All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:22:10
Eric Adams' Charges Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE! Wisconsin Election Results! Canadian Pravda & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the real impact of the harassment that I have to deal with.
After CTV Your Morning announced that I would be joining them every Friday of the campaign to do a fact check, a bunch of bad-faith right-wingers who hate me for no other reason than I have reported accurately on the things that people they agree with politically have said and done.
They just swarmed, including someone who up until a week before the election was Pierre Polyev's main spokesperson and is still on Pierre Polyev's team.
And yesterday, CTV called me and informed me that I've lost this career opportunity.
Because I was worried that they were going to be spineless, I recorded the phone call.
Pause it.
Pause it right there, people.
You know how I feel about people who record conversations and then disclose them.
We're going to come back to this video in a second because it's truly, truly astonishing.
And there is a part of me that sincerely feels bad for Rachel Gilmore.
Not because she got her gig, which from what I understand was actually a paid gig at CTV News for fact-checking.
Apparently, CTV News was offering Rachel Gilmore their quote, expert rate for her Friday fact-check, fact-check Friday, whatever it was.
I realize I've been giving my appearances away.
It's never even dawned on me to ask for payment to appear on an outlet, a podcast.
Holy crap, have I left money on the table, people?
Rachel Gilmore, for those of you who don't know, is the Canadian Taylor Lorenz.
I'm not sure who is more of bad faith between Rachel Gilmore and Taylor Lorenz.
I dare say I'm going to give Rachel Gilmore a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, only to say Taylor Lorenz, I think, is of more egregious bad faith than Rachel Gilmore.
And when I say that I feel bad for Rachel Gilmore, on the one hand, I feel bad she lost what would have been a paying gig and maybe, and I don't mean this in a condescending way, everybody needs money.
And I don't agree with cutting off someone's livelihoods because you disagree with what they said.
And that's not what's happening here.
Period. I also feel bad for Rachel Gilmore because maybe she didn't have a father or parental figure To tell her how you deal with people.
To tell her, if you record a conversation, that's like you're in poker, that's like you're one time.
You only get to say one time, one time.
And if you get your one time, you don't get to say one time again later on.
In order for you to feel the need to disclose a secretly recorded conversation, she's lucky she's in a one-party consent Canada.
Can't do that stuff in Florida, by the way.
You might want to Also ask yourselves that question as to where you are recording this conversation, but it's Canada.
If you're going to secretly record a conversation with a prospective employer, and not just an individual prospective employer, every prospective employer for the rest of Rachel Gilmore's professional career is going to know that she is the type of person who records a conversation and then publishes it in the absence of any dire necessity to do so.
So, no one gave her this advice.
Okay, you're gonna record a conversation?
You keep that in your back pocket.
You keep that in your back pocket for the time when someone says you're lying.
And then you need to disclose that recording in order to prove that the person calling you a liar is in fact the liar.
That's your one time.
And it doesn't even have to be one time.
It only has to be when you need that recording to prove that someone is lying about you.
Set that aside.
Rachel Gilmore was given this fact-check Friday on CTV News.
And when I say that, that's ironic.
And when I said in response to this, I don't think there's a Conservative in Canada who wanted Rachel Gilmore cancelled from fact-check Friday on CTV News because there's nothing more emblematic of Canadian media than Rachel Gilmore being the fact-checker on CTV News.
For those of you who don't remember the one of many examples of reckless, stupid, malicious journalism, James Topp, a man who is not a white nationalist, not an extremist, not anything negative as far as I know of James Topp.
And I think I know James Topp.
I've interviewed him when he was walking across the country to arrive on Ottawa to protest the COVID mandates because he was, I believe, dismissed with dishonorably from the military.
I might be mixing up the details and don't hold me to the details.
He was protesting the mandates and he walked across the country to Ottawa to lay his hand Sorry, I'm gonna take this out of here because I forgot that I have this in the backdrop.
To lay his hand on the epi- the cenotaph, the war memorial.
This is James Topp.
This is when he arrived in Ottawa.
This is an authentic print by Yves Parisien, amazing photographer in Canada.
So James Topp is not a bad man, period, full stop.
For someone to come out and suggest that he's a white nationalist extremist or whatever, which is what Rachel Gilmore did, You could forgive if there were an apology.
He made headlines.
When he protested the COVID mandates, walked across the country, okay.
The defamatory article, inclusive of the URL tag, referred to Mr. Topp as a white supremacist, among other things.
I skipped an important paragraph, not by accident.
The notice filed by David L. Mallet names journalist Rachel Gilmore and her employers in a reference In reference, it references an August 18 article titled, Good PR!
Why anti-hate experts are urging politicians to step up vetting practices, which covers a meeting between top and conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
And in the defamatory URL, it referred to James Topp as a white supremacist.
This is the same Rachel Gilmore who Projected, conveyed to the public that I was seriously suggesting that Mark Carney in his broken, horrible, globalist French language was actually engaging in satanic chants at a pit stop on the election.
Apparently, because her journalistic skills are so amazing, she didn't actually go to my timeline to see that the tweet that came right before that, the one that immediately preceded the joke about satanic mantra because his French is so bad, was a tweet in which I said, what effing language is this guy speaking?
This is a bigger insult to French than when, or I should say, the tweet said, this is the biggest insult to French since Howard Stern came to Canada.
She gets a gig to be fact checker on fake news, CTV news.
I'm like, this is beautiful.
This represents Canada these days, at least mainstream media in Canada.
And then she puts out a video saying she got her gig cancelled.
Why? Let's get back to the video.
And in that phone call, CTV made it extremely clear that this was being cancelled because of the online backlash, not because of my skill set, not because of anything that I have said or done, but because of the way that these bad-faith trolls were talking about me online.
Bad-faith trolls and a member of Pierre Poliev's team.
Pause it.
I also feel bad for Rachel because I've known a few people who, for whatever the reason, could never hold down a job.
And they were always given an excuse that Led them to believe it wasn't their fault.
Downsizing. Oh, uh, conflict.
Oh, the position we no longer need.
They could never piece together, they were the problem, because they were never given the excuse, sorry, it's you.
It's not me, it's you.
Now maybe CTV News is the coward that they appear to be, and they don't want to say, well yeah, we made a bad decision, we've now checked your credentials, and what the hell were we thinking?
So they want to say, We're blaming the big bad Republican boogeymen who are online creating a backlash.
Do you know what a backlash is on the internet?
It's called eyeballs.
It's called traffic.
CTV News was probably going to get more eyeballs and more traffic than they were ever going to get because they brought on a Rachel Gilmore.
It's like Howard Stern.
They would probably have gotten binge watchers who were watching Fact Check Friday strictly for hate binge watching.
Before I play you any of this audio, I want you to understand that this is why these guys do this.
This is why I get harassed so badly, because they know that it'll work.
If you see someone reporting on far-right, on threats to democracy, on the rights of trans people, and you bully everyone who gives them a career opportunity anytime they achieve anything, and then those career opportunities get taken away, You're going to realize that it works.
And now because CTV just caved to this pressure for no other reason than the backlash that these guys intentionally inflicted on me, they're going to know that they can do it again.
This is a direct attack on journalism, on the freedom of the press, and frankly, it really, really is crushing for me.
Here's the phone call.
That much I appreciate.
It definitely has to be crushing.
But you appreciate at no point in this As Rachel Gilmore yet assumed the potential responsibility of her own, not poor journalism, propagandist hackery, if I may call it that.
We don't need to play the whole interview.
You can decide for yourself.
This is Rachel Gilmore.
Nothing better than recording.
How are you?
I'm okay.
How are you doing?
I'm doing okay.
I'm doing okay.
Thanks for calling me back.
I'm going to skip ahead.
Really shocking and disappointing.
Thanks for taking this time.
Yeah. But I have to say, I knew that you had that troll base, and I knew that you would get some sort of reaction, but I really did not realize the extent of the volume of that pushback that we've had.
They are.
And the tricky thing for me is, it just ends up being a distraction of what Yeah, 100%.
It's a critical election for Canadians.
We've got Trump.
We've got terrorists.
We've got crazy amounts of information coming in.
