Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 9, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:34:24

Deported for a Turn Signal? Ivan Raiklin SUED Along with CIA! Canadian Propaganda & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Not knowing if you can hear my voice, we shall start today's episode with a follow-up from a story of the other day.
	The two women who taunted a man who was running late, apparently, for his plane, have been fired.
	Let me just make sure that the volume is not blisteringly loud to blow out your eardrums You're gonna check me in I bet you we won't I paid for a ticket.
	I just said that I would pay the $25.
	And you thought you were going to get on your fly.
	And you thought you were going to get on your fly.
	I literally paid for a ticket.
	I'm here 30 minutes.
	I'm here 30 minutes before my flight and they're not letting me check in.
	You're about to let me check in.
	You're about to let me check in.
	We don't need to watch this whole thing again.
	You ain't gonna let me check in.
	Make me check you in.
	You literally work for a company that I bought a plane ticket for.
	I'm here 30 minutes before the flight.
	Can you please leave, sir?
	No.
	Can you please leave my personal space?
	I'm not in your personal space.
	This is not- We don't have to play the whole thing.
	I want to highlight- They're not letting me check in.
	There was a guy at the end.
	This guy right down here.
	What did he just say?
	For no reason whatsoever.
	This guy right here.
	You said you're never flying the airline again, so we figured we might as well help you out.
	TMZ is reporting, and this is not cancel culture, people.
	Call me the sissy Canadian that I know some of you are going to call me.
	I feel bad for these people.
	I don't know if all three of them were fired.
	TMZ is reporting that a couple gate agents, a couple of gate agents got terminated from their gigs with hashtag Frontier Airlines after mocking a customer who was trying to check in for his flight, getting the boot after video of their tense exchange went What I want to see in that story, I just want to see if there were any references to the interwebs.
	Let me just see something here.
	No, good.
	So long as I'm not referenced in the article, because we put that on blast.
	Not so that people can get fired just because, first of all, it was hilariously ridiculous.
	Did both of them?
	Footage circulating online shows Frontier customer trying to check into their counter.
	Yet, things go south when he mentions, the agents mention a $25 fee to check in with them in person.
	The guy balks at the fee.
	And you thought you were going to get that flight.
	Okay.
	He had already whipped out his phone to document the incident last Friday and the gate agents start recording him too.
	And things get nasty.
	Frontier Airlines tells TMZ, we are aware of what have occurred and been directly in touch with the customer.
	The individuals in question who work for a third-party contractor are no longer associated with Frontier account.
	The individuals in question.
	Is that all three of them?
	Because all three of them deserve to be fired.
	And not out of cancel culture, people.
	Out of...
	Not even consequence culture.
	If you're not going to do the job that you're hired to do and you're going to make the company for which you are working or with which you are associated, you're going to make them look bad to the point where they are being mocked nationally and internationally, expect to lose your job.
	All right, people.
	As you can clearly tell, I'm on the road.
	I'm in a very fancy hotel.
	There was not even the option to upgrade for fast internet, so I hope that it's going to be good enough.
	You can see the cherry bag luggage in the back.
	Something is asymmetrical here, and it's driving me just a little crazy.
	I gotta say it like this.
	We've got one hell of a show today, so don't be deterred by the backdrop.
	We've got Ivan Raiklin back on the show.
	If you don't know who he is, he's gonna introduce himself.
	His nickname is the Deep State Marauder.
	And I was gonna start off this show with...
	That Canadian singer who made it onto a show, I forget what it was called, for his amazing rendition of Marauder.
	Canadian musician had, you know, battled drugs and, you know, as many did, passed away from overdose during COVID as a result of the circumstances of Canada and the world.
	I didn't want to start off on a bad note.
	If you have not heard the song Marauder by Jesse, I'm going to forget his last name, but I'm going to get it in a second.
	Go look it up.
	Ivan Raiklin is nicknamed the Deep State Marauder.
	The irony is that I noticed when I put up a tweet with Ivan Raiklin, a bunch of people refer to him as Deep State.
	Those accounts typically are either newly created accounts, accounts with numbers at the end of their names, or just, you know, trolls.
	If you don't know who Ivan Raiklin is, go back and watch the interview that I did with him a while back.
	I forget when it was, but I remember where Ivan was, and it was amazing.
	As far as I can tell, is wicked smart, hella dogged, and he's someone you'd want to have as a friend and an ally, and certainly not as an enemy.
	And he's got an amazing story, which, I mean, it's not flying under the radar because it's a breaking story, but we're going to put it on blast because Ivan is being sued as a co-defendant, along with the CIA, by a woman...
	He's going to mention all the details, but a woman who claims that she got terminated and defamed as a result of Ivan Raiklin putting on blast that she was responsible for what Ivan refers to as an illegal criminal mandating of the COVID jab and had been offered apparently a gig with the CIA.
	Ivan put this gig on blast, and it seems that the gig that this woman had with the CIA is no longer a gig that she has with the CIA.
	And now she's suing a whole slew of people.
	I'm not sure if Laura Loomer is in the lawsuit, but Ivan's going to talk about it.
	I tweeted out a 30-minute video that Ivan did something of a press conference outside the courthouse.
	If you didn't watch that...
	You might have a bit of a sharp learning curve, but we're going to let Ivan explain what's going on.
	Share the link around.
	Rumble has been having its problems today, and I only started on YouTube as a backup just in case there was a problem and we needed to communicate with the world.
	So I'm going to end this on YouTube in a matter of minutes because Commitube does not deserve our presence.
	Rumble has been under a DDoS attack, which is a denial of service, direct denial of service in cryptos.
	Distributed denial.
	Distributed.
	Denial of service.
	And for those...
	Encryptus, we need to have an avatar when you pop up so that people don't think the voice of God has just descended.
	There we go.
	Encryptus is the backstage helping hand to Viva.
	AgentGuru underscore IO on Twitter.
	Encryptus in our wonderful Locals community.
	Directed, no, distributed denial of service.
	Basically overwhelming the servers so that they can't do their functions.
	But it looks like we're doing pretty good.
	Share the link around.
	Let everybody know what's going on.
	Commitube, we're going to be done in about two minutes after Ivan pops in, gives his introduction, and then if you want to watch it, you can come on over to Rumble.
	Ivan, sir, you can enable your camera and your microphone as soon as you feel comfortable.
	Get your shirt on.
	Look at this, man.
	Dude, how's it going?
	I'm doing excellent.
	Thank you for having me back on.
	First of all, it's funny.
	Have we met in person ever?
	It feels like we haven't.
	I don't think we've ever met.
	I was trying to make it in a studio down in Florida last time, but it just didn't work out due to timing, so not yet.
	We're going to do it.
	Ivan, I don't know if I asked you the last time.
	You look like you're in incredible shape.
	Have you ever done any mixed martial arts fighting type stuff?
	I try to, at most, do exercise at least once a year.
	Sometimes I'm lucky and I do it once a month.
	And I'm going to Google while you're talking because there's a UFC fighter that you are the spitting image of.
	I totally forget his name.
	Yeah, his name is Georges St-Pierre.
	No, no, no.
	It's not GSP.
	There's another one.
	And Ivan, before we get started, how tall are you?
	So a lot of people think that I'm 3 '2".
	I'm a little bit taller than that.
	I'm just 5 '7".
	You're an inch and a half taller than me.
	It's like, no matter who I find, still taller than me.
	Ivan, I tried to do my best to introduce you, you know, the deep state marauder.
	I think everybody knows who you are in the chat.
	But give them the 30,000-foot overview before we briefly summarize our last interview and then we get into what the hell you are being pulled into now.
	Yeah, let me just start off and say this is what they claim.
	This was the CIA attorney's response.
	And then I'm also going to add what...
	Reality is, okay?
	And then I have receipts to back it all up.
	So here's kind of what happened.
	So last Friday, Terry Adirim, who used to be the person at DOD, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Policy, and she was the one that wrote what's called the Implementation Memo.
	So Lloyd Austin wrote the mandate, but it only mandated the FDA-approved jabs, or vaccines, I should say.
	She took it upon herself, along with whoever was in the staffing process, which we're about to find out, who was all involved in that deliberative process, to then write a memorandum dated September 17th of 2021.
	It's actually right here.
	Which basically said, mandatory vaccination of service members using the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 and Comirnaty.
	COVID-19 vaccines.
	Now, the Comirnaty one was the FDA-approved one, but the BioNTech one was the emergency use authorized product.
	Problem with that, though, is also the one that was labeled Comirnaty was never produced.
	So she wrote this memo saying that you have to take something, and the only one available was the emergency use one.
	Me and my closest, I don't know, at that time, hundreds to thousands and tens of thousands of friends, now millions, said that that was unlawful.
	And we've been litigating it throughout different courts and venues throughout the years.
	So...
	If I may stop you periodically because you suffer from presumed knowledge of those watching.
	The woman whose name you mentioned, say it again.
	Terry Adirim.
	T-E-R-R-Y.
	And I wrote a substat called Ending the Reign of Terry.
	Obviously, I had to write it that way instead of the Reign of Terror.
	So, A-D-I-R-I-M.
	And her ex-account is TerryAdiramMD.
