Candace Owens' Backtracks? Brown University Cover-Up? Bongino Leaves! Pfizer Makes LEGAL ADMISSIONS?
|
Time
Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, in today's moment of isn't that ironic, don't you think?
The crowd of the person who is being allegedly attacked for just asking questions and are defending her right to just ask questions.
My goodness, do they seem to get mad at anybody who they perceive to be criticizing her for just asking questions?
This is Candace Owens on Piers Morgan yesterday.
And the prediction that Viva made that I believe has come to fruition to some extent or seems more likely than not.
But enjoy this exchange and then we shall just ask questions.
Behold.
Why would he say 7,000 front war?
Candace, I want to get to the reality of what you're actually saying.
So when you say that somebody at Turning Point USA, Charlie's company, was complicit in his murder, who?
Who was in a cover-up of what happened to Charlie on that day?
No, but who was involved in his murder?
I didn't say that they murdered Charlie.
You said people at Turning Point were complicit in his murder.
No, my exact sentence that I said was that there were people at Turning Point who are engaged in a cover-up.
I believe thoroughly.
Candace, you didn't say that.
You said literally.
I didn't say that my entire time.
You said there were people at Turning Point complicit in his murder.
Okay.
That's what you said.
When you and I were discussing, that's why I said, let's go back.
I was applying the logic of a conspiracy to JFK.
I said, okay, JFK, you have people that are complicit.
Of course, if you apply that logic, if there is a conspiracy, there's going to be multiple people that are going to be complicit by the time in order for a large stage murder to happen.
You specifically said now.
You didn't say complicit in a cover-up.
You said complicit in the murder.
Because I said, let me clarify for you.
In his murder.
Let me clarify for you.
Okay.
You can keep saying what I said or you can listen to what I'm saying.
I'm going to pause it right there.
And everybody has to understand this.
It seems that there's people out there who are emotionally invested in defending Candace at all costs.
And they perceive any legitimate discussion to be something of an attack.
Listen to what I'm saying, not what I said.
Let me play that part again.
Okay.
Who at turning point was that?
Let me clarify for you.
In his murder.
Let me clarify for you.
Okay.
You can keep saying what I said or you can listen to what I'm saying.
You can keep saying what I said or you can listen to what I'm saying.
In other words, let me just clarify because subsequent to my four and a half hour meeting where things were discussed with Erica Kirk and Team TP USA, I would like to clarify what I have previously said.
And the amazing thing is, and this is like people think that they've got the own on you.
Like, do you even watch all of Candace's stuff?
Like, for someone who's live over an hour a day, and I'm not talking about myself, Candace, who's dedicated day in and day out content to this, it's literally impossible to have watched everything Candace has said on this over the last three months, plus Instagram, plus Facebook and whatever.
When you're talking about an issue, you just need to make sure you have sufficient information on that particular issue, not having seen everything that Candace has said over the last three months.
And when you speak, and this is no fault of Candace, when you speak on a specific subject, say not continuously in an accusatory sense, just as a matter of fact, you're going to say a lot of things.
And so it becomes very easy to say, well, I said they were complicit in a conspiracy or a cover-up.
Whereas, you know, at another point, I probably, she probably did say they were complicit in the murder or the assassination.
And then you want to pick on certain, well, I said this, but you also said that.
You want to listen to what I say, I'm saying, or do you want to talk about what I said?
She's quite clearly in something of a backtrack mode, but not this is again not an accusatory sense.
Sometimes you go, okay, I may have gone a little too far in certain things that I said.
Let me let me escape it here.
At the time this was posted, I said, if I had to guess, I would bet good money that at some point in the four and a half hour meeting between Erica and Candace, Erica and her attorneys brought up the legal concept of tortious interference with business contracts.
I suspect that is most likely the impetus for this media tour walking back of some prior statements.
Now, people think this is criticism to say like someone may have gone a little too far, said something a little bit too much on a specific issue.
I have grown to become friends with Kyle Seraphin.
I had a public disagreement on two occasions with Kyle Serifin, one about James O'Keefe and one about Julie Kelly.
Kyle Serafin offers amazing insights with his FBI experience, with his whistleblowing experience.
He might have said just a hair too much in the context of hypothesizing on whether or not Alexis Wilkins is a Mossad agent, Israeli honeypot, seeking access to the White House via Kash Patel.
He might have gone a little a hair overboard in his monologue, in addition to, I think he recognizes it.
Pointing out when someone might have, you know, gone a little too far, offering constructive criticism and not destructive criticism, does not mean you're turning on somebody, nor does it mean that if you do, in fact, like somebody, that you should refrain from criticizing them at any point in time.
What's the most ironic thing about all of this is Candace Owens' crowd, or you know, I say followers, and nobody's bound by the actions of their followers.
For someone and an audience that says she's just asking questions, well, holy hell, do they seem to go crazy on anybody who offers the slightest what they perceive to be criticism of what Candace Owens said or is doing now?
You know, I said, first of all, I defended Candace Owens when she was going on with the theory about Brigitte Macron being a man.
And I still defend, I still think that that lawsuit is bullshit.
I think it's some form of government intimidation.
And the process is the punishment.
When Candace Owens comes out and says, here's my theory for which Brigitte Macron is a man, and I'm connecting the dots that I want to connect, and all, you know, people will accuse her of disregarding the dots that don't fit.
I'd say, first of all, when she says that and she presents the thesis, her argument, her evidence, everybody understands it's a theory.
It's her theory that she is presenting, not reporting it as a demonstrable fact.
I mean, I don't even know how you would argue that someone saying someone's actually a man is a demonstrable fact.
It's quite clearly, here's my theory for why I believe this person is a man.
Now, it's not quite the same thing as saying, here's my theory for why I believe this person is a pedophile, which, you know, I'm just saying my opinion is he's a pedophile.
Well, that is on the one hand, defamatory per se, pedophilia being defamatory per se, and being trans.
I mean, I always thought that was liberating and whatever, and you should be proud of it.
She's entitled to that.
I don't think she should have gotten sued for that.
And I do think that she ultimately will win that lawsuit, even if it comes with something of a nominal nuisance settlement and maybe a retraction.
If it wasn't clear to everybody watching my show, it's a theory.
It's my theory.
It's not a statement of objective demonstrable fact.
And I did not mean it in a malicious manner in any event, nor with the intent to defame what could be done.
There's other allegations in that lawsuit, you know, being part of a murderous cabal and all these other things, which, if that's if that's what's going to lead to people getting sued, will anybody who says that the Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are part of an Arkansas expect to get sued and then see how it feels.
Well, I was, it was an internet meme, it was a trope, it was my opinion.
So I'll defend her when she, you know, deserves a defense, and then I will offer my insights when I think that she may have crossed the line.
Now, when that clip came out, and I said, my goodness, she's going on Pierce Morgan.
The interpretations of that interview, which I haven't watched the entire thing, are diametrically opposed.
People think she owned Pierce Morgan.
People think Pierce Morgan owned her.
Personally, I think Pierce Morgan is the biggest hypocrite in the news.
Yeah, it's wait until it's popular, Pierce Morgan, to show interest in something.
It's two-faced Pierce Morgan to block people for theories that he then subsequently espouses.
And I'm talking about me here.
But, you know, just asking questions, first of all, is to be distinguished from making statements.
