Viva & Barnes - Comey Doubles Down, Prosecution Doubles Up! Election Day Madness! Boasberg Impeachment & MORE!

Nov. 4, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:03:50

Comey Doubles Down, Prosecution Doubles Up! Election Day Madness! Boasberg Impeachment & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, today as I futz around with my big fat fingers and try to figure out what I've done wrong, you are looking at Jake Lang.
	You might remember him from such insurrections as the January 6th insurrection.
	Well, now he has announced that he is suing Zoran Mamdani for discrimination, I believe, as a result of Zoran, saying that he was going to tax the white.
	Behold.
	Today, Federal Watchdog has just filed a $100 million lawsuit on the racist Zoran Mandami, a federal discrimination lawsuit detailing his hatred against white people, including the fact that he said he wants to tax New Yorkers.
	Quote it for folks is to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.
	Explain why you are bringing race into the taxpayers.
	That is just a description of what we see right now.
	White New York is at a higher rate than any other race.
	This is despicable discrimination at its highest, and it's illegal against the Civil Rights Act.
	So, Mr. Mandami, you radical Muslim extremist, we will be seeing you in the courtroom.
	Jake Lang.
	Jake Lang is a man who is not known for weighing his words.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	I'm not sure if your audio's on.
	Is my audio on?
	Am I good?
	You are good.
	It was very silent.
	And just so everybody knows, I'm on the road yet again, on the road again.
	So I've got the window light behind me.
	So it's making me look very young.
	Like all my wrinkles and my furrowed brow have been smoothed out.
	Jake, sir, it's been a while.
	How are you doing?
	I'm great.
	I just got out of the PBD Value Tainment Podcast Studios.
	We just shot with unusual suspects just a little while ago.
	So I'm running around and we are fighting back.
	That's the premise, right?
	They put me away for four years and they thought that that was going to leave me dejected, kind of leave me energyless.
	But we're taking the fight to the home front now.
	And you can guarantee this, anytime there's any one of these leftist extremists, Federal Watchdog and myself are going to be there suing the pants off them for all their radical, racist, anti-white propaganda and lawfare that they're doing.
	So tell, I mean, I was going to Google it and bring it up.
	Who's Federal Watchdog?
	What entity is that?
	So Federal Watchdog is basically the spin-off of all of the legal organizations that I ran in prison for the January 6ers.
	We had the January 6th Legal Fund, which was this massive organization who raised millions of dollars, helped get lawyers for over 50 January 6ers.
	And now we're taking that same organization, same backbone, and we're applying it to lawfare like this.
	And here's a little sneak peek what's coming up next.
	The next lawsuit we're going to be filing next week is going to be against the California DMV for allowing all of these illegal immigrants who can't even speak English to go in there and to get commercial driver's licenses.
	And specifically, this name is Jang Sang Priet, the one that just killed in California a couple white folks while driving, texting and driving or whatever, because these people don't care.
	They're not Americans and they're here to milk our system.
	So we're going to be suing the California DMV as well for allowing illegal immigrants to have commercial driver's licenses.
	This is what we're doing now.
	We're taking the law fare to them.
	Now, for those who don't know, you're running for Florida Senate, correct?
	No, United States Senate in the state of Florida.
	Marco Rubio's open seat.
	Okay, sorry, that's what I'm saying.
	So United States Senate in Florida, that election is going to come up in 2026?
	August 18th, 2026, special election.
	There's an interim appointed senator there right now.
	Okay, so you're doing that.
	Now you started Federal Watchdog.
	You are based out of New York State, right?
	That's where you live?
	That's where I grew up.
	I had property there.
	My family's there, but I am in Florida now.
	I actually had a house in Florida even before during COVID.
	I was down here because New York was like a desperate, you know, no-go zone.
	It was dead.
	There was nothing there.
	So I moved down to Florida at that time and I established residency down here.
	But I have property and things in New York that give me standing jurisdiction to be able to sue because my property taxes are going to increase because I'm a white homeowner in the state of New York.
	So, you know, this gives me standing to sue the pants off the Muslim radical communist Zoron Mondami.
	Okay, that was my actual question: is what standing you would have.
	For New York, I understand.
	You filed the notice.
	That's not the lawsuit.
	It's a three-point statement.
	So, no, that is the notice in this civil jurisdiction there is the lawsuit.
	It goes along.
	That's the notice.
	There's also the civil complaint that is attached to that.
	I think I sent you that as well.
	And there's a couple other forms.
	We filed it pro se with the Southern District of New York, which traditionally has been the number one place really to fight out your battle.
	Southern District of New York is like the international headquarters of the biggest criminal and civil cases ever.
	So this is going to be playing out in the big leagues.
	This is not going to be happening in the back room somewhere.
	The Southern District of New York has the best attorneys in it in the world, and we're going to be duking it out.
	I can't wait to see how they try to justify this man's.
	And then he doubled down.
	You saw that?
	So that quote that the newscaster had read is from Zoron's campaign website.
	He actually has this in text on his campaign website as part of his platform saying that whiter neighborhoods are going to be taxed more.
	And they asked him, why are you bringing race into this?
	And he says, oh, that's just a description.
	Well, yeah, of course, our skin color is just a description of who we are as people, but it just so happens that that is against the Civil Rights Act and against the 14th Amendment, which gives us equal protection under the law.
	You can't tax people over 60 years old more than you do people in their mid-40s or whatnot.
	It's just an arbitrary, it's against so anti-American.
	It goes against everything our founding fathers stood for.
	All men are created equal.
	All men are supposed to be taxed equally as well.
	Pro se, meaning it's your organization, Federal Watchdog, and you don't have counsel?
	I do not have counsel.
	I have multiple attorneys that I work with on all of these different things.
	But honestly, the court gives a greater leeway, right, as far as your ability to fight, especially civil complaints and civil lawsuits.
	They are very stringent when a lawyer files them.
	They tend to try to immediately throw them out.
	They kind of give greater onus to people who are filing pro se as far as they're not as overbearing and they allow a little bit more flexibility with the wording you use and different things of that nature.
	So in my experience, and what we're actually doing right now, and people can go ahead and DM Federal Watchdog or go on fedwatchdog.org to go.
	We're actually going to be signing up hundreds of other New Yorkers, maybe even thousands of other white New Yorkers onto this lawsuit and eventually be launching this with counsel, which is my plans with my counsel right now.
	And, you know, this is the same organization that's filing all of the J6 lawsuits right now, the big J6 lawsuits, multi-million dollar lawsuits.
	And so we have an established track record.
	We've actually just filed in Supreme Court recently because check this out.
	Think we talked about this before, but to remind your audience, back two years ago, actually, almost two years ago, the statute of limitations was about to arrive for incidents that happened on January 6th, like police brutality-related injuries.
