All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
01:22:44
Live with Ivan Raiklin - Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber Preliminary Hearing Leave MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!

Support Viva: GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CTYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL!

|

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, say what you will about the deep state marauder, Ivan Rakeland.
One thing is undeniable.
He is determined like a pit bull or a bulldog or a bullmaster for some form of determined dog to go after the targets that he believes are righteous targets.
Behold.
Hey, Miss Ballantyne.
Ivan Rakelin.
Ivan, I know you.
How do you know me, ma'am?
Well, you've sat through several trials that I also may hooks up.
Such as such as the one against General Flynn, such as the one against Enrique Tario of the Proud Boys.
How do you expect America to believe that this gentleman, Brian Cole, is the pipe bomber considering your work on the General Flynn case, considering your work on the case against Mr. Enrique Tario and the rest of the Proud Boys?
Care to comment?
Ma'am?
Do you find it surprising that you still have a job at the Department of Justice?
Do you think you survived because Ed Martin ended up going to the Department of Justice, Maine, as opposed to being the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia?
So some good questions.
Did you have any involvement in that?
Did you work with some of the former Senate staff of senior influential Senate leaders that are at the U.S. Attorney's Office to make sure that Mr. Ed Martin would not be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to expose your involvement in covering up for the Fed surrection?
Ma'am?
care to comment so you're trying to make us believe that this kid spent two years collecting pipe bomb material Gonna pause it there.
Now it's actually bordering on three years.
And I'll tell you why in a second.
In 2019, and his motive because he didn't like the outcome of the 2020 election before the 2020 election primaries even began?
Three years, as we'll see.
Did I misunderst the filing?
Ma'am?
What other questions do I have?
How many questions does America have?
You're not getting any answers, Ivan.
Do you find it strange that the defense attorney mentioned on several occasions that this was not a conspiracy?
Meaning maybe it was a conspiracy because you two didn't even mention whether or not it was a conspiracy.
A lot of questions.
Your credibility is very low amongst most of America considering your work on those last two trials.
I'll pause it there.
Her credibility is not very low.
It's confirmed corruption.
I'm going to be a little hard on Ivan.
It's glib.
It's tongue-in-cheek.
It's not that her credibility is low.
For those of you who don't know who that is, it's Jocelyn Ballantyne.
Now, if you're new to the channel, you don't know who that is.
If you've been around the channel for at least the last two months, you know damn well who it is.
Jocelyn Ballantyne, however it happened, is now the prosecutor in the Brian Cole Jr. case.
This is the man who they've identified as allegedly being the pipe bomber, a 30-year-old autistic man who, by all accounts, according to everybody who knows him, doesn't walk like the person in the video, is in his own world with headphones.
Hold on one second.
Apparently, the link is not working.
Copy invitation link.
According to everyone, is not the right person.
Jocelyn Ballantyne is the woman who was also the prosecutor in the Michael Flynn case, where they coerced, extorted a guilty plea out of Michael Flynn.
She was also the prosecutor in the Proud Boys case, where she, as Enrique Tario disclosed, I think he broke it for the first time during our interview the day after we all discovered Jocelyn Ballantyne was the prosecutor in this case, is the one who's prosecuting this case.
How she still has a job at the DOJ defies any form of belief, faith in the system.
She is a woman who corruptly tried to get Enrique Tario to wrongly and dishonestly implicate Donald Trump so that they could then go after Donald Trump.
And somehow, she not only has a job in the administration, Janine Pirro, Judge Janine, who's the attorney for DC, brought her in.
Sir, how goes the battle?
There we go.
I was having some difficulties.
Hold on, you might have to lower your audio, your gain a little bit.
I think you might have blown people.
Let me see if I can lower your gain on my end.
Maybe.
Let me see if I can do that.
It actually sounds like you're not on your good mic.
Let me just see what's going on here.
Oh, you're right.
So we're going to get back.
That should be much better.
That's much better.
And now let me see if I wasn't loud here.
Okay, good.
It might be loud on my computer just because I have my volume jacked up, which I do.
Let's do a quick audio because we're checking in here.
Ivan, tell everybody who you are, for those who don't know who you are, before we get back to how the hell Jocelyn Ballantyne is still on this case and what happened yesterday during the hearing.
The relevant part, as it applies to this, I'm a lawyer with – whoa, what happened there?
I'm an attorney and spent 25 years in our national security ecosystem.
And after I retired in 2022, I really escalated my efforts in investigating the three lines of effort that weren't being touched by Republicans nor Democrats and were censored out of existence, meaning the COVID con, the 2020 election heist, and the January 6th Fed surrection and everything relates to that, going back to 2014 with the why we saw the auto pen pardons.
So as it applies to January 6th, it's all interrelated.
And so we try to do a more high IQ level granular analysis, which you do on your show with, because you have former whistleblowers, folks that are in the system that can really articulate it and lay it out that are not blackmailable and aren't going to bend knee and expose left or right and right, I should say, of the corruption.
That's probably in a nutshell, my background.
All right.
Excellent.
Now, people say I have to jack my audio a little bit.
I lowered your audio a touch because I can't seem to bring mine up any more than I have right now.
I can back my mic.
Yeah, just a little bit.
Well, Andrezell, so this is the last.
I get back to my studio after this.
I'm in a room.
Ivan, I don't know if it is unheated or doesn't have heating.
It's 58 degrees in this room.
And so I put on a sweater for today, but this is, I go back to Florida tomorrow.
Can't come soon enough.
Ivan, okay.
You know, I want to have one clear segment on the update yesterday from Brian Cole's hearing on his preliminary hearing.
Yes.
You, you're a lawyer.
You attended the hearing in its entirety.
I've got a couple of questions on some intricacies that I'm not entirely certain I understand.
Yesterday was the preliminary hearing on the one hand to determine probable cause or to go over the evidence they have in support of their affidavit for probable cause.
And on the other hand, am I wrong in thinking it was also the hearing to determine whether or not Brian Cole Jr. stays in detention until his trial?
Yes, so originally, the entire thing is weird to put it maximally diplomatically, which I normally don't do, but I'll leave it at that.
So originally, it was supposed to be a detention hearing, which the government is going to give a reason on why he should be detained, and the defense is going to explain why he should be released under certain conditions, right?
While they litigate this.
So the first thing that the judge essentially said was that as of yesterday, the day before, so this would have been two days ago, but we'll just say, frame it as though we're in the courtroom.
So I'm in the courtroom, and the judge says, as of yesterday, late, just found out that Brian Cole was indicted in the DC Circuit Court.
Now, DC is the unique, most unique district of the 94 federal districts because you can prosecute someone for a crime, depending on the type of crime, both at the DC circuit level, which would be equivalent-ish to a state court, but it's the district, or to indict them in the district court of the federal district, known as the,
and then that would be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Judge Janine Pirro's office.
And she could do that both in federal, get a grand jury indictment or at the circuit court.
They opted to do so in the circuit court to essentially ride this.
I mean, you could argue that they're doing this to ride out and achieve the statute of limitations later on.
They can litigate this out and then free this guy.
That's one argument.
Another argument, a more good faith argument that I want to throw it out there and say this is the only reason why I would think that they would do that in the DC court.
They wanted to secure a grand jury indictment at the earliest calendar time possible.
And the venue that allowed for that between the two at the circuit level or the federal level was at the circuit level because there was an opening to present this before a grand jury.
And I think the next opportunity to maybe do so at the federal district level would be next week, I think at the earliest is what they discussed in the courtroom.
So that's what's there.
Here's the problem.
The judge essentially comes out and says, well, Judge Boseberg ruled that the district, the chief judge of the District of Columbia, Judge Boseberg in a previous case, ruled that a DC circuit court and grand jury indictment is to be considered as an indictment that can be then further addressed, right, at the DC district court, federal district court.
But he also stated that pending an appeal, which is it's right now on appeal, I guess I think it was Boseberg that also said, while the appeal is going on, we have to wait and see whether or not that is considered a legitimate justiciable grand jury indictment in the federal district.
So this could play out for a decade on whether or not they can even prosecute Brian Cole based and have a preliminary hearing even based on the DC Circuit indictment.
That's still being litigated.
I brought up Julie K. Does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense.
I guess I'm going to read procedural issues.
Well, that's the thing.
And I don't really necessarily understand the distinction.
I'm not sure that I fully understand it, but I wanted to bring up Julie Kelly's tweet, which is on the screen.
Now, I just want to read it because former food blogger.
Yeah, well, it does mean, look, she's not necessarily wrong about everything.