We just want to be able to get back to people.
But the...
The who we're talking to is kind of drowning out the what we're talking about right now.
The who that we're talking to is kind of drowning out the what we are talking about now.
Do you understand what CTV News is telling Rachel right now?
We don't want these right-wing eyeballs on our channel either.
At one point, we can stop at one point in there, she says, we don't have the bandwidth.
The bandwidth!
I'm sorry, if you weren't relying on government subsidies, you propagandist Hacks of CTV News.
If you had to actually work for those eyeballs, you would want Rachel Gilmore bringing over whatever hate that you would be getting from the additional eyeballs of presumably conservatives.
It's a pivotal election.
It's a critical election.
You got the Trump tariffs.
You got whatever else.
We gotta make sure that we keep the liberals in charge, is effectively what CTV News is saying.
And it's really stunning, actually, in that This is David Mascroft.
He's an amazing man.
You go read everything he says, it's just out in left field of nonsense.
For all the complaining the right does against cancel culture, this is an actual example of those same people harassing someone out of work?
That's the double standard they're setting because they don't actually care about free speech?
I'm sorry, if someone is a hack of a journalist, are we not entitled to express discontent?
Oh no, so we don't have the free speech because it might sensitize CTV News to the fact that they hired a propagandist hack?
It's not cancel culture.
It's quality culture.
And I don't think that she should have lost the gig.
I think that CTV News are either stupid, cowards, or a perfect combination of both.
They either didn't do their due diligence before they offered her this position, or they did and said it's a good position, but...
I'm getting a little blowback now.
What's that?
Oh yeah, what's that?
It resulted in you getting your former employer sued?
Maybe we don't want you on board.
Maybe we should have done that little thing called D.D. before we offered you the position.
You offered her the position, you should have stuck by your guns and kept her on.
But they are cowards, propagandists.
They all work together.
No honor among scoundrels either.
Well, that's what I love about all of this.
Rachel Gilmore complaining about misogyny when the person who let her go is clearly a woman.
So apparently the misogyny is not that bad at CTV News, but when it happens to her, then it's misogyny.
It has nothing to do with quality.
Absolute... No respect for consequences.
No self-assessment insight in order to determine, maybe I'm the problem.
Maybe this keeps happening to me at every place where I go to work.
Maybe it's me.
Thus ends intro rant, people.
Good afternoon.
How goes the battle, everybody?
You know, yesterday, I started off, I said, Oh, I got, I got, um, I got two ad reads, but I'll split them up because I don't want to, you know, I don't want to do two back to back.
It might be too much.
And then I forget to do the second one.
So anyway, 1775.
Oh, say it again.
I'll remind you.
Don't worry.
Well, too late.
It's on baby.
We got 1775.
Is my computer totally frozen?
We've got 1775 coffee people because everybody drinks coffee.
Rumble is over leveraged in coffee and everybody's got the brand.
It's true.
The quartering has his own brand and you should support the people you want to support and everybody drinks coffee.
So there's no, you can never buy too much coffee.
I love 1775 coffee and Rumble and 1775, our partner companies just released the first anti-aging coffee at an insane longevity and an insane longevity bundle at half price limited edition bundle.
It's like the fountain of youth, proverbially speaking.
A fountain of youth that will kick your brain into overdrive and make your mornings less painful than a Biden White House presser.
Inside, you're getting the top-selling anti-aging coffee, the ultra-rare Peaberry blend.
It's so exclusive, actually, that you have to know the secret handshake, which is an exclusive 1775 branded tumbler plus more coffee.
And a limited edition merch that you literally can't find anywhere else.
It's a $200 value for $100.
But here's the catch, only 1,000 bundles are being released.
Once they're gone, they're gone for good.
If that's still not moving you...
How about this, by the way?
Every dollar you spend at 1775 Coffee gets you entered in the raffle, the opportunity to win the Tesla Cybertruck and $30,000 cash.
You only have, I think it's less than one month left now to go do that.
So go to 1775coffee.com forward slash viva right now.
Secure your longevity pack, the exclusive package, get a dollar, enter in the raffle.
You might walk away with that beautiful Tesla Cybertruck that I spent a weekend.
And it was, look, look at that.
Look at me on the side there.
Is that, is that Steven Crowder under me?
Oh, by the way, I'm gonna be on Steven Crowder tomorrow.
I think I'm allowed to say that.
I'm going to be on Crowder tomorrow.
We're going to do it in person, but I can't, I can't, I can't travel.
All right, people, for today's show, we've got a bunch of things on the menu.
We've got Richard Barris coming in at give or take 445 to talk about the Wisconsin, the Wisconsin election results from yesterday, which didn't go as the Conservatives would have wanted.
We've got Mark Grobaer coming on at 430, and he's going to talk about, I think there's been some news from what Mark alluded to about the JFK files.
And we're going to shoot the shit on a bunch of other things.
And he's going to hang.
It's going to be beautiful as of 4.30.
We're going to have Mark Rober, JFK.
Then we're going to merge in Richard Barris, People's Pundit.
If you don't know him, the best pollster out there.
It's almost a bad word to say.
And we're going to talk about Wisconsin because Barris is suggesting that there was chicanery afoot during that election.
But before we even get there, we're going to talk about something that...
It's an amazing thing.
Do I have to...
I'm going to bring up the tweet because...
Not often does it happen any longer that Nate Brody and I agree.
And today is one of those days.
Nate Brody put up a tweet earlier today as relates to the Scott Adams dismissal with prejudice of those charges that were brought by the Biden DOJ after a three-year investigation brought in September 2024.
What was happening in November 2024?
Okay. Brought in September 2024 after a three-year investigation Almost like they were sitting on those charges in their back pocket, waiting to file them to compel compliance or to punish for political dissent.
They brought those charges against Eric Adams.
They then lose the election.
Trump comes in and he didn't pardon Eric Adams, which was irritating as relates to how the markets viewed that dismissal without prejudice.
But he dismissed the charges without prejudice and said, we'll revisit it in the next election.
Nine months after the mayoral election has occurred in New York City.
And people were crying foul, this is Trump trying to hold these charges like the sword of Democles over Eric Adams' head.
I was saying, yeah, I could see that.
But if you see that, then you should have seen the original charges as the Biden administration trying to hold these charges over Eric Adams' head like a sword of Democles.
But people don't seem to, you know, reflect inwards the way they project outwards.
Nate, the lawyer, earlier today, and it's almost like a needling tweet.
It's like an incendiary tweet.
And if you don't know Nate, everybody knows Nate, and I don't care if you disagree with his politics.
I like Nate as a human, and that's what matters.
Nate, the lawyer, says, some lawyers claimed it was fine to use baseless fake charges to coerce New York City's mayor into working with Trump.
It was wrong, unethical, and corrupt.
Corrupt. A judge just dismissed those charges Now, I read that.
It's a little accusatory.
I'm not defensive.
I was like, first of all, at the first part of it, I thought he was talking about the baseless fake charges to coerce New York City's mayor to work with Biden.
That's why I thought he was going with it until I saw the word Trump.
And then, I don't know, because it ain't me.
And I said, I actually agree with this decision.
But it's very interesting to see a Biden-appointed judge dismissing charges brought under the Biden admin, which were probably brought for the exact same reason the judge is now dismissing them with prejudice, because the Biden admin was using these charges to coerce political compliance from Eric Adams.
It's a double-fakey reversal confession-through-projection lawfare play.
Very interesting.
We'll see if it pays off.
Now, for those of you who don't know, the charges were dismissed with prejudice by this judge.
The judge's name is Dale Ho.
And for those of you who don't know Dale Ho, he's a very young, good-looking guy.
Maybe not that young.
How young could he possibly be?
Encryptus, how young is Dale Ho?
I'm going with 45. Dale Ho, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the second most corrupt district in all of these United States of Americas.
President Biden nominated Dale Ho to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Hmm. When did they start investigating Eric Adams?
Hmm. It's right around that time, dude.
Hold on.
When did they start?
No, you know what?
It's in his decision.
Just remember that date.
Put a pin in it.
We'll come back to it.
This is Dale Ho.
