All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 2, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:28:35
Making Sense of the Madness - w/ Lawyer Ron Coleman! Grammy Garbage! Legal Scandal in Canada & MORE!

Sponsor: Rumble Wallet! Download Rumble Wallet now and step away from the big banks — for good! https://rumblewallet.onelink.me/bJsX/vivafreiShow more 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 CRYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL! Show less

|

Time Text
Classic Viva Voce Gags 00:02:49
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, you don't frequently get to see my ugly face while doing the Viva Intro Golf voice, but I'm using StreamYard today, so I must.
I present to you a video which could very well be me and my wife pretty much every day of the week.
It's hilarious, on point, and it will make you giggle and lol.
I showed it to my wife, and she laughed as well.
Behold, first of
all, it's classic.
And I don't care if you have an adult sense of humor and you don't find this stuff funny.
The only problem, and I can tell you this from experience as well, is that children don't appreciate the difference between a husband smacking his wife's bottom and a child smacking his wife's bottom.
And although both are irritating, but are also ultimately appreciated as acts of love, one is more irritating than the other.
And it certainly is when the child smacks the wife's butt because you've been married for 18.
How long is it going to be?
18 years, give or take?
I know the proper force that is annoying, but not beyond the limits.
And a child simply does not.
I wanted to start with something irreverent, unrelated to the heavier subject matter.
It's not going to be heavy.
Do you guys know who Ron Coleman is?
If you don't know who he is, go read the AI-generated three-paragraph summary.
If there's one thing I'm not good at and that AI is actually useful for, it's concisely summarizing someone's professional career.
Although typically I have to edit out the totally anti-conservative, anti-far-right elements that even Grok gives you.
Ron is great.
Now, I can't bring up tweets.
I can't bring up comments from Rumble because it's not integrated with StreamYard.
And typically I use Rumble Studio because it's much better, but I don't know if Ron was familiar with Rumble Studio, so I didn't want to bring it in.
But before we even get into today's show, and it's going to be good, we're going to talk Epstein disclosures, the Bondi DOJ, the actual an exchange that Ron and I had, I think it was sometime last week.
And I was like, Ron, can we let's let's talk viva voce.
We know each other, we like each other, and I think it'll be productive and value-added to the world at large.
If I can be a little bit hyperbolic, and uh, then in the after show, which is going to be on vivabarnslaw.locals.com, not behind a paywall because we are using StreamYard, so you do not need to be a supporter to watch that.
Introducing Rumble Wallet 00:02:55
I'm going to talk about a very, very interesting case coming out of Canada.
Well, one which we've talked about before, which is the $300 million class action lawsuit against the truckers and the organizers.
There's been a development in that case.
Like, I'm a good judge of character.
The lawyer in that case, one Paul Champ, who testified during the Gulot commission.
He didn't testify, sorry, he interrogated during the Rulo commission.
Paul Champ is representing Zexie Lee, that's her name, who is suing the trucker protesters in a class action lawsuit, along with a couple of other restaurants, for $300 million because she is the younger version of Dr. Evil, who said $1 million, no, $300.
Anyhow, I said that that lawyer, Paul Champ, was a scoundrel and a scumbag.
And it has now been definitively confirmed that he is.
And I suspect that he's going to be in a little bit of trouble, potentially, with the Bar Society as a result of these latest developments, which became public today.
But before we even get into the show, I do want to thank our sponsor of today's show, the Rumble Wallet people.
I was just in El Salvador speaking at the Bitcoin conference, making everyone in the world and as much as I possibly can with my bullhorn aware of the Rumble innovations, which is the Rumble wallet, the ability to tip, receive in crypto, but also just to invest in and hold crypto.
And why?
Because people, they being the government and bastards out there can freeze your bank accounts.
They can shut off your cards.
They can lock you out of your own money overnight.
Snap the fingers.
Banks don't protect you.
Heck, they don't even respect you.
They charge you for not having enough money in your bank account.
And then they shut down your bank account for no good reason.
They control you with that power.
That's why real financial freedom starts with ownership, introducing the Rumble wallet, a non-custodial wallet built for people who refuse to give up control, especially of that which is most important to functioning in society, the ability to finance, to transact.
With Rumble Wallet, you don't just buy digital currency like Bitcoin and Tether.
You can buy Tether Gold, which is a cryptocurrency actually backed to gold.
You can buy it on the blockchain.
Through Tether Gold, you get direct ownership of physical gold bars, each one fully allocated, verifiable by serial number, purity, and weight.
It's not paper gold.
It's not IOU.
And it's not some random digital.
It is tethered as per the name of the company that now has a substantial interest in Rumble and ensuring it succeeds and innovates.
Tethered to gold.
You can buy, sell 24 hours a day, seven days a week, even when traditional markets are closed.
And if you want to redeem your gold, you can actually go to Switzerland and actually redeem your gold for physical gold.
I'm not sure if there's a way to actually do it without having to go to Switzerland, but you can redeem your crypto for actual real physical gold if you so choose.
No permissions, no middlemen, no cancel button.
The wallet is yours forever.
Go to Rumble, wallet, download it, use it because it's amazing.
Popat on Gab's Controversies 00:08:08
Now, with that said, let me go see, make sure we're live, everyone.
The audio is good.
We've got, how many times did I get robbed in El Salvador?
Viva says, who cares?
El Salvador is among the safest countries on earth right now.
A murder rate, or I should say, a homicide rate, intentional homicide rate of 1.9 per 100,000.
It's safer than most of America and Canada.
That being said, it comes with a cost.
Last anecdote before I bring Ron in is I was talking to people out there and they say, yeah, you know, it's great.
It's safe.
Bukeli has basically declared martial law, rounded up all the gangs and locked them up.
And they say the problem is, you know, he's caught up some allegedly innocent people in the cast net or the dragnet.
And I'm thinking, you know, like we have this maxim in America and Canada, you know, the Western system of law.
I would rather let 10 guilty men go free than lock up one innocent man.
And you think that that's a virtuous position.
But the reality is innocent people get caught up in the system somewhere, either on the front end or on the back end.
And when you let 10 guilty men go to protect the one innocent man from being locked up wrongly, well, those 10 guilty men do go out and commit more crimes.
And so you have innocent people suffering one way or the other.
The only question is, which is the most righteous way to do it, the most right way to do it, and the most consequentialist perspective-based way of making sure that in as much as the system is always going to be imperfect and you're going to catch innocent people up in the fray, as few as possible with as much beneficial impact as possible.
Now, with that law lesson, people, let's bring on Ron the Man Coleman.
There are two Ron Colemans on the internet, people.
One is Ronnie and the other is Ron.
If you don't know Ron, you're going to know him now.
Ron, I'm bringing you in.
Sir, I'll go to the battle.
So, you know, since my Mr. Universe days, it's really been a pretty steep decline, but I do have my mailman.
You know, I don't know my, was I a mailman or a cop?
I do have my government pension.
Hold on.
You were a mailman or a cop?
Which one?
Or both?
Whatever big Ronnie Coleman was.
Okay, fine.
I thought for a second before your law degree.
I think he was a cop.
You know, I really get him on my show before, you know, as well.
As long as he's still, or you know, he's gone.
He's having some hard times, I'm afraid.
Ronnie Coleman, born 1964, is alive as of 2026.
He faced recent health challenges, including reported hospitalization for bloodstream infection.
He continues to connect with fans while in recovery.
I did notice.
Okay, good.
So he's touch wood.
Pooh-poo.
Still with us.
Ron, for those who might be meeting you for the first time, it's not the first time you've been on the show, but tell them who you are.
Who am I?
Tell them, you mean, tell them what I do for a living?
Please, yes.
Because really, who really knows who one is?
I'm a lawyer.
I'm just another lawyer.
I guess I'm a social media figure.
I have a decent size following on X.
