All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 4, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:14:02
Tyler Robinsons Motion to Disqualfy! Kash Patel's Interview w/ Brett Baier!Bill Gates's Guilt & 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!

|

Time Text
Affidavits Alleging Election Fraud 00:03:05
Ladies and gentlemen of the Interwebs, a special guest to start today's show with a story that wasn't on the roster, but it is now.
It's not Johnny Midnight, it's Brian Lupa.
Cancon, you're going to see him in a second.
But Johnny Midnight tweets out over 100 affidavits from Georgia voters, election officials, experts, and engineers found a massive amount of election fraud during Georgia's 2020 election.
2,506 felons voted.
66,248 underage voters.
I'll go on as you can read it, but let's just play the clip for our intro before we bring on CanCon and his breaking story of the day.
Behold.
What we are presenting to the court and to you today as the Georgia legislature are facts.
Facts.
2,506 felons voted illegally in Georgia.
66,248 underage and therefore ineligible people to illegally register to vote before their 17th birthday when the law requires 17 and a half years old.
At least 2,423 individuals to vote who were not listed as registered.
1,043 individuals to cast ballots who had illegally registered to vote using a post office box.
4,926 individuals voted in Georgia who had registered to vote after their Georgia voter registration date, thereby canceling their Georgia voter registration.
10,315 or more individuals to vote who are deceased by the time of the election.
395 individuals.
I got to pause on that one.
Is that to say they died?
10,000 people died between casting their ballot and the election, or they were dead when they cast their ballot.
Okay, let's just keep going.
Individuals to vote in Georgia who had cast ballots in another state, which is illegal in both states.
15,700 individuals to vote in Georgia who had filed a national change of address with the United States Postal Service prior to November 3rd, 2020.
40,279 individuals to vote who had moved across county lines at least 30 days prior to election day and who had failed to properly re-register to vote in their new county after moving, also in violation of Georgia law.
The petition for contest will include affidavits of more than 100,100 Georgia voters sworn under penalty of perjury, attesting to and confirming multiple violations of the Georgia election code.
You will hear from several of those witnesses today.
And then we have the issue of outright lies and potential fraud.
Senator Perdue and Election Fraud Allegations 00:15:43
I think we can probably stop it there, not to belabor the point, because we're going to get into this in a little bit more detail with Brian Lupa.
The poop is going to hit the fan, people, and it looks like there will be no justice, but at least there will be truth and vindication.
And that is better late than never.
We've seen the raid on the Georgia facilities.
Kash Patel talked about it a little bit with Brett Berry yesterday.
And I get a text this morning and a DM from Cancon, who I know has been on the channel, awesome guy, CanCon at C-A-N-N-C-O-N, which is linking to his article.
And I don't want to get too far into it because I DM'd him and I said, look, this is going to be something that's a little bit too much for me to bone up on within the next 10 minutes before we're going live.
Do you want to come on and talk about it?
And he said, yes.
And if you don't know CanCon, you're going to know him now.
Brian, sir, how goes the battle?
Ah, it's good to see you.
How are you enjoying our South Florida, Canada weather?
It's so funny.
I went outside with my wife and the sun is out and it's like, it's warm again.
And we're like, oh my goodness, for four days, it was mildly cold.
I finally got to see the iguanas entering their catatonic state.
And so I got to put together a nice video there, but it was good.
It was nice.
It felt like a fall in Canada.
Yeah, you brought your weather down here.
So, well, yeah, so we got this story now.
And thank you for having me on to talk about it because this needs to get a lot of attention.
Judge Scott McCaffey in the Trump Rico case in Georgia decided that he was going to release the protective order on the special grand jury transcripts in the Fannie Willis-Rico case.
And in doing so, I was reading through the testimony of former U.S. Senator David Peru, Purdue, excuse me, Peru, Perdue.
And he was a candidate that was on that ballot.
He ended up losing the race in a runoff to John Ossoff.
And Kelly Loeffler was the other one that lost to Raphael Warnock, which ultimately gave Joe Biden control of the U.S. Senate.
The Democrats control the U.S. Senate in this country.
Now, while reading this transcript, they start getting into whether or not Senator Perdue believed there was election fraud.
And Nathan Wade is questioning him, Fannie Willis's boy toy.
Let me stop you there.
Just to refresh everybody's memory who might be not totally familiar with this.
His name is not, what was his first name?
Scott McAfee?
Scott McAfee, yes.
Scott McAfee was the judge in the Fanny Willis when they were seeking to disqualify her and her office from the RICO prosecution case because of her illicit paramour affair with, no, I guess her illicit affair with her paramour, that guy, Nathan Wade.
And Scott McAfee did not disqualify her, but the Court of Appeal ultimately did.
And so what is this?
What is this document that was released today?
So this is the special grand jury transcript of Senator Perdue's questioning by Mr. Wade and a couple other attorneys.
And in it, Mr. Wade asks David, Senator Perdue, do you not believe that GBI conducted an investigation?
He says, yes, I believe they conducted an investigation.
I'm just not confident in it.
And he says, why?
And he says, well, let me tell you about a phone call I had.
And he says, you know, I had received a phone call from the then director of the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.
And his name's Vic Reynolds.
And he called Senator Perdue and said, hey, look, we're not going to be investigating this evidence that both of them had seen.
Both Vic Reynolds and Senator Perdue had seen evidence of ballot harvesting in Georgia.
And he said, it's compelling evidence, but we're not going to investigate it.
And he said, well, please explain to me why.
And almost a direct quote, if you want to pull it up to make sure we quote it directly.
Vic Reynolds said something along the lines of, because I'm a team player and the governor does not want to investigate.
So this is, I'll read your tweet now that you're here actually to flesh it out.
Senator Perdue testified in the Trump RICO special grand jury that Governor Brian Kent shut down a compelling investigation into 2020 ballot harvesting.
Then director of the GBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Vic Reynolds, told Senator Perdue, I'm a team player.
If the governor doesn't want to investigate, we're not going to investigate.
So I'm going to bring it back up in a second.
Let me ask you this because, you know, Robert Bryans and I, we've been talking about this for a while.
And going back to the 2020 election where Ratberger, they never delivered on the promise to do an actual signature verification.
And then people are saying, well, why would a Republican governor and a Republican attorney general not want to help Trump win the state?
Do you have any decent answer for that?
The only thing I could do is speculate on that.
And in 2019, or excuse me, 2018, when they implemented the Dominion voting system in Georgia, Brian Kemp was the Secretary of State that ultimately brought that machine into being, into existence in Georgia.
I mean, the only thing I could do is speculate on why they would be pushing back on this.
The other thing is, is they generally, the establishment Republicans in this country do not appreciate President Trump.
They don't like him.
They say one thing publicly to his face or to the media, and then behind the scenes, they disparage him.
And so I don't know if that had anything to do with it.
I don't know if they just didn't want to upset the entire state and country, but whatever it was, I mean, this was compelling evidence.
That's Vic Reynolds' words, according to Senator Perdue, that they would.
And now let me ask you this.
In 2020, Georgia was using Dominion voting machines, correct?
Correct.
Yes.
Okay.
And so, I mean, you know, if it's not just Trump derangement syndrome, even for Rhino Republicans, you know, maybe it's to conceal the fact that he made a mistake or was using totally weak or corrupt Dominion voting systems.
And so don't want to highlight his own incompetence, corruption, or mistakes.
And so easier to just ignore it and pretend it was a legit, legit result.