One of the nation's premier civil rights attorneys, Mr. Ho has spent his career fighting for our most critical constitutional rights and legal protections and is eminently qualified to serve as a federal judge.
An accomplished litigator, Mr. Ho has extensive experience at every level of the federal court system, including twice arguing before the Supreme Court, Southern District, which includes the boroughs of Manhattan, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, blah.
When he was confirmed on June 13, 2023, oh, hold on a second, hold on a second, he was nominated on 77 by the way.
77? Yes, sir.
So he's two years older than me.
He looks younger than me.
There I said it.
Hey, the bags under my eyes look a little better today.
Maybe I slept.
So Judge Ho, Dismiss the charges with prejudice.
You will recall that Donald Trump didn't pardon Eric Adams.
It was not a presidential reprieve.
Trump merely came in and said, we're going to dismiss the charges without prejudice, meaning we can bring these charges back at a later date.
We're going to wait until this mayoral election, whatever.
And we haven't looked at the evidence.
This dismissal without prejudice is not a testament to the quality or lack thereof of the allegations.
And we'll see what we'll reassess in nine months, 10 months, whatever.
This judge comes in.
And if I can find the decision, which I know is here.
Oh, yeah.
It's got a Fox News thing in front of it because it's their link.
Where is the judgment?
Here is the judgment!
Here is the judgment, the opinion of Judge, the Honorable Dale Ho.
Decision of the Honorable Doug.
We're not going to read through the whole thing.
I skimmed through it.
I got a good AI summary of it from none other than Encryptus.
And what I love about the AI summary, which we'll get to in a second, is it thinks like a Democrat.
Linear and lacking introspection.
But bottom line, Dale Ho, the judge, comes in and is faced with a motion, which is Trump's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
And the judge comes in and says, no, I can't grant this motion as drafted.
It reeks of political Pressure, political bias, corruption, if you want to call it that.
I can only dismiss these charges with prejudice.
So reading quickly, we'll only do the intro because that's all you need to know.
February 14, Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to dismiss without prejudice the indictment against Eric Adams.
DOJ's motion states that dismissal of this case is justified for several reasons, including continuing these proceedings would interfere with mayor's ability to govern, thereby threatening federal immigration initiative and policies.
By the way, it's all about The illegal gang members and ICE.
We'll get there.
Critical feature of the DOJ's motion is that it seeks dismissal without prejudice, meaning they can re-file within the statute of limitations.
That is, the DOJ seeks to abandon its prosecution of Mayor Adams at this time while reserving the right to re-initiate the case in the future.
Bear in mind, all the way throughout this, it's a Biden prosecution.
So, they're angry.
This judge is purporting to be angry at the fact that Trump can re-initiate The charges brought by Biden.
Let it sink in and you'll understand exactly where the corruption is coming from.
By the way, I agree with this case, just to throw this out right now, because the charges were bullshit from the get-go.
That's why I agree with this decision.
DOJ does not seek to end the case once and for all.
Rather, it requests if granted that he would live under the specter of re-indictment at essentially any time and for essentially any reason.
Or how about the same reasons that Biden initiated the lawsuit in the first place?
The court declines in its limited discretion to endorse that outcome.
Instead, it dismisses with prejudice, meaning the government may not bring the charges in the future against Eric Adams.
In light of the DOJ's rationales, dismissal of the case without prejudice would create an unavoidable perception that the mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than the mayor.
To the wishes of his own constituents.
Understand this, that if they get to hold these charges over his head, that he would somehow be more beholden to Trump than he would have been beholden to Biden, or subservient to Biden for having brought the charges in the first place.
And when did they bring these charges?
Shortly after Eric Adams started complaining about immigration policies of the Biden administration.
Okay, we got a...
Various groups have entered.
We don't need to get this.
Okay, but there was an amazing thing.
As for the immigration enforcement rationale, listen to this.
To the extent that DOJ suggests that Mayor Adams is unable to assist with immigration enforcement while this case is ongoing, such an assertion is similarly unsubstantiated.
Indeed, shortly after the DOJ made this decision to seek dismissal of the case, and while the indictment was still pending, the mayor announced that he would permit Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, To operate at the Rikers Island Jail Complex, an act that appears to be contrary to the New York City law.
Do you know what that city law is?
Sanctuary City Bullshit.
So this judge is basically, you can see it here, faulting Eric Adams for reversing on his Sanctuary City Bullshit to allow ICE to go to Rikers Island and deport illegal criminal aliens.
It's unbelievable the level of corruption, and they try to conceal their corruption in benevolence.
In other words, the record does not show that this case has impaired Mayor Adams in his immigration enforcement efforts.
Instead, it shows that the DOJ decided to seek dismissal of this case.
The mayor took at least one new immigration-related action that pissed this judge off, apparently.
Consistent with the preferences of the new administration, everything here smacks of a bargain.
Dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.
We don't even need to go further from that.
The second and perhaps more fundamental reason is that the court, if it were so inclined, would have no way to compel the government to prosecute a case in circumstances like those presented here.
If an individual prosecutor seeks to dismiss a case for improper reasons, a court can deny the motion and send the matter back to the government, which can then reassign the case to another prosecutor.
But whereas here, a court has substantive concerns about the reasons for the dismissal, It's very interesting that this is now the second time where a judge for partisan reasons...
It was in Michael Flynn's case where they refused to dismiss the case and the judge said, no, no, no, I don't like the reasons for the dismissal here.
This sounds like it might be partisan.
So I'm going to refuse the dismissal.
In this case, the judge refuses the dismissal without prejudice and orders it with prejudice.
Encryptus, can I bring up, I can bring up the summary, right?
Absolutely. And I also supplemented the end of it with the additional research in context as we talked about.
So just scroll to the bottom, you'll see that.
Well, no, you couldn't have supplemented it because I got the old, the old version up here.
What I, what I love about, look, I read, I read enough of the decision to understand what was going on here, but what I love in reading the summary is, hold on, where is it?
Here we go.
conclusion, while there is no smoking gun proving that President Biden personally ordered charges against Eric Adams to coerce public policy, the available evidence supports a reasonable argument that federal prosecutor's power was used or perceived to be used to pressure Adams into reversing his stance on immigration policy.
So the AI conclusion, as it summarizes it, is based on the current argument from the judge because it's factored that into its analysis, but not reality, which was, where was the part that says, you need to scroll up.
And this part is that new part.
I told you it's going to do.
Oh, yeah.
Okay, fine.
I don't know how you did that in real time.
Yeah, there you go.
The document does not contain any evidence or claim that President Biden personally initiated the charges.
In fact, the investigation into Adams began in 2021, prior to any known policy disputes.
It's an amazing thing how they Commence an investigation that goes on for damn near three years and then only file charges on the eve of the election, immediately or shortly after Eric Adams takes an adversarial position to Biden on immigration.
Almost like it was a punishment, but this AI doesn't have that reality factored into his brain yet, much like every Democrat out there.
The case was led by career prosecutors at the SDNY, the most corrupt, second most corrupt hellhole on earth.
However, after the charges were filed, Adam made sudden policy changes favorable to the administration raising concerns of coercive dynamics.
It's very cool.
AI is amazing.
But I still think more amazing than any AI is the human brain.
And my human brain in particular.
I'm joking, but I'm not joking.
So that's the Eric Adams.
It is corruption.
It's corruption through and through.
And everything that that judge says about his reasons for dismissing it because he doesn't want President Trump using that indictment to coerce Compliance or imposed punishment on Eric Adams is exactly why Biden brought those charges when he did.
You investigate anybody, you can find a crime on anybody.
They investigated for three years, brought those charges on the eve of the election as either a punitive measure or maybe so they could hold it over the head of Eric Adams after the election because they were expecting to win.
It's corruption all the way through people.
Let's cleanse our palate of the corruption.
Look at that demented buffoon.
Where is he?
Where's Kamala Harris?
I mean, I know I saw what's-his-face on Twitter because he's so happy that the Democrat candidate won Wisconsin.
King of Biltong says, we now have Wagyu Peri Peri Biltong.
