look at this.
	I will eat your children.
	And it's exactly the body language that Newsom is exuding.
	I've done it.
	Nanny nanny poo-poo.
	There's nothing you can do about it.
	I'm going to get away with it.
	And so the latest in California, it's a fucking disaster.
	Only getting worse because apparently the Santa Ana winds, those things that are nicknamed the devil winds that occur...
	Primarily during this very season, November to February, November to March, are picking up again.
	I don't know what they've got contained in terms of the Palisades fire.
	They were at 14% after a week.
	And it's only going to get worse.
	But there was a news in there I wanted to bring up to make fun of Gavin Newsom.
	Here we go.
	This right here.
	Look at this.
	He's doing victory laps while his state burns.
	Here in Altadena, after meeting with survivors of the Eaton fire, we're expanding our ongoing special session to provide $2.5 billion in disaster relief for those impacted by the fires.
	We're helping people get back on their feet and kids back into their schools as soon as possible.
	There's a lot of people who are...
	I'm here in Altadena.
	Look at this.
	Altadena. What the hell does that have to do with what he's saying?
	I'm here in Altadena, a community completely ravaged by the Eaton Fire.
	I had an opportunity to talk to community leaders about an expanded special session to move $2.5 billion to help those families, businesses, congregations, parishioners that have been impacted by the Eaton Fire, by fires throughout the Southern California region.
	This $2.5 billion will get our schools open a little faster, help us with emergency and disaster response, and begin the process of helping people.
	Get back on their feet.
	How would it help with putting water in fire hydrants?
	How about that $2.5 billion?
	You take like $180,000 out of it and fix the damn tarp on the Santa Inez reservoir so that you can use it?
	How about that?
	No, no, forget that.
	That would have minimized the damage from this.
	Now they just want to talk about spending more money.
	Holy merciful goodness.
	What else was there for Gavin Newsom?
	What was this one?
	Was there more body language in here?
	Here in Mandeville Canyon at the site of the tremendous...
	Is this it?
	What is this?
	Okay. At the site, anticipation of potentially dangerous winds Monday to Wednesday night.
	I'm making sure counties all across SoCal, not just those with active wildfires.
	I'm making sure all counties across Southern California, not just those with active fires, are prepared.
	How about water?
	How about water?
	Some up here in Mandeville Canyon, which was the site in the last two nights of tremendous investment of resources.
	Firefighters working the line a lot.
	He's investing.
	He's investing in resources.
	He's really coming.
	He's rising to the challenge.
	Those assets still here, not only in anticipation of potential flare-up here in the Palisades Fire, but also pre-positioned, as we're pre-positioning in many counties throughout the state of California because of the upcoming winds we're expecting.
	Monday. Upcoming wind event that occurs every year at this very same time, give or take.
	In a state in which forest fires are a natural occurrence, a frequent natural occurrence, in which you donated away 20% of your firefighting equipment, didn't have water, had restrictions on clearing brush debris.
	People need to go to jail for this period.
	Sooner than later.
	After a fair trial.
	This one had more of the...
	It's so good.
	I mean, the AI is so good.
	It's getting too good.
	All right.
	I think that does it for Gavin Newsom.
	Was there anything?
	There was no more meaningful news.
	Chat, did I miss anything in terms of recent developments in California?
	How many times do I have to open the same window in the backdrop?
	I'm closing that one.
	Did I miss anything?
	I'm going to go to Viva Barnes Law.
	Yes, I am.
	What's up?
	Apparently there's a car taking away a big black fuzzy animal.
	We'll stay away from the animal.
	Rabies is airborne and close the door.
	I want to know what animal it's probably it might be a raccoon.
	Oh, okay.
	It's a sick.
	It's a sick dying cat which might have rabies.
	Everyone take a shower, please.
	You're all dirty.
	Okay, let's get to some rumble rants and tip questions.
	FDMan12 says, Governor American Psycho News Scum is a deeply...
	I'm not reading the rest of that.
	Jeez, you're going to get me in trouble.
	Okay, Transpo says, What I find disturbing is seeing all those funds being made available for liberal extremist California, while five months after Hurricane Helene, there are people still living in tents and trailers.
	It's... It's a two-tier justice system.
	It's a two-tier prosecutorial system.
	And it's a two-tier bailout of natural disaster system.
	Two-tier because...
	Newsom. DeSantis, I'm sorry, prepares in advance...
	After they had Hurricane Milton, they line up to clear the debris in anticipation of another hurricane coming up.
	They prepare in advance, and they update in real time.
	It's all of this too late after the fact, and it's too little too late.
