All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:15:43
Epstein Press Conference DEBACLE! Missing Minute FOUND? Canada Continues to Fall! & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs.
What you are looking at right here is a video that I might very well have played in its entirety yesterday, but I must put it out for the internet for an eternity.
BJ or PJ Pritzka, whatever the hell his first initials are.
Walking along the beach in Chicago, being asked a question by a journalist, his answer is an answer that a five-year-old child would give when caught eating cookies out of the cookie jar and trying to distract his father to look at someone else.
You're going to hear people, especially this past weekend.
54 shot, seven dead.
Yeah.
They're gonna say the city's not safe.
Would you ask your friends to ride the owl after midnight or after you know nine o'clock at night, even to come down to the city from O'Hare?
Look, big cities have crime.
There's no doubt about it.
But let's just pay attention to what President Trump is doing targeting Chicago.
He's overlooking red states that have much higher crime rates.
You're going to hear people, especially this past weekend.
54 shot, seven dead.
Yeah.
They're gonna say 54 people shot, seven people killed over a weekend in Chicago.
I appreciate it's a very populated city.
54 people shot, seven dead.
You're gonna hear people asking whether or not the city's safe anymore.
The city's not safe.
Would you ask your friends to ride the L after midnight or after you know nine o'clock at night, even?
After how about how about after six o'clock?
How about ever?
To come down to the city from O'Hare.
Look, big cities have crime.
There's no doubt about it.
But let's just pay attention to what President Trump is doing targeting Chicago.
He's overlooking red states that have much higher crime rates.
It is, I mean, you it's so juvenile.
And we're gonna have a theme that's gonna run through today's show.
Everybody needs, I'll say a father, but it could be a parent, could be a mother that gives them tough love.
That doesn't say, oh, it's okay.
You you can you can employ uh juvenile reasoning, you can employ false uh uh uh flawed reasoning.
You can behave like an idiot and all affirm your stupidity.
That's not how people grow, and that's not how adults need to conduct themselves.
That's how asshole adults conduct themselves.
And I've I've got this theory I've been going for a little while.
That um basically uh assholes are children who never grow up and become adults.
And one of the things when I was a kid and I didn't do my homework and I was getting in trouble, and my dad comes in and says, Why aren't you doing your homework?
And I said, Well, Jessica, uh, my sister did something bad.
And it's like, I don't care about what your sister did right now.
I'll deal with your sister later.
Right now, we're talking about you.
Right now we're talking about how you did something wrong or didn't do what you were supposed to do.
BJ PJ Pritzker literally says, let's not look at the 54 people that were shot and the seven that were killed.
Let's talk about Donald Trump.
Let's talk about how he's allegedly failing, not by focusing on the wrong places, but not by focusing on the places where I want to focus.
A weasel disgusting failed politician that can't take responsibility for his own failings.
That is what makes an adult, a child in an adult form.
It's what makes bad adults.
And we're gonna get into this today because holy sweet merciful crab apples.
Uh the Epstein stuff just won't go away.
I'm also thoroughly convinced that Trump doesn't want it to go away now.
I have to bring up uh I've to bring up, I should have put this one up on the clipboard.
Hold on a second.
Let me see.
I'm gonna get this over here.
There was a press conference that Trump gave today.
Yeah, I'll put this up here, where I'm convinced he doesn't want to, he doesn't want this story going away.
I don't know why yet.
Uh, I don't know if it's strategic bundling of this, which continues to this day, and I put the blame squarely on Pam Bondy.
We're gonna get there in a second.
I don't think Trump wants it to go away because what he tells you what he doesn't want to happen sometimes is exactly what he wants to happen.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs.
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned to current Florida rumbler.
I watch the crap so that you don't have to, and then I put out the analysis, I put out the clips so that you don't have to go through the torturous agony of fully immersing yourself in all things legal political all day long, 24-7, seven days a week, four weeks a month, and whatever how many weeks there are in a year.
There is an ongoing political uh controversy.
Something of a, I won't say a civil war.
I don't know quite how serious of an internal conflict it is within the GOP between the Thomas Massey element of the populist base and the MAGA element of the Trump base.
But there is tension between Thomas Massey and MAGA, from what I understand.
Robert Borns and I talk about it all the time.
There seems to be some tension because there's some political divergence on a geopolitical international scale and on the domestic front in terms of the massey populist camp versus the so-called MAGA camp.
I think there's a lot of overlap and politics is a dirty business, and sometimes you need to do what you need to do to get what you need to get or what you want.
But Thomas Massey, working in conjunction with Ro Kana, has put forward this Epstein disclosure bill, which at the time, uh first of all, not at the time I supported.
At the time, I didn't think required the clarification that some people were saying it required in terms of disclosing the Epstein colloquial speaking, the Epstein files, without the risk of disclosing uh criminal or uh child porn content in the disclosures of those documents.
For those of I'm gonna I'm gonna bring it up here, and I think this is the latest version of what is being proposed.
Here we go.
House resolution.
Let me see.
This is Thomas Massey original signature.
Let's go down to the bottom.
All right, here we go.
This, I believe, uh chat.
Correct me if I have pulled up the wrong house resolution.
I don't think I have.
Providing for consideration of the bill HR 1852 advance responsible policies.
Let me see this here.
Is this the uh hold on, is this the right one?
Oh, crap.
Hold on one second.
Epstein, there we go.
Okay, fine.
This act may be cited as the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Section two, release of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein in general, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this act.
The attorney general shall, subject to subsection B, we'll get to that in a second, because I think it might have been totally superfluous, make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the FBI and the United States offices that relate to one,
Jeffrey Epstein, including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters, two, Ghlaine Maxwell, three, flight logs or travel records, including but not unlimited to manifest itineraries, pilot records, et cetera, et cetera.
Four individuals, including government officials named or referenced in connection with Epstein criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings.
Five entities, corporate nonprofit, yada yada yada, with known or alleged ties to Epstein's trafficking or financial networks.
Six, any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein and his associates.
Seven, internal DOJ communications, memos, notes, meetings, yada yada yada.
Uh relating to decisions to charge, not to charge, investigate or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.
Communications, yada, yada, yada.
You got this.
You understand where we're going with this.
Section B says prohibited grounds for withholding.
No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of any of the following embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
This is going to be very interesting when you put this in context with the geopolitical disagreement between Thomas Massey, America first, uh, or so-called America first, and some concerns about foreign policy as relates to other foreign wars in other foreign nations that are not America that might not be America first, technically speaking.
We'll get there.
Permitted withholdings.
C. The attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that A contain personally identifiable information about the victims.
Remember, there were three major objections to this.
You can't disclose everything because you would be disclosing information relating to the victims.
You'd be disclosing child porn and whatever.
It's yada yada yet.
And I said, obviously, the disclosures were never intended To disclose that which would be criminal itself.
You can't publish CP, so you can't disclose that as part of the Epstein files, or personal information as relates to victims who do not want that information being disclosed.
Okay.
They may withhold information, records that contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims' personal or medical files, yada yada.
Depicts or contains child sexual abuse materials, CSAM, as defined under section 18 with the criminal code, would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.
That might apply to Glain Maxwell's currently pending appeals of her conviction.
Depicts or contains images of death, physical abuse or injury of any person, or contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy, and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such orders.
All redactions, yada yada yada.
All right.
That's the um that's the proposed resolution.
There has been a move today.
Here, let me let me bring this one up.