Great Wagyu flavor and some mild heat, almost 50% protein, packed with B12 creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
Go to Biltong, USA.com, code Viva10.
We're 10% off.
Let me bring this out because we had another, um, did we have here?
Look at this.
I think, oh, Anton's underscore SC subscribed.
By the way, I'm offering premium now on rumble.
I'm going to figure out exactly how we integrate that.
I've been told how it integrates, but before I implement the exclusives for rumble premium, download the app, rumble the app, get rumble premium.
If you can, that's not the sponsor of today's show.
Uh, there will be exclusive content for rumble premium.
It will all be equally available to everyone on locals.
And all you have to do is sync your account from Locals to Rumble in order not to miss out on that.
But we will still be having our Locals only after party, which Rumble Premium will not be getting.
So Anton, thank you for joining, I guess.
Andrey Tukalexu.
Kian Bexty obliterated her on X. Well, Kian has not been...
Kian is known to not weigh his words.
Let me just see if I can find this.
Kian Bexty.
I'm fairly certain I did...
How do I say...
Let me see if I can find this.
Keen, I'm spelling his name wrong.
Bexty. Says, let's scroll down here.
Okay, hold on one second.
We're going to do this in real time.
Grobert, you can come in whenever you want if you're in the backdrop.
What's going on here?
Give me a Pop-Tart!
Okay, so we got Rachel Gummer.
News agencies have codes of ethics, standards of practice that we have to adhere to.
We went to school for this, or mentored underworking reporters.
If I regularly violated journalistic ethics by, say, publishing inaccurate information, I'd be fired.
All right, that's funny.
Let's see what he said to her.
He says, You dox women who disagree with you, amplify terrorist rhetoric, peddle hoaxes for clout, and exhibit a psychopathic apathy toward the murder of opponents of your self-imposed class struggle.
Any containment of your corrosive bile is cause for celebration.
Get fucked.
What does she say?
She says that you watch this vulnerable moment and revel in it truly shows me what a sad, small person you are.
But honestly, I pity you, Kian, because I only have to experience your pathetic, angry world when I interact with you.
You live Is there audio on this?
I didn't see this.
Is this playing?
It's just...
I didn't see this yet.
I really just want to help people with my work.
This is making me feel very sad.
And that's why I do what I do.
So it's just...
Sorry, this is embarrassing.
I didn't expect to cry.
uh, uh, uh, I have to see.
We have to live through the next 30 seconds together.
I think that one of the things that always makes me sad, almost more than the outwardly shitty people in the world, is the people who facilitate shitty things happening.
so like They're acting like this was outside their control or something in a way.
All right, we're done.
All right.
Well, that was fascinating.
Phenomenal. Thank you for that, Andrei Tukhilescu.
Good to see you again, by the way.
I hope everybody watched my interview with George Simeon, because it was wonderful.
Patty F. Weber says, there's a link to Trump delivering remarks at a Make America Wealthy Again round.
They're going to call that MAWA?
And we got King of Bilthung.
All right, people, bring this out.
Let's see when Grobert comes in here.
What else do we have in the backdrop?
Okay, that's it for now.
We're going to wait for Grobert to get in here.
I'm going to say hi.
Let me go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I thought he was talking about Viva Says Sideways.
No! Allie Michael says, why are people so overly emotional in public and videotaping all their neuroses?
Well, I can relate to the videotaping all of their neuroses parts, but Look, you cry when you cry.
I don't believe that she was unaware that she was going to cry.
I think, on the contrary, when they're crying, they're lying, by the way.
All right.
The news, by the way, there was news of the day, which was to the effect that, what's his face?
Eric, not Eric, that Elon Musk was leaving Doge.
And then people were saying, it's fake news.
He's not leaving Doge.
Just pull up the article here from Fox News, even though I don't like supporting their work.
Sometimes you gotta work with what you have.
Musk not leaving yet, wrapping up work on schedule.
Incredible work at Doge's.
Complete. White House.
Musk and Trump have both previously had Munk's role is temporary and would come to an end in the coming weeks.
And the rumor is apparently that he's going to be leaving.
And I don't know if people are surprised by it.
I don't know if people are denying that it's going to happen.
As far as I ever understood it, he's a special governmental employee, an SGE, and they can only work 130 days consecutively or total, aggregate, in any 365-day period, so he was never going to be on for full-time regardless of whether or not he ever wanted to be on full-time on Doge, which I suspect he doesn't because he's got some other things to do.
Elon Musk will exit his role as Doge, On schedule later this spring, once, quote, his incredible work at Doge is complete, the White House confirmed Wednesday.
Quote, this scoop is garbage.
The White House press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, posted on X. Elon Musk and President Trump have both publicly stated that Elon will depart from the public services as a special government employee when his incredible work at Doge is complete.
And as per contracts, maybe they bring him back next year.
Leavitt was referring to a Wednesday Politico article reporting that Trump has told his inner circle It is the amazing thing about fake news is that they have to take even real news and give it a fake spin,
which is what they've done there.
So yes, it's not...
There's no falling out despite what their best efforts are to give the impression of.
And... I'm gonna do this here.
Okay, GrowBear's coming in a couple of seconds.
Okay, and...
It says, Neuro saw the actual command, entered it, and it should have come to you.
Eh, it doesn't matter.
So I didn't get raided, it doesn't matter.
There's a long...
Just so you know, what happens on the whole raid system now is that the first creator raids into a following creator, and apparently the quartering raided into Redacted today, and not me.
But it doesn't matter, we're still gonna have our party people.
And when Grobare gets here, we're gonna talk about JFK files and the results out of Wisconsin.
But first, let me actually tell...
Let me tell Barris to get on in here as well.
Ready when you are.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Now let's go over to Rumble and see what's going on in the chat.
Emmett's Mommy says, I got raided here.
Endeavoring to...
Topr server says, what if I don't want to sing the bunny song?
I don't know what you're talking about here.
All right, good.
We got it.
We're getting ready.
It doesn't matter.
So that's going to be fun.
Now, Wisconsin, the results are out yesterday, and I don't know what the controversy is.
I just know what the concerns are right now.
Apparently, we're going to read from the propagandist outlets because that's the important one to know what they're saying and how they're taking their victory lap today.
The New York Slimes.
There was a race.
For the courts yesterday, and now people are concerned about redistricting.
People are concerned about the balance of the powers in the Senate and the House, and whether or not, come 2027, Trump is going to be impeached daily, even though it won't get passed.
No, hold on.
It's got to go to the Senate, so it's got to go from Congress to Senate.
Bottom line from yesterday, doesn't look like it was particularly close, but Richard Barras is sounding the alarms of chicanery.
Liberal wins Wisconsin court rate despite despite Musk's millions.
Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel for a state Supreme Court seat in a race that shattered spending records and maintained a liberal majority on the court.
From what I've been told, and I think Robert posted this, I think it's like 11 women on the court.
Is it?
Is it 12 now?
Come on.
Encryptus, can you get the the composition of the court?
Well, actually, the composition of the court as it stands, it's 90% where there's one male on the court.
See if you can find that picture that Gregorio put up the other day.
By the way, what's amazing is how much money came in for Crawford.
We'll see if this article references it.
Liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court overcame a $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponents on Tuesday.
The Associated Press reported in a contest that became a kind of referendum on Mr.
Musk and his slashing of the federal government.
I hear someone in the backdrop.
There he is, sir.
What is going on?
Nice to see you so early in the morning.
Welcome! Well, we're going to get back into, I guess we'll get back into the Wisconsin side of things when Barris gets here.
Oh, Barris is coming.
Great. It's going to be, you know what?
I don't know that, have we done three people?
Have we had a menage a trois on Rumble Studio?
You mean a tropple?
A Rumble tropple?
Grobert, tell the world who you are for those who don't know.
Okay, I meant to say that because people think I'm just appearing on your show out of the blue.
I'm a former investigative reporter for the LA Weekly, which is the Village Voice, the same as the one in New York.
I've produced documentaries for HBO.
I've written a book called Rehab Nation, Inside the Secret World of Celebrity Rehabs, that you can purchase on Amazon.
I am the co-host of America's Untold Stories with Eric Hundley, which is on YouTube, Rumble and Locals.
