All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 9, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:09:44
Tim Dillon Crosses a Line? Epstein Disclosure Latest! Chinese Student Making Bombs in Canada & MORE

SPONSOR! Go to my sponsor https://venice.ai/viva and use code viva to enjoy private, uncensored AI. Using my code will get you 20% off a pro plan.

|

Time Text
Defamatory Claims and Moving Goalposts 00:14:41
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, for reasons which will become abundantly clear in a matter of minutes, we are starting today's show off with a supercut of Joe Biden sniffing, squeezing, grabbing women in inappropriate manners.
Women, I should add, that are not his wife.
Women, I should add, that are also barely women at some time, being young.
Behold.
my perfect wife.
We met before.
It's hard to forget those eyes.
No, no, come on, come on.
Right over here.
There you go.
You can put it away.
I love what you said to my mom.
It was wonderful.
My mom loved it.
One minute, Angel.
Do you want to hold it?
Here we go.
Lollipop.
It's going to come up.
Just look at the camera and then we're going to have lollipops.
I'm going to mouth right after it.
Keep it going.
The only thing I hope we're going to have.
There you go.
Got it.
Okay.
The only thing that I hope is that in some of these montages, sometimes they include clips which are not real.
And I double-checked in as much as humanly possible to make sure all of these clips were in fact real.
This is coming by way of concerned citizen whose handle is at B. Gates is a psycho.
And I presume that is intended to mean Bill Gates.
And the video goes on and on.
And it makes you feel very, very dirty for watching it.
Why are we starting off with this for today's show, everybody?
Because we're going to have a little discussion about a segment that Tim Dylan, stand-up comic, political commentator, podcaster, did that went viral.
And in that clip, Tim Dylan walks a very fine line between comedy, commentary, and defamation.
We're going to come back to the Joe Biden touchy-touchy, grabby-grabby total perv in a sec.
But we'll get to Tim Dylan's segment and I'll play it.
And I'll play it without saying a thing.
Inasmuch as I can keep my mouth shut for 90, 88 seconds.
Let's see if we can do it.
This is Tim Dylan's impugned bit, which sent some shockwaves, which triggered a response from me that triggered responses from others.
So I guess you could say it's a circle trigger.
Behold.
She has one thing left to do, and it's destroy Trump because I don't know what Trump was a part of, but he's probably fucked some underage people.
I would imagine.
And God only knows what else.
He's been accused of horrible things in these files.
Now Trump's saying he likes Bill Clinton.
Play this.
Because Trump knows.
Here's what Trump knows.
Trump didn't fear Hillary when she had something to lose.
Do you understand?
When Hillary needed the dark overlords, when she needed them, he didn't fear her.
Now that she doesn't need them and she's about to slip her skin suit and go back to her home planet, he knows that she can go in front of Congress.
There she is with her husband, Bill, and they're going to light this shit on fire.
They're going to talk about Trump.
They're going to talk about everything.
Let's play the video where Trump is talking about liking Bill Clinton.
But it bothers me that somebody's going after Bill Clinton.
See, I like Bill Clinton.
What do you like about him?
I like, well, I liked his behavior toward me.
I love that.
What do you like about Bill Clinton?
I like that he was nice to me.
I mean, that's classic Trump, where you might want to take the, I like Bill Clinton with a bit more of a grain of salt.
I thought he got me.
He understood me.
He's guilty.
This is guilt.
This is guilt.
Now, let's pause it here.
I am not just a proponent, a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech.
And we're not really entering the world with the world of freedom of speech because we're not talking about a government enacting a law to prevent someone from speaking freely.
I believe that everybody should be allowed to say within the realm of the law what they want.
And then the only question is: when do you stop being within the realm of the law?
Who the F is this turd?
Some people are asking.
Tim Dylan, I think he's mildly funny.
I think he's got some good insights.
And then the question is: only this.
I'm going to play the first 10 seconds.
Does this cross a line?
She has one thing left to do, and it's destroy Trump because I don't know what Trump was a part of, but he's probably fucked some underage people.
I would imagine.
He probably effed some underage people, I would imagine, and then goes on with the clip.
And then at the end, says he's guilty.
Now, I took the position, unpopular as it might be, that this is getting very, very close to defamation.
This is getting very, very close to asking for a lawsuit.
And then people are like, viva.
But he said, in my opinion, he said, he probably, he didn't say it as a matter of fact.
