Shawn Ryan THREATENED by Dan Crenshaw? Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber CONFESSION? Live with Larry Sharpe!
|
Time
Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, this episode is going to involve a lot of Democrats going lower than you could have ever imagined them going.
And no, that is not a Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton joke, but my goodness, if I'm not thinking of it right now.
Benny Johnson.
No, sorry, Benny Thompson.
Sorry, Benny.
Benny Thompson, a man who you might remember from such sham committees as the Kangaroo Court January 6th Committee, calling an act of terrorism an unfortunate accident.
If you think I am lying, behold.
Look, I'll get it straight.
Then you can.
He shot our national guards.
Madam Secretary, you and the gentleman from CT's NCTC reference the unfortunate accident that occurred with the National Guardsman that occurred.
The unfortunate accident.
The unfortunate accident.
Yes, I'm doing that on purpose.
That occurred with the National Guardsman being killed.
You think that was an unfortunate accident?
I mean, there's a terrorist accident.
Wait, wait, look, I'll get it straight.
Then you can.
He shot our National Guard.
I'll get it straight.
I'll get it.
We'll see about that, Benny.
You might not get it straight if someone doesn't smack you back into alignment.
Look, Ms. Chairman, will you direct the witness to allow me to ask my question?
How about I'll direct you to not be a traitorous piece of shit, Benny, and suggest that an act of terrorism was an unfortunate accident.
And then when you get called out on it to play all haughty and accuse Christy Noam of interrupting you and not letting you ask your question, he actually said this.
I'm going to play it one more time.
And then we're going to play another clip of Democrats being the scum of the earth.
Madam Secretary, you and the gentleman from CT's NCTC reference the unfortunate accident that occurred with the National Guardsman being killed.
You think that was an unfortunate accident?
I mean, there's a terrorist question.
Wait, look, I'll get it straight.
He shot our National Guardsman in the head straight.
Ms. Chairman, will you direct the witness to allow me to ask my question?
I'm not going to make it.
An unfortunate situation.
I'm not going to make the obvious joke because I'm not a stand-up comic yet.
I'm not into that type of edgy humor yet.
I won't make the joke, but that is not to say that others have not made the joke.
And funny those jokes are.
The Babylon B just yesterday, and the hilarious thing is I said, oh my goodness, are they going to get canceled for this?
The Babylon B says Jasmine Crockett hits campaign trail to axe for votes.
I mean, it's hilarious because it's sort of like 20, was it 21 or 22 Jumpstreet?
I think it was 21 and 22 Jumpstreet.
I wouldn't make that joke, but gosh darn it if I'm not going to laugh at it when I see Babylon B basically putting into humor what many people are thinking, some of them to themselves and others out loud.
An unfortunate accident.
People did something.
They didn't die.
They were murdered.
It wasn't an unfortunate accident.
It was an act of terrorism.
It wasn't an unfortunate event.
It was a brutal, bloody murder perpetrated by a CIA asset two weeks after a call to action from the former head or a former rep of the CIA, Alyssa Slutkin.
Unfortunate accident.
Car just drives into people at a Christmas parade.
These are the people that are governing us these days.
Dumb criminals with no moral compass.
Everything goes to the extent it goes to their politics.
They don't care about the innocent people who get murdered as a result of their failed policy, as a result of their dog whistles, call to actions.
They don't care.
Another classic example.
If you know Penny Flanagan, you might know her from such shirts as protect trans kids with a knife and then a flower in between.
And she's proudly showing off a shirt with a knife that says protect trans kids.
Here she's basically saying that her faith requires her to live in a country without borders so long as she has her security, she has her government pension, she has her government security, she has her fences, but open borders for the rest of the world, open borders for the rest of America.
Listen to Peggy Flanagan.
My faith tells me that my job is to welcome the stranger.
And my faith tells me that my job is to stand up for my neighbors.
And so that's what we're going to continue to do.
And we can talk about comprehensive immigration reform and having secure borders and we can have those conversations, which we should.
As we open the borders.
But simply going into communities, scooping people off the street because they look a certain way, that is not right.
And any type of detention without due process is just kidnapping.
And we have to be clear about that.
We have to be clear about that.
What do I say about people when they say we need to be clear about that?
Let me be clear.
Look at this audience, people.
I'm not thinking about what Malcolm X said, but you know, gosh darn it, I am.
Look at this crowd.
We can talk about the borders and secure borders.
We can talk about that.
But them pulling people off the streets and deporting people who violated those secure borders.
Well, that's a bridge too far.
We can talk about protecting the borders.
We'll talk about that later.
For now, we have to protect the people who broke through the borders illegally and are in the country illegally.
Picking up people who look a certain way.
Where was the one there?
Let me see something here.
A Russian woman deported America.
They don't care when certain people here, feds brought the suspect to the U.S. There was a Russian asylum seekers expelled from the U.S. end up in the Ukraine front.
They don't care.
Oddly enough, when they say people are getting picked up only for the color of their skin or the way they look, first of all, if you're looking for illegal aliens, there might be a prevalent common denominator given the area from which they're coming.
But when they say they only care and pick up people who look a certain way, those hypocrites, sons of bitches, only complain when the person who's picked up looks a certain way.
Plenty of people who are white European who have been kicked out of the country, they don't give a sweet bugger all about it because it doesn't affect their agenda.
In fact, it contradicts their agenda.
But my goodness, her faith tells her to welcome strangers.
Then you don't have borders.
Her faith tells her to love her neighbor.
And now you have everyone in the world who's your neighbor.
How many illegal aliens, Peggy, do you have in your home right now?
Is it a big fat goose egg, a big fat bagel?
One of those crappy New York bagels that barely has a hole in the middle and its seeds are far too plentiful.
How many do you have in your home?
Is your front door permanently left open, Peggy?
You should have, I've got an idea.
You should allow or bring into your home Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.
I hear he has a very unique way of treating women, allegedly, according to an affidavit from his beaten wife.
Let Kilmar into your home, Peggy.
See how he treats you.
But they don't care because they have all the protections under the sun.
And then, God forbid, even something should happen to one of them.
It's for the greater good.
They'll have learned their lesson of enrichment and diversity.
Incidentally, on that issue, go watch Dave Rubin this morning.