I am a friend of the Viva family.
I've eaten at his house.
I've stepped on his dogs.
I've helped his children.
I am sympathetic towards his wife.
That's good.
That's good enough, Grobert.
But you are...
I don't think there's any more reliable source for the JFK Right, I mean, I've also worked with Oliver Stone on JFK-related projects, just to put that into that hopper.
I think Roger Stone is the close second.
Roger Stone, I don't know, doesn't seem to be a fan of me right now.
I was going to say, I think there's some beef, and I don't know.
Some beef, I don't understand.
I just want to explain that, because Roger Stone Uh, who is a, you know, a dirty trickster, worked for Nixon, has Nixon tattooed on his back, has written a couple of books, most of them by ghostwriters.
Uh, one of them is that LBJ, um, killed, uh, was involved in the assassination of JFK.
And the book was written by him.
And I don't begrudge that.
People do have ghostwriters.
They do have ghostwriters.
The, the, the, he wrote the preface.
I'll give him that.
And, uh, the book is cherry picked from previous research.
It's kind of a cliff notes.
Based on previous works.
It's kind of like what What's-His-Name does, O'Reilly, and is killing Kennedy books and is killing everyone.
O'Reilly doesn't write them.
They're short books written by ghostwriters that are hired by the publisher.
But I made the joke that Roger Stone was not an expert on the Kennedy assassination, which I stand by.
I wasn't even joking.
Apparently that did not make him too happy.
I have the book somewhere.
I had it in the backdrop for the longest of times.
Yeah, I mean, it's a cliff-note version of other people's research, which he acknowledges in the book, that he took from these other people in the book.
But it's not original research, to say the least.
Everybody should go check you out on this.
You texted me and you said you want to talk about the JFK fiasco.
Did something happen today?
No, no, no.
We're going to talk about it on Friday on our show, Eric and I, but the hearings were a complete carnival and a shit show and just crazy.
I mean, I've never seen anything quite like Amateur Hour yesterday during these hearings.
At one point, Boebert Oh, this is so...
Robert, Robert...
It was so why did I read?
Why did I watch this?
It's all it's only a couple hours long.
It went absolutely nowhere.
It was so partisan as to be completely insane.
All four witnesses were far left Democratic operatives and admitted it in a hearing run by Republicans.
Think about that.
All four witnesses were far left Democrats and acknowledged it during the hearing.
The Democrats, as I predicted, When the task force was assembled, that you will be hearing from Crockett and other lefty people in the hearing and task force that you so desire.
And in fact, their attacks were on Trump having nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
So the witnesses, I'm looking for this, eventually other witnesses, former Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley.
Jefferson Morley, who came and testified that he never heard of The most famous bullet in American history, 399, the magic bullet, Jefferson morally testified that he never heard of it.
Just think about that.
He also testified that he believes Oswald fired a gun, although that he didn't kill the president, when every paraffin test done by the FBI indicated that there was no rifle fire from Lee Harvey Oswald.
This is the expert!
saying this.
This is an expert who believes that Watergate was above board, and that the Washington Post got it right, when we all know now that this was a CIA operation, and that Robert Wood, Bob Woodward was a member of ONI, an Office of Naval Intelligence.
I mean, it was shocking.
Yes, exactly.
Yes. Not Roger Stone, Oliver Stone.
Oliver Stone, who...
Jeffrey Morsley.
Oliver Stone was...
This is unbelievable, Viva.
At one point, Oliver Stone was asked to go over his entire activity in the Bush as to how he got his bronze star.
And he thought that they were talking about military fragging on our side, killing your own leaders.
That's how crazy this got.
They were asking him how he got ambushed in Vietnam To get a bronze star, and Oliver Stone thought they were talking about fragging of your own leaders, and started to describe fragging, which is a military term of killing your own leaders in a war zone.
That's how off the rails this thing got.
They had a fourth guy there wearing a toupee, whose entire job is to block access to government documents in the archives, complaining, vehemently complaining, and rehearsed With the Democratic members of the task force, that Donald Trump was so haphazard as to release these documents after 60 years that had some social security numbers of some people still alive.
It was still alive.
There were 400 social security numbers released.
Out of the 400, a handful of those people Wow!
Wow! What are the biggest takeaways?
You've been digesting this, you've been using Encryptus in the backdrop.
What are the biggest takeaways thus far?
I mean, I came away with the actual codename of Lee Harvey Oswald, which is GP Floor.
GP being government personnel.
It's a cryptonym.
I didn't know he had a cryptonym.
He does have a cryptonym, just like GP.
There was a GP cryptonym for all of the different members of the inner circle around JFK.
He had the same prefix GP in terms of GP floor.
I never knew that.
That was one of my takeaways that I revealed on the show last week.
They're minor things.
I mean, the things that you would have to really be in the weeds about to understand.
For people who've been reading these documents for decades, as I and other people have, it follows a narrative that goes on for a number of years.
Most of these documents, the ones I'm looking for are the ones about Mexico City, because Mexico City is the It's the Casablanca of everything.
All roads in the Cold War led to Mexico City because the Soviets and us used Mexico City as a buffer, as a central location to do spy work.
People could come and go from Cuba to Mexico City.
Soviets could go to Havana and then go to Mexico City.
We had an enormous presence, CIA-wise, in Mexico City.
The CIA claims that Oswald was in Mexico City.
That's a lie.
They created a phony paper trail, voice trail, and photograph trail of Oswald in Mexico City because they were attempting to frame the Soviets for the assassination of JFK.
That has been brought around full circle.
They're now attempting to revive that to blame Trump and stop Trump from forming a peace alliance with Putin.
That's why the hearings are important.
Okay, hold on.
Actually, there's a lot you said in there that I want to parse out piece by piece.
To try to frame it on the Russians, it sounds a lot like what many anticipate would have been The frame up of Iran had Donald Trump gotten successfully assassinated on July 13. Very similar.
So there is no question that Oswald was involved, whether or not he got off the kill shot.
Oh, there's major questions that he's involved.
I'm sorry.
There is no evidence that he is involved.
Paraffin tests were negative.
He was in the lunchroom having a Coca-Cola.
A woman gave him change for a dollar to buy the Coca-Cola.
She has FBI 302 saying that.
He wasn't in the sixth floor window because Bonnie Rae Williams, a black employee, was eating his chicken sandwich lunch in a sniper's nest, quote unquote.
That he merely assembled his boxes to have his lunch.
It's way past any evidence that he was involved, my friend.
Very interesting.
Way past that.
Also, back it up to one thing.
And I say it tongue in cheek in his jest.
But you mentioned it to me after we talked about the latest, that document, which you've confirmed, or at least according to you, is a fake, which mentioned buying machine guns or the Jews have a lot of money.
Oh, yeah.
That was a fake.
Okay. But you mentioned to me afterwards.
Yes, that is true.
There's literally 750 books on the JFK assassination, and 750 of them do not mention what you just said.
Okay. Interesting, and it's fair to look, I don't mind entertaining the idea, and I don't find that...
You could entertain the idea, but it's five minutes old.
Okay. Which is very interesting, because in as much as I remember, I had Roger Stone on, I don't remember it coming up, No, Roger Stone is not saying it either.
Roger Stone, to his credit, has fingered LBJ's involvement in the assassination.
He is not wrong about that at all, Roger Stone.
Merely, you know, claiming that he's not an expert like other experts, the real experts are.
And I'm not even one of the goddamn experts.
I mean, people like Jim DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, nobody, I mean, Oliver Stone's getting a little long in the tooth mentally, but Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio and other people, Rex Bradford, there are certain people who really know this stuff.
I mean, I'm just like a person who's a journalist on the outside who's gathered a lot of information on it.
But I stand on the on the shoulders of And just so everybody appreciates also, Roger Stone is not Jewish and has no vested interest in protecting Israel other than, I don't know, whatever politics want to impute him.
So set that aside.
I'm sorry, did you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in position when the shots were taken?
He was in the lunchroom, having lunch and drinking a Coke.
That's proven by Marion Baker, the Dallas police officer who came up the stairs with Truly, the manager of the building, to find him in the lunchroom.