	And so, on the eve of January 6th, 2024, 2020, 2024, we had compiled 80 litigants together, plaintiffs, and we got all these J6ers to talk about their injuries.
	Some people were pepper sprayed in the eyes.
	Some people like myself were smashed with steel batons.
	I have a freaking scar, a huge one on my head from the Capitol Police.
	And we're alleging police misconduct, lack of training, police brutality.
	And that case, we entered in the federal district court.
	Check this out.
	I put down my phone number, my cell phone number on that complaint while I was in prison, right?
	Because I filed a pro se.
	They called that number, and then they threw the case out for local Rule 41.
	I'm in solitary confinement on the rooftop of Brooklyn prison with an MS-13 gang member as my cellmate, and I couldn't answer the cell phone.
	So they threw out the lawsuit saying that Local Rule 41 stating that you need to be reachable on the phone number that you put in your lawsuit.
	Do they not know I'm in solitary confinement being held by the government?
	So we brought that to the appellate court in the Washington, D.C. federal district.
	They stood with this ridiculous ruling from the district court.
	So now we had to file a writ of saratori, and we've just been placed on the docket there in Supreme Court for this.
	So they're going to be giving a ruling, obviously, on is this local rule 41?
	Should this even be applied to prisoners?
	How can it be applied to prisoners?
	So we're filing multiple litigations, and I am on the offense.
	I was on the defense, Viva, for many years, fighting for my life.
	And they've unleashed a hound dog in me, sniffing for lawsuits, sniffing for people that have just horrible intentions for our country and suing the pants off them.
	What is your standing to sue in California?
	So California, we're going to be working with some people that are there and including them in on the lawsuit basically to establish standing.
	I've got a couple contacts over there that are currently interviewing people that want to be a part of this that are somehow affected by this drivers.
	I mean, any California driver, right?
	Any California driver could instantly be killed by a person.
	There was a viral video that came out.
	I wish I had the link to send you.
	Of police officers asking commercial drivers to read simple roadsides.
	And they're like, I can't read English.
	And the California DMV is allowing these foreign invaders to drive, you know, 100 ton, you know, not, well, some of them, if they're hauling septic sludge and stuff, but, you know, dozen ton tankers around and use them as killing machines.
	They can't even read stop signs or, you know, work zones and stuff like that.
	These people are running rampant, drunk with power in California, trying to replace white Americans with invaders and give them license to do jobs that they should not be doing because they can't speak English and they're not even legal residents.
	Yeah, first of all, how's your campaign coming along?
	I don't know what your metrics of success are or even the measurements at this point in time.
	You know, metrics of success are, first of all, fundraising is going pretty good.
	You know, we've got some good coffers going on right now.
	Media is going phenomenal.
	I don't know if you could pull this up.
	If you Google Jake Lang right now, I said my first act as United States Senator is going to be to deputize the Proud Boys and the J6ers to hunt down illegal immigrants.
	And that went super.
	There it is.
	Newsweek.
	Yeah, Newsweek broke the article.
	And then every living, loving, liberal media complex organization picked it up.
	And, you know, they loved it.
	They ran wild with it.
	But I'm serious about that.
	It wasn't just a headline.
	We need to 10X the deportations.
	I'm telling you, when I went into prison, Vivo, now five years ago, it was a different country.
	I came out to 20 million new faces that none of them are American.
	They don't have our ideals.
	They don't speak our language.
	They don't look, sound, or act like Americans, invaded our country.
	And it is demographically and fundamentally a different country than I went into prison before I went into prison.
	And so it really strikes me to the core, somebody that kind of got disappeared for four years, right?
	And now I'm placed back into big cities when I'm campaigning and doing speaking engagements.
	And I'm like, there's no Americans here.
	I'm at a gym and I don't see any Americans here.
	It's all foreigners, all people don't look like me.
	They don't sell me, speak in their languages.
	You know, they don't even have green cards or illegals.
	And so these things matter to me so much.
	And I believe that it is the key to maintaining our Western culture and who we are.
	We cannot have radical demographic shift.
	Look at what's happening in England.
	Look at what's happening in Italy and Rome.
	They're having radical demographic shifts and it's actually tearing apart the fabric of their countries.
	And we cannot allow that to happen in America.
	After I'm done with you, I'm going to show you what's happening up in Canada where it's, I mean, people are going to complain about you.
	It's one of my, say, critiques or my issues.
	You focus on the white aspect a lot.
	And some people are going to say, look, my revelation, my opinion, is the American ideal is not skin-based, but it's ideological-based.
	And the issue is you could have some people coming in from a number of countries where they don't share the ideology and it'll be just as incompatible as coming in from India or wherever.
	There's a correlation there.
	Let me push back on that for a second because it's not skin-based, right?
	Because anybody knows that in their mind.
	But can you take away the scientific correlation between people that look like us and how they vote?
	For example, if you go, let's ask the audience right now, go to Grok and ask one simple question.
	It's the most important screenshot, I think, in the last hundred years.
	If only white men voted in 2024 or 2020, sorry, 2020, what would the election have been?
	50 state sweep for Donald Trump, every state.
	So why is it?
	You have to ask the question.
	Why is it that white men are concerned about individual liberties, family values, and things like that?
	And you have to break that down.
	You have to kind of start from a certain juxtaposition, such as the one that I'm talking about, skin color, race, heritage, origin, bloodline, things of that nature, and work backwards from there.
	Why is it that people who look like us, who have the same background, skin color, heritage and stuff, tend to vote for small government, pro-liberty, pro-you know, these things?
	I don't know.
	You have to ask yourself, if you bring in a correlating factor, which is, let's say America was flooded with 50 million black women tomorrow, what would the voting change be like?
	Let's say they all are quote unquote Americans, right, tomorrow.
	You just flood them in here and you say, oh, it doesn't matter about skin color or these things.
	But if a statistical significant amount of black women all vote for socialistic values, right?
	Then you have to start to question yourself, why is the correlating differences here?
	And I'm just here to point out racial statistics.
	Why is it that if only white men voted in 2020, we'd have a 50-state sweep of Donald Trump?
	I would answer.
	If only black women voted or only Spanish women voted, it would have been.
	So I asked this one to Grok, if only Spanish women voted, Joe Biden would have won every state except for Florida, which it's like 52%, it was saying, would have been.
	So why, if only white men voted, would we have our dream government pro-liberty, pro-Second Amendment, freedom of speech government, if only white men voted?
	But if only Spanish women voted, we'd have a totalitarian socialist regime here.
	Now, ask yourselves that questions here.
	I think there's a Venn diagram of overlapping ideas or concepts that with white men, you are thinking of traditional Western values, Judeo-Christian values.
	I dare say, throw white Canadian men into the mix.
	You might have a very different looking country, Jake.