	Governor McHale, American Psycho, Newscom has a...
	FD man is having a problem.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	All right.
	Governor Newscom, America...
	There's no question.
	He has a Christian Bale, American psycho face.
	Oh, he also cheated on his wife.
	If it's disqualifying for Pete Hegseth, Governor Newsom should be recalled.
	He had an affair back in...
	Cheated on his best friend's wife.
	Cheated on his best friend.
	Cheated on a woman.
	Had an affair with his best friend's wife.
	From what I understand.
	Watch The Unusual Suspects at 6 o'clock tonight, people.
	Okay, so hold on one second.
	Can I...
	Let me see something here.
	Okay, good.
	It's sharing it.
	So I got all of those.
	Oh, there's one more in the house.
	Let's get to this one right now.
	Rebel Without a Reason says, if the soldiers can't handle harsh comments, they may not be ready for combat.
	I think you're talking about the people who are getting rejected and not Pete Hexf.
	Pete Hexf, the good thing is he didn't lose his temper.
	I would have lost my mind with those dirty, rotten scoundrels.
	Gantet says, comparing lying about Santa to cheating on your wife is the biggest straw man argument I've ever witnessed in my life to steel man washing over infidelity.
	You didn't swear an oath to your children.
	You swore an oath onto your wife and you swear an oath onto your country.
	A man is nothing without his word.
	So, first of all, it's not a straw man.
	I'll say comparing, this is Gantet in our locals community, comparing, would we call it an oath?
	Is an oath in marriage the same thing as an oath to the Constitution?
	Let me see what it says.
	What is an oath?
	What is an oath?
	A solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness regarding one's future action or behavior.
	They took an oath of allegiance to the king.
	A coarse or blasphemous word or phrase used to express anger or other strong emotion.
	He exploded with a mouthful of oaths.
	We're not going to agree on this, but I will say there are different oaths, different circumstances, and what leads to infidelity is far different than what leads to a betrayal of your country.
	Infidelity has a great many complex causes.
	I do still think it's fundamentally immoral, and you're risking your life if you do it, but...
	It's just fundamentally different than an oath to the Constitution in which there really is no modification in that oath because you're not dealing with two humans on the end of it.
	You're dealing with one human taking an oath to not a static object, not an inanimate object, but not a human.
	And therefore the relationship and the nature of that oath is fundamentally different.
	An oath between two people...
	There are two variables of the human nature in that.
	But we will agree to disagree, and I'll take the next one.
	Boopsie says, someone who drinks now and then can relate to and support the bill.
	Yeah, okay, we got that.
	All right.
	What do we say about California?
	I think we're done with the California.
	Let me see what we got.
	Small meters tell hydro companies how much electricity you use.
	Cheating is a breach of the oath of marriage.
	Agreed. As the laws are currently...
	That is from Uncloudy.
	Chafe DBM.
	Says, as the laws are currently written, I don't think they can even rebuild a single-family home unless they get a waiver.
	Yeah, and Newsom's come on and says, we're going to simplify the rebuilding.
	We've got to think three months, three days, three months, three years in advance.
	You know, three years.
	2028, when LA hosts the Olympics.
	It should be a totally green city, 15-minute city.
	What a convenient thing.
	They'll just appropriate all of it.
	They'll have a lot of parking space for the Olympics.
	And Heartland Denizen says, I like Viva's assessment of oaths.
	Well, as I spoke out loud, it's actually an interesting thing, because when you take an oath to the Constitution, the Constitution ain't changing.
	So that's one less variable to say, well, things are now different.
	Oath to a country is more important.
	It says...
	Arizoni. Yeah, okay.
	I think we agree with that.
	Now, speaking of oath to a country, and speaking of people who violated that oath, Jack Smith, I would argue, has violated that oath.
	I will say that...
	I won't say Judge Eileen Cannon in her authorization to release part one of Jack Smith's report in the context of the prosecution of Donald Trump or the investigation into the prosecution of Trump for the...
	Election interference case.
	I don't think she violated her oath.
	I think she's had a well-reasoned judgment.
	And I disagree with her on this.
	And I read that.
	I didn't thoroughly read it.
	And Encryptus, if you're watching this, give us the link so that people can access your AI programming summary of that report.
	Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually fully flesh through the summary, but I did sufficiently.
	Skim through the document, the report, which adds nothing, changes nothing.
	There's nothing new by way of incriminating evidence in it.
	It's just more of the headline shite that the MSM wanted in terms of Trump's big, bad, undermining the election nonsense.
	Let me get this out of here so we can see it like that.
	There we go.
	Now, I know a lot of you want me to enhance.