I was on with Gad Said.
It was published this morning.
I think we recorded it yesterday.
Not, I think it was recorded yesterday, published this morning.
Where is there was a good segment about it.
Anyhow, that's it.
Good afternoon, everybody.
How goes the battle?
We are broadcasting now.
We're on Rumble.
We're on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And as something exclusive that is available to our locals community, there is no paywall today, so everybody can get in on this way of thanking our locals community for supporting the work that Robert Barnes and I do.
Larry Sharp, who's running for governor of New York, is going to be on for an exclusive interview that's going to be available exclusively to those on locals, but there's no paywall today, so pretty much everybody can go watch that live if you want to.
I'm going to publish it across all platforms afterwards because Larry Sharp is running for governor of New York against demon Mick Itchbay, Kathy Hochul, and oh, geez, I forgot her name now.
Elise Stefanik is running for governor as well.
Larry Sharp is a libertarian.
He seems to be pretty normal for a libertarian.
We'll see after about an hour of cross-examination just how normal he is.
But we're going to have that exclusively on locals after this show at about four o'clock.
And then I'll publish it across platforms for anybody who doesn't want to come over for whatever the reason.
That said, people, good afternoon.
And how goes the battle?
There's been some big news, big developments, and sort of, you know, things lumping together, fitting together.
Sean Ryan, who has the wildly successful Sean Ryan podcast, I think I gave him a hard time once for having on, having someone on his show who did not bring the receipts.
And I think it had something to do with the burning Tesla in Las Vegas.
But Sean Ryan's got an amazingly successful podcast, and it seems that he has been passively threatened, if such a word exists, or discreetly threatened, allegedly threatened by a man that people call IPatch McCain.
I don't particularly like the name, but I do use it every now and again just to highlight the fact that the man is a rhino of the highest order, a faux conservative of the highest order, and allegedly, based on the evidence, may have discreetly threatened Sean Ryan, who was reporting on asking some questions about how Dan Crenshaw amassed allegedly some wealth, allegedly.
Because as usual, everything's denied, but we'll get there.
There have been some developments as well.
I don't know if everybody heard this.
The news of the day, or at least it's the news of yesterday, and we'll see where it goes because I don't trust MediaIte as far as I can throw them.
But I have heard rumors.
There have been some brewings for quite some time now, going back to the Epstein-Bindergate debacle, that Dan Bongino might be leaving the FBI as deputy director.
This was being reported yesterday by MediaI.
And I want everyone to pay attention to the framing.
I won't read my tweet that I just put out about this, but I will emphasize the deceitful framing or the potentially deceitful framing, or just understand the framing in order to digest what the actual story might be.
Mediaite reporting, Dan Bongino, quote, could be out any day, end quote, as FBI director report.
So anonymous from Jennifer Bowers Beatty.
A two-minute read for those of you with short attention spans like myself.
All right.
FBI assistant director Dan Bongino could be out of a job, quote, any day, end quote, according to reporting by journalist Rachel Bate.
Take it for what it's worth with a grain of salt.
The framing of out of a job sounds like, I mean, it's the way you say someone's going to get fired, if that's the way it's going to happen, resigning, depending on how you want to frame it, interpret it.
But to suggest it's going to be out of a job as if Bongino ever needed this job in particular for anything other than the desire to serve country.
Bongino $180,000 a year as a deputy director, maybe.
Didn't need this as a job.
Took this arguably as a passion, arguably to serve country.
And if people don't like Dan Bongino, they can make up other reasons why they think he might have taken it.
Bade wrote on her sub stack, The Inner Circle, that Bongino ran afoul of the Trump administration over his handling of the Epstein files, although it wasn't clear whether Bongino might be fired or could just walk away.
I got questions.
Who's handling the files?
Do I believe that Bongino's handling the files, or do I believe that Patel and or Pam Bondi is handling the files?
I would actually be curious if the third or fourth in command is the one handling the files, but allegedly relates to something about the Epstein files.
According to Bade, Bongino left, quote, senior staff complaining that he puts his personal reputation with MAGA World ahead of the team's best interests.
This is a hit piece, by the way.
This is a hit piece because even if this story is true, the attempt looks like it's trying to blame Bongino, suggests that he's the problem.
And the framing that Bongino left seniors, and I'm quoting, senior staff complaining that he put his personal reputation with MAGA World ahead of the team's best interests.
Do you know what that reads like?
That reads like maybe Bongino, who's spent years covering the Epstein files, years covering the Jan 6 pipe, not well, the Pipe Bomber and Butler, that he might have been saying, Pam, what you're asking us to relay to the world is not something that the world is going to buy.
Republican MAGA World or Democrat alike are not going to buy it.
But they want to frame it as he's putting his own reputation ahead of the team's interests.
Well, if the team's interests are pushing stories that nobody's going to believe, possibly because they're not true, that sounds like Bongino might be warning the likes of Pam Bondi and Susie Wiles that nobody's going to buy the shit that they're serving them.
And that all that's going to happen is you're going to humiliate the likes of Liz Wheeler and whoever else, DC Draino, whoever else was involved in or the victim of, as I will say, Bindergate.
Framing is a beautiful thing.
Bongino had, quote, a fiery confrontation with Bondi over the release of the Department of Justice FBI memo, claiming there was no Epstein client list and no evidence of the deceased sexual predator was blackmailing, quote, prominent individuals, ABC News reported at the time.
Yeah, except, you know, you already had your articles about Epstein blackmailing Bill Gates over his extramarital relationship, but set that aside.
Axios reported this summer that Bongino was so upset over clashing with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the files that he didn't show up for work, leading some to question whether he had quit.
I remember that at the time.
I'm also fairly certain it was just a long weekend and coincided with something unrelated, but whatever.
Bongino, former Secret Service, made his name in podcasting conspiracy theory that Epstein was murdered in prison.
A claim that he was shut down in a claim that was shut down in the memo.
The unsigned memo that Todd Blanche put out there and said everybody signed on.
Epstein was found dead, whatever.
We don't know that.
Since then, it's been Sour Grapes where he's concerned in the West Wing.
Bade wrote, the expectation is that he'll leave eventually.
The expectation is that he'll leave eventually.
That's kind of like a truism of life, but whatever.
