Viva & Barnes - CFIA Goes After a REFUGE? Charlie Kirk Missing Evidence "Uncovered"? Democrats are Epostein Simps!

Nov. 20, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:19:58

CFIA Goes After a REFUGE? Charlie Kirk Missing Evidence "Uncovered"? Democrats are Epostein Simps!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the Interwebs, remember that the people who hear dog whistles everywhere and accuse others of dog whistle calls to violence themselves know exactly how to do the dog whistles.
	Today, I present to you Democrats totally not calling for the military to defy lawful orders because they said unlawful.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	Behold.
	I'm Senator Alyssa Slackin.
	Senator Mark Kelly.
	Representative Chris DeLuzio.
	Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
	Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
	Congressman Jason Crowe.
	Yeah, I was a captain in the United States Navy.
	Former CIA officer.
	Former Navy.
	Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
	Former intelligence officer.
	Former Air Force.
	We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day and keep American community safe.
	We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
	Americans trust their military.
	But that trust is at risk.
	This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
	Like us, you all swore an oath.
	To protect and defend this Constitution.
	Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
	Our laws are clear.
	You can refuse illegal orders.
	You can refuse illegal orders.
	You must refuse illegal orders.
	No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
	We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
	But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
	And know that we have your back.
	Because now, more than ever, the American people need you.
	We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
	Don't give up.
	Don't give up the ship.
	Don't give up the ship?
	Maybe that's an expression that I've never heard before.
	Do you appreciate what we just witnessed?
	The very same people who say, I will openly defy a court order as it relates to firearms, for example, or as it relates to other matters where they get rulings that they don't like and they outright defy the court orders, are getting up there and saying, on behalf of the military and the CIA, we're watching you.
	You don't have to do this.
	We're just going to remind you that you don't have to abide by unlawful orders when the party themselves have been the ones to defy literal court rulings that the lower courts have to get back involved and address what the Supreme Court has already addressed.
	You want to talk about dog whistle.
	It's absolutely stunning.
	I'm Senator Alyssa Slacken.
	Senator Mark Kelly.
	Representative Chris DeLuzio.
	Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
	I love the fact that this woman decided to shoot it off a potato.
	Like, hey, we need one more person.
	Maggie, can you get your iPhone 6 and shoot us a video, please?
	We need to put together a montage.
	What did they do during COVID?
	Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
	Congressman Jason Crowe.
	Yeah, it was a captain in the United States Navy.
	Former CIA officer.
	Former CIA officer, like James Comey, former director of the FBI, coming out and saying 8647.
	I didn't know what it meant.
	Former CIA officer coming out and telling people to not abide by unlawful orders.
	How do you determine if an order is unlawful?
	Now, I appreciate it.
	On the one hand, no one needs to be told to follow the law.
	Basically, they're saying, follow the law, people.
	Thank you.
	That could have been a lot faster video.
	Follow the law.
	You do not need to break the law because someone tells you to break the law.
	Great advice.
	Do not follow unlawful orders.
	How do you determine what order is unlawful?
	What is unlawful when it comes to the commander-in-chief issuing orders?
	Is unlawful a question of one's moral conscience, which that's what it seems they were suggesting in this video?
	Is unlawful what one is told by their superiors, but lower than the commander-in-chief by their political figureheads.
	So the Democrats put out this montage and arguably, but not arguably, issue the dog whistle.
	Don't listen to what Trump tells you to do if it's against our politics.
	It's black and white clear what they're trying to do because, on the one hand, nobody needs to be told to abide by the law.
	That's kind of baked into the law itself.
	So they come up with this.
	And then, what's her, what's her face?
	Oh, what's her favorite?
	Caroline Levitt.
	If I come up with a video here where Caroline Levitt comes out and basically, you know, responds to a question.
	Oh, come on, where is it?
	I have too many tabs open in the backdrop.
	Where was it?
	It was hold on.
	No, no, no.
	Martin, no, not this one.
	Oh, here we go.
	Yeah, it's because it started with holy crap and not with Caroline Levitt.
	This is what Caroline Levitt has to say when asked a question, and we're going to break this down in a second.
	Caroline, can I just follow up?
	The president and the vice president, for that matter, have accused the other side of encouraging political violence.
	Isn't that exactly what the president is doing when he says that members of Congress should be killed?
	Why aren't you talking about what these members of Congress are doing to encourage and incite violence?
	I got to pause it there.
	Caroline Levitt does a great job.
	She's the best secretary of my lifetime.
	Sean Spicer was great as well.
	She unfortunately fell victim to a certain trap here.
	Did you hear the question?
	Political violence.
	Isn't that exactly what the president is doing when he says that members of Congress should be killed?
	I heard that.
	I was like, holy shit, did Donald Trump say members of Congress should be killed?
	Spoiler alert, he didn't.
	I'll steel man the argument, but he didn't.
	But when you begin to answer a question without correcting the fallacious premise upon which that question is based, you have ratified the premise of that question.
	And now the media gets to say, Caroline Levitt did not deny that Donald Trump said members of Congress should be killed.
	Let's listen to her answer, then we're going to break it down.
	Why aren't you talking about what these members of Congress are doing to encourage and incite violence?
	They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty service members not to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders.
	Every single illegal order, which is the same thing.
	But they are so, but they're suggesting.
	Actually, they're only suggesting that you can defy an illegal order.
	Thank you.
	I don't need people to walk around saying, when you're driving, please drive at 55 miles an hour.
	Do not break the law.
	You do not need to speed.
	Sorry.
	Nobody needs to be reminded of what the law is.
	They know damn well what they're doing.
	Unfortunately, Caroline has accepted the premise of this question, which is a flawed, factually incorrect, misleading premise that they will use in the media.
	Prediction locked in.
	Nancy, that the president has given illegal orders, which he has not.
	Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander in chief and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War, is lawful.
	And the courts have proven that.
	This administration has an unparalleled record at the Supreme Court because we are following the laws.
	We don't defy court orders.
	We do things by the books.
	And to suggest and encourage that active duty service members defy the chain of command is a very dangerous thing for sitting members of Congress to do.
	And they should be held accountable.
	And that's what the president wants to see.
	Yeah, it's a very dangerous thing to do, you know, much also like texting pedophiles during congressional hearings.
	They should be held accountable.
	True.
	And by the way, let me go flesh and stone because, you know, I say I always steel man the arguments.
	And I knew what the tweets or the posts that they were referring to where Trump said, seditious behavior, punishable by death.
	We're Trump.
	Hey, let's wanna, we wanna play the game?
	Let's play the game.
	Sedition, I believe the punishment, let me just make sure I know it is for treason.
	What is the punishment for sedition?
	Whether or not you think it's sedition, seditious conspiracy, a fine imprisonment, or up to 20 years.
	Let me see here.
	Military.
	Uniform code of military justice has a specific section on sedition with possible penalties, including death.
	Well, we want to play the game.
	We're just repeating the law.
	So is Trump.
	Oh, well, they're just saying you only have to abide by lawful orders.
	Congratulations.
	And Trump is just reminding everybody that the punishment for sedition or treason, to the extent it's applicable, when we're only going to abide by the courts, is death.
	Now, is that what he said?
	No, it's not what he did.
	He didn't say anybody should be killed, period.
	I'm just reminding everybody.
	The punishment for sedition is death.
	I'm not saying you did the sedition, but the media's got their talking point.
	Trump says Democratic lawmakers' video is seditious behavior punishable by death.
	Well, no, what he's just saying is that sedition is punishable by death.
	It's just a matter of law, much like it's a matter of law that you don't have to abide by unlawful orders.
	NPR.
	National propaganda rag.
	Congressional Democratic leaders are demanding President Trump delete social media posts directed at some Democratic veterans in Congress, suggesting they be arrested and receive the death penalty for a video they released urging active.
	Well, hold on one second.
	If they are found to have violated the law and committed treason or sedition or whatever it is, and the punishment is provided for in law, I mean, everybody, we're all just talking law here, people.
	Why would you have to take that down?
	It's as factually correct as their stupid video saying you don't have to follow illegal, unlawful orders.
	In the video, we watched it.
	You can defy, you can refuse illegal orders.
	Thanks.
	Thanks for a reminder.
	The video features Democratic Congressman in the House reps, Jason Crow, Colorado.
	Who is the slotkin?
	The intelligence.
	You know, nothing is more intimidating than having the CIA and the intelligence community, which has six ways from Sunday of getting back to you.