This is from the Hill, as relates to the latest moves to put forward what's it called?
The discharge petition to force the vote on this resolution.
This is from the Hill, September 3rd from today.
GOP GOP leaders urging Republicans not to sign Epstein discharge petition.
Let me just see, let me see.
Let me see.
There was this effort to kind of put this away, go home, let things settle down, and hopefully, if you look at it from the perspective of GOP leadership, come back after the recess, maybe move on to other things.
That's what leadership wants a kind of a more measured approach to the release of documents.
The White House has called this a hoax and wants to move on to other issues, but we get back to Washington.
The issue's still here.
So yesterday there was a meeting with the victims, and we'll hear from them later today.
But apparently we heard from them.
And I've got to tell you, you all know where I'm going with this if you're part of our locals community, because I put out a my analysis with a montage of the four clips, which I think may or may not define the here, the uh press conference today, but illustrate my uh severe disappointment with the contents or lack thereof of today's press conference.
They had that hearing, we're gonna get to that in a second.
This meeting was so emotional that South Carolina's Nancy Mace left visibly disturbed.
People said that she was red-faced and and pretty emotional.
Yeah, you can imagine what that testimony is like.
We've all heard the stories of survivors of this.
And today they're gonna speak publicly.
This could be another powerful moment in this saga where you have victims speaking publicly.
And let's talk about what's kind of on the table here.
There is a bipartisan bill that would force the Department of Justice to release all the information having to do with the Epstein case.
GOP leadership, the White House, they want to go through the House Oversight Committee, which is getting information from the Department of Justice and release it in a more measured approach.
The there is an effort to force a vote on that um bipartisan bill that would force the release of information.
Um there is right now it looks like all Democrats will support it.
There's a handful of Republicans.
They needed a few more.
So we're kind of uh, you know, coming to a head here as to whether or not there's going to be enough votes to force a vote on this release of DOJ information.
So it's an interesting thing.
You have all of the Democrats, the politics is such a dirty, nasty business.
You have Democrat support, some Republicans, and Thomas Massey and Rokana teaming up together to get this passed.
Hold on, let me get back to the article because that's what we want to read here.
All right, escape.
Let's read this article, and then we're going to get to the highlights from today.
House GOP leaders are urging the members to steer clear of the discharge petition aiming to force the Trump administration to release all the government files on Jeffrey Epstein in a closed door meeting in the basement of the Capitol.
Speaker Mike Johnson called on GOP lawmakers to instead support the efforts of the oversight and government reform committee, which is seeking more disclosures on the Epstein case from the Justice Department DOJ, the Epstein estate, and formal federal law enforcements who worked on the case.
It's interesting.
I mean, it's interesting as to why there would be a reluctance to support the resolution of the resolution.
While simultaneously supporting disclosures, It seems like disclosure is disclosure.
Why go with the oversight committee versus this resolution?
But the bottom line is to play devil's advocate on both sides or to steel man both sides.
It's not that the Trump advisor administration is saying no, and we're not going to do anything.
We'll continue with the oversight committee, which just released 33 some odd thousand documents in a um arguably not the most searchable format.
Individual scans of individual pages.
I'm sure AI could parse through it.
I have not yet gone through it.
Apparently, the 33,000 images or 33,000 documents individually scanned.
Uh some of the complaints are that they are highly redacted, but that they are certainly not in an easily searchable format that would allow for the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs to easily parse through them, although it's not something that AI can't take care of.
Bottom line.
Trump wants to go with the oversight committee and the DOJ.
Some people are saying Bondy's handling of this has been garbage from the beginning.
I being one of those people.
And maybe there needs to be or will be a change at the head of the DOJ in terms of replacing Bondy with, I don't know, the co-deputy director Andrew Bailey, who did not uh go from being the attorney general of Missouri to being the co-deputy director of the F of the FBI.
So we'll see.
We'll see on that.
But hold on.
Okay, so we got that part there.
The message from leadership, the message from leadership was clear, according to Joe Wilson.
We have a very positive alternative, Wilson said as he emerged from the meeting.
Rep Thomas Mackey, who sponsored the discharge position, disagrees.
He spoke out during the same meeting to make the case that the DOJ simply can't be trusted to release all the relevant information without legislation forcing the agency's hand.
Holding up his phone, he showed reporter a picture of the Epstein flight log documents released by the oversight panel committee.
All of the names on the log were redacted.
Quote, what's clear is that they're not redacting just to protect victims.
They are redacting to protect reputations.
Massey said, some of those people are probably innocent, but some of them most certainly are most certainly guilty.
Massey's discharge petition would force a vote on the floor, requiring the DOJ to release virtually all of its files.
Investigative, yeah, we've already read through it.
It needs the support of 218 lawmakers because all two 12 Democrats are expected to endorse it.
Supporters need six Republicans.
Four GOP lawmakers have already signed on.
Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, Marjorie Taylor Green.
It's funny.
Those are the renegades within the GOP.
And you may or may not agree with them on this particular case, but when it comes to Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massey and Lauren Boebert, can't pretend that you didn't like him in the past.
And so now the question's gonna have to be gotta make sense of the disagreement over this particular MO.
I am of the opinion that the current head of the DOJ uh is incapable or unwilling to do what is required.
We'll get to that in a bit.
Johnson and his leadership team are racing to dissuade any more Republicans from joining that list, promoting the oversight committee's efforts and warning that Massey's strategy risks releasing information that could harm victims.
Well, that seems to be provided for in the drafting of the resolution.
Set that aside.
The White House has also launched an aggressive outreach campaign to GOP lawmakers in the hopes of preventing Massey from getting the 218 signatures he needs.
The lobbying seems to be paying off.
A number of GOP lawmakers who have endorsed the underlying disclosure legislation have said this week that they won't sign the discharge petition.
That includes Van Drew Burchett's self.
Jamie Comer is making great progress, self said Tuesday, referring to the Kentucky Republican.
Comer is doing great work.
On Tuesday, Comrad organized a closed door meeting at the Capitol between Epstein victims and bipartisan members of the committee.
Lawmakers who participated in that discussion appeared to interpret the victim's messages differently.
Mace left the gathering looking visibly upset.
We saw the video of that.
I didn't play it, but she didn't say anything.
She just looked like she had been crying, was still crying, walked down the halls and no comment.
Birchett by contrast said the victims made very clear they didn't want the broader disclosure promoted by Massey, and therefore he won't endorse the petition.
Well, there you have your strongest argument.
I think we can skip the rest of this.
Massey is also on convincing the DOJ's withholding information to protect some of Trump's friends.
Okay.
That's the latest.
Now I wanted to bring up uh I'm gonna leave this one up in the backdrop here and bring it up in a second.
I want to bring up a clip from Thomas Massey himself.
Uh so you can hear from the voice uh from the from the mouth of Thomas Massey.
Hold on, who published it?
C-SPAN.
Here we go.
This updates on the discharge Petition, do you think you'll get the number of signatures you need?
I think we'll eventually get there.
What people are waking up and discovering right now is the folks who stayed up all night to go through the 34,000 individual pages have found that they're so redacted as to be useless, and that many of them were already available.
Do you think this oversight tactic is releasing these documents?
I mean, how do you actually read it?
Um clearly they're pushing for more transparency, but it seems like it's not enough for you.
Well, I appreciate the effort that they've undertaken, but the scope of their investigation is to investigate the investigators.
Like they don't ever intend to have any criminal referrals.