I do funky cases that don't.
I'm a litigator, civil litigator.
I do a lot of First Amendment work, a lot of defamation-oriented work, a lot of internet and social media types of things.
I take on clients that get me fired from law firm partnerships.
And I was formerly partners with Harmee Dylan, which I managed to not get fired from because I left before Harmet and I killed each other.
Well, okay, that's what at least you have now not let the cat out of the bag.
That was going to be, you know, one of the questions is you worked at Harmeet's law firm.
You were a partner.
But in most places, that's the only kind of partner you are unless you're the man.
Whether they call you an equity partner or not.
But, you know, no, but I was the first lateral partner that Harmeet ever ever added.
I set up the New York Metropolitan Practice in offices in northern New Jersey, actively litigating in New York and New Jersey.
We're still pretty friendly.
And we're a lot friendlier than we would be if I would have stayed in her firm.
She hasn't blocked you on Twitter, Ron.
I'm making a life.
I don't know, people.
I don't even, it's just a joke at this point.
Ron, I didn't realize you were in the lawyer in the Mattel versus Tam case.
That was the one where the Asian band who called themselves the Slants.
And people took issue with that?
Well, the United States Patent Trademark Office took issue with that.
No, that wasn't the one that got me fired.
No.
When I was handling the Slants case, the one that got me, I actually left the firm.
That was on my own power.
But then the firm that I moved to when I was handling the Slants case essentially put me in a position where I had to leave because they pulled the rug out from under me when I was representing Gab.
Really?
And when I moved to another firm that said, oh, we don't do that kind of thing, they pull the rug out from under me after I represented.
Well, first, I mean, they were horrified that I brought in Gavin McInnes as a client.
Yeah, well, Gavin, I think, gets a bit of an unfair reputation.
Gab, on the other hand, I think has a fair reputation, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do what they're doing.
And Gab was terrible, but you know, and this was where I ended up parting ways with the great Popad himself.
First Amendment advocates are supposed to have a very clear understanding that terribleness is not a criterion by which you decide whether or not people are entitled to First Amendment protection or other legal rights.
And Some people can't handle that.
Not to presume everybody knows who Popat is.
Who's Popat for those who don't know?
Popat is what's his name?
I'm going to have to Google this.
I forgot his name, too.
Not, well, I can think of Nick Ricada, but that's not.
No, Nick is the Pope of law screaming.
Popat is, come on, how do we not know this?
He was a very prominent, Ken White, who was a rather conservative, but more libertarian lawyer who was very active in the civil rights space and had a fantastic following on X.
And I assume he still has his Popat blog, a law blog.
We work together on a lot of exciting and important cases.
And he was also very close to Mark Rondaza.
But he got zapped with absolutely brutal Trump derangement syndrome and just lost it.
And he turned his back on all his former friends, on me and on Rondaza.
He's in his own world now.
And I think he's, you know, but I mean, he's a person with issues.
He's been open about those issues.
I think those issues have gotten the better of him.
But, you know, we have nothing to do with each other anymore.
And for those who can't tell, you're quite clearly, I say, ordinarily, I don't mention it because it's not relevant, but you are quite clearly a Jewish man representing Gab, which is notorious for being, or representing Gab.
Well, in the, so I will tell you that when I represented Gab, we knew that Gab as a platform had a problem with Nazis.
And Andrew Torba himself was very courteous and gracious to me and very friendly.
Parted Ways 00:05:41
He blew a fuse at some point a few years ago and is gone.
He's gone off the rails.
He's gone off the rails himself.
But in the day, we were, you know, it was fine.
Well, I guess, but what have you done for him today, Ron?
Well, okay.
Now, this, so that's it.
Now, born and raised, I presume, because based on accent, New York, right?
Yeah, I mean, yeah.
Let's put it this way.
When I was nine in the year 1972, we moved from Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York.
We moved from Brooklyn as part of what is widely known as the Great White Flight to the first planned unit development in New Jersey, which was in central New Jersey, in East Windsor, New Jersey, a place called Twin Rivers, where everyone there was either from Brooklyn or from Queens and Jewish.
So like all the verbal speech habits were retained because we were still basically hanging out with kids from the same, you know, the same geographical place.
But basically, yes, I'm a New Yorker.
Okay.
And now, Ron, I see, there's words that have heavier baggage than most intend to use them.
I won't say cheerleader because that has a very negative, almost like zombie type mentality to it.
I'm not a proxy.
One thing I'm not as a proxy because in order to be a proxy, the people that you are a proxy for have to have you on their radar.
And I have been assiduously ignored by certainly by the Trump, by every aspect of the Trump administration.
But I am pro-Trump.
One of the things I actually, that induced me besides tensions with Harmeet, which, by the way, I have no trouble taking the lion's share for the responsibility of them, for them.
One of the reasons, though, that I wanted to leave her firm was that the Trump representation there was so dominant that I really couldn't ever speak my mind about whether I thought a policy or a...
utterance or a gesture was appropriate.
Like they were both both Harmit and David Warrington, who was White House counsel now, is a tremendous guy.
He was a partner there.
Also, after he came in a couple of years after I did, he never gave me a hard time, but he was obviously, I'm sure, every bit as sensitive as well.
You had to always be on eggshells about what you said about the administration.
And I thought it was a little over the top because we're talking about a world-famous person of historical scope.
And I'm just Ron Coleman.
I have a large-ish account, but I'm nothing.
But no, if it's your client, and I appreciate this, if it's your client, there's no tolerance for that whatsoever.
So now I don't have that hanging over my head.
I also don't have the work.
Well, I was just looking.
This is the three.
I see.
You know, you're not a proxy, and that's fine.
And this is the one I was needling you on was this.
Everyone who owes Pam Bond an apology should wait.
And so there are people out there who are going to say, again, it's good to clarify, not a proxy.
I don't know.
I don't presume or even accuse anyone of being battled.
I knew I'd take some heat for that, and I didn't take as much heat as I deserve.
I frankly, I think I was, as I will be being Ron Coleman, being the, if I'm a poster boy for anything, it's that you can live a fulfilling life with ADHD.
Okay.
And so I'm sure I was doing four or five different things at the same time when I thought that I must tweet this thought, and then I wanted a Pam Bondi picture.
And that was, I said, okay, let me lean into it.
Because I do think, and I, an excellent example of what I've just been talking about of the no respect phenomenon.
I worked, I was with Pam in Philadelphia.
We worked together.
And my instructions from Harmeet were to basically be Pam's shadow and see what she needs, what kind of help she needs.
From the moment we parted ways in Philadelphia, she has never acknowledged my existence once.
So, you know, there's no there.
There's no, there's, I just thought it was, I thought it was, on the one hand, I'm trying to find my response to that because I say, on the one hand, it's funny and, you know, AI is very flattering.
It looked almost like the woman from, what's her, oh, God, I'll get the show in a bit.
But I think my response to that was, you know, you don't, you're not a superhero for basically, you know, on the second try getting weeks.
And a controversial arrest against Don Lemon, where some people are saying it's, you know, a violation of First Amendment rights.
And I don't think it is.
Well, let's start right there.
Barnes is of the opinion.
I mean, I'm sure you've heard it.
I don't think we disagree on this as much as, you know, he thinks the allegations in the first time around against Don Lemon were not sufficient and that it's got to be something a little bit more serious, proactive in order to qualify as a face act violation.
You're not on the fence about the charges against Don Lemon.
No, here I did, I parted ways actually with my friend Rondaza, who you can always disagree with, and he'll never be the guy to cut you off.
Propaganda and Persecution 00:15:29
Because he said, you're making him a martyr.
There's plenty of other people to arrest.
You know, why elevate his stature?
And my response to that was the two-tier justice thing is a gigantic problem.
And the idea that by being a celebrity, first of all, look, I'm a journalist.