So back to the tweet, you said that although Mr. Reynolds had received evidence that he felt was compelling enough to open an investigation that he was not going to investigate because the governor had told him not to, quote, that's one of the things he said.
Yeah, Senator Perdue.
One month before the special grand jury testimony, Vic Reynolds was appointed a Superior Court judge by Brian Kemp.
Brian Kemp.
Sorry.
Reynolds wasn't the only person who ignored election fraud, evidence, or maladministration and got appointed to a superior court judgeship.
He wasn't even the second one.
Reynolds was presented with video evidence, cell phone data, bank records, and testimony of a ballot harvester.
Reynolds claimed that the Georgia Bureau of Investigations made, quote, repeated requests to True the Vote for their witness.
True the Vote denies this, saying they actually had reached out to GBI and their one and only meeting and were ignored.
From TTV's, we got into the transcript here.
Why did Brian Kemp, this is your question, order GBI not to investigate an alleged crime with evidence that would ultimately lead to unprecedented RICO case against former president and his party's front-running candidate?
That's the tie-in to make this all make sense.
The RICO case was predicated on Trump corruptly and using intimidation and whatever, trying to find the votes.
And that's what they accused him of doing.
And that was the whole RICO case.
And so this was, if true, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, Brian, this would legitimize what Trump was saying and basically negate the possibility of ever having any bona fide quasi-legitimate RICO case against him.
Yeah, correct.
There has been over the last three weeks, there's been major developments in the election front, mainly in Georgia, beyond just the FBI executing that search warrant.
Two weeks ago, we had Joe Rossi testify before the state election board, and he's had a report that's actually been verified by Brian Kemp, Governor Kemp, as accurate.
And he disclosed that there were 7,000 ballots that were completely missing and were mischievously re-scanned.
Like they literally made up batches of ballots.
There's evidence that they took the ballots, shuffled them all up to make new batches in order to fill a gap of almost 7,000 ballots that they were missing.
And they knew Fulton County knew that they were missing ballots, that they were short, almost 7,000 ballots.
Was 4% of the vote in Fulton County that they were short in their hand recount.
And Fulton County knew this, and they never disclosed that until FOIA requests found the email that shows that.
But going back to the thing here with the GBI is, Vic Reynolds put out this letter.
He sent it to the Atlanta Journal Constitution saying that they're not going to investigate this because they've reached out repeatedly to True the Vote and they've tried to get True the Vote to turn over their witness.
Well, I spoke with Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, yesterday, and I asked her for a statement on this.
And she said, No, it is not true.
They did not reach out to me after that initial meeting that they had, and that True the Vote was actually trying to re-engage with the GBI over this evidence to talk with them about this evidence.
Now, the judgeship thing is very important, Viva, because it lays a pattern that we've seen from Brian Kemp.
And I hate, you know, I'm just going to point out the pattern.
There was an audit that the Secretary of State in Georgia claims to have done.
He told the people publicly, we're going to audit six counties and make sure that the machines are safe and everything's good.
There was a gentleman that did open records requests for any responsive records that an audit took place in the counties that Brad Raffensberger, the Secretary of State, said it took place in.
There were no responsive records from any of these counties.
Now, that information was passed off to the Inspector General to investigate.
The Inspector General said, I'm going to investigate this.
And as soon as he got those emails, he ghosted the guy, disappeared completely.
Stop talking to him.
So the guy took it then to a district attorney in the Appalachian Circuit, and she did the same thing.
As soon as she saw that evidence, she ghosted him, would not talk to him anymore.
That inspector general, Viva, is a judge now by the name of Scott McCaffey.
The inspector general was the judge that unsealed these records, but also the judge that presided over the Trump Rico case.
And the district attorney, she's also a Superior Court judge now.
And I'm not 100% sure on her name because I can only find what I can find.
I'm not going crazy.
Engelbrecht and the other one from True the Vote went to jail for a brief period of time, right?
That was for civil contempt for refusing to disclose a source, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, because they wouldn't give the source whistleblower protection or they wouldn't give him protection.
And we saw in that email that they sent to the Atlanta Journal Constitution that the GBI sent, they doxed the investigators for True the Vote.
They sent it to a publication that they knew would run this story, and they weaponized information against True the Vote and weaponized the media against True the Vote to dox the investigators that were doing this ballot harvesting.
This was basically the foundation of 2000 Mules that dox these investigators.
And so they had no faith in the GBI at that point to keep their witness safe.
This is, it's kind of wild.
Do you know if this has anything to do with the recent seizure of documents or the FBI raid in Georgia?
No, so that is based on actual, like there's mountains of evidence of fraud in Georgia.
I'm doing a series right now on my channel where we're reading through the document that was the foundation of that warrant for Fulton County.
It was written by Joe Rossi, Kevin Moncla, Garland Favredo, Bob Coovert, a bunch of patriots out there in Georgia.
And so, yeah, the first one next to Brian Kemp there is the one that I'm working on right now.
I'm going to give the link, give the link to everybody so they can go check it out.
So what, I mean, okay, so no, so then finish that thought, actually.
So this, that, that FBI raid has, as far as you know, doesn't have anything to do with this.
No, no, not specifically with this.
The ballot harvesting is a separate issue, but this is something that needs to come up now because I mean, you're an attorney, and if you're a prosecutor in a grand jury and somebody tells you that the investigation into a crime you're charging was never done, but it was brought to their attention and the governor shut it down.
I mean, that kind of sounds like could be a potential Brady violation for withholding exculpatory evidence.
No, because they shut down the investigation that might have otherwise rendered moot or, in fact, confirmed the legitimacy behind the allegations of RICO conspiracy.
Exactly.
You know, Viva, when that trial went on, Harrison Floyd, who was one of the defendants, co-defendants of President Trump, when I watched one of the hearings for his attorneys and they said, what if we prove that President Trump won the election?
Then the case goes away.
And I knew the moment he said that, this was at the very, very beginning of that trial.
The moment he said that, I said, this case will never make it to trial.
I think that personally, personally, I think that that case was bombed on purpose because they knew that if Harrison Floyd subpoenas the evidence that he was going to get, the signature verification that never happened, the 17,000 ballots that are completely missing ballot images or any record whatsoever, the 10 tabulators that the Fulton County cannot prove exist that ran 20,000 ballots somehow through them.
All of this information is in that report and is the foundation of what the FBI is investigating right now.
Well, that's actually mildly wild, Brian.
So how many pages was the transcript?
And what prompted, I mean, what prompted you to start going through it?
So the transcript's 91 pages.
And I just, I'm a junkie for documents.
So I've got a lot more that I'll be going through.
And I don't know if I'll find anything as big as that, but that one's 91 pages.
The report I'm talking about is 266 pages.
That's amazing.
That's amazing.
Okay.
So what's your channel schedule?
When are you bringing this one live?
It's rumble.com/slash CanCon.
I'm on YouTube as well at CanCon Actual.
I'm doing it kind of sporadically.
I'm doing it usually around five, six o'clock in the evening.
And it's going to be probably about a 10 or 20 part series because there's 26 counts that I have to get through.
And they lay out everything.
They've got every piece of evidence that you could ever imagine.
This is a cookie cutter, cut and dry, you know, just it's right there for you.
This is this is on a platter for the FBI.
It's a well, amazing, fine, amazing discovery.
Thank you for coming on, for fleshing it out, because I was trying to catch up on it.