	And Donald Trump came within a millimeter of finding out the degree to which that is true.
	Nothing better than the CIA taking to Twitter to basically threaten members of the military.
	We spy on you.
	We have access to all of your details.
	You are subservient to the intelligence community and we have a watchful eye over you and all of your actions and your loved ones.
	You better do what we say.
	We were just telling them to abide by the law.
	We know how it works.
	On Truth Social, Trump said the comments made in the video are really bad and dangerous to our country, which they are, because basically urging a military coup.
	If we don't take them at their word, which I don't, because they are dog whistle galore master people.
	Their words cannot be allowed to stand.
	Seditious behavior from traitors.
	Lock them up.
	Trump posted an hour later.
	He wrote another post.
	Seditious behavior punishable by death.
	It's just the law, people.
	You don't have to be a lawyer.
	You can just stay at a holiday in and Google search the definitions.
	Trump also reposted a series of comments from users on Truth Social, including posts that said the Democrats should be hanged.
	The actions were an insurrection, and they should all be indicted because of the video.
	The lawmakers responded to the post.
	By the way, it's interesting here.
	Trump also reported, reposted a series of comments.
	Well, I guess Trump's going to have to go and say, repost don't equal endorsement.
	I'm just reposting the law, people.
	The lawmakers responded to the post in a joint statement saying, in part, we are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
	That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to protect the oath of the Constitution unless it comes to Second Amendment rights, unless it comes to the intelligence communities violating the constitutional rights of Jan Sixers and their political adversaries.
	It's an amazing thing, taking to Twitter to make a call on the military that bypasses and undermines the executive supreme authority of the commander-in-chief.
	It's sort of like a violation of the Hatch Act to some extent.
	You know, these are non-commander-in-chiefs trying to take a hold of the military.
	It's nothing more than what we've seen in different countries where groups get on the radio and dictate what the military, what armed individuals should do.
	I don't want to be hyperbolic, but you know exactly what I'm talking about.
	History doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	Every American must unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder.
	It's not murder, by the way.
	Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.
	Even if it were to be found that this was seditious and punishable by death, that wouldn't be murder.
	That would be called the punishment under the law.
	Now, whether or not I think people should be making these posts is a separate issue, but it's not what they say it is.
	Murder is the unlawful killing of a human.
	It's not murder when you put a death row inmate to death, even though I don't support the death penalty.
	It's not murder by definition.
	House Democratic leadership, House Minority, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, whip Catherine Clark of Massachusetts, called for Trump to remove the posts and for Republicans to condemn them.
	The heck is that picture?
	We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump's disgusting and dangerous death threats.
	It's death threats now.
	It's just reminding you of the law.
	Sorry.
	Who said that?
	They wrote.
	I don't care about the rest of this.
	You got the idea.
	What's amazing is Hakeem Jeffries coming out.
	A man who just literally came out and lied about his connections, direct or indirect, to convicted sex offenders.
	A party that came out and stands in solidarity with Stacey Plaskett, a woman who fraternizes with convicted sex offenders.
	A party that cries dog whistles, yet blows dog whistles.
	That sounds gross.
	And then complains about dog whistles.
	It's classic Darvo, yet again.
	Deny, attack, reverse, victim, and offender.
	They took to social media to basically urge a military coup against the president.
	Then they claim, we weren't doing anything except for unlawful orders.
	And then when Trump comes out and reminds them of what the legal punishment is for sedition or treason, then they cry victimhood.
	It's getting out of hand, people.
	And we are here to witness it all.
	Good afternoon.
	How goes the battle, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
	Man, oh man, I've been thinking about the interview yesterday, the January 6th pipe bombing situation, the Butler, Pennsylvania information that might not have been disclosed.
	And I can taste the black pill that a lot of people these days feel is being administered both orally and directly in that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
	And history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	And the, I don't want to say transparency that we were promised, but the, you know, the law enforcement has done great work and they deserve credit where credit is due.
	Promises were made of disclosures, transparencies, and progress above all else.
	We are now entering year one of Trump's presidency.
	We know nothing of Butler, Pennsylvania, except for what was now newly disclosed in a, you know, subsequent to it being denied.
	We still have no January 6th pipe bomber, but we have Steve Baker's expose in the blaze and, you know, some open debate on the reliability of that expose.
	We've had a little bit of progress in the Epstein files, but on the big stuff, the biggest stuff, the border is sealed.
	There have been some missteps in terms of discussion of amnesty, mass amnesty for illegals in the hospitality and farming industry, but the border sealed.
	There's been some missteps on the H-1B visa argument, but the border is sealed.
	People are frustrated and you cannot blame me.
	We're going to get into it.
	All right.
	Let's make sure that we are live on vivabarnslaw.locals.com, which we are.
	And we're live on Rumble.
	And we are live on not Commitu, X.
	Oh, I didn't publish the video.
	That's wanted to publish my video of yesterday's highlight.
	I didn't get to all of the Epstein stuff yesterday because Julie Kelly was in the backdrop.
	Who here watched that?
	Who watched that interview?
	And I'm curious to know what people think about it because I like to steel man all arguments and I like the feedback of the audience.
	And I've been having some not private, but I've been having like DMs and messages with people who I message frequently.
	Curious what people think and what people think of what is going on within the FBI.
	But we say the Epstein situation, which I didn't get to all of it yesterday because I remember like I'm looking at my backdrop of tabs that are still left open.
	They're like, oh, did I not bring up Raskin?
	Rat skin, a man who is a human enveloped in the skin of a rat talking about Jeffrey Epstein and defending his partner in crime, Stacey Plaskett.
	It's actually stunning.
	You just, just, you take one second and you think, what would have possibly happened if the shoe was on the other foot?
	If Donald Trump had been texting Jeffrey Epstein ever, like ever.
	If there were text messages between Epstein and Trump, and I'm not sure that there aren't.
	I don't think that there are.
	As of yet, there have been no private text messages between Epstein and Trump.
	They flipped out over a disputed birthday card.
	If there were any private text messages between Trump and Epstein anywhere throughout the universe, they would be jumping down Donald Trump's throat, calling him a pedophile and whatever the hell else they want to call him.
	Let alone if Trump during the State of the Union address was taking advice from Jeffrey Epstein, I mean, I don't even think they would wait for the impeachment.
	But that's what you have with Stacey Plaskett.
	Caught red-handed, then defending herself and then having her ratskin colleagues, like these are actual, these are actual demons, defending her where they would be calling for the jailing, or worse, if it had been Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office, sitting at his desk, just having a casual exchange with Jeffrey Epstein to get some intel from him.
	Listen to what Jamie Ratskin Raskin has to say about this.
	Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that they've arraigned a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing.
	Do you see what he did there, by the way?
	I'm going to play this again.
	I'm going to shut my mouth after this.
	From taking a oratory rhetoric places the emphasis where it ought not be so that you just gloss over where it should be.
	For just all she did was take a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, and that's all that she did.
	And by the way, people on the internet have pointed out, I'm not sure if it's 1,000% accurate, but that she's a non-voting member of the British Virgin Islands.
	She doesn't even have constituents.
	I don't know if that's true, but it's irrelevant.
	Listen to this technique of slipping the Jeffrey Epstein, her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, and that's all she did.
	What's wrong with that?
	She's very responsive constituent because she has all of her constituents' numbers on speed dial that she takes advice from during hearings.
	Oh, no, maybe it's the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was a little bit more than just a constituent, a donor, a confidant.
	Okay, sorry, I'll shut my mouth.
	It's only 18 seconds, man.
	Play through.
	Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that they've arraigned a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing.
	And of course, I don't think there's any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing.
	Well, first of all, I'm not sure about that, Jamie Ratzkin.
	Are you allowed being on your phone during congressional hearings?
	Maybe you are.
	Maybe it's not against the rules.
	It's rude.
	It's like you go to temple and people are on their phones.
	I don't know.
	I wonder if it's against congressional House committee rules to be on a phone during committee hearings.
	Can you believe it?
	That's Jamie Ratzkin, the man who promised that there might be violent upheaval when they refuse to certify the Trump presidency.
	I put that clip on blast like nobody's business.
	There's nothing wrong with it.
	She's just a very responsive representative of her constituents.
	She's not the only one.
	And I had this on yesterday that I had to bring this one up to.
	Was it this one?
	No, it was.
	Oh, come on.