	Delivery by hand, U.S. Department of Justice, Jack Smith, special counsel.
	No, is he not legally required to remove that since Judge Eileen Cannon determined that he was never lawfully appointed as special counsel and that it's citizen Jack Smith, not special counsel Jack Smith?
	How the hell?
	I put out a tweet, and I like it because I know when a tweet is good when it gets traction.
	How the hell did a man...
	Who was not lawfully appointed to the position, get authorized to release the report that he prepared in a prosecution that went nowhere, in the prosecution to which he was not lawfully appointed as the special counsel.
	How the hell does he get authorized to release the fruits of his unlawfully appointed poison tree?
	I don't have a good answer for that.
	Other than to say, well, they spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on this report.
	They sure as hell weren't going to let it go to waste, much like the Mueller report.
	All right, back to this.
	Delivery by hand to another man who deserves to be in jail, the Honorable Merrick B. Garland.
	Okay, final report of the special counsel under 28 CFR.
	You know, it's a statutory.
	Doesn't matter if he was not lawfully appointed as special counsel.
	The statute that applies to what had to have been a specially appointed lawful counsel applies nonetheless.
	Okay. In the fall of 2022, former President Donald Trump was subject to two separate criminal investigations of the Department of Justice.
	The first was an investigation into whether he violated the law to interview with the transfer of power following the 2020 election.
	The second focused on highly classified documents.
	I'm skipping over this because we don't...
	On November 15, 2022, Trump declared his candidacy.
	To unseat President Joe Biden.
	On the day I was appointed, unlawfully, I pledged that I would exercise independent judgment.
	Bullshit. Follow the best traditions of the Department of Justice.
	Yeah, their best traditions are with persecuting their political rivals.
	And conduct my work expeditiously and thoroughly to reach whatever conclusion, outcome of facts and law, that the facts and law dictated.
	Bullshit. With the aid of an outstanding team, that's what I did.
	It sounds a lot like, what's her face?
	Fannie Willis.
	Attorney General Edward H. Levy, who assumed the department's helm in the wake of Watergate, summed up those traditions.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	They pat themselves on the back.
	They're such good, fancy, you know, important, lawfully people.
	Address, I don't care about this.
	I have been a career prosecutor in local, national, and international settings over the last three decades, working shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of prosecutors in that time.
	The prosecutors and staff of the Special Counsel's Office are, in my estimation, without peer in terms of accomplishment.
	He delivered it by hand.
	He delivered two things by hand.
	The masturbation that he's giving himself right now.
	More importantly, in my book, they are people of great decency, yada, yada, yada, staffed by some of the most experienced prosecutors.
	My office operated under the same department policies and procedures that guide all federal prosecutors.
	The regulations under which I was appointed, yada, yada, yada, more self-serving crap.
	The department has long recognized that proceeding with uniformity of policy, it is necessary to the prestige of federal law.
	Our work rested upon the fundamental value of our democracy, that we exist as, quote, a government of laws and not men.
	John Adams.
	When I assumed, I'm skipping, this is all just verbal diarrhea to pat himself on the back.
	When I assumed responsibility for the matters you assigned to me, unlawfully, I came to the work with no preconceived notion of what just outcome of the investigation would be.
	Bullshit. You lying scumbag.
	They falsified evidence in the classified documents case.
	He's going to tell me they didn't have a preconceived notion of what they needed the result to be?
	This works on nobody.
	Democrats know it's a lie.
	They just like it.
	Republicans know it's a lie.
	They just don't do anything about it meaningfully.
	And the people know it's a lie, and there's nothing they can do about it.
	I was not yet familiar with all the relevant facts and had not yet researched the relevant law.
	Depending upon what investigations revealed, I was equally comfortable closing the investigation or moving forward with the prosecutions in one or both matters.
	Luckily, I found that there was good reason to go with both, even though both ended up getting tossed or not followed through on.
	As directed by the principles, I made my decision in these cases without regard to Mr. Trump's political association activity of police bullcrap or the possible personal and professional consequences for me.
	Oh, no, you did.
	While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I wanted to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Trump was mine.
	Oh, he's such a hero.
	It is a decision I stand fully behind.
	To have done otherwise on the facts developed during our work.
	Yeah, they were developed, all right, by you.
	But if I had not moved forward on that...
	That photograph of the classified documents splayed about the floor of Donald Trump's monologue that we put there and put cover sheets on.
	I would shirk my duties as a prosecutor and public servant after nearly 30 years of service.
	That is a choice I could not abide.
	This is so nauseating.
	It's unbelievable.