And I was getting confused between a couple of things that are ongoing right now, one of which is the FBI raid and the people flipping out about it.
But that is wild because you realize if the investigation were legitimate and they had good cause to investigate and Trump was pressuring them to do that, but they say we're going to shut down that investigation and thereby make it look like there was nothing legitimate to investigate in the first place in order to proceed with these RICO charges.
Bike Ride and Battles 00:02:12
Why would you have these political adversaries in bed together for the purposes of taking down Trump and all of his entourage?
That should be, that is the million-dollar question right there.
Why is your own party stabbing you in the back to put you in prison?
Wild stuff.
Brian, CanCon, tell us again why your name is CanCon.
I know it, but stands for Cannabis Conservative.
I'm a Marine Combat Veteran and I have used herbal and natural healing for PTSD and other issues.
And I'm a huge connoisseur of anything cannabis related.
I think it's one of the greatest things, one of the greatest plants ever.
Well, I'm going to, I'm going to clip this, post it to Commitu, put all your links in the top so that people can find you and keep up with this.
But Brian, if there's anything, you'll keep in touch with me.
I'll keep in touch with you.
Amazing stuff.
For sure.
Thanks for having me.
All right, man.
Thank you for coming on on such short notice.
Godspeed.
Take care.
All right.
Bye-bye.
That's amazing.
I'm trying to figure out a way to overlap the not the fraud, but the recent FBI raid.
Tulsi Gabbard in sunglasses on her cell phone.
Literally the meme of the guy behind the tree.
That's wild stuff.
Ladies and gentlemen, how goes the battle?
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turns current Florida Rumbler during my daily stream.
I went for a long bike ride with my kid today.
I'm going to put together a video because we saw wild pigs.
We saw massive alligators.
I got bitten by red ants because I think I hit something with my handlebars and didn't realize a bunch of red ants were all over my handlebars and then crawling in my head.
I don't know if you can see the bites.
You won't be able to see them.
You'll see them when they get really red.
And then the electric bike went dead and I had to tell my kid for the better part of two miles.
And it wasn't easy because when the bike goes dead, it doesn't even remain in neutral gear.
It's like I'm actually pulling something that's offering resistance.
Holy crap, apples, everybody.
There are two stories now that I'm following and following thoroughly.
Defense Strategy Revealed 00:14:57
One of which is Tyler Robinson's trial, which is not yet at the trial stage.
It's at the preliminary stage where Tyler Robinson's lawyers doing what lawyers do, which is what makes you hate lawyers.
Because it's a game.
It's a game that's played with tools, with tricks, with trickery within the bounds of the law.
And a defense attorney's not objective, but their job and not just doing their job, like just following orders.
Their job is to make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of criminal law.
Their job is to basically make the prosecution work as hard as humanly possible to raise all reasonable doubt, to raise all procedural objections within the bounds of the law, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even if you think they're guilty as hell.
And if they don't do that, if they don't vigorously pursue all avenues of defense for and on behalf of their client, they are failing in their duties to their client.
And yes, I said duties.
And I've been watching some of the, not even highlights, I've been going through the hearing that's been going on right now because the defense attorneys, Tyler Robinson's attorneys, are making a procedural mountain out of an insignificant molehill, as far as I'm concerned, which is to disqualify the prosecution because allegedly the daughter of one of the prosecutors was at the event and heard the shot ring out.
And therefore, somehow her father would not be able to prosecute this case in earnest.
And I don't know if that's the right word, actually, if that's the right use of the word in earnest.
But they had a big hearing yesterday, and I pulled a couple of highlights.
But if you didn't hear the latest of the news, this is ongoing now.
It was, you know, it's going on for hours on end.
Lawyers for Charlie Kirk's alleged killer ask to have prosecutors thrown off the case.
On the one hand, I say, like, okay, fine, swap out the prosecutors.
Who gives the sweet bugger all?
On the other hand, flip side, who cares who prosecutes this?
I mean, you're going to say someone who has a family member that was tangentially related or somehow a witness is the argument.
What difference does that make?
But alas, the defense attorneys are doing what defense attorneys do, which is to make the prosecution as hard as possible.
And I will argue, doing some things that are, I won't say unethical because that's not the right word.
I might say untoward, or I might say a little bit shady.
And what that might be is tainting a jury pool by putting out into the public, or at least putting out what they know will get out to the public, information which is either unverified at best or unproven, to put it most charitably, or false at worst.
And we'll get to that in a second once I read through a little bit of this article, which is the latest of what's going on in this case.
Pre-trial hearing for Tyler Robinson, the accused killer of Charlie Kirk, the defense again argued the prosecution should be thrown off the case.
Robinson's attorneys want the entire Utah County Attorney's Office disqualified because one of the prosecutors has an 18-year-old daughter who was present at the rally at Utah Valley University in Orem, where Kirk was shot.
And so you just ask yourself, what difference does that make?
You want the entire prosecution thrown off the case.
Bring in another prosecution.
Who cares?
It'll be from another, I don't know, it'll be another set of prosecutors.
Who cares?
But defense doing what defense does, they're going to make any argument they can to complicate this for the prosecution.
Utah County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Chad Grunander testified that he received texts from his daughter right after the killing saying someone had been shot at the school and that she was okay.
Defense attorneys previously said in court documents that the personal relationship is a conflict of interest that, quote, raises serious concerns about past and future prosecutorial decision-making in this case.
That argument, I've argued, I've mentioned this before, but that argument doesn't make sense to the extent that they're seeking a conviction.
If it turned out, hypothetically, you know, that there was some other type of relationship that might question whether or not the prosecutors would genuinely and sincerely prosecute this case, then you can imagine it.
So his daughter was there.
He's going to be a very vengeful prosecutor.
Maybe he's going to break some rules because he's angry that his daughter had to witness this.
And so he's going to do untoward things to seek a conviction of Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk's killer, maybe.
Alleged killer, I should say.
They also argue that the, quote, rush to seek the death penalty against the 22-year-old is evidence of strong emotional reactions by the prosecution or a perfectly normal reaction to what the alleged crime is.
Grunander's daughter also testified during the hearing, but that portion was closed to the public to protect her identity.
According to an affidavit submitted by prosecutors, she did not see the shooting.
Quote, while the second person in line was speaking with Charlie, I was looking around in the crowd when I heard a loud sound like a pop.
Someone yelled, he's been shot, Grunanda said in the affidavit.
She later texted the family, said Charlie got shot.
In the aftermath of the shooting, she did not miss classes or other activities and reported no lasting trauma aside from being scared at the time.
Grunander said he decided early to disclose this information about his daughter because it could be portrayed as a potential contradiction.
Don't make, don't mistake my disclosure to be a concession that we believe there is merit to this alleged conflict of interest.
Okay.
Earlier, Utah attorney Jeff Gray took the stand defending his decision to seek the death penalty.
Gray testified he was not influenced by Grunander and decided to pursue an aggravated murder.
I mean, it's wild, but then you think, what are they doing right now, this defense, other than putting into the general public feel that, for any prospective juror, that the decision to seek the death penalty was somehow extraordinary under this set of circumstances.
I mean, I think it's something that every rational person on earth would be clamoring for under these circumstances.
But alas, all of this gets public to reach a potential jury pool.
And they are going to hear these arguments that even seeking the death penalty was exceptionally punitive for a first degree aggravated murder.
Okay.
Grunander said he doesn't believe Gray's decision to seek the death penalty was influenced by his daughter's presence on the scene.
Of course.