	I had too many tabs open on the back.
	Oh, here it goes.
	This one.
	Oh, gosh, it's not good.
	Mr. Speaker, let's play this one.
	Oh, it's so bad.
	We are governed by idiots.
	Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, in strong opposition.
	I just want to read the caption for this.
	This is Rep. Yvette D. Clark.
	Official account.
	U.S. Representative, New York, Brooklyn.
	I stand with Congressman Plaskett.
	Opposition to this resolution.
	This resolution is a blatantly partisan, shameless attack.
	As we sit here today, Donald Trump is still the single person in this country with the authority and the ability to deliver justice to survivors and truth to the American people by just releasing the files.
	Well, maybe Plaskett could have texted Jeffrey Epstein to say, hey, man, can you give me some of them files there?
	I think Stacey Plaskett had a little bit more access to Jeffrey Epstein than Donald Trump did.
	But sorry.
	Yes, please carry on with your vocal defense of a woman who literally fraternizes with literal pedos.
	So instead of answering why Donald Trump chooses every single day not to release the Epstein files, they're pointing fingers at this side of the aisle.
	No, no, just one, just one finger and just said one person, Stacey Splaskett, who was texting Jeffrey Epstein during congressional hearings.
	Nice deflection.
	Pathological.
	Mr. Speaker, unlike the president, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has committed no crime, violated no rule, and broken no promises.
	There's been no investigation, no due process.
	This is very loud.
	I don't know if it's as loud for everybody else as it is for me, but it's those, it's the high notes that are really piercing my head.
	There's no inquiry into whether the congresswoman had any connection whatsoever to Epstein's despicable and disgusting criminal conduct.
	This resolution would have us remove a capable and hardworking member of one of the most serious working committees in this body on the basis of a conversation from more than six years ago, which broke no rules.
	Broke no rules and has no connection to any criminal activity.
	It quite literally has a connection to criminal activity because she's quite literally fraternizing with an actual literal criminal.
	But set that aside, holy shit.
	Do you think they would be extending this level of good grace and tolerance to Trump if the rules had been reversed?
	I mean, I don't like to say if it had been the other side, but there are some cases where it's so flagrantly, blatantly obvious that they have no standards whatsoever.
	I'm sorry, they do.
	They have double standards, as the joke goes.
	Oh, my, it's unbelievable.
	I urge my colleagues to vote no on this partisan resolution, this sham, and I yield back.
	Partisan resolution to sanction someone who fraternizes with pedophiles.
	Okay, it's amazing.
	There was one more.
	There was one more.
	It had to go back to Hakeem Jeffries, which is where this all started, right?
	Hakeem Jeffries came out yesterday in that video that I played.
	You know, he says, I never had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
	This is from Nick Sortor.
	Holy crap.
	House Oversight Chair James Comer just exposed Hakeem Jeffries on the House floor for soliciting a meeting and donations from Jeffrey Epstein, even after Epstein was a convicted sex predator.
	The Epstein thing going to backfire massively on the Democrats.
	And then let's play this because it is kind of amazing.
	Colleagues' coordination with Epstein.
	Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority.
	So Hakeem Jeffries' campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein.
	Remember what Hakeem Jeffries said about malignant clown James Comer?
	I never did anything.
	No, James Cruze, your campaign did it.
	And just imagine, I mean, I say this, I don't think it's been shown yet.
	If Trump had received, well, he couldn't have received money from Jeffrey Epstein, at least not in 2020.
	Just imagine what they would have done if this had been on the other way around.
	That's what we found in the last document batch.
	The files underscore why former President Trump must appear for his deposition.
	We've subpoenaed him.
	To date, the Democrats have done nothing to help us secure his appearance.
	I support full transparency.
	The Oversight Committee will continue to work to get the truth to the American people and to get justice for the victims.
	That's our goal of this investigation.
	With that, I yield back.
	Now, some people are saying that they're going to get redacted documents with the comments from What's Her Face Pam Bondi yesterday that, you know, there's new information, new investigations.
	Now they're going to say we can't communicate this because there's ongoing investigations.
	We're making progress.
	But the degree to which the Democrats are double standard hypocrites, principal lists, and actual defenders of actual PETOs is unbelievable.
	Let me see.
	Did I play this one yesterday?
	This is Stacey Plaska.
	If I played it, I apologize.
	I forget what I played yesterday, but I'm going to play this one more time if we.
	I believe that Jeffrey Epstein had information and I was going to get information to get it the truth.
	Having a real friendship with him is not something that I would deem to have.
	And so I'm just looking forward.
	I'm moving forward.
	And I think that that's what we as American people should do is move forward.
	If individuals are not involved in illegal activity, extending his criminal enterprise or his financial enterprise or all of those things, I think that we need to look at what people are doing moving forward.
	Wait, let me just better understand that.
	What is that point?
	Because at the time, he was a known sex offender and it had been detailed all the sexual offenders.
	There are a lot of people who have done a lot of crimes.
	And as a prosecutor, you get information from people where you can.
	I believe that Jeffrey Epstein.
	Some people did some things.
	There's a lot of people who've done things and you get information from them when you can.
	Participating in criminal blackmail and extortion is what that was at least an attempt of, in my humble opinion.
	A lot of people do a lot of things.
	And look, I'll try to get I'll try to get lies of criminal extortion from Jeffrey Epstein.
	If it despite him being a friendship is not what I would deem to have have with him.
	Well, first of all, you have no friendship with him now because he's dead.
	It's so easy to retrospectively go back and say, well, what is what we had?
	Would I deem that a friendship?
	Or would I deem that a transactional relationship for the purposes of attempting to obtain extortion material against the president?
	Hmm.
	When he donated to me and I thanked him and I was so happy to take his money, was that a friendship or was that a political relationship?
	Liars, scumbags, and scoundrels.
	That's what they are.
	That's what this has proven to be.
	And that's why the fact that it ended like this does not mean that I was wrong for insisting six months ago to not do a 180 reversal.
	There was no 4D chess here.
	And there might be some stuff in that's going to embarrass some people close to the Trump administration.
	I strongly suspect that as well.
	But for the time being, triple W.
	And it doesn't stand for World Wide Web.
	It stands for win-win-win.
	All right.
	Why does someone say moderator, please DM me?
	I don't know what is going on in the chat over there, but I'll tell you one thing.
	I think, yes, we do.
	Let me bring this up.
	Mom to scares.
	Hit the bell.
	Welcome to the channel.
	That is vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	And then let me bring up Bill Tong, which I see over on the Hrumble side of things.
	Oh, and by the way, I'm going to, okay, here, let's do this.
	King of Bill Tong.
	We also specialize in imported foods.
	Check out Bill Tong USA for a great selection of imported candies, cookies, groceries, and of course, Bill Tong.
	Bill Tong USA, code Viva for 10% off Bill Tong.
	By the way, oh, Link Dropper.
	Okay, I got it.
	Dormitor.
	By the way, so now I figured something out here.
	Let me get rid of, let me just do this for one second.
	I want to show everybody this feature.
	Oh, Link Drop.
	It's going to be released tomorrow, actually, the app in the wallet for Android.
	I'm going to post something in our locals community afterwards.
	Matt Cors, who's got a great channel, financial interpretation channel.
	We're sort of the, not the guinea pigs, but we're the first to get access to this.
	And there's an app that's going to be available on Android for now that we're going to test out and we're going to see how it works in terms of allowing that facilitating crypto transaction tips.
	Now, NeuroDivergent was saying when you go to this, it brings you to the landing page because that's what it does when you do not yet have the app.
	And when you go to this particular avatar, if you go tip with another crypto wallet and then you go to Bitcoin and then you go like something, how do I like this or like this?
	There we go.
	Now, if anybody wants to do a microtransaction crypto tip on Rumble, you can do it through a general crypto wallet.
	And as at the time, the app and the wallet is launched and made available to the public.
	I don't want to say when, but it's coming soon.
	We're going to now do the test drive on the Android app.
	And so there's going to be that.
	But if you want to support the channel, you can scan this QR code.
	And if you have crypto wallets, you can tip via crypto via this link right here.
	It's going to revolutionize everything.
	And I'm honored to be the individual who gets to test it out with Rumble and work out the bugs, take the questions and field the questions that are going to come from the community along with Matt Cors.
	All right, before we get into the ugliness, let's just go to Canada for a second.
	I was on with the Matt Gates show yesterday.