There may be some notations from the oversight committee when this is done that, oh, this FBI person didn't check this box, or this person acted unethically, or this person got too light of a sentence, but they're not going in and trying to identify who these perpetrators were of these heinous sexual abuse crimes.
See, it's it's amazing.
You can absolutely steal steel man both sides to this to some extent.
One side you cannot steal man is that DOJ under Pam Bondi has been doing this properly.
There's no way to explain away the bungling of the release from Binder Gate to the Memo Gate to Pam Bondi.
Now having uh it's been confirmed, and we'll get to it in a second, that the missing minute from the surveillance footage on the night that Epstein allegedly killed himself, we're told to believe, uh, was just uh the way that they stitched the videos together at the Metropolitan Detention Center where they said it happens every night.
Well, it doesn't.
They got the missing minute, and I'm gonna break that down with my own personal analysis in a bit.
There's no way of defending Pam Bondi's handling of this.
Then the only question really is is the oversight committee trying to get Bondy and the DOJ to do the right thing or to do it properly, or is it the investigators investigating themselves and they're never going to disclose it without legislation requiring the to do so in its entirety, save and accept for what is criminal or violative of the privacy rights of the victims.
And how must it be?
How must it be achieved?
If that is your goal, how do you go about achieving it?
I'm gonna argue and pause to you.
If your goal is to pass this discharge petition, then you should be equally frustrated with today's press conference with the alleged victims because it did damage to achieve the goal that Thomas Massey is trying to achieve by making it look like political theater.
We'll get there.
Um I wanted to ask which Republicans you think will end up signing on to your discharge petition.
Well, I made the mistake of getting 12 co-sponsors, and that so the White House knew who to target, so I'm not going to name anybody who's thinking about joining.
But you're confident you'll get the signal?
I'm pretty sure.
Appreciate what Massey just suggested there that by having announced who would co-sponsor his whatever the word is for the uh petition, discharge petition, that they were then susceptible of the whipping.
I guess it is called whipping or whipping when they uh go and try to garner support or deter uh support for the opposite side.
So Massey's saying, like, I'm not telling you who might be supporting it this time because now they've gone and gotten self, the other two people uh to reconsider their support for my proposed bill, proposed discharge petition.
I mean, this it's a strong effort from the White House.
They're literally calling it a hostile act to sign this discharge petition now.
And I don't know if that's uh precedented in this country to have a president call legislators to say that they're engaged in a hostile act, particularly when the the so-called hostile act is trying to get justice for people who've been victims of sex crimes.
Now, some people out there, and I've tried to engage with them in intellectual earnest are saying massey's never been interested in this before.
What's with the interest now?
It's yada yada.
Going after people's intentions will not undermine the arguments.
They might be doing the right things for the wrong reasons, they might be doing the wrong things for the right reasons.
Intention aside.
Is it a hostile act?
Try to make sense of that.
Right now, what you have is seemingly unanimous support from the Democrats, uh, which is politicizing this request, this move for transparency in the Epstein files, which we all want.
So, how do you how do You make sense of that.
What we were told, by the way, is that we were going to have a press conference today with the alleged victims, and that they were going to come out and it was going to shock America.
It was going to shock the conscience of Americans, that they're going to come out and say this is why uh we need full disclosure.
And um they had that press conference.
I watched that press conference, and there were a couple of good points that were made.
There were a couple of what I deem to be uh credible witnesses, or they're all I'm not calling any of them liars because none of them said anything that I think was a lie.
The issue was what they didn't say, not what they did say.
One of them came out and said I was a young kid when this happened, and the investigators have more on my file of my victimization than I do that they won't disclose to me.
And this all stems back to the 2008 plea deal, sweetheart plea deal, that nobody can seemingly make sense of.
Yeah, let me let me bring this one up.
I think this is it right here.
Yeah, this is I'll play a portion of this and stop.
But it's so hard to begin to heal, knowing that there are people out there who know more about my abuse than I do.
The worst part is that the government is still in possession right now.
Of the documents and information about that kind that could help me remember and get over all of this, maybe and help me heal.
They have documents with my name on them that were confiscated from Jeffrey Epstein's house and could help me put the pieces of my own life back together, but I don't have any of it.
Well, and no, nor, by the way, following the drafting of the resolution, nor would that be disclosed to the public, even if this resolution went through.
Might be describing a separate problem here, but not one that would be resolved by the discharge petition being signed and a forced vote on that resolution.
So I mean, appreciate that.
And I know the same is true for many of these women.
Um some people, by the way, focus on the fist in the backdrop.
I'm trying to see what the rest of that shirt says.
Some people uh suggesting that this press conference, uh, in fact was hijacked by quite clearly partisan interests, has now politicized the move to disclose this information.
And some people say that shouldn't matter at all, regardless.
But if your goal was to garner the support from the required GOP votes to force the petition, the discharge petition for the vote on this particular resolution, uh, this press conference might have achieved the exact opposite results.
We are here to support this bill today, not only for transparency, but for the American people.
But if the government is going to release this documents to the public describing the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and others, the least they can do is give me my documents that they have about me.
The other survivors deserve the same respect from our government.
This has nothing to do with the discharge petition.
None of this information would be disclosed even if the discharge petition is approved and the vote on the resolution held.
But she makes a good point that it would seem that in the context of the sweetheart plea deal from 2008, that the victims uh were themselves treated as uh criminals, uh, at least one of them, and that information was not disclosed to them, and they were in fact pressured to remain silent as Jeffrey Epstein got the sweetheart plea deal.
Now, get into the more problematic elements of this um conference today.
There was some, there was I'm gonna play this one.
This was came towards the end when they were having a QA and the lawyers were answering some questions.
I said, This is terrible, terrible optics when you've had a I don't know, hour and a half press press conference of alleged victims of Epstein's uh abuse and others, saying that they know the names, they're not releasing them, they know the details that they're not disclosing, that they're putting together their own private list.
We're gonna get to that in a second.
They'll do whatever they know, you know, they're they'll keep it confidential, and then you can ask yourself, by the way, if there's not an element of everybody is trying to play this to their own particular advantage, these alleged victims saying, We've got the list, we've got the names, we're not gonna tell the public, but we're gonna use it and threaten those who we accuse of of being our our abusers for whatever other purposes, and one can easily imagine what are the purposes.
Payoffs, whatever.
Listen to this.
Yeah.
It says you represented Virginia Roberts Goofre.
I'm going to play it once.
Listen to the question.
It's basically a reporter saying you've represented Virginia Goffrey.
She re retracted her accusations against Alan Derschwitz.
And listen and look at the reactions from the people in the back.
They start whispering to each other and they say, Don't answer this question, don't answer this question.
Listen to this.
So uh you represented Virginia Roberts.
She eventually had you can't the allegations that she made against Alan Dershowitz.
She alleged that next question.
Next question.
Thank you.
But but it wasn't just from the lawyers, it was from all of them.
Let me bring this up.
I'm gonna bring well, let me let me let me play it on and then I'm gonna take it away.
Yeah, no, we're not answering your question.
Anyone else?
No, we're not answering your question.
Anyone else?
Full transparency.
We're the victims here.
We are asking the public, we're asking Congress to support a bill to disclose this information for full transparency for justice for the victims and to prevent further abuse of children and other victims of sexual abuse.
We're not asking, we're not answering any questions that we don't want to answer, and we're not disclosing any names that we acknowledge that we have.