	It is equally important for me to make clear that nobody within the Department of Justice sought to interfere with or improperly influence my prosecutorial decision-making.
	While we are not able to bring this case...
	This might have been the more important part.
	Okay, nor you.
	Oh, nor you!
	You're clean.
	I'm clean.
	I'm smart.
	I respect my oath.
	I'm good.
	I did everything properly.
	Here's a letter confirming it because I just drafted it to you and you did nothing wrong either, Merrick Garland, who belongs in jail.
	While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for rule of law matters.
	Bull crap.
	I believe the example of our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for...
	The personal cost matters.
	The facts, as we uncovered them and manufactured them, in our investigations set forth in my book, experienced prosecutors know that you cannot control outcomes.
	You can only do your job the right way for the right reasons.
	I'm such a good man.
	I conclude our work confident that we have done so, yada, yada, yada.
	Accompanying this letter, I am providing you a confidential report explaining the prosecution and declination decisions reached by special counsel.
	Though not required prior to finalizing the report, my office provided an opportunity for counsel for Mr. Trump to review both volumes.
	Oh, and he didn't do it.
	After their review, counsel for Mr. Trump wrote a letter to you, and we have provided a written response, both of which you will find in the report.
	With the report, my service staff is complete.
	I resign, and I'm going to hope for a pardon from President Joe Biden before I leave office.
	Okay, then you got the final report.
	Let's just go down here for one second.
	This document is so bloody long that...
	Okay, forget it.
	Oh, God, what did I just do here?
	All right, whatever.
	That's the stroking on the back intro to this document.
	I'm just going to focus on...
	It doesn't say anything new.
	There's anybody pretending there's some...
	The whole point in releasing this is it changes nothing.
	It reveals nothing new.
	It's just a way for the DOJ to falsify...
	To falsify justifying their corrupt, unlawful decision to prosecute Trump not once but twice.
	What I found absolutely freaking phenomenal set aside the fact that Jack Smith was never lawfully appointed, according to Judge Eileen Cannon, and therefore this report is prepared by a citizen.
	It's worth nothing.
	This is the wrap-up smear.
	In this document.
	This is the Nancy Pelosi wrap-up smear.
	It's disinformation laundering in real time, and you wonder how they do it.
	Other charges here.
	The office considered but ultimately opted against bringing other charges.
	This is against Donald Trump.
	One potential charge was 18 U.S.C., 28383, sometimes referred to as the Insurrection Act.
	Remember this whole insurrection?
	The whole insurrection, nobody was convicted.
	Nobody was charged.
	Not even the guy they tried to disqualify from the ballot for insurrection and impeach for insurrection.
	Why didn't they do it?
	Listen to this.
	The act provides, quote, whoever incites, sets, we've read this before, so you know what it says, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, shall be incapable of holding office.
	Under the United States.
	This was the provision that Colorado sought to use to strike Trump from the ballot.
	They just argued it was self-executory, self-executing, and you didn't need to actually go through the process of charging, convicting, or having Congress do so.
	Unbelievable, actually.
	So they say, okay, look, we thought about it, and we didn't do it.
	Why? Cases interpreting Section 28.3 are scarce and arose in context that provided little guidance regarding its potential application.
	So? How do you expect to get cases if you never take the first case?
	Okay. What was the second part of this?
	It was this one here.
	Look at this.
	Here, at the end.
	To establish a violation of Section 2383, insurrection, the office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted, unquote, insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.
	Yeah. It's kind of called satisfying the...
	Wording of the law.
	And the fact that you didn't do it probably means you didn't even have any reasonable grounds to suspect that it happened.
	Courts have found or described the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection.
	All right, which ones?
	Which courts?
	Oh, Anderson versus Griswold.
	Griswold. Jenna Griswold.
	Does that name sound familiar?
	The psycho biatch from Colorado?
	Who, oh God, crazy eyes.
	Google her crazy eyes.
	Yeah, that's the one where they kicked Trump off in a split decision at the higher court from Colorado, where even some of the Democrats were saying, like, I've never seen anything like this in my entire life.
	Oh yeah, the one that the decision got struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court of these United States of America.
	They're citing the lower case that was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court as a court that has found or described the attack as an insurrection.
	We don't know which one they're saying.
	Because in...
	In that decision, I don't know if they found or described as an insurrection, but you know what I don't give one sweet bugger all about?
	Any jackass, even if they're a judge, who described it as an insurrection, because that's not a legal finding, let alone the fact that it came from a decision that was subsequently overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
	So relying on bad law, even relying on bad law, we didn't bring charges, although some courts, bad law, have called the events of January 6th an insurrection.