See, I'm a journalist.
Also, look, I've got three lenses in the back of my phone.
So that's how much of a journalist I am.
He's a guy with a YouTube channel.
So, you know, even if he still had his gig at CNN, he wouldn't be any more of a journalist than you are.
Certainly not more of one than you are.
So that, like, that's not certainly a per se pass.
The question is, was he covering?
So we saw with, you know, what's the extreme opposite?
The journalists who were embedded with Hamas on October 7th, 2023, right?
They were literally murderers.
They were taking part in the slaughter at the festival, but also filing reports with Al Jazeera or probably CNN.
I don't remember who it was.
Certainly BBC.
That if you commit the crime, having a press pass stuck in the brim of your hat doesn't do a damn thing for you.
I do think that there are some interesting issues on the Don Lemon business, but there's enough that's incriminating that precisely for the opposite reason that Mark thinks we should not, and probably Bob thinks we should not have, you know, arrested him, that we need to arrest him.
He has to be treated the same way as everyone else who was there.
And if the jury disagrees, I can live with that.
Well, and my point is like the jury, the fear, it's almost like people are saying, well, he's going to get acquitted based on a corrupt jury.
Okay.
So that's the deterrent.
That's the rationale for not charging him.
The only rationale for not charging him is if he didn't meet the elements for the purposes of probable cause.
And I've used the analogy as well or the comparison between the so-called journalists who actively participated in October 7, allegedly.
I mean, people are not going to believe it or people are going to say that was the pretext to Israel's excuse to killing journalists, some of which were obviously not remotely justifiable.
But set that aside, I said on the one hand, Ron Coleman, like those people who, the journalists who documented October 7th, were participating in terrorist propaganda, the creation of the sound bites and the video bites for terrorist propaganda.
And I feel the same way to an obviously lesser degree of Don Lemon is he was creating resistance propaganda so they could then use it while actively participating in what he knew was a covert operation to disrupt church services through intimidation.
You're making a really nice point here, which I think deserves a lot of thought, which is let's say he didn't commit any fundamental, I mean, there are issues with respect to his having blocked the entrance, preventing the pastor from leaving the church or others from leaving the church.
Like, let's put aside the sort of plain vanilla things that he did that might, and say to ourselves, what if the only gravim,
if the graviment of the charge were that he's creating propaganda for an act that is in and of itself unlawful, that comes a lot closer to the line now because creating propaganda is material support.
It's material support and indeed it is gold to people who commit terrorist acts or criminal acts meant to send messages.
And yet, on the other hand, there are definitely free speech concerns that are bound up in that.
So, I mean, I don't claim to have thought about that particular issue a lot, but I think it's, you know, let's put it this way.
When people were arrested and convicted and sentenced in connection with the January 6th Capitol events, there's no question that the federal judiciary,
which in Washington, D.C., had given itself over to an absolute insane mind virus, considered the creation of or the participation in the creation of messaging that could be seen as accepting or certainly confirming or encouraging or celebrating the events of January 7th,
6th.
Those were definitely, if not sentence enhancements, they were probably, there were probably people like my friend.
It's going to be Steve Baker or Stephen Horne.
Oh, no, that's Adam Johnson.
Well, mine's got, hold on, let me back it out so you can see mine in the backdrop, which is.
See, this is the prestige move.
You got to have one of these.
So you can't, just like you can't really prove points very effectively from totalitarian regimes.
I don't think we can prove our point.
Like there's a moral and a political point to be proved from comparison to January 6th prosecutions.
But you and I want to have the elevated, what's the right thing to do discussion.
Or what, you know, what if we were sitting on the Supreme Court, how would we rule on this issue?
So you can't say, well, here's what they did in the D.C. courts because the D.C. courts were insane.
They were political troikas.
So it's not a proof.
But in terms of rhetoric, in terms of arguing what's right and wrong, I don't mind the idea that the Don Levins of the world should feel a little bit of pain.
And I say the distinction, we're obviously agreeing, and it's easy to have a discussion when you agree.
Stephen Horne, the journalist who was actually only documenting, not actively participating in Steve Baker, like journalists who were persecuted to the full extent.
Yeah, that's right.
Now, Ron, let's get into the stuff where it's going to be more thorny.
And I'm not trying to get you in trouble.
These were the softballs.
These are the softballs.
And the old expression, misery loves company.
I'm not trying to get you in trouble with anybody, period, full stop.
You can't get me in trouble with anybody because my wife never watches me stream.
She always assumes the worst.
And there's no one else I'm scared of.
So is that to say, do you smack your wife on the bottom like I do?
And then she looks at you and says, don't do that.
And you're like, you know, you love it.
And if I don't do it, one day you're going to miss it.
Ron, here's the question.
And I've taken some, I say I've taken some flack and I do introspectively reflect and say, maybe I am being too harsh.
Maybe I don't understand things as well as other people in my critique of Pam Bondi and her brain as AG.
And on the one hand, and this is where I got into it.
I say, I got into it like I did anything wrong.
This is when Hermit blocked me is where I said, you know, they acted fast in the church situation, maybe a little too fast because they have to come a second time around and get the charges against Don.
And yet a year later, there's been nothing on any meaningful operatives for the deep state Russia hoax.
And while all that's going on, you got people saying, don't worry about statute of limitations because, you know, RICO conspiracy.
And I'm like, that, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Our arguments as to how you get around having let the statute of limitations lapse or circumstances where statute of limitations would otherwise be a legal bar.
So on the one hand, we can see that the DOJ can act real fast when they want to.
On the other hand, they say, don't worry about it's been a year and nothing.
It's coming, it's coming.
And then I remember a tweet from you, but I couldn't find it, where it was referenced to the statute of limitations to say that ship might have sailed on certain things.
So if you have a different perspective, flesh it out for me.
Am I wrong about the statute of limitations?
Am I wrong about the assessment of the exception being RICO?
And am I wrong in being critical, I hope constructively so, on the fact that we cannot just be told to sit down, shut up and wait because there will come a time where we've waited too long.
I do think that everyone is rightfully skeptical of Trust the Plan utterances.
First time Trump 1-0 was a real disappointment.
And I stuck my neck out on Trust the Plan more than once and resulted in quite a bit of egg on my face as a result because I could not contemplate that the Trump DOJ was that incompetent and that he was so tolerant of that incompetence, the sessions era and then the subsequent bar nonsense.
So it never made sense to me.
But it is very clear to me that we're in a different world now, a very, very different world.
And it's important to understand this is not about Pam Bondi as if she were a sort of an independent power.
One thing I can tell you based on not a great deal of insider knowledge, but based on what I've deduced is that what would happen from Inauguration Day in 2025 through inauguration day of whoever it might be,
2028, 29, has been extremely carefully wargamed.
That doesn't mean mistakes haven't been made.
The briefing book on the Epstein stuff was inexcusable, inexcusable.
I have no trouble seeing where it came from and what was intended, but it was a fail.
But in terms of the stuff that really matters, the political, the investigations, the political prosecutions, all that stuff, Donald Trump is many things, but easygoing and forgiving are not two of them.
It is impossible to imagine that he did not surround himself with people who he knew would be able to right the wrongs that resulted in the 2020 election outcome, as well as his impeach, his Utterly unjustified, unlawful, probably unconstitutional impeachments one and two.
Meeting a statute of limitations deadline that might have occurred sometime during 2025, anyone can do that.
Anyone can file a week indictment without adequate investigation, without adequate facts, that would end up just getting thrown out in the most vulnerable districts where it is likely to have been brought.
That wasn't like, what do people imagine?
Trump called Pam Bondi up and said, hey, look, people are telling me there's like a statute of limitations issue.
Are we going to do anything about that?
She said, listen, I make these decisions, okay?
You just leave it up to me.
Hangs up the phone.
No.
David Warrington is White House counsel.