One person told me he's told others he won't be in the job much longer.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the Epstein Transparency Act that was signed into law by President Donald Trump.
Yada, yada, yada.
Was a oh, yeah, the judge Berman ruling Wednesday to unseal secret grand jury transcripts related to Epstein.
Two other judges ruled earlier this month to release similar material, ruled related to Epstein and Ghelane Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years on five federal sex trafficking charges.
To whom were they sex trafficking?
Nobody.
Maxwell claimed that Trump was, quote, not involved in the sex trafficking activities.
Trump has maintained he did nothing wrong.
You know what?
Oh, the post reached the post, Dan Bon the Post, Dan Bongino could be able to, oh, okay, whatever.
I thought they were going to say they reached out to Dan, but I don't think he would be able to comment on that story anyhow.
Yeah.
Bullshit.
It smells like bullshit, but don't you love the framing?
It looks like a whoo, I don't know.
If you don't trust the media, who are they trying to throw under the bus?
They could use Bongino to play against the administration if they wanted to make the administration look bad.
Right now, it looks like there are some forces in there that are trying to lay the blame elsewhere and not on the Susie Wiles and the Pambondis who made and Todd Blanches, who made some strategic mistakes that nobody was ever going to believe.
And that was my criticism at the time.
How do you rely on a file from an FBI that you are also simultaneously, on the one hand, prosecuting when it comes to Comey and on the other hand, claiming was corrupt to the core, had burn bags that they were trying to destroy evidence in and somehow forgot to, but yet you rely on that very same FBI's findings that Epstein killed himself.
And the media doing everything it can to try to pin this on Trump and say Trump had something to do with the Epstein files in a nefarious way.
They don't stop, even if it means that they have to literally falsify evidence, literally manipulate recent disclosures in an attempt to not surreptitiously, but dishonestly and disingenuously implicate Trump where there was no wrongdoing.
You saw the news of the day.
I'm going to bring up the picture of the day and then we're going to get into reminding everybody as to how things work.
Past is prologue.
And if you don't learn from the past, you're going to remain pretty stupid.
Now, there's a photograph.
Let me pull it up here.
Of, hey, where is the photograph?
Come on, where is it?
Immediate release.
No, that's not it.
Where's the picture of the of the of the is it this one?
It's this one right here.
Congresswoman Yasamin Ansari puts out I mean it's so it's so stupid it defies words.
Vile disturbing.
Do we know what that is?
That's an opinion, hyperbolic.
Disturbing is an opinion and an unhinged one at that.
New photos, thus far, I think I only see one photo.
Vile, disturbing new photos of Donald Trump that raise even more questions about knowledge of abuses at Epstein's estate.
So I try to make sure before I jump down someone's throat that they are in fact dishonest and malicious and not, I don't know, phrasing a tweet badly.
I didn't know who Congresswoman Yasami Ansari was.
And then when I found out that she's a Democrat, I'm like, all right, well, then, you know, I call it pre-judgment or whatever you want to call it.
Preconceived notions that Democrats are liars.
And that's not to say that, you know, some Republicans are not.
We're going to talk about Dan Crenshaw in a bit.
I know that now this is just absolute dishonest bullshit.
Vile, disturbing new photos of Donald Trump that raise even more questions about knowledge of abuses at Epstein's Islands.
Oversight Dems are demanding the DOJ comply with our subpoena and release the full Epstein files.
Stop protecting pedophiles.
Survivors deserve justice now.
And I'm going to weigh my words.
The Itch Bay puts out this photograph with redacted faces, blacked out faces.
It looks so scary.
The angles scary.
It's black and white.
It looks scary.
Donald Trump looks happy.
Now, if you look at the picture, the first, and I'm not trying to be glib or minimize anything.
Just to highlight the obvious, these are not girls, as far as anybody can tell from this photograph.
These are adult women based on physiological development.
Now, they could be young and I don't know, but they don't look like underage based on physiology.
They're wearing lays or lees, lays around their necks, like, you know, what they have in Hawaii, or, you know, like what they have at beauty pageants.
Because, you know, like Donald Trump had a little something to do with beauty pageants.
And when you understand what the Democrats have done in the past, you might be able to identify what they're doing in the present and assume that they're going to try to do it again in the future.
Redacting out the faces so that nobody can identify who those women are or were, where they were, and whether or not this is a totally innocuous pageant type event or other innocuous event that is being made into something far more sinister by virtue of the blacking out of the faces.
You've all seen that skit, unnecessary censorship, where like they would, they would bleep out words that were not swear words at all, but would be bleeped out in a way that sounded like they must have been swear words.
Like there was a clip I remember, when I was young, my mother told me to, you know, be polite, open the door for strangers, say thank you.
And they bleeped out the thank you and it sounded like, say, thank you.
So it sounded like he said, say, fuck you.
The unnecessary censorship can cause people to interpret things badly and wrongly.
The unnecessary censorship here can cause people to come to unjustified, ill-founded conclusions.
The unjustified censorship that they did at the exact same time as the last release where they censored the face, the name, sorry.
They censored the name of one of the Epstein sex abuse victims to suggest falsely or at least in false light that Trump had spent hours with one of Epstein's sex victims when that name that had been redacted was Virginia Guffray, who at one point had worked for Mar-a-Lago and at multiple points said that Trump never did anything wrong to her, that he was quite the gentleman and had exonerated Trump on multiple occasions.
But they redacted the name so that nobody knew which Epstein sex victim it was.
So they wouldn't be able to do that verification to see that it was bullshit framing because the sex victim is one that had already exonerated Trump on multiple occasions.
They got caught doing it.
And what do narcissist psychopath Darvo deny attack reverse victim and offender assholes do when they get caught?
They lie some more.
Listen to how Jen Pasaki framed this when the Democrats got busted for releasing documents that were maliciously and dishonestly redacted to suggest something that they didn't suggest.
Listen to what Saki has to say about if they care so much about victims, they are willing to exploit them for their own political purposes.
They redacted the names to protect them.
And it was the Republicans who were wrong for exposing the fact that the Democrats redacted the name of Virginia Guffray so that the world could know that Trump had spent hours with a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse who had already exonerated Trump on two occasions.
Listen to this.
And they are trying to use the name of an Epstein survivor to get away with it.