Oh, and by the way, they went on to kick that reporter out from what I could hear, and they were all very happy that the reporter was being kicked out.
So that guy asked, You represented Virginia Gofrey.
She made accusations against Derschwitz, which she subsequently retracted.
As they all start talking, oh, we know this guy.
I don't know who the journalist was.
If anybody knows who the journalist was, I'd love to know.
Here's a link to the tweet so you can memorialize that.
And then they say, We're not answering or not saying thanks.
No, no, we're moving on.
Moving on to anybody else, because this isn't about transparency, it would seem.
Alan Derschwitz, when he was talking about the list, you will recall he came out uh now notoriously said, There's a list, I've seen it.
Derschwitz list, I've seen it.
And he said there was a second element to that list.
That it wasn't just necessarily a list of the perpetrators of the acts of violence, but it might have also been a list of people who were falsely accusing others of sexual abuse.
Yeah, let me bring this up right here.
I think this is it.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
I have seen, remember, I was accused falsely, and they have seen it.
And ultimately, I was completely clear.
The woman admitted that she may have mistook me for somebody else who withdrew all of her lawsuits.
And so from day one, from the day I was accused, I said I want every document out, because I knew every document would prove I was innocent.
So let me tell you, I know for a fact documents are being suppressed.
And they're being suppressed to protect individuals.
I know the names of the individuals, I know why they're being suppressed, I know who's suppressing them.
But I put on pause here.
I think Derschwitz might have walked very close to a line of violating a non-disclosure by disclosing this must this much information about what he claims, asserts, positively affirms who have seen himself, have personal knowledge of, but he can't disclose anymore because he signed an NDA.
Set that aside.
There's two sides to what he's getting at right now, and the other side is not only not worth ignoring, it's worth considering in the context of this particular movement, how the hashtag me to movement got co-opted and radicalized.
I would even dare say hijacked.
Understand the second part of this, and I'll get to it.
And bound by confidentiality.
From a judge and cases, and I can't disclose what I know.
But I I can't disclose what I know, but I've seen the list.
It's there to protect people, and to God, I've seen it.
To God, I know I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them.
And that's wrong.
Just out of curiosity without names, are these politicians, business leaders, both?
They're everything.
Um, and let me tell you a lot of them are uh at least one of them is somebody who was accused.
Uh others are accusers.
And the judges have said if somebody calls themselves a victim, a victim, we're not gonna give any information about them, but they may not be victims, they may be perpetrators.
So we don't have information about false accusers.
And we know there have been many false accusers who have and by the way, don't hear the word perpetrators as in perpetrators of Epstein's sex crimes.
I don't think that's how it should be heard here.
I think perpetrators of potential extortion, where you have legitimate victims who are making legitimate claims.
Well, then you have uh I'll say financial predators or opportunistic predators who come and say, I hey, I was also uh assaulted.
Uh cut a check to me for my silence as well, because who the hell is going to believe you in the context of bona fide legit victims of abuse?
So, not perpetrators in the sense of the sex trafficking ring, but perpetrators of potential extortion or false accusations in the wake of legit accusations, because that's the best time to make them and hope to make a sweet payday.
Accused innocent people for money, and those records are being deliberately willfully suppressed, and they shouldn't be suppressed.
If the accusation is allowed out, so should the material that diminishes the credibility of the accuser.
We want total transparency on this.
Every single document, no redaction.
That's what I've said from day one.
I waive any of my rights to privacy, anything there is about me, I'm happy because it will be exculpatory.
So appreciate that.
That in the context of legitimate claims of abuse and exploitation, there will invariably be uh the opportunistic predators that will come in and try to co-opt a movement.
Hashtag me too started off as legit people talking about legit uh sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and then it quickly got weaponized into using it to go after each and every one of your political rivals under whatever believe all women um attack dogs, and it became used as a cudgel.
So it's conceivable in all of this that there may have been some accusations which were not legitimate and which were done to extort potential settlements.
So when it comes to that uh lawyer refusing to answer what was a straightforward legitimate question, especially in the context of them asking for disclosure, left a bad taste in my mouth where it left, it left me thinking, hmm.
Are any of these or any of these claims uh opportunistic claims, retros retroactive or illegitimate claims.
And now here, let me bring this one up.
It's it's it's stunning when you have the biggest bullhorn on earth to name the names and to bring justice to the victims and to bring justice to future potential victims.
I mean, everybody on on the one end is out there saying if you criticize anything, you're you're you're you're covering for pedos.
I mean, it's it's it's it's stupid tropes on the internet.
I'm not going to accuse anybody's intentions of anything.
I have been the biggest critic of this rollout.
I have been actually covering what I refuse to believe is the official narrative of the Epstein story since 2019, when he allegedly took his own life, which I don't believe, but even if he did, I always say is still a scandal unto itself, because if you were given the tools and the means, one can imagine why he would take his own life if given sheets and said, You better do this or your life is gonna be much worse uh than a than a peaceful choking death.
They had the opportunity and listen to what was the tenor of this one and a half hour press conference that is trying to push to release, push for the legislation that would cause the release of the names.
And for some reason, I can feel their spirit, especially Virginia's today.
She would be so proud, and she would be so beside herself to see this one moment we have all came together to unite, and for our government and for the politicians who have taken our trauma and have weaponized it against us, making it unbearable, making it unlivable, making it hard to move on in a life that we wish to live in happiness and joy and peace and injustice that can only come from within at this point, and we have gotten to this point.
Shame on you.
Shame on you for using our trauma to weaponize this moment.
We are not going to be fooled by your trickery.
We are not going to be fooled by the lies, by the conspiracy theories.
We are the keys to this situation.
We have the truth.
We are the keys.
We have the truth.
As we are demanding for a resolution to be passed to disclose the truth.
And the FBI knows the truth.
The government knows the truth.
You may pull the wool over the sheep's eyes, but we are the keys.
We know who was involved.
We know the game.
We know the players.
And we are sitting here for 20 years waiting for you to get up and do something.
Well, guess what?
Your time is up, and now we're doing it.
You know what?
You know what nobody did during the press conference?
It.
They know the names, they know the players, they're getting up and doing it, but they're not doing it.
Now, hypothetically, I'm gonna leave this one up in the backdrop because I might want to come back to it.
Hypothetically, um, let's say that they are legitimate, legitimate, bona fide victims.
And I'm not saying that they're not.
If they're bona fide legitimate victims and they come out and say, We have the key, we know it, you guys aren't doing anything, we're gonna do it, and then they don't do it.
Some people might say, This looks like uh potentially uh a round of pay up and we'll shut up because they had the bullhorn, they've basically announced to the world in in no in no confusing terms.
The FBI has done nothing for 20 years.
Uh the administration has done nothing, not this one, but you know, for the last 20 years.
They know the players, they know the keys.
FBI's done nothing, they're gonna do it.
Then they don't do it.
That some people could interpret as settlements, potential lawsuits, and whatever, to the extent that they already haven't gotten paid out under NDAs in the past.
So, even on its face, assuming that they're victims because you don't need to deny that they are, that's suspicious.
That that is bizarre to literally have the eyes of the world and the ears of the world on you.
Say you're gonna do something to end it all, and then do nothing.
And then you can even imagine if they aren't bona fide victim, and that they do know the names, and then they don't do anything, there might be other even more nefarious reasons for not doing anything.
But now let's let's let's bring uh let's bring this one up.