30 seconds after the shooting!
It's been proven!
Okay, and that is not newly released or newly disclosed information?
No, that's been established.
That's in hundreds and hundreds of books.
So let me, I mean, I'll ask you this.
First of all, they have not released, have they released all of the files unredacted or is there still another part that's coming out?
There's still more coming out.
There's the Justice Department files that, I don't know what's in those, but those probably are more about MLK and RFK, those particular files.
So they're holding these hearings for all intents and purposes.
What we need to know is out.
And it doesn't really disclose much.
So they're using this as a pretext to go after Trump for having hastily...
The Democrats are using it as a pretext to go after Trump and Doge and transparency.
The Republican women went Didn't know anything.
So they were literally thinking Oliver Stone was Roger Stone.
I can forgive them for that for goodness sakes.
It's Roger.
I mean, they got the same last name.
Okay. No, no.
I'm just saying that they knew nothing about the assassination.
And that's just a fact.
They didn't know anything about it.
They didn't know how it worked, what the things were.
They had no advisors telling them.
They had no aides assisting them.
They had nothing.
At one point, at one point, they put up giant placards In back of the platform, showing that Jim DiEugenio had tweeted something about Jackie Robinson, and that Trump had ended Black History Month, and how did Jim DiEugenio, who's the world's leading expert on the JFK assassination, how did he feel about a tweet that he made denouncing Trump for banning Black History Month?
That's how crazy this got!
I'm just trying to figure out what the hell the purpose, what was the intended purpose?
Like, hypothetically, you know more than anybody, what would you have asked any of these three witnesses, or what would you...
I would have, they had six minutes.
I would have simply gone down the line saying each question to each of them, like you've seen in hearings before.
I would simply say, do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald did it and why not?
Or then I would say another round of questioning.
What do you think happened that day in Dallas based on your opinion?
And go down the line.
That's all you have to do.
You don't have to It sounds like a big fat waste of time.
It was.
It was a big fat waste of time.
Except for the partisan politics of trying to find another reason to impeach Trump.
He disclosed something that should have been Should have still remained redacted.
Right. They were hammering that about the social security numbers as if he revealed the nuclear secrets to the nuclear code.
So very well, before we bring in Barris, who's in the backdrop now, bottom line, if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't do it, then we don't know who did shoot JFK with the multiple bullets with which he was in fact shot.
That is true.
Yeah, that is actually a true statement.
What do you say to Ben Shapiro, who says, Hillary Clinton asks, what difference does it make who killed JFK?
Well, I mean, if you lived in Algeria or if you lived in Chile, it wouldn't make any difference.
But if you're an American citizen, you might want to know who blew the head off your president at high noon in the middle of Dallas, Texas, in front of thousands of people.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm just too curious.
Wild, is there a second follow-up hearing scheduled?
No, I don't know.
I said that today.
I was on another show today and I said, this kind of ended.
I don't think they're going to do anything else after this.
I don't even, it kind of just ended and they said, thanks for coming by.
Good luck.
I don't think there's even more to it.
That's flipping amazing.
I'm just glad I wasn't invited because there were a lot of people who wanted me to be on that panel.
I thank God right now that I was not invited to be on that panel.
All right.
Well, uh, interesting.
So that's a whole lot of nothing.
That's probably not, not that I didn't follow it because I didn't think it was going to be anything.
Um, I didn't even know what happened.
And when you texted me, I was like, okay, well there might be something to talk about here.
Uh, Mark, we're going to, uh, Richard Barris is in the backdrop.
Richard, activate your microphone and your camera.
Activate microphone.
Proceed. Where's it going to come in?
Is it going to come in the middle?
Proceed Barris.
Code seven.
I hear him.
Code seven.
Barris. Code seven.
This is what it looks like.
I was just sitting there eating a lollipop.
Let me see what I can do here.
I have not actually, have we never done three ways on this thing yet?
I'm going to go back here.
I'll tell you what, Rumble Studios is getting real cool.
I may have to jump ship soon.
It's, well, let me go see if they have their beautiful campaigns where you can run ads in real time here.
I'm looking at the side to see what we got.
I'm not reading because I've done my ad read.
They've been on it hard, man.
Sir, how are you doing?
Tell everybody who may not know who you are, who you are.
I'm living the dream, as always.
Thanks for inviting me on.
Yeah, I'm a pollster.
You know, the People's Pundit.
The People's Pundit, bro!
He's the People's Pundit!
And when I get recognized in public, which is actually happening in a strangely consistent fashion lately, a lot of people will be like, oh, it's the People's Pundit!
What's your name, though?
What's your name?
They don't actually know my name!
A lot of them.
I may have gotten you some new business, Rich.
Just moments ago, I was on with Emeril Robinson, and apparently Mike Lindell is looking for a pollster.
He wants to run for governor of Minnesota, and I repeatedly said that he's got to contact you if he wants a real pollster.
Is he really going to run for governor?
For real?
Well, he's putting out polls.
He's trying to poll to see if there's...
So I mentioned your name a couple of times, too.
Minnesota's a tough state, Mike.
Be careful.
Tough state to pull, tough state to win.
Well, I told him, you know, he was thinking about Rasmussen and I said, I would think about Rich Barris if I was you.
I appreciate that.
Have you done any polling for the upcoming Canadian election?
You don't do cross-border?
I have.
I have.
I've done Israel.
I've done Great Britain.
I've even polled parts of Eastern Europe.
No, I haven't.
Eastern Europe's tough now, especially with what's going on over there.
It's extremely difficult.
But, yeah, I haven't done any Canadian.
I do watch the Angus Reid poll.
I don't know how much I trust them anymore.
They've had some flops lately.
I'm not sure I trust much of anyone anymore other than myself.
That list is getting very small.
I do like Rasmussen, Mark, over there.
Rasmussen's a good guy.
He doesn't poll international either.
But that list is getting very small, Dave, not just after 24.
But what we just saw last week was a disgrace.
What happened last week?
Oh, look, I know it's going to get around.
I'm saying it on my show.
I'm saying it on your show.
I'm not making any friends here, but I really don't care.
I mean, it's what I do, right?
If you're going to, if the right is going to constantly complain about propaganda polls from the media, then you have to hold yourselves to the same standard.
Tony Fabrizio put out a garbage poll last week showing that fine was down to weld in Florida 6th congressional district.
Everybody knew it was garbage at the time.
It was a fundraising ploy so he could stuff more money in his pocket before the election kicks off.
Listen, if you want to give up your own stuff and you want your own the stink, knock yourself out.
But the minute you start fudging polls, you're going to get my crosshairs because you're giving up our moral advantage here.
Let me ask you this.
Richard, I never asked you this.
How tall are you?
Five, six?
Yes! Alright, finally!
It's happened, people.
I would assume that most people recognize you if they were to hear you talk, and not necessarily by someone looking at you like, that looks familiar.
And if they hear your distinct voice, then they would know who you are.
And you've got to write a book, and you've got to read it over.
That was a nice segue, Viva.
When Viva goes off his meds, anything can happen.
You find me a publisher and I'll do it.
Laura's saying the same thing.
No, you have to.
I know.
I know.
I do.
And I would love to.
I really would.
Because the polling industry, everyone, you know, I trust the markets a little more than the polls, but I still don't trust the markets entirely because they're easily manipulated.
Why don't you trust the polls?
They're up against Ukraine now.
I mean, I would trust the polls if I had to.
The polls, I know how the industry works.
And we talked about it, Richard, the first time you were on for a sidebar, I believe I was on an island in Nova Scotia doing this, doing it out of my car, getting eaten by mosquitoes.
Wow. And it was, it was, it was, it was wonderful.
We were camping in, it was, I think it was called Deer Island, New Brunswick.
Rich, yesterday, Wisconsin, and Mark, you'll talk about whether or not there's any long count shenanigans going on.
You put out a tweet and said, this is, I don't want to mischaracterize it, but he said, this is not kosher what's going on in Wisconsin, for lack of a better word.
It didn't even look like it was close enough to be competitive, but I wasn't following it closely enough.