	In which case, that's where I highlight.
	And if you threw in a certain demographic of black, like Ethiopian, for example, you might have, if it was all only Ethiopian black men voting, you might have the same results.
	That being said, I mean, oh, God, you're giving me nightmares right now.
	I had a dream like that.
	I had a dream almost identical to that.
	It was a nightmare the other night.
	Only Ethiopian black men everywhere.
	No, I'd say like the issue, people are going to look at you and say you're obsessing over and focusing on the white versus other element.
	In Mamdani's case, it's quite easy and obvious because he made the race the issue.
	There's other cases where I think you might be reading it into it because you want to.
	But setting that aside, suing Momdani, it's going to be interesting.
	I think they'll try to toss you on jurisdiction.
	He might not get elected.
	We'll see.
	It looks like he's going to get elected.
	California.
	No, California, you got to get jurisdiction, but they're going to say that you have no standing.
	Trump's golden touch is really on the line here.
	He just endorsed freaking Cuomo the last minute here.
	Let me see what the markets are doing.
	He should have, you know, Trump is way too smart for this.
	He should have, because he's the ultimate troll, endorsed Mondami and been like, Mandami won because I said so.
	Well, he did that in Canada.
	He endorsed, quasi-endorsed, what's his face?
	Carney.
	And then Carney won and everyone complained that he didn't say nice things about Pierre Polyev.
	No, it's interesting.
	I mean, look, you're on a warpath.
	There's no question about that.
	The Mandani lawsuit is very interesting.
	We'll see what happens.
	I mean, on the one hand, he's got to get elected.
	You've got to have standing recognized.
	And then they've got to say that it's actually something that he's going to implement and not something he merely discussed.
	So you might have no standing until he actually implements the policy.
	Then they're going to say, once it's implemented, once you're affected, then you can sue.
	But that's it.
	So a lot of people have been commenting that.
	But here's the thing.
	He is currently a New York State Assemblyman, right?
	So this is more than just a private citizen talking about this on Twitter.
	This is in his official capacity.
	If he had the power, if he had the votes, right?
	If he had the authority, which he is running to have that authority, he would implement these draconian, racist, discriminatory policies.
	So you have to kind of almost almost preemptively sue because he is threatening.
	There is a reasonable understanding that he is running on these policies.
	It's on his website.
	So you're almost suing preemptively because it is a current threat that threatens your sovereignty as a white person, your constitutional rights.
	Viva, before I go, I have a breaking update and I shouldn't even be announcing it on here because it is now.
	It's so radical.
	It is so radical.
	I will be.
	I'm coming close to the camera because there's people listening.
	I will be in Dearborn, Michigan this Sunday doing a Christian demonstration outside the 25-year anniversary of their largest mosque.
	There's going to be tens of thousands of these Burka-wearing invaders there.
	And I'm going to be bringing two large speakers with me.
	And the five times a day that they play their Muslim prayer call, I'm going to be playing Christian worship music over their prayer call, holding crosses and saying, go back to Somalia, you invader.
	So if anybody wants to join me, I'll be there outside the largest.
	It's called the KKAIR.
	By the way, the CARE Organization.
	Yeah, that was.
	Oh, no, no.
	C-A.
	Yes.
	C-A-I-R.
	They're the ones that they're tied to terrorist funding.
	They're the ones that are backing Zoran Mondami and giving him the funding that he needed to launch this ridiculous, disgusting anti-white campaign he's doing.
	So I'm pushing back.
	I'm out here.
	I'm willing to put my life on the line to fight for this country and to maintain what Western culture is all about.
	You cannot have a country if you do not have a people.
	You cannot have a country if you do not have a shared heritage.
	That is what I go.
	If let's say you were to buy a plane ticket right now to Jamaica, right?
	Go on vacation and you landed there and there's a bunch of Koreans, you know, with hot pots and stuff like that.
	You'd be like, where's the culture?
	Yeah, I came here to enjoy their food, their cuisine or their culture, their language, their architecture, their religion, all of the values and the underlying things that develop a culture.
	I'm here to not only fight against the lawfare, but also to maintain Western culture.
	And that's what my lawsuits and my things that I'm doing with Federal Watchdog and my campaign are really about.
	We need to fight for our countries.
	We need to maintain what our founding fathers handed to us.
	That is the most important thing.
	It's easy sometimes to secure liberty.
	All it takes is one brave act.
	But the process of maintaining and staying vigilant and being a sentinel for liberty sometimes is much harder.
	Sometimes it takes some mean words and it takes some controversial things.
	But at the end of the day, my children are going to grow up in the America that I grew up in.
	And I'm going to fight to the death to make that happen.
	Jake, let me ask you this one question that came from our locals community.
	Please ask Jake if he's in contact with former Green Beret Lieutenant Colonel and attorney Ivan Rakeland.
	If anyone could read it every day, he is.
	We have some major operations we're planning.
	In fact, here's another, here's another sidebar.
	Do you guys remember Ivan Rakelin's deep state target list?
	I have just bought the domain deepstate targetlist.com and with his with his blessing and I have put the deep state target list in a in a searchable it's not it's not there yet for the people who are trying to go right now in a searchable format to see where each one of these people is currently positioned in the private industry or in government their contact information to reach out to them and almost kind of like the most wanted like poster list like the ones that we got struck out of power like the brennans and you know those people so this is going to be an interactive website
	that all the patriots out there can go to to kind of get more civically involved in, you know, bringing down these opponents of our free living constitutional republic.
	So I've got all kinds of tea I'm spilling here today, guys.
	So Ivan Raiklund is a really great friend.
	We were just speaking together with General Flynn at an event in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and we did a January 6th panel together.
	Me and four other J6ers and Ivan Raiklund was asking us questions, and if you guys want to check out that video, it's on my X page.
	It's a great video where I'm answering some questions from the crowd, and Ivan Raiklund's leading the panel, and what a good fighter.
	I'm really proud to be associated with him.
	And he may be, possibly, I'm going to put the pressure on him right here, joining Federal Watchdog soon, too.
	Ivan, come on, let's go.
	He's supposed to be on, he's supposed to be coming on for an interview.
	We're looking sometime this week to talk about a bunch of stuff Arctic for us.
	What a great freedom fighter.
	I like Ivan a lot.
	He's great.
	This is your ex-page.
	So I'm going to give everybody the link and they can go.
	And you know what?
	And I'm going to also call it Ivan.
	I sat down with him for a two-long hour interview that's supposed to be part of my new documentary called January 6th, Life After Pardons, right?
	I'm interviewing all dozens of J Sixers and also community members like he was who fought for our freedom.
	Well, he insisted to record the interview on his own phone and in classic Ivan Ray Lacum fashion, he dropped it on his page.
	It's a pin post.
	Look on his Twitter page right now.