	And by the way, after I did my Roseanne Barr interview mentioning that we have all of her Twitter DMs and communications, she nuked her account.
	But her account is back.
	And it's kind of behind, you know, the protected account because she doesn't want people looking in there.
	And now she's on Blue Sky, of course.
	What was her function in 2021 when she was mandating this jab and for whom was she mandating it?
	Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
	And it was mandating that everybody in the Department of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, everybody, right?
	That needed to go ahead and take the jab.
	The Emergency Use Authorized Jab.
	And for those that don't know the legal distinctions of this.
	You cannot do that absent a presidential waiver in writing where it doesn't require informed consent and you can be compelled to take the jab.
	So because there was no in writing waiver by the president, in writing, right?
	She basically took it upon herself under her own authority to write what now is known as an unlawful order.
	And the reason why I say it's unlawful, and that's what she claims is defamatory, It's actually, as of two days ago, May 7th, you got something right here that says this was an unlawful order.
	And this is written by the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
	Quote, Department of Defense has since rescinded coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19 vaccination mandate, which was unlawful as implemented.
	and an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on service members.
	As soon as that was written, May 7th, that literally officially agrees with what I've been arguing in my closest million friends, that this was unlawful.
	Meaning, her actual memo that she's on the bottom line signing the implementation memo.
	Does that make sense so far?
	It makes sense.
	Barnes and I had discussed this at length, that what they had approved under the EUA...
	Was not what was being delivered to the general public in so far as – and I think it was Comornati that was approved and what was being delivered to the general public was not Comornati or is it the other way around?
	Exactly.
	Comornati was what the BLA licensing was for under the August 23rd – yeah, August 23rd of 2021 FDA approval letter, but it was never produced.
	Like it never went into a production cycle for them to be distributed.
	For people to be forced injected.
	That would have been a lawful forced injection.
	But they never produced it.
	It was a bait and switch.
	And they forced the Pfizer-BioNTech, which was under EUA.
	Another thing to consider is, once you have an FDA approval, you can't use the EUA.
	Because on a particular issue.
	But that's going into other things.
	Bottom line here, she was the author of what is called now, according to the USD, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel Righteous, Unlawful as Implemented, known as the Terry Adirum Implementation Letter.
	And I had to label.
	So she mandates this for all Department of Defense employees back in 2021.
	You either do it or you're terminated.
	Correct.
	And what was your position?
	What were you doing back in 2021?
	I was dual-headed.
	I was a contractor at the Defense Intelligence Agency teaching intelligence analysis and other courses at the Joint Military Intelligence Training Center.
	And so I would have fallen under that illegal mandate as a contractor.
	And I would have fallen under that illegal mandate even more so for service members because I was in the U.S. Army Reserves as a technology scout in Silicon Valley.
	So I was kind of bi-coastal in two different capacities.
	And so that's where I come into play.
	And it becomes personal to make sure that I can lead the effort with some other leaders to hold the necessary people to account.
	Now that's the kind of like background and backstory.
	The question is, why is she suing me?
	Right?
	Now, there are a number of parties to this lawsuit, and it's a hybrid lawsuit, tortious interference, defamation.
	Seven counts.
	Three of those counts are against the Central Intelligence Agency for firing her, and then the other four are against me.
	One is defamation.
	She thinks that my statements were false.
	Well, a defense to defamation is truth.
	And I just showed you how truthful my statements were, that she's criminally liable for her actions.
	I call it, this memo resulted in the DNA mutilation of thousands, if not tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands.
	Because guess what?
	The Pfizer and the Moderna variants were mRNA vaccines.
	Translation for a layperson like myself, that seems to me like a modification of your RNA, which is your DNA, also known as mutilation.
	So mass mutilation, and then also it resulted in injuries and deaths.
	So I would consider, I mean, at what point would somebody consider it to be genocidal?
	You know, if you have two deaths, three, five, ten, twenty, right?
	So anyway, in December of 2024 of last year, this lady files, or not files, but posts on LinkedIn.
	I'm happy to share that I'm starting a new position as senior executive at U.S. federal government.
	Okay?
	122 comments, two reposts.
	One of those reposts is mine with the smiley face after I found out that she was fired.
	Well, I'm getting ahead of myself.
	So think of the timeline here.
	Four months ago, December, or more than four months, she is taking on a new position.
	She doesn't say it's CIA.
	I went and do a search query to find out where is this lady going?
	Now, if she worked at the Pentagon, probably lives in the D.C. metro area still, would be my assumption, right?
	I think most people would say that as a fair assumption, because the Pentagon is in Northern Virginia.
	And then I thought to myself, okay, let me search.
	Usually when you're in a senior executive position like that, there'll be some sort of document behind it, such as in one of the federal newspapers or online journals, or some public announcement at the agency upon which you were hired.
	Well, there was nothing to show for that.
	No sort of that.
	So then it begs the question, as a person from the Northern Virginia area, as someone with 25 years experience in the national security apparatus, my assumption is you're going to be at the CIA.
	And so that leads us to the tweet that she claims was the proof that someone leaked to me that she worked at the CIA.
	Before you even get there, she announces that she's got a new job.
	This is in December.
	This is after Trump gets elected, but before he takes office.
	She gets what turns out to be a job or an offer.
	I don't mean to laugh at other people's misfortune, but I also don't have much forgiveness for people who partook in that mass human experimentation.
	She gets a job under the former administration because Trump has not yet taken Yes.
	And it turns out that she actually has this offer or job within the CIA.
	She doesn't say it's from the CIA.
	She posts on her LinkedIn that it's just at the U.S. government, if you can see it up at top there.
	Which is still interesting.
	It's the outgoing administration is making new hires before they leave, you know, come inauguration.
	And I like how you're setting the stage to my tweet that I wrote.
	So as I'm, you know, as I learned this, additionally, I come across her name on X. You can do a search for her name and I see somebody posting a tweet.
	Riddle me this, Batman.
	A person.
	How does a person, Terry Adirum, who was responsible for the mass confusion and deception imposed on service members resulting in 8700 unlawfully forced out and another 90,000 disenfranchised get selected to fill an SES, senior executive service position in our With a link!
	Right?
	With a link to something, which that something is her LinkedIn post.
	But I quote tweet that and write, to John Radcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard.
	You know, I tag them.
	CC, real Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Roger Stone, General Flynn, Pam Bondi, Keshe Patel, Pete Hexeth, and Robert Kennedy Jr.
	Subject.
	Is the architect of the illegal DOD CCP-19 jab genocide mandate, Terry Adoram, burrowing in at the CIA?
	Okay, I don't know if you can see that.
	I was asking Encryptus to see if he could pull up the tweet.
	Does that mean that I know that she's at the CIA?
	No.
	No, but how much traction did that tweet get?
	Did it get retweeted, picked up by the people you tagged, or did it get minimal traction?
	No, because, well...
	I like to lay traps, let's just say.
	So I posted that, let that marinate, I think maybe for a day.
	Because I knew this would, I mean, I think I have a big enough Twitter profile that she gets to, you know, people monitor me, alright?
	And so I used that to my advantage.
	I believe I deleted that tweet to make it look like, you know, I didn't mean to post it.
	Well, I did.
	But I deliberately also deleted it.
	This is the first time I'm mentioning that, by the way, here on your show.
	It is – people are going to appreciate you're a man on a righteous mission.
	So you tag a bunch of people, delete the tweet afterwards, and all that the tweet does is – I mean basically we've done something similar when we think Trump makes a bad choice for cabinet.
	You're like – Dude, you sure you want to hire this guy?
	Here are some interviews.
	Yeah, I'm a little bit less diplomatic when it's something.
	And I explain why it's a bad pig, right?
	Sometimes not as spicy as Laura Loomer.
	Sometimes, though, I am.
	I'll go see how many times you've used the C word in your Twitter feed.
	I suspect it's nil, but you put that out there.
	You take it down.
	They then, who is the they?
	That ultimately rescinds the offer or announces to Adirim that the offer is no longer on the table.
	Perfect tee-up.
	So at this time, like, I don't know if she's at the CIA making this assumption, right?
	So I'm doing this to basically draw it out by posting it and then deleting it to see if anybody's kind of seeing what's going on.
	So next you get on April, the sequence of events, April 2nd, Laura Loomer meets with President Trump.
	And then on April 4th, Terry Adirim is fired, okay?
	That's the flow of timeline.
	And then on April 8th, Breitbart reports that she was fired from the CIA.
	That's the first time that I unofficially learned of her firing, okay?
	I didn't learn until she filed her employment contract with the brief, or when she filed the case last Friday, that she was officially at the CIA.
	So her argument is that this tweet, and I guess others, defamed her in her role in the jab mandate.
	I expressed that to Laura Loomer before she went into her meeting on April 2nd.
	By the way, I had no clue she was going to the White House, nor the content, nothing.
	I learned like everyone else did after it was reported by Maggie Haberman.
	Over at the New Woke Slimes.
	Excuse me.
	Sometimes I mispronounce.
	People always tell me I mispronounce things.
	But bear with me.
	It's good branding, Ivan.
	The New York Slimes.
	New Woke Slimes is, I believe, the pronunciation.