What happened in Wisconsin yesterday in terms of what you think to be chicanery?
They got, they just did bad reporting errors.
And my point really was that it really doesn't matter.
If there's something nefarious going on or not, when you're that bad at the administration of elections, you're basically making a petri dish for people to drag up conspiracies.
And like, could you blame them when you're reporting a county that we know is going to be relatively close county, and you're reporting and constantly understating the Republican share of the vote?
I mean, look, If we would look at one county, for instance, if I was to click on Sauk County.
This was your tweet.
It says, it says, yeah.
Oh, how do we, how do we see this one more three?
I mean, you should show it so you could show the event.
Look at that.
Look at the margin, guys.
That's a race scene.
That's a battleground county.
It typically goes red.
He lost it because he's a loser.
But anyway, I mean, How can you lose by that much, Rich?
Exactly. Exactly.
I mean, guys, that is a ludicrous mistake.
It's run through an API, but guess where the API is fed information from?
Hold on, hold on.
You got to back this all up here.
What's the mistake for the idiots like myself watching?
Okay. So Racine is a, it is a close county.
It's a tight county.
Republican, yes, but it typically does slightly lean Republican.
Donald Trump carried it 52 and a half Stop, stop, stop. She won it by barely 1%?
Yes, and what you're seeing is only the votes for the Democrat being recorded and then published.
She didn't get any more than 37,235 votes.
It still reflects that right now.
But when the first initial reports came in, we got the tally for the Democrat and we got an incorrect tally for the Republican, not reflecting his full vote.
This is coming from local officials.
That is where this API is fed from.
You guys probably recognize where it's coming from.
They are not getting fed some vendor's file information.
That is not how this is done.
This is done through official channels.
So this is usually when you see an API mistake like this, it is usually a mistake at the clerk's level.
It was happening all night long.
Again, for the idiots out there like myself, API means?
Well, it's a simple way for me to say this is it's a way for my computer.
Okay. What is the deal with, and this is a general question for both of you, but what is the deal with Wisconsin, Rich?
Why is this such a problematic freaking state?
I mean polling, politicizing it, getting votes out, ground game, what is the problem there?
There's two issues with polling in Wisconsin.
One is, unlike the other two big three, the Midwest states we all focus on, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, it's more rural.
It could be upwards of two-thirds that are actually in rural areas, even though it's not characterized that way by the census or by the exit pollsters, but it is.
It's much more rural than Pennsylvania and Michigan as a vote share, so it's difficult to poll those areas.
Also, It has a provision in the law where you can register and get to vote right up until election day, last minute, new voters.
And Democrats have always been very good at doing that.
And pollsters won't catch it unless they're literally talking to people in the final hour until they cast their ballot.
And it's just difficult for pollsters to catch stuff like that in real time.
But the reason it's tough to win for Republicans, and the reason why this was such an informative election is that Demographically and historically, it is highlighting more than perhaps most other states, if not any other state, the problem Republicans have with attracting the rest of the Trump coalition.
This is the birthplace of the progressive labor movement, okay?
It has got historic ancestral Democratic voting roots for years.
Michael Dukakis He won this state against George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988 when Bush carried the country with more than 400 electoral votes.
He carried Pennsylvania.
He carried Michigan.
He lost Wisconsin and bucked the national trend.
It's stuck with its progressive roots.
The last Republican before Donald Trump to carry the state at the presidential level was Ronald Reagan in 1984.
It is difficult because it's about populism.
Okay, let's talk about the Supreme Court election last night.
What are the ramifications for that, and how long will it take for them to—they need a case to come before them, right?
Rich, they need a case—in case Viva doesn't know what we're talking about—the Supreme Court victory last night, making it a 4-3 liberal split.
They need a case to come before them to redistrict the congressional districts in Wisconsin, which they are indicating they will do.
Right, but how fast that case gets there might not be in time for the midterms, Rich, right?
It's possible, but what we know to be sure is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the liberals on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Unheard of.
The removal, for instance, of certain drop boxes and other third party chain of custody issues was a ruling that that was it was a win for the right.
It was a win for election integrity.
And they overturned it in record time after Democrats won the last state Supreme Court election.
Normally, judicial review is not that fast.
Immediately because they wanted it gone before Trump ran against whoever, Harris or Biden.
So they are incredibly politicized.
You're talking about fanatics.
I mean, at their core, they are fanatics.
They're totally fanatics.
But let's review the ballot initiative for people at home who don't know the ballot.
The ballot initiative, which is going to put this into the Wisconsin state constitution, that you have to have voter ID.
That was victorious last night.
Also, how will they get around this?
Rich, I hate to pop people's, you know, pop their cherries, whatever you want.
I don't know.
I think maybe it's more relevant for me one way or the other.
I don't know.
But in any event, I'm telling you this happened twice in the state of North Carolina, twice there were referendums and twice fanatic liberals in the state Supreme Court called the voters racist and overturned the amendment.
So You know, it's not safe.
And I will just say this, when we get, regardless, we're going to get to a census, and it's going to be here sooner than anybody thinks.
And when we see these maps redrawn, it is a 50-50 state.
You're going to hear them crying about how Republicans have two more districts.
Republicans are going to lose now two districts from the state of Wisconsin.
They will be gone.
So Uh, get, you know, just, that's the consequence of losing a race like this.
And by the way, did you hear that at all during the campaign outside of people like me?
No. Was the voter told that?
No. Democrats are incredibly effective.
Every time they put abortion on the ballot, they're incredibly effective at translating some of that support to their candidates down ballot.
Did you hear Republicans talk about voter ID at all?
These are the, look, Barnes had a tweet and Barnes is very, Right on.
This is your typical GOP consulting class married with a legal establishment.
They're a bunch of out of touch losers, vanilla losers who know nothing about the Trump coalition.
Nothing. Let me just give them the math, the people at home, on the mathematics.
Let me just give them the mathematics of where we are right now.
There's still two outstanding special elections coming up.
One in Arizona and one in Texas.
Both of them Democrats, heavily Democratic districts.
Both of them mysteriously died within a few days of each other, Rich.
The one in Arizona and the one in Texas.
The one in Arizona is called I know, but it's true.
The one in Arizona is coming up in a few weeks.
The one in Texas has not been decided when that is.
So those are two seats.
We're now at 222.15.
If they take them both, it'll be 222.17.
Am I correct there?
Yes. Okay, because we pick up the gate seat.
And we pick up the seat by waltz.
It's not a pick up from the, just so people understand if their math's getting a little weird, it's not a pick up from the November number.
It's a pick up from now, because you had Gates nominated at first, then withdrawn, and that number is now baked into the cake.
Right, so it's 2-19, 2-15, and then if they pick up these two Democratic seats of the dead people, Right, that would tighten it up to $219,217.
Is that what I'm getting here, or is my math wrong?
No, let me look real quick.
I'm asking a question, and maybe Mark can answer it as well.
It's currently $222,213.
$222,213 Republican.
Yes, yes.
Explain this to me now, because I've heard people mention that the Republicans are going to lose two congressional districts.
Yeah, you're going to have Tiffany's district is going to be written out.
of existence, because it winds through lumberjack country, which is up northwest, which they complain about all the time, and they say that it's gerrymandered.
Funny thing, Barack Obama won that district not once, but twice, so it's not exactly a problem that they always cared about.
They care about that district now, and it has changed.
It changed in the last redistricting.
Redistricting occurs, what, every 10 years or is it every five years?
It's periodic.
What are the criteria for a redistricting initiative?
The census.
And the census does what now?
It determines population, geography, concentrations of people.
It counts even illegals.
It does.
Yeah, that's the problem that Rich and I have been discussing for years.
They count illegals, and that's why they flooded the zone with illegals for the census, Viva.
The census.
Yeah. Okay, so they do a new census.
It's going to determine population, which is going to include Illegals.
Yes. Yes.
And then they're going to determine whether or not they do redistricting.
The criteria for redistricting is what?
They say more people have moved to another demographic or another geography, so we have to, what, include it?
Exclude it?
What's the criteria for authorizing redistricting?
No, it's just based on the 10-year count.