Ian Carroll, who for whatever the reason has ghosted me on the internet, I mean, has not come on for the public discussion that we, you know, I think we should have.
Because the people, oddly enough, who just ask questions after making bold statements like Israel just shot themselves, don't want to have a discussion.
And so the cloaking what they're doing and just asking questions while avoiding any scrutiny or analysis or jumping on people who do, they're not asking questions.
And then the other thing is sometimes asking an accusatory question, when did you stop beating your wife, is a question that presupposes a defamatory fact that you were beating your wife.
Now, when that clip came out, I was like, oh, shit, she really seems to be doing something.
I say not backtracking, she's not undoing everything she said.
She's asked some legitimate questions.
And she's actually, oddly enough, revealed some legitimate, I won't call it evidence because I'm not sure it qualifies as evidence for the assassination, but behind the scenes politics of these types of organizations that rely on donors.
And she did highlight some of the influence and some of the pressure from specific donors and specific not being pleased with Charlie Kirk as relates to his position on certain things that certain donors wanted Charlie to promote.
And Charlie, you know, whether he says, I think they're going to kill me is a rhetorical figure of speech or whether or not he legit thought Israel was going to kill him in the way that some people joke that Hillary Clinton's going to kill them and I do not have information on Hillary Clinton and I'm not suicidal, whether or not that expressed legitimate concerns to say, all right, there's that tweet out there that says, I think Israel is going to kill me.
I'm paraphrasing.
That needs to jive with some actual evidence that Israel itself was behind the assassination.
And thus far, there simply is not that actual evidence of the actus reyes, even though if you take that DM literally, Charlie Kirk was claiming to be afraid, legit, that Israel was going to kill him.
All fair and game.
When you come out and tell people to not donate to an organization, then you might be crossing the line from just asking questions to tortious interference with prospective business relations.
Now, you noticed in that tweet, I said, my goodness, if I had to bet, I'd say that she might have got, you know, during that meeting, they might have dropped the reference.
Have you ever heard of tortious interference with business contracts, with prospective business contracts?
And came across another clip today, which I posted, and people jumping down my throat.
I am not paid for any opinion.
I would not issue any opinion.
I would not take money to issue an opinion.
There is nothing that you have on this earth other than your integrity and your dignity.
And the second you compromise that, you never get it back.
You know, it's like a broken vase analogy.
You drop a vase and it shatters.
You can glue it all together with the final, you could mastercraft.
People will always see the marks where that vase was broken and they will know that that vase was broken.
Integrity is the very same thing.
You spend the rest of your life building it back up.
Everyone's always going to have that question.
Everyone's always going to see the break marks where you once destroyed your integrity.
That's all you have in life.
No one's going to pay me for an opinion and I'm not going to alter my opinion either for access, for money, or for not getting attacked on the internet.
So when I said, oh, my goodness, it sounds like they might have mentioned, and I don't know that they did.
And I don't know that they could even tell me if they did, nor I don't know if either of them would.
When you sit down for four and a half hours and you say, what you're doing, they might not, it might not have been a, you're going to shut your mouth, Candace, or we're going to sue your ass for torsious interference.
They might have just mentioned, do you know what that concept is?
Do you know what torsious interference with prospective business relations is?
Chat, do you know what it is?
Does everybody know what torsious interference with prospective business relations is?
It came up in the Oberlin case where Gibson's Bakery, remember that bakery that was accused of racism for arresting a shoplifter who happened to be black, and then Gibson, and then Oberlin University comes out and says, They've been a racist university, don't shop there anymore.
Tortious interference with prospective business is interfering with third-party contracts on the basis of false or defamatory statements.
It's not like saying don't buy Apple iPhones, they're made by slave laborers in China.
That's accurate.
You can't stop people from boycotting, you can't stop people from promoting boycotts for legitimate reasons.
But if you interfere with third-party contracts and say, don't buy from him, he's a pedophile.
And he's not, that's tortious interference.
It happened in the Gibson's Bakery.
Oberlin was ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars because they interfered with third-party contracts on the basis of defamatory lies that Gibson's bakery was racist.
Don't contract with them.
They're racist.
And it bankrupted Gibson's bakery.
It killed the owner.
So after I make that statement, this clip I think might have come.
I don't know when this clip comes time-wise.
I think it comes from before based on, I don't know, I'm going with clothing.
At least the Pierce Morgan was yesterday.
Listen to this.
And you tell me if you understand what you're hearing.
It's quite clear some people on the internet don't understand what they're hearing.
They were sort of most upset with what I obviously a bit of a fever pitch when I tweeted that it was a God-forsaken company and people should not give money to it.
And I have to own that.
That's aggressive.
That is actually aggressive in the retrospect.
I was very frustrated.
And aggressive is, I have to own that, is an apology, people.
Understand that.
Own it means take responsibility for something that I did that I acknowledge was wrong.
That was aggressive.
That's that's an interesting qualifier for potentially unlawful.
It's a God-forsaken company.
Don't give money to them.
Why?
Because I'm alleging that they had something to do either with a cover-up or the murder itself.
That is arguably tortious interference with prospective business relations.
That I think there is far less of a legal defense for than, for example, saying Brigitte Macon is a man.
Not my opinion.
She's just a pervert anyhow.
Man or woman.
Brigitte Macon is a pervert who arguably but not arguably engaged in relations with a kid who was arguably but not arguably necessarily depending on which news you read underage at the time.
They want to say he was 15 because that would have been the age of consent.
She was 35 or 40.
I think it's a 25 year difference.
Perversion nonetheless.
Let me play this out and be quiet.
Bit of a fever pitch.
But I tweeted that it was a Godforsaken company and people should not give money to it.
And I have to own that.
That's aggressive.
That is actually aggressive in the retrospect.
I was very frustrated.
And I don't know.
I just, I felt like we weren't getting any answers and there were so many lies.
And then I was getting attacked for asking all meaningful questions that was within their capacity to answer.
And I told you, I definitely, my problem in life is that I can rise to anger very quickly.
I shared with them that I really felt like I was under attack for telling the truth.
I can rise to anger really quickly.
That's an interesting advisory.
Okay.
As your attorney, Candace, I might have said, maybe, I mean, this is live and you, you know, you speak freely when you're live.
Maybe.
Not say that.
Very beginning.
Like casually, when I mentioned the Catholicism thing, like, what was that about?
I was like, look, I say something in a tribute to him, Alex Clark and Andrew Colvett, and then jump onto a podcast and they're doing that weird interview.
They were.
So, yeah, just to understand, people, I call it like I see it all the time.
And people have told me, Viva, why are you defending Candace Owens?
Why are you defending Nick Fuent?
Like, first of all, I will defend even a person who is, I don't know, an adversary if I think they're right.
I will give the constructive criticism to someone, even if they're an ally, if I think they're wrong.
If for no other reason, you want to say I'm doing it to attack Candace Owens.
I'm doing it to help her.
Had she adhered to this advice, had Kyle Seraphim, you know, maybe toned down the rhetoric just a little bit, he still would have gotten sued.
I mean, Alexis Wilkins is suing Elijah Schaefer for a retweet with an image.
Oh, David, why are you defending Elijah Schaefer?
Because he's right on this issue, in my view.
Elijah Schaefer might be the biggest asshole on the internet.
He might be the biggest troll on the internet.