	I was on with Matt Gates on the Matt Gates show yesterday.
	And I'm not yet done putting the ostrich scandal on blast.
	I'm blackpilled on the subject.
	I don't think there's going to be any justice.
	I don't think there's going to be any retribution.
	Think there's going to be any meaningful financial, spiritual, moral compensation that is ever going to happen.
	And I don't actually think enough Canadians are ever going to wake up and understand what's going on in that country.
	Brett Weinstein is one of the smartest people on the internet.
	He's, and I'm not trying to kiss any ass, it's just the way his brain works.
	You listen to him in the podcast with Rogan, if you listen to his podcasts.
	The way his brain works is just fantastic.
	It's amazing.
	It's empathetic.
	It's thoughtful.
	It's critical.
	And he had this to say, and I agree a thousand percent with this.
	And listen to this.
	These are monsters.
	They are not emotionally healthy people.
	They are drunk with their goddamn authoritarian power.
	And this is the warning.
	First, it came for the ostriches.
	And the point is: if you don't want this to go any further, that lesson has to do more than just back them off of talking about it in public.
	They decided to kill these ostriches after they knew goddamn well that there was no health benefit to be had.
	If they didn't know that to begin with, all of the arguments that many of many of us made about natural immunity were completely compelling.
	So why the hell did they have to kill these animals?
	Why did that have to happen?
	Because they could.
	It had to happen because they wanted not to set a precedent in which reality allowed them to back off their plans.
	Yep.
	It's a display of power.
	Yep.
	It's a display of power.
	I would go one step further, and it's social conditioning.
	It's to get people used to the slaughter.
	It's to get people used to this level of government tyranny, government abuse, and inhumanity from government.
	There are a lot of people, and we'll get into the Charlie Kirk latest news in a second, but there's a lot of people who believed that it started with the United Health CEO, but the normalizing of extrajudicial executions, assassinations, that the social conditioning of having it pop up in your feed and see it in your mind's eye after you've seen it with your eyes.
	Because there are certain things that once you see with your eyes, you can never unsee them.
	And I'm not going to get graphic.
	I'm not going to show it.
	From my own life, I know that we've watched, I say I, I'm not going to lump anybody together with what I've done.
	I've watched videos on the internet that you cannot ever get out of your mind.
	Back in the day when Ron Pearl, what was the name?
	Ron Pearl.
	Ron Pearlman was kidnapped and decapitated.
	You see that video.
	You never unsee it ever again in your entire life.
	And I think it breaks apart of you.
	And in certain circumstances, I think it conditions you to normalize inhumanity.
	And when you have videos of Irina Zrutska getting brutally and casually murdered on a subway, and that is in your feed, one picture after another, one video after another.
	You don't want to see it.
	And then it comes up there.
	And then you have the video of the execution of the United CEO, the head, the CEO of United Health.
	Just through, oh, it's just, hey, another person was killed today.
	It's not a human.
	It's not a man with a family.
	It's an evil person who deserved what they got.
	Scroll along.
	Come to Charlie Kirk.
	Oh, what's that?
	He's a conservative pacifist, Christian man, father of three, son, political, savvy individual, a man with the brightest future ahead of him.
	Oh, what's that?
	He said things I don't like.
	Oh, so I get to equate him to the United Health CEO because he did bad things.
	Extrajudicial assassination.
	Scroll up.
	So I believe there's an element of social conditioning in this, and it's to get people conditioned to atrocities.
	Well, this one wasn't as bad as that.
	Oh, this video wasn't as gruesome as that.
	Move on.
	It's just another day in tyranny.
	So there is a story going around about another place in British Columbia that is allegedly now also facing the scrutiny, the inhumanity, the tyranny, the brutality of the CFIA.
	And it's called Critter Critterade.
	I've reached out to them and I've asked if this is, I mean, I've asked for details and if they want to come and talk about it.
	This is what's going on with Critterade.
	I'll just play this here.
	Nestled on a 10-acre property in a small Okanagan town, this animal sanctuary is drawing big attention after announcing an outbreak of the avian influenza.
	We've never had to navigate anything like this.
	So the past 15 days has been excruciating, extraordinarily difficult.
	Home to a wide range of domestic and farm animals, Criterade now reeling from the loss of 15 animals, 10 chickens and five ducks.
	And by the way, did they report them?
	Probably.
	They thought they were doing a good thing.
	What's the government going to do?
	Kill all the animals.
	What did you learn?
	Just like pulling a little stewie here.
	Oh, what's that?
	You got a baseball bat.
	I got a ball.
	I'll trade you.
	Oh, now I've got the baseball bat.
	Now I'm going to knock you over the head.
	Take your ball.
	What did you learn?
	Hey, you called in.
	You thought you were being good citizens.
	Now you got to really be good citizens and you got to let the government kill your animals.
	We are under investigation at the moment.
	And so our quarantine is in full place.
	And we are at the point where we're doing decontamination.
	The ordeal here at Criterade began just over two weeks ago when a chicken suddenly fell ill and passed away.
	Another bird died the following day, prompting the organization to do immediate testing.
	You know how many people have died from H5N1 flu?
	What was it in North America or globally?
	I forget which.
	Doesn't really make much of a difference.
	Six in five and a half, six years now, since 2020.
	Once H5N1 was confirmed, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's depopulation policy on the exposed premises led to two chickens and five ducks being euthanized.
	Depopulation policy.
	Talk about social conditioning.
	Oh, it's just, it's just part of our depopulation policy.
	Oh, what's that?
	It's chickens?
	Okay, that's fine.
	Oh, what's that?
	It's cattle.
	Okay.
	Oh, what's that?
	It's my dog.
	Got to do it.
	Greater good.
	Oh, what's that?
	It's humans now?
	Depopulation policy.
	I didn't make that word up.
	We were given the choice to do it ourselves or have their disposal team do it.
	They deserve that dignity that we did it ourselves.
	According to Critterade, 12 exposed volunteers were tested and cleared by Interior Health, which stated cases of avian influenza in people are rare.
	What would they have had to do to the people if they tested positive?
	Depopulation, bitches.
	Sorry, rules are rules.
	Cases in humans are rare.
	Kill all the animals because I'm sure not eating is going to be a greater risk to humans than the not real risk of H5N1 until they finally find a way to tinker with it and modify it so that it actually does the jump from chickens to humans.
	Like, you know, what they arguably did with the gain of function research on COVID itself.
	With only one case reported in Canada, adding no risk has been identified to the broader community.
	The virus primarily affects birds and the dozens of animals that currently reside in different areas of the sanctuary are not impacted.
	There's been no indication and no reference to any of our other animals at this point in time.
	News of the outbreak comes just days after the controversial avian flu-related call of more than 300 ostriches on an Edgewood farm.
	Critterade is such an important part of this community.
	Summerland's mayor expressing both sadness and concern.
	Lots of poultry in this community.
	You just don't want some sort of...
	Okay, we got...
	We've heard enough.
	And by the way, this is where the government is in a lose-lose situation.
	They've got to kill them because if they don't kill all the birds there, so the rumor or the story is now that the peacocks, which have been in isolation on this farm, are slated for depopulation by the CFIA.
	They've got to do it because if they don't do it, it shows that there could have been exceptions.
	And if they do do it, maybe people are going to get a little more outraged.
	Maybe.
	So it's more of the same in Canada.
	And it's drunk on power, conditioning humans to live with the omnipresent tyranny of a demonic government.
	And once you get used to that, there's literally nothing that the government cannot do to you that you will not say, thank you, sir.
	May I have another?
	It's for my own good and it's for the greater good.
	Anyways, I've reached out to the farm.
	I'll see if they want to come.
	And maybe I have not a chip on my shoulder.
	Maybe I have my own insecurity.
	I could imagine they don't want to have anything to do with me because I'm rather vocal.
	Called the RCMP a terrorist organization because I believe it is.
	Called the Canadian government a terrorist organization because it acts like one.
	Maybe they don't want to fraternize with me.
	Maybe they don't want to participate in my activism, but I will certainly shine the big spotlight on this government egregiousness, much like I did with the ostrich farm.
	So there's that.
	That's what's going on in Canada.
	Now, just as a palate cleanser, before we move on to some heavier stuff, it's an amazing thing.
	Do you remember who Peggy Flanagan is?
	I'll pull up the video of who Penny Flanagan is.
	This is what happens when you don't get involved in politics.