Wednesday's proceedings continued at a hearing that began at January 16th.
Okay, we heard all that part.
Judge Tony Graff denied a request to refer the case to the Utah Attorney General's office and said he will issue a ruling on that.
So that's the gist of the article.
They're asking for two things: disqualification of the prosecution's entire office.
And what they also argued was that the prosecutor themselves can't argue this case because they have a conflict of interest insofar as they're being sought to be kicked off the file.
And so it should be returned to the Attorney General's office to make the decision.
And the judge said, no, we're not going to do that.
They can make the decision here.
They can argue it on their own.
And we don't need to take that exceptional case to send it back to the Attorney General's office because they're so conflicted they can't even defend their own presence in this case.
Now, I posted that highlight and I want to get that one because it's good to hear the judge come to a relatively obvious decision.
And it's right here.
Let me bring this one up.
But then we're going to get into what I think is the dirty play here.
So before the dirty play that is par for the courts when it comes to attorneys and why they have inherited and earned the reputation that I do incidentally believe they so deserve.
So before this court's defendants removed requests to refer the penny motion to disqualify to the office of the Utah Attorney General.
So they wanted to return it to the office of the Utah Attorney General on the basis that the prosecution could not even defend itself from the motion to disqualify because they'd be conflicted.
And the judge has this to say.
In support of that request, the defendant relies upon Utah Code section 17-18A-304, which provides that the Attorney General shall assist a county prosecutor only if the court finds that the prosecutor is unable to satisfactorily and adequately perform the duties of prosecution and recommends that the prosecutor seek additional legal assistance.
I don't want anyone giving me flack for the audio.
This was court audio for the judge in particular, and I think they resolved it partway through.
The defendant argues that where there exists a non-frivolous basis, factual basis, suggesting a potential conflict of interest, the court should make such a finding and recommend assistance from the attorney general.
The court has carefully considered that argument and reviewed the briefings.
However, the statute does not adopt the standard proposed by the defendant, nor does such a standard appear in existing case law or court rules.
The statute requires specific findings regarding the prosecutor's inability to satisfactorily and adequately perform prosecutorial duties before referral is appropriate.
At this stage of the proceeding, the court is not persuaded by those statutory that those statutory conditions have been met.
Based on the record presently before the court, there is no indication that the Utah County Attorney's Office lacks the resources, knowledge, or ability to litigate the motion to disqualify on behalf of the state.
So you imagine, I'll stop it there.
That's about as much as we need.
The judge says, no, they can litigate it.
So we'll do that a little bit later.
The defense is asking for the disqualification, but also that the prosecution's office can't even defend against their motion for disqualification because conflict.
Judge says, no, they can.
We'll do that later.
Irritating, wasting a day or two and arguably putting out information into the public sphere, which I presume they would presume is going to be beneficial for sowing a seed of doubt.
But when you want to get to what I think is sort of the Very judicially dirty method of doing that.
This is Tyler Robinson's defense attorney right here, or at least one of them.
This is from Jack Pesobic.
The moment Tyler Robinson's lawyer, Kathy Nestor, this moment from Tyler Robinson's lawyer, Kathy Nestor, is crazy.
She asks him about DNA collected, isn't specific what she's talking about, mocks the investigator, then walks away and admits she doesn't actually have anything to add.
Take that description with a grain of salt if you so choose, but let's listen to this and I'll tell you exactly what I think is going on here.
And I think it's dirty.
And you mentioned, I know I have two minutes.
I'm going to talk very fast.
I know she's about to kill me.
You mentioned the DNA.
First of all, probably not the best expression to be using under the circumstances.
You only have two minutes and you just wasted 10 seconds complaining about the fact that you only have two minutes.
All right, Viva, stop being nitpicky here.
DNA evidence.
You're certainly not a DNA expert.
Is that correct?
I'm not, no.
And are you aware that the DNA evidence that was seized from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five different individuals?
I'm not a DNA expert.
So you know enough to say what helps him, but you're not going to answer whether or not there were five individuals mixed into that DNA.
I'm not aware of that, no.
Okay.
And you're certainly not qualified to interpret complex DNA mixtures, are you?
No, I'm not.
Okay.
Court's indulgence for just one moment, Your Honor.
I think you've had a little bit too much indulgence there.
If I dare say so myself.
Six minutes.
Ms. Nestor, is there?
I know I gave you that six minutes.
Is there any other questions that you feel you need to ask?
Thank you for asking, but I think I'm done.
Thank you for asking, but I think I'm done.
I can't stand the faux politeness of the practice of law.
It was the most frustrating thing for me to deal with for 13 freaking years.
Yes, Your Honor.
Yes, you have to be very polite.
You have to wait for the judge to be finished.
You have to speak slowly.
Can we just get back to the critical element of what just went down in there?
And she got the indulgence of the court, and I would dare say it's not to armchair, whatever it is, quarterback or backseat drive or passenger seat drive.
Why the hell wasn't there an objection?
Well, I don't want to listen to the, well, let's listen to the first part again.
And you mentioned, I know I have two minutes.
I'm going to talk very fast.
I know she's about to kill me.
You mentioned the DNA evidence.
You're certainly not a DNA expert.
Is that correct?
I'm not, no.
And are you aware that the DNA evidence that was seized from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five different individuals?
Are you aware of the DNA evidence collected from the scene contained a mixture of at least five individuals?
Do you understand what's going on there right now?
Like if you're not, I won't say even legally trained, but if you're not picking up on not semantics, but trickery, are you not aware of a fact that presupposes it's a fact?
I'm sitting here saying, like, I've been following this case mildly closely.
Was it the case that DNA from the scene consisted of a mixture of five individuals?
She asks the guy a question predicated on a fact that is at best as of yet unproven and at worst totally false, but it's out there.
And now because he answers the question, because there was no objection, objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence.
Unless it's in evidence, but I don't think it's in evidence.
I'm not a DNA expert.
So you're not an expert, right?
So you couldn't answer a question based on a fact that is unproven or outright false.
And I'm going to continue asking you the question.
There's no objection.
And he'll answer the question.
And right now, you have a sound clip reaching the population at large that seems to assume as true a fact, put it in quotes, which is unproven at best.
So you know enough to say what helps him, but you're not going to answer whether or not there were five individuals mixed into that DNA.
Her question was not, were there five individuals mixed into that DNA?
Her question was, are you not aware of the fact that there was DNA with five individuals mixed into it?
It goes from an assertion of fact to then a question later on.
Assertion in Question 00:04:12
Nobody's objecting, and he's entertaining these unproven or outright false factual premises.
Aware of that, no.
Okay.
And you're certainly not qualified to interpret complex DNA mixtures, are you?
No, I'm not.
Okay.
So now we're going to presume, I guess, that what's going to come up in the defense is that the DNA, whatever DNA they found there, is going to be the mixture of five different people.
And that they're going to say, well, as based on that, this is coming from the defense.
And I presume, my goodness, I hope that's what their expert is going to testify to.
Because there's a mixture of five persons' DNA in there, you can't definitively assert that it was Tyler Robinson who was on that rooftop.
But I want to know if I'm being overly nitpicky.
I was accused of objecting too much as a lawyer because I was also accused of making it impossible for opposing counsel to ask a question because I would very much nitpick and say, I'm sorry, your question presupposes a fact that has not yet been proven.
I would pick up on it.
I would get irritated by it.
I would object.
And then, you know, the typical response is, let them respond and a judge will deal with the veracity.