He might say vile and racist things in your humble view.
On this, he's right.
And all that I would want to highlight by all of this, I don't know that it's the case.
I don't know that either Candace or Erica would mention it.
I have the feeling, and I had the feeling before, that someone might have mentioned the legal concept of tortious interference with prospective business relations.
Because when you try to implore a massive amount of people to not donate to what is, on the one hand, a not-for-profit and a profit organization, depending on which element of TPUSA, when you try to get a mob or a massive amount of people to do that on the basis of other affirmations that you believe they were complicit in a cover-up and or the murder, that is getting awful and uncomfortably close to tortious interference with business relations.
And if you don't like that and you think Candace somehow is allowed to just ask questions and nobody else can chime in on the debate, she can go on Pierce Morgan for an hour, but everyone else needs to shut up and just listen because all she's doing is asking questions and goddamn you, you're not allowed saying a damn thing about it.
Well, you are hypocrites.
Congrats.
Welcome to the real world people.
Booyah.
That was very loud.
My apologies.
How goes the battle, everybody?
If you rob a bank, then apologize after you stole and spent the money, you still go to jail.
There are some crimes for which jokes are not a defense.
It was just a prank, man.
If you lift up someone's child, it doesn't matter if you didn't actually intend on kidnapping them.
That's kidnapping.
You know, you get the actus reus and the mensrea.
The actus reus is the act of the crime, lifting up the kid, mensrea with kidnapping, to deprive someone of their child.
You know, if you lift up a kid who's going to get hit by a car, it's not kidnapping.
If you help a kid find their parents at a shopping center, it's not kidnapping.
It was a prank, bro.
I wanted you to think I was kidnapping your kid, but I, in my mind, wasn't actually kidnapping your kid, but I was doing something so that you would think it actus reasons, you're going to jail.
Viva, do you suppose any legal docs were signed after that meeting?
I don't know.
I was trying to look up to see whether or not anyone had mentioned an NDA of that meeting.
My silver lining in all of this is from Candace's, what I think is something of a backtracking tour and subsequent statements, statements subsequent to that meeting, I do imagine, inasmuch as there's probably vitriol between Candace and Erica, maybe there's not, maybe they've really shaken hands and made amends, even if it were purely a transactional agreement.
If they say, look, Candace, we can sue you and we can bankrupt.
Like, this is not going to be a MacLean lawsuit.
This is like, you said it, and we've got it.
And we've, you know, you've said it for three months now.
We can, we can bankrupt you.
That'll be bad for you.
It'll be bad ultimately for us.
And it'll be bad for the conservative movement and the upcoming midterms.
My white pill want to imagine this is what happened.
They say, look, I don't like you.
You don't like me.
We're not going to get past this.
We could sue you.
We can, you know, to the victor go the spoils, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war or just tamp it down a little bit.
Let's try to work together and let's try to save the midterms, the conservative movement and these United States of America.
That's what I want to believe happened.
Hido Sanishiban says, sorry, there's no other way to read that name.
Hido Sanishiban says, thanks for explaining tortuous interference.
That's law knowledge helps me and why I watched you in pre-COVID days.
That's like, people say, well, you're attacking her.
Maybe I'm trying to protect her.
Maybe I really, really like Candace and I'm trying to protect her and this is the way to do it.
It's neither that, neither one nor the other.
I've got nothing personal against Candace.
I think she went a little too far with Tim Poole and I said as much.
You know, for the exact same reasons.
Saying someone acts like someone who goes out and loses at poker, then beats their wife is accusing them of doing that.
He acts like a pedophile.
Well, what does a pedophile act like?
They molest children.
Oh, I didn't say you molest children.
I just said you act like someone who molests children.
The only way to act like someone who molests children is to molest children.
You act like a wife beater.
Well, what does that act?
What does a white beater do?
They beat their wife.
Oh, so you act like the man who beats his wife.
I didn't say you beat your wife, though.
But that's it.
Anyhow, it's never too late to make amends.
It's never too late to get reborn.
And with that said, let's get into the rebirth of Dan Bongino.
And this is another one where I, on the one hand, I get accused of being a sycophant.
And on the other hand, I get accused of, I don't know.
No one has accused me of being too hard on Dan.
I'm quite hard on the FBI.
I think the institution is corrupt to the core and needs to be dismantled and shattered into a thousand pieces and thrown to the wind.
I've been forgiving on Dan, not forgiving.
I say, I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Dan because I mean, it's very easy to shit on the person who's most publicly visible, but who might not be the one who calls the shots.
And we've been going through the FBI's successes.
They've had successes.
And this will get to my response when I say, Dan, you did good.
America is safer under this FBI.
I think that's whether you whether you like the FBI or not, I think most people would agree with that.
You know, they are, they foil the terror plot with the Turtle Island Liberation Front, the TILF.
Just wait until they get to the Manatee Island Liberation Front.
I've used that joke already.
They foiled that.
They foiled the Michigan Halloween terrorist attack.
They've arrested traffickers.
They've arrested drug dealers.
They've gone hard-ish or at least harder on the fentanyl trade.
So I think it's objectively true that America is now safer thanks to Kash Patel and Dan Bongino at the FBI.
What is also true is that on core issues that were litmus test issues for reform, for going after the deep state, we haven't seen the progress that we want.
Now almost a year into the Trump administration, we have not seen the arrest of one high-ranking Democrat or even any Democrat involved in Russia Gate, involved in the stolen election in 2020.
We had James Comey who got off.
He'll get back on on those two piddly charges.
So we haven't seen what we wanted to see and what we were sort of promised.
We wanted answers on Epstein.
We wanted answers on Butler.
We wanted prosecutions of those who perpetrated the Jan 6 Fed surrection, not defending the Fed surrection, which is the Gretchen Whitmer, where you have Pam Bondi defending the conviction of men who were, in my humble view, the victims of FBI entrapment in the Gretchen Whitmer fednapping plot.
Now the only question is, who's responsible for it?
People say, you know, Dan talked a big game and he got there and he, and he, you know, the big, big dog barking behind the fence and then the fence opens up.
Dan was deputy director.
And even Kyle Serafin, in his Understandable disdain for the FBI, which he believes threw him under the bus because he blew the whistle under the Biden administration and the current Kash Patel FBI did not honor his sacrifice as a whistleblower.
So he's got personal animus towards cash, specifically towards cash for the lawsuit, which he believes is an indirect cash lawsuit, not from Alexis Wilkins, and towards Dan Bonginho.
And even Kyle Serafin, when I said, look, what do you expect the deputy director to do?
He can't call the shots.
He's not going to throw the director under the bus.
He's not going to call Pam Bondi an incompetent, corrupt Pfizer defender.
And he's not going to shit on Trump.
So what can he do?
Ultimately, even Kyle Serifin said he could resign.
Dan Bongino just has announced he's leaving.
It's not a resignation.
He's not burning down the building as he leaves.
He is putting out a nice, respectful, I will be leaving my position with the FBI in January.
I want to thank President Trump, A.G. Bondi, and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose.
Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you.
God bless America and all those who defend her.
Polite, cordial, whether or not we're going to see what happens now in terms of whether or not, you know, what Bongino does, what he can do, because I presume there are NDAs regardless, and what he's going to be at liberty to do.