	You haven't yet changed her name.
	Is her name Hagerman or Haberman?
	Well, Hagerman.
	Anyway, she reports it.
	And it's only six individuals at the NSC that were presented by Laura Loomer to President Trump to go ahead and consider the removal of.
	Nowhere was it reported that this gal, Terry Adirim, was even mentioned.
	And then I went back after this filing against me in the CIA to search whether or not Laura Loomer had even mentioned Terry Adirim.
	She has never referenced her in any of her tweets.
	And she tweets quite a bit.
	So it begs the question, how does...
	She even come up with this theory and how does her attorney even file such a frivolous lawsuit that, I mean, we're going to get to him.
	And this is totally, I'm going to move for sanction and disbarment and move for defamation on the attorney who filed this as well as Terry Adiram because the entire logical sequence of what they claim in their fact pattern completely falls demonstrably.
	I mean, this is negligence on behalf of the attorney.
	So Laura Loomer is meeting with the president as recently as April of this year.
	April 2nd.
	Do we know – I haven't communicated with Laura since last year at that point.
	When I saw her I believe maybe in December before this – yeah, before the LinkedIn post.
	What is the – What's the purpose of her meeting with President Trump?
	I mean, Trump meets with a lot of social media types.
	Do we even know what the nature of that meeting was?
	Was it an informal meeting?
	No, no, that meeting was the one that was very massively reported where she presented some issues at the National Security Council, Alex Wong, the Deputy National Security Advisor, and then several others that she had presented to President Trump on why they should not be at the NSC, National Security Council, because of loyalty issues and some other Mostly loyalty issues and things of that nature.
	And so he listened to the meeting.
	But it had nothing to do with this Terry Adirim lady.
	But she's somehow trying to associate my association and affiliation with Laura Loomer based on that she was at an event with me, the Reawaken America event in Miami last year.
	And then 40 minutes apart, I believe, or 20 or 40 minutes apart, she did an interview with someone, and I also did.
	Based on that relationship, that means we're so close that I know everything Loomer does, like what toothpaste she uses, when she has meetings with everyone in advance.
	That's like the wrong inferences and the wrong assumptions just smack together.
	And that was the cause of her firing because on April 2nd, the meeting, April 4th, she was fired.
	I didn't learn of any of this stuff until April 8th when Breitbart reported it to everyone.
	And then I, you know, what am I going to do when I see a post like that?
	Of course I'm going to revel in it.
	And I'm going to be lauding that she's fired.
	Because guess what?
	We're all about accountability in this administration, right?
	That's what they, that's what I voted for.
	And, you know, I want more than that.
	I want maximum retribution for unlawful activity.
	And when I say retribution, my definition is the lawful just punishment for unlawful Unlawful behavior, okay?
	So anyway, she gets fired, but here's the deal.
	The day before the 30 days of her being fired takes place, she files this lawsuit and then comes up with these claims.
	Claim one, defamation.
	I'm going to defend it on truth.
	Claim two, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	I guess it is distress.
	I mean, they always say, right?
	The truth always hurts.
	I guess that is distress, huh?
	But it's truthful.
	So then defense.
	The other thing is conversion.
	She thinks that I co-opted and own her Twitter DMs because in a Roseanne Barr interview, I said, we have all your DMs, Terry Adderam.
	When I say we, that's Elon Musk because he's a patriot now and he allows us to speak freely on X. And she thought that I had it.
	That coupled with somebody, a third party that had direct message, Terry.
	Screenshotted that direct message, sent it to me, and I included it in one of my pieces of content as when I found out that she was fired, I did a little video kind of with Requiem music in the background.
	Or I should say taps.
	It's the Beardless song.
	And that was right after I found out that she had been fired.
	Is Laura Loomer a defendant as well?
	She has to be.
	So here's the deal.
	Laura Loomer is not a defendant.
	Oh, by the way, here's where it gets even more interesting.
	I mean, this is like search engine optimization, like, beautifulness here.
	They also incorporate Don Jr. in their argument because they say that Don Jr. retweeted to his 15 million followers, they argued, in the pleading and in today's oral argument.
	That because he's got 15 million followers and he's a quasi...
	He's a governmental actor because he goes to Greenland on behalf of the president.
	They consider him a governmental actor that was facilitating the fire of Terry Adoram because he posted after he found out that he was firing, she was fired, that Breitbart article.
	And then that Breitbart article never mentions me, never talked to me.
	Like, there's zero relationship.
	I just happened to on the same day along with...
	Don Jr. just gleefully, because he posted a bye-bye with a wave as a retweet, and he didn't retweet the article.
	He just posted the title, how you screenshot the front.
	So there's no connectivity between any of this stuff.
	So she brings in him, and as I real-time post while the pleadings are being presented, so Saturday the judge rules on a...
	Procedurally for the lawyers out there.
	So Friday she files.
	Saturday he does an administrative stay to pause the situation.
	Monday is the initial hearing to schedule a TRO hearing for her to do a temporary restraining order on her firing by the CIA.
	And then Tuesday is the CIA's lawyers present their brief and then Wednesday is when the plaintiff presents their brief and today was the actual hearing.
	Elon Musk is to blame for her firing because he went to CIA headquarters on March 31st.
	Well, but this is crazy.
	And Doge was also involved in that.
	The Doge appointee at the CIA was responsible for her firing.
	No, no.
	So the claim is, is it wrongful termination, damages?
	Damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and what?
	She wants a TRO to be- Conversion of the Twitter stuff and then tortious interference on me.
	So those are the four on me.
	Defamation, IED, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and then the tortious interference.
	The other three counts are to the CIA, which is unlawful firing.
	Whatever theory that is.
	I mean, I can read it.
	I'll find it.
	I just want to make sure I understand a few things here.
	So defamation, fine.
	And the privacy act violation because she thinks that they shared internal information to me as though, like, somebody told me that she worked at CIA.
	I just explained to you how I found out through an assumption.
	I didn't even find out.
	I created a question based on an assumption of a post that she made.
	And the question is the conversion is sort of the invasion of privacy type thing where she thinks you have physically accessed her DMs somehow.
	I don't have any.
	I'm sorry.
	I wish I did.
	I wish I had hers and everybody else on the deep state target list.
	But Elon Musk hasn't released those to me yet.
	Is she suing also – what's the TRO?
	She wants her job back?
	She wants the CIA to employ her?
	And how long has she been with the CIA for?
	So – well – According to her, I don't know.
	I'd have to look at...
	I think in the pleading, she finally says when she started.
	It would have been December.
	And then she was fired on April 2nd.
	Here's the beauty of it.
	Her retirement vests next month.
	So she's trying to do an administrative delay.
	And maybe appeal through this process through a TRO to drag it out to the point where she can actually vest her retirement.
	And then I think things are starting to backfire pretty quickly because guess what?
	You swing at me, I'm going nuclear on you, okay?
	Before we even get there, just so people understand, because she's been in this position only since, let's just say, December, but she's been employed with the government for a certain period of time, whereas if she gets fired now and doesn't meet her, whatever it is, pension or retirement, she's been with the administration for a number of years, but in this particular position only since December.
	It says a few decades.
	She used to be at the Veterans Affairs, then at DOD.
	I haven't done like a deep dive on our entire history.
	That's not only her background.
	Does she allege why she was terminated?
	Yeah.
	She alleges that I, through defamatory statements that I put out, created this fantastical sequence and chain that convinced the CIA to fire her.
	I guess in one direction, just because the public, quote, defamatory proclamation, which are actual true statements.
	I then submitted that to Laura Loomer, who I didn't communicate with, and then the trickle event of her communicating to the president, and she wasn't even discussed there, and the president called John Ratcliffe to then have her fired.
	You know what she's trying to do?
	She's like, she's going for a Peter Stroke, Lisa Page type, pay me something CIA, except it's a new administration and not the same people.
	Who was it?
	It was...
	Right, Andrew McCabe, remember?
	Garland is the one who gave the payday to a number of other people under the old administration.
	Okay, so now it makes sense.
	But I'll tell you this.
	Remember, so after I called out that this was the reason, her LinkedIn post was the reason why I even made the assumption that she was at the CIA with the question tweet that I just talked about.
	What did she do to her LinkedIn account?
	Nukes it.
	Nuked it.
	It's gone.
	But guess what?
	I knew that that would happen.
	That's why I take screenshots.
	And not only do I take screenshots, I take video shots.
	Let's just say I may or may not have all 122 comments.
	So when it comes time to prove whether or not this was a screenshot that she deleted, I'm going to reach out to those 122 user accounts and call them in to testify if they saw this.
	People are so stupid.
	I tell people, like, deleting tweets, on the one hand, You might be deleting exculpatory evidence.
	Like she might have deleted something that might have actually helped her.
	But now by deleting, it looks suspect.
	So she's suing you and a bunch of others, but not Laura Loomer.
	One question I want to get to actually.
	Not Laura Loomer.
	Not Don Jr.
	Not President Trump.
	Who else?
	Not Elon Musk.
	Oh, so she's not suing Don Jr.
	I thought she was.
	No.
	Today's argument sounded like he's a defendant.
	Oh, by the way, the judge?