Yesterday, the very first email that the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released showed Epstein writing Glene Maxwell to say that Trump was the quote dog that hasn't barked and that a victim spent hours at Epstein's house with Trump.
The Democrats on the committee redacted that victim's name as they've tried to do with the names of all of the Epstein survivors in part to allow them to tell their own stories on their own terms.
She's dead, by the way.
Virginia Gufray's.
Within an hour of the release, the Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee promptly outed the victim as Virginia Juffre.
Apparently doing so just so they could point to past statements of Juffre's in which she said she had never seen Trump do anything wrong.
So again, they're outing an Epstein survivor for political gain.
Can you believe this first?
Let me just see something here.
When did she say that?
This is November 14.
The question is going to be whether or not Virginia Guffray was already.
Let me just see when did Juffre take her own life?
She had, she, she had long April 2025.
She had long already taken her own life when this lying sack of human filth, Jen Saki, is suggesting that Democrats redacted the names so that the victims could tell their own stories, knowing that the one that they redacted is dead and could never tell her own story, which she had already told twice, which exonerated Trump.
Can you believe that anybody can actually be this evil?
She speaks with a serpent tongue.
She is actually an evil, disgusting woman.
Jen Saki, I'm talking about right now.
What is this?
The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee promptly outed the victim as Virginia Juffre, apparently doing so just so they could point to past statements of Juffray's in which she said she had never seen Trump do anything wrong.
Understand this as to how maliciously deceitful this scumbag SOB is.
She says the reason why they redacted their names to do with the names of all of the Epstein survivors, in part to allow them to tell their own stories on their own terms.
They redacted the names of the victims to allow them to tell their own story on their own terms.
She's dead.
She's already told her own story on her own terms.
And they redacted the name anyhow so that people could think it was in reference to another victim who had not already told her own story on her own terms on multiple occasions.
Jen Saki, I hope it was worth the price of your soul.
There can't really be much more that is disgusting in terms of behavior than that.
I mean, by her own admission, by her own strategy, they redacted the names so that the victims could tell their own stories on their own terms, knowing that they redacted the name of a woman who was dead, who had already told her own story on her own terms that exonerated Donald Trump.
And then they fault the Republicans for revealing the deceitful exploitation of sex victims of trafficking sex victims that the Democrats did.
How much worse of a human do you have to be?
And I guarantee you they did the exact same thing this time around.
Malicious, unnecessary censorship redactions to suggest some sort of impropriety.
And I would bet good money on it.
I wouldn't guarantee 99.9%.
I'll just pick a random number, 96.7%, that that photograph is from an innocuous event, probably a pageant.
And they did the exact same thing now that they did back then by redacting for the purposes of creating a shroud of accusations and dirty-looking behavior.
And Jen Lizertung Saki at the time basically told you exactly what they did.
They did it again, and they will try to do it again in the future.
And it is up to commentators and analysts like myself and others to put it on blast so that you understand.
They lied to you in the past, they lied to you in the present, and they will, gosh darn, lie to you again in the future.
Hold on.
Dog seems to have let himself into the office.
And I don't even know how he did it.
I'm not even angry.
I'm impressed.
All right.
So that's that.
Let me see what's going on in our viva barnslaw.locals.com community.
I'm using StreamYard again because I don't want to have any.
Not everybody's familiar with Rumble Studio, so I don't want Larry, who has not used Rumble Studio, to have any issues joining this afternoon.
Four o'clock.
Oh, 33 minutes.
What's going to do?
I was going to bring this up here and see what's going on in our VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com community.
There are two tipped questions over here.
F. Charton says, Viva, going to a Canadian moment in this U.S. stream, to all American friends, I guess, do view Canada going forward as an arm of the Chinese government.
China is at your border.
As a Canadian citizen, point it out every chance you get as we have no ability to counter it without your help.
I return to your regularly scheduled program.
I said it for a long time.
Canada, the government of Canada has made Canada a national security threat to these United States of America.
Fentanyl, Chinese influence in government, Indian influence in government, Kalestani influence in government, terrorists in the country that are coming into America.
Oh, let me rephrase, people on terror watch lists who are trying to make their way into the United States.
National security threat.
And I, you know, there's good evidence to suggest that Canada and Chinese scientists in Canada in Winnipeg had good connections to COVID and absconded into the mountains of China after COVID.
Jameson 2012 says, you need to look at Jesse Butler case in Oklahoma and Samantha Fulnicki.
Both cases are wild.
Screenshot and will.
And let's see here.
If we stop this and we go over to Rumble and we see what's going on on Rumble.
Oh, just in time, Bill Tong, because I didn't put the thing up.
Bill Tong in the house.
Oh, Chris.
What did I just do here?
Hold on one second.
Let me maximize and get that and read that crumble rant real proper like.
Oh, no, I might have just lost it if I went for.
Oh, I lost it.
No, it's still there.
It's still there.
Hold up.
Bill Tong.
I'm coming to you.
Share screen.
And here we go.
Bill Tong says, great selection of imported candies, cookies.
And of course, Bill Tong will make for a great Christmas gift.
Go to Bill Tongusa.com.
Code Viva for 10% off.
And now we're going to get the Viva inception.
Let's see how long it goes for.
We've got one Bill Tong Rumble rant.
We're going to have two Bill Tong Rumble rants.
And it might stop here.
No, we got three.
There we go.
We got three.
Okay, I'll stop it.
Let's get to Sean Ryan.
If you haven't seen the clip, I'm going to play some of it, not all of it.
I love it.
I don't know what immediate release means when you post a video.
Basically, it's immediate release regardless.
Sean Ryan at Sean Ryan762.
Immediate release.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw threatens to sue Sean Ryan.
I don't ordinarily do it.
I'm going to play this one at one and a half because I think we could easily play it at one and a half.
And I want to address some.
We can easily play it at one and a half.
And I mean, Sean has a Sean has a much slower cadence of speech than I do.
And that's not a criticism.
It might actually be a compliment.
I could probably do good slowing down, but we're going to play it at one and a half because we want to get to this end here.
This is wild.
And it goes back to something I said a while back, like whether or not you like it when you're in certain positions, you no longer have the same luxuries and liberties that you once had when you were not in those positions.