	He dropped it, my documentary interview before I even had a chance to edit it and put it into my own documentary, which is fine.
	I love him so much.
	But he, I, I, I, um, I interview him.
	It's a pin post.
	Look at the first post on his page.
	All right, right here.
	No, he might unpinned it.
	Oh, he just re-pinned it today.
	Yeah.
	So he basically explains his complete involvement in his day on January 6th because a lot of people asked him why he didn't get arrested and what happened.
	So really intriguing interview.
	And stay tuned for that new documentary I'm dropping very soon called January 6th, Life After Pardons.
	So we're busy and we're fighting.
	Well, it's fantastic, Jake.
	And so you just did the PBD.
	They're going to broadcast that show.
	What, at six o'clock tonight?
	I did unusual suspects.
	I will be, God willing, on PBD in January, right for the five-year anniversary.
	They're going to bring me on, but it's the same studio.
	Yeah.
	The unusuals, they live or premiere their show.
	I think it's on 6 p.m. tonight.
	I'm going to be retweeting it on my page.
	And Viva told me already he's going to retweet it.
	So that's great.
	Amazing, Jake.
	I will.
	I'm kidding.
	I'm kidding.
	I'm the king of that.
	I'm the king of that.
	You nudge hard.
	There's no telling, but that's how you get things done.
	And that's how you make it so that I get down to where am I now?
	New Orleans and make sure to get you on for this full disclosure and what you're up to and what you've been doing, Jake.
	Yeah.
	Viva, it's always a pleasure.
	Thank you so much for giving me your platform, brother.
	Guys, please retweet the video.
	Get this out there.
	Viva, God bless you, my friend.
	Same to you.
	I'll see you soon.
	Bye.
	Fight.
	And now I'm going to show you what happens when you have endless chain migration.
	This is coming from Mario Zelaya up in Canada.
	And he was on the channel.
	We had our making up.
	Well, we didn't have a, we'd never had a fight, but after the election, I invited him on.
	He was a very staunch conservative supporter, doing some good reporting coming out of Canada.
	Check this out.
	This is the end game.
	The great replacement theory is a racist conspiracy theory, but it's happening.
	It's policy, and you're a bigot for noticing.
	This is devastating.
	I think the Liberal Party just put the final nail in the coffin of immigration.
	You think things were bad now?
	They're going to get worse.
	This is the votes results of what the Liberals and the NDP just passed.
	It's called Bill C3.
	This is unlimited chain migration.
	The first wave is over 100,000 people just got their Canadian citizenship.
	They have never lived here.
	They don't even need to pass any sort of language test.
	No security checks.
	No citizenship exam.
	They were granted this because their parents lived in Canada for over a thousand days.
	Conservatives worked so hard to try passing some amendments, they refused to accept them.
	The Liberal Party said no.
	So now the second generation Canadian citizens can pass down citizenship to their kids, even if they're not living in the country.
	And even if their kids don't know the language.
	All on the basis that they were here for over a thousand days.
	Frankly speaking, I see this as an importing of voters.
	Unlimited chain migration is a way of hiding the immigration numbers of the disastrous policies of what the liberal have engaged in in the last several years.
	By the way, a thousand days is less than three years.
	It's like two years and eight months.
	This is from the Department of Justice from Canada.
	I encourage every Canadian to look into this.
	What I'm telling you is real.
	The objective of the bill is to establish a new legislative scheme for Canadian citizens born abroad to pass on citizenship to their children.
	It's the great replacement.
	Nothing short of it.
	And it is importing votes.
	This is something we've been saying for a while.
	You can't win the existing votes that you have.
	You can't win among your existing constituents because you've used them, abused them, exploited them, and discarded them.
	So you've got to import new people who are going to say, thank you so much for opening up your country to us.
	We shall vote for you too.
	And then they're going to abuse and exploit them until they realize their policies are shit.
	Then they're going to have to find a new demographic to vote for them.
	Unlimited chain migration.
	This is the final nail in the coffin for immigration.
	And take it from someone who immigrated to Canada.
	This is a disaster.
	Yeah, well, losing elections has consequences.
	Not adhering to sound political advice in real time has consequences.
	You get what you vote for, and the problem is so does everyone else.
	And speaking of getting what you're voting for, today is the day.
	Today's the day where we're going to find out if Jay Jones, the man who, in text messages to a Republican colleague, ostensibly rejoiced in the idea of the Republican getting murdered, his children getting murdered.
	It's only when they feel the pain that they change policies of terrorism.
	Today's the day.
	And by the markets, it looks like Jay Jones, running for attorney general, a man who jokingly, not jokingly, hashtag sorry, not sorry, talked about the murder of his political rivals and their children.
	He's going to potentially be elected to the attorney general for the state of Virginia.
	For all the rest, it looks like a landslide.
	It looks like a sweep.
	Winsome Sears down to 5%.
	Cuomo, under 5% right now.
	Looks like New Jersey might be the last bastion of hope.
	But today's the day we're going to find out.
	Remember when Spamberger, spam face burger, said, you know, I'm not withdrawing my endorsement of Jay Jones.
	It's up to the voters now.
	Right now, we're going to find out if the Democrat voters actually oppose political violence or don't.
	We're going to find out if Democrat voters in Virginia support a man who wants to or would be happy in seeing the murder of his political rivals and their children, or if they disapprove of that.
	I've placed my bet.
	And if I lose my bet on the markets that Jay Jones gets elected, well, we got bigger problems than the 300 bucks on the bet.
	If they elect him, you're dealing with a party of people who have no qualms electing someone who, even if they want to say in jest, has no problem with the idea of murdering his rivals and their children.
	So we'll see.
	That's what's on the docket for today, peeps.
	We'll be following the news.
	But for those of you who don't know, I take for granted everybody knows who Jake Lang is because he's been on the channel a number of times.
	But I guess it's good that we're seeing people who are not new to the channel.
	Jake Lang was one of the Jan Sixers.
	He was locked up for, I think, solitary for 900 of his 1,400 days.
	It was like close to four years that he was in jail, pre-trial detention.
	At the time, I was taking flack for platforming him.
	Oh, Viva, he engaged in violence.
	He's not one of the ones you should be platforming.
	He's not one of the ones you should be defending.
	He's not the ones you should be advocating for.
	And when he was in jail, prison, the gulags, he was doing live streams, and I didn't understand how he was doing live streams.
	He was attending a live stream via a phone, which was contraband, but he paid whatever he paid to get it.
	And he broke whatever rules he had to break to get it.
	And they threw him in the hole as often as they caught him.
	And then he once started floating the idea of a pardon.
	And I was like, yeah, dude, I mean, as much as I like you, I don't think they're going to be pardoning the violent Jan Sixers.