In Quebec, we don't have jury trials, at least not for civil matters.
And now the question is going to be whether or not that's a true fact, a false fact, a lie that has now been put out there literally to poison the well of anybody who's going to be a prospective juror there.
So they're still talking about it.
And we'll see where it goes.
I'm going to be following this now because it's above and beyond being disgusting, devastating to families, to a political movement.
It will be fascinating to see this trial play out in real time.
It had better be public so that everybody can see this in real time, so that the aggregate knowledge of the internet can piece together the truth or parse out the lies.
But that's what happened in Tyler Robinson latest.
Now, Rabbi Schmekel Schwarzeneggersvel is saying, OCD, David, and if you're trying to catch my attention and distract me while I'm on, it won't work because I can multitask, but I have no idea what the heck is going on with the discussion.
Now, before we get any further, because Ginger Ninja's in the house, I don't know.
Ginger is trying to get me in trouble.
Hold up.
Wait a minute.
Here we go.
Reading Rumble Rants is neither a sign of approval, disapproval, or whatever.
Ginger Ninja says, a question for Bavowski.
Do I have to block Bongino's channel for Rumble to stop sending me daily notifications?
So annoying.
Okay.
Ginger, thank you very much.
The bell is beautiful.
Quinn 1971 says, Viva, why would Justice John Roberts have every clerk and all staff members sign an NDA?
Let me see.
I don't know under American law if that's protocol.
I would assume it is.
Do SCODIS judges have clerks sign NDAs?
I think they would.
Let me see if I'm asking Grock, take it for what it's worth.
Yes, Supreme Court justices are now required to sign non-disclosure agreements, but this is a relatively recent development.
Huh.
I guess it looks like it started with Roberts.
Why would they?
I would want them to.
I don't want them.
I don't want them spilling the beans on my reasoning afterwards.
See, I mean, it seems logical if they go out and write tell-all books afterwards or disclose judicial musings while you're there.
If you fear them spilling the beans to the public, I would think an NDA is not the end of the world to ask them to sign, but who knows?
Ginger Ninja says it all depends on whether that's in evidence or not.
Maybe there was touch DNA from multiple people on his grandfather's Mauser.
That would be not on scene.
That would be on the evidence.
Bowling Scores and Records 00:03:34
I mean, I guess I could qualify there.
We'll see, but it struck me as being a very, very peculiar assertion to make based on the evidence.
And I did do a very, not as thorough, did a reasonable verification to determine if that was in evidence or even proven.
I don't know how that could be in evidence right now.
King of Bill Tong 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 Tongusa.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
That is if you want to support Bill Tong.
Go to it.
He makes delicious meat.
I had the Perry Perry yesterday before I went bowling.
And I'm not saying that it's why I had the game that I had.
But if anyone's following in locals, I did post it to Twitter afterwards.
I had Anton's Bill Tong before my match yesterday.
And I don't know if you can see right here.
You see, I'm Davey right there.
Started off with a spare.
That's fine.
Then it went to a spare.
That's fine.
Then I upped it to a strike.
All right.
Then I got a nine and an open frame because it was the 10 pin.
And the 10 pin is always like hit or miss.
I can make like two of three, but I miss one of three.
Then it was strike, That's eight strikes in a row, people.
That's a 247.
That is my best, personal best sanctioned bowling league results.
I twice got 279 in the past, which was 11 strikes and one spare.
But the big but to that, it was on one lane.
And it's a lot easier to hone in on the oil pattern when you're bowling on one lane.
That was alternating lanes, as is required in sanctioned bowling.
And I freaking got a 247.
And then the next thing about a 212.
Yesterday, I averaged 205.66.
I averaged 206 yesterday over three games.
My best average for three games.
Last week was 197 over three games.
I'm not saying it had anything to do with Bill Tong's meat, but it might have.
All right, let's see what's going on in viva born's law.locals.com before we get into the next subject, which is Kash Patel, the master of non-answer.
Congratulations on your personal bowling best, says Ali Michael.
Yeah, Viva needs to go to the Olympics bowling and get a goal.
They don't have bowling in the Olympics.
They should have.
If it is touch DNA, it is like PCR test and can pick up everything which is concerning, says P. Hence.
That's when the Bill Tong kicked in.
No, it's not 297.
It was 247.
All right, then we'll go up here, we're good.
All right.
Let's bring this out.
Kash Patel did an interview on Brett Baer.
And I'm, you know, again, not trying to be an armchair quarterback, not trying to be a backseat driver or the Monday morning quarterback.
But I have half a brain.
And sometimes that half a brain works mildly well.
And if I have the thought and if I have the reaction, I think it's relatively safe to conclude many other people out there are going to have a similar reaction.
Kash Patel did an interview with Brett Baer, and he is just, I don't know if it's incapable of providing clear answers with that actually offer something of value, or he's actually just mastered the skill of verbal diarrhea that doesn't actually answer anything meaningfully.
If you had a quarter for every time he said, we're doing things according to the facts and the law, you'd be rich by now.
Shooter's Dilemma 00:14:35
And then the question is going to be, if all any answer is ever going to be is we're doing everything according to the facts and the law, I mean, okay, great.
Interviews have become utterly useless.
And he's answering questions on the most important issues of all time, in my view.
And these are the types of answers that he's given.
This one was coming from Gunter Eagleman.
Brett Baer just pressed FBI director Kash Patel on the lingering mystery about the Butler shooter.
Quote, when were the cell phones?
When were the cell phones?
What?
Where were the cell phones?
Why don't we know who he was talking to?
What exactly happened?
I feel like we haven't gotten the whole picture about Butler.
You and me both, Brett.
Provide support.
All right.
Well, let me take you to a different shooter, and that is the Butler shooter.
I asked you about this at Guanaco.
Take listen.
Will we know a lot more about him?
Is there more to know?
I don't know that there's more to know, but you're going to know everything we know.
And we don't feel that the American people have been given the information they need on that.
And we're digging through the files and we're getting them a more robust picture of what happened.
So that was May 2025.
I mean, I don't think we, the public, have a more robust picture of that shooter.
Well, I think that's.
Let me pause it even before Cash gets into it.
I don't think we have a more robust picture of that shooter.
We don't.
And not only do we not, the bona fide, call them journalists.
You might not like Tucker Carlson at this point in time.
He's still a journalist.
He's an independent journalist, and some of his work is better than others.
His interview with Larry Sinclair, I think was very weak.
His interview with George Stephanopoulos' sister, I think was very weak.
That does not mean he's not a journalist, and it doesn't mean that all of his work is weak.
Some of his work is stronger than others.
And when he put out that expose on, I forget his first name, Crooks, and the videos that had not yet been disclosed and the social media footprint that we were told didn't exist.
And instead of addressing it, they went out on the offense and literally created an FBI response X handle to go and attack Tucker Carlson for disclosing to the public what nobody else had seen up until that point, except Miranda Devine and Breanna Morello, also two fantastic journalists who had access to the same dossier of information that we were told didn't exist, that in fact actually existed.
Listen to the answer.
Shooter.
Well, I think that's an unfair supposition.
We, the FBI, have put out all the information that we possibly and legally can.
Possibly and legally can.
So take out the possibly, because it's not true anymore, that you legally can.
Okay, fine.
So are you telling us that there was information that you didn't put out because you couldn't that has since come out now that sort of undermines or contradicts statements that were made by the prior FBI and even potentially by this FBI early on?