This was one of the ones that actually really uh irked me from the conference from the from the press conference.
I want to thank all of my survivor sisters who came before me today.
I'll be very short.
In the year 2000, I was taken to Jeffrey Epstein's island while on a photo shoot on a nearby island.
Who I saw and what I experienced there was a s was a glimpse into a very dark and disturbing world.
I mean, it I mean, this is this is like uh I don't remember, I think it was Corey Haim was teasing a documentary, and and this was back in the day.
Like, I'm gonna make a documentary, I'm gonna tell you all the name.
Everyone's like, just just do it, just say it.
I mean, he ultimately went on to name Charlie Sheen, uh, allegedly.
But you listen to what they say.
We've been there.
I what I saw was what I saw, just keep waiting, just keep waiting.
One day I'll disclose it.
Um you have the microphone now.
What you saw, people are gonna say, well, she can't say what she saw because she'll get sued.
Horse crap.
This this woman, to the extent I'm gonna I'm gonna leave it play to the extent that she's not claiming having been sexually assaulted by Epstein or any of his entourage, she sure as sugar can say what she saw at that island for years after I tried to avoid Jeffrey,
but he had introduced me to Kate who I saw and what I experienced there was a s was a glimpse into a very dark and disturbing world for years after I tried to avoid Jeffrey, but he had introduced me to Katie Ford, the owner of the Ford modeling agency.
Epstein's reach went to the very top of fashion, arts, and entertainment.
This did not just happen to underage girls in Florida in New York City.
Hundreds of young ambitious women were abused by him.
Epstein was not just a serial predator, he was an international human trafficker.
To whom?
To whom what you saw on that island shocked you to your core.
Find out next, and I'm not joking, that's literally what she says.
And many around him knew, many participated, and many profited.
Interesting, and yet he was protected.
He was so I stand here today For every woman who has been silenced, exploited, and dismissed.
We are not asking for pity.
We are here demanding accountability.
And I'm demanding justice.
Congress must choose.
Will you continue to protect predators?
Or will you finally protect survivors?
And also, I would like to announce here today.
Us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating our own list.
Listen to this.
This is totally logical.
This is totally uh not, I won't say suspicious.
This is totally not crass under the context.
I've seen things, I'm not gonna tell you.
We're making our own list.
What are we gonna do with it?
Find out tonight at seven o'clock, Tim.
We know the names.
Many of us were abused by them.
Now, together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know.
This sounds like uh a plan to extort.
And if it's legitimate sexual abusers that they're going to put a list together and figure out what to do with, uh, it sounds opportunistic and crass.
If it's a threat to people who are named who might not have been implicated in Epstein's wrongness, well, that sounds like a threat of extortion.
Been discussing creating our own list.
We know the names.
Many of us were abused by them.
Now, together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know.
Who regularly who were regularly in the Epstein world?
And it will be done.
Regularly in the Epstein world.
Not abusers who are regularly in the Epstein.
We're gonna make our list, we're gonna keep it confidential.
Wink wink nudge nudge peeps.
You know who you were, that'll be easily extorted.
We're gonna keep it confidential.
And by survivors and for survivors.
No one else is involved.
Stay tuned for more details.
Stay tuned for more details?
What does what in the name of sweet holy hell is going on with this?
This is supposed to be about protecting children, protecting victims, preventing further children from being sexually abused, preventing further victims, and they're sitting there saying, We know all the names, we've got a list, we're gonna compile our own confidential list of people in the Epstein world, which literally could mean virtually anybody, not necessarily only abusers, and we're gonna figure out what to do with it.
Stay tuned for more.
And now you ask yourself if your goal was to have that discharge petition passed and to garner the requisite support from Republicans.
Is this what you'd want to see?
As a press conference in support of this?
This actually looks like it's turning out to be exactly what I want to say, Trump had been saying it would turn into, because I do not believe the Epstein scenario is a hoax, period.
What it looks like is happening right now in real time is that it is being weaponized, it is being co-opted for potentially nefarious purposes, and what might have started off as a righteous request for disclosure of evidence because Bondy at the DOJ is unwilling or incapable of doing it, and I know most people think unwilling.
Well, now it's turned into an absolute public threat of extortion with their private list so they can do what they want of with people in Epstein's orbit.
It's exactly what they did with with the Me Too movement, and we're seeing it in real time.
That was basically the essence of the press conference.
Anyone who watched it and said, Well, this went this went well, we really got something out of it.
You're lying to yourselves.
Or your assessment is way off.
Now, I've had people say, Viva, they can't come out and name names because they'll be financially ruined, they'll be sued into oblivion, uh, yada yada yada.
Look what they did to Virginia Goofre.
Okay, let me entertain that theory with the following rebuttal.
You know that the mob like you got in bed with the mob, and you know that if you come out and name the mob, they'll send their their hitmen literally to whack you.
Do you hold a press conference saying, I won't name the members of the mob, you know who you are, you know that I know who you are, and we are preparing our list privately, and we're gonna do things with it.
Would you say that publicly to the people who you legitimately fear could financially crush you or kill you?
The answer is no, you wouldn't.
You wouldn't, just as a mere uh mere matter of uh strategy, survival.
If you're genuinely fearful that someone is going to financially crush you or kill you, you don't come out on a podium and say, I know their names, and we're going to do something, just not right now, because I'm scared they're going to crush me and kill me.
Horse crap.
The other flip side is they say they can't disclose the names because they'll get sued for defamation, or they'll be dragged through the courts.
These group of people came out there and said that Virginia Guffrey is a national hero.
They said it verbatim because of what she did.
These group of people say they're out there for justice for survivors, justice for the victims, and to prevent further abuse of children, because presumably there are still people out there who are not dead, like Epstein allegedly, who are not in jail like Maxwell, who are part of this orbit.
They're trying to protect future children, future victims, and get justice for existing victims, but they're afraid of being sued.
Okay.
I mean, I'm not calling anybody a coward because I don't know what I would do under those circumstances.
But then you don't hold the press conference.
You don't hold the press conference and have people like Gloria Allred, who are the most political whores on earth, who are the most opportunistic exploiters of uh political cases real and bunk.
You don't have them show up at this press conference.
You don't have people who have been doing the rounds on CNN show up in support of this uh petition and expect it to remain a bipartisan, non-political petition that's seeking justice for victims to prevent further victims, but allegedly none of these victims have the courage to name the names to prevent it.
So if you wanted Thomas Massey's uh and Rokanda's resolution to pass, the discharge petition to pass so they can hold the vote, this is not what you would have wanted to see by way of press conference.
That's all I have to say about the press conference, and I'm not gonna miss doing it right now.
Ask as Guardian has become a member of our viva barnslaw.locals.com community.
I want to get to some of the chat because I'm gonna get into part two of this, which is going to be the big news that is illustrated.
I like I made a prediction that it might not turn out to be good.
I think Pam Bondi uh will not be uh in the administration for much longer.
I I think the internal pressure to get her out and get someone competent in, or at the very least, to make it look hypothetically.
If you think the administration wants to cover it up and yada, they're using Bondi.
If the administration wants to cover it up and you think they were using Bondi as the tool to do so, well, that tool uh is getting worn out.
And so if they really want to continue this charade and their goal is truly to not have disclosure, and they were using Pam Bondi as the pretext to do it, they need to now replace it, make it look like they're trying to do something while not doing something, so they need to replace her anyhow.
Bottom line, I do believe the Trump administration is serious about this.