	And then the more things progressed, the more I was like, oh, yeah, if they wanted to punish the Jan Sixers, even the violent ones properly, they should have done it properly within the bounds of the Constitution with a just punishment that fits the crime.
	They didn't.
	And I advocated for a full pardon for all of the Jan Sixers, even the violent ones.
	And by the grace of God, I don't know how it happened.
	He got his pardon.
	And now he's not yet done with the warpath.
	He is still on it.
	But what he was talking about the violence that he saw that day and the violence that he engaged in, because when I first interviewed him, and he says, I'm sitting there and I see these cops beat Roseanne Boylan and she dies in my arms.
	And I don't even really think I'm exaggerating what he told me.
	And he said he lost it.
	And he said a bat manifested itself.
	And he went swinging on police officers who were sitting there employing violent tactics that we now know they were employing in order to trigger the crowd.
	We didn't know the degree to which they were implementing lethal force until today.
	And I don't know if everybody saw this.
	Steve Baker put out a tweet with an article that he co-authored.
	Less lethal instructor Kirchhoff left Capitol Police about six months after January 6th.
	Her colleagues heard she went to work for a three-letter federal intel agency.
	She immediately wiped her social media, phone numbers, and email accounts.
	More to follow.
	In the article that Steve Baker wrote, co-authored, he talks about how the Capitol Police use lethal force unlawfully and without provocation.
	There.
	From Blaze Media, Capitol Police repeatedly used lethal force on protesters early on January 6th video shows.
	Now, you remember, we saw the video.
	I don't know if I showed it because I don't like showing things that have like overt blood and gore on them.
	There were protesters who got shot in the face with rubber bullets.
	It blew through one of the guys' cheeks.
	And I remember you see the guy blood pouring out of it.
	They did it.
	We know that they did it.
	That's how they provoked a violent response.
	They had their agent provocateur in the crowd as well, just to make sure it all took.
	But we saw them doing this.
	This is what the article writes.
	This is what Steve Baker wrote.
	Use of powerful kinetic projectiles to strike protesters in the head, face, and neck was, quote, criminally negligent, a use of force expert said.
	In the span of less than 10 minutes after a huge crowd of protesters filled the U.S. Capitol West Plaza beneath the inauguration stage on January 6th, Capitol Police repeatedly used lethal force on the crowd, targeting people in the head, neck, face, upper body.
	Actions one use of force expert called criminally negligent.
	During that brief span, at least 16 people were shot with kinetic impact projectiles, including nine who took shots to the top of the head, face, base of the neck, according to Capitol.
	We saw the videos.
	Interesting anecdote.
	I know someone who partook in a protest in a country you'd never want to go to.
	Trust me.
	And he got shot in the head with a rubber bullet and lost an eye.
	And this is a good friend.
	None of this is private information, but people don't necessarily want to be not put on blast, but have their stories told, amplified.
	But the dude lost his eye.
	And you take a rubber bullet to the neck, you take a rubber bullet to the eye, you take it to the mouth.
	It will mess you up.
	And you're dealing with a crowd for which there was zero purpose in escalating to that level of lethal force because it's not because it's a hard rubber pellet or rubber pellet grenades shooting rubber pellets at 400 feet per second.
	You know, in Canada, firearms become regulated at 600 feet per second.
	So like a pellet gun, if it shoots 600 feet per second, is going to be regulated like a gun.
	These heavy rubber pellet kinetic guns that shoot 400 feet per second, these, I don't know if they're one ounce pellets, they will mess you up.
	And this is exactly what they did to trigger the response from that crowd.
	So they had cops, trigger happy cops, using what is effectively lethal force on the crowd, your instigators, agent provocateur in the crowd, and then your peaceful nannies and grannies who were let in when they opened up the magnetic doors and then went after them with the full extent of the law.
	And I say the full abuse of the law.
	Deputy Police Chief Eric Waldo claimed in a U.S. Capitol Police radio dispatch at 111 that his officers were using, quote, indirect firing, but the department surveillance video contradicts that claim.
	Waldo also said we quote gave repeated warnings to the crowd to disperse or face chemical munitions, but video shows he did not have a bullhorn and no warnings could be heard on ground level video or the United States Capitol Police surveillance video.
	He ordered Capitol Police grenadiers to open fire on the crowd at 106.
	Hey, Biden's, but Trump was still president.
	This is like Biden, Pelosi's Capitol building, Pelosi's Washington, D.C., looks a whole hell of a lot like Tiananmen Square.
	Steph Caffart, an expert witness on police use of force who reviewed the January 6th video, said firing crowd-controlled weapons from an elevated platform into a dense crowd, striking targets above the shoulders, is both criminally negligent and a potentially lethal act.
	There's a wealth of clear and convincing evidence here that police were not trained or equipped to move, disperse, or arrest stragglers.
	And by the way, you know, look, I'll stop here.
	You got the idea.
	I'm blaming the cops to an extent, but I'm blaming the administration of DC, Pelosi, Yogananda Pittman, Bowser.
	I'm blaming them for putting the cops in a position where they were, I don't know, forced to act improperly, where they were compelled to act improperly.
	Link.
	Let me go check that out.
	That's Steve Baker's work.
	So we know it.
	I mean, we're seeing it.
	We're seeing more and more evidence of it.
	It's already stuff that we do.
	And my goodness, in some states, you're right on the verge of putting back into power people who are that bad and worse.
	And we'll know by the end of the day, how bad it's going to get.
	Apparently, it might not gotten, it might not have gotten bad enough just yet.
	All right, what else do we have here?
	Let me go to the let me go to viva barnslaw.locals.com, see what's going on over here.
	That's the link.
	Baseball, maybe more than any other sport, is a game of if, ands, or buts.
	The transgender, trans athletes, dodgers.
	Okay, what up?
	I'm getting to the base.
	Something of bitches says Bart Kopp.
	Okay, good.
	We'll get back to that chat afterwards.
	And then if we go see what's going on on Hrumble for an off-hour short notice stream, let me see what we got in the chat.
	A 16-ounce roofing hammer traveling at 32% can mess you up too.
	Classic entrapment says simplex quint, no doubt.
	And absolutely.
	They were gleefully doing it.
	Well, I'm sure some were overwhelmed.
	I mean, I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt to some of these guys.
	I mean, some of them were overwhelmed, panicking, had no idea what the hell they were doing.
	Others, I have no doubt, were more gleeful in the circumstances of the incident.
	All right.
	Your butt says Tiffany.
	Okay, thank you.
	It was crazy to watch this stuff on TV in real time, only to see the media constantly lie about it.
	Hey, they're still saying that Brian Sicknick died of a, got bludgeoned to death by a group of Trump supporters with the fire extinguisher.
	I mean, this is the lies that persist exponentially longer, even after the correction.