	So someone told me that this is like a very politicized Biden-appointed judge.
	If you were to go – if you were to attend that on Monday and today, you would never even notice that.
	This guy was – I was shocked and surprised.
	Like I have confidence in our system after hearing him.
	He's trying to get – I don't recall his name.
	But the court always tried to bring back the plaintiff's attorney from like, all right, stop reading Ivan Raikland's tweets.
	This is a TRO.
	Can you focus on the TRO on the government?
	That's the issue at hand.
	The judge is like, I have to determine whether or not I keep the stay and then convert this into TRO or not.
	Can you argue on that point and stop going through like a litany?
	Like literally he's reading my Twitter feed, this attorney for Addero.
	But the TRO is what?
	To maintain her job in the interim?
	Right.
	To stop the CIA from firing her.
	That's such an idiotic TRO.
	If she's right, they can reinstitute her with back pay.
	And if she's wrong, they're not going to reinstitute her in the interim if it turns out that she was right to have been fired.
	It sounds like you were sitting in the courtroom today.
	I wasn't.
	I wasn't, but I feel a little smarter right now.
	It really sounds like she thinks she's playing with the CIA that is going to be favorable to her and say, look, we'll come to an interim agreement.
	We'll bring you back on for the next month, and then we can all amicably settle.
	You're out, you get your pension, and here's a little bit of a payoff, but it's a Trump CIA administration now and not a Biden or a Merrick Garland DOJ.
	I'm going to go see if I can find the judge's name.
	But you did mention something about going nuclear, Ivan, and I know you want to come back to it.
	Yes.
	Please, I'm listening.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Before we do it, this is from a member of our community.
	Her name is Boopsie.
	She says, I'm in love with you, Ivan, but I'm too old for him.
	And Cryptus was saying, she's too shy to say to herself, no, you do...
	You exude joy in your pursuit of justice.
	My face is sore because this is like what I've been doing this whole week as I'm reading these pleadings.
	And actually, you said I was fit?
	I went from a six-pack to an eight-pack.
	I'm so cut now from the strain of laughing so hard.
	I mean, this is a total laughingstock, this entire lawsuit against me.
	So she sued for damages, a TRO.
	To be reinstated pending the final adjudication of what she claims is wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is compensated by money, so a TRO is typically issued when it's not compensable monetarily.
	Okay, so what's next in this story?
	This is amazing.
	And oh, by the way...
	It wasn't even in the proper venue because over $10,000 you have to file in the court of claims on the unemployment issue.
	So now you're seeing how I'm going to be moving towards...
	I don't know if you can see in the background.
	You probably can't see my notes.
	I can't read them.
	I'm trying to think through what possible cause of action I'm going to have.
	So one, next week I plan on moving to sanction this attorney, Kevin Carroll.
	From the law firm Fluitt, who's representing her.
	I'm also going to move to disbar him.
	Okay?
	Frivolous lawsuit.
	I want to basically figure out what the panoply of opportunities there are for consequences for this attorney to include defamation.
	Okay?
	And I may have to go after the actual law firm themselves.
	So who knows?
	I may be an owner of a law firm here shortly.
	Okay?
	Which is only down the road here.
	I'll just appoint somebody to run it because I just really don't have any interest into it.
	If we get to the point where I own a law firm, that would be nice to have.
	The next thing is, as it applies to Terry Adiram, also defamation.
	And then it's almost as though I'm trying to figure out a way.
	Maybe you can help me craft this.
	How do I?
	I want her to pursue the lawsuit because I want Discovery 2. Like, I'd be happy to share whatever, you know, they want because their discovery is going to consist of what does the CIA have?
	The CIA communications with President Trump as it relates to Terry Adiram.
	They'll find nothing.
	But if they find something, then they have to go to the communications in the meeting between President Trump and Laura Loomer.
	They'll find nothing.
	And then, only then, will they then reverse engineer discovery between me and Laura Loomer, which will be nowhere to be found.
	But that's like the third step.
	So, like, I'm not concerned with any of that.
	I want discovery of all Terry Adirim's communications, both as a government official at the Department of Defense, which will include all our decision-making related to the unlawful implementation memo, and all our communications with those at the CIA that decided to hire her.
	And how that sequence of events took place so that we can find out who are her allies that also need some consequences, accountability, and retribution at the Department of Defense and at the CIA that are still legacy holdovers.
	Next, all that evidentiary package will then be used where appropriate to submit to the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office to go ahead and lay down.
	Charges of genocide, of mutilation, etc., etc.
	So I think, I suspect her risk of criminal liability is almost certain.
	That's just a start.
	I'm just brainstorming.
	Some people, I...
	And I've already engaged on this that are clamoring.
	To jump in on this.
	They're literally clamoring.
	Right now as we're talking, I have five attorneys that are literally going through every single thing that we discussed, talked about, and they're just laughing.
	They're like, oh wow, we got some ideas, let's talk.
	What's amazing is watching how some of the MSM is reporting on this.
	The judge keeps Lifeline intact for fire, Sarah, a doctor who says internet trolls and political extremists got her axed by Trump.
	I'm going to look.
	I got the judge's name was Nemechov.
	Here, Michael S. Nachmanov.
	I'm going to go see who appointed him.
	Yeah, so I was surprised.
	I can only say positive words where he maintained decorum, control of the court, professionalism.
	And at every moment, and oh, by the way, the assistant U.S. attorney for the CIA and John Radcliffe, completely professional, very respectful, cordial, and just knocked it out of the park.
	I mean, the judge really hadn't, not only was the judge even keel, stuck to the issues, he really had no, the evidence was so overwhelming of the CIA attorneys, he had nowhere to go.
	Like, there was, it's so clear cut.
	It didn't matter bias, really.
	Because there was no opportunity for him to allow the TRO to continue.
	Because one of the exhibits that was filed was a sworn affidavit by the CIA's, I think it was the deputy chief operating officer, that listed, or maybe, yeah, I think it was, that explain why this woman was fired for cause based on complaints internally as soon as she onboarded in December at the CIA.
	And it specifically said in no way, shape or form did Ivan Raiklin, Laura Loomer or anybody else that she alleges in her conspiracy theory, quote, they use the term conspiracy theory to direct at this girl's I mean, karma, baby!
	Karma!
	It is amazing because she sued in – it's in D.C., the district of – it's in D.C.?
	No.
	This is – remember, the Central Intelligence Agency is in Fairfax County, northern Virginia.
	And so this is a totally different – so there's 94 U.S. Attorney's Office, right?
	And this judicial district is in the eastern district of Virginia, which covers a good swath of northern and eastern Virginia.
	And one of the subdivisions is called the Alexandria Division.
	You've got the Richmond Division and the Alexandria Division.
	So the Alexandria Division covers, I think, the 10 counties in Northern Virginia that also encompasses the Pentagon, which is Arlington County, and the Central Intelligence Agency, Fairfax County, as well as the Director of National Intelligence, Fairfax County.
	So somebody like an Ed Martin type would be good.
	To be placed in that position since Tom Tillis, remember, said, I'll support Ed in any other judicial district?
	Well, why don't we have somebody like an Ed Martin or even more aggressive than that come and go to town on the Terry Adirums of the world and everyone involved in the COVID cabal from the Pentagon, which is in that district, and the CIA, which is in the district, and the Director of National Intelligence, and a preponderance majority of the entire intel community.
	I'd be happy to pro bono give any advice on where they need to dig because I've already done the digging.
	Question is this.
	It's Friday now, so you had a hearing today.
	Was it continued until Monday?
	No, they had the hearing.
	And so the judge is what?
	He hasn't issued any ruling on the TRO yet or did he issue it from the bench?
	He did right then and there.
	It was like a 10-minute hearing.
	So his ruling on the TRO is no issuance of a TRO.
	Come back and argue damages later.
	So, he ruled that he will not, there will be no TRO, and that's why you saw my tweet earlier today with that video.
	As Donald Trump likes to say, Terry, you are now officially, per court order, fired, biatch!
	You know what's funny?
	I listened to the video as I was driving.
	I didn't read the text of the tweet when I was doing it.
	And again, I quote biatch.
	It wasn't my quote.
	Other people say that.
	Oh, there's no harm in saying Biatch, alright?
	That's not like the see you next Tuesday word.
	And Biatch is almost loving sometimes.
	It was like the great Saturday Night Live skid where the...
	I forgot to mention that.
	That was a quote, right?
	Quote, you're fired.
	So now she's going to decide to pursue or not the action and damages, defamation, IIED.
	Although if she has half her sense about her, she'll ask for a dismissal without...
	Well, basically, she'll try to drop it without costs if the defendants allow her to drop it without costs.
	If the defendants allow her.
	Now, that's a great question.
	Perfect.
	I'm glad you're interviewing because you know the whole sequence of flow.
	So guess what happens?
	You know, we walk out of the courtroom and there's a little bit of media buzz outside.
	The Washington Compost reporter is there.
	Folitico reporter is also outside.
	Some people pronounce that, I believe, Politico and Washington Post.
	Court News Reporter, I think you posted it up earlier, were out there.
	And they asked the questions of good old, what was his name again?
	Mr. Carroll from Fluitt.