And I say she's been right about some good stuff, but she writes, I mean, look, look, and then they'll call me a former Canadian lawyer.
She's still able to understand things.
She says, as I posted yesterday, the indictment against Cole Jr., alleged pipe bomb, was handed down by a grand jury in DC Superior Court, local, not the district.
So it happened a few times in DC federal grand juries made up that made up of Trump haters repeatedly refused to sign indictments brought by Trump DOJ.
I don't know why that would be any different at the local level if that's the explanation.
The magistrate judge currently presiding over the Cole case, he's also waiting until today to decide whether Cole should remain in jail pending trial, did not accept the Superior Court issued indictment during a hearing yesterday.
This morning, Sharba, I want to know a bit about his politics, directed both DOJ and Cole's attorneys to file briefs explaining how pending hold issues by Judge Boesberg in a similar situation does or does not apply to the case.
So that much I understand.
As far as Julie's potential, yes, we're on the same sheet of music on there.
Yeah, but where she says, you know, sometimes they go to the district court, what was it, the local court, because they can't get a grand jury at the district level to sign off.
Yeah, there could have been political, I guess, this is the only district where you can do this sort of shopping, if you will, right?
Between the two, between the local court versus the federal district court.
Yes.
Are you catching that distinction?
Is that understanding?
If not, I want to make sure that you understand it.
Okay, well, DC is a district, not a state.
So we're talking a federal trial here.
And then the question is: at the district level of the DC district, you have your local courts, which are nonetheless potentially merging with federal jurisdiction.
So you can, there's an option to bring a criminal charge in either the local jurisdiction court or at the federal district court.
There's an option.
And there's the, there's, you have to look at what the DC code says and then match that in conjunction, what federal statute, what jurisdiction can be had based on that.
And that's why the political, there could have been a political calculus based on what she just explained.
I don't know the detailed nuances of who would potentially what the magistrates are, what their affiliation is, but you could guess that the magistrates are all appointed by a Democrat administration, right?
In essence.
But I think I don't know the nuances of that.
Let me just stop myself right there.
I haven't looked into it.
But there is that dual jurisdiction role, and then you choose whether or not you bring it in.
Usually for petty crimes and misdemeanors, like for example, all of the trespass misdemeanors of what occurred for January 6th defendants, that should have been done by the DC Circuit Court.
Okay.
Because those were misdemeanors.
But whereas usually felonies and greater transgressions are brought before by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
So it would have been Judge Pirro's office, Judge Nean Piero's office.
But they would both be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office because it is a federal district, right?
Yes.
And that much I now understand.
I guess the one question I had is: if the explanation is that you have an anti-Trump grand jury pool at the, I don't know, the higher level, why wouldn't you have one at the lower level?
And explaining it away as a grand jury refusing to indict because they're anti-Trump, is there also a potential issue that's not an argument that I would subscribe to or believe because you're dealing with the same jury.
That's my issue.
You're dealing with the same grand jury pool at the lower versus higher level, as far as I would imagine it, but I don't necessarily believe that I understand it.
Right.
Because both jury pools come from the registered voter pool of humans that reside in the district of Columbia.
Okay, good enough, and now the other question I had is, is it possible that any grand jury pool would be reluctant to indict because of the sheer weakness in their view of the evidence in the affidavit?
Uh, for probable cause?
Well, let me back up and explain, I think, the real reason why it was done in the circuit court, absent any other information, that I have just based on what I my assessment of what happened yesterday is that it was because they would, they were able to secure an indictment, they they could attempt a grand jury indictment in that superior court because it was docketed sooner.
Okay, and that's why they attained it, because before that even occurred, it was just a charge sheet and then, based on that, they got the ability to arrest right for for the arrest of Brian Cole now he's in detention now that they were going to do a preliminary hearing, but the judge in the U.s District Court ruled that we have to.
We can't even have a preliminary hearing because we still have to resolve the issue on whether or not I can accept that grand jury indictment from the circuit court.
So I would say that the U.s Attorney's office should then put forth a grand jury indictment.
I don't know if you can do it in addition to, but we'll see uh, next week when that is actually in place in the district court, the Federal district Court.
Additionally, I mean go ahead, because there's a lot to unpackage.
Well, that's procedurally, but that was the intent of the defense, to do a preliminary hearing, but with the new circumstances that was introduced, only at the detention hearing yesterday, the judge said, we're not going to address the preliminary hearing, we're only going to address the detention.
And this is where it gets even weirder.
Okay well, so just, we can all bear in mind, he is detained currently pending this, the resolution of this particular issue, and so, unless the judge ruled today to release him well, that's what i'm i'm, i'm updating in the backdrop to see because the judge yeah, because you guys, I don't know well, that's from what I understood yesterday the conclusion was that he was reserving his judgment until today because correct, one way or another, you could release him and have all these charges continue.
Notwithstanding it uh okay, so now get into what happened yesterday.
So this is at.
Uh, this is open to the public.
Who was in the courtroom.
Uh, the only who was in the courtroom was the Jocelyn Ballantyne, along with her co-counsel.
I i'd have to look her.
I need to look his name up.
I have it somewhere in my notes.
I can take a look at it, but I don't want to spend too much time looking at that.
But Jocelyn Valentine, the lead prosecutor in this case, you started when I jumped in.
You started to talk about her, how she was the one behind the process, persecution of general Flynn and the persecution of the proud boys literally count, carrying the water for Nancy Pelosi's, you know, Fed Surrection cover-up okay, and I I happened to have an opportunity to ask her some questions after this hearing.
So I don't know if you want to talk about that now and play that clip, or if you I played that intro with you walking on the street as the intro clip for this show.
Oh okay no, so then we already addressed that.
Then oh yeah well, and say whether or not she was the lead prosecutor in the Michael Flynn persecution.
She was involved in it she, she was extorted right, she extorted, because I want to weigh our words here.
You see the way they're eviscerating uh, Nick Shirley for any micro mistake he may have made.
She was one of the attorneys in that case persecution, where they extorted a guilty plea from Michael Flynn under the threat of going after his case and she could have correct.
I give her an opportunity to correct herself as we were walking and talking.
She did.
She failed to, so no, can't.
Can't comment on ongoing investigations.
But a bing, but a boom.
I'm joking.
Well, that wasn't an ongoing.
That's the joke to report.
But, um, so then, and then she was she was, in fact, the lead prosecutor in the Proud Boys Enrique Tario case.
Where she covered that very well when you had Enrique on the show.
So, we all know about that.
She's somehow in this file, Ivan.
She's somehow still employed.
And Janine Pirro picked her.
Look, I keep in mind that Kara Castranova, a couple weeks ago, asked the president.
Remember when this came out?
Kara Castranova, who was a lead White House correspondent for Mike Lindell, she asked the president.
And I don't know if we can find that and post that up.
It's actually underneath my, I put it as a sub-tweet to the one that where you played where I confronted Jocelyn Ballantyne.
But in that, at the very beginning, she asks how, like, what are you going to do, Mr. President?
You still have Deep State that is essentially involved in the prosecution of this J6 pipe, J5 pipe bomber that was the lead prosecutor in the Proud Boys case.
And he said, we'll look into that.
Well, I'm doing, I'm providing the answer sheet.
So are you.
So what more needs to be looked at on this matter?
I think Judge Janine needs to make the determination if she wants to retain somebody that has zero credibility amidst the entire United States court of public opinion on whether or not she's going to be able to pursue truthful justice unbiased in this particular case.
She has a vested interest in having a Patsy.
She has a vested interest in continuing and perpetuating the insurrection narrative as opposed to full exposure of the Fed surrection.
So she's not the right person for that job, in my opinion.
I've played the clip before.
If I can find it quickly, I'll play it again.
But yes, it was the journalist at Lindell TV saying, How is this woman still employed?
And the prosecutor, does Janine Pirro not know who it is?
Like some people are hypothesizing everybody loves the bad cop because they can use the bad cop for their own nefarious purposes.
And Jocelyn Ballantyne might be the bad cop that they can use as a crooked prosecutor to extort, coerce, whatever, you know, get a four-hour interrogation of a kid who's autistic signed off on his Miranda rights with no lawyer.
With no lawyer.
So she might be the useful demon that they can use here.
But I mean, Trump gave no good answer to that.
He said, I'll look into it.
And here we are.
She's still there.
And they have this kid, 30 years old, Autistic, currently detained pending the resolution of all of these issues.
She gave you the cold shoulder.
We saw that.
Go ahead.
So to continue on with your question of who was in the courtroom.
So we talked about her, another person, when you talk about autism.