He's been involved with representing Donald Trump for quite some time.
Certainly, he got closer and closer to President Trump during the election and in the run-up to the election.
And he left our firm in the fall of sometime into 2024.
And he's got his arms around this.
This has got a lot more to do with David Warrington than it has to do with Pam Bond.
Pam Bondi's job, she knows, is to do what her boss tells her.
It is, again, you might say, Ron, you sound like you, it sounds like more trust the plan business, but I think the only way you can say that is by ignoring the difference between Trump 2.0 and Trump 1-0.
I believe that they have had a plan, and Susie Wiles is part of it, and many others to do it right, do it in a way that's going to stick.
I don't know what the causes of action are going to be, but keep in mind that what we saw in Atlanta over the last week or so demonstrates that there's a lot of the tentacles of the conspiracy reach deeply into state governments,
into many different agencies of the federal government, into media, possibly even into the judiciary, certainly state judiciaries.
There is so much to be revealed here that to have done a half-assed job to meet the ideal give up nothing,
have all your options available to you, statute of limitations deadline, would have been really poor execution.
This is a case you've got to win.
You've got to win it when you bring it.
Winning the Deep State Case 00:11:52
This is really the case of when you go for the king, you've got to bring him down.
The king is the deep state.
And If you told me that in the first year of the Trump administration, they would have to just spend time taking these flat tires of state and plunging them into tubs of water to see where the bubbles come out before they even remotely begin anything in the nature of prosecution for the 2016 to 2020 nonsense.
If you told me that they could get that done in a year, I'd be very pleasantly surprised.
Keep in line also when you're talking about conspiracy-related claims, criminal or civil, and everyone here knows, and you've heard me say it a million times, Viva, Ron Coleman is not a criminal defense lawyer.
My experience with criminal defense is very, very limited.
I am a brilliant legal mind, sure, but I'm not speaking from experience.
I'm not a prosecutor.
I've never been a prosecutor.
But anyone involved in any high-level complex litigation knows you really have to shoot to kill.
Politically speaking, so nobody takes that out of context.
I'm very neurotic.
Politically speaking and litigationally speaking, they have to make it count.
They need more.
They're going to need the time to do it.
And people who are not familiar with this tech need to follow shipwreck crew and follow Senegal Publius, who are experienced.
Cynical is not a litigator, but he is a former U.S. Army colonel.
He's a retired U.S. Army colonel, so he knows how to think strategically.
This is work.
This is work that has to be done.
And follow shipwreck crew if you can, people.
He blocked him because he blocked you.
I've never blocked anybody on Twitter ever.
I don't have no, he blocked me.
So then you blocked him back like a pussy.
No, no, I've hold on one second.
I've never blocked anybody.
Well, it says a shipwreck crew is blocked.
Hold on.
This is impossible.
I'm unblocking.
I've never blocked anybody on Twitter in my life, and I'm wondering how that happened.
Hold on one second.
Am I in my account?
Big reveal.
No, no, no.
Hold on one second.
No, no, no.
Hold on a second.
Let me just, let me make sure I can do this.
I've unblocked.
I've never blocked anybody in my life.
I thought that said that he blocked me.
Hold on a second.
Let me just make sure that I can actually show this without showing any private details.
You go to more, settings and privacy.
How do you go to see blocked accounts?
Privacy, security, create a subscription, monetize your account.
Account information, change your password.
Let me do this while you talk.
That makes me very concerned because I've never created a subscription.
More.
How do you check blocked accounts?
How do you check blocked accounts on Twitter?
That makes me very nervous that something change your password, account information.
Nice.
I got to put in my password.
I can't show this live.
Okay, I'm going to figure that out.
Oh, Ron.
Now, so shipwrecked crew.
Shipwrecked is an experienced prosecutor.
And boy, did he and Julie Kelly go at it for a couple of years.
And, you know, for a very long time, I managed to be like friends with everyone who hated each other until it finally finally gave out, you know.
But the point is, people with experience in this area of law realize that You got to do it right.
The fact that the Democrats after January 6th wasted no time arresting, you know, people, they didn't have to prove anything.
It was a political prosecution.
They were going into a jurisdiction.
They were operating in jurisdiction that was entirely going to let them get away with absolutely anything they wanted to do, which they actually did.
And, you know, you can't learn, you can't, as we say in yeshiva, you can't learn out.
You can't deduce from what the Democrats did.
The Republicans had a higher burden, not a higher burden of proof under the law, but institutionally, culturally, jurisdictionally, and historically, they have to do better.
They have to come in as the challengers because they're swimming upstream.
It is really incomprehensible to me that they won't have a cogent and sustainable prosecution.
This is what Donald Trump is living for.
This is what he survived for to be able to do, to get this revenge.
And the people around him know that that's their job.
And there are a great number of us who, and again, as I made it very clear, I'm not a proxy or a stand-in.
I might be a bit of a cheerleader, but I'm very confident that great things are going to happen very soon.
I'm going to get back to that.
I've just ensured that I can do this without showing any information because I don't want to.
So you go to more, and then you go to settings and privacy.
Then you can go to privacy and settings.
Then you can go to mute and block.
And then you go to blocked accounts.
And I have never blocked anybody in my life unless it was a fat finger block on a Twitter.
I thought he was going to say something about Barn C.
No, I just want to show that because it's my source of pride.
I've never blocked anybody on Twitter because I don't care.
I've muted a bunch of accounts, but that's okay.
Good.
Now, but Ron, some people are going to say to that question that, you know, it's got to be done properly and you don't want them going into it half-assed and that they're doing that.
Others are going to say, as we've seen here, they don't have enough time to do that.
And then others are going to say Panbody nonetheless did that half-assed, quickly, A, on the first charges, which I give a pass on that because that did happen quickly and whatever.
But the James Comey, nine months.
And at the end of the day, they did file two very weak charges that then got tossed because, sure, you have an activist judge, but that it wasn't, it wasn't, first of all, it wasn't really what anybody wanted to see James Comey arrested for.
Then other people say, well, that's all they could get on him.
And so the problem is, not trust the plan, but even what you're saying is can she really execute?
I think the problem with Comey, it may very well be the opposite of what you just said, which is that in order to score a cheap tactical win before the low-hanging fruit on Comey, they tried for one of these get it in before the deadlines on Comey, and they did a half-assed job and they got a half-assed result.
There is no way that the kind of comprehensive prosecution that, oh, so I won't lie.
I fall asleep dreaming about it.
Just, you know, of course I do.
But it's, again, institutionally incomprehensible to me that that's not what's coming.
And if it is, oh, will he?
We won't be done with Comey.
It's not going to be about, and it's not going to be about him lying to Congress.
It's going to be about him actively participating in the coup.
He'll be back.
All right.
Well, from your mouth to God's ears, then the question is, how long?
Sorry, go ahead.
Listen, if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, nothing matters anyway, because we're all going to hell.
They have to do this.
They have to do this.
They have to succeed.
If they don't do this, there's no vindication for our system, for democracy, for any of the institutions that have been corrupted.
If they don't do it, I will become their biggest enemy.
I will become a masked superhero.
It has to happen.
Well, okay, that has to happen.
I'm putting down my marker on this.
No, no, well, it has to.
We both agree.
Now, then the only question is, how do you ensure that it does?
Either through, I won't say complacency, but that is the description, or excuses, or sit down and shut up and don't be a black pillar because we're doing it.
And then, oh, wait, is there in your mind?
So let me point out that when I posted that Pam Bondi thing, it was in response to, in particular, a very narrow question, which was, oh, she's not going to do anything about Don Lemon.
She never does anything.
She writes strongly worded letters.
That's candy ass bullshit.
It turns out that she did try to get it done.
And by the way, Attorney General of the United States, is she personally drafting indictments?
No, no, she's not.
It's her job to get people who can get it done right and to get it done and to get it done right.