Uh, I believe there's politics and ego involved in some of recent statements.
Um, but I think that Pam Bondy uh is soon to be replaced.
That's my prediction.
I'm gonna flesh it out in a second.
Uh, but only after I go over here and bring up a couple of crumble rants and chats.
We've got King of Bill Tong in the house says, craving a snack that's bold, authentic, and packed with protein.
Bill Tong boasts over 50% protein, packed with B1, vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Go to WWW.biltong USA.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
There were other tips in there that I missed, so I'm gonna do this.
F. Charton over in our locals community.
With everything today, Viva, remember the ostriches and the JCCF John Carpe who got disbarred in Alberta.
We're gonna talk about the John Carpe in the Vivabarneslaw.locals.com after party.
John Carpe, the founder of the JCCF, lawyer in Canada was doing amazing constitutional work, disbarred uh recently.
We'll talk about that.
Roostang says this is a repeat of another high-level White House cover-up.
See the Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant, a chilling expose of corporate corruption and government cover-ups.
This account of a nationwide child trafficking and pedophilia ring in the United States tells a sordid tale of corruption in high places, says Roostang.
As Guardian has become a member of our Viva Barneslaw.locals.com community.
And then there's a meme that came through as a tip, and it looks like Viva Van Sustren or Vita Viva Thunberg.
That is uh truly horrifying, Finn Boy Slick.
Thank you.
Viva turned Viva Thunberg really doesn't approve.
All right.
Let's get to the other news of the day.
The release of the 33,000 individually scanned pages and the discovery of a missing minute of the Epstein totally killed himself, video surveillance.
Oh crap, I didn't bring up the Glen Beck.
There was a Glenn Beck analysis of the video at the time, which was great.
But news of the day.
Well, hold on one second.
Hold on a second.
Where's the Fox News article?
I brought it up.
It might be an archive.
No, no, no.
Ah, cripe.
Hold on one second.
I sent it to myself by email, so I'll be able to pull this up in a second.
You remember that infamous missing the missing minute from the video surveillance.
The video surveillance of the cell that was supposed to convince everybody that Jeffrey Epstein totally killed himself.
Okay.
Here, let me bring this article up from Fox News.
Missing Minute in Jeffrey Epstein jail security video, revealed in document dump.
House committee releases video filling contested one-minute gap from night of financiers 2019 death.
Fox News, who's the journalist?
Alex Alexandra Koch.
A newly released congressional video fills a one-minute gap in early earlier surveillance from the notorious Jeffrey Financiers at jail unit in his 2019 suicide.
I would have called it his death, which some attribute as a suicide.
Two key clips part of the nearly 34,000 file drop by the House Oversight Committee Tuesday night revealed the highly contested minute missing from the surveillance footage filmed outside his block.
Yada yada yada.
The disputed minute lasted from 11 minutes, 58 seconds, 11 minutes, 11 hours, 1158, 59 seconds, to midnight uh August 10.
Okay, here we go.
Digital forensic experts previously found the clip released by the Department of Justice was chopped from at least two separate video segments and strung together using Adobe Premiere Pro, fueling conspiracy theories that the administration was covering up Epstein's death.
Oh, interesting.
Apparently they were also missing more than one minute, but I there's alleged to be three minutes missing from it.
But right now we have both sides confirming there's one minute missing.
The new drop from the house shows the camera data switched at about midnight, leading to uh a necessary binding of two clips for consecutive video.
Fox News Digital combined the two clips, showing that there was indeed no lapse in footage contradicting attorney Pam Bondi's previous explanation that the last minute of the footage is deleted every night.
This is a very important line because you've got Fox News here basically contradicting Pam Bondy's official statement that she made in front of Donald Trump.
As I read this, this is basically Fox News calling Pam Bondy a liar.
And if Fox News is turning on a player within the administration, my very personal humble opinion is that they've gotten some memo.
There is some memo.
They've gotten the word that uh it's time to now start building up public sentiment that will tolerate or rejoice in a Pan Bondy moving on to better positions or being fired.
Quote What we learned from the prisoner bureaus last night, uh, the video is reset.
Oh, I'll play the video in a second.
It's unclear why the footage disappeared, though the minute that was missing from the original drop did not reveal any action inside the jail block.
Okay, interesting.
Uh, I think it revealed something that I think I might be the first to observe on.
Let me bring up the video, shall I?
Yes, I shall.
Right now.
Um here we go.
This is, I think this is it.
So this is the I this is the 42 seconds.
Now, what uh Glenn Beck on his show had revealed.
Let me just make sure that we're looking at the same thing.
We are what Glenn Beck had discussed in his show, that the surveillance that you're looking at right now, if you see my cursor, which I think you do, we're on a second level of the jail cell.
This over here is a common area, the white floor, a level down.
And Jeffrey Epstein's cell, from my understanding, is behind this door on the lower level back there.
So you don't actually see it.
Okay, so we're on a second floor.
The The footage is capturing a common area, these two doors right here, which apparently are janitor closets or something along those lines, and Epstein's cell is not even in view because it's on the lower level behind what is being blocked by the upper level door.
On Glenn Beck's show or that particular episode, they hypothesized that someone could easily walk around here on the lower level and not even be visible from the camera, but I can't substantiate that.
And it's an interesting theory that can neither be proven nor disproven based on the video that we have right here.
But watch this.
This is the missing, this is 42 seconds of the missing minute that was spliced together.
There's no audio, but you see a man walking on the lower level, comes up the stairs here on the side, and is going to walk in front of the camera.
Okay.
And is going to pick up the phone.
Hey man, how are you doing?
Let me in.
Okay, I don't know.
I don't know what he's talking to on the phone.
Opens up the door.
This is not Epstein's cell.
Epstein's cell is down here, you can't see it.
This is a prison guard, and I I question which prison guard this is, and I'll get to that in a second.
Opening up the door.
Don't know why it's taking so long.
Let's go.
And then he goes into this room.
Whether or not it's a janitor's closet, and that's it.
Now, my that's the missing minute.
Some people say it doesn't show anything.
First of all, it shows a number of things that it shows the view, it shows that it's a floor up.
It shows this man, and we don't know who he is.
And I'm asking the question who he is because from the pixelated image and from the players involved, I hypothesize or ask whether or not this man is one of the two security guards who was reprimanded for negligence that night.
Do you all remember this?
I've got the article up there as well.
This is a screenshot.
Okay, so this is this is the this is one of the security guards at the correctional facility.
These are the two security guards who we will recall, maybe you don't recall, were reprimanded for their negligence.
They were indicted and then they struck some sort of plea deal.
This is from CBC News from 2021.
CBC News Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has to cover world news, as it does here, but this came from the Associated Press.
Jeffrey Epstein prison guards admit to falsifying records, make deal to avoid jail time.
Tova Noel, who's the woman on the right, and Michael Thomas, who's the man on the left, accused of browsing internet during financiers suicide from the associated press.
They were not only accused of browsing the internet, I remembered because I lived through it, and I was like, they expect us to believe this bullshit.
They were alleged to be sleeping through the suicide.
Epstein's death was a major embarrassment.
During one two-hour period, both appeared to have been asleep according to the indictment filed against them.
Both officers who were guarding XP were working overtime because of staffing shortages.
One of the guards who did who did not primarily work as a correctional officer was working a fifth straight day.
The other guard was working mandatory overtime, meaning a second hour ship.
They were accused of having been asleep as Epstein killed himself.