	Good for you.
	The Colorado Supreme Court found that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, and in the terms used by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, federal courts in the District of Columbia have also used the term insurrection to describe the attack.
	Oh, that's good.
	Relying on bad law to explain why they still didn't charge him, even though, according to that bad law, subsequently overturned.
	It's the wrap-up smear of the highest order just to get this crap back out into the narrative a week before Trump takes office, maybe...
	Dirty rat skin McRaskin is going to do something with this.
	And maybe they're just going to use it in the wake of the convicted felon status now being solidified by Judge Marchant to do God knows what.
	But they are criminals of the highest order.
	How does an unlawfully appointed special counsel release the report?
	The unlawfully appointed special counsel prepared in the context of a prosecution to which he was unlawfully appointed special counsel.
	It makes sense when you understand that we're governed by corrupt scoundrel nincompoops of the highest order.
	Sadwin's raging.
	Looks like he's giving up beer over in our locals community.
	They're not giving up beer to us, but...
	All right.
	Encryptus in the house says, the link to the articles that links to all the summaries and other articles written today on the two reports.
	Now, I'm going to share this with absolutely everybody before we head on over to VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	Encryptus, transforming special counsel into analytical articles using custom GPTs.
	And it's all here.
	It's amazing.
	Encryptus does just amazing stuff.
	Encryptus, shout out your stuff and I'll highlight it up here.
	Thank you very much.
	Viva, yeah, the wrap-up smear.
	The Jacksmart is a complete wrap-up smear meant to assure the Democrats that they were right about Trump.
	Absolutely. The Democrats, the mainstream media, the idiot sycophant followers and people who still believe Rachel Maddow's are the world.
	Scumbags. It's transparently obvious on its face.
	All right.
	Now what we are going to do, however, we are going to go to the vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty because there's going to be the premiere of a documentary.
	I'm going to have to do this while I do the stream here.
	I need to set up a link so that Jake Lang is airing a documentary.
	Jake Lang, January 6th prisoner, link to Locals, is airing a documentary.
	I've got to set up a stream yard.
	Not a stream yard.
	I've got to set up a rumble and I'll set up a vivabarneslaw.locals.com so that we can watch it.
	Okay. Roosting!
	Mike Benz on X cited another tweet that shows Arizona Attorney General Chris Mayers asking Jack Smith for the evidence he has against Trump so that Norm Eisen can continue lawfare against Trump.
	Did you give us that tweet?
	Rustin, give us that tweet.
	And Jack Smith is a real boy.
	We live in infamy.
	Oh, I get it.
	That's Pinocchio.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	Before we go, let me just do two things.
	Unusual. Suspects is live now.
	Well, you're going to see me in two places at once.
	Go check it out if you're not going to come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Suspects right here.
	And stay tuned for those who are.
	So go check it out.
	Share it around.
	Right now, we're going to go over to Locals and have our after party.
	If you are inclined to come, you're more than welcome.
	It will be for supporters only.
	So... That is it.
	And that is it.
	Tomorrow, Kalen Georgescu.
	I've got to set that link up immediately after we're done with this one.
	It's just no rest for the wicked.
	And that's it.
	You want to get some merch, people?
	VivaFry.com for some awesome merch and another big announcement.
	Louis the Lobster.
	Hey, Ethan!
	Man, can you bring in Louis the Lobster?
	Louis the Lobster.
	Get the book.
	Get the book.
	Ask Mum for it.
	And some merch here.
	Okay. As we all...
	I say we.
	At this point, it's a we.
	I wrote a child's book called Louis the Lobster 15 years ago.
	We got a member of our community.
	His daughter commissioned her.
	This was not pro bono work to do the illustrations.
	My wife has spent, I don't know, the last two months putting it into a book format to put it on Amazon or whatever.
	We're online self-publish, and it's going to be ready as soon as the last typo changes are made.
	But I want to show everybody that before we go, so I don't know if my wife is coming.
	Encrypta says, I am available to hire custom AI work.
	What this work is, you saw, is a rag agent and can build any other type of AI agent for any purpose.
	Feel free to reach out at encryptus at encryptech.com.
	Encryptech is spelled I-N-C, like Charlie.
	R-Y-P-T-E-C-H dot com.
	Encryptus, encryptus, at encryptech.com.
	All right, well, the book's not coming out here fast enough, so we're going to go over to vivavarnslaw.locals.com.
	Everybody, I'll see you tomorrow.
	Locals, here I comes.
	Peace out.
	Louis the Lobster, it'll be ready.
	I'll make the announcement publicly.
	We'll get it.

▲