While protecting any ongoing matters that are unrelated.
But he's dead.
Hold on.
So they're protecting ongoing matters that are unrelated.
I'm going to play this thing.
I'm going to shut my big mouth because it's so frustrating to listen to this.
They're protecting ongoing matters that are unrelated.
I'm sorry, Mr. Patel.
What the hell does that mean?
You're protecting ongoing matters that are unrelated to Thomas Crookes and the Butler shooting?
Of that shooter.
Well, I think that's an unfair supposition.
We, the FBI, have put out all the information that we possibly and legally can while protecting any ongoing matters that are unrelated.
But he's dead.
Well, yes, he's very much dead.
But at the same time, Brett, we at the FBI have to follow the parameters of our investigation and what the law allows us to release.
I get it, but what were the cell phones?
Why don't we know who he was talking to?
What exactly happened?
I feel like we haven't gotten the whole picture about Butler even now.
But here's the thing, Brett.
We can provide, and just an example here.
We've provided 40,000 pages of documents to Congress.
That's a totally unrelated.
400% increase from the prior two directors.
That's very good, but totally unrelated.
It doesn't answer for this.
We will continue to provide this information with our partners on Capitol Hill when we are legally able.
It's never going to be enough for everyone.
It's never going to be enough.
But what we are saying is we're not saying trust us.
We're saying we did an exhaustive search of that.
We presented that information to the Department of Justice and a decision was made on what to release.
Yeah, but okay.
You said we put out everything we could.
Do you think that everything's been put out about Eric Crumps, the shooter, alleged shooter?
Whether it's Epstein or Charlie Kirk or whether it's this shooter in Butler, we always put out what the law permits us to put out.
Okay.
With the law.
So if we didn't do it and it came out elsewhere, it wasn't our fault.
We were doing what the law permitted.
I want to bring something up here just because it caught my eye and I want to understand.
Let's see here.
It was in the chat.
Ah, yes.
Wild Arms 420.
I think you are part of the distraction, Viva.
What does that mean?
It's one of the, it's one of the, it's like the, I don't want to use the word low-level analysis because it's not analysis.
What does it even mean?
You're part of the distraction.
What should I be focusing on that I'm not focusing on?
What am I distracting from, in your view, that we can't multitask and pay attention to?
The saying you're part of the, it's a distraction implies that you have an attention span that can only focus on one issue.
And it's the type of rhetoric that adds nothing to the discourse that is itself the distraction because look, now we're distracted from what I was talking about.
But we're not because I went on a tangent and now I'm back.
That was an answer that is obviously unsatisfactory.
It was visibly unsatisfactory to Brett Baer himself on Fox News, which is, I won't say the mouthpiece of the administration, but they are certainly in the favored channels of this administration.
The answer is always we put out what we're legally allowed to put out in conjunction and collaboration with our partners at the DOJ or at the state level prosecutions.
And the answers just never amount to anything satisfactory.
There was another one that I want to bring up.
And I'm not even, I want to post it without comment because I don't want to taint anybody's interpretation of it, but everyone's going to say, Viva, I know why you're putting this out.
And it's to criticize, even though you don't put out the words to criticize in it.
I want to know how everybody views these questions.
If you're explaining, you're losing seems to be forgotten.
And if you keep saying things in public press conferences that you either have to walk back or subsequently explain to temper some of the public outrage that is righteously raging because of what you said, you're also not doing yourself any favor.
After the Alex Predi shooting, and you had an administration that people, and I say cynically were saying was not sufficiently pro-Second Amendment because one of the biggest complaints against Trump is that he supported the bump stock ban in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre.
And some people were saying, look, it was the politically savvy thing to do at the time.
I did not take it as an indication of anybody who is not supportive of Second Amendment rights.
People say it's the, you know, the inch by inch, you know, one step forward, two steps back.
But they come out with statements that stir up the ire of the people who are constitutionalists in the truest sense and who value the Second Amendment above all.
Second Amendment, as they say, protects the first.
Listen to this question.
Let me bring you to Minnesota.
There's the fallout for Minnesota, everything that's being looked at.
It's obviously not in your department, but you commented on this about the firearm aspect of this and protests.
Hick list.
You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.
It's that simple.
You don't have that right to break the law and incite violence.
So that got some response.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Janine Pirro, said this over the weekend.
This one's slightly harder to misinterpret.
Recall, Kash Patel said, you don't have the right to break the law and cause incitement.
Conjunctions are important, but at least I think I understand what he was saying.
It's tough to misunderstand what Janine Pirro was saying here.
You bring a gun into the district.
You marked my words.
You're going to jail.
I don't care if you have a license in another district, and I don't care if you're a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else.
You bring a gun into this district, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.
Pause it right there.
We're all familiar with Dexter Taylor's case out of New York State, where he built his own firearm at home through materials that he ordered lawfully online under his own name, had delivered to his own apartment.
And the judge in that case, Judge Darke, said, don't bring in your Second Amendment rights argument into my court.
The Second Amendment doesn't exist in the state of New York.
And people were rightly outraged about that.
So you have that statement.
I won't play it again.
We don't need to belabor the point.
Some people are concerned about something I said yesterday.
So I want to be crystal clear.
I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.
So all these gun rights advocates and supporters are saying, wait a second, what are you guys telecasting here?
Well, I'm glad you played the entirety of the clip because mostly nobody did that.
Exactly.
Well, I'm not sure how her saying that she supports the Second Amendment somehow attenuates or contradicts the statement that you made earlier that if you bring a gun into her district, you're going to jail and you'll be lucky if you get your gun back.
I don't know that it somehow even rectifies that gaffe.
I said you cannot bring a firearm to a public protest and incite violence.
That's the kicker.
President Trump's administration is the most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.
All we are saying is, one, it's a question of law.
Did you incite violence or commit another crime while in possession of firearm?
And if that's the case, then we're going to investigate you.
But the other question is a prudential one.
Should you be bringing firearms?
That's not a decision for the FBI to places where people are protesting.
That's a prudential decision.
We will follow the facts and the law.
We will follow the facts and the law.
All right.
That was one.
And there was another one which I posted just before going last weekend.
We can cover this.
It was, hey, hey, hey, where was it?
Because I know that I posted two.
Here we go.
Kash Patel's answer on whether or he regrets the way the disclosures, the Epstein disclosures, were handled.
Bouncing around.
Listen to this one.
Bouncing around, the Epstein files, the last tranche, we're told, put out.
Looking back since the beginning, and you've been a part of talking about this, and DOJ has obviously produced these elements.
Do you have regrets about how it's been handled?
Look, like any other hot topic issue, the American public and the world had a great interest in this.
And what we did under President Trump's leadership is produce the most transparent DOJ in FBI history.
Three other administrations had the opportunity to do this, and we produced everything we legally and lawfully could.
Everything we legally and lawfully could.
The most transparent government.
Do you understand, by the way, that this is now Brett Baer of Fox News asking the questions that people who have been colloquially referred to as the black pillars have been asking for a little while.
Oddly enough, by the way, by the time this trickles up to Fox News, it's because of systemic, prolonged dissatisfaction among the people.
And so when people are saying, shut up, nobody cares about the Epstein files, all you do is complain as though we have not also provided constructive recourse.
By the time this gets to Fox News, you've got a problem.
And now it's gotten to Fox News that has been bungled.
And you have Kash Patel talking about the most transparent administration, while you have James O'Keefe the other day, I posted the tweet showing that his affidavit for probable cause when the former corrupt FBI raided his home, took his phones over the Ashley Biden diary, was 100% redacted.