	You end up being governed by your inferiors.
	And people don't get involved in politics because I'm not political.
	I really don't care.
	I just want to live my life.
	We're all going to be Ramble at the end of the day, people.
	We all just want to live our lives and they just will not leave us alone.
	You don't get involved in politics.
	Doesn't mean politics is not going to get involved with you.
	And if you don't get involved in politics, you end up being governed by your inferiors, idiots, dumb people who are power hungry, who are the last people on earth who should have the power, and yet they are the first people on earth to aspire for it.
	And given the absence of competition, they're among the first to get it.
	Peggy Flanagan.
	To raise the minimum wage in Minnesota when I was the executive director of Children's Defense Fund.
	And we did that.
	We built a coalition of over 70 organizations, faith, labor, and nonprofits, coming together to say people need a raise.
	We got it across the finish line.
	And the big fight that we had was whether or not we were going to index it to inflation.
	And we did because we knew that the cost of living would continue to go up.
	They haven't raised the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. in over 16 years.
	So then we see some of these large companies who have people who are working who then also depend on SNAP because they're not paid a living wage.
	And so these big companies are also profiting from the fact that they're not paying their workers enough and then their workers turn around and reinvest those SNAP dollars at their place of employment.
	That's not right.
	We should just pay people a living wage.
	Pay people a look at that face.
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't freeze it on that on purpose.
	That is the face of an idiot.
	Look.
	Now, hold on a second.
	I actually, that's her face now.
	What I was going to compare it to was her face a little while ago when she was wearing this shirt.
	Protect knife, trans fucking flowers, kids.
	Protect trans kids with a knife on it.
	Well, she does look like she might have lost a little weight.
	I'm not trying to make weight shame anybody.
	It definitely looks like I would almost say Ozempic at this point.
	Like that's that looks like an emaciated face.
	I could see a very pronounced jawbone.
	All right, but anyway, it's good.
	She lost weight naturally.
	Good for her.
	I don't think she needed to lose it in the first place.
	It was not a question of fat shaming.
	She looks perfectly healthy here, just not mentally healthy.
	That's Penny Flanagan.
	What was the word?
	They use this word, a living wage.
	Was it a torch?
	Those snap dollars at their place of employment.
	That's not right.
	We should just pay people a living wage.
	Pay people a living wage.
	Let me see if this audience here.
	Okay.
	Pay people a living wage for jobs.
	And I'm not saying this as an arrogant, pompous prick or to be demeaning to any particular job.
	Not every job is intended to be a living wage paying job.
	What they're talking about in terms of this broad, ubiquitous living wage is universal basic income.
	That's what they're talking about, which may or may not be a good idea to the extent you can get it to work.
	It's going to have to reshape the way we think about money.
	They're not talking about minimum wage to create a living wage off jobs that were not intended to be living wage jobs.
	They're talking about universal basic income, cloaking it in raising the minimum wage.
	I had a law professor who taught us, geez, labor law in Quebec City, Réjean Breton.
	You should look him up.
	He's totally eccentric.
	May have gone off the deep end politically since I last saw him 20 years ago.
	Réjean Breton taught us labor law.
	And he was like one of the first, it was amazing.
	Like he was one of the shock jock professors at the time where one of our first classes, and this is all in French, but he's saying he's talking about how America is such a racist place.
	This is in 2002 or 2003.
	He's like, America is so racist, right?
	And everyone in the class, like, oh, yeah, Benui, so racially, he's like, and he's like, who are the two most powerful people in American government right now after President, I think it was Reagan at the time.
	Not Reagan.
	What the am I talking about?
	George Bush.
	Nobody knew.
	So I raised my hands.
	I was like, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.
	When were they?
	And he's like, yeah, that's right.
	And he's like, they're a little bit, you know, a little darker than you, David, right?
	I wasn't Viva at the time.
	His philosophy of the course of law, employment, employment law, that some jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs.
	You're not meant to live off a Walmart salary.
	And that's not to say there's anything wrong with the job.
	They're supposed to be jobs for young people that train people how to work, train people how to work with a team, train people how to work under a boss, train people how to learn point of sale systems, inventory, dealing with the general public in a manner that is polite, teaches you and trains you for a future job.
	Working at Starbucks is not meant to be a life-living wage job.
	Maybe a second part-time job, maybe a part-time job for a student.
	The idea that every job is supposed to provide a living wage is another word euphemism conditioning for universal basic income.
	And it's not the way it's supposed to be.
	I made the joke.
	I was like, well, why don't we just print a million dollars for each American and everybody will be a millionaire?
	Like, what do you think happens when you force increase the minimum wage?
	And I'm not saying people shouldn't get paid fairly and well.
	And I think if you pay employees well and you treat them well, you're going to acquire good employment, good business.
	But what do you think happens?
	You go automated like they're going with McDonald's.
	Well, McDonald's, that's not a living wage.
	We've got to pay them $22 an hour.
	Great.
	You are now subsidizing the technological takeover of your very job.
	So enjoy your 22 bucks an hour now.
	Bank it because it won't be there next year.
	And so that's it.
	They're idiots.
	They're idiots.
	Just print a million bucks.
	Everyone's a millionaire.
	Oh, what's that now?
	A loaf of bread costs a million bucks.
	Well, thank goodness I'm a millionaire.
	I get to eat for this meal.
	They don't understand how things work.
	It's not to say there's a perfect solution, but the solution is not to print money.
	The solution is not to make artificial living wages out of jobs that were never intended to be that.
	You train the young people.
	They learn how to work.
	They learn how to do things and then they move on and they move up.
	If it's not a living wage job, you train yourself and you find a living wage job.
	And it's not going to get there by printing money, which is just going to invariably, inevitably, you know, impact that little thing called inflation, Peggy.
	So great for you.
	You're going to index it to inflation, and eventually you're just going to have the parabolic bent hockey stick of inflation.
	And you're going to have to be indexing everything to the point where people are going to come in with wheelbarrow loads of cash to buy basic necessities.
	You know what else hurts inflation?
	Killing the fucking birds causes some problems.
	Eight bucks a dozen eggs is not a Trump policy.
	It's a Biden consequence.
	It's the same thing up in Canada.
	So yeah, print money, exacerbate inflation, kill livestock, exacerbate starvation.
	This is what happens under communist, Soviet, Democrat, liberal rule.
	Cracking everything here.
	What time are we at?
	48 minutes?
	My goodness.
	I haven't even gotten to the.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	I think I might have missed a few things.
	808 Scotty says, lib tardism is a new pandemic.
	Maybe.
	No, I'm not reading that.
	No jokes like that, 808 Scotty.
	I'm not trying to be holier than that, but don't do it because I mean, one person's joke is another person's threat, and then everyone takes the joke too far.
	And but we call it, it's like it's funny, liberalism, national socialism, communism.
	I mean, they have such nice words.
	How can you be against community living?
	How can you be against everybody having what they need in the world?
	I mean, you can't.
	What do you need?
	Well, what we need over time changes.
	And even in communism, what you need is not what the political elite need.
	They need something else.
	They need the caviar and the champagne.
	You just need bread.
	Let them eat cake.
	Oh, yo, yo, yo, yo.
	All right.
	Let's see what's going on over on vivabarnslaw.locals.
	So by the way, everybody, make sure that you're liked.
	Make sure that you're subscribed.
	If you want to support the work that we're doing, come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	I want to hammer home.
	I want to see, I want it to happen organically.
	Whoever has a crypto, if you were so inclined to tip, I want it, see if it works.
	And when we download the app on Android, I'm going to see who in our community can download the app and we're going to test this out.
	But if you want to support the channel, a number of ways to do it.
	And if you have a crypto wallet, you can use this new function on Rumble.
	And I want to see, I'm going to get my phone here.
	Oh, look at that.
	I'm a millionaire.
	I'm joking.
	If you don't have your health, you don't have anything, everybody.
	I'm going to give an update on Nate the Great Brody.
	Nate the lawyer, someone I've been good friends with now for damn freaking pre-COVID, six years, since Nicholas Sandman.
	When was that?
	2018 or 2019?
	Nate the Great Brody was on an emergency basis diagnosed with a brain tumor, quite literally out of the blue over the week.
	He's having some symptoms.
	You guys know because I talked about it earlier, Saturday went into the hospital.
	He had surgery and just came out of the surgery yesterday afternoon.
	I think it was 12 hours.