Buck stops here.
I'm not saying otherwise.
And again, I have, I got no, I'm not going to get any love from Pam.
She, she, I, you know, she, she, she is, I've never been on her radar.
But I am going to repeat to you something that she said to me in Philadelphia.
I've said it on a number of other shows.
When we were in the convention center and we, our side, had obtained a court order instructing the Philadelphia County Election Commission to let Republican observers in and to be allowed to stand close enough that they could actually watch the counting of the mail-in ballots.
and they refused to do so.
We had a court order and they just said, no, we're not going to do it.
Why did they say that?
Because they knew that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would reverse it before they got in any trouble.
We even called the Philadelphia County Sheriff's Office and said, we've got a court order and they're not complying.
It was Pennsylvania State Court.
Sheriff's Office said, sorry, can't help you.
Mutually Incompatible Excuses 00:04:43
Okay.
That's how crooked it was.
Now, again, no, no, no.
Let me just finish my because I'm old.
I'm going to forget my point.
Someone said after we, you know, our huddle broke up, Listen, I gotta, I think I know how we can get in there.
And Pam overheard this person who was on our side, a good guy.
She said, that's not how we roll.
We're the good guys.
We do it right.
That's why we're doing this.
It's a so a lot of people, including a lot of leading social media.
Oh, right.
You know, you're always following the rules.
The other side wins.
You've got to remember we're, again, we're swimming uphill.
We will get sanctioned.
We will get nailed.
We will get arrested for anything we do that is over the line.
So even if you want to be ruthless, even if you want to say, I'm prepared to become what I hate in order to win, which is in and of itself a morally dubious place to live, because what are you accomplishing then?
And then you're just saying, my roving band of bandits is today, beat your roving band of bandits.
Okay, fine.
The point is, it's not sustainable because even though we're the majority in this country in terms of how people think and what people really want from their government, we don't control the institutions.
We've got to play, got to play the right game.
But okay, now, so this is why we're getting, and I'm going to sound like what they call the black pillar or the armchair quarterback.
We're getting three mutually incompatible explanations, justifications, or excuses.
One is the DOJ is doing great.
Crime is down, which it is, and they deserve credit for that.
But that the DOJ is doing great.
Here are all the W's.
The other side is it just takes time.
We haven't had the time yet to do it.
It's got to be done right.
We don't want to, you know, screw up like we did with Comey, even though we're also simultaneously screwing up on smaller issues.
And so it's got to be done right, dot RIs, cross our T's.
So just sit back and wait.
While simultaneously, and this is the third one that I find the most disconcerting, we can't get it done because we don't have state attorneys or assistant attorneys in the states because we can't get them approved because of the Democrat veto of this blue slip, this blue slip process.
And so between all three of those, the explanation is actually, thank us for what we've done, shut up and don't say anything in the meantime.
And we're not going to get it done, but we have our excuse already laid out.
We wanted to, but couldn't because we didn't have the attorneys in place because we couldn't get them in place and go blame who's the geriatric class.
What I like about what you've done here, Viva, is that you have really pulled a very impressive feat of you made a false trichotomy, which is, I always thought you could do a false dichotomy, which is what you're accusing.
You're saying, Ron, you are positing mutually inconsistent rationales for the present course.
To which I said, you know, it really depends on how you phrase them.
To say, I'm disappointed that there haven't been arrests, and I'd like to see Pam Bondi be more proactive and hit the target more active.
I got no problem with that.
That's not blackpilling.
To say she doesn't do shit, or to say she's part of the deep state, or to say she's no better than Bill Barr with a wig.
No, they're all very, so those are all great takes to make if you never actually step up and do anything yourself.
And to, you know, as an armchair quarterback.
But in other words, what I'm fighting back against it as a lawyer, you appreciate this, is the Clever characterizations, but to say, to say I'm disappointed, to say I'd like to see more, to say I'd like to see it faster, or to say, I don't, or to say, and I think you have done quite cogently, I don't see how they get past the statute of limitations problems here.
I really have a, I don't, I don't know what magic plan they have, and I don't get it.
It's still a long way from saying she's worthless, she's got to go.
You don't really know what the conversations are.
Critiquing Clever Characterizations 00:14:50
You don't know.
You don't, you know, one thing I always say, always say, as and listen, I was a social, I was a legal social media god before there was even YouTube, okay?
Because in the days of blogging, I had the Likelihood of Confusion blog, which is where I kind of made my spurs.
One thing people always forget about when commentating about how other lawyers are handling legal matters is: let me see if I if I have do I have an exhibit you're gonna use?
And Ron, now that I'm once bitten twice right, you're streaming on YouTube, not me, right?
I saw a super chat like, I didn't think I streamed this on YouTube, but who knows what my fat fingers did these days?
Yes, I am.
I am listening, sure.
Listen, I might make another 30, 32 cents.
No, no, I feel like I'm going crazy.
I'm going to find out that I accidentally blocked someone on Twitter and that I accidentally set up this in my daily.
So I am, I wanted to find a red weld.
Red welds are how before the digital age, we would, those are those red files where you would keep all the case information, the case file.
And I always say, if you don't have the red weld, you really ultimately don't know why a lawyer makes a decision to do or not do something.
You don't know what the client really said.
I want to make a lot of noise about this, but I don't really want to sue because, or I don't really want to go into discovery.
You don't know when someone runs out of money, when the other side has a magic bullet.
You just don't know.
And all the more so with this here.
On the other hand, we're entitled to explanations.
We're entitled to explanations, but we just might not get them when we want them.
But there's a difference.
You'll never know why.
And that excuse will always operate for everybody who both wins and loses.
Oh, yeah, we lost.
You'll never understand why.
So don't question us.
On the one hand, my father always told us when we were growing up: every contractor will criticize the work of the contractor before.
Oh, yeah.
There's nothing like a plumber walking in and seeing someone other, some of their plumbers work and said, who the hell did this?
Now, that being said, Ron, when the plumber came into our house here in Florida and said, who the hell used plastic flexible tubing for your U-pipe underneath your sink, that's a cheap way to do it.
And we're like, oh, that's right.
I don't care that he's criticizing the product.
He was right.
Who knows why they had to use the platinum?
Maybe they ran out of brass and whatever.
But that's sort of a cop-out way of saying you can never really criticize them because it's sort of another iteration of trust the plan.
Well, okay.
So this is another example of taking a nuanced reality and characterizing it in a way that is perhaps not entirely fair.
What I'm saying is let our criticisms of the people in the driver's seat be expressed.
But when they're expressed like she's a deep stater, that's bullshit.
You're wasting my time.
You want to have a discussion about the issues like Viva and I just did.
That's going to take an hour.
That's not going to be resolved in a tweet.
So there are people who on social media, I'm posting style social media, like X, who can have the subtle discussion, the nuanced discussion.
My job, and I think to a great extent your job, is to flush out the details, flush out the nuances, and hopefully people see these issues in a more nuanced way that enables them to understand at least some of the moving parts involved.
Now, but see, this is where also when you get to the ultimate outcome, if it happens, some will say it was always going to happen.
You should have just shut your mouths the whole time.
And others are going to say, it happened because we opened our mouths.
And, you know, that's the fun of it.
That's the fun of it.
But I do think some criticism is objectively, is objectively legitimate.
And now you say, they got to do it right.
They got to do it right.
Oh, well, they've waited too long because Ron, if you have to, you're an American practicing lawyer, you know best or say better than most, probably, you know, best tied with everyone else.
What's the deadline?
Like, what's the date by which if they haven't done it?
Is it before the midterms?
Do they have until the end of 2028, before the election in November 2028?
Viva, one thing, my answer is definitely, whatever the answer is, the deadline is never when Ron and Viva want to know.
The deadline is, I mean, look, the ultimate answer to your question, the deadline is inauguration day in 2029.