So I was sitting in the back row, and the person sitting in front of me, who during the recess, when we went to chamber to make a deliberation on whether or not he was going to release or not make a decision, an individual was sitting in front of me who had said that they had been working for Brian Cole Sr. for over two decades.
And then when I asked him in a very neutral tone, I said, well, what do you think is going on?
What's your take on this?
And he said that I've worked for him for 20 years and this kid, Brian Cole Jr., is autistic.
And I said, what do you, what does that mean to you?
I'm not very familiar with the range of what autism is, if you don't mind.
He said, well, he's kind of like a 15-year-old kid up here.
And so if you're a 30-year-old man with the 15-year-old brain, which depending on how developed it is, I mean, I got a 15-year-old here sitting across from me.
And on one side, you could argue that autistic 15-year-old kid is not in a position to pre-plan a year and a half in advance as a precog, if you will, that he is going to be angry about the results of an election that's going to occur the next year.
And for that reason, that's the motive that he's using a year prior to even knowing the results of the election to start building and purchasing items to build this supposed alleged pipe bomb.
I mean, it's just it defies any form of logic.
And now, by the way, Ivan, I don't know if you have any, if they went into this at all yesterday, I was having a fight with his family was there.
Like, there were about 15 people from his family that were present.
It's a known Democrat family.
The motion or the brief in support of preliminary detention argues that he broke away from his family politically.
He didn't like to talk about politics.
And his family were, you know, was Democrats and he was upset about the 2020 election.
And so he kept it quiet until he decided to assemble a bomb from parts that he bought upwards of two years earlier.
And one of the locations was at the Micro Center, which is up the street.
I happened to go there to purchase a gift for my kids.
And I said, you know what, let me do a little quick video.
And I posted that.
And part of that, I actually interacted with the management to ask them, you know, if we were to take for truth the FBI's charging sheet, that they have evidence of Brian Cole Jr. purchasing the nine-volt battery connectors.
First, I went to see in the aisle whether or not that item is sold, which it was.
So that FBI gets a point there that it's plausible that an items of that nature would be sold there at least five years later, anyway.
I took a little video to show that that's the case.
I want to be fair and honest, right?
And then I also asked them if how long do you keep your video records of the CCTV footage at your facility?
And they said, we didn't know for sure.
I mean, a few months, maybe.
So I guess five years later, when the Dan Bongino savior, right, guides this new team to start investigating, I doubt that that information was captured then via CCTV footage to prove that Brian Cole Jr. was the one that purchased it, particularly in the instance that it was purchased with cash.
And they said to me, the management team over at Micro Center said that it's plausible that he purchased it with cash, but then put his account number in or phone number to associate himself with the purchase.
It still doesn't mean that it was Brian Cole Jr. that purchased it.
Similar to if I have a device, right?
And the device is located near the pipe bomb location or at the micro center, it doesn't mean that I'm the guy that's associated with the device.
It could be my device, but someone else could have been carrying it.
So these are some of the nuances that need to be played out.
Well, you know, before we even get into all of that evidence stuff, because I'm going to ask you a question about the sulfur, which was my own digging this morning.
So you get in, they don't even get into the evidentiary hearing the probable cause because they're still determining jurisdiction for the purposes of adjudicating on the release pending trial.
Yeah, this is, I mean, this is amateur hour to the tune of what they did with James Comey, to the tune of what they did with Letitia James, which were both dismissed, right?
All right.
So how long did the hearing last?
Oh, it actually lasted a few hours as they were going back and forth.
And so the detention hearing part.
Let me finish with making sure that we got everybody that was in the courtroom.
Robert Guvia, who's a you he's a content creator.
Oh, yeah, no, I know he's a lawyer.
I mean, he's from, he's from, he's from Arizona.
He's a great guy.
Was he there?
He was actually in the courtroom.
So we were, I saw him in line.
I said, hey, Robert, what's going on, man?
It's good to see you.
That's amazing.
And he said that he's going to be spending more time in DC and maybe even moving here.
I might be breaking that.
Whatever.
And so it's good to know that somebody else is going to be full time because that's his shtick, right?
So I'm glad somebody's going to be dedicated that's on the Patriot side just to expose what's going on.
And he was there.
And he did a broadcast outside of the courthouse afterwards.
Wow.
He was there while I was asking questions of Jocelyn on the other side of the courthouse.
But he was there and you had quite a bit of media.
Washington Compost reporter was there.
Some people pronounced Washington Post.
And yeah, pretty much the family was in the first, second, third, majority of the left side of the courtroom in the back there.
And then on the right side, it was probably staff.
And I noticed that I'll have to take a look and see.
There was another, what appeared to be another judge.
But what was, what's Brian Cole's demeanor like?
Like, I've got pretty immediate life experience with people with autism.
And depending on the spectrum, you know, there's nonverbal to verbal, highly functional, but it's obvious.
Like it's clear.
But when you're looking at him, is he saying anything?
Is he like, you know, sort of repeating most body movements?
No, so my vantage point, I had a very bad vantage point.
So I had to kind of arch and take a look and see because I was all the way in the back.
I wanted to monitor who else was in the room to assess the situation.
I didn't, I couldn't assess anything either way.
He was just sitting there quietly.
Okay.
Now, a couple of things, I'm glad you reminded me of this, but his father, so his father, his mother, and his grandmother were part of that crew there.
And their grandmother is going to be important as we kind of go into the hearing details.
So the father, for the first part of the hearing, didn't have a mask on, was just sitting there nice and calm, quietly.
But then as the hearing continued, after we went into break, after the break, he put a mask on.
And to my assessment, is why are you putting a mask on?
You don't want other people to recognize you, even though in that courthouse, you can't take pictures, you can't do audio, video, whatever, recording.
So I think there's something there coupled with on numerous occasions, I think two or three occasions, defense attorney stressed that it was not a conspiracy.
It was just that the government was alleging that Brian Cole was involved in the pipe bomb.
Ivan, I'm going to.
You get where I'm getting at here.
Well, I'm going to interrupt you right there and just say, like, I've been having a bit of a back and forth with shipwrecked crew and Harmeet Dylan, who is replying to Sass from Kyle's Seraphin, but not replying to the substance of my questions, where she was on with.
Yeah, you said, don't reply to the sassy one.
Yeah, reply to my questions.
No, because she was on with the Charlie Kirk show, and she's talking about how, you know, anybody panicking about the statute of limitations is panicking.
You know, in RICO cases, and I'm quoting her roughly, and I believe an argument can be made here.
In RICO cases, the statute of limitations is sort of rolling because of the ongoing conspiracy.
And I'm like, but we were told that Brian Cole acted alone.
So if that's true and this fails for whatever the reason, there's no RICO to go after anybody else involved in January 6th or any other crimes.
Valid point.
I agree.
And then also another valid point made a couple of days ago by when this all started with Harmeet with Tom Renz.
Are you familiar with Tom Renz?
Not thoroughly, but I recommend having him on if you can.
He probably is the first person that actually broke the details of Susie Wiles and everything that we've been discussing over this last year.
He exposed that and broke it in June, mid-2024, way early, or anybody else.
And then before that, it would have been Noel Frisch back years before that.
So going back to what Tom Renz basically said, he said that his interpretation of what Harmeet Dylan said was that they're not going to go after and they're going to do nothing before January 6th.
Well, they were asking their original verbal request, apparently, was to postpone the preliminary hearing until January 7th.
And I'm like, oh, the day after the statute of limitations, barring some sort of RICO charge.
And if Brian, if it fails, because they might not even get past probable cause on this, well, effectively, it has lapsed, unless there's RICO, which they're saying there isn't in the case of the pipeline.
Right.
So they're saying it's not a conspiracy.
And so it doesn't loop in, right?
It doesn't extend until the statute of limitations.
And then on the other side, through this procedural maneuvering, there's not even going to be a preliminary hearing until after January 6th.
So then the defense is going to argue.
And then maybe even the government's going to enable that because Jocelyn Valentine's in place, possibly.
They're just going to say, oh, statute of limitations is run.
We can get him for, I don't know, maximum we can get him for is littering with inert stuff.
The murdering at the back of the RNC and DNC.
Yeah.
Okay.
So a question about the family.
Are they, are they, they haven't seen him in a while.
He's autistic.
Admittedly, you know, the degree is maybe up for dispute, but he's been in detention.
He's had some sort of medical assessment.
You know, he doesn't do well, apparently, without his headphones, without his gaming.
What's his mother like?
Is she distraught in tears or are they protesting his innocence vocally?