	To be mentioned tomorrow during my discourse, Viva Fry, Manufacturing Consent 2.0, when fake news has real power.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Okay, what else do we got?
	We got a bunch of things here.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	I'm going to try to, I'm not going to be able to do a car vlog or a street vlog.
	So I'm just going to do my best to segment so that I can cut this particular segment and then publish it to Commitube.
	At Commie hello.
	Oh, it's doesn't matter.
	They have figured out how to algorithmically suppress the disfavored voices so that all you get are the people who toe the line on Commitube.
	Set that aside.
	James Comey filed a motion to dismiss, to which the government replied with a spanking to say, James Comey, you should have kept your mouth shut and maybe we wouldn't have filed these additional supplemental exhibits.
	The reply is the most damning piece of jurisprudence.
	It's not jurisprudence just yet, legalese that you've ever seen.
	So as you know, James Comey has been indicted.
	He made a motion to dismiss the charges because, you know, he's arguing malicious prosecution.
	James Comey is arguing malicious prosecution.
	They're going after him unfairly in a manner that they've never gone after anybody else in similar circumstances before.
	That's what malicious prosecution basically means.
	Specific, out of context or out of line with other similar circumstances, the DOJ replied to his motion to dismiss, and we'll get to the highlights of that because it's glorious.
	DOJ response to Comey motion to dismiss provides attachments of extensive use of Daniel Richman to leak and shape media.
	This is from the last refuge.
	Now, before we come back to that, you will recall, and I enjoy when I feel smarter than I am.
	When the first indictment came out to James Comey, I was like, all right, it's good, but I was expecting Dan Richman, the Columbia law professor, to have been mentioned in it.
	And he wasn't.
	I was like, all right, so they're just going with the slam dunk.
	He authorized disclosures by the FBI during the 2016 election to manufacture a narrative, whatever.
	I was like, I was surprised that they didn't really talk about Dan Richman, his Columbia law professor, who he was meeting with, texting with.
	And Richman was going to the New York Times using Comey as his anonymous source.
	And then Comey, the lying POS that he is, gets in front of Congress or the Oversight Committee and says that he never authorized any leaks to anybody.
	We'll get to that.
	Well, it seems that the DOJ might be, as we say in French, comblé de l'acune.
	They are now making up for deficiencies in their initial filing, but it evolves.
	So the DOJ response and motion to dismiss provides a bunch of stuff here.
	USAO, United States Attorney's Office, Lindsey Halligan, has responded to James Comey's motion to dismiss the charges against him in a lengthy response and multiple attachments here.
	Here, we'll get to that.
	I went through it, posted the highlights on our locals community, posted them on Twitter right before going live.
	In addition to refuting the effort by Comey's lawyers to challenge the appointment of Halligan, it's amazing.
	They just, they know what they did when they broke the rules with Jack Smith.
	And so now they're trying to like apply those same breaches of the rules, assuming their adversaries broke the rules, which they didn't.
	Jack Smith was never lawfully appointed.
	Halligan was.
	Okay.
	The USAO, the U.S. Attorney's Office, whatever it is, you don't talk about it, provides evidence of James Comey's extensive use of Daniel Richmond to act as a cutout for leaks and communications.
	Then we're going to get into the details.
	Multiple exhibits highlighting emails between Comey, aka Reinhold Nier, and Daniel Richman, proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Richmond to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information or instruct them on information.
	We're going to get to this.
	So, James Comey, congrats, you filed your motion.
	Woe is me.
	I'm being unfairly prosecuted.
	And the DOJ came back and I pulled up the highlights and I think highlights from the government's motion right here.
	Okay, let's just go one by one by one.
	This was from page four.
	And you're going to see this here.
	The defendant's correspondence with Daniel Richmond and Richmond's correspondence with the press regarding the mid-year exam investigation.
	That was when they were looking into Hillary Clinton.
	James Comey goes out and does his own press conference because he has to shape the narrative.
	He almost literally says that.
	Like, if I said nothing about Hillary's emails and whatever, she would be left dangling in the wind.
	And so he had to go out and do something, even though he didn't have the FBI's approval to do it, in order to shape the narrative.
	Yeah, it was bad, but she should have been better, but not the end of the world.
	Remember when he did that?
	After the defendant sent the October 2016 letter, the defendant emailed extensively with Daniel Richmond.
	This is defendant being Comey, a Columbia law school professor who had also served as an FBI special government employee since 2015.
	Much of the correspondence occurred via the defendant's use of a personal email account and Mr. Richmond's use of an email account associated with Columbia University.
	For example, one day after the defendant sent the October 28 letter, Mr. Richmond emailed the defendant regarding the letter.
	Richman wrote, quote, make sure you keep your eyes shut.
	You don't want to see too much, Comey.
	You might be feeling a little self-harmish.
	I'm joking.
	That's Hillary Clinton joke.
	Richmond is literally telling Comey, shut your eyes and don't see what would be politically inconvenient for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	The country can't seem to handle your finding stuff.
	This is between him and a law professor.
	Okay, cool.
	That's the government exhibit.
	The defendant replied, thanks for battling you have done against, thanks for the battling you have done against unreason.
	This is a strange time, but we press on.
	They think they're writing Shakespeare to each other.
	They think they're the poets and saviors of our time.
	Defendant appears to have reconsidered that view shortly after.
	On November 1st, 2016, he emailed Richmond stating, when I read the Times, the New York Times coverage involving reporter one, I'm left with the sense that they don't understand the significance of my having spoke about the case in July.
	This is when he made his statement about Hillary Clinton.
	This is him colluding with Richmond and then basically saying, can you say this to the New York Times?
	Because I can't.
	And then he gets up in front of, I forget who, and says, I never authorized anybody to leak any information.
	Let's imagine the Times had a policy against writing new articles close to elections if the articles might influence the election.
	Consistent with that policy, they would avoid writing this week if sources told them that the FBI was looking at Huma Abidin's emails.
	But let's imagine that they wrote a very high-profile piece in July that sources lead them to now conclude was materially inaccurate.
	Would they correct it or stay silent because they have a policy to avoid near elections?
	I suspect they would quickly conclude that either course is an action and the choices are either reporting or concealing, but there is a longer neutral option because of the reporting in July.
	I also suspect they would resolve very quickly to choose the action of disclosing because to remain silent is to actively mislead, which has a wide range of very bad consequences.
	Why is this so hard for them to grasp?
	Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	Why can't they understand this?
	It would be great if you could tell them.
	All the stuff about how we were allegedly careful not to take actions on cases involving other allegations about which we have never spoken is irrelevant.
	I love our practice of being inactive near elections, but inactivity was not an option here.
	The choices were to act.
	The choices were act to reveal or act to conceal.
	Richmond responded the next day, stating this is precisely the case I made to them, and they understood.