I don't block people on Twitter.
People can speak freely.
I mute people because their freedom to speak does not imply my obligation to hear.
Someone can speak.
It doesn't mean I'm going to give him a bullhorn and put that bullhorn an inch from my ear.
And then the question is: at what point does it stop being commentary and start being libelous?
He probably effed some underage people.
It's an accusation of statutory rape at best or pedophilia at worst.
And then I took to Twitter to share my insights.
And as much as anybody cares what I have to say, sometimes people do, sometimes people don't.
And then sometimes it pisses people off.
And I like it.
And I read replies because I know how Twitter works.
Like, sometimes when something gets more comments than reposts, it means ratio and it means that you said something stupid.
And I like to say, did I see something stupid?
I said, this is how you get sued for defamation, Tim, and you will deserve it.
Plus, your logic, read the Clintons, makes zero sense.
Let me stop it there.
Let's get back to the defamation in a second.
Let's just take myself out of the stream.
Let's just get to the logic of what Tim Dylan is saying.
He's saying, now that Hillary Clinton has nothing to lose, she's going to spill the beans on Donald Trump.
There are no beans to be spilt.
Like, this is what's driving me nuts.
There are no beans to be spilt on Trump per se.
There might be beans to be spilt on members of his entourage.
I think that's becoming abundantly clear.
And then some people are going to say, well, how many people in his orbit does he have that are intimately involved past, present, or not future, unless he's still alive, past or present?
I just say past with Jeffrey Epstein.
There are no beans to be spilt on Donald John Trump.
If there were, they would have been spilt a long time ago.
The idea that anybody believes or seriously promotes the notion that they would have withheld leaking, disclosing, inculpatory, incriminating information on Trump as it relates to Epstein because it would have brought other people.
It's stupid.
It's so idiotic.
They tried to bankrupt Donald Trump.
They tried to jail Donald Trump.
They tried to kill Donald Trump.
You don't think that they would have surreptitiously leaked selectively information if they had it that would have implicated Trump?
I don't say we've seen everything in the Epstein files.
We've seen a lot more now, thanks to the efforts of some.
We've seen a ton.
And what inculpates Trump in all of these documents?
Hapazard mentions of his name and nothing more than that.
People in his entourage, Steve Bannon's having a rough week and he's going to have a rough year.
Howard Luttnick is, you know, getting tripped up with some statements that he made.
But the idea that they would not have released information on Trump that they had if they had it, because it would have brought other people down, it's stupid.
By the time you're trying to kill somebody, and I do genuinely believe that the Butler assassination attempt was a deep state operation.
I believe that the Ryan Ruth assassination attempt was a deep state operation.
By the time you're going to kill somebody, you'll take down other people with you if you fail on that mission.
Hillary Clinton has had nothing to lose, politically speaking, since 2016.
She was never running again.
Maybe you could say, all right, she might have run again in 2020, so she won't spill the beans then if it takes her.
Bullcrap.
She had nothing to lose as of 2016, even less as of 2020.
And she had zero to lose in 2024.
So that rationale from Tim Dylan is superficial nonsense.
Bad analysis, in my humble view.
But then we get into the accusation of having sex with underage people.
God only knows what else.
Probably fuck some underage people.
I would imagine.
And God only knows what else.
I would imagine.
So now here's the deal.
And the funny thing is when you take issue with this, people come at you from different angles.
They say it's comedy.
He's not serious about it.
Oh, okay, fine.
If he's not serious about it, it's comedy.
It's commentary.
He's entitled to his belief.
Oh, okay, fine.
Oh, he said the words, I believe, probably, therefore, defense.
No.
So politically speaking, Hillary had nothing to lose since 2020.
Yeah, yeah, she had absolutely nothing to lose in 2024.
Statements like this are what happen when you get too comfortable saying increasingly bombastic and hyperbolic things under the guise, typo, under the guise of shock, humor, political analysis.
Your audience will cheer you on and you feel morally justified and legally invincible.
You've crossed the line here and I suspect you will be receiving a lawyer's letter demanding a retraction, correction, and apology.
Time will tell.
Then people get angry with this.
Are you seriously endorsing the idea of a sitting president sending retraction demands to comedian podcasters over commentary like this?
Do you remember the kind of things right-wing podcasters were saying about the Bidens?
Because it was a lot, it was a hell of a lot worse than this.