No, so they were there with like three or four rows ahead of me.
The immediate family, the mother and the father were off to the left in the second row, I believe.
And I felt that at the beginning, it was emotional when he walked into the courtroom and then they did the all rise for the judge.
You could sense nonverbal kind of sighs or sounds that were emotional.
Other than that, I can't tell you either way of how to interpret that.
The one thing that stuck out was why are you putting a mask on halfway through the hearing?
Are you trying to hide your face from exposure from folks like myself and others from identifying who you are?
I mean, it's like pretty evidently clear.
You're sitting by the mother who had to stand up when the defense counsel, when they started talking about potential release of Brian Cole Jr. to his grandmother.
And I don't know if you want to talk about that yet right now, but that's the meat and potatoes of what was discussed.
It was arguing why to keep him in detention on the prosecution side and on the defense side, whether or not to release him into third-party custody, meaning the grandmother.
And then the grandmother was brought up.
Okay, so let me ask you this actually.
She was effectively cross-examined on her understanding of what that would mean if the judge decided whether or not to release him to.
Okay, good.
That is the important part.
So they go back and forth on some procedural issues.
Parents don't really get that much involved.
And so the judge floats the idea of releasing Brian Cole Jr. in the interim, like they, you know, should under any Eighth Amendment compliant constitutional.
Although I know we might disagree on whether or not he actually poses a substantial risk to be released, but maybe those were the details of the discussion by both parties.
Is he a substantial risk?
So Jocelyn Ballantyne didn't really speak.
It was her co-counsel who we'll find out what the name is.
He did the entire briefing.
Let me just ask you, though, why on earth would they have to release him to his grandmother and not his parents?
What's the argument in favor of that?
Yeah, exactly my point.
It wasn't really addressed.
I thought someone, as soon as they said, well, we want to release him.
Well, first off, they wanted to put some restrictions on him.
So they acquiesced that, you know, we will keep an eye on him through there's video surveillance outside of the home of the grandma.
And then also you had ankle monitor.
I mean, ankle monitor, GPS, things like that.
The kid, from what I understood, even back in the day, didn't do anything other than walk his Chihuahua, go to the 7-Eleven to get a pizza and two Cokes and come back.
I mean, so disable his credit card, put an ankle monitor on.
He's going to live the same life he was living for the last five years and for the last, you know, 10 years.
Right.
That's effectively the argument that was made by his defense counsel.
Yeah.
And he poses a risk.
When I read their brief in support of pretrial detention, and they say he's going to go finish off his work, like carry out his frustrations on the world if we release him.
The government argued that, oh, even after January 6th, he was accumulating more pipe bomb-making material.
Okay.
So let's pause it real quick.
So I just said someone in the chat said he sounds pretty dangerous.
I'm fairly certain that was sarcasm.
I brought the wrong chat up.
No, the dude, it's okay.
Sorry.
I'm not sure if he's dangerous to others, but I think he's in danger of being Epsteined if he's released.
Well, I mean, but he's in danger of being Epsteined if they keep him there.
They don't have a very good custody rate for federal high-value federal defendants or witnesses.
I think the risk is higher if he's out there in public because then he's in the position to potentially communicate about the other co-conspirators, if there are any, accidentally.
And so those other co-conspirators could potentially want to have him Epstein himself.
Let me ask you this now.
That makes a little sense.
Because now that just analysis, right?
Yeah, well, and it's interesting because it sort of pieces together why on earth they would even float living with his grandma.
I don't think people know where his grandmother likes.
Do people know where his grandmother lives?
And I'm not asking for no.
Yeah.
So, yes, they the judge said, no, don't tell us your full address because this is an open court.
But her grandmother lives in a gated community in Gainesville, Virginia.
It's about 30 miles west, 30, about a half hour west, depending with no traffic, 40 40 minutes west of DC.
And then Woodbridge, Virginia, is where the father and mother live, which is where they're where he was at, right?
Living.
So it begs the question.
This is what we have to think through: is why wouldn't he be released back to his original home where he lives?
I mean, what are some things that come to mind?
You made me think of something that maybe the co-conspirators don't want their co-conspirator back in their home of co-conspiracy.
Well, he's definitely easier to find because everybody knows where that house is right now.
I'm surprised to some extent that what was the case with the guy who stabbed Austin Metcalf?
It doesn't matter what his name was.
But, you know, the family moved, got a new house behind a gated community.
You know, that actually.
The grandma is in the gated community, whereas the mother and father are not.
So that's one house.
How old's the grandmother?
I don't know what the age is.
I was thinking about 20 plus years to the mom, maybe.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.
Like my grandmother, back when she was much older, but I don't think that she would have been able to keep me on a leash if she had to.
Well, that was the point that the government was making, and it made a very effective point that what the grandma is going to keep an eye on his Reddit communications.
She's going to keep an eye on his YouTube and all this other stuff.
But on the rebuttal, it was he was mostly a consumer of content, not a creator of content and radicalizing others and creating the rebuttal in my view would have been the mother or father will go stay with the grandmother.
They just need him in a place that's not the location that everybody already knows.
That being said, we know that everybody in that neighborhood has ring cameras anyhow.
It would be tough.
You know, the guy would have his routine and they're not shy to put people on house arrest or at least, you know, like even with some of the Jan 6ers, confine them to certain zones.
Okay, so they have their argument.
Grandmother gets up and they're asking her questions without getting into too much detail.
What was she like and what sort of questions were they asking her?
She said, Well, the judge asked her, Do you know what your role and responsibility is as a guardian for I can't remember the exact term that they use for Brian Cole because he's autistic, right?
And she tried to answer that.
He said, Well, basically, you're an arm of the court.
So, if you see anything nefarious, etc., you have to call the court and report on him, and then that puts him in a position where he has to be confined.
Are you in a position to do so for a grandchild?
And the judge basically said that I don't know if I'd be able to do that, but she said that she could do that.
But the key points I think that were made during that exchange is that one is the question of why the third-party grandma, as opposed to the parents, that raises a lot of kind of eyebrows for me.
But you made a good point that you want him in a location that's not already essentially burned to the public, so it's a safety issue.
Okay, it makes sense.
That's a good point.
And then the other aspect is she's not going to be in a position to keep an eye on his digital activity, right?
And there's also, she mentioned in the interaction, they asked, Is there a weapon in the household?
Well, funny thing is that the FBI, when they arrested this guy, they only went after his bomb-making material, but they left the gun or guns in Brian Cole Jr.'s name at the residence.
Viva, I mean, are you serious?
Well, now I guess this is going to be the segue into the FBI DOJ investigation charges and the evidence.
I didn't, this is the first time I'm hearing this.
He had his own firearms registered in his own name.
It's not like he had access to his dad's firearms at his parents' residence.
That's what I heard in the well.
I'll have to go back to the transfer in court.
That's what I heard in court.
Okay, so that is not something that I would have even known until yesterday, even if true.
So, he has firearms.
Did they mention how many and what type?
No, they did not.
And then it kind of stemmed from when it was asked of the grandma if there was any firearms in her property.
And she said that her husband had one.
And so, they asked, Would you be willing to, I don't know, relinquish or not have it at the home while Brian Cole Jr. was there?
And as that was being discussed, and they introduced that he had registered firearms that the FBI didn't touch.
So, how much of a threat can he be?
I mean, I don't know where it's ridiculous.
I don't know that people think that they call you names and say, like, you're, I don't know, a doomer or you know, you're anti-you're somehow anti-I was never anti-anyone in the FBI, in the new FBI, uh, nor am I now.
I'm anti-incompetence.
Well, but that's anti-treason.
You can't expect people to swallow what is you know, fundamentally undigestible.
So, they have this hearing.
I was reading through the preliminary motion, and one thing that I was shocked about is they seized everything.
You know, they found the pipes, they found bags with receipts, yada, yada.
And there is no mention in the motion or the brief for preliminary hearing about actually finding the black powder that he actually allegedly made because he threw it out.
That's another point that the defense made: is that this was the experts that were used by the defense stated that this was not even a dangerous where did he go?
They got him.
Oh, geez.
Ivan, the joke will never get old.
He might have had a battery issue.
Let me bring up reconnect to your good mic again.
And I'm going to bring, I'm going to bring this up while we're talking about it.
I'm talking about it.
This is like, you know, so I was having a fight with someone who said they seized black powder from his, from his property when they arrested him and gone.
I was like, no, they didn't.
I thought I was going crazy.
And they said, yeah, the defense said that the experts that they used said that this was not essentially a, it was inert, right?