And constructive criticism.
I wasn't even putting the blame on Kash Patel.
We were talking about how the people who handle FOIA requests are probably long-term holdovers, the so-called deep state, severely afflicted with Trump derangement syndrome, who are probably doing things to sabotage this administration to make it look like they're not the most transparent administration in history.
Either that or Kash Patel is okay with a 100% redacted affidavit for probable cause for a raid and a seizure on journalist James O'Keefe.
But let's listen to what he has to say.
Work with our partners in Congress.
We follow the statutes and the court orders and we produce, what, 3 million some pages?
So I think we got to the result in the right way.
Could we have gotten there faster?
I'm not really sure because of numerous court cases, multiple protective orders, multiple court ceilings.
And so now we've produced everything we can while protecting victims' rights and violence.
Do you think?
We've produced everything we can while protecting victims' rights, except for the fact that we've seen the bungle of this Epstein disclosure, having named and shown images, bank information of alleged victims to the point where their lawyers have to go in front of a judge now and force the DOJ to take back the documents, to pull them off the internet to properly redact them.
We did everything we could.
We got there in the right way.
You got there because the grassroots voices were saying, this isn't acceptable.
We can't be told that there's nothing there.
And now you get there with 3 million additional disclosures, which it wasn't the case that Pan Bondi et al. came out and said, we've got 3 million documents, but we can't release them because of whatever.
And if that were the case, then you would never have fought the bill, the Epstein Transparency Act.
You would never have fought it if your excuse was, well, we're being held up by legal requirements.
You pass the law and then you can disclose it.
People were told, we've got the binders.
It's on my desk.
Yada yada.
We've, you know, now know what she says she meant by that.
Then it's, oh, we're going to go in phases.
And then it's, there's nothing left to disclose.
There's nothing here.
Passing the Law 00:12:05
Move on.
And if you're still talking about it, you know, you're the problem.
And then it gets to the point now where they actually passed the law after sufficient pressure from the public, from the very people who support this administration.
3 million additional documents that we were told didn't exist.
And now we're being told that it was done in the proper way and in such a way as to protect the victims when that didn't even happen in the disclosures.
I mean, you couldn't bungle it even worse.
What would have been the proper answer is it didn't go as planned.
We made a few key mistakes.
We've learned from those mistakes.
I don't know how you walk back the bungled redactions.
You know, the first time it came out, some of the redactions you could remove by putting it through PDF, Adobe, whatever.
And then you have second problems of redactions, which didn't redact victim information.
Let's let Kash Patel finish the answer.
It gets to some place.
Does it get to some kind of charges that we don't yet know about?
Well, I'm glad you asked that.
This FBI, as we'll talk about shortly, has done a record year in protecting and going after those that prey on children and sex traffic.
And we have always said, as the Attorney General has always said, if there's any facts or any information about an ongoing matter, please let us know.
We will fully investigate it.
But I want to remind your audience, the materials that were released were from search warrants from 2007, 8, and earlier.
And they were strictly confined to certain parameters by those that ran the investigation then.
So that's what was collected.
We and not just my FBI, three other FBIs have looked into that material to see if there's any leads to produce any investigatory leads to prosecute anyone.
And we have exhausted that, but we are always open to new information based on the release.
You told me when we last talked, this is eight months ago when we did an interview at the FBI and Quantico, that you were convinced that Epstein killed himself in jail.
Today, eight months after that, are you still convinced?
Yes.
100%.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
That struck me.
I would like to know, if my human reading is finely tuned, have I ever heard Kash Patel say yes, sir, before?
I'm going to look it up and see if I can find an AI answer that can sift through the internet.
Yes, yes, sir.
Strikes me as a peculiar way of answering that question.
Okay, is that the end of it?
Yeah, that was it.
That's the end of it.
So my thoughts, and we've heard this from Cash before, we're appealing to the general public.
We've looked through our record.
If you have any additional information, send it to us.
I mean, that's such, it strikes me as being a potentially disingenuous way of saying, we know that the Luke Rodkowskis of the world, the Jeremy from the Quarterings of the world, the Russell Brands, if you guys have any, the Vivas, obviously the general population doesn't have anything new.
I say obviously to some extent, some of the victims might.
But to say, here, send us your information.
We've looked through our file, oddly enough, which was in the possession of the prior criminal corrupt FBI and DOJ for four years.
We've looked through our file.
We found nothing, but we're always open to tips from the public.
First of all, no crap.
I mean, everybody knows that.
You got the FBI tip line for a reason.
It's not something you have to reiterate, but it's something to say, like, well, we're done looking.
And our offer to you is one that we know that nobody can possibly accept because you guys really, what are you going to have?
Conspiracy theories.
We have nothing in the files that could warrant opening investigations into others.
We've looked through it, right?
Oh, I'm sorry, was this something that was disclosed the other night?
The other day?
So this is an email that is to Jeffrey Epstein from someone whose name is redacted.
Okay.
Tuesday, it looks like either March 11th or November 3rd, 2014, 7 o'clock AM in the morning.
Someone is writing to Jeffrey Epstein saying, thank you for a fun night, dot, dot, dot.
Your littlest girl was a little naughty.
Sent for my iPhone.
I want everyone to digest that.
There are multiple ways to read that.
I didn't initially read it the way I subsequently, not was told to, but someone raised that this could be written by two different people, two different categories of people.
Initially reading that, you would think that you're looking at one of Epstein's clients who's saying, thank you for a fun night.
Your littlest girl in reference to the littlest girl that they provided to this particular client was a little naughty.
And then you would have to say, well, why would they redact the name?
It's a short name followed by a longer name.
People are making jokes as to whose name could be four letters and then five letters or six or seven letters.
There's a number of, I don't say, even good jokes.
There's a number of possibilities.
Some people are saying, okay, if you're redacting the names to protect the victims, why in the name of sweet holy hell would you be redacting the name of the person who sent this?
And then some say, well, it's because it's a victim.
And when you read it as though it might be drafted by an underage girl who's writing Jeffrey Epstein, that's plausible.
If it's one of Epstein's sex toys, one of his victims saying, thank you for a fun night, your littlest girl referring to herself was a little naughty.
I don't read it that way.
I don't think that that's a reasonable way of reading it, only because the call them the victim, the child victim, would not say thank you for a fun night.
That's not something one of Epstein's sex trafficked girls would say to Epstein in respect of an evening where she was trafficked to one of his clients.
The only one who would say, the only category of people who would say thank you for a fun night are the person who was the beneficiary of the fun night and then referencing the girl that was provided to them by Jeffrey Epstein.
And incidentally, if it was redacted to protect the name of the victim, then specify that in the redactions so that it's clear and understood by everybody.
So that people look at that and say, oh, that's redacted to protect the name of a victim.
If that's redacted to protect the name of a perp, while we're simultaneously being told, well, what can we do?
This is from 2007, 2008.
Oh, what's this?
This is from 2014.
I don't know what the statute of limitations on rape is.
I think I do.
I think it's 20 years in America.
It might be state as well.
What is the statute of limitations for rape in America?
I think it goes state by state, and it's probably going to be 20 years, give or take.
Let's see here.
Hopefully, AI can sufficiently.
There's no single statute nationwide set state by state.
All right, and what is this?
Typically, at least 14 to 15 states have eliminated criminal statute of limitations entirely on sex crimes, including rape.