By then it's too late.
By then it's written.
And say people.
How is it too late?
How is it too late?
What if they end up putting all the conspirators in a military camp in December of 2028?
I'll take that.
But here's why.
And you refer to it as a, what's the false dichotomy paradox and you called the fice, the false trifecta paradox.
I don't think there's anything incompatible with that.
I think my assessment was that description is accurate.
But if the excuse is they can't get it done because Grassley won't strip the blue.
Listen, the operation of the Senate.
So I had this operation of the Senate.
The lack of Congress's ability to get anything done when you have a bicameral majority and the White House is remarkable.
It's remarkable.
But now we're getting onto the question of, let's face it, it's all about the whatchamacallit.
I don't know, but you're not instilling confidence in me because what you're saying right now is, yeah, bicameral, they can't get things done in Congress.
And the third excuse is the one now to say, oh, you've been waiting a year, but we can't get it done because we can't get our attorneys in.
We're understaffed was another one that Pan Bond came up with, which means it's not going to get done because you want to play it safe and dot your I's, cross your T's until you starve to death.
So if that happens, you'll be right.
But until the time passes, like we will know when we know, but the fact that we're impatient now doesn't mean that now.
The definition of impatient means not waiting a reasonable amount of time before losing your temper.
So that's the reasonable land standard, huh?
Yeah, another question is like, okay, I would say getting in there.
Day one, when people said Trump didn't end the war in Ukraine on day one, I say, you're impatient.
The fact that the war has not ended within a year, I'm not going to call someone impatient.
I'm just going to say there are other forces at play that are preventing that.
But this is where reasonable men differ as to what is reasonable.
And so you're saying, Ron, you're too reasonable.
You're too patient.
I will tell you something in my professional work.
I have missed a couple of deadlines in my time.
I am arguably the highest achieving ADHD federal litigator in America.
That's only because I don't practice in the states.
But I have found that waiting, and this is hard to explain to clients because clients love to see action.
They love to see you setting the terms and you dominating.
So much is achieved by letting things play out.
So much is achieved by letting things play out, letting judges, and this is true in a trial as well.
Clients want you to, how could you let him?
Why didn't you object?
Why didn't you object?
Watch.
Watch.
Either he's going to hang himself.
And by the way, Trump is a master of this.
Think of all the people who were positive he had sold out Israel with the ceasefire, positive that he was giving into Putin, all this because they wanted the snapshot as of the moment to look exactly the way they thought it should be.
Trump is brilliant at letting people bang their head against the wall and think he's a dummy and then doing what he's ready to do when it's time to do it on his schedule.
That is part of the negotiation process.
That's part of the governing process.
But he manages it on the governing process, Drum 2.0.
Don't tell me about 2017, 18.
Trump 2.0.
He manages that in a way that no president in my lifetime has ever done.
And people have difficulty with that.
But is it legitimate to ask these questions?
Of course.
Just remember, though, that ask, I don't want to get into the world where I'm just asking questions.
Okay.
But there's some.
There are some questions like when did you stop meeting your wife?
It's not just asking a question.
So we agree that there's the line.
When we reach that line.
But there's another problem with the skeptic point of view.
And that is skeptics seldom have a plan of action or an alternative hypothesis or this comes up most often in debates with atheists, between atheists and believers in social media.
But it can be true of anyone who basically takes a nihilistic or hyper-skeptical point of view on anything.
You can always knock what other people are doing as long as you yourself don't have a program that either has been you're attempting to implement or can be implemented or can be critiqued.
So when we ask these valid questions, what are we recommending is the course of action ourselves.
So if you're saying we should have met the deadline for this or that prosecution immediately, then that's a legitimate point of view,
but you may be proved wrong by what ends up, but for now, listen, all I have, at the end of the day, I can't elude the accusation of trusting the plan.
And the fact that I was wrong once doesn't make me wrong this time.
But if you say Pamboni is not getting the job done.
Here's what she, then you got to tell me, here's what she should do.
And here's why it would work better than what's being done now.
And that doesn't mean that you have to be right, but people can make their cracks.
I'm all about what is X?
X is 280 characters, right?
So, yeah, you can have long tweets, but no one reads them, okay?
You got to make your, so you make your point, you make your, you know, your polemical point, and that's great.
That's what, that's what the platform is all about.
And that's why I'm great at it, because I can do that too.
I'm great at that.
But I'm prepared to back it up with reasoning.
The millions of trolls who come after me, when I make a given assertion, they're just nipping at my heels.
It's the easiest thing in the world to do.
I can't say and I won't say there's nothing wrong.
Frankly, even blackpilling, blackpilling absolutely has a role in this process.
The leaders need to know that their base, whose enthusiasm they require, is disappointed and feeling forgotten.
That's cool.
But for example, I think a great example of this is the pro, the people, look, I'm pro-Israel, you know, in the sense that I want the people who, Jewish people who live in Israel to be able to live safely.
So that's, that's my, I'm not like these people who have Israel as a hobby.
It's the team they root for, and they put an Israeli flag in, you know, in their bio.
Like, you know, if you don't live in Israel, that's just like rooting for a team, as far as I'm concerned.
When people criticize this administration or JD Vance for not being sufficiently supportive or expressive of support or using the right code words or whatever the case may be, they're never telling me what they actually think would work better given all the circumstances.
They're reacting emotionally to a feeling of disappointment and letdown.
And yet, so often they have been wrong, for example, about what Trump's plans were.
And now, all these people knocking Jared Kushner, a character I've never met and who it's hard to like, I don't know why.
I'll say this much.
He seems to be capable of extraordinary things that no one else even thought of doing.
People burn bridges.
Like, yes, there are positive things to be done to send messages, but people also burn bridges.
When people attack JD Vance, Jewish people or pro-Israel people attack JD Vance for not being sufficiently expressive of his, why doesn't he condemn Tucker Carlson?
Judges Interested in TUBERS 00:12:50
To which my response is, I guess I understand why you would ask that question.
I think Tucker Carlson is absolutely awful.
But do you know what it's like to have a relationship with another human being and who has let you down?
And no, but he has to separate himself.
Okay, fine.
You're saying that.
That's fine.
But why would you want to say he's a Nazi?
Why would you want to say he's, you know, he's owned by Qatar?
That's bullshit.
Come on, owned by Qatar.
Those tropes, I do agree.
You know, being called a grifter, being called a shill, did you get your $7,000?
Because all that it does is it just doesn't address any substance.
It only presumes intent and therefore it gets to disregard the substance.
And think of how much that came up in the Epstein context and how that.
But that's why I say like, and it's not to tout, you know, the bigger account.
Typically, some accounts get big because they are just clickbaity and people want that.
I won't name names.
Other accounts get big because they don't do that, but they ask like meaningful, relevant questions, in which case, you know, you can distinguish the two accounts and not write them off together when the powers that be write them off both together or block them altogether and then say, I don't have to answer that question because you're not asking in good faith.
Well, that's the biggest cop out that I think, unfortunately, a lot of the prominent members of not Trump, but a lot of prominent members of Trump's administration have been doing as a way to just get out of addressing substantive critique, which is, just to go back and like concrete things, you know, Pam Bond, as far as I'm concerned, I think Pam Bondi should be fired.
And I'm getting more and more convinced of that position as time goes on.
But when people accuse her of being deep state, whatever, okay, fine, that's fine.
That's the trope.
The substance is that she, you know, was Pfizer's attorneys, both relatively recently and very recently.
And so you could expect that there would be no meaningful action that people want going after Pfizer because of that.
You could say Susie Wiles is pro-Israel, whatever.
The substance behind that is that Susie Wiles was intimately involved in, I believe it was Netanyahu's campaign.
And therefore, you can attribute certain action or inaction to those political connections such that you don't get to disregard them as blackpillar, anti-Semitic, whatever.