And I look this uh my question is whether or not this guy is the security guard that we see right here, because he doesn't look like he's sleeping during the night of the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein.
True, he could have been sleeping at another time, but who is this guard?
Does that one minute of missing footage actually show us nothing?
Or, and I'm not making any conclusions, I'm I have my own thoughts.
Does it show us something that the guard who they said was sleeping was in fact not sleeping at or around the time that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, and that they admitted to falsifying records to avoid jail time.
As reported by CBC at the time.
You tell me.
You tell me what you think of this.
That's my that that is my hold on.
That is my um question that I'm asking.
Have yet to get an answer.
Not that I expect anybody to answer me.
And I like I it's a funny thing when you're uh a white dude and you say that another black man, you ask if that black man looks like another man who happens to be black, and people say, that's racist.
I'm like, you idiots.
I'm not gonna ask, I'm not gonna confuse that guy with Brad Pitt, and nobody's gonna confuse me with LeBron James.
That guy looked like he might have been the very guard in the story about the two guards who falsified records, who were at the helm when Epstein allegedly killed himself, and if they were allegedly sleeping, and that guy is the guard who's allegedly going up in that one-minute missing clip that magically was missing that Pam Bondy said didn't exist.
Well, I think we might have walked ourselves into yet another issue when it comes to this.
Now, if anybody doesn't remember what Pam Bondy originally said, this is in front of Donald John Trump.
And if someone says something that turns out to be black on white wrong, and you vouch for this person, this would be an embarrassment to me if someone I hired vouched for, was defending moments before, comes out and says something that is now confirmed by Fox News as being the opposite of true.
It's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with that was the other thing that she said also.
But that's where I clipped it.
The JFK MLK files as well.
That's what I meant by that.
Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
Child porn is what they were.
Never gonna be released, never gonna see the light of day.
To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
We can get back to you on that.
Well, please do uh get back to us on that because there's good reason to believe that he was an agent and an asset or somehow related to intelligence, as allegedly confirmed by Acosta in 2019, who is the same acosta that gave him the sweetheart deal in 2008.
Please do get back to that.
Circle back to that uh gen Bondi or Pam Saki or Saki Pam.
Okay, whatever, you know what I'm getting.
And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
And what was on that, there was a the evidence prior to it showing that there was no one else there, though, therefore he must have committed suicide.
Set that aside.
Set the set aside the Glenn Beck theory that someone could have in theory come along the bottom in that missing minute, which we now know wasn't actually missing, because we got it.
We didn't see anybody come by except for a security guard who might have been allegedly the one who was asleep at the helm when Epstein allegedly killed himself.
Okay.
And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every um night, they redo that video.
It's old from like 1999.
So every night the video is reset, and every night should have the same minute missing.
So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.
And that's it on Epstein.
And that's it.
That's a lot of it on Epstein.
Uh for there to be so that that was wrong.
It wasn't, it wasn't uh it doesn't automatically delete it.
It looks like it was not included.
And Fox News seeming to turn on Pam Bondi.
Uh, my theory is that the administration knows that Bondi, and my my issues with Bondi, I'm gonna release a vlog after this.
Something I've said before.
My issues with Bondi not only don't only relate to the Epstein files, but actually predate the the bungling disclosures of the Epstein files.
She should have been fired for her inaction in the Douglas Mackey case, in the Dr. Moore case, in the Bitcoin Jesus case, in the Second Amendment cases.
She hasn't been, she hasn't been doing her job.
Now, the only question is, is she not doing it out of incompetence or out of corruption?
You could hypothesize as to intentions, but the ultimate bottom line is still the same.
She's not doing her job.
And some people say, well, she was wrong here.
Did she lie or was she misinformed by the Bureau of Prisons?
Does it it doesn't matter?
It looks terrible.
It is terrible.
And for anybody who is demanding transparency in this, this is causing people concern in this administration in its undertakings for transparency and for justice in the Epstein case.
But I am curious as to know what everyone thinks about that particular theory of mine.
If that security guard was in fact the security guard in the picture.
I mean, to the if they're understaffed, it really reduces the chance of it being somebody else because I mean, they're probably more there is more than one staff there, but it reduces the likelihood.
I agree, but Viva, I agree, but Viva, but her ass is getting I I presume you mean politically.
Um, so that that one minute I don't think is irrelevant, but I don't know if it's as relevant as I think it is.
And maybe I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill.
Or maybe I've discovered it all.
Oh, the guards weren't asleep.
They were told to shut up.
They were told to falsify the records, and then they went ahead and did it.
And then they got caught having done it.
So they had to pretend that they did it on their own, but they were told us take responsibility for it, and we won't prosecute you.
Oh my goodness, can I go down this conspiratorial rabbit hole?
Booya.
Let me see what's going on in Viva Barnes Law.locals.com in terms of blame Bon Gino.
Why would I possibly blame Bon Gino for any of that?
But we're gonna see what happens with with, we're gonna see what happens with the FBI in the current direction.
All smoke and mirrors, endless tape loops of BS, says Roostang.
Uh let me see here.
I would like to vote Pam off the island, says Mr. Wire.
Lawyers should be more careful with their testimony.
Bondy getting that multi-million dollar book deal, says Dapper Dave.
Uh let me I could have done it this way.
Do I have anything more on the Pam Bondi?
Um hold on.
Is this it?
Oh no, that was the article, so I I covered this.
Okay, good.
Okay.
And that is my long shot prediction.
Fox News is manufacturing consent for a Pam Bondi removal from the Trump administration.
We'll see.
I'll clip it, I'll snip it, and I will pat myself on the back in the future.
And if it doesn't happen, I'll pretend I ever said it.
I'm joking.
Let me bring up some uh crumble chat, because I want to see what's going on over here.
Uh let's scroll this.
Pam wants to be a star.
Bon Gino will drop the hammer when he's got the facts.
Bon Gino deals in facts, but he understands speculation.
Well, also, see, this is this has been my other underlying theory of Bon Gino.
He is a good person.
He wants this administration to succeed.
And you have to, if he wants this administration to succeed, that doesn't happen by him maybe even calling out Bondi for being an absolute incompetent or corrupt nincompoop.
But they had that alleged blow up.
It made the news.
I I, you know, you can believe it or not.
He he threatened to leave, allegedly, and uh then they bring on a co-deputy director, and now the media seems to be getting ready to chuck Pam Bondi under the bus, but it doesn't help that she keeps saying stupid things.
Um Miami Herald, Miami Herald article, Acosta pointed fingers, please.
I don't think about Pam Bondi, but my usual were wrong instincts is she has a face that could negotiate a pay raise, not exactly got much competition.
Um that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.
And I think I'm uh gonna be on to something.
All right, uh, let me see another thing here.
Okay, first of all, let me just go refresh in the backdrop and see what's going on here.
Redacted has gone live, so we're gonna go raid them sooner than later.
I'm going to save.
What did I say I was saving for our Viva Barnes Law.locals.com community.
Jeffrey Epstein Guards.
Well, this this was the article from um this was the article from CBC back in the day.
I mean, everybody remembers this, right?
Like we were told that there was no video footage, and then they released that five years later under a different administration.
Told the guards were understaffed.
He ended up with extra linens in his.
It is, it is actually, you know, the more I talked myself into this.
Was he going into a linen closet?
Like, what is?
So I've got my questions.
I got my questions for the administration.
Who was that security guard in that missing minute footage?