Others range from three to 30 years.
So we've got questions.
We've got evidence that are newly released in new disclosures that don't exactly jive with the answers being given by Kash Patel to the legitimate questions being asked by Brett Baer now, now that the questions of the people have trickled their way up to legacy media, MSM, and the primary outlet that the Trump administration gives interviews to.
I don't think Kash Patel would give me an interview, but who knows?
Maybe he would.
These are the questions I would ask him.
This and the other questions that I've asked in respect of Butler, in respect of Kirk assassination, and in respect of the Epstein files.
So that's the latest.
That's where it's at.
And I, again, am not being negative for the sake of being negative.
These types of answers do more damage than good, especially when the answers are contradicted by past conduct and current disclosures.
And so you might even be better off not doing interviews.
If all you're going to say is we're doing everything in accordance with the facts and the law, great.
Just cut and paste.
Bucklebrush Jones says Cash changed co-conspirator into victims when he testified to Massey.
If anybody can get me the clip that you're talking about, Bucklebrush, I know that I've heard that.
I want to see if I can find the clip for that just to make sure that I'm talking about talking about it properly, eh?
Oh, did I do something here?
I want to see this here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
So we got bucklebrush says that.
Jacob Castro says, when they say the redactions are to protect the victims, they mean victims of blackmail.
Well, that was sort of what Dershowitz was alluding to when he was suggesting that some of the victims might be victims of false accusations.
And then Dominant One says, Dominant One, let's go all the way down.
Dominant, why do you avoid my ad reads for King of Biltong?
Anton has firm and juicy meat that real men like to put in their mouths.
Do not use code at checkout, Bill Tong USA.
Dominant One says the government is still keeping secrets in spite of all the promises of transparency from Trump and others.
Deep State is real and ongoing, and Swamp is not being drained.
Dominant One says, 9 p.m. Central, dad freed up.
Dude, I don't know.
Oh, you can't post links.
I think Dominant One has a channel of his own, and it's right there.
Dominant One says, King of Biltong is busy today at Bilton packing Anton's firm and juicy meat into the mouths of real men.
Do not use.
Okay.
And then we got Jacob Castro.
So, yeah, I say it is what it is in the sense of resignation.
It's, you know, not that they're being forced to address the issues, but now they're sort of being forced to address the issues because the questions are coming from their favorite news network, Fox News.
And it's the wild thing is these are questions that have been asked for a long time.
Had they been listening to the voices of the likes of Viva and Barnes, Law for the People, every Sunday night at nine o'clock, they would have had proper answers prepared by now.
They would have proper answers that are not cut and paste.
We're doing everything according to the facts and the law.
We're doing everything according to the facts and the law.
We've been the most transparent government, and we're doing everything according to the facts and the law.
If people aren't believing it, it's a problem.
Jinjininja says he wants ongoing stuff seven years after the guy is dead.
Convenient.
Suera says, why is Rudy Giuliani in trouble?
Oh, and then Jinja Ninja says, at least Janine is consistently anti-Second Amendment.
This from 2004.
And she's also consistently in the business of keeping innocent people in jail.
In business, Pierrow seeks extension on federal firearms ban.
This is from New York Times.
Take it with a grain of salt.
April 20, 2004.
District Attorney Janine Piro, a Republican, called on Washington last week to set politics aside and extend the federal ban on assault weapons.
They should put it in quotes.
That is scheduled to expire September 13th.
The fact that I'm Republican doesn't have anything to do with this, she said in a telephone interview Thursday.
I've been in law enforcement 29 years.
At least a few of those years involved keeping an innocent person in jail.
Set that aside.
There's no legitimate purpose to have an assault weapon, not in quotes.
These weapons were employed by drug operations, by gang enterprises, she added.
This is about killing as many people as possible in a shorter period as possible.
Well, then you go to high-capacity magazines.
Then you go to multiple firearms, because after all, if that's the concern, you can't have someone owning 10 firearms.
They're going to bypass the newly implemented restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
Everyone will get one six-shot revolver.
That's it.
And if you're lucky, you'll get the long one, the dirty Harry long barrel.
All right, people, we're going to go raid redacted.
Epstein's satanic cult is just the tip of the iceberg, and it's much worse with David Icke.
Merch and Movies 00:03:34
Okay, well, if you want to go watch David Icke, this may be a deterrent for many.
We're going to go over to viva barnslaw.locals.com and have our after party there.
We're going to go raid, first of all.
Oh, before we raid, before we raid, I have to do my own plugging, people.
Make sure you're subscribed.
Make sure you have notifications turned on.
Download the Rumble app.
And if you want to, let me refresh here so you can see.
If you want to support the channel, go to Tipped.
And you can go tip with crypto.
And you can go tip with Bitcoin.
And right now it'll be, you can tip, and next week it might be worth more, twice as much as the tip last week.
Scan that QR code, and you can tip your favorite creators in real time, either with Bitcoin or gold-tethered crypto, which is a cryptocurrency tethered to gold, which is probably the best thing to buy right now if you think gold is going to go up.
It's literally physically tethered.
Gram for gram.
You can redeem your XAUT for actual gold.
It's held in a vault in Switzerland.
It's serializing everything.
Or you can go with USDT, which is tethered to the US dollar.
Download Rumble Wallet.
It's on that one Google Play and it's on Apple.
The easiest way, if you want to get some merch, you can go to vivafry.com.
We've got some new merch up.
Let me see what's on the merch thing.
The best way to support the channel, it's free.
Like, share, snip, clip away.
But if you want to get some merch, Freedom Over Life, Freedom Finds a Way.
I am NOT My Brother's Gatekeeper.
I like that one.
Learn or repeat.
And you can go support us at viva barnslaw.locals.com, where after every show, we have our after show, after party, exclusive QA, personal discussion with our locals community, and it's fantastic and I love it.
Right now, we're going to go raid forward/slash raid here.
Redacted, let them know from whence you came.
Viva has raided.
I'm going to go Viva Raid Booyah.
All right.
And now we're going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I'm going to play a short video while I go pee and get another energy drink.
And then we're going to have our after party.
So if you're not coming, what day is it today?
What day is it today?
It's Monday.
It's Wednesday.
Oh, Thursday.
Tomorrow with Eric Hundley, not Eric Honley, Mark Robert.
Mark Robert and I are going to review movies.
And it's called Viva and Lord Buckley Go to the Movies.
Tomorrow we are reviewing Casablanca.
Viva, Lord Buckley, go to the movies.
Hold on, let me get the channel.
Here we go.
We're doing Casablanca.
And if you can believe it, people, I have never seen Casablanca before.
Link, come, subscribe.
I've never seen Casablanca.
We're going to watch it tonight.
And we're going to review Mark Robert and Viva Fry.
Classics, modern movies.
It's going to try to, you know, stay away from politics to give us both a rest.
But, you know, sometimes with movies like One Battle After Another, the politics ruins everything.
You can get that shirt of Viva Fry.
But come on over to, I'm going to give the link again.
Subscribe seven o'clock tomorrow.
It's going to be a short show.
I think like 30 minutes.
Tomorrow we're starting off kicking off the inaugural Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies reviewing Casablanca.
A movie which is widely described as the greatest movie of all time.
I know the ending.
I mean, spoiler alert, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Everything I know about that movie, I'm going to start a show off tomorrow with this joke.
Everything I know about that movie is from the family guy.
And so we're going to do that.
So come on over there.
Export Selection