	Sorry for the scrolling.
	I just want to find the come on.
	I said that here we go.
	No, that was going into the surgery.
	He came out of the surgery.
	I think it took 12 hours.
	They removed the tumor and he was.
	Does everybody hear my dog?
	That dog is so annoying.
	Oh, come on.
	Nate, the lawyer.
	He posted an update.
	Here we go.
	Coming out of surgery.
	Okay, Catsux.
	I made it.
	I think this was after the surgery.
	I forget exactly when.
	Bottom line, he came out of the surgery.
	They removed the tumor.
	From what I understand, he was, you know, he's heavily sedated, but the hard part is over.
	Now there's, you know, there's post-op monitoring.
	You have to worry about certain risks, infection, potential bleeding.
	You know, they go into the brain and they have to remove this mass from his brain, which, you know, intertwined with brain material, intertwined with blood vessels.
	And, you know, there's places where you can't have bleeding.
	And that's in the cranium where there's no room for expansion.
	So the prayers thus far are working and so keep them coming.
	But Nate is out of surgery.
	And from what I understand, he's speaking, groggy, heavily sedated.
	And yeah, some operations are not that hard.
	This one was.
	This one, they had to bring in a team of, I believe it was a team of eight surgeons.
	The surgery took, can you imagine 12 hours?
	They're doing shifts.
	That's a full day of uninterrupted work, literally doing brain surgery, opening up the skull, removing the tumor, tying off each blood vessel as you do it, and making sure you get all the tumor so it doesn't grow back, making sure you're not getting stuff that you want to leave behind.
	I mean, it's, it's, um, and then I was thinking, you know, like, as you imagine from Nate's perspective, this is a man who, you know, a week ago, life was relatively normal.
	And on literally, you're going to go under general anesthetics and not know what's going to happen.
	I mean, it's, it's, it's, you know, you go under general anesthetics, things can happen.
	But, you know, I went under for hernia operation, testicular torsion.
	Okay, fine.
	It's, that's, you know, you wake up.
	You're going under when you go in for like, you know, open heart surgery, brain surgery, 12 hours.
	They're literally going to give you the general.
	You're going to take a deep breath.
	You're going to black out and you don't know what's going to happen on the other side.
	Can't imagine anything more terrifying.
	Nate is a trooper.
	He's a great man.
	And we're all wishing him the best.
	And then from Nate's perspective, I'm going to think about this yesterday.
	Like when you go under general, it's one second and you're out, you're up.
	And I'm sitting there the entire day thinking, in Nate's world right now, he's already woken up.
	Like his consciousness, his consciousness is what I'm looking for.
	He went under, he woke up a second later and had no idea 12 hours went by.
	But throughout the entire day, I'm thinking like, my goodness, Nate already in his future tangential universe.
	He's already up.
	He already knows what happens.
	That would happen.
	And that's it.
	Okay.
	Charlie Kirk.
	There was some news that potential evidence had been discovered.
	There was something that I wanted to bring up first about the Charlie Kirk situation.
	Was it this one?
	Sean Ryan podcast posts a tweet: quote: Charlie was an absolute supporter of Israel and said a nation should be able to defend itself after being attacked.
	And he talked about being there and how it changed his life.
	Those holy sites, they were important for him to protect.
	And we never received anything from the FBI, Secret Service, or anybody credible saying groups like that were a threat to him.
	How can you drive an Israeli hitman out of that?
	How can you derive an Israeli hitman out of that?
	I have no idea.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing.
	We've seen a lot of Charlie's friends, people that are in the media, you know, come out and say Charlie had very specific concerns about Israel and that his opinions were changing about Israel and that he had expressed concerns about this to various media personalities.
	You know, My question is, is the man that owns the company that's in charge of his security detail, and you are the head guy on his security detail.
	Were there any concerns about that or any other organization, political party, foreign nation?
	Did he express any of those concerns to you?
	No.
	Dan.
	We don't need to hear the end.
	We know the answer.
	I just want to point one thing out.
	Who doesn't wear socks with shoes?
	Okay, that was just a light-hearted distraction.
	There were, for those who have paying attention to it, or, you know, there were concerns.
	And I know anecdotally that Charlie had concerns because of what happened in Butler.
	I mean, to say that there were no concerns, it goes without saying there were always concerns.
	There were always fears.
	There were always threats, especially at a Charlie who was vocal against a particular community that seems prone to violence for whatever the reason.
	There were particular concerns post-Butler because we had the Pac-Man perimeter with a sniper on a roof with a clear line of sight to Donald Trump.
	And by the butterfly flapping its wings in Japan, an act of God, and I just sincerely and genuinely believe it was an act of God, Trump survived.
	The exact same lapse of security pretty much occurred in Utah because the exact same threats existed.
	You know, Charlie wasn't president yet, and a lot of people, you know, damn well knew he would have been president one day.
	So he had these concerns.
	They had a security team for that reason.
	And the news is that the security team might have, and this is not Monday morning quarterback, and I'm not blaming them.
	There's no just statements of fact.
	Obviously, a roof was not covered.
	And the question is going to be whose obligation, whose responsibility was it to make sure that that roof was covered?
	So it's the bottom line reality.
	A drone, I forget who said it, a janitor on that roof would have prevented this from happening.
	Whose obligation was it to secure that roof?
	Whose obligation was it to ensure that that roof was secured?
	You have the same exact arguments in the Butler-Pennsylvania assassination.
	Well, it wasn't Secret Service that should have had that roof secured.
	Secret Service should not have brought someone out on stage if they knew that there was an active person of interest who had disappeared into the crowd.
	Was it Secret Service?
	Was it FBI?
	Who was supposed to secure that building?
	Was it the local state police?
	Bottom line, it wasn't secured.
	It happened.
	And it's the same thing in Charlie Kirk.
	This is from Fox News.
	Charlie Kirk's security chief says police promise to cover rooftops failed before assassination.
	Obviously, some people are going to say whose responsibility was it to verify that the roof was covered, even if the local police or even if the university said it was covered.
	Brian Harple says his team warned about the rooftop exposure and staffing gaps before Utah Valley shooting.
	Well, they warned about it.
	They were told it's covered.
	And did they or did they not do what they ought to have done to ensure that it in fact was?
	Two months after the turning point assassination, security director said the tragedy exposed preventable flaws in how the event was coordinated and secured.
	I mean, this is, this is, this is SOP, standard operating procedure, especially in light of what happened in Butler.
	Brian Harple, veteran law enforcement, told the Sean Ryan show his team repeatedly raised concerns about rooftop exposure, drone instructions, and staffing gaps in the days before.
	You don't let him take the state.
	Like, this is not, this is not Monday morning quarterbacking or just being judgmental for the sake of it.
	It's like, all right, we didn't know where the guy was in the crowd.
	Then Secret Service doesn't let Trump come out on that stage.
	We were told the roof was covered.
	The chief said, I got you covered.
	I took him at his word.
	Is that what ought to have happened?
	We can't break the law to do what needs to be done.
	So we relied on police and no one was up there.
	Were there activists in the police department if it was the police department's obligation?
	Were there activists in the university if the university assured that they would have someone on that roof?
	The bottom line is that roof inexplicably left open.
	And what happened happened?
	Harpel said he had asked for additional security based on previous high-risk events.
	He recalled a turning point, USA appearance in San Francisco where protesters breached barriers.
	His team had to fight their way through.
	We've seen it before.
	We told them this one was open air surrounded by elevated ground.
	We need more eyes, more coverage, but we were told it would be handled.
	Harpel said integrity brought 12 contractors nearly double its usual staffing, but jurisdictional limits confined them to about 30 meters around the stage.
	Our responsibility stopped at the bubble.
	We can't make arrests or block student buildings.
	They told us later they never, he said, one Orim Police Department, which operates a drone SWAT, was never asked to assist despite a mutual aid agreement.
	They never told us.
	They told us later they were never asked to come, Harple said.
	Fox News reached out to the police department for comment.
	And so you get into this is, all right, they assured us.
	What can you do to ensure, as per your role of personal security, that their assurance is not just that, an empty assurance?
	Go on the roof yourself?
	Maybe.
	Fly a drone yourself?
	Maybe.
	Nothing.
	Now, I do not believe that Israel had a sniper doing this, and it's not because of any ethnic or identity purposes.
	I believe Tyler Robinson fired the round.
	I believe that Tyler Robinson was radicalized by a Discord chat and by a furry trans lover.