You're 100% right.
And these sorts of observations are really valuable.
And let's face it, there are really naughty relationship-type problems on both sides.
But the ones on our side are the ones that we're most duty-bound to observe.
The Qatar money, the big pharma stuff.
And I am 100% in favor of asking those questions, pushing them as hard as possible.
I got no problem with that at all.
We're on the same page there.
Well, now the question is, I made the joke internally at locals, and I would make it publicly.
You're not white pilling me as much as I thought you were going on.
I wanted to be convinced that my concerns are wrong, that my, what is the word you use?
The false trichotomy was in fact baseless.
And I've seen the errors in my ways and I haven't run.
No, I can't.
I can't because at the end of the day, I don't have inside information.
So what's the takeaway?
Ronald Coleman says, ask the questions, push the issues, but pull back on the rhetoric and the imputations of bad faith.
The bad faith and calling people deep state, calling people, she never wanted to fix that problem.
You don't think Pam Bonnie's up to the job.
Okay, make the argument.
But as you pointed out, she's trying to cover things up.
That's not helpful.
And that is actually mostly what I'm reacting to when you see me.
I don't really think Pam Bonnie is a superwoman.
If she is, then she hasn't proved it yet.
If she is her kryptonite is her desk.
I'm sorry.
That's not productive, Viva.
No, look, it's good, Ron.
I mean, I would have liked, I mean, first of all, and I'm not using you as a substitute for Harmee.
These were the questions I said, you know, Harmee, come on and talk to this because you're in the DOJ, at least for the human, not the human rights.
Well, but here, you know, on the Harmee points, okay?
She's, I mean, talk about being white-pilled.
What she's accomplishing in civil rights is mind-boggling.
First of all, that's what made the block all the more surprising is that Barnes, for all his critique, we've been publicly and consistently praising Harmee on doing within her division what Pan Bonte ought to do with the DOJ at large.
Okay, so no one likes Barnes.
But start, that was easy.
Harmee has this weird, and I mentioned this to you before we went on, but I don't think she has any problem whatsoever in me sharing this.
She thinks of law streamers and law tubers as people who are like scavengers.
Like the lawyers do the work and the law tubers profit from it by riffing on it and second-guessing it and stuff like that.
And she's right, but like that's how everything works.
I mean, this is, it's content.
It's legitimate.
You're teaching a lot of people a lot of things.
Like I said, it's true that if you don't have the red weld, you don't really know why decisions are being made.
But it's free country, man.
Let me tell you, I'm not going to push back on two things.
Barnes lives with the reputation that he gets, and some of the tweets that he gets are not going to make friends.
But I do say that anyone who, you don't have to like Barnes to be better off to listen to his assessments because more often than not, he's been right.
But I'd say Barnes' IQ is higher than his EQ.
And I say make this joke privately and publicly because he thinks intellectually and doesn't give a rat behind about tweets.
The law tubers are scavenger stuff.
I've never heard Harmee say that.
It's interesting.
Some might say that that is the exact haughtiness and arrogance, haughty, H-A-G-H-T-I-N-S, not haughtiness, and arrogance that is the problem.
And, you know, but Harmeet was on my channel back in the day when she liked my assessments of the injustice to James O'Keefe.
And that's where I don't think, I think that the disdain is pretextual to not addressing the legitimate concerns.
And now that one thing I mean, you can't get away from the fact that when people have the responsibility to get things done, they frequently, you know, and especially in government, they frequently can't answer the questions you want answers to because there are, you know, there are things that are confidential.
There are things that are tactically cannot be revealed when they're being asked.
And I tend to be a little bit too forthcoming with answers to things that I don't know if I'm actually too forthcoming.
I don't think it's actually cost me.
I had a client.
I've got a case.
Some people in the chat have alluded to this.
I represent Smash JT, a gamer, a gamer and video guy who was sued by a woke personality in that world in the Eastern District of New York.
And my attitude with my clients has always been, I don't see how in the 21st century, in the internet era, it's possible to say no comment when people are out there trashing you.
And it's not a matter of, will the New York Times carry the story?
Hundreds of people can decide to tweet about something or to post about something or to stream about something.
And that's now content that's really out there.
So you need to have answers.
You need to be prepared to respond.
So they thought it would be cute to take stuff that he said and I've said about the case online and put it into their papers.
And they thought that this would somehow get some sort of effect with the judge.
And the answer is judges are not interested in that crap.
Judges, you know, it's really, especially younger judges who are with it.
They're just not interested in that sort of thing.
So my inclination has always been that people are way too hung up about what you can say and when.
But having said that, when it comes to these deep questions of strategy and timing, I could certainly see why people might be reluctant to answer the questions.
I mean, one thing you got to acknowledge about Harmeet, there has never been someone at her level of government who has been as transparent in what she's doing.
She's posting social media content in practically in real time about the initiatives, about her staffing needs.
It's really phenomenal, in my opinion.
Ron, my critique has never been about Harmit's work.
She's done great work.
RFK Jr. has done great work.
Harmeed has done with her division what I think the FBI should have done with the FBI at large.
But what do I know?
I'm just scavenging commentators.
Can I tell you something, Mr. Catfish?
I myself do not understand.
I don't understand at all the Kash Patel narrative, the story.
I mean, it looks like he has, from an outsider, it looks like he has managed to get a certain amount of control over the Bureau and to get it to do things it's supposed to do.
I get that.
But we were talking about shutting the freaking thing down, right?
Why?
I'd like to hear, like you, I'd like to hear how why that changed and how that changed.
But this is the gaslighting that really drives people into Doompill, not just Blackpill.
When Kash Patel said we're going to turn it into a museum, it wasn't so they could have a bigger, better, more beautiful building.
That was never the understanding.
And then to turn around and pretend that was always the intent and take the pride of the new building, that's crazy.
I don't get it.
And frankly, it would, you know, go on a friendly, go on a friendly show.
You know, they're friendly platforms.
Explain, here's what happened.
Here's what we intended.
Here's what we learned.
And you don't have to tell me classified stuff, but tell me something.
There's been nothing on that.
There's been nothing on that.
And I'd love to hear it.
I'm with you on this.
I'm going to find the link to the tweet of the questions I had to the FBI.
Now that maybe I can get a, maybe I can get an interview with Bongino at the local studio.
We can go over the questions.
And he'll, you know, I watched a portion of this show today.
He said there's some stuff that he still won't be able to talk about, which I predicted, incidentally.
But, you know, like even have Kash Patel come on and do it adversarial.
I won't be any more adversarial with him than I'm being with you right now.
Just these are legit questions you don't get to write off.
And I'm curious.
I think the issue is that they know that there is no good answer for it other than spin.
And so that's the problem.
And then you have to take the good with the bad.
And admittedly, this administration is exponentially better than the alternative, which would have been you and I in jail, Ron.
Share a sell.
But that doesn't mean that, you know, that can just as easily go back to that on steroids in 2026, 2028.
And that's what even the so-called black pillars are trying to avert, not trying to encourage.
Yep.
The only thing, and again, again, I made this argument in 2016, 2017, and I was wrong.
But to me, the best example of why it must be wrong to Blackpill isn't, why do we still have the filibuster?
We know that if the Democrats were in this position, they would shut it down.
Why Filibusters Persist 00:02:46
What's the long game on the filibuster?
Why do we retain it?
Is there something we don't know?
Is it really just no balls?
Is it just snowballs?
Or is it a pony?
Are we going to get a pony?
Are we going to get a pony for Christmas?
And we just have to wait for it.
So far, all we're getting is the horse shit, right?
I'm not going to meet you on that.
Ron, the dude on Commitube has gifted 10 memberships to your community.
Thank you, Snarky Distinct.
Snarky is an absolutely great human being.
Many people are.