And what's behind door number 46?
If it if it has so help me goodness, if it happens to be a linen closet, I'll have more questions.
Yes, we're gonna talk about um John Carpe uh having been disbarred.
Great show, Viva.
Thank you very much.
I never know anymore.
I've lost I've lost all sense of introspection and and self-analysis.
I'm my own harshest critic.
Everything I say is stupid.
I'm ugly, short, weird looking.
Come on, people.
All right, those are the those are the voices in you.
You gotta tune them out.
Positive thoughts.
You gotta pull the Donald Trump and think only good thoughts.
Um, I think that's it.
I mean, that was a long show about uh Epstein crap, but it's it's necessary.
I'm uh yeah, I'm on I'm I supported Gates.
Gates undoubtedly would have been the better pick.
Uh, But we're not we're not too late.
I think Andrew Bailey would be amazing if he made if he bumps his way up there.
We got Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike says, hey man, Epstein Press Conference debacle.
Hey, today's press conference with Epstein victim was no debacle, so you should choose your title carefully.
Today is about the victims, not Epstein, who died while incarcerated.
Victims Press Conference was live on Bannon.
Hold on, I want to see this here.
Victims Live was this is sometimes I wish I could make sure I understood the actual intent behind was live on Bandon.
Today's vic today's press conference was about the victims.
I think I've thoroughly fleshed out why I think today's press conference was a debacle.
And I appreciate some people will not agree with me, but that's what makes the world beautiful.
Okay.
Yeah, we're gonna do one last one before we go raid redacted.
I see I did put in the title, Canada.
Uh what did I say in the title here?
Uh uh.
Oh, that's a there's a there's a typo in the title.
Oh, for goodness sake.
That was from yesterday.
Hold on.
Today's title is Canada Continues to Fall.
Good.
There's no type type on today's Canada continues to fall, people.
I'll probably do a separate standalone vlog on this.
Okay, so you know the new Democrat Party, the NDP, Jug Meets Sings Party.
Uh they got their, they got shellacked.
They got schlonged in the last election.
They are the I have to weigh my words here.
Uh they're shitheads.
Like they are they are awful.
That entire NDP party is making Jack Leighton, a man who I think was a good man, who founded that party roll in his grave at what they've done to that party.
They are quite literally, if they're not terrorist sympathizers, they've been infiltrated by terrorist elements.
They are awoke to the point of retardation.
And you'll understand what I mean by this when we get to their new leadership election thing requirements.
They were uh progressive to the point of tardation in the last election.
They lost however many seats.
They actually fell under the threshold to retain official party status.
And now Jugmeet Singh, who lost his own writing, is the idiot who ran this party into the ground.
They need to replace him.
Um, there's my tweet.
And I'm I'm like, I'm I'm at a bowling league yesterday.
I didn't bowl particularly well.
My average was 153 for my three games.
It was the first time I bowled in three plus years.
And I uh, you know, I only got like five shots in for let me let me bring this out here.
I only got a few shots in for my uh from my prep.
Um and I'm sitting there saying, like, these these sons of bitches.
There's there's nothing left to say to them other than go fuck yourselves.
The rules for their leadership race, and I thought it was a joke.
I thought it was a joke.
This is 2026 leadership cheferie in French, chef means the leader.
Cheferie, c'est la course à la chefferie de la ND NDP.
The rules governing leadership context contest.
This is real.
This is Canada, and this is where it's going.
Listen to this.
I gotta bring this up because my old eyes can't see this.
The applicants shall provide the completed nomination signature form to the leadership vote committee by the deadline identified by the CEO.
The nomination signature form must duly sign by 500 members in good must be duly signed by 500 members in good standing of the NDP, the new Democratic Party.
The party may set up an electronic system to facilitate this process.
So the nomination signature form must meet the following parameters.
A, a minimum of 50 signatures must be from the members of each of the following five regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, North, and the prairies.
B, at least 50% of the total required signatures must be from members who do not identify as a cis man.
I'm gonna stop there.
A minimum of 100 signatures must be from members of equity seeking groups, including but not limited to radicalized.
I'm not stopping there, I'm sorry.
A minimum of 100 signatures must be from members of equity seeking groups, including but not limited to radicalized members, indigenous racialized members.
Sorry, I guess radicalizes one hell of a Freudian slip.
Indigenous members, members of the LGBTQIA plus LGBTQIA 2S plus community, and persons living with disabilities.
I am gonna go ahead and venture that everyone who considers themselves a member of the NVP is living with a disability, a cognitive disability.
Identify as a cis men.
You gotta get 50% of the total signatures from members who do not identify as a cis white.
Oh, they didn't say white, but a cis man.
And there's nothing left to say.
NDP, go fuck yourselves.
Signed a cis white man.
Now, did you know that cis is a slur on Twitter?
Now, it's interesting.
It's a slur on Twitter, which means that they've added it as a word that's as offensive as you know the N-word, uh, the K-word for the Jews.
Uh, what else?
I mean, I can name you every every race's bad word on earth.
They've added it as an offensive term for straight white men.
Uh, which I don't like.
Let people use it.
It does it.
Who cares?
Plus, I don't find it offensive at all.
I think anybody who uses it is a moron.
But then people like Viva, congratulations on playing their game and using their word.
Like, this is a if I were, you know, a uh a black person trying to uh defuse the N-word.
I I I would I would make that my word.
I'm a I'm a I'm a the a straight white man, despite what some people think.
I'm gonna make that my word.
I'm gonna tell you to go shove it up your ass, you idiots.
But that's the NDP, by the way.
It's it's I mean, they they're they're taking they're taking crazy pills.
They don't understand why they just got their asses handed to them the last election, and now they've gone and doubled down on their political retardation that cost them official party status.
So if you thought it's uh bad in the states, everybody, you can at least say we're not yet as bad as Canada, but my goodness, you gotta keep your ear to the grindstone when it comes to Canada because that stuff is trickling down to California, New York State, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts.
You gotta look to Canada to know what the future can look like if you give up some of your rights and some of your rights in particular.
That is it.
Now we shall go raid the redacted.
I'm gonna grab okay.
What happened here?
Redacted went private.
No, no, they didn't.
Okay.
They are live and I love their audio.
They've got such good audio.
Nice deep bellowing mics.
Go raid redacted.
Let them know from whence you came.
Show some love and uh come on over to Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
Confirming the raid.
Massive two shits, says Dudu.
That's how I say the publication.
I'm not reading that.
I don't know what that's about.
Uh so go raid the redacted, everybody.
Tell them from where you can.
I'm hearing myself.
Okay, sorry, I'm hearing myself.
Let me go um just say viva raid booya.
All right.
The raid is a wonderful tool.
Redacted does amazing work.
I didn't thank the quartering for their raid into my show.
Thank you very much, Jeremy.
Uh, we gotta get who is supposed to be on whose show as a result of having lost that bet about uh the woman in the genes commercial, not apologizing for her cis white female good genes.
Uh all right.
Well, that's it.
Uh, we're gonna go over to Viva Barnes Law.locals.com, talk about John Carpe.
Uh, thank you all for being here, Rumble.
Um, and uh enjoy the show, eh?
Go on and enjoy the show, eh?
And get drink some maple syrup and get some bacon while you're at it, eh?
All right, we're converting on over to locals.
Thank you all for being here, Rumble.
If you're not coming, I will see you tomorrow.
Tomorrow's Thursday.
▲
Export Selection