	I was quite wrong.
	Indeed, I went further and said a mindless allegiance to the policy and recognition that more evidence could come in would have counseled silence in July to let Hillary Rodham Clinton, HRC, twist in the wind.
	Richmond emailed the defendant shortly thereafter saying, just got the point home to reporter one.
	Probably was rougher than you would have been.
	I don't know if you can see this part of the thing because my face might be covering it.
	No, you can see it.
	Okay, good.
	Got the point across there, Master.
	Are you happy with me?
	This is when it gets really good.
	Listen to this.
	Consistent with the, let me do this.
	Similarly, in April 2017, the defendant emailed Mr. Richmond, apparently, regarding a lengthy article in the New York Times, in which Mr. Richmond was a named source regarding the Clinton email investigation, the mid-year exam.
	The defendant wrote that he had read the piece.
	Thanks so much for your words and tell reporter one he did a good job.
	Would be different if I wrote it, but it is by and large fair.
	Richmond replied, You're ever so welcome.
	And we'll do re-reporter.
	Any badly or underdeveloped points for me to work on with the New York Times or just the usual?
	Consistent with the above-described correspondence, Richmond corresponded extensively with members of the media regarding or on behalf of defendant, including in an anonymous capacity.
	Oh, and then we got some correspondence between Richmond and the journalist.
	Richmond also corresponded with Reporter One via text message shortly after the defendant's termination as FBI director.
	Over a period of days beginning on May 11, 2017, the pair texted, Reporter, and wanted to push you to push JBC.
	That's James B. Comey.
	My sense from his texts is he wants this to spill.
	Richmond, okay, you text him and I will reach out too.
	Just ask the approximate date and clearance for me to talk as an anon source.
	These are criminals of the highest order.
	Let me close this one up and come back to the other ones where he...
	Well, I'm just going to get to the evidence of him lying.
	There's the link to that tweet.
	And then let's go to.
	And more.
	I believe it was this one.
	Just, you know, the evidence of where he lies.
	Is this it?
	There we go.
	Defendant's disclosure of memoranda concerning meetings with the president in his pertinent testimony.
	On May 3rd, 2017, while still the FBI director, the defendant testified in an FBI oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
	He engaged in the following colloquium with Senator Grassley.
	Grassley, Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation, the FBI's crossfire hurricane investigation, or the Clinton investigation?
	That would be the mid-year exam.
	Comey, never.
	Grassley, question two on a relatively related.
	Have you ever, ever authorized someone else at the FBI?
	There's going to be the caveat, he was a special government employee, to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation.
	Comey, no.
	Comey, I'm a liar.
	And then later on, it's amazing.
	They discovered a handwritten note, which may or may not have been newly discovered, where it basically acknowledges that Comey knew of Hillary Rodham Clinton, HRC's plan to tie Trump in that Russian hacker's bullshit hoax.
	Lied under oath, colluded to take down a duly elected president.
	Jail.
	Not complicated.
	And Calci.
	You better honor that market because he was damn well arrested, at least under your terms.
	And the indictment's only getting worse.
	And Comey is only getting in deeper and hotter water.
	And the amazing thing is, you read all of that now.
	And I made the comment, and I don't like making these comments because I don't like putting bad juju in the universe.
	This is evidence to me that Comey had intent when he published that Instagram 8647 post.
	This is intent.
	This is motive for the threat because this is the last thing that Comey ever thought would happen because Hillary Clinton was supposed to win in 2016.
	And none of this would have come to light.
	Joe Biden or Kamala Harris was supposed to win in 2024, and none of this would have come to light.
	And that stupid SOB criminal bastard gets out there and says 8647.
	Now you understand why he had the motive to actually put out a public dog whistle of a threat to Donald John Trump.
	And that's about all I have to say about that.
	Now let's bring up some King of Bill Tong in the house over on Don't Do It on Local, on Rumble.
	Increase your protein intake by adding some tasty high-protein meat snacks.
	Bill Tong is packed with B12 iron, zinc, creatine, and more.
	Get some at Billtongusa.com.
	Code VIVA for 10% off.
	Bill Tong, thank you very much.
	And we got Roostang back in the house over on locals.
	Have you talked to Gadsad about Barnes being correct, pointing out the shortcoming of his speech canceling efforts?
	Did you convince Gad, philosophy major to philosophy specialist, that his belief in the false consensus bias and the ethnocentric bias for and about Israel was unsupportable?
	I have not had this discussion with Gad Sad yet.
	I would like to have him on to have the discussion.
	I'm not to say that I agree entirely with you, but I could argue what the, I could argue what some people's criticism might be vis-a-vis Gad Sad, or at least his positions vis-a-vis Israel, anti-Semitism at large, and not canceling, but not platforming specifically as relates to Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, et cetera.
	Thank you, Roostang.
	Okay, so we got that.
	And what else do we have?
	Oh, yes.
	Impeachments.
	Hold on.
	You guys hear that Laura Luber got, she's got credentialed to go to the Pentagon now?
	I love it because whatever you'll think about Laura, and she's, you know, I don't really have my issues with her.
	She's, you know, made some mistakes in my view, journalistically, but she is a bulldog.
	And I'd rather have Laura Loomer with access to the Pentagon than John J. Harwood.
	And whether you love Laura or hate her, giving her access to the Pentagon is going to keep people on their toes and keep people honest.
	Laura posted, I'm excited to announce that after a year of breaking the most painful, painful, the most impactful stories that pertain to our nation's national security and rooting up deceptive and disloyal bad actors from the Department of War.
	I have joined the Pentagon Press Corps.
	Lumered is now a credentialed outlet at the Pentagon.
	There is no denying that my investigative reporting has had a massive impact on the landscape of personnel decisions within the executive branch, our intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon.
	I look forward to covering the Pentagon and breaking more serious stories that impact our country and our national security.
	I have developed a rule index of sources.
	And if you have any tips, feel free to contact the Lumered tip line, the most influential tip line in all of DC.
	I think that's fantastic for her, regardless.
	Whatever you think about her, it's fantastic that it's an accomplishment.
	You know damn well that she's happy about it, she's proud about it.
	And if you hate her, she's the last person you want on earth running around the Pentagon, keeping people honest.
	So that's going to be funny.
	All right, now, Judge Bozberg and the impeachment.
	There have been articles of impeachment.
	I haven't, I didn't find the articles of impeachment, but I said about damn time.
	They filed, somebody filed articles of impeachment, and I say, good.
	Impeach, convict, removed from the bench, and possibly jail.
	Then somebody says, what would they jail him for?
	Well, here's what they would jail him for.
	Bozberg's Senate spying gag order violated federal law.
	This is coming from the Federalist.
	Boesberg is one of many low court judges who have shown themselves to be lawless political actors whose jurisprudence is hostile to a functioning republic.