	I believe that other people were involved in the conspiracy, but not other shooters.
	I do not believe in the lapel mic explosion.
	I do not believe in a drone sniper.
	I do not believe that the shot came from anywhere else other than Tyler Robinson, where he was and where we have video footage and where people were looking immediately after the shooting.
	Does that mean that Israel wasn't involved?
	I don't know.
	If Israel wanted to do it, what they would have done, and it would have been the simplest thing, is you get Mossad agents into that Discord chat to radicalize trans, furry peeps to do it.
	That's the easiest way to do it.
	You don't go in there with a lapel, a detonator, a drone in the sky.
	That's not how you do it.
	You do it exactly the way this happened.
	You just instigate it.
	If you want to blame Israel.
	Do I believe that Israel did?
	No.
	Do I understand why people are inclined to think that?
	Absolutely.
	Charlie was indeed a strong supporter of Israel.
	Some people were saying he deserved it because he was making light about Israel's response in Gaza.
	This is amazingly like, you're like, in the context of COVID, you had people saying it's gain of function research.
	The virus doesn't exist.
	China did it.
	And it's just the flu.
	You have like conspiracy theories that are mutually incompatible.
	Gain of function, super virus.
	Also, it's never been isolated and doesn't exist.
	Now, you don't often have the same people holding these beliefs at the same time.
	But you have people espousing mutually conflicting, mutually incompatible conspiracy theories.
	There were people out there literally saying that it could have been a pro-Palestinian faction because of Charlie's support for Israel's response.
	Then you have people who are the anti-Israel faction, and they say, no, they did it because he was turning against Israel.
	And if he had become more vocal, he would have swayed an entire generation of conservative Americans against the Israeli cause.
	And Netanyahu couldn't have let that happen.
	Netanyahu coming out and sort of making up, you know, white lies, fibs, borderline truthful, untruthful statements about Charlie not visiting Israel, not being able to, when in fact, apparently Charlie didn't want to, doesn't help anything either.
	The facts as we know it, and they may change.
	But if your theory is based on not believing what you see or currently exists as evidence and believing that which does not yet exist as evidence, more power to you.
	But things happen that sort of reaffirm conspiracy theories, and this one's going to start setting people on fire.
	Wham, W-H-A-M.
	When was this one from?
	This is from today.
	Possible missing evidence in Charlie Kirk murder case discovered.
	Well, it went missing and now it's discovered.
	And now nobody who wants to believe the official narrative, nobody who wants, nobody who does not, nobody who refuses to believe the official narrative is going to, oh, it's AI.
	It's a fake video.
	It's been doctor, whatever.
	It went missing and it came back.
	Chain of custody.
	We can no longer trust it.
	If that's what you want to believe.
	Possible missing evidence is Charlie Kirk case discovered.
	Who's this?
	Updated by Brian Schnee.
	Schnee Schnee.
	Schneeman.
	That's a okay.
	That's it.
	Salt Lake City.
	People, possible missing surveillance video of Tyler Robinson turning himself into the Washington County Sheriff's Office just days after the allegedly shooting Kirk has been uncovered.
	Nobody who refuses to believe that Tyler Robinson did it is going to believe the authenticity of this video.
	Our job was not to interview.
	Our job was to get him here, said Washington Sheriff Nate Brooks.
	I see.
	Brooksby, on September 17, within the hour, my friend drove Tyler and his parents to my office where he was greeted by my plainclothes detectives.
	Request for the surveillance.
	Public records request was filed with the Washington County Sheriff's Office for video showing Robinson entering the Washington County jail holding area.
	We do not have any records responsive to this portion of the request as Tyler Robinson did not go to or enter the jail area, wrote a records officer.
	Holding room video was denied as part of the investigation.
	A few weeks later, two news re-upped the request in a more generalized fashion, inquiring for, quote, surveillance video showing Tyler Robinson walking into Washington County Sheriff's Office.
	Our office does not have any applicable records responsive to this request.
	As the surveillance footage is no longer available after the 30-day retention, how would you not retain that video?
	Even if you have that policy, you don't retain video that's irrelevant.
	You don't argue that that's why you don't have footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unless you want people to have perpetual conspiracy theories and just be in a perpetual state of disbelief of everything and anything.
	It is my understanding, it was never sent to any agency.
	Legal analysis on missing video.
	Two News took questions to Rubby Bautista, a criminal defense attorney.
	For the state of Utah, we would certainly hope that this video is available.
	In fact, had it been destroyed and not preserved, it's very concerning.
	And if it has, then very concerning that they're telling you they don't have it.
	If they no longer have it, I would expect to say this video has been provided to the Utah County.
	But instead, this letter reads, in my opinion, is trying to shut the door and not give free access to the press.
	Bautista said, yeah, yeah, it's crucial for the defense work of mitigation.
	He also believes that, okay, fine here.
	Mr. Kirk, by all accounts, was a great young man.
	Where are we going with this?
	So they found the, where are they getting to the, where are they getting to the finding of the footage?
	Possible missing evidence in Charlie Kirk murder case discovered.
	Did they find the video?
	i guess they found the video um it's we're not yet in a post-truth world but we're we're quite quickly getting there where incompetence And first of all, there is conspiracy.
	There are Fed surrections, as I believe Jan 6 was.
	And then there's also just grotesque incompetence.
	When we were discussing the possibility that the Capitol Police found the two locations of the pipe bombs and the other location where the alleged pipe bomber sat, but didn't plant the bomb, and they found it within 25 minutes or 15 to 25 minutes of being notified that the bomb was there.
	And it was like, that's just how fast they work.
	They got AI scrubbing the videos and they went through 17 hours of footage, even though they didn't even know where it was.
	They went through that.
	And within 15 minutes, they not only arrived on the scene.
	You call a cop.
	It takes, you know, 20 minutes for the cop to even arrive on scene.
	They're not driving there, scrubbing AI footage.
	A lot of it is just grotesque incompetence that fuels conspiracy theories.
	Then there's actual conspiracy theories like the Peter Stroke insurance policy, the Kevin Kleinsmith falsifying evidence, actual conspiracy.
	But with Charlie Kirk, people are going to have their theories.
	I've re-upped my open invitation to Ian Carroll.
	Chris Martinson was on Monday, and I think we had a fruitful discussion about his theory.
	And I think we ultimately agree.
	And it was towards the end where Chris Martinson said, you know, based on the everyone says a 30-odd six necessarily exits the body.
	Other hunters say not necessarily at all.
	And Chris Martinson said, yeah, you know, like a handgun tumbling bullet might do that type of damage and not exit the body, but that wouldn't happen with the high-powered rifle.
	And then I said, well, what about if it was a tumbling bullet, tumbling projectile from a defective round or, you know, an old gun?
	And he said, look, the only way that could happen is if it's an extremely improperly maintained firearm and other factors like, okay, well, then we've described things that are within the realm of possibility when talking about a hundred-year-old rifle that may or may not have been kept properly, maintained properly, and or ammunition that itself may not have been maintained properly.
	And I did see another analysis out there, which sort of makes me feel smarter, which is you can't know anything about the performance of the ammunition if you don't know the charge of the ammunition, how old it was, how much gunpowder was in it.
	You can't know a damn thing.
	But incompetence being what it is, people are having conspiracy theories that are reaffirmed by the grotesque incompetence of those we entrust with our law enforcement.
	And it doesn't seem to be coming to an end anytime soon.
	Peeps, what else do we have up here?
	Let me go see what's going on over on vivabarnslaw.locals.com in the chat.
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, you can custom load any ammo you want, says T. Corbett.
	Guapaloco says, LOL, the underpowered bullet conspiracy told by Viva.
	I can provide authority since I'm by no means a gun aficionado.
	It was, in fact, even confirmed by Chris Martinson that, you know, you have to have, it would have, the ammunition would have to be very, very improperly stored for humidity reasons and whatever, but you could have a charge that is not a hot round.
	I don't know what an undercooked round is called.
	But I do watch a lot of Kentucky ballistics, and I do recall the episode where he nearly died, stick a thumb in it, because he had a hot round of a massive load that backfired, blew the eyepiece into his face, and a piece of the gun threw his jugular.
	And dude survived by the skin of his thumb.
	Pun intended.
	And yeah, let's see what else we got here.
	What was this?
	Oh, yeah, this is another one.
	This has to do with the judicial activism.