I'm going to get to my, I'm going to read all of my tip questions in chats when you're not here because I don't like doing it when the guests are.
Oh, that's cool.
Well, then maybe I should let you off the hook.
Ron, well, I'm going to give it, give everybody the links where they can find you.
You're in the description, but where can people find you?
How can they support you?
The best way to find Ron Coleman is on X at Ron Coleman, spelling with any dum-dum.
I'd love to get more subscribers onto my modest YouTube channel.
Lawyer Ron Coleman, you'll find it.
Everything else is just commentary.
Great hanging out, Viva.
Well, I love it.
I mean, first of all, I knew there's no animosity.
I like you and I know that you like me.
Of course not.
We're both decent people.
Here's Lawyer Ron Coleman.
That is a, first of all, there's no question that there is, what's the word I'm looking for?
Suppression.
Suppression.
There's zero.
I mean, look, I've never had a net negative month on YouTube in 12 years until last month.
And it's funny, I don't care.
And maybe it's because I'm only paying attention to Rumble and locals.
But it's obvious that what you get in the good algorithm, you get recommended.
It's very difficult to get new subscribers when they don't recommend your channel or videos to non-subscribers.
I'm going to give you a link right here so everybody can go.
Although you should focus on Rumble as well.
But are you on Rumble?
I'm on Rumble, but Rumble stopped.
I got really frustrated with Rumble.
We'll have a discussion some other time.
If you want to subscribe to it, you still automatically port content over.
I just found that the Rumble creator tools sucked compared to YouTube, you know?
There's a number of things that are getting, it's getting better in general.
There's some other things that are one.
I like Rumble Studio more than StreamYard, but I didn't want to stress you out by figuring out how to use Rumble.
I'm pretty, we haven't worded yet a gas shik.
I'm pretty handy.
I'm pretty handy.
Try me sometime.
It's easy enough.
And that way I could have brought up all the comments in Rumble at the same time.
Ron, I'm going to put your Commitube channel in the description, but so far your X link is there and everybody knows where to find you.
I think everybody already knows you a little bit.
Tomorrow's Raid Plan 00:06:26
Ron, thank you.
No, great.
We should do this more often.
Absolutely.
Thanks a lot.
Folks, thanks for watching.
Have a great one.
Have a great day.
See you.
All right, everybody, we're going to go over to locals in a second.
But right now, what I'm going to do is bring up all of the tip questions in Viva Barnes Live.
I don't think there were that many in Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
We had the one tip question, which was, what does catfish mean?
I don't find the cash thing to be mysterious.
The thing about cash is he's a team player.
If you put him on that team, he will play for them.
I don't think cash would like that whatsoever.
Here we go.
See the veil says, true on the strategy for letting them hang themselves.
But I've seen colleagues use this strategy and it needed to be the student to fix what the administrators refused to act upon to save the campus from being closed due to financial corruption.
You let someone hang themselves unless you starve to death waiting for them to hang themselves.
Like, all right, you're going to one day.
What movie was that from?
Oh, hold on.
He says, I'm going to come back.
And I'm going to.
Bottom line, if you die from starvation while you're waiting for them to hang themselves, congrats, they'll be dead after you're dead.
And then you still lost.
What I wanted to bring were all of these.
Ginger, I'm not reading that.
You're right, Ron.
Let's give them three more years.
I'm sure it'll be perfect.
Hands one pack says, when we see unforced errors like Epstein, let me see what this is.
Oh, yeah.
Okay, so I don't cover up any of this.
When we see unforced errors like Epstein, excuse me, released by Pam and gnome idiots press after shootings, we should speak up.
I agree with you.
And I think that's us speaking up is what got Holman up in Minnesota.
Dominant One, who's undoubtedly going to have a homo erotic description of Bill Tong's meat, says, first of all, Frida 02 Sweet Hostage 1974 live chat box, not a talk show.
Then he says, if you ask King of Bill Tong for Anton's firm and juicy meat from Biltong USA, do not use the cook.
I'm not reading that, but I am going to pee in my pants while you do that.
I can put Anton's furman juicy meat from King Tong.
Then we got King of Biltong, who says, this isn't just Bill Tong.
It's premium meat, real craftsmanship, and clean ingredients, all made in-house and sold direct.
Welcome to Bill Tong USA.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
And then mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
Yeah, I agree with that.
The only question is, you know, when you say show so little mercy to the guilty that you're also showing no mercy to the innocent, or at least a small portion of it.
But I, you know, everybody agrees that it's a beautiful expression.
Now, the other thing that I was going to do, I got a ton of stuff.
I had all of my, if you could see what my, what my backdrop looks like in terms of all of the thing, I'll save some of it for tomorrow.
I'm going to do, oh yeah, this is actually perfect.
I'm going to do some exclusive stuff over on locals right now.
Some of it's going to be amazing about the Canadian stuff.
And tomorrow, from what I can see, I'm going to have the lawyer from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms come on to talk about the breaking news in the class action.
Right now, though, before we go, I'm going to have to pee before we get into the second part of the show because I have a hyperactive bladder that my mother gave me.
I just saw a new tip question come in.
It says, Joe Masky says, Viva, help me out here.
What's the difference between Ron's position and free beer tomorrow?
Ron is operating.
I'm going to steelman it, even though I disagree with it, that Trump has learned from the mistakes of his first administration, that he's really setting it up to go after and take out the deep state this time, and that he's learned from the prior minis, learned from the last four years.
And the delays that are concerning some people right now are him doing what is required, deep strategy so that they don't bungle this when they drop the hammer.
I hope Ron is right.
That being said, because it's what it is, even if it all does turn out right at the end of the day, no one will ever be able to prove that it was despite our pressure and picking up on the mistakes and not because of it.
And I will always believe that it will be because of it.
And I don't hope to say I told you so when shit hits the fan and Kamala Harris 2.0 or AOC comes after me for some of the mean tweets I put out about her.
I hope to say, good, it happened.
And I will proudly say that I think we played a part in making sure that it did.
All right.
So with that said, I'm going to end it on all the streams except for viva barnslaw.locals.com.
So Twitter, blow-by, I'll see you tomorrow.
Be sure to subscribe before you go and share the link.
I don't care about Twitter at all.
Just didn't even notice.
There were some people watching, but it's tough to see how many because Twitter counts the aggregate views and not the concurrent viewers.
So, Twitter, Bobaya, see you tomorrow.
Remove.
Now, we're going to go to, here's where it's going to get complicated because Ron's tweets are also with an R, not his tweets, his links up here.
So, I'm ending on Ron's YouTube channel, hopefully, not on Rumble.
Okay.
Now, I'm ending.
Oh, this is going to get complicated.
I'm going to end on Ron's.
You can't see what I'm looking at here, but on the back end, it's like the link to the places where it's streaming, and five of them are R's.
And typically, there's only one R's: Rumble and locals.
Now, I got Ron on X, Ron on Commitube, Ron on here.
And I'm going to take Ron off X, and I think I've done it properly.
And now, ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, one last time, get your butts on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Link.
We're going to go raid redacted.
I believe they're still live.
Yes, they are.
And they say redacted Epstein's files released.
Massive cover-up continues.
Cash for Tell and Pan Bondi.
What does it say about that?
To resign.
Question mark.
Go raid them.
Let them know from whence you came and say thank you, everybody.
That's not how you do it.
Hold on.
Let's go here.
Let's go.
How do I share the link?
What the heck is my problem here?
Okay, redacted.
Take it.
Go here.
Go raid and then put it in.
And now confirm raid.
There you go.
And I'll go in there and say hi to the crowd.
Viva raid F T W.
And that stands for Friday, Thursday, Wednesday.
And nothing else.
That would be what do you think that stood for?
Okay, we're good.
Let me see what's going on on locals.
Okay, good.
We're good.
Holding breath, ending on rumble.
See you tomorrow.
Export Selection