	Future, about to be former attorney.
	Yeah, so this guy has asked questions and they ask him, Sir, are you going to appeal this to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond?
	And I'll summarize.
	He was like, no.
	This is basically going nowhere.
	So now they have to reassess their strategy moving forward in light of the media that I'm doing with you, in light of the press conference afterwards, in light of all the evidence that I've displayed on my X account, in light of...
	There he is.
	He was quite awkward and uncomfortable.
	I asked him if I could provide him just to save him time on Monday, if I could provide him this just to kind of get him to reset and not look like a complete fool.
	And he said, I'll talk to your counsel.
	And I said, guess what?
	In this preliminary stage, I don't feel the need to be represented by counsel.
	I'm here pro se.
	Will you afford me an opportunity to communicate with me directly?
	And he's like, no.
	So what did I do?
	I walked into the elevator as everybody.
	This is on Monday.
	I walked in the elevator with the rest of the counsel for the CIA and I said, you don't have to talk to me.
	I'll talk to you.
	And here's what I said.
	And I basically laid out.
	Every single assertion that you made is false.
	And oh, by the way, in the first preliminary hearing here, you perjured yourself twice.
	You're not even in a position.
	To give my accurate title, you called me a colonel.
	I'm actually a retired lieutenant colonel.
	That has legal ramifications if you call me something that I'm not.
	You're literally defrauding the court, making them think that I'm an active serving colonel, not my rank, in the armed forces.
	False.
	And I laid it out.
	And again, he's following all of my Twitter, so I basically communicated it on there.
	He just doubled down.
	And yeah, so I won't tell the other.
	Well, what's fluid?
	Like I've never heard of the law firm.
	I've heard of some other law firms that I presume operate in this area.
	Does he have a pre-existing relationship or connections to either the Biden administration?
	Pull his bio up because I want you to – that's a great question.
	I want us together to parse through it.
	I've looked at it and I've tried to do mine.
	This is a great question for analysis.
	So if you take a look there.
	Partner in litigation, high stakes involving criminal, yada, yada, yada, including CFIUS, foreign risk.
	Okay, fine.
	Drawing from his distinguished public service career, he previously served as Senior Counsel to Homeland Security, John Kelly.
	John Kelly.
	Homeland Security Chairman Peter King.
	I don't know who that is offhand.
	Peter King.
	So he was expelled out of Congress from Iowa.
	If I'm not mistaken.
	No, no, that's not him.
	But he was the chair of that.
	Served a law clerk to Thomas Platt, Eastern District of New York.
	Military career, served with distinction, 30 years in the Army.
	He served as a Central Intelligence Agency case officer, right?
	All this other stuff.
	So here's the interesting part.
	He maintains a top-secret SCI clearance.
	If anybody from a competent authority that can change that is listening in, I would recommend...
	Maybe replicating what was done to some of the law firms listed in the executive order that Trump did and maybe apply it to this individual and this law firm because of this.
	Because at the end of the day, this law firm is through defamation through their filings is going after Don Jr.
	Okay?
	They may need to lose their clearance, the entire law firm, for starters.
	It's an interesting thing, Barnes, and I talk about this often, that you have litigation privilege where it's not defamation if it's in a lawsuit and then you put some allegation in a lawsuit, media gets to run with it, and that's how you bypass what would otherwise be litigation.
	But there are limits to that.
	Now that you mention the top secret clearance or whatever, I've practiced for 13 years and everybody knows.
	You learn quickly that your biggest enemy is your client.
	They won't necessarily give you all of the incriminating evidence that exists as it relates to them, and you'll learn a lot from a very savvy adversary.
	It sounds like you—well, whether or not he didn't know, he ought to have known, and he's certainly in a position where he had access to know about her prior posts.
	No, but I'm posting it responses, so he has an opportunity to say, you know what?
	The legal risk of him continuing this case is massive to him.
	And so I'm surprised that he actually went forward with the TRO hearing today.
	I was under the impression, I thought that it was going to be more than likely, he was just going to recuse himself and essentially ask and put forth the filing to pull back from representing his client.
	Because the client is writing the pleading for him and it reads like a TDS infused and now...
	IDS, Ivan Derangement Syndrome.
	And then when the Ivan Derangement Syndrome is just totally debunked with my tweets that they're reading with the evidence and they're nuking their own LinkedIn account because it's basically proving everything that I'm saying.
	It just creates too much risk for him.
	So I'm glad we're having this conversation.
	I'm going to add this to the list of things of pulling his clearance.
	And also, incidentally, for those of you who may not know, withdrawing as an attorney from a file is a lot harder once you've already filed proceedings because you can't do it without prejudice to the client.
	So he'll have to seek authorization from the court to stop representing if she doesn't want to allow him to stop representing.
	No one in their right mind from what you're explaining would want to sub in for him.
	Right.
	Now, there's a broader relevance to this, which you say, like, you don't even want to get rid of this.
	You want to proceed to discovery to go way back in the day when she issued that what is now, according to you, and I think when Pete Hegsteth came out and said these were all now unlawful terminations and we're going to right that wrong, you've got a new administration retroactively or at least contemporaneously declaring...
	Old orders unlawful.
	You want to go in and see what the hell was going on internally when those orders were issued, when those directives were issued.
	And this might be that door to pry open now.
	Exactly.
	I think this is the mechanism.
	So we can't rely on what I call Scam Blondie, the phone news anchor that's over at the DOJ, right, to really do anything.
	Okay?
	And then we're seeing that some instances of this administration, they're just not going to do anything because the deep state has basically co-opted it.
	We saw that Adam Schiff just bitch slapped President Trump by pulling Ed Martin, right?
	Because at the end of the day, it was Adam Bullschiff that essentially convinced Tom Tillis.
	Who's the replacement of Richard Burr in North Carolina, who was one of the seven to convict Trump in the Jamie Raskin-led impeachment hoax, too.
	I get it.
	I mean, I know the system, right?
	Basically, they manhandled President Trump to stop him from having Ed Martin as U.S. attorney.
	So now that we have that dynamic at the DOJ, I don't expect much coming out as it applies to this issue.
	So then we have to come up with alternate strategies.
	Like, I don't need anybody's permission.
	To try to fix and help fix our constitutional republic.
	We either have an adversarial White House, which we did, tyrannical, in the last four years.
	We either have a Beta Cuck administration, which in some instances we do have right now.
	But there are elements of the administration where there are opportunities, as we've seen, like I said, Tulsi Gabbard, for example, clearances, securities being held.
	If we can leverage and monitor who's going to be doing what in line with the mandate we provided to President Trump, I think we can essentially motivate those in the admin that are blocking COVID retribution for the COVID cabal, if you will.
	And it'll be hard for them to block something that the people have now mobilized to effectuate.
	And that's a longer answer to explain that.
	I think this lawsuit, I would rather lose in the defamation case as long as we can also create the necessary evidence to criminalize Terry Adirim.
	So I'd be happy to lose and whatever I owe her financially, I would be glad to do that in return for proving that the entire mandate is...
	Was illegal, which I don't really have to prove, but we can do it in court now.
	And then also make criminal referrals from that, not only to miss a theorem, but everybody involved in that COVID mandate.
	And then the whole COVID con.
	Because guess what?
	Then that creates remedy for me, aside from the defamation part, and 80,000 plus of my closest friends.
	And now that's when we can start to do...
	Our tranche and our phase of civil and criminal litigation to that entire panoply of COVID, from the Fauci-funded lab incident, right?
	And then all the way up to the big pharma production of unsafe and ineffective products that resulted in the unlawful mandate that ushered in.
	An illegal 2020 election that ushered in a January 6th fake Fed surrection and its subsequent cover-up.
	So, let's go.
	I'm all in, baby.
	I'm going to ask for questions that anybody might have in our local community.
	Offense.
	So, one question that I have.
	I don't think it's possible for the prior administration to have deleted all of the evidence that would otherwise show Let me give a comment on that.
	I've already developed, let's just say, sources of information of individuals that have access to the entire staffing process that took place as it relates to the implementation memo and every other staffing document at the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army.
	The Space Force.
	The Air Force.
	Did I say Navy already?
	No.
	Well, now I did.
	Ivan, question then.
	Let me see if anybody has got a question that I haven't asked.
	So the TRO has not been issued, but the suit continues until notice to the contrary.
	And you want to take it forward.
	In law, you could even cross-claim and then she could drop her principal claim and then you'll still have the cross-claim that will survive unless the procedure is different in America than it was in Canada, but I think that would probably be true.
	So you are potentially lawyering up?
	You're pro se now, but you're talking to lawyers?
	Yeah, so I have engaged with...
	I have insurance, right?
	So I've engaged with my insurance company that...
	Affords me legal counsel.
	So we've already engaged in initial preliminary conversations.
	I've also engaged with a local counsel here in Northern Virginia that has extensive experience in this court on the – particularly the form – just the basic defense rather than the offensive component of this.
	And that would be like defending for defamation as we kind of show the truthfulness of my statements that she claims is defamation.
	And then I've also engaged with a separate attorney for the sanctions and the disbarment component.
	So really the countersuit aspect of it, at least a portion of it.