So it was not a dangerous contraption or item.
Well, again, hold on.
Hold on.
This is glittering.
This is breaking.
Say what you just said again.
Defense counsel, when they're going back and forth, said that the experts that the defense is using, and again, take it for the grain of salt because it's going to be vying, you know, they're going to be zealously advocating for the position of the defendant Brian Cole Jr., said that the contraption, what most people know as the pipe bomb, was not even in a position to be a threat to anyone because of the composition of it and what was in it.
It didn't have the necessary elements to be a threat.
Okay, that's interesting.
May I ask, based on what they said that, how did they know that?
And what was the response?
That was it.
It was just based on the experts.
Okay.
And so they didn't bring in any receipts.
Okay.
So they just, this was an again, I don't have the luxury.
I have not, I only skimmed through the initial documents.
So you have the luxury of reading everything, it sounds like I don't.
I just know based on what I heard yesterday when I happened to come.
Well, why I'm picking up on this is because Kash Patel and Pan Bondi were quite vocal about how these were real bombs could have gone off and could have killed hundreds of people.
They said viable and dangerous.
Who told Cash Dan Pam and Todd Blanch that they were viable?
The lead prosecutor, maybe?
Well, and what's even more problematic is we were told at the time that they were like back in Jan 2021.
My understanding is everyone was saying they were not viable.
They were not.
And this was why they were floating the idea of a practice run or a drill with intelligence.
What was the prosecution's response to that?
Because they had to have rebutted that and said, no, they were in fact active.
I mean, you're asking me to memorize the whole exchange.
No, I just unfortunately.
No, that's fine.
That's fine.
But so the defense said, but there wasn't like it, there wasn't like an outburst in the court where they said, no, that's not true.
How dare you say that they were extremely dangerous and could have killed hundreds of people?
Well, generally, yeah, actually, the response was that it was essentially they assumed that it was, right?
The government.
And so if it was a viable device, then having it placed underneath that bench at the DNC could have, because that's what the judge asked, how much if it was a viable type of pipe bomb, could it damage, could it have caused?
And the government said that it could have, you know, effectively injured or more at the bench if someone's sitting there.
And then behind the Capitol Hill Club, if somebody was there at the time that it detonated, could have also caused damage to the one or two individuals in its vicinity.
I mean, I know this is going to be a joke because the judge would not have asked this, but did the judge ask, why didn't you put all of DC on lockdown?
And how did you only know that there were only two active pipe bombs?
Then you found both of them within 25 minutes and knew that there was no further risk.
Did anybody ask that question?
Well, they did not.
And notably, what I noticed is that the arguments that were made about, oh, should we release or continue to detain Brian Cole Jr., they effectively didn't use as an analogy the pre-trial, the four years of pre-trial confinement of individuals that were there on January 6th, the following day.
And there wasn't really that much of a nexus in the conversation on both sides, how January 5th was related to January 6th, the pipe bombs to January 6th.
And I found that pretty odd.
And again, going back to defense counsel mentioned on two or three occasions, I think it was that this was not a case of conspiracy.
Going back to like, why would they even raise that?
Um, if it wasn't even alleged by the government, there's a few things it's fishy to me.
Well, now that you mentioned that the defense said they weren't viable, so I was just you know digging in this morning after having that, after feeling like I was going crazy with the guy who said, Oh, no, they seized the black powder from his place.
I'm like, I didn't read that anywhere.
And lo and behold, they did not find any black powder at Brian Cole's place.
From what I understand, they argue in their brief for preliminary detention, maybe it was Hunter Biden's white powder.
Well, I'm told I saw Lord of War.
You could snort black powder.
Um, no, they said he threw it all out.
You know, he disposed of all that, threw it all out, didn't throw out receipts, and wiped his phone 943 times.
Yeah, yeah, they mentioned that a couple times in the court.
Well, I mean, because you know, 940.
Oh, yeah, they introduced another phrase for him I hadn't heard of before that not only is autistic, but he's got OCD.
Yeah, well, no, but autistic, it's it's those typically go pretty close hand.
So I'll have to do my own due diligence and research what exactly the range of autism is.
Well, the range of autism is the confidence of the stride with which they walk.
And I understand from what you reported, everyone said there's no way that that's the same guy.
But this is the one that blew my mind.
So after the black powder was not found, like they found receipts for everything except for the potassium nitrate.
And they didn't find the black powder because they threw it out.
You wouldn't know this particular detail the way I found it.
Curious is they said, oh, here he had a receipt for sulfur.
This was in their preliminary motion or their motion for preliminary detention.
And I was like, oh, they didn't have sulfur, a receipt for sulfur mentioned in the affidavit for probable cause, whatever you want to call it, which is what I noted at the time.
It's like they don't have a receipt for the potassium nitrate or the sulfur, but now they discreetly or added it to their brief.
And I was like, oh, that's weird.
So I don't know when they discovered that, but this was the image that's in the brief.
I was like, oh, what is that?
I can't really tell what that is.
And so I did a little Google reverse image search, and it turns out that it's actually Lily Miller, which they identified the brand sulfur dust, which is an actual herbicide miticide.
And it's 90% sulfur.
And so one of the questions I had in my five questions, which I would love to ask Kash Patel, but they don't seem to want to answer questions from the likes of me.
They prefer to reply to the trolls of Kyle Seraphin.
Bada bing, bada boom.
I said, it wasn't in the initial affidavit.
When did they discover this?
And can you even make functional black powder out of 90% sulfur, 10% inert?
People on the internet say you can.
It's going to compromise its potency, whatever.
But it was as though they just quietly added this new receipt for the sulfur.
But Ivan, I almost forgot the most important part.
It was from January 2018, three years before.
So someone said, why would he?
Oh, wait, this is new.
So this guy is an oracle three years in advance.
So his, again, his motive is that he was mad of the results of the 2020 election and the political issues that were prominent due to COVID and the summer of love burning down the country two years prior, two and a half years prior to its occurrence.
Man.
But that he bought this guy is an autistic genius.
No, he bought the sulfur three years before, about a year and more before buying the pipes.
And they still don't have the potassium nitrate that he allegedly bought at Home Depot.
And the thing someone did say, why would he be buying herbicide mitoside in winter?
I think you can have mites or insects in winter, but I don't know.
And I don't know what winters are like in his area.
How bad are the winters?
You don't grow stuff in winter in Virginia where he's from.
I mean, right now it's in the 20s, so it's pretty chilly.
20s is Fahrenheit or Celsius in Celsius.
That would be minus five degrees.
So it's minus five to ten degrees.
Okay, fine.
It's pretty chilly.
So that is pretty chilly.
And but the bottom line: so they added that allegation.
They added the receipt.
We haven't seen the receipt or how he bought it, but sulfur, which is actually just a herbicide miticide in 2018, and still no evidence or receipt for the potassium nitrate, and still no black, no, no charcoal.
And he didn't have any of that when they finally arrested him.
They didn't seize the car.
They didn't seize firearms.
None of this makes any sense.
What did the judge look like?
Did he look like he was swallowing any of this?
My interpretation of the judge is that he wants to one make this go into such a state of like, delay it as long as possible and have him released on his own recognizance so that uh, whatever happens happens well.
And then on the government side, they're just not, their arguments aren't plausible and the government attorney, Jocelyn Ballantyne, just has no credibility.
I love it the chat they are.
They are smarter than me.
That's when you cash the sales and someone else said, yeah, you use my toic, you use it indoors for plants during this, during the, during the winter.
Um okay, so that's.
I think that's a very good, thorough synopsis.
Is there, was there anything else that was out of the ordinary?
And what did you do afterwards?
Like you go there you, you almost I was gonna say chase down as a joke, but then someone might take it literally.
You try to get some answers out of Jocelyn Ballantyne.
She doesn't answer you.
She's still on the file.
Janine Piro's, nowhere to be seen.
Nowhere to be seen, I mean.
So after the hearing, I step out.
Wait to she was the last one out of the courtroom Jocelyn Ballantine with her co-counsel.
And then she steps out and then we determine which side of the courthouse she departs, I go outside the courthouse, we immediately turn on the, the light producers known as video cameras, and then we proceed to record a few questions and at the beginning of it, I asked, I said Miss Valentine, and she looks back.
I put my hand out and said Ivan Rakelin, and she says, I know you, I know you.
Oh, how is that?
How's that possible?
Oh, you attended some of the here uh, trials that I was a part of.
Oh yeah, which ones.
Interesting, it's true, but it's good to confirm that she knows exactly who I am.
Oh no, she said it, like you, I know you.