And then, you know, when people are saying, well, we're excited to have you get back to the podcasting world, you know, the question is going to be, is he going to go after FBI corruption the way he was doing it before?
I don't think he can do that now.
Are you going to go after the truth about Butler, Pennsylvania?
Given the current FBI's position and stance, I don't think he can do that now.
So I, oh, that's not the right, that's not the right tweet.
Well, let me just bring this one up.
We're not jumping into Pfizer just yet.
So I put out in response to that, Dan is leaving.
It's a long one, but I want to flesh it out.
You know, we're going to hypothesize on why.
And I think Dan is too much of a gentleman and a patriot to air dirty laundry, should any exist.
And no, I'm not relying on the Vanity Fair headpiece.
Some people say, no, Viva, if he's leaving and it's because of corruption, he's got to blow the whistle.
And first thing to that, I would say there's a difference between dirty laundry and corruption.
Dirty laundry is Pam Bondi is an idiot.
She's incompetent, in over her head.
She's a control freak.
She wouldn't let me fly like the, not flamingo, the peacock that I am.
That's dirty laundry.
Corruption is, I saw some chicanery with Pfizer and Pam Bondi.
I'm not saying that this exists, but there's a distinction between dirty laundry, which is attacking decisions of the personnel, which might embarrass Trump himself, and corruption.
I said dirty laundry.
He wanted to serve his country.
Serve he did.
He achieved a lot, made the country safer.
We should be thankful for that.
And we should.
I've always been sympathetic to the impossible position Dan was in.
He was the social media punching bag for legitimate criticism of decisions that were not his to make.
Some of you accused me of being a sycophant for my interpretation, but I think people failed to appreciate the hierarchy within the DOJ.
Also, I don't care.
My assessment was based on the fairness of the facts and knowledge of Dan's character.
And the amazing thing is, for the people who said, well, he can just resign.
And now he resigned.
Well, he should have done more.
It's like, it's never enough because that is motivated reasoning.
Well, he should have resigned.
Oh, well, okay, he resigned, but he didn't burn the house down on the way out.
So his resignation doesn't mean anything anymore.
Or his leaving.
Many of you said that many of you said that if it is so broken in the DOJ FBI, Dan should just step down.
Whether that is why we got here, that is where we are.
I would have preferred to see Dan stay and Bondi replaced for the reasons I've talked about for the last six months.
My sincere belief is that the FBI as an institution is possibly irremediably broken or corrupt.
Irrespective of that, it has certainly not been adequately purged of the lingering bad elements.
And that was not Dan's purview, authority to ignore.
Some people say he could have purged employees.
We've seen how that's been working, even when Trump has the right to fire employees.
You did what you could.
You did good.
Godspeed and God bless.
Yeah, I'm giving Dan a very big benefit of the benefit of the doubt.
It's not for me to give.
Dan, I know, is a good man.
And whether or not he should, people go, well, you should have done this six months.
He should have done this after the Epstein debacle.
Scott Adams, read the book, Loser Think.
Scott Adams says, Well, you could always have done something, you know, one day earlier.
And then the question: so he could have done it six months ago.
He didn't.
He did it.
He's leaving now.
And if it was because he was frustrated with the administration, the picks, Trump's loyalty to Pam Bondi, Pan Bondi's incompetence, he's right and righteous to not, you know, go out and blow shit up just because he's frustrated that Pan Bondi was telling him what to do and it was all strategically terrible.
The only question is, you know, what is he going to do right now?
I don't know how long afterwards he might he might have some exclusions on going back to social media.
And, you know, can he go back to criticizing an FBI that he was in, that Kash Patel is still in as of now?
And how do you go back to the biggest issues of our time?
The biggest issues of our time that Dan was acutely interested in, had his insights, had his insiders.
January 6th, Epstein, Butler, Pennsylvania.
How do you go back on social, on a podcast, on analysis when the FBI's formal position, Todd Blanche, unsigned document, Epstein killed himself?
Nothing more to see here.
Butler, no one else was involved, and Crooks had no social media footprint.
And Tucker Carlson's a liar.
And January 6th, Pipe Bomber.
It's the autistic 30-year-old kid who looks nothing like, walks nothing like the videos of the Pipe Bomber.
And how do you go and contradict those now that the FBI, under Patel and Pam Bondi's DOJ, has made its bed?
And people were shitting on Dan when he was on Hannity and said, look, before I was paid for my opinions, now I'm paid for the facts.
What he's effectively saying politely is, I don't get to contradict my boss, people.
As frustrating as that might be, and frustrating as I'm certain it was, that's what he was saying in so many words.
And the left and the scumbags on the left who don't want to give him the slightest bit of good grace and charitable interpretation, he admits to lying.
No, he didn't admit to lying.
What he admitted to is, I have my opinions, and right now I have a boss, and I don't get to offer my opinions if they contradict what my boss's accepted facts are.
That's very frustrating.
And at some point, I would imagine you say, fuck it, I'm out.
And that's where I think we're probably at.
I have no insider information and no nothing other than my observations as a human and understanding of the situation of fact.
And by the way, speaking of the pipe bomber, this Kyle Serafin was on Alex Jones.
And let me just show you the video, people.
They've now pulled video of the kid.
And I still call him a kid.
He's a 30-year-old man.
He was 25 at the time, allegedly autistic.
And he's not non-verbal, but he's quite clearly autistic.
They've pulled video of him having been pulled over and the body cam footage with the cop.
How far into this?
I think we can watch an additional 30.
No, let's just go here.
39 seconds.
You watch this.
Script news service.
Brian Cole encounter police.
Here it is.
Is everyone okay?
Everyone.
Anyone here?
Okay, Olis.
Everyone's all good.
Police responding to a Virginia traffic accident in 2024 captured these images of Brian J. Cole Jr.
More than a year before federal authorities took him into custody and accused him of planting pipe bombs near Democratic and Republican headquarters in Washington, D.C. I was looking for a place that I could, you know, go down to the next lane.
Look at the body movement.
Look at the thickness of his glasses, by the way.
I think that's going to come up in a second.
Blue Nissan Centra when he rear-ended the truck in front of him.
Oh, blue Nissan Sentra.
That's the infamous car that he was driving allegedly when he was allegedly planting these pipe bombs.
You want to left some space?
You want to have rear-ended vehicle?
Does that make sense?
Okay.
Yeah.
A police officer wrote him a ticket that day for following too closely behind the other vehicle.
Now, some people are hypothesizing that the head movement was him looking at the license plates and not some sort of stimming that autistic people tend to have.
There was a comparison of the gate, of the walk, of the Jan Sixer and the Patsy, the man who's being accused of it.
They don't look the same.
They don't walk the same.
And my goodness, if they have actually nabbed the wrong person, because whatever.
That's the latest there, people.
Let's go over here and see some more of these questions.
Viva, you suppose any of the, oh no, so I got that one.
That's from F. Chartrand.
And then we got, thanks for explaining tortures.
I got that.
Entry required says Bongino was stitched up by all the NDAs that have huge penalties, if ever violated.
I mean, was, and I guess he will be stitched up.
Then we got Ricortes.
It says Dan will never betray a confidence.
It is in Italian DNA.
No, yeah, just like, I just try to put myself in those shoes.
When I, you know, the anecdote, but when I was a practicing lawyer and, you know, my boss told me to go to court and defend a motion that I didn't believe was right.