And when you're a congressman, when you're a member of government, DMing someone and saying, hey, man, I really didn't like what you said about me.
Would you take it back?
Or there might be consequences.
Here, I'll let Sean say it in his own words.
Something directly with all of you who've supported the show and made it what it is today.
On December 9th, 2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing Congressman Dan Crenshaw.
They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me.
They want me to remove content, issue a public apology, and stop talking about him.
Does nobody, how nobody understands what the Streisand effect is.
Like, if you're going to threaten to sue somebody, it's got to be like basic necessity, economic reputational necessity, not because you think you're going to be able to bully certain people into silence, because you won't.
All that you're going to do is get them and others talking about it.
And, you know, by and large, unless it's a clear-cut black and white legal demand of a clear-cut, morally unquestionable issue, you're not going to get people jumping on the side of the person saying, shut up and retract and issue an apology to me.
You're going to get skepticism, and rightly so, especially when it's coming from people who are not particularly liked among both sides of the political aisle.
I don't think most people like Dan Crenshaw anymore.
I once upon a time thought very highly of him, and then he went ahead and opened his mouth and removed all doubts.
I'm not going to do any of that.
Let me give you full context so you can judge for yourself.
What I originally said a while back, I commented on my show about Congressman Crenshaw throwing an extremely expensive party and the fact that he seems to have become quite wealthy during his time in Congress.
I raised questions about how a congressman making $174,000 a year can afford that kind of a lifestyle.
These are legitimate questions.
And to be honest, I didn't even mention Dan Crenshaw's name in that initial conversation.
I just brought up the fact that he was having Steve Aoke, a major DJ, spend at his party.
Now, I'll pause it because by what it seems, Dan Crenshaw's net worth, let's see here.
I mean, you trust it for what it's worth.
2018 open source open secrets.
Sorry, it says 1.5 million to 3.3 million.
So Dan Crenshaw's net worth varies by estimate.
Open secrets showing a wide range of financial disclosures from 1.4 million to 3.3 of recent cycles, reflecting assets like real estate, stocks, potential income from sources, but precise figures are private and fluctuate with congressional salary.
So we don't really know.
One of the standard lines of attack is that everyone in government gets really rich on a salary of 200,000, give or change.
And then, you know, let's fast forward a couple of years and they got Steve Aoke DJing their 40th birthday party.
How does that happen?
I don't have first-hand experience in this.
I have often questioned the same thing.
These are legitimate questions.
Multiple news outlets have reported on concerns about congressional insider trading and members of Congress, including Congressman Crenshaw, actively trading stocks while having access to non-public information that affects those very stocks.
Now, I'm going to pause it here.
I don't know what Sean Ryan's baseline is typically.
Does he look a little scared?
Like this might be my own confession through projection.
He looks a little rattled despite trying to feign not confidence, but defiance.
So people said the same thing about Marjorie Taylor Greene.
They might have made a factual mistake about how Marjorie Taylor Greene increased her wealth while in government because it was not through insider trading, unless there's evidence to suggest it, which there is, it was actually from her father passing away and her inheriting the shares of his very successful construction company.
So it's not everybody who goes in there poor on $180,000 a year makes tens of millions of dollars.
Not everybody's Nancy Pelosi.
Dan Crenshaw might not be Nancy Pelosi here, but my goodness, he's not doing himself any favors either.
I'm not the only person asking these questions, but apparently I'm the one that got under Dan's skin.
After I made those comments, Congressman Crenshaw sent me an Instagram message.
I'm going to publish the actual screenshot so you can see for yourself right here.
Here's what it says.
Hey, Sean, you have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich.
Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me.
From the comment you made, it sounds like you have some beliefs that are based on trendy narratives instead of facts.
Now, let me be clear about what I saw when I read that message.
A sitting United States congressman who happens to be a former Navy SEAL sent me a message saying, My boys at six told me about my criticism of him.
My boys at six.
That means SEAL Team Six, Development Group, the most elite special operations unit in the United States military and arguably the world.
We can pause it there.
I'll pause it there and then we're going to get into this.
If you receive a DM from a sitting member of government, first of all, Crenshaw's on Instagram.
I love it.
Hey, at least he actually DMs people on Instagram.
Hey, Sean, you have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem.
You got a problem with me?
You got any questions about how I'm getting rich?
Some of my boys at six, I mean, maybe he meant, you know, KPMG6, the radio station.
I don't know if that's a real station.
Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me from the comment you made.
It sounds like you have some beliefs that are based on trendy narratives instead of facts.
I guess I'll stop it there and ask the question of the chat.
And I'll go to locals first and then rumble.
Would you be intimidated if a member of government sent you that?
Even if you didn't make any reference to my boys at six, when Chuck Schumer said, you know, the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, and it's really not smart of Trump to go after them.
If you don't take that like a threat, I won't say you have thicker skin.
I'll say you're dumb.
If you don't take that as the threat that it's clearly intended to be, you are simply stupid.
You're a sitting duck who is susceptible of not knowing what's coming before it comes.
When Dan Crenshaw comes in and says, Hey, I hear you've been talking about me, big boy.
Even if you have to say his boys at six, some of my boys, I mean, unless he's talking with his kids, told me you've been talking about me.
And I don't really like what you're saying.
And so they are basically asking him to issue a retraction, issue a demand, issue basically an apology and a retraction, which Sean Ryan is not going to do.
But in true form to the not the Mandela effect, the Streisand effect, it did remind me of something that even I thought was particularly interesting at the time.
Once upon a time, Crenshaw was on a show complaining about the fact that he wasn't making, he didn't even have enough money to invest in the market.
Hey, look at this.
Is this it?
We're going to play this one just to refresh everybody's memory because I did a commentary on this at the time.
I don't get any DMs, but I don't check my DMs on Instagram anyhow.
So, Crenshaw, if you want to reach me, have your people DM me on Twitter or join us at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, where even the toll, even the trolls have their voice so long as they pay the toll.
This is what happened at the back in the day.
This is Nancy Pelosi's stock tracker at Pelosi Tracker, just in Dan Crenshaw's meta just crushed earnings again.
He's now up 495% on his meta buy from 2022, making it one of the best political stock trades we've ever seen.
But never forget his fiery response on a congressional stock trading pad.