Like it was.
Like you know that, I know you.
It was almost like a lecturing time.
And then, after I the second question, said, have a have a nice day, mr Rakeland.
And that was her indication that she was not going to continue to engage and I was just going to make sure that she knew some of the questions that I think most of us have for her.
I get it, I could have asked many more questions, I could have crossed the street with her and uh, I mean, the decision that I make is, I think I made my point and I I want to do it in In a professional, you know, legal, moral, ethical way, so that anybody watching it can clearly see that I'm not trying to intimidate her physically.
I'm not trying to give any indication that I'm a physical threat.
It's just I'm trying to expose that nothing makes sense.
And we demand, we demand transparency.
And transparency comes with constant interaction with those that are the most critical of you and that are the most in good faith critical of the proceedings.
And I hope I did that in that fashion.
No, you're good.
It was good because especially not to be not to play stereotypes, but a woman will very quickly and disingenuously suggest that she was intimidated by it if it's a man like you, you know, harassing them on the street and they can very easily play that card.
And we've seen people play it very often.
I think I'm right.
And you can tell my tone is very different than when I'm interacting with a woman, and especially if your stature and size is much smaller.
I'm going to be very professional and courteous.
But if you're going to flex on me, especially if you're larger than me physically in stature as a male, then all bats are going to be off, particularly if you touch me.
Hold on, I just want to see something.
Does the internet have it?
How tall is Ivan Rakeland?
Five foot seven, Ivan.
You still got an inch on me.
How much can you weigh, if I may ask?
I'm about 180.
Oh, really?
Yeah, about all muscle.
That's very good.
Well, you can't be all fat if you're five if you're 180 and 5'7.
So, you know, it was fine.
It was great.
You're not going to get any answers out of her.
And it was, you did make your point.
Let me see if I can bring up a couple of chats here for questions for you.
Enjoy the cool air, says Roostang.
The soft powder snow.
It's ice.
It's blowing.
It's not fun out here.
I didn't get any skiing in.
Nothing beats cutting up some wood in the fireplace.
Heats it through.
We can't do that.
You are in Winter Wonderland, away from the lure of social media.
Oh, no, I'm not away from the lure of social media.
I've been streaming every day, Roostang.
Ginger Ninja says, Ivan must be in good shape.
Ezra Levant gets out of breath when he's interviewing snakes on the street.
Well, they run that.
It's funny.
I was going to make that joke, but it wasn't shade on Ezra.
Do you know who Ezra Levant is?
I don't.
Oh, he's the Canadian.
He's a Canadian rebel news journalist.
He's great.
Oh, yes.
Yes.
When he was out there, it just so happens that people run from Ezra a lot faster than Jocelyn ran from you.
Good to see Ivan.
The guy's been afraid.
He does great work.
I'm familiar with it.
And Ginger's a great member of our community.
This makes me very angry to see this level of incompetence.
We'll get into maybe something for an after discussion.
Boseberg.
I didn't know DC only has one judge on the bench, says Ginger Ninja.
Barefoot Jamie.
Viva, please interview.
No, he's the chief judge.
Yeah, he seems to get all these cases, even when he's out of the office for the weekend.
But no, this he was not, he's not the judge in this.
I think it's uh that's right.
Just to clarify, he's this they're appealing to his ruling in another case as to whether or not and so they got to now defy this sort of um this precedent coming from Bozberg.
What is it?
Viva Paya or something like that?
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
Dude, who's Casey Putschie's running against Vivek Ramaswamy?
Very smart, spicy.
All right, I'll screenshot that and reach out.
Then we got King of Bill Tong wishing everyone a very happy new year.
May you hit 2026 out of the park.
If you are kicking off your health journey start with Bill Tong, I can't bring it up in the rumble side, but go to Billtongusa.com and use code Viva for 10% off.
Bill Tong is delicious.
He's a South African man moved to America in Texas using American meat for his wonderful product.
And then King of Bill Tong, how can real men get pounded by Anton's meat?
Half a pound at a time is not enough for real men.
Okay, and those jokes will go on.
Do you have a few more minutes?
Yeah, I'm available because that was important.
I know so.
I always enjoy interacting with you because it's, you know, it's a higher IQ interaction.
Well, no, I like it.
You were there and you know, well, it's more nuanced, right?
Yeah, well, it's, it's, it's amazing.
I'm just, and I'm also just, you know, hoping that we get some news.
I'm just refreshing in the back.
Yeah, that's what I'm pulling it up as well.
Judge, I mean, we're getting close to 4 p.m. on New Year's Day.
And so, like, Judge Reserve's ruling on whether Jan 6 Pipeline should remain detained pending trial.
Okay, we got all that.
Federal judge magistrate did not immediately rule Tuesday.
It's Wednesday today.
During the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones, I guess that's the name.
There you go.
Charles Jones.
Judge Matthew Scrubbed to reject arguments for his danger if released.
Okay, yeah, fine.
Cole was arrested by federal authorities.
None of this is new.
Tuesday, Jones.
He wiped the memory for nine.
This is all just the standard evidence here.
Okay, well, we got all that detail.
So, no news yet.
And I'm asking in our vivabarnslaw.locals.com community if anyone has any specific questions.
So, okay, so that I mean, that's it now.
You're going to be going back and forth for these hearings.
You're not far from there, right?
Yeah, I mean, it's 20, 30 minutes, depending on traffic for me.
I know that you got to do it every time.
That's going to be well, Robert's going to be there now, too.
So, I think he's going to actually do more substantive work because I'm trying to, I told him, I'm trying to plug holes where I can.
Because while you and Kyle and Steve and all these folks that are out there looking at January 6th, you're not necessarily in this area.
I'm trying to do what I can with the time that I have to be able to shine light where I think it's most appropriate.
So, I mean, I could have interacted with the family.
I could have gone after them.
I felt that that was inappropriate.
I go after structural government corruption, and I think that I smell it with Jocelyn Ballantyne.
And okay, I could be wrong, but I don't think so in this case.
Well, no, my only question is: do you have, well, without sources and whatever, how it's not possible that the administration is unaware of who Jocelyn Valentine is?
It's not possible.
Then the only question is, why in the name of sweet holy hell they pardoned people because of the injustices that Jocelyn Ballantyne inflicted on them?
How the hell are they using her again?
No way.
It's a good question to ask.
And I thought of this this morning: if Jocelyn Ballantyne was the one behind, which he was behind the Proud Boys prosecution and persecution, she's probably in a position of vested interest to make sure that Ed Martin doesn't become the U.S. attorney.
Right?
So she probably was part of the crew that subverted that.
And that's why I asked the question of her because my sources were telling me that there's some individuals, I can't remember their names right now, that used to be Senate staff for either Thune or what's the guy from North Carolina, Tom Tillis, that are now at the U.S. Attorney's Office that were the ones advocating to make sure that Ed Martin would not be U.S. attorney because he would have gone more way more scorched earth and he would have probably wiped out Jocelyn Benson as U.S. attorney and she would have been gone.
And then the next thing that Jocelyn Benson would have probably done in order to protect her work is to ensure that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were not pardoned to perpetuate that.
Oh, we still secured, you know, the deep state's glamour girl, if you will, Jocelyn, still is in this position of victory where her targets, Proud Boys, are still not pardoned.
And so she can, when this deep state rides out this administration's term, they can, I think, continue to escalate the lawfare using that as a point of discussion that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were insurrectionists.
The president didn't pardon them.
They're still felons.
They're still convicted felons.
And then the court of public opinion, they can use that terminology and can continue to perpetuate the insurrection hoax.
That's my analysis.
No, I don't disagree with it.
It's she should have, she should be fired and probably.
Yeah, and that comes down to Janine Perril.
Well, but also investigated for civil rights violations by Harmee Dylan, who's out there tooth and nail defending Pan Bondi.
I don't understand what's going on.
Yeah.
So me.
Oh, meanwhile, there is a point that I wanted to make that is very important.
I just sent you a text.
And can you bring that up, that slide?
Let me see here.
It says, oh, that's not from you.
And I almost you texted it to me.
Yeah.
Or is there a better way?
Should I?
Hold on.
Did you do it in private DM in the chat here?
No.
No.
Text it to me.
I don't think I got it.
Here, I'll resend it.
Yeah, definitely.
I didn't get it.
If you scroll up a little bit, it's one slide.
It says Fed Surrection 1621.
Okay, let me see if I can open this.
It says this.
Can I bring this out of here?
Let me see if I can bring this up.
Okay, so it's just this.
It's a screenshot, or not a screenshot.