And you know, luckily for me, I didn't have to defend it too hard because the judge knew it wasn't right.
That was, it was, it was, it was a default judgment against the parents of an alleged fraudster.
And these are like, these are, these were, these were foreigners who barely spoke the language.
They get served a lawsuit for the alleged fraud of their son and their alleged involvement.
It was either, I forget exactly if they were co-defendants or forget that, but bottom line, they got judgment by default against them for the fraud of their son.
They don't speak English.
And, you know, you, when you get a judgment by default, judges never maintain them.
At least in Quebec, they didn't.
They're like, why would I do that before?
Just relieve them of the default.
Why didn't they know about it?
They don't speak English.
They didn't know they were getting sued.
And so what's the harm to you?
You've waited three days, you inscribed for judgment by default, and you want me to slap a $2 million judgment on the foreign parents of this guy who don't even speak English because they didn't respond to an appearance in comparison.
Comment d'In François?
Like, you have to appear and defend yourself?
No.
So luckily, I didn't have to do it, but I didn't feel good going to court that day to do it.
Another time when we were doing motions for confinement, which is when you got a, you know, you go with a doctor's expert report, you say, this person is mentally unwell and is a risk to themselves for self-harm or others.
They've got to be forcibly confined.
And I'm talking with the woman who I'm being sent to court to ask the court to lock her up in an institution.
And it was obvious she was not a risk to anyone.
And we're talking, and I got to go and argue this because of a medical expert says so.
And, you know, whether or not the judge could, the judges, you know, sometimes they get it right.
They're like, this woman's not a threat to anybody.
And we're not locking her up against her will.
So, to be in that position where you have to do what your boss is telling you, even though you don't, at some point you leave, but you can't leave on day one.
You try to sit there and you try to do what you can.
And I think that's what Dan did.
Pinot Shay's helicopter tour says, Oh, hold on a second.
Let's actually just get these out of here and just go and see them in the nice way.
We're going to get to the brown, what I thoroughly believe is a cover-up.
I'm going to qualify it in my opinion right now, but I think I've got sufficient evidence right now.
Uh, let's go all the way down here.
Is it dominant?
Oh, here we go.
So, we got um, don't worry, Viva, any changes made to this FBI are easily discarded in three years.
So, the corrupt FBI can go back to the old FBI.
Viva, a synonym for stepping down or resign is, I quit.
Yeah, that's the other.
That's why it needs to be disbanded.
It has not been purged under Patel.
He said, Let's turn it into a museum.
And then, oh, no, I kind of like having the idea of 35,000 loyal employees who, if I flatter them, they won't throw me under the bus.
I think they threw Patel under the bus with this, with this Patsy, Brian Cole Jr., to be determined.
Dominate one, dominant one, says, King of Biltong, what should I get?
What should what should I do to get pounded by Anton's meat?
Does Anton's deliver to the back door?
I get jokes.
Dan is crooked as hell.
He fired no one.
Okay, that's so crooked is an accusation.
He fired no one.
Do we know that Dan had the ability to fire anybody?
So, one is your opinion.
It's a baseless accusation, unless you have some evidence to support the crookedness.
So, I challenge you to offer that evidence.
He continued persecution of the whistleblowers.
He slow walked cases to protect deep state.
So, you're not giving the he I one would argue that it's not the deputy director's position to, I don't know what the deputy director's position is, and I don't know which cases you're slow walking cases to protect the deep state and he protected the feds who pushed the Tyler, who pushed Tyler to murder Crook.
I don't know that he did any of those three, but um, Dominant one says, I am only trying to assist with backdoor marketing for Anton's meat.
Queen of Biltong, I hope you know all this is in jest.
Okay, yeah, keep my Antons in the public eye, not the rib eye.
It's everybody knows that.
Then we got King of Biltong, who actually says premium Biltong from Biltong USA, high-protein, keto-friendly, no additives, U.S. source beef, authentic South African flavor.
Get some now at Billtongusa.com.
Code 10, Code Viva for 10% off.
He said the FBI belongs to the agents, which is patently wrong.
It's to serve and protect the people.
Mark my words: Dan will continue the psyop and start bashing Trump as soon as he can.
Screenshot it.
I don't think if he, oh, you think, okay, so once he gets out of his NDA, no, because if he wanted to bash Trump now, and I can tell you why I disagree with this, he could file whistleblower protection and then release information that would damage Trump.
This is this, this I don't mind.
I'm not calling you stupid, 24-7 Bud Kill.
I'm just calling this proposal stupid.
Cultivated Mind says, my heart goes out to you and your family.
God bless Pudge.
Yeah, we haven't gotten, thank you very much.
Thank you, Cultivated.
Cultivated Mind makes good dog treats.
It's weird.
Like I come back to the house and I expect to smell pee and I don't.
And I wake up in the morning and expect to smell pee.
We used to get up every morning.
It's like, that pudge, she would pee in her bed.
And then when I come home, like, I don't have to rush her out anymore and tickle her abdomen to make her pee.
Anyhow, we'll get used to it.
I'm just looking.
We're going to get, we're going to get another dog sooner than later or a second dog.
Dawn will never betray confidence.
Bongino was stitched up and I got all these.
All right.
Brown University is involved in a cover-up, in my humble opinion.
And the cover-up is not necessarily participating in the act or having fomented the act of terror, which I'm, it's objectively terror, what occurred on their campus.
The cover-up is potentially, arguably, to cover up their own incompetence at either not having been able to prevent the Murderous attack or arrest the assailant after it occurred, and maybe to cover up their abject, utter incompetence at apparently not having cameras working, apparently allegedly, I won't get into all of this,
having disabled the cameras because they didn't want to assist with the FBI or the feds or ICE to deport illegal aliens, and then having acted in a way that is so bloody suspicious in terms of scrubbing the internet of an individual who I waited to talk about this, not because I'm going to suggest the individual is the culprit, just because when the rumors were circulating that they actually scrubbed the internet, scrubbed their websites of an individual, I wasn't sure that it was actually true.
They've confirmed it now, that they scrubbed their university website of a specific individual to prevent that individual from being doxxed and harassed, allegedly, because the individual might look like the description of the shooter and might have been allegedly getting doxed and harassed.
The bottom line, if this is nothing of a cover-up other than the abject incompetence of DEI hires, Brown University shooting Saturday afternoon.
Study session, an armed gunman comes into the university on a Saturday, four o'clock, goes straight for one specific classroom, shoots 11 people, kills two people, one of whom was the president of the Young Republicans Club.
I might be making a mistake on that, but the president of the Young Republicans Club, correct me as to what her exact title was, and a Uzbeki, a Uzbekistan national.
And then people were coming out and saying this is a targeted political assassination and you've got to wait.
Because until there's any remote evidence to suggest that, it could be a coincidence and it could be true.
But if you have no factual basis to justify what could be true, you're moving too quickly or faster than the evidence allows.
What we've seen since that is one press conference after another that is abject insanity stupidity.
I'm going to go one after another.
We've got Nick Sorto tweeting this out.
It's been in a number of other places.
Tweeting, holy crap, a Providence, Rhode Island radio host just accused Brown University of taking down security cameras in an effort to shield illegal aliens.
If this is true, this is a monumental scandal.
This must be thoroughly investigated now.
And let me play you this portion.