No, it's based on the, yep.
It's just something that they do every 10 years.
Every 10 years.
Yep, and they actually do a smaller survey called the American Community Survey, which is a smaller version of the census, so it gives us an idea of what we're going to expect.
But, right, every time they do the census, it's used for a number of things, not just how many seats a state may get.
Or, by the way, that also impacts electoral college votes, guys.
It's why it's actually going to get easier for Republicans to win the presidency.
California goes down, New York goes down, Texas and Florida go up.
Going up?
All right.
So red states are getting more population.
They're going to get more electoral college votes.
It also, for federal government, I am!
I am!
There's it's problematic for on those and other reasons why you would count illegals in the Trump administration in their Commerce Department Under what was his name again with the W?
I'm forgetting is Wilbur Ross Secretary Wilbur Ross attempted to do this which by the way guys is a relatively modern thing Counting illegals is a modern practice.
It did not happen up until just 50 years ago.
It was it was argued in the past and in the past it was it was It was rejected.
But the Supreme Court basically told the Trump administration, you went about it the wrong way.
They kicked the can.
They didn't even kick the can.
They skirted the issue, skirted ruling on the merit.
And they said, procedurally, you did this wrong.
So go back and do it.
And there was no time to fix the census.
And the census would not have been conducted if Trump would have had to comply with what the Supreme Court was arguing that he had to do to make sure illegals weren't counted.
So that's why we got yet another illegal count.
So when the federal government, when the House and the Senate decide about appropriation bills, the money that goes for certain programs is going to be, it is directly related to the census count, as is the House, you know, number of seats and electoral college votes.
Rich, can you address the $20 million that Musk just wasted on this Wisconsin vote?
I mean, why didn't it have any effect?
What was going on there?
Why didn't Trump go to Wisconsin himself?
I have a lot of questions.
Maybe you know the answers.
I was busy with the JFK crap for the past couple of weeks.
Maybe you can address what happened here.
Musk is new to this.
Normally he was used to giving his money to super PACs and other, you know, the campaigns can't take that much.
A billionaire like Musk gives to somebody who then, you know, distributes it to super PACs or he stuffs a PAC with a project.
This time he decided that he was going to do his own thing and have his own PAC.
And they did good work in 2024, but I will say this.
All of the P, this is the problem with Republicans.
Every time they win, they can't, they don't, They don't govern and run effectively together.
They're not very good at winning and governing at the same time.
And right now, all of the people, there's really no other way to say this, all of the people who are getting all of the money don't know what the hell they're doing.
They don't know the Trump coalition.
They don't know how to speak to people.
If I said, let's flip New Jersey, tell me what neighborhood to go to.
They don't know a damn thing.
Look at what happened in California.
Look at your state.
They get a new chair.
They love her.
What is the first thing Corrine does?
She goes and hires Ron Nering to raise money for the party.
Go look at Ron's Twitter feed, everyone, and tell me that Ron is MAGA.
Tell me Ron- He's not MAGA by a long shot.
He's not the best Hispanic voter in the Central Valley and Madeira and Merced and Stanislaus, where by the way, former Congressman Mike Garcia used to be somewhat located in until he was defeated.
He called me a Jackass for arguing these things.
Mike Garcia was on the JFK panel yesterday asking and saying- What else is he going to do?
I have no idea.
But I mean, the fact of the matter is there are political consultants in California who are on both sides.
They're on both sides, the Democrat and Republican side.
Absolutely. They're controlled opposition.
Republicans and their consultants and their whole brand have been content to sit at the foot of the table on the floor while Democrats eat the hot meal up above Right?
Up here, the Republicans and their consultants have been on the floor like a dog waiting for scraps to fall so they can lick the floor with their bare toes.
Let me reiterate my prediction of October 2024.
Kamala Harris will be the governor of the state of California.
I said it, people mocked me at the time.
This is a 40 million person state.
Of course she's a shoo-in.
I said it back in October.
People were laughing at me.
There's no opposition to her at this point.
You're right.
Jeez Louise.
Grobert, you're saying in 2026 Kamala's going to be governor of California.
Absolutely. Not a chance in hell of it not happening.
I totally agree.
Just backing it up, one thing where you said, did anyone mention That this would result in losing of two Republican districts, and apparently campaigning did not mention that, nor did it mention that voter...
I did recall...
No, it was mentioned.
It was mentioned.
By people like us, though.
Yeah. Not by the campaign.
Does Elon Musk...
Has he ever interacted with you, Rich?
Does he know who you are?
No. No.
Well, I mean, I'm sure he knows who I am.
I mean, I don't mean to float myself, but no, he's never interacted.
He's never picked up a phone.
His organization did knock on my door and asked me to vote.
Back in November, which was good.
I mean, I was like, fine, at least somebody knocked on the door.
So what happens now?
The Republicans are going to lose two districts, congressional districts in Wisconsin.
Well, they need a case, just so Rich was alluding to.
But they're going to find one, Mark.
They're going to find a case.
They're going to find a case lightning quick about redistricting.
Tiffany's not there.
They will vote four to three in favor of redistricting, and then they will redistrict, and then the Republicans will lose two House seats.
What are the consequences of that?
Because I've heard a lot of...
Two House seats!
That's the consequence.
It's the majority.
Yeah. It's the majority.
Because you have one...
and Dave, you got one bad midterm election cycle.
The wind blows against you.
Yeah. You can't even suffer that, let alone two seats that you lose.
That's why Stefanik, in the stupidest thing I've ever heard, was when he appointed her, I screamed bloody murder to send her to the UN!
And now he's woken up and brought her back!
They should never have appointed anyone!
Of course!
It's absurd!
I learned that when I was 15 years old!
You don't take anyone from a seat and give them a glorified position, when you could take anybody and make them UN Secretary.
Let's make you ambassador to Budapest.
To Budapest!
Who cares?
He's one of the House of Representatives!
What was the rationale of that?
Was it a favor to Stefanik, who wanted that because it's a lost position?
Yes, she wanted out of the House and she wanted to be in New York.
She wanted to be at the UN.
You could live on the Upper East Side.
You can have a nice life.
It's who you meet, Mark.
You know that.
That was a gift.
You had a 20-seat to 30-seat majority, you can do stuff like that.
When you have a 2 or 3-seat majority, it's suicide.
Yeah. Gentlemen, can I continue to pick your brains over at Locals exclusively and those who aren't as particular?
Absolutely! What a week here!
Okay, this is going to be good.
Can I get a deep break?
No, no, I got so many, it's amazing.
So we're going to go right into it.
No, you can't add a brief before you go, though.
No, I'm not doing two.
I did one today.
We got enough.
Who is that guy, by the way?
That's Encryptus.
That is the Rogan Jamie to the Viva Encryptus.
Cool. Does he live in your house?
That's your Laura.
He lives in my brain.
I hear him.
Encryptus Magazine is amazing.
Now what I'm going to do, hold on a second.
I'm just going to go get the...
I'm going to go get it.
You guys are going to go raid.
If you want to do it, you're going to go raid Kim Iverson.
And if you don't, come to Viva Barnes.
Like this raid and rich before what we have the crowd who where can people find you grow bear?
Where can people find you?
Go ahead rich people's pundit dot locals comm I'm everywhere but locals is it as you guys know people's pundit dot locals dot-com No apostrophe.
It's people's no apostrophe pundits.
That's right dot locals.com.
Yes Robert At Lord Buckley, L-O-R-D-B-U-C-K-L-Y on X, at Lord Buckley, and then on America's Untold Stories, America's with an apostrophe, Untold Stories, with Eric Hundley on Locals, unstructured.locals.com, Rumble, right here, and also on ComiTube, Fridays and Tuesdays at 5.30 p.m. Eastern.
Booyah! And now we're going to go take all the questions that our Locals community has because I know they're going to have more because they're smarter than me and definitely more well-versed in American political system.
Updating people.
I'll be live, what day is it today?
Is it Wednesday or Thursday?
It's Wednesday.
Tomorrow I'll be on with Crowder in the morning and then I'll be on my, we'll have our four o'clock show and shorts and whatever.
▲
Export Selection