It's a compilation.
Okay, hold on.
Let me see if I can do this with my fat fingers over here.
Share screen.
Let's go over here.
Bring this up.
All right, this.
Yes.
Okay, so let's hear.
We got the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, top left.
Muriel Browser, the mayor, or what was she?
The not the mayor.
She still is the mayor of DC.
Then we got who's Johnny G on the top right.
John Guandolo.
This was a screenshot of him.
Yeah, no, no, I don't.
He used to, oh, by the way, he used to be, if you didn't know, John Guandolo used to be the FBI Washington Field Office liaison to the United States Capitol Police.
And we did a deep dive two-hour interview explaining how the Fed surrection would have taken place.
Okay.
And FBI's role in it from that legal structure.
What are we looking at here?
What do you want to bring up?
Yeah, so what you're looking at here is when people say Fed surrection, and you know what?
Let me take off my shirt because most people equate the Fed surrection to this, that the FBI ran the entire op, right?
See there?
Nice.
You got the FBI logo.
Where can people get that shirt?
I argue.
What's that?
Where can people get that shirt?
I can't say because then Steve Baker will be mad at me even more.
Oh, I forgot.
I forgot about the infighting between you and Steve and Kyle.
I'm not fighting with him.
I enjoy myself.
I remember when I discovered the infighting between Jake Lang and was it shipwrecked crew as well?
There's a lot of infighting even among the Jan Sixers who, you know, everybody's mad at me because I talk to everyone.
Well, Viva, have I ever told you not to talk to someone?
No.
First of all, I don't think everybody's mad at me because I will talk to everyone, but I get along with all of I get along with Julie Kelly, Kyle Seraph, and you.
I get along with James Lang, even if I disagree with his MO right now, but he's a big boy.
He'll do what he wants.
Yeah.
Everybody's got their little role in schnick, as long as it's good faith.
Some people operate in bad faith.
Well, and not hurting anybody.
Okay, so what are we looking at?
All right.
Here's what you're looking at.
This is my synopsis of the players in the Fed surrection and the organizations upon which they are tied to.
And this is based on the legal framework analysis that I did of 2USC Chapter 29, which is the U.S. Capitol Police, Capitol Police Board, and the law enforcement of the U.S. Capitol.
So remember that the Speaker of the House appoints the Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, at the time.
These are names on the left.
And then underneath there, I can't see because your face is covering it up.
Let me disable my camera here.
All right, go for it.
And then can you disable mine as well?
No, you could disable yours.
And I think we'll still hear you.
So go for it.
How do I just?
There you go.
Okay, perfect.
Now we're just talking to each other like ghosts.
So we just take a look at that.
And I did the analysis of who was the chair of the DNC that day?
Tom Perez.
Right.
So I like to look at individuals of the organizations that would have been involved.
So to do an analysis, a thorough analysis of the DNC pipe bomb, you'd probably want to talk to Tom Perez and the head of security, which they didn't have a head of physical security, the head of cybersecurity over at the DNC.
Bring yourself back in.
Yeah.
And remember, Mark Milley is under your face.
Yeah, okay.
So, actually, several others as well.
Yeah, the Christopher Ray looks like let me take myself off, though.
Yeah, Ryan McCarthy.
Okay.
So, and then as you move at the top, are like the big institutional actors that were, I argue, were part of the Fed surrection.
So, Pelosi on the left, the Senate, the vice president, which would have been the president of the Senate on the right, and the Senate Majority Leader, who controls the Senate sergeant-at-arms, who are the two votes.
The House and Senate sergeants-at-arms are the two voting of the three voting members, the most important ones of the U.S. Capitol Police Board that operate at the behest of the Speaker and the Senate leadership.
And then in the middle, you have the Capitol Police, which are an end, it's an entity underneath the two sergeants-at-arms, the slash Capitol Police Board, operating in the direction of the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader.
And then you have the MPD, Metropolitan Police Department.
So, some of the names that I have in there are key individuals to be able to either you're a whistleblower or key individuals involved in the Fed surrection.
In the case of MPD, I argue that Chief Conte was potentially part of the Fed surrection support play on behalf of Mayor Bowser to run the coup against Trump.
And then, the key whistleblower is Shane Lamont listed there.
You see Robert Conte in that little shield, the blue one, Metro Police.
Up top, right above the Capitol.
It says Robert Conte, yes.
And then in the middle is Shane Lamont.
Shane Lamont is currently incarcerated.
I don't know if you know much about him, but he was the head of Intel at the Metropolitan Police Department.
And the Proud Boys were going to call him as a witness to debunk the entire narrative.
But as soon as they put him down as a witness, unbeknownst to Shane Lamond, he was then weaponized against by the machine, the deep state machine, and convicted of obstruction of Democrat narrative because he was going to testify truthfully.
And he's still sitting rotting in prison, similar to Tina Peters.
Bring yourself back in here for a second.
Why was he not given a pardon?
Was his conviction not based on the events of January 6th?
His conviction, they claimed the judge and the machine said that it had nothing to do with January 6th, had everything to do with Shane trying to cover up and obstruct justice against Enrique Tario's flag-burning incident.
Okay.
Wow.
Meanwhile, it only happened after he was placed as a witness.
Okay.
And then when you look at the evidence, it was clear that Shane Lamont was talking to everybody.
He was using Enrique as a source to maintain safety and peace in the district, right?
Because as the head of Intel, what's your responsibility?
You're to advise the operational elements of the Metropolitan Police Department and talk to different sources to be able to know where to deploy and recommend where to deploy assets so that people can conduct First Amendment peacefully and the city is safe, right?
So that was his role.
Additionally, keep in mind that he was the head of Intel going back to 2017.
So I had spoken to him before he was incarcerated at length, and he explained to me that he mapped out fully, his team mapped out fully the current domestic terrorist organization, Antifa, in DC.
So him being incarcerated is an injustice, and it really hampers this administration's ability to go after the domestic terrorist organization here in DC known as Antifa, because this is probably the best guy that knows it and has mapped it out.
Additionally, Barry Lautermoke, who has yet to conduct one hearing, anything whatsoever since this subcommittee was created under judiciary, like he done nothing, right?
They can't utilize and communicate with Shane Lamond really effectively to be able to get and extract everything he has on DC's role in Nancy Pelosi's Fed surrection.
So this is where we're at.
Like nothing's happening because, well, everyone's in on it.
And then when you scroll, go back real quick.
Yep.
Let me see.
Other key individuals.
Hold on.
No, I got here.
Hold on a second.
Okay.
Other key individuals there at the bottom is Stephen D'Antoano is the Washington field office guy, right?
Of the FBI.
And then you got Ronna McDaniel was chair of the RNC.
So wouldn't it be nice to communicate with the head of security at the RNC, Ken Capolino, to find out his perspective of the pipe bomb right behind the Capitol Hill Club?
It would be.
And I've talked to him for years, but I've tried on maybe a dozen instances to try to get him on camera to speak publicly about how he thought it was a complete decoy dummy.
He won't do that.
He's done a written, I think, interview with Daily Wire or whatever, but it'd be nice for him to come out publicly and explain that.
And then U.S. Capitol Police whistleblower, obviously, would be Stephen's son, who's, you know, he's done enough interviews publicly for where he pretty much is on board with that.
This was a he won't use the term FED surrection, but his it pretty much leans in that direction.
And then at the bottom i'm going to remove myself for a few seconds Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs OF Staff, the secretary of the ARMY, Ryan Mccarthy and Chris Ray of the FBI headquarters, would have also been involved in facilitating.
Remember, FBI would have controlled the 274 uh undercovers Slash, Affiliates agents CSS CIS, etc.
Which i'm sure others can talk about in more detail than I can on that role uh, but one thing that many people fail to mention is Ryan Mccarthy.
So the J6 not the J6, but the Oversight subcommittee.
In the last Congress that Louder Mock led, when they had a few of the National Guard folks from the DC National Guard testify, the Democrats were going to call Ryan Mccarthy to testify.
This is according to Loudermook's staff.
They told me, uh, but Ryan Mccarthy, the former secretary of the ARMY, refused to testify.
So if the Democrats are calling you to try to use you to debunk anything uh that the Republicans are trying to put forth, but yet you're too afraid to testify on behalf of the Republicans.
You got something to hide and so I suspect, based on his communications, that when you start to break it down, the people that mentioned that we don't want military or DC National Guard due to optics, that messaging came from Pelosi, from Paul Irving, from Ryan Mccarthy, from Mark Milley and mayor Bowser.