The camera in that building that Brown put off because they sent to what is city law that we have.
You don't want to recall illegal immigrants and you don't want to provide the footage to the FBI or immigration authority.
One camera and that will come up with your detectives.
They're a friend of mine.
They're angry at this investigation.
These people in Brown University put the camera off.
They can identify that person.
So he's saying the people are angry that they put the cameras out, that they took them out because they didn't want to aid and assist in federal ICE agents deporting, removing illegal aliens.
Because if they have the footage, they would have to share it with authorities.
So they disabled the cameras.
That's what the question is.
Can you imagine how the family want to go through?
Tell the room to the media here.
We heard from both the Brown police chief and the provost at Brown who have shared that they have been fully cooperative and shared, been forthcoming with all data and evidence that they have.
You know when you're being lied to?
When someone doesn't answer the question, they have been forthcoming and shared whatever footage.
Yeah, ass wipe.
What we're asking is whether or not there was an absence of certain footage because you disabled cameras.
Can you answer that question straight up, black and white, yes or no?
Are there any cameras that have ever been disabled on or around the Brown University campus because you did not, forget that, period.
They will say it's going to be a yes or no.
Yes, there's been some cameras that have been disabled.
That would be the obvious answer.
All right.
Were they disabled for the purposes of frustrating the ability of ICE to deport illegal aliens?
Yes or no?
When you ask a question that presumes intent, it becomes easier to wiggle out of.
Well, no, we did it for a number of reasons.
We were updating the system and whatever.
Were the cameras disabled?
Do you know how many cameras there are on the campus?
Let me see here.
Let me see.
I have my notes.
I want to make sure that I get this right.
By the way, it'll cook her name.
They've got 800 cameras, give or take on campus.
Here, listen to this.
800 cameras, give or take.
The person of interest that they have now released is not the person in this video, the video that's been seen all around the world showing a person leaving the scene of the shooting on Saturday afternoon.
The AG said while there was some evidence that justified detaining this person, recent evidence and lab testing from the scene is pointing them in a different direction.
Providence's mayor, Brett Smiley, says, even though the murderer is still on the loose, they are not reinstating a shelter-in-place order that was lifted just before 6 a.m. yesterday and are now instead increasing the police presence.
We will be releasing the person of interest who had been detained earlier today.
We know that this is likely to cause fresh anxiety for our community.
And we want to reiterate what we said earlier, which remains true, which is ever since the initial call, now a day and a half ago, we have not received any credible or specific threats to the Providence community.
Can you imagine the level of incorrigible stupidity that that takes to say, look, we haven't received any additional threats.
There's a double murderer on the streets.
I'm not going to play the rest.
So they've got 800.
I'm playing the rest.
Now, the chief of police here in Providence says a tip led them to the now-released person of interest, reportedly a 24-year-old man from Wisconsin.
The FBI helped locate him at a hotel 20 miles south of Brown University.
Forget it, we don't need the rest of this.
800 cameras that they've got on that on that campus, and we don't know how many of them are working.
Then the question is: were they disabled?
Yeah, let me bring this one up.
There's been a number of people suggesting this: Jesse Waters.
And when it gets to Jesse Waters, it's gotten to the biggest bullhorn that legacy media has.
Why might they have been disabled?
Well, it might be, you know, to frustrate the ability of ICE to deport illegal aliens.
You know, sanctuary cities means you actually have to interfere with the federal enforcement of federal law.
Or it might have been because you got a bunch of radicals on campus who don't want video evidence of their criminality and peaceful protests that always seem to go violent and lead to harassment.
Listen to this.
The president, who is a no-show at today's presser, has been heckled for years by Muslim underclassmen.
She always bends the knee, but they heckle her anyway.
Over the summer, radical left human rights groups demanded Brown disable their security cameras so Palestinian activists could race hell under the radar.
Did they cave?
We asked.
No response.
It's not just Brown.
The whole city is a DEI mess.
The president.
We can stop there.
Did they do it?
No response.
Did you disable the cameras?
Yes or no?
Forget the reason why.
Not for the activists.
Did you disable cameras?
I don't know.
It's my first day.
There we go.
We got A.G. Hamilton.
Views expressed here only represent myself.
Wow, FNC reported today that an anti-Israel activist on Brown's campus demanded last year that the university take down some cameras to protect quote protesters.
Now the school won't answer whether they complied and if they played a role in the limited footage of the shooter.
So we don't have an answer to that question.
These are the you know, say I'm just asking questions.
I mean, first of all, some people might not like the fact that they're asking what might be loaded questions.
Were they taken down for anti-Israel protesters?
If you leave that qualifier out, were cameras disabled?
Yes or no?
No answer.
Here's a straight-up question.
What did the individual screen when he did the attack?
There were reports that the individual shouted Alu Akbar.
Cops won't, they will not answer that question, and it's quite disgusting that they won't answer that question.
And what I find particularly curious is that there were 60 some odd people in that room.
They don't know how many, I think everyone in the room is qualified as a victim.
They don't know how many people were in the room.
They haven't interviewed them, from what I understand.
Why have the witnesses not come out?
Apparently, there are five credible witnesses who said that the shooter shouted Alu Akbar.
The police did a press conference yesterday, and they would not confirm what the shooter yelled out before he started shooting.
So you had a room of 60 students, 11 which have been shot, two are now dead.
But that means that there are, you know, at least they said somewhere around 60, 40 students who are in there who could confirm what this man shot.
At least five students that I've seen have confirmed on the record of media interviews saying that he yelled Ali Ukbar.
Well, I think that that's pretty relative information.
I think that that would matter as there's a massive search for the shooter.
Did he yell Ali Ukbar?
Because then we should be looking for a you know free Palestine terrorist.
And Reddit yesterday, by the way, had to shut down the Brown University board because free Palestine students were celebrating Ellen Cook's death.
By the way, Reddit is, if you want to know what hell on earth looks like, go to Reddit.
So can they confirm?
No, I played you the video clip of that other guy, the police chief.
They won't answer the question.
He shouted something.
What did he show?
Are the reports?
Can we hear from the witnesses?
Why have the witnesses not come forward?
Well, some of them have, and the media won't report on it.
And then what happens in all of this?
That leads people to get even more suspicious.
So yesterday, I was saying, yeah, there's someone there saying that they deleted this profile from the internet.
Professor Nez, who does good work.
Make common sense go viral.
Over 200 million views, 630,000 subscribers on YouTube.
Liz Azzi.
Okay.
Liz Azzi degenerates.
All of them.
There isn't more ghoulish, venomous, poisonous toad in all the evolution of academia.
I know this more than anyone.
Breaking Brown University evaporates free Palestine activist Mustafa Kharbouch from their website.
Other people's profiles are listed normally on Brown's Center for Middle East Studies page.
Not found.
Still shows up in Google search results.
What's going on here, Brown University?
Here's the guy that's going to play this.
I want to turn the volume on.
I'm going to read the question.
I believe some web pages for students are back to have been taken down.
Is that a response to any external threats to anyone in the community?
I believe some students' pages have been taken down.
Is that a response to threats or whatever backlash from the community?
Listen to this.
We have been working very closely with law enforcement to provide them with all of the internal to Brown information.
First of all, she reminds me of Newland.
There are bio-research facilities in Ukraine.
And we're very concerned.