Now, I will say this not to cover my own ass, just because I don't believe, trust, but verify.
I don't know if what Nancy Pelosi's stock tracker is saying in this tweet, if it's accurate.
What I do distinctly remember was Dan Crenshaw's Methinks the Lady Doth Protest Too Much response when asked about legislation that would seek to prevent congressmen and women from insider trading.
Look at this.
Vote for a ban on congress members trading stocks.
Yeah, I mean, this is like number 1000 on my priority list of things to care about.
This is what do I do I pause and highlight all of the deceptive behavior here?
This is so stupid.
Why do I even bother answering it?
Now I'm going to go into a two-minute tirade about it.
One of those stupid things that I've been dragged through the mud on.
You know how many, how much fucking money I've ever had in the stock market?
About $20,000.
And yet I've been dragged through the mud on this as if like there's some insider trading.
I had to send a letter to Fox News a threatening letter from my lawyers threatening them with defamation because Jesse Waters had basically insinuated that I was insider trading.
Of course.
So pattern of conduct now.
I had to send a threatening letter to Fox News.
And we will question whether or not that DM on Instagram was intended to be threatening, whether Sean Ryan was right in his perception of having felt threatened by that DM.
We got an admission of M.O.
I don't know what Crenshaw invests in the market.
One thing I can tell you is that if I'm examining Dan Crenshaw, if he's a defendant or a party to a lawsuit and I'm the lawyer, he says, I owe, you know how much fucking money I have in the market, maybe $20,000.
I was like, all right, good.
Do you have a spouse?
How much money does your spouse have in the market?
Do you have a brother?
Do you have anybody who could potentially for and on your own behalf?
I'm not suggesting it's the case, but when I hear someone say categorically, I've got no money in the market.
Well, that's also not only what the law was going to pertain to restricting back in the day.
It was going to pertain to insider trading as relates to giving tips to friends and family, having people beneficially own stocks foreign on your behalf.
So when someone says something that is not an entirety of an eliminating answer, I would have had follow-up questions.
Okay, you have 20,000 in the market.
That's good.
How much does your wife have?
How much do your kids have?
How much do your parents have?
How much do brothers and sisters have?
Do you have any stockbrokers?
Does anybody else beneficially, potentially foreign on your behalf hold whatever?
Let's continue.
It's not true.
You'd be more surprised how much little we information we have.
This is one of those bills that like some, of course, yeah, people support it.
Yeah, sure.
Okay.
Who cares?
Because I don't have any, I barely have anything in the market anyway.
I barely have anything in the market anyway.
Second time.
It's such a stupid question.
We're now entering one minute of an answer, which involved mentioning how he sent threatening letters to Jesse Waters at Fox News for insinuating.
What were they insinuating?
Is there a couple cases like wherein Nancy Pelosi has some very suspicious timing of her trades?
Yeah, that has happened.
But nobody else can point any other examples out.
Oh, that's not true.
So sure.
Yeah.
Why not?
Don't let us trade stocks.
We'll just keep whipping ourselves.
How about we don't make any money either?
You see this?
Deny, attack, reverse, victim, and offender.
Whip us.
How about we don't make it?
Well, no one suggested you not get paid.
Maybe people suggest getting paid 200,000 bucks a year for working one third of the year, all the benefits on earth, all of the deductible stuff on earth.
You got it pretty good.
And if you want to make a million dollars a year, there's nothing wrong with that.
Don't don't become a congressman and then bitch about the fact that you can't invest with insider knowledge and that you don't make enough money.
Don't do it.
Dan, I'll tell Dan a moral of the story after we finish this.
Let's let this play out.
Cut our paychecks.
We haven't gotten a pay raise since 2008, even a COLA increase.
So, yeah, no, actually, no, yeah, this is a great idea.
Let's make Congress a place where only the millionaires can actually afford to do the job.
This is a wonderful idea.
Let's just keep, let's just keep doing that.
And then some, some, it's always some member, right, who like, who, who senses the populist energy and then mirrors it.
God forbid.
Believing that this is what's going to help me connect with the people, because what do the people want?
Well, I mean, they want an easy button.
You know what the people want?
They don't want corruption in government.
They want honesty and transparency out of government.
They want to see the people thrive and not the government thrive and not the government take their hard-earned tax dollars, siphon it out to foreign conflict where it gets pilfered by corrupt foreign governments.
That's what they want to see, Dan, if you're honest about it.
They don't want to see congressmen and women living in their luxury, living in their ideological silo of DC while Americans, veterans live on the street, Americans die of drug overdoses, while Americans are told to live with illegals, open borders, drug addiction, homelessness, violence on the subways.
They want a country that functions and not a government that keeps getting fatter and fatter every year.
Problems will be solved if there's no stock trading.
All my problems will be solved if there's term limits.
Yeah.
But if you think about any of these things for five whole minutes, you know, you might quickly come to a different conclusion.
Now, again, what I vote for, yeah, sure.
Who cares?
Who cares?
It doesn't matter to me because I don't have any fucking money to put in the stock.
What an angry, what an angry tirade of a response.
Two and a half minutes or two minutes and 10 seconds for someone who doesn't care.
Cut your paycheck.
Nobody's suggesting that.
And my father brought us up.
He's still alive.
So this is not an anecdote.
My father, but he told, hey, if you want to be rich, there's nothing wrong with that.
But then don't become a school teacher.
Nothing wrong with being a school teacher either.
But don't expect to get rich and then go become a school teacher.
Don't expect to get rich and become a cop.
And if you become a cop and you want to get rich, you might see what some of those cops do in order to get rich beyond the capacity of the employment that they chose.
You want to be rich and you want to make millions and millions of dollars.
You go into private enterprise, do it legally.
More power to you, Godspeed.
You want to get rich.
Don't bitch and moan about not being able to get rich off $180,000 a year when you choose to serve country by going into government.
And everything in that response seems to, at least in my humble view, lend credibility to Sean Ryan's reaction to that DM from Dan Crenshaw.
Instead of facts.
Now, let me be clear about what I saw when I read that message.
A sitting United States congressman who happens to be a former Navy SEAL sent me a message saying, my boys at six told me about my criticism of him.
My boys at six.
That means SEAL Team Six, Development Group, the most elite special operations unit in the United States military and arguably the world.