	Bozberg, the lawfare fanatic serving as the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for D.C., issued an order intended to conceal the Biden administration's attempted seizure of Ted Cruz's phone records.
	In doing so, it appears that he likely violated federal law.
	He put a gag order on the subpoena that sought to procure the phone records of Ted Cruz from ATT.
	Jail.
	According to Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa, as part of the Biden administration's Arctic Frost inquiry, dead set on targeting Republicans in Battleground State, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who led the Get Trump law fair for years, secretly obtained phone records data from at least eight senators and one congressman.
	Smith also sought to obtain Cruz's phone records from ATT, which ultimately declined to hand over the records.
	The Biden Department Justice tried to seize Cruz's cell phone communications, according to the senator, and Boseberg signed off on a non-disclosure gag order on ATT that would have kept telecommunications company from notifying Cruz of the seizure for at least a year.
	According to Boseberg's order obtained by Cruz, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in the destruction, tampering of evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, or and serious jeopardy to the investigation.
	There could be nothing that would be a bigger lie than suggesting Ted Cruz was at risk of destroying, tampering evidence, intimidating witnesses, and jeopardizing the investigation.
	The only thing that would have jeopardized the investigation was the existence, the knowledge of its existence because it was such a load of shit to begin with.
	Jail.
	There's zero evidence to conclude that I'm likely to destroy or tamper with evidence.
	Yada yada.
	Yada, zero evidentiary basis for that.
	The order is an abusive power.
	It's a weaponized legal system.
	And then they talk about the laws that he potentially broke.
	So it's good.
	Now, people are going to say it's never going to get a conviction in the Senate.
	I'll adopt Barnes's MO on this.
	Doesn't need to get a conviction in order to set the message out there, but who knows?
	Might get a conviction.
	Maybe some Democrats are going to say, we don't want Republican judges doing this to us.
	So let's set the message now so that it doesn't happen to us.
	They might have an even bigger reason to say, because if someone gets their records, they probably know what's on their phones.
	So, about damn time.
	And yeah.
	Okay, let's see what else.
	And we'll do one last one.
	I'm going to go take this party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to try to exercise and then see what is going on with the conference downstairs.
	Erica Kirk has made a demand that the Charlie Kirk assassin trial be public.
	And what's amazing is, I try to, I want to get into people, you know, the bickering and the fighting.
	But for everybody who thinks that, you know, I don't know, that Erica has something to do with something.
	They're going to say, well, if they want to be transparent, then release his autopsy.
	Now, despite this move for transparency, people are still going to try to find a way to criticize Erica Kirk.
	They're going to say it's a feigned, fake move for transparency.
	If they want transparency, release the footage from behind on the camera, release the autopsy.
	Erica Kirk makes courtroom demand ahead of trial of Tyler Robinson.
	In recent interviews, Erica Kirk has demanded transparency in the courtroom as she faces the trial of her late husband's alleged killer.
	Erica Kirk has demanded the cameras be allowed in the courtroom during the proceedings against her late husband's killer.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	There's nothing to hide.
	No reason there shouldn't be cameras present during the high-profile trial.
	Speaking to Fox News, Jesse Waters, Kirk explained there were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered.
	There have been cameras all over my friends and family mourning.
	These have been cameras all over me analyzing my every move, analyzing my smile, my every tear.
	We deserve to have cameras in there.
	It comes after Charlie Kirk eerily predicted his own assassination in chilling texts.
	Case is already public.
	Risks are elevated.
	Security, yada, yada, yada.
	Kirk insisted that nothing should be hidden from the public while the trial is going on, saying, why not be transparent?
	There's nothing to hide.
	I know that there's nothing.
	So we'll see.
	22-year-old Tyler Robinson stands accused of murdering Kirk.
	I was just watching Andrea Burkhart on Redacted before going live.
	And it's interesting.
	I mean, it's interesting seeing where the people who are skeptical of the official narrative, what they rely on for their skepticism, what they invoke for their skepticism.
	But we'll see.
	Trial better be public.
	Yeah.
	All right, people, we're going to take the party over to.
	We're going to take the party over to.
	Where do we take the party over to?
	VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Tomorrow's going to be off time as well.
	I don't know when I'm going to go live, but it's going to be fun.
	Regardless, Rebel News is live.
	We're going to go raid Rebel News.
	They're talking about some Canadian stuff.
	Go Raid Rebel News.
	And everybody, thank you all for being here.
	And it's fantastic.
	I'm going to snip and clip that part.
	You know what?
	Okay, as I raid, you're going to be pushed over to Rumble, but you're going to be pushed over to Rebel News.
	I'm going to take some of the chat here.
	Yeah, I just started reading some of the chat here.
	Hold up one second.
	Comey doubles down here.
	They say all this about her without any evidence.
	I presume you're talking about Erica Kirk.
	Hey, y'all, don't forget to hit the Rumble like button.
	Don't worry about that.
	Go ahead and do it.
	Let me just do that myself.
	Redacted is such a waste of time.
	Well, I want to have Andrea Burkhardt on because I appreciate the limitations of my own experience and knowledge.
	Andrea, if she's, you know, she looks like she's doing current criminal prosecution or defense, and she looks like she knows what she's talking about.
	And I would have had some follow-up questions.
	Let's critique the background of Viva, an older flat-screen small coffee maker.
	It appears a Hampton-style property.
	Well, I'm, look, it's a very, very fancy hotel.
	I'm a very, very big man.
	What did I do?
	I flew Spirit today, people.
	I flew Spirit.
	I paid $4 for a bottle of water on an airplane.
	But the ticket was $70.
	And it wasn't even that bad.
	I had a lot of legroom on those seats.
	Okay, we're going to go over to VivabarnsLaw.locals.com because I want to exercise.
	I'm an hour earlier than you guys in Out East.
	So I'll have one extra hour to get my exercise in.
	Thank you all for being here, Rumble.
	And I will see you tomorrow.
	And see, am I going to be able to get my schedule on?
	Let me see here.
	245 to 3.
	No, I'll be late tomorrow.
	I got a conference.
	I'm doing a panel on geopolitical panel from 145 Central to 225.
	So that's going to be 2:45 to 3.25 your time.
	So I'll try to get live around 3:30 or maybe earlier in the day.
	For those who don't know, I'm in New Orleans because I'm giving a talk.
	I have one panel of many at the New Orleans Investment Conference, and mine is going to be on fake news.
	And the punchline, because you have to have a theme and a guiding principle to start with and come back to, is in as much as this New Orleans conference is about being financially ungovernable, my speech is going to teach you how to be intellectually ungovernable.
	That's it.
	All right.
	Head on over to VivibornsLaw.locals.com if you're coming.
	If you're not, I'll see you tomorrow anyhow.

▲