	Let's tie it up with judicial activism before we go raid.
	Who are we going to raid?
	Let's see who's live here.
	Is Redacted on today?
	I got a she-hoo-jlav to go raid this afternoon.
	We'll go raid someone in a few seconds.
	Let's just talk with one case where it's the gerrymandering cases, people.
	I have like, it's the same type of brain farts that I have when I try to understand cryptocurrency Bitcoin as a currency.
	Where is it?
	It was an activist judge.
	Oh, come on.
	Hold on one second.
	I have it in my backdrop here.
	And put in the chat what you think the most plausible, logical operating theory is for the Charlie Kirk.
	I mean, we're going to have a trial.
	I was having a discussion with a member of our locals community where, you know, people want full transparency.
	They want to see all the evidence that the FBI has.
	And I said, in this case, where we're dealing with not an active investigation, but what is an act of prosecution, potential other co-conspirators, I can understand why there's not transparency, the type of transparency we're demanding in the Butler, Pennsylvania case, where you have the deceased assailant, no trial coming up, and no reason for the lack of transparency.
	In this prosecution, I can understand that they hopefully are going after other people, Triggs in particular, but other co-conspirators.
	Why in my vision of what happened?
	There were other people who knew what was going to happen and who may have been serving as distractions as part of the plot or whatever.
	But there's a trial coming up and you don't want to be accused of tainting the jury pool.
	You don't want to inadvertently tip off the defense to strategy for the trial.
	I mean, they're going to get disclosures as they're entitled to under the law.
	And you don't want to potentially undermine the own case by engaging in a trial in the court of public opinion before the trial, before the court.
	Some people might not like it.
	I may not like it either, but at least I understand the argument.
	Now, hold on.
	I just saw something come in here.
	Yeah.
	See, why is this?
	Oh, because I'm not doing this.
	Here we go.
	I missed a couple.
	I knew I missed a couple.
	R. Sargent says, I watched the interview with the security team guy.
	He said the doctor told him the bullet hit his vertebrae in his neck and deflected, then traveled down into his spine before fragmenting.
	Incidentally, that's also what Chris Martinson understands and accepts, I believe, as a matter of fact.
	The only disagreement was, you know, whether or not it broke up and went into the brain or just down.
	But, you know, you're talking at a downward angle already with a moving body, which may have been at something of a different angle when it struck and deflection.
	I mean, I've had people who are avid hunters tell me that a leaf can redirect, you know, not totally, but can materially redirect a bullet.
	Omega Rosetsu, Mauser 306, was underpowered when it was new.
	And being older, it was even more underpowered due to humidity or other factors.
	I am a firearms instructor and gunsmith.
	Rounds don't always go through.
	I feel less stupid for having exposed that as a Rossi.
	One guy says wrong viva.
	Okay.
	You've made a compelling argument.
	I realize the error of my ways.
	And what was I thinking?
	All right.
	Now, just getting to a quick legal stuff.
	Reagan appointed judge torches colleagues in Texas map fight calls ruling fictional judicial activism.
	If there's one thing I understand, it's judicial activism.
	If there's one thing I don't understand, it's redistricting and gerrymandering.
	But I know what the hell's going on here.
	It's all political.
	It's all politics, people.
	Federal judge in Texas responded to the court's decision to scrap the state's redrawn map with a jaw-dropping dissent on Wednesday in which he lobbed dozens of insults at his colleagues and repeatedly invoked Democrat mega donor.
	George Suttos, anyone going to cry anti-Semitism?
	Yeah, you're damn right to mention George Soros.
	This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.
	Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, told the court in the fifth decision, two to one.
	In the turbulent 104-page dirade, he named the majority opinion's author, Judge Jordan, a Trump appointee, hundreds of times accusing him of pernicious judicial misbehavior.
	I don't know this guy, but I like him already.
	The majority opinion would be a prime candidate for a Nobel Prize for Fiction, Smith said.
	The main winners from Judge Brown's opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom.
	Said that, oh, this is fantastic.
	The obvious losers are the people of Texas and the rule of law.
	Smith, a Yale law graduate, wrote: if this were a law school exam, the opinion would deserve an F. Smith's dissent came as part of a three-judge panel into the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to temporarily block the state from using its map in the 2026 midterms.
	The map had created five new Republican-leaning districts, which the majority said was a product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
	They're going to have to get this up to the Supreme Court and finally figure this out.
	Just as striking as the dissent itself, which Smith conceded was, quote, disjointed, end quote, was the two judges in the majority did not wait for it, issuing their decision on Tuesday and leaving Smith's dissent to land on the docket a day later.
	That's funny.
	This is how this is judicial drama.
	Any pretense of judicial restraint, good faith, or trust by these two judges is gone, Smith wrote.
	If these judges were so sure of their result, they would not have been so unfairly eager to issue the opinion, solves my dissent, or they could have waited for the dissent in order to issue it.
	What indeed are they afraid of?
	That's some funny ass stuff right there.
	All right, people, high school never ends.
	It only gets bigger.
	All right, we are going to go raid redacted now.
	CIA furious and emergency White House meeting.
	Israeli spy caught meeting with Ambassador Huckabee.
	Ooh, I'm going to give it a thumbs up.
	I'm going to go.
	Well, you know, before I do that, I'm going to give everyone the locals thing again.
	Come on over to Locals.
	Before you leave, make sure that you like, share, subscribe, turn on notifications.
	Head over to Commitube every now and again just to revive that channel.
	I mean, basically, I'm using it now for the leftovers after the Rumble lives.
	And we do the Sunday show there just so we can, you know, more broadly publicize Rumble, their revolutionary crypto tipping feature that's going to be soon available to everybody.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	New merch is coming imminently as soon as I get the vector and send it off to the merch guy.
	And that is how you can do it.
	All the links are in the description.
	Right now, we are going to go raid redacted and then take the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Raid and let them know from whence you came.
	Viva raid booyakasha.
	All right.
	Now what else?
	I got, oh, I'm going to tease a little bit of what I'm going to show over on locals.
	I got some cards back from PSA.
	And I got something else that's very disappointing.
	I'm going to have to take care of that afterwards.
	Let's go to locals and have our after party then.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	Let me just see what's going on in the chat real quick.
	Ria quick lack over on Rumble.
	Redirect, redact this trash.
	Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
	Hey, y'all, take care.
	Boiling point live.
	Start reading things.
	Liz Wheeler has been all over Lance Twiggs.
	I think the texts are made up by, but not the feds, but Tyler and Lance because they knew at the very least Lance is a member.
	Yeah, I don't think they're made up by the feds.
	I believe it might be one of those breaking bad type Tyler trying to save Twiggs, Triggs, whatever the hell his name is.
	But what I do believe is that it also confirms a temporal proximity to the radicalization of Thomas Matthew Crooks, who also was into the furry shit.
	And about the same time, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
	Let's go see what's going on over at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	And then we're going to take this party over there.
	Vives says, Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike, I am not, I'm not sure you realize this, but when you use the phrase conspiracy theories to Americans, you lose credibility right off the get-go.
	And there's legitimate reasons why.
	I'm going to go ahead and disagree if you don't know the manner in which I'm using the term conspiracy theory, Mr. Mike.
	But also, I don't actually know what you're saying there.
	Finboy Slick says, Well, I think that's exactly the point.
	The less reliable information there is, the more likely actual true information is to get lost in the mix of confusion.
	That strategy is a lot more effective than trying to plug all the leaks, you know?
	And Roostang says, Viva, are you going to play the video of Jake Lang addressing the Dearborn Michigan City Council?
	I'm going to do that over on locals.
	That was the plan to play the video of Jake Lang, and I'm going to give you my honest opinion on it.
	And I've given my honest opinion to Jake.
	I'll just tease it for everybody else.
	Jake and I talk, we text, we're in contact.
	And every now and again, he asked me to retweet something.
	I'm not retweeting that, Jake.
	I say, I appreciate what you're doing in, I don't know, I appreciate people who are politically audacious, but sorry, no, regardless of what you feel about Islam, slapping a Quran with the bacon or burning any book is not something that I endorse and not something that I'm going to even tangentially appear to endorse.
	But getting ahead of ourselves, let's go over to VivabarnsLaw.locals.com.
	Rumble, Godspeed.
	And go check out Nate.
	Just send him some good wishes.
	I'm going to see if I can get in touch with him afterwards.
	And that is it.

▲