	And then I also have a couple of other attorneys that have reached out and are clamoring to convert this into an offensive measure.
	To go into law fence is what I like to call it.
	So what is that, four?
	Five attorneys?
	I haven't even started calling around.
	Because I'm still wanting to build a bigger team than that.
	Because it's going to take a lot more people.
	We're talking, let's just say every single group and lawyer that was involved in proving the mandate was unlawful.
	I'm getting messages from them and their, let's just say affiliates, that are asking, what can I do?
	How do I get involved?
	And to me, that's probably sounds like more of a, that's probably pro bono style support on some of those.
	Quick interrupt here.
	I would like to refresh it real quick.
	Your video has completely frozen.
	My video?
	Yeah, you froze up.
	Try refreshing your browser.
	We'll see if that...
	And while we do that, let me bring up some of the donations.
	So the tipped questions here.
	Multiple Democratic members of Congress, along with Democrat mayor of Newark, arrested for criminal trespassing.
	Okay, you're back.
	I'll bring this afterwards.
	This is a fun journey, Ivan.
	How can people...
	I'm not going to end it yet.
	I've got a few more questions.
	but if people want to support what you're doing, because this, in as much as you seem to relish it, it, I don't know that this is revenue generating or income generating, but if people want to support, no, no, not at all.
	Thank you for giving me that opportunity.
	I'm going to be able to defend myself off from these issues, but if you really want me to go on to full frontal assault offense to create the COVID accountability that I think many elements of this White House and administration don't want.
	I think this is the mechanism to ensure that it takes place.
	I created a GiveSendGo and it's GiveSendGo.com forward slash, wait for it, Terry Adirim.
	GiveSendGo.com forward slash Terry Adirim.
	Adirim.
	I think I saw that it's, is it an Iranian last name?
	E-R-R-Y, Adirim.
	Adirim.
	I-D-I-R-I-M.
	GiveSendGo, Terry Adirim.
	Hold on.
	I see here.
	It's going to be biblical.
	I got a tweet from you.
	Give, send, go.
	Terry Adirim.
	Well, if...
	Have you seen that video by Sam Shoemate?
	I don't think so.
	Which video?
	So he posted a video where it says it's going to be biblical.
	I think the one you're referencing.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let me see.
	So this is...
	Yeah, I can post this.
	Hold on a second.
	Yeah, so there you go.
	Give, send, go.
	Terry Adirim.
	Let me give that to everybody before I change the window.
	Legal offense fund.
	I love it.
	Given what we've seen Give, Send, Go is raising money for, this is definitely a worthwhile cause.
	Link to the Give, Send, Go.
	And let me bring up the tweet.
	Make sure that I don't have it.
	Let's face it, right?
	Discovery.
	Depositions.
	Oh, it's an arm and a leg.
	Expert witnesses.
	I want to bring in Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone.
	Dr. Theresa Long, like every single person that was involved in the COVID fight that was at Ron Johnson's hearings.
	I literally want to bring in all of those expert witnesses.
	As I prove through that court to the world, right, of what we already all know to be true, but now we get to litigate it so that it is on the record, and now we can use it as precedential evidence for the criminal referrals.
	Is this the video you want me to play?
	Yeah.
	So this is what we've seen as of the last several days.
	The DOD came out and officially stated that the vaccine was unlawful.
	We already knew that, but that admonition in and of itself is a huge, huge factor.
	So now, Terry Adarum, the author of the memo that stated that the vaccine could be used interchangeably with an FDA and EUA vaccine, is now suing Ivan Raiklin.
	For alleged comments and some sort of make-believe social media trail that he was involved with her firing from the CIA.
	Now we know, based on statements from the CIA themselves that were admitted into court and various other admissions in court, that Ivan Raiklin had nothing to do with any of this.
	Terry Adoran was fired for other reasons from the CIA.
	But this is what I contend.
	I believe now that she is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb.
	Now stick with me here.
	From the very beginning, a lot of you, and to a certain degree myself, believe that at the end of the day, she would be left holding the bag for the culpability of the DOD in regards to the unlawful mandate.
	She was the one who authored, maybe not authored, excuse me.
	She was the one who signed, in a position of authority, the memo that All legal precedent was based off of, okay?
	So everything in the DOD was predicated on this memo.
	I'm going to pause it here.
	I don't want to play the full three minutes left, but I'm going to share it with everybody so they go see what the punchline is.
	Who is this?
	I don't know.
	For those who don't know who this is, and I'm not sure I know his name offhand, who are we looking at right now?
	This is Sam Shoemate.
	For those that may know the account TerminalCWO on InstaGarbage and the Telegram, He facilitated running that account.
	I would call him the Tom Fitton of the Department of Defense, the deep state marauder of the Department of Defense, the James O 'Keefe of the Department of Defense.
	If you were to take all those three positions, this is the guy.
	He exposes corruption in the Department of Defense, and he's been doing that primarily since the illegal mandate took place.
	This guy's the man.
	And so he actually followed this much closer than I did, and much of my knowledge and content that I've put out as it relates to specifically this issue, he was probably, I would have to say, the trailblazer and the biggest voice on this matter.
	Amazing.
	His name is Sam Shoemate, and his Twitter is Samasaur, S-A-M.
	S-O-S-A-U-R.
	Because of his reporting and a lot of people trust him in the community, he gets a lot of whistleblowers and insiders that just...
	I am now following him back.
	I'm going to share his Twitter feed with everybody.
	Samosaur.
	Make sure my DMs aren't open.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Samosaur.
	It's at shoe.
	Oh, and he's got a little...
	That's a bulldog.
	That's not even a Frenchie.
	That's a beautiful dog.
	I'll give it to everybody and they can go follow now.
	We are following.
	I'm going to DM him because...
	There'll be some more interesting discussions in the future.
	Yeah, I highly urge you to bring him in for an interview if he's okay.
	He's probably good with it.
	Very good speaker.
	Question, let me see if the locals.
	Encryptus says, I'd love to get my hands on the data and be able to cross-reference and analyze it.
	We can set that up after.
	If I can recommend another person on this particular issue that knows components that I'm not as well-versed in, her name is Casey Dixon.
	Yeah, I can provide that to you.
	I can do some amazing stuff with data if you can share the data.
	We'll see.
	We'll figure that one out afterwards for sure.
	ACJ Dixon.
	I have a question that's not related to any of this lawsuit, but to Pam and the Epstein files and what people think is going through evidence not for the purpose of...
	I don't want to use the name Pam Blondie.
	I think it's pronounced Scam Blondie.
	You're talking about the show news anchor, right?
	A lot of people are suggesting or fearful that going through the evidence a decade or more later to look through these videos that they're now apparently saying there's thousands of yada yada.
	It's not about going through the evidence.
	It's about deleting prejudicial evidence.
	Even under the current because it might be you know it might be Compromising to allies of the regime, the institution.
	What are your thoughts on what the hell is going on in terms of the delay, in terms of the review, the videos, etc., etc.?
	Are they alt-control deleting a lot of the evidence?
	So if we go back to January, before January 20th, right?
	There was a lot of pushback, right?
	There was a delay on Kash Patel's appointment.
	A lot of people forget this because news cycle changes every one minute.
	So I suspect that back then a lot of deletions were taking place, a lot of maneuverings, and it probably continues to this day.
	Remember that Matt Gaetz was the first preferred attorney general for President Trump.
	Jim Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Investigations Committee in the House, just on Benny Johnson's show I believe a few days ago, maybe last week, said that had Matt Gaetz been appointed to that position, we were already Have gotten all of this stuff and probably even more.
	Which begs the question then, who was specifically behind blocking Matt Gaetz within the White House that convinced President Trump to basically give up on him as well as give up on Ed Martin?
	Because I think it's the same forces.
	And then who in the White House was behind teeing up Scam Blondie?
	And now, Judge Jeanine.
	What are we?
	Just appointing only phone news hosts?
	Is it a phone news?
	I thought it was a podcast presidency.
	Well, I get it.
	Some of the folks that are in the White House are podcasters.
	That's a massive win.
	I'm kind of torn.
	It's like bipolarism.
	On one side, we're getting massive major improvements.
	But in the one institution that holds the lever of discretionary authority on accountability, that one seems to be still fully controlled by the deep state.
	And I'm referring to the DOJ, the FBI, right?
	So that's the long answer to unless people that know the system like myself That are independent.
	It comes down to those that don't want a position in the White House or are in the administration.
	It has to come to us to call it out.
	Because guess who's calling it out?
	Mike Davis, Laurel Loomer, Tom Fitton, Viva Frey, Ivan Raikland.
	We know the system well enough to be able to say, you know what?
	It doesn't smell right.
	And so now, like...
	I'm trying to get more – I'm not like trying to sow discord.
	I'm trying to go from a C minus to an A plus for the constitutional republic that I live in, that we live in.
	And if good advice – It doesn't get to the commander-in-chief or whoever the requisite necessary person to make the decision on this, whether it's Speaker Johnson, John Thune, doesn't take place.
	Then it's like it's my obligation at this point in my stage of life that I know the system and the people enough.
	I have to get involved and say my piece.