There aren't bio-research labs.
There are biodefense research facilities.
Or the woman there.
I personally believe that U.S. Americans can't find Iraq on a map because some people out there don't have maps.
This is a woman who's getting ready to lie to you.
We have been working very closely with law enforcement to provide them with all of the internal to Brown information that they need to do this investigation.
It's their investigation.
They're the professionals.
So we're providing information.
We're not in the job of reviewing it for them.
I know nothing about web pages being taken down as part of this.
It's the first I've heard of it.
Hey, hey, ma'am, how the hell do you not know about it?
Okay, you've heard of it now?
Can you get back to us in about 15 minutes?
You know what?
Go in the back.
Here's my cell phone.
Call the student administrative body.
Call whomever and find out now.
Well, it's the first time I've heard about it.
That's a problem because I heard about it two days ago.
And go look into it right now and come back to us with an answer.
Oh, no, I'm just going to go and not answer that now.
And then at the next press conference, I'll, you know, I'll pretend not to have known.
And then when someone asks me again, I'll say, we are currently looking into it.
And as soon as we have any information, we'll share it with law enforcement because that's what good universities do.
In the back.
Yep.
Do you want people to do that?
So that's that.
It's wild.
I'll give all of you the links so you can go check this out on your own.
Now, what happened?
Was this what was this?
Why did the university scrub him from the website?
What are they hiding?
And now, I brought this one up because I'm not trying to be glib here.
It's possible the kid, you know, he might just look like the shooter because you have shitty footage because apparently they don't have cameras that have better footage in their 800 cameras.
So the fact that we don't have better footage than what's on the left is a problem for which the university not only should have to answer, for which they should be sued.
So the best footage that we have right now is the person of interest on the left.
That's the shooter.
And people are comparing it to an individual who is apparently a pro-Palestinian born in Lebanon activist.
He might just look like the guy, and it might be unfair.
I mean, I'm not making any positive statements of person of interest or liability.
From what I understood, they might have already, as we were live, arrested a person of interest.
So they scrubbed the website.
They have done it.
You can go and actually look at it on Wayback Machine of this particular guy who kind of looks like the shooter based on this crap.
And no further rest.
The suspension is a clear.
And just don't answer questions, legitimate questions, and then complain when people come to certain conclusions.
What the hell is going on?
And then, you know, I made a hyperbolic, you know, this is starting to look like a cover-up of incompetence at worst or political assassination.
I should say, letter phrase, incompetence at best, or political assassination at worst.
Can you imagine if it's just incompetence?
And this is a political assassination at Brown, an Ivy League shithole, as far as I'm concerned.
Can you imagine what would happen if it came out that this is a second political assassination murder?
Because Ella Cook, the woman who was murdered, was the leader of the, what is it called?
The College Republicans of America said Cook was vice president of Brown's College Republicans.
Can you imagine what would happen?
What we've seen is that in the face of violence and in the face of death and tragedy, conservatives and the right respond as a whole much better than the left.
Even when people on the right were freaking out at Trump's truth post, which I don't even, it wasn't ultimately even anywhere near as bad as anything the left has ever said about, you know, Charlie Kirk and whatever.
They were freaking out with that post.
There were a few, there were a handful, I can maybe name three, you know, trollingly rejoicing in the murder of Rob Reiner.
And they were lambasted appropriately and they are demonic for having done it.
By and large, the response is far different, but there's only so many times your political leaders are going to get assassinated or attempted assassinated before there's going to be very, very big social problems.
Can you imagine if you have now Ella Cook, Republican, you know, prominent Republican figure on a leftist rag campus, getting assassinated by a, even if it's just a lefty terrorist or a pro-Palestinian terrorist?
I mean, this could end a university.
And then if it turns out it happened because they disabled the cameras to protect illegal immigrants and pro-Palestinian protesters, if that's true.
And or if people within the administration covered up to facilitate getting away with it?
This is from AL.com, alabama.com.
Touberville claims to know the motive for Ella Cook's murder.
The consequences here are very, very fishy.
Alabama's senior senator claimed that the Mountain Brook teenager killed in the mass shooting over the weekend at Brown University was targeted because she was a Republican.
Touberville made the allegation Tuesday, despite authorities not identifying a suspect, let alone a motive.
Well, isn't that convenient that they haven't done their fucking jobs yet?
It's an amazing thing.
The worse they do their jobs at Brown University, the more they get to deny what is becoming increasingly more likely, if not more obvious.
College Republicans said Cook was the vice president of Brown's College Republicans.
One other victim was killed and nine others were injured.
She was a Republican leader in the Republican Party at Brown University.
You can't tell me she wasn't targeted.
I would hate to miss that opportunity to say that because the consequences here are very, very fishy.
But at the end of the day, nobody really pays a price for this.
And on campus, more and more of these are continuing to happen.
And we're going to have to force the hand of these people that run these universities, Tuberville said.
We don't need to go into the rest of that.
It's an amazing thing.
Their own incompetence shields them from the consequences of their own incompetence.
And you got some asking the questions.
Who's this man?
I know I like this guy.
Hold on, word.
My goodness.
Rob Finnery, USA.
Here, let me put this out.
I'll play a little bit of it, just make sure that I got all the clips that we want to talk about here.
And I'm going to go see if there was any breaking news as to an identity of the shooter.
Why, allegedly, reportedly has the profile of a well-known Brown student and Palestinian activist suddenly been scrubbed from the Brown University website?
Don't you think that's strange?
This person reportedly was an underground undergrad at Brown and part of the class of 2027.
He also fits the description of the suspect in all those ring cam videos that we keep seeing.
He's also around five foot eight and has a stocky build.
This person also reportedly a Palestinian refugee who was born in Lebanon.
And his interests at Brown include the intersection of queer studies with Palestinian studies, which is not a real thing because there's no such thing as queer studies in Palestine because being gay there is against the law.
Now, again, and we want to be clear, none of this has been verified by the Providence Police Department because they haven't verified anything.
But don't you think it's at least a little bit interesting that the profile of a Muslim student at Brown who's from a Muslim country who also fits the description of the suspect has suddenly been scrubbed from the internet?
And don't you think it's interesting that this same individual has also mysteriously gone missing?
Don't you think that if this guy really had nothing to do with what happened with the shooting, if he was just running around looking for his lost cat on Saturday afternoon near that engineering building, don't you think he would have come forward and said, whoa, guys, that's me in the video, but I didn't do any of this.
And why isn't anyone else asking that question?
Good question.
And by the way, so they've apparently the breaking news is they've identified a suspect.
Brooke Taylor.
Fox News.
Providence police have identified the suspect, the suspected Brown University shooter, and have a warrant, according to my sources.
Police are also investigating a possible link now between Brown University shooting and the murder of an MIT professor.
And the top, at least the first comment, Providence Logic, have the shooter identified.
Don't release his name and or image.
Makes so much sense.
Of course.
Holy shit.
We're going to see.
They're going to release the name sooner than later.
It will not happen while we're live now.
It will happen.
And we will see what pans out of all of this.
And we'll see if the suspicions turn out to be true.
And we'll see if the incompetence turns out to be incompetence, corruption, or, God forbid, something actually much more sinister and much worse.
Serenity now.
Where were we on the chats here, Peach?
Let me see something here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Dominant one says, everyone, just reminder, this is all part of the circus Maximus.