So I think that the lead FED surrectionists on january 6th that enabled the electoral heist through that joint session illegitimate uh, you know the FED surrection, the facilitated incited, instigated breach of the capital.
It would have had to have been led by Pelosi through her Metropolitan Police Department chief, Robert Conti, who later became the head of partner engagements at the FBI headquarters who's, I think, since retired uh, to Ryan Mccarthy on the military side, along with Mark Milley and those two undermined acting secretary Chris, Chris Miller, as Millie, McCarthy, Pelosi, and Bowser,
if you look at their meeting notes, et cetera, they were the ones that blocked DC National Guard and blocked anybody from outside U.S. Capitol Police and then subsequently Metropolitan Police jurisdiction from being deployed so that they could freely, without executive branch engagement and interaction, could conduct that Fed surrection.
And the best way to get to that and prove that is you have to obtain all the communications of the U.S. Capitol Police General Counsel Thomas Tobias.
And the way you do that, JD Vance, by January 3rd, when the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms ceases to be the chair of the Capitol Police Board, JD, if you're listening in, you order that Senate sergeant-at-arms to release all U.S. Capitol Police general counsel holdings, communications, work product as it relates to the weaponization, manipulation of CCTV footage,
as well as the manipulation of sworn testimony of U.S. Capitol Police officers.
And I put it succinctly in a tweet, my answer sheet, of what JD Vance can do on a tweet earlier today.
And I think it breaks it down very well of what JD can do by the third.
And if he doesn't do it by the third on at noon, then at noon on the third, then once again, Mike Johnson can continue to cover up the Fed surrection because then he becomes the leader of the House Sergeant at Arms, who then becomes the chair of the Capitol Police Board.
This is total insider baseball, insider baseball.
And that's how they were able to conduct the Fed surrection and its subsequent cover-up.
And I'm sure you're going to find out that the Capitol Police had a role, just like Steve Baker insists.
And I think I agree with that.
At this point, I still believe before I didn't lean towards Steve Baker's hypothesis, but the more inept and incompetent the evidence proves to be with this Brian Cole Jr., I think Steve Baker's opinion or theory of the case is more plausible.
You're muted.
Let me answer this question here.
I asked this question above Viva: Is this Brian Cole's living situation determined by the court as a bail condition?
Is he considered a ward prior to any convictions that wouldn't seem constitutional?
I don't know what it means by award.
He's technically not even indicted right now.
It's the affidavit for, I don't think they call it the affidavit for probable cause.
Bottom line, they can impose conditions, restrictions, travel restrictions, forfeit passport, wear an ankle monitor, check in daily.
They did it to a number of people.
But let's play this out.
So let's just say later today, or right now where we're talking, he's released with restrictions.
He goes to his grandma's house.
What risk is there to him, to his family, and to exposing who the actual pipe bomber is?
What do you think, Viva?
Well, I think it comes out one way or the other.
I mean, we immediately find out.
I mean, let's just face it, reality.
We immediately find out where that is.
I get it.
It's a gated community.
Yeah, whatever.
Next.
Detaining him for his own safety isn't a lawful consideration.
He would get security.
He would definitely be here.
Yeah, I'm not saying that.
I'm just.
Yeah, yeah, no.
So it's like, but I think he's more at risk in detention than he is at liberty, which is why I think they would, you know, they must release him.
You know, him being a risk, posing an what is it?
The word is unreasonable risk to the community.
Bullshit.
And you can limit that risk.
No credit card, no social media, ankle monitor, check-in daily.
Very easy to mitigate whatever risks they believe.
But no, that's true.
That I agree with that.
If he is the sole actor, agreed, agreed, which and but people they accuse if they just throw names around, but you know, Kyle does not believe he's involved at all, or his theory is he they just got the wrong guy not involved at all.
I can entertain both ideas that he might have been involved, he might have had a handler, and his car might have appeared because someone else might have been driving it, or he might have been driving it to deliver something.
There's ways to merge him being involved, but him being a Patsy.
Um, and yeah, I can understand people wanting to tie off loose ends.
I'm not saying that I believe that's what happened with Seth Rich, but I believe that's what happened with Seth Rich.
And so, yeah, it's you know, things happen to people who are liabilities to the machine.
So, I guess one theory would be that he, I mean, he is the guy, which I don't buy it, but let's just say he is the guy, and because he's meant, you know, cognitively, I guess, feeble, weak, uh, I don't see a conviction happening, yeah, because they're just gonna say he's mentally incompetent to face punishment, right?
They'll just put him in the mental ward, or they'll do that, they'll just criminally not responsible and uh better supervision.
Uh, Dominion After Darkness, I mean, it's a perfect patsy, though, there's no, he's except except for the evidence, but we'll get there.
Uh, since only voting has never in history changed a bad government into a good one, I want all MAGA fools to keep voting harder.
It's a recurring theme.
I think I remember this guy.
The option to what you're the alternative to what this person's suggesting is not anything that I would ever suggest because it that won't work either.
So, um, what you have to do is try to reach the people in power and reach the people.
So, I've we, I guess, our recommendation, I think, is it unanimous.
You, me, you think Kyle and Steve would agree that Judge Janine should go ahead and remove Jocelyn Ballantyne?
I think Judge Janine at this point should be removed from her position because it's an it's an unforgivable mistake.
It's not that they can't claim ignorance anymore, they could find somebody a little bit more aggressive than me.
Well, people think like I'm going after what's her face, Pam Bondi.
I tweeted someone earlier, like, I'm not angry that she's trying to take credit for these arrests and convictions that occurred under Biden's DOJ for the Minnesota fraud.
My issue with her is she's been a failure on the three biggest things: the COVID stuff, uh, Dr. Dr. Kirk Moore, uh, Roger Vere's persecution went on forever.
She never there's no COVID accountability.
Well, she was the yeah, she represents Pfizer's Council in Florida.
Hey, we got we got a new Cave Johnson subscribe to the uh Viva Barnes a lot.
Okay, hold on, Ivan, you got five more minutes?
Yeah, it's New Year's.
I don't want to keep it.
We're going to go over locals.
No, I'm sure you platform me all the time.
I gotta give you my I'm gonna give everyone the link to locals.
We got a celebration to get ready going on here, but what I'll do right now is I'm gonna give everybody a link to locals, and now we're gonna go raid.
Who are we gonna raid?
We're gonna raid Patriot News, I guess, just because it's they're live, and I don't know if it's a live rebroadcast.
Go raid Patriot News.
180 Ivan, I feel like a little girl weighing.
Oh, sorry, I'm just looking at the I'm looking at the stream where you were flexing your muscles.
I thought that was my screen.
No, no, here's not, I gotta start working out again.
No, when I went to locals here, this is where we were at.
You had 20 pull-ups a couple days ago, so 20.
That's that's Dan.
I could have probably done 10 more, but just that that was not a non-sequitur when I was looking at the screen.
You were flexing because I was on replay, giving everyone the raid link.
Um, so get your butts on over.
We're gonna have a few, just we'll talk a little bit about uh Harmeet Dylan, whether or not she's gonna block me on Twitter.
I think she likes me, but maybe I'm an asshole.
Maybe I've turned into an asshole and don't see it.
Okay, delicate Dylan and delicate Dan.
Well, and and the Canadian hard ass.
I mean, I don't know.
Okay, Rumble, happy new year.
See you on the flip side.
And locals, we're going to have our after party right now with Ivan.
And we're everyone else.
Mr. Secretary to you.
Secretary of Retribution, people.
Ivan, sorry, before we go, tell everybody on local where they can find you.
Yeah, I'm on Rumble as well.
Ivan Rakeland, I don't do regular broadcasts like you, but I do deep dive and rebroadcast some of the stuff that I do.
My more recent interviews that I did, I think you should take a look if you haven't yet, Viva.
Ones, John Guandolo was one, a long-form interview about his role as a liaison between WFO and the U.S. Capitol Police.
And that's in the J6 kind of vein.
And then the second one, what did I just do with Harrison Floyd?
He was one of the guys that was weaponized in Georgia, remember?
Arrested.
And we, as we discussed, we connected the dots between.
Remember when last time I was on, we talked about the subpoenas of Jack Smith on four of them.
The two agents that were at the bottom of the subpoenas, one of them actually assaulted Harrison Floyd when he was trying to weaponize against him in February, I think, of 2023.
So we go into deep dives.
It's basically Pelosi failed at the J6 cover-up committee.
They sent it over to Jackass Smith, and then Jackass Smith also failed.
I'm still undefeated, and let's go to locals.
All right, done.
▲
Export Selection