When I received that message, in the context of me criticizing him, I interpreted it as threatening.
Maybe I was wrong.
Maybe he just meant that some guys he used to work with told him about my comments and he wanted to have a friendly chat.
But that's not how it read to me.
And I said so on my podcast.
Now, here's a clip of Congressman Dan Crenshaw literally saying if he ever meets Tucker Carlson, he will fucking kill him.
I wouldn't take that as a threat.
That's a figure of speech, but so I'm just curious.
What would you think if Congressman Dan Crenshaw sent you a message saying his boys at six after he threatened to kill Tucker Carlson?
Now his lawyers are claiming that my interpretation of his message is defamation.
They say I accused him of threatening me with assault, which is a crime, and that I need to publicly apologize and remove the content from my show.
Here's my response.
No.
I'm publishing their full demand letter along with my lawyer's response so that you can read both and decide for yourself.
My answer would have been fuck off, not no.
But Sean is much more polite and, you know, success leaves clues.
Whether my interpretation was unreasonable.
This isn't really about whether I misunderstood a message.
This is about whether a sitting member of Congress can use the threat of an expensive litigation to silence criticism.
I asked questions about Congressman Crenshaw's words.
Those questions are fair game.
Where's the letter?
I just want to show you the letter.
I think it's at the end.
Oh, maybe you didn't publish it here.
We're not going to go any further.
That's all you need.
Let me send you that tweet so you can put it on blast.
Can you imagine someone saying your interpretation of what occurred is defamatory?
My interpretation of what occurred is by definition an interpretation, which means it's by definition and legal matter of fact my opinion.
And if you don't like my opinion and you disagree with my opinion, you can go suck a big fat lemon.
Now, I appreciate the legal distinction.
You can't say it is my opinion that you are a pedophile because what you are doing is cloaking a defamatory per se statement of fact as an opinion.
You're making an opinion to a statement of fact.
It is my opinion that O.J. Simpson is a murderer.
It is my opinion that O.J. Simpson was a murderer and he's dead.
He can't sue for defamation.
But there are cases where cloaking your opinion, cloaking a statement of fact and a defamatory one as a statement of opinion, could nonetheless be actionable.
But saying I took that as intimidation and as a threat, A, is a matter of opinion, and B, is a wholly justified matter of opinion.
Now, I saw Ginger Ninja over on Rumble who says, see, I can't, how do I want to get?
Don't move the screen.
I want to move the screen.
Here we go.
Ginger Ninja says, Sean always looks a little different when he talks to the camera versus conducting an interview, but I think he looks pissed.
My boys at six equals my highly trained goons are watching you.
And I agree.
So it'll be fun if they sue.
I mean, it won't be fun to get sued.
And people don't understand this.
Not only do you have to be legally correct to sue, unless you're just a raging psychopath who revels in the stress of litigation and the infliction of misery on others.
Even if you are right, even if you have a strong chance of success, you've got to think long and hard before suing anybody.
It's a two-way street.
People seem to think you sue, you get disc, you're good to do whatever you want.
No, it's a two-way street.
And oftentimes, everybody ends up looking ugly in litigation, but oftentimes the person who initially thought the lawsuit was a great idea ends up looking even uglier.
So, Sean, I happen to think you're 1000% right.
I'm curious to see where this goes.
I don't wish that you should get sued, but I, from what I understand now, based on the evidence that is publicly available to us now and based on a past admitted course of conduct and modus operandi by Dan Crenshaw, I think Sean is 1000% right.
Crenshaw knew exactly what he was doing when he sent that private DM.
And it is not okay for sitting members of government to DM influential commentators in a threatening, intimidating manner to try to get them to be silent in their critique.
What else is going on, people?
I do have some more to talk about before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the afterparty.
But let's just see what's going on in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Do we have anything?
Let's go here.
Let's go to the do we go to the all convo hyphen says, I got my eye on that Dan fellow.
I don't know if we're talking about Dan Crenshaw or Dan Bongino, but I think you're probably talking more about Dan Crenshaw.
I'm having Viva NJP'd under Article 115 for his bursitis.
I take that as a threat, Jar Head 3.
I don't know.
I don't know what NJP'd means.
What does NJP mean?
What does NJP mean?
Non-judicial punishment for well, I'll tell you one thing.
I bowled a 187 average over my three games on the other night there.
So I'm good.
After party open to everyone, neurodivergent.
Well, it's open to everyone, neurodivergent.
It's not behind a paywall.
Non-judicial punishment.
I think I, Patch McCain, threatened to kill Tucker more than once.
I mean, I think it's a figure of speech, but then he says I'm not joking.
That's displaying a whole hell of a lot of uncontrolled rage, impulse control, and a lack of good judgment.
I mean, even if you want to do it, you don't say it.
I would take it as a figure of speech right up until you say, I'm not even joking.
So that's what's going on with Sean Ryan.
Now, what else?
Oh, we're going to talk real, real quick.
Not much development in the January 6th pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr., suspected, charged, et cetera.
The timing, if it is in fact true that Bongino's leaving as deputy director, could be very interesting timing.
You know, I've been following the FBI DOJ's statements on the arrest and their confidence in the arrest.
And they had their celebratory press conference the day of where Janine Pirro gets up and thanks everybody for their hard work.
It's amazing work under this new administration.
They finally got the guy.
You got Pam Bondi comes up, says the same thing.
You got Kash Patel comes up, says the same thing.
You got Bongino coming up.
In a subsequent interview with Sean Hannity, Bongino was weighing his words a little more.
He says, I think he said, we're fairly confident we got the right guy or we're fair.
I don't want to misphrase it, but it was something about comfortable.
We are comfortable we got the right guy and we're comfortable the public is going to feel comfortable as well.
Something along those lines.
But, you know, comfortable we got the right guy in the context of beyond a reasonable doubt is something of a dialing back or maybe an expression of his own sentiment and not that of Pam Bondi, who should have been gone before the Epstein debacle in her capacity as attorney general of the DOJ.
Liz Wheeler, who, you know, oddly enough, full circle of today's stream, was one of the victims of Bindergate.
She came on the channel afterwards to explain exactly what happened, that they had no idea when they got those binders that there was officially nothing new in those binders, the Epstein binders.