To distract people before senators get stabbed in the back.
Etu brute.
Ginger ninja says, to be fair, what I've heard you say is Dan is to praise for the good, but can't be blamed for the bad.
So the deputy director is powerless except for what you see as the good actions.
No, I love it.
First of all, I know Ginger Ninja very well, and I don't take this personally at all.
No, that's not all I'm saying is Dan is to be praised for the good and to be blamed for the bad that is within his power.
And like we've said, like this is where the impossible comes in.
He resigned then.
Well, he resigned.
Oh, he should have done it earlier.
That's like that's the moving target of I'm never gonna, I'm never even gonna live by my own determinations of what he should do.
He should be praised for the good and blamed for the bad that is within his control and within his authority.
And then, and I guess some people are gonna say, well, the words that come out of his mouth are within his authority.
And if he came out and said Epstein killed himself and he didn't really believe it, that might be, you know, I could understand that as being fair criticism of bearing false witness to, you know, oneself to some extent.
Okay, and that's good there.
Now, hold on.
I think I did see something over here.
Oh, let's get this.
Where's my bell, Ginger Ninja?
This is the bell that Ginger Ninja made for me, which is the new member bell.
And we've got N. Nate, who has joined the VivabarnesLaw.locals.com above average family and community.
Welcome to the family, Nate.
There was something.
Oh, geez.
Okay, so hold on.
Do I do I want to entice people to come and join us at viva barneslaw.locals.com?
I'm going to.
And it's actually not going to be something, what's the word I'm looking for?
Opportunistic.
I'm going to post the video as a standalone short on Rumble, YouTube, and Twitter afterwards so that it will get the requisite interest where people will say, well, people will not skip it because they've seen it already.
I'm going to go through the Pfizer defense in the lawsuit filed by Dan Hartman, whose son, Sean Hartman, died 30, I think it's 33 days after his first Pfizer shot.
We're going to do that at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
So come and join if you want to catch that live.
And I'm going to cut that clip regardless and post it across all platforms afterwards so that everybody can take note of it, share it, because it's among the more important lawsuits that currently exists and one of the most important of our modern era.
But before we do that, we can actually just do one other thing.
Let me see here.
I'm just going to go through my tabs.
The Overton window, Brooke Taylor.
No, I think we got everything here.
Yeah, so we're going to save that last story exclusively for locals.
I did say that Marco Polo was supposed to come on today.
By the way, before everyone goes, let me remind everybody, because I love seeing the little things come in.
If you go to the channel, I did say that and you go down to tip and you want to tip.
Speaking of Nate, how's Nate Brody doing?
Ginger Ninja, he's doing good.
I don't actually hesitate.
He's doing good.
He's just recovering.
And he put out a video and he's doing good.
So touch Wood Cook Canada Horror, but I do leave his updates to him in as much as the emergency stuff people want to know.
He's healing.
He's going to have the follow-ups, which I'm going to leave him to disclose.
But he's fine.
And he actually put out his first video since on Saturday.
If you want to support the channel, people, you go to the tip button here.
You go tip with crypto wallet and you can put on the Bitcoin and you can tip $5 in Bitcoin.
You can do all your Humble Rants in Bitcoin and it feels cooler to be ahead of the technological curve.
You go scan that, what are this called?
QR code, and you can tip in Bitcoin.
If you want to tip in gold-backed tethered money, you can go to the XAUT.
And this is how you can support.
This is how you can open a wallet.
Go to the Google Play Store for Android and you can download the Rumble wallet and see how you like it.
And if there's any glitches or feedback, let the Rumble team know.
This is going to revolutionize content, content creation, the way content creators can support themselves, and how you can actually just invest in crypto if you're so inclined, not investment advice, people.
And then also, if you want to support, you can send me.
I got two nice packages.
I got some Christmas ornaments and a letter today in the mail.
Viva, did you find the case of the missing candy starring Pudge?
No, I didn't find it yet.
I didn't actually look.
I can't even say yet.
I forgot.
Let me go screenshot this.
I had to back up a terabyte worth of video and editing stuff onto two external hard drives.
Yeah, you see, like I'm old school.
And so I got distracted with that, but now my computer has about a terabyte of extra space.
So I'm good now.
Who do we go raid?
Let me go see who's live right now.
If you want to get some merch, did I hear someone say that vivafry.com was not working?
VivaFry.com.
But the most important, easiest way to support the channel, doesn't even cost anything, is share, snip clip, shareway.
And here we go.
You can go to vivafry.com, get some merch.
I don't have the strongest merch game.
If you want to get a book, Louis the Lobster, it's available for 15 bucks on Amazon.
And if you want a custom auto, a custom message, I'm selling it for $100 or asking for $100 on eBay because I only had like 10 books left and I'm trying to avoid too much extra stuff.
But if you want just a Louis the Lobster, you can go to Amazon.
And if you want an auto, if you go to my, I'll put the link out after so I can't even sign in here.
How do I sign into Amazon?
This is crap.
Hold on a second.
There.
I sold a soccer card for a dollar.
I mean, it's crazy.
I got to go.
I got to, I go to here, this.
I'll give you the link if you want to go get a custom message of Louis the Lobster.
It might have to wait until after the season if you don't get the offer in between now and tomorrow.
There it is.
All right, boom.
And that's it.
And everything else is good.
For those who pray, pray for Scott Adams.
He's in a bad state.
It's pray for Scott Adams.
He's at the point of experimental cancer treatment.
And when I saw, yeah, he's.
So Scott Adams posted a video and said, pray for him.
Okay, so now we're going to go raid Redacted.
And after that, we're going to go over to Vivabarnes, law.locals.com.
I will see you all tomorrow.
I'll be live tomorrow.
And Sunday show is going to be on as usual.
Marco Polo was supposed to come on today.
He's going to come on next week because there's going to be some updates.
So go raid redacted.
Tell them from whence you came.
And Viva Raid Booyah.
And now let's just go enjoy the chat for a few seconds while everyone raids out and we'll see what's going on here.
Okay, Eschartrand in the house.
I didn't see the whole thing, but what I saw is she's not looking at you being.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
The interview with Tucker.
Oh, we go to the chat here.
Randy Big Unit Johnson card sold on eBay for 99 cents by Viva.
Yeah, that's because I thought I signed it up as an auction.
No, but I got these stupid soccer cards.
And what was the last one that sold?
It sells for a dollar.
In terms of determining margins, I have to measure the amount of tape I use to close the package because if I use more than five cents of tape, I'm joking.
I don't really care.
I just, here.
Alejandro Grimaldo.
Yes, here, Rocco Wrights.
I exaggerated.
It sold for $2.36.
Like, what the hell?
What are these things where they make these cards?
The card came in.
It was, here, I'll show you this.
Rocco Wrights.
I don't know who he is, a Rocco Reitz.
This.
There you go.
Boom, people.
$2.36.
Shipping was twice the price.
Okay, whatever.
Yeah, and I accidentally listed my, it was an error, Randy Johnson.
99 cents.
So that's it.
Here.
The next one that's going to go up.
Odell Beckham.
What do you think this is going to sell for?
30 cents.
It's going to sell for 30 cents.
I'm going to do an auction here.
Odell Beckham.
I don't like football.
Okay, so that's it.
Let's go.
We're going to come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.