	Now, it's not necessarily going to be acted on, but at a minimum, it creates a course of action that wasn't discussed previously.
	To be able to come up with a better alternative than we currently have.
	Does that make sense?
	Yep.
	So I'm going to continue to be vocal.
	I'll be vocal about who's doing good.
	I'll give an A-plus to Tom Homan, to Stephen Miller, to Tulsi Gabbard, just to name a few.
	But then on the other side, what has Scam Blondie done other than daily faux-news anchor hits?
	Oh!
	We arrested!
	Some local petty arsonist of a Tesla.
	We expended all of the government's resources at the Department of Justice to descend on the one Tesla that was burned.
	Are you kidding me?
	That is embarrassing.
	It's pitiful.
	Our mandate was, why don't you go after Kash Patel's government gangster list?
	Why don't you go after every single person in the admin from the previous one that weaponized against all of us?
	Guess what?
	We're over 100 days in.
	The J6ers?
	How many hundreds of J6ers were already unlawfully raided and swatted and arrested?
	Scam Blondie is an embarrassment.
	I haven't called on her resignation yet because, let's face it, you cause her to resign, then what?
	Then we have a...
	A gap in leadership.
	The deep state will get somebody even worse.
	We just have to motivate her to actually do something.
	That's why I had a press conference with Ann VanderSteel and Maureen Steele a couple days ago in front of the steps of the Department of Justice, knocking on the outside of the door.
	And guess what?
	I mean, I'm being told that there's some people in the administration that don't like it because It hurts.
	Facts hurt, right?
	The truth hurts.
	And then other people say, well, why don't you go in there and help out?
	Everyone's got my phone number.
	I think I'm more effective explaining these things outside of the system.
	Because once I'm in the system, I'm not going to be able to be as critical.
	And I think that would be a loss for getting from a C- to an A+.
	I'm going to stay live and read some of these chats.
	No, dude, I love it, and we will meet in person sooner than later.
	Because you sent me some of the details earlier this week.
	I'm like, I caught up relatively slowly, but then all at once.
	It's incredible.
	We'll do a follow-up.
	I'm going to read some chats that don't necessarily...
	Can I say one more thing that's really important?
	It's kind of breaking news.
	Please.
	Yeah, it's massively breaking.
	You know how I explained the kind of link analysis of the COVID con, the illegal election, the January 6th Fed Surrection, and now we're in the cover-up phase still.
	So I have it on good authority that Barry Loudermilk wanted to create a committee, a select committee in this Congress, to continue to investigate the January 6th, what most of us now call the Fed Surrection or Fake Surrection.
	Well, Mike Johnson and...
	Paul Ryan's replacement in the House, who chairs the House Admin Committee, Brian Stile.
	And now it seems as though Jim Jordan is wanting to move past that and not have that continue.
	Basically snubbing President Trump.
	So then it begs the question, why is that and who's behind it?
	And another factor is, why is the former general counsel for Speaker Mike Johnson now at the same law firm that all the rest of the counsel from the J6 committee and Andrew Weissman's firm, why does she work there now?
	I'm not going to have a good answer for that.
	Maybe it's because she wants to be able to report back.
	And slow roll and stop Barry Loudermilk from creating this committee, thus exposing both senior leaders of the legislative branch of both political parties in their involvement in the, at a minimum, cover-up of the J6 Fed's direction and possibly facilitating that Fed's direction through the communications and phone calls that they had.
	And I've already exposed this for years now.
	So we're in a position where the House...
	Does not want to expose the J6 Fed's direction.
	So then the responsibility is on us to do it.
	The White House, some elements, do not want to expose the COVID con because that's going to expose right and left, right?
	Because everyone made so much money hand over fist from that COVID con.
	I'm not just mentioning the trillions of dollar bribe that occurred with the relief package.
	Basically, hey, you steal the election for us?
	We will pay you through the COVID relief package and loans and then basically say, that's all it was.
	It was a bribe.
	You apply for a loan and then we'll dismiss it and say you don't have to pay for it.
	So all that stuff that this administration will not, in my opinion, move on, absent public outrage.
	And the outrage only comes when bigger voices like yourself and your platform, independents, that basically say, hey, this has to take place.
	There's a struggle right now.
	Speaker Johnson doesn't want that to take place on the J6 component.
	We're going to keep pushing.
	White House doesn't want COVID-con.
	But I think this lawsuit in and of itself will create the necessary momentum to – I don't want to use the term force.
	It will motivate enough people to guarantee that they're not able to stop it from happening because then if they do it too publicly, everyone sees that they're complicit.
	Bongino had been on the Jan 6 stuff and the pipe bombs in particular and suggesting that he knew damn well it was an inside job on good intelligence.
	He's now in.
	He's been obviously silent on this.
	When do you start politely nudging the administration, Bongino in particular, to move forward with or at least potentially look into that now that he's on the inside and he gets to see the skeletons from inside the closet?
	Like yesterday?
	And let's continue it today.
	I'm going to say this.
	Thanks for the opportunity.
	Deputy Director Bongino, you've tweeted a little bit from your account.
	You say, trust us, give us time.
	Well, guess what?
	I feel comfortable giving you as much time as the radical leftist illegitimate regime did without evidence and they concocted it and then did the raids on peaceful, What do you say to that, Mr. Bongino?
	And he can be mad and like, oh, that's not fair.
	It is fair.
	You volunteered to be a governmental actor.
	You should be maximally transparent.
	You and Kash Patel and Scam Blondie need to come out.
	Like, there should be at a minimum a weekly update.
	Does President Trump...
	Or his press secretary do a daily press conference?
	Yes.
	How about the other institutions?
	How about the DOJ do a daily press conference?
	They could do something as, you know what, I don't even need a daily press conference.
	How about Scam Blondie just in one phrase respond to Jim Comer's criminal referral, second attempted criminal referral, on the former governor of New York, Cuomo?
	He won't even acknowledge receipt of that criminal referral.
	Pathetic.
	I'm being diplomatic when I call her Scam Blondie.
	I'm being diplomatic when I call her pathetic.
	Incompetent.
	They have a whole comms team that she can delegate to.
	It's not my fault that you're failing as a leader.
	You have an entire staff.
	If there's people you can't trust, guess what?
	They better get in line.
	And that's on you as a leader to get them in line.
	If you can't get them in line, then guess what?
	People like me have to call it out and we escalate that calling out until something takes place.
	In addition to escalating the calling it out, we have to come up with alternate strategies to implement what we gave you the mandate for.
	That's why these lawsuits, I literally set the trap for this and I'm glad she took it.
	So now we're progressing in this line of effort.
	We're progressing in other lines of effort as it relates to the, like I'm interviewing.
	U.S. Capitol Police whistleblowers.
	I'm interviewing Metropolitan Police Department whistleblowers and others in that J6 ecosystem.
	And there are other things that I'm doing that are not publicly seen, nor will they be, that will result in fruits that if I were to publicly disclose them, certain elements of the administration, to include some of the names we've already mentioned, will put a kibosh on it, and they already have.
	Ivan?
	To be continued.
	Dude, you give me these monologue moments.
	I love it.
	First of all, you snip and clip everything you want from this and share it away.
	Ivan, we'll do a follow-up on this in the coming days, weeks, months, for sure.
	Did you want to do some questions?
	No, I want to read these because I want to read all of these.
	Boopsie wants to profess her love-lust for Ivan.
	It's too shy to say it.
	I got to that one already.
	Garvin says, how did Laura Loomer gain...
	I'm going to have to change the title for this stream because I'm not sure I'm going to get to the titled subject, which was the lady that is now being potentially deported.
	How did Laura Loomer gain such political capital to be able to get a personal meeting with the president?
	Do you have an answer to that?
	I do.
	So, I'm going to answer it this way.
	I mean, obviously, that question is for Laura Loomer to get the full, accurate response.
	I would say that my observation, and this is going to be an analytic assessment.
	My observation, I've known Laura for eight, at least, I think, six, eight years.
	I'd have to kind of think a little bit more.
	But she is tenacious.
	When Laura Loomer wants something, It will manifest, okay?
	That's kind of how she is.
	That's who she is as an individual.
	I have nothing but massive respect for her tenacity and her just bulldoggedness to tell it when she thinks she has the evidence and then dropping it, right?
	Like earlier today, I put out a tweet saying that I felt like collateral damage with the tweet that she responded to, I think Kaylee Means or whatever it was, and just reading the beatdown with the receipts that she brought.
	Now, if there are other receipts to counter it, great.
	But her bulldog argumentative style.
	If you apply that to everything she does, if she wants a personal meeting with the president, you saw it manifest.
	Now, how does that take place?
	She ran for Congress several times, right?
	She ran for Congress in...
	West Palm Beach covers that district that she did, which would have been President Trump's district, and he would have voted for her in that district because she won the primary and was the Republican nominee four years ago.
	And she lives in Florida.
	She attends many events, and she networks.
	I've been at events where she's been there, and she has a massive...
	Audience and profile, and she does great investigative journalism.
	And so when she puts something out and it gets traction, it draws attention of those in the administration and the president's inner circle, and they reach out.
	There are these communications.