And in fact, there was less new in those binders because those binders contained redacted documents of what was otherwise publicly available unredacted.
And then they got caught off guard by photographers at the White House as they're leaving.
And then they hold up the binders thinking they've got information in there that's that's actual Epstein disclosures.
And they found out they didn't.
They all got humiliated.
Liz Wheeler was one of them.
Well, she's reporting on Brian Cole's alleged confession.
And it drives me crazy.
Like I don't know if people are sincere, sincerely stupid, or sincere trolls on Twitter.
And I try to assume sincerity before assuming sincere stupidity or sincere trolls.
And I'll get to that in a bit.
I won't play the entire thing, but Liz Wheeler on Brian Cole's alleged confession has to say this.
Now, there was a report last week from NBC News, and I want to read the beginning of this report to you.
The title of the report says, pipe bomb suspect told FBI he believed 2020 election conspiracy theories.
And the article begins by saying the man charged with planting two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican Party headquarters on the eve of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol told the FBI he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Now, I wish I could read you more of the NBC article, but unfortunately, that's all the detail they provide.
They don't provide any kind of direct quote or further context for their claim.
They just say that they have sources that told them that the pipe bomb suspect had communicated to the FBI after he was arrested when he was being interviewed that he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
Well, I have sources that tell me much more detail than that.
My sources tell me that the word Brian Cole actually used in his interview with the FBI, that he did actually make this comment.
He said that he believed that the election in 2020 was stolen.
But before the mainstream media runs away with this, before the left deliberately, willfully misrepresents Brian Cole Jr. to be a Trump supporter because they want him to be.
My sources tell me there is widespread, almost universal belief within the FBI that those comments made by Brian Cole Jr., in which he said he believed the 2020 election was stolen, were actually just a legal maneuver.
They believe that he was coached by his lawyer to make that comment in an attempt to secure a pardon from President Trump.
Actually, a retroactive pardon, because President Trump had issued a pardon for anybody convicted of a January 6th related crime.
There's widespread belief, my sources tell me, within the FBI, that Brian Cole Jr.'s lawyer was simply pulling a legal trick.
Pause it.
And we don't need to go any further.
When you saw the narrative in the media that, oh, how long until Trump gives this guy kid a pardon?
You knew that there was something fishy.
Either they all got their talking points to say, if this kid gets a pardon, it's going to be a corrupt act of Trump to pardon one of his own.
Anybody who believed that this kid, and yes, I'm calling a 30-year-old autistic man who was 25 at the time, a kid.
It's a figure of speech.
Anybody who believed that this guy was a Trump supporter, given where they live, given his father's business, given his father's public press statements with Ben Crump as relates to certain matters of politics, anybody who thought this kid was a Trump supporter is an idiot.
I've got a bridge to sell you.
There were people hypothesizing that this was deliberately a strategy to try to work himself into the pardons for Jan 6, and others were humorously saying, sorry, the Jan 6 pardons don't cover acts that were carried out on January 5th.
But the amount of people out there, seemingly stupid, who don't learn from history, saying, but he confessed, Vivo, now that you understand, A, judicial corruption, legal incompetence, attorney incompetence, and the ability of a corrupt prosecutorial system to coerce a confession.
Here, I replied to the person.
I don't mean to put him on blast.
Mike says, the dude fucking confessed.
And I say, I can't tell if you're sincere, sincerely stupid, or sincerely trolling.
How prevalent are confessions?
Depending on who you ask, false confessions, I should say, 15 to 25%.
Let alone when you're dealing with a four-hour interrogation of an unrepresented dude.
My understanding he was unrepresented at the time.
But set aside, he either got bad legal advice to admit to something so that he could try to get a pardon, in which case it's a false confession, or they coerced a confession out of an autistic dude.
Michael Flynn confessed.
And people don't seem to understand why Michael Flynn confessed.
Michael Flynn confessed because the abusive prosecutorial system, at the time, corrupt to its core, threatened to go after Michael Flynn's kid.
And so Michael Flynn said, I will fall on this sword before I let my son's life get destroyed by this Biden corrupt POS DOJ.
A fake confession that they then wouldn't allow him to recant and retract because, what's her face?
Oh, geez, I'm going to forget.
Ballantyne, who was on the file, who's on this case as well, they wouldn't let Michael Flynn recant or retract his coerced confession.
He got cleared in any event after that corrupt judge finally dismissed the charges after fighting the government's motion to basically dismiss the charges against Michael Flynn.
You have a history of it.
You have good reasons for it.
And if you're dealing with a kid, a guy, a 25-year-old, 30-year-old, who is apparently, according to his grandmother, borderline non-verbal autistic, who has some attorney out there who says, I've got a great hairbrain scheme, admit to it, and you'll get a pardon.
Or they interrogate this kid for four hours without counsel, saying, This is going to be very hard on your mother.
It's going to be very hard on your father.
It might ruin their business if you don't cut a deal now.
You can get anybody to confess to anything.
And that's that.
That's the news on that.
Now, what we're going to do, everybody, we are going to just raid somebody.
I don't know who's live right now.
Let me just see while we go to the raid because we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Go raid Russell Brand.
We'll raid Russell Brand.
Before we do that, hold on, before we do that, let me give everybody the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
There is no paywall today, so it's open to everybody.
Locals, come.
It's going to be amazing.
I was listening to a number of podcasts with Larry.
And it was funny that I was listening to him on Joe Rogan 2018.
And I'm like, oh my goodness, the world has changed so much since COVID.
It's like, from a historical perspective, like learning about, you know, personal histories and to some extent politics, it's useful.
The world is so different now.
It's almost like what happened from certain perspectives of politics before 2020 is no longer applicable.
But let's go raid Russell Brand.
So we're going to go like this: forward slash raid.
Get your butts on over to, I screwed up the raid here.
Forward slash raid.
Boom.
And come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party and an exclusive, or at least it's going to be exclusive live interview with Larry Sharp, who's running against, I'll call her now before I bring Larry in, the demon, Kathy Hochle, a woman who I'm thoroughly convinced and sincerely believe belongs behind bars.
What we're going to do is I'm going to end it on Twitter, remove, confirm, and I'm going to end it on Rumble.
And we're going to stay live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.