	So she's built a brand and a reputation of providing information that no one else does because a lot of people reach out to her knowing that she'll disclose, and then based on what she chooses to report on, she reports on it.
	And it's kind of leverage of value to those in the White House.
	And again, I haven't named names yet directly on some of these topics, and there's a reason why I'm doing that.
	I think most people can recognize who I'm going to be referring to here next, is that you have to ask the question, you might answer this, Viva.
	If Laurel Loomer's having a...
	Meeting with the President of the United States, who else will likely be aware of that?
	Who will be pre-coordinating that?
	Who will be approving of it?
	Even if it's just her, Laura talking to President Trump, where he requests her meeting, and it's on his authority, who else would have to know and then implement and facilitate Putting her on the list to get into the White House.
	Who's responsible for the White House?
	The operations and flow?
	Come on.
	This is an easy question.
	No, but the thing is, I'm only thinking intelligence in terms of security.
	Then I'm thinking Trump's team in terms of communications.
	I'm going to...
	Let me go to the chat for a second.
	Ask the chat, because I don't want to answer that question.
	I want you guys to come to the same conclusion.
	This is literally what I do.
	Susie Wiles?
	And what position does she hold?
	Chief of Staff.
	Does it make sense for the Chief of Staff to know everything and all the meetings taking place by the President of the United States?
	Wouldn't it make sense?
	Yes.
	So then it begs the question...
	Who invited Laura Loomer into the White House?
	And why?
	The chat is saying Susie Wiles and Stephen Miller would be the other one.
	So I don't know the answer to that.
	But those are two hypotheses that I would agree with as being a valid hypothesis.
	And then we have to investigate if we want to find out, you know.
	And limit the multiple, you know, it could be President Trump, it could be Suzy Wiles, it could be Stephen Miller, it could be, name the person who's in the White House.
	Because someone's got a sponsor, you can come in, right?
	And then, you build your case.
	You find evidence that's inconsistent with a hypothesis.
	There's really no way to find that out unless you ask Ms. Laura Loomer, who I absolutely adore and love her work and respect.
	Or you ask the other party the hypotheses that we just listed out.
	And then we poll the audience to see which they think it is.
	There's a couple more here.
	I'm going to bring these up this way.
	We've got Ginger Ninja.
	Who says, explain away all the missteps, Viva.
	I'm sure they'll put the info out there right after they finish up the investigation on the Vegas shooter from 2017 and all three assassination attempts on Donald John Trump.
	King of Biltong says, try our Biltong, almost 50% protein, packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, much more.
	Perfect snack for your weekly meal prep.
	Biltongusa.com, code Viva for 10% off.
	Cargo Master says, beautiful push.
	Ginger Ninja says, am I thinking of Dennis Seaver?
	I'm not.
	I know what I'm thinking of.
	I still can't figure it out, but it doesn't matter.
	And then there was one more that just came in.
	Viva doesn't like feeling cross-examined by Lee.
	No, no, I just don't like feeling stupid if I can't get the obvious answer.
	I wouldn't have gotten Suzy Wiles on my own.
	You know that I don't.
	People comment on me like, don't do that.
	I did that to Zach.
	No, no, I don't mind.
	I don't mean it in an adversarial manner.
	I'm basically testing my hypothesis by questioning you.
	I'm thinking.
	Logically.
	And if people come to the same conclusions as I do based on the question, then there might be something to it.
	Let me see here.
	Get to the election fraud, if somebody says.
	We're not doing that right now.
	I really like this guy, says Club Casey Gates.
	This guy makes us think, says Zach the Cat.
	Go for election fraud.
	So people are not interested in – well, there's at least Outlook underscore dot com is not interested in the jab.
	He's interested in the election.
	I'm more interested in the jab and I sort of – Can I answer him?
	Yeah, go for it.
	The reason why the 2020 election was able to be stolen the way it was, just complete wanton, unconstitutional process and flow is because the Fauci-funded lab incident.
	created the mechanism for non-legislative actors at the state level to pass election rules which violated state and federal constitutional law so that they would run the election in a manner that would guarantee the steal by the Biden criminal syndicate.
	So in order to prove who was involved in the 2020 electoral heist, You first have to show the entire conspiratorial scheme of the COVID-con.
	Once you show that, then you capture the communications of that coordination to change the rules of the COVID-con that ushered in the illegally drop boxes in Wisconsin were ruled illegal.
	How did that take place?
	Because of COVID-con.
	Number two, how did Arizona run their elections illegally as the audit showed?
	Because of COVID-Con.
	What about Georgia?
	Same thing.
	COVID-Con, step one.
	Illegal election, step two.
	January 6th, Fed Surrection, step three.
	January 6th, Fed Surrection cover...
	Because the January 6th, Fed Surrection covers up the illegal election.
	The illegal election covers up the COVID-Con.
	And then moving forward from that, the cover-up of January 6th covers up all three steps, right?
	That's it.
	It's simple.
	And if you want the full dissertation on that, I've done six-hour shows on Fresh and Fit and some other programs.
	By all means, I'm not going to rehash it.
	Go to my website.
	Go to my Rumble channel for some of the longer-form interviews I've done.
	Do you have another 15 minutes, maybe?
	I do.
	Okay, what we're going to do right now, first of all, I had to readjust.
	I had to go update the description of this video on Rumble and update the thumbnail because I'll get to that story on Monday.
	This was amazing.
	I don't say it took longer than I thought it was going to.
	It is perfect.
	We're going to go over to Locals afterwards for a 15-minute afterparty.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Ivan, I'm going to stick all the links up there, but tell everybody your links while we're still live on Rumble.
	Yeah, Rumble, just type in my last name, R-A-I-K-L-I-N, and then Ivan Raiklin, and then same thing on X, Truth, Telegram, and the free speech platforms.
	I don't support any of the garbage platforms out there.
	Amazing, and I will put up the give, send, go, and the pinned comment as...
	Thank you.
	It's amazing.
	All right, Ivan, we're going to end this on Rumble.
	Everybody, enjoy the weekend, Sunday night, 6 o 'clock.
	Viva Barnes, Law for the People, Sunday night, extravaganza.
	Encrypt us, what's up?
	We're going to do a raid.
	Nero has it ready to go.
	Okay, please.
	You have two choices.
	Real Patriot Party or Talk with Sally.
	Talk with Sally is doing Epstein.
	Real Patriot Party is doing the news.
	Talk with Sally.
	All right, Nero.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	This was amazing.
	This was shockingly amazing.
	I'll do a car vlog of the other story because it's a shorter story.
	Anyhow, amazing.
	Okay, so we're going to...
	I can go now.
	I think I can end it on Rumble.
	And let me just make sure.
	Oh, no, not yet.
	Let me refresh here.
	There's this thing called a raid.
	Wow, we have 13,000 live on Rumble?
	We were over 21,000 at one point.
	Let me see here.
	Solid.
	Let me know.
	This is going to get out now.
	I actually can't see it.
	I don't have access to Rumble today.
	So, Nero, I'm talking to him offline.
	He's working on it, so you might be able to see the raid go.
	Oh, okay, fine.
	Or you can give me the link and I can do the raid myself.
	He's already gone.
	Okay, fine.
	Cool.
	I know I did a lot of the talking, but I kind of wanted to get your sense of what would you do if you were a Kearney?
	I would start papering my file to say, you didn't disclose X, Y, and Z to me.
	Once the TRO is dismissed, this is basically over.
	Ask for a dismissal.
	I forget the exact term in the States, but...
	Voluntary dismissal and we all go our separate ways.
	It's like by consent so that there's no costs or there's no legal fees and you sort of agree to costs.
	It's kind of amazing.
	She was definitely banking on the old administration thinking that she's going to have an old friendly CIA, an old jurisdictionally friendly judge and didn't bank on the fact that this is now the new team.
	I'm going to end this.
	I don't see the raid affecting.
	Nero can't hit it right now either.
	He dropped the link for the stream in the locals chat.
	He's having trouble now too.
	Can you put it in the private chat and I'll just do it myself?
	Unless it's not feasible anymore.
	I can't see.
	This is a way, Ivan, that we can direct all of our Rumble audience to the next person.
	Encrypt us.
	Oh, you didn't hear it?
	Oh, I got it right here.
	So let's see if I can do this.
	And then we're going to get some more questions.
	Okay, so here.
	Let's go like this.
	We do forward slash raid and then bada bing, bada boom, confirm raid.
	Okay, there you go.
	Raid confirmed and it's going in about 30 seconds.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for anybody who's not going to do the raid.
	Otherwise, do the raid.
	Lots of stuff to watch on Rumble.
	And I think we can now...
	Ignition sequence started.
	Preparing for liftoff.
	Raids starts at 4-3-2.
	Talk with Sally, everybody.
	Let him know from where you came.
	And the raid is on.
	Okay, let's watch that number drop down.
	Ivan.
	Wow, I'm going to give it another 30 seconds.
	Everybody was guessing Susie Wiles.
	Viva.
	This is Ginger Ninja.
	Viva's saying if he were them, he'd cut the line to put it in fishing terms.
	Okay, I got that part.
	Rumble is not up forever yet.
	There were some technical issues with Rumble today.
	The election stuff, I mean, we know what...

▲