And it would have been, I would have been apoplectic if Biden had tried to pull that shit.
Well, first things first, and I like Mel and Mel and I get along and we're having a respectful dialogue here.
Now we're going to get back to the Joe Biden.
There was a lot of better reason to suggest that Joe Biden was up to perverted behaviors with children.
There was a lot better.
There was documentation, left, right, and center.
Videos, montages.
There was also, you know, the fact checks, true.
Do you know what has to happen for Yahoo News to say true?
A diary authored by U.S. President Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden, describes showers taken with her father when she was a child as, quote, probably not appropriate, rating true.
So it's not the same that people said Bill Clinton sexually assaulted women because he did.
He pleaded, he settled it.
He was disbarred for these claims.
He paid out $800,000 to settle these claims.
It's not the same just because one's a president and the other's a president.
It's the absence of proof that can justify making that claim.
Then it goes to the question of whether or not simply adding the word probably, in my opinion.
We're not going to go into an in-depth legal analysis on this.
You all know the criteria for defamation, false statement that causes damage to a person's reputation.
And when it comes to public figures, has to be made with actual malice.
Just a summary.
You know, everyone thinks, well, if I say in my opinion, then you get away with whatever you want.
That's not true.
Let me make sure I want to bring it up.
It's just a justicia.
I brought up, where is it?
I brought up the thing, justicia.
Not that.
I was going to go look it up in the sponsor of today's show, our Venice.ao, which we'll get to in a second.
And I can't seem to find the flipping thing.
All that to say, you can go look it up in the law.
Just adding, in my opinion, he committed rape.
That's not, that's not going to defend, you know, it's not a defense to potential defamation claims.
This is a thing where I appreciate what some people say.
They say it privately, and then others post it publicly.
Like, he's saying what we all feel.
And I said, first of all, there's no such thing as defamatory thoughts.
I appreciate there's a lot of people out there who are wildly pissed off with this administration for the bungled disclosure of the Epstein files.
Disclosure is so bad, it either looks like culpability, concealment of culpability, or in my view, sabotage.
Listen, all y'all, it's a sabotage.
But for those who don't know, just cloaking what is otherwise a demonstrably false statement of fact in, in my opinion, probably followed up with guilty is not a defense to defamation.
I like Tim Dylan, but this is what happens when you get cheered on by an audience.
You get used to saying increasingly bombastic things.
And at some point, you know, familiarity breeds contempt and you cross a certain line.
This, I think, crossed the line.
Stating probably guilty have effed underage people.
You know, you better have some better evidence than just being unhappy with the disclosure of the Epstein files to make such a claim.
You better have some evidence in the Epstein files to make such a claim.
And thus far, other than some FBI anonymous tip back in 2020 when Trump was announcing he was rerunning for president and subsequently written off, disregarded by the FBI as a crazy person who calls in crazy tips.
There is no evidence that Trump did anything like that.
There's no pictures of Trump getting a deep tissue massage by one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Gouffray.
There's no pictures of Trump with the victims like Prince Andrew and Virginia Guffray.
So you want to say it, you better have some better evidence than just pleasing your audience and what they want to hear.
We're going to get into the rest of this because the disclosures have revealed a lot of things, but in my view, and it's not because I believe in government censorship, I believe in not just human decency, but free speech within the realm of the law.
You don't get to use your speech to induce fraud.
You don't get to use your speech to defame people.
And you want to suggest that someone had fornications with underage people, you better have some shred of evidence and not just cloak it in the guise of comedy.
Don't take it seriously, but I was serious in its political commentary, which I'm free to do, although it's baseless and defamatory.
That is what you call the moving goalpost of I want to say defamatory stuff and not be held to account for it.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Moving Goalposts of Defamation 00:03:42
I'm going to get into all of this chat in a second.
But before we even get there, I want to thank our sponsor for today's show.
Was going to have it on yesterday because it was, you know, going to have our big Sunday show, but then I didn't realize there was an even bigger Sunday show last night.
It was called the Super Bowl.
By the way, I'm not talking about Bad Bunny today.
So if anybody wants to hear about Bad Bunny, you'll have to go and listen to whoever else was on the Rumble lineup.
I'm not getting into Bad Bunny.
Garbage is what it was.
The Kid Rock singing the song about the Bible, beautiful.
But I'm not getting into Bad Bunny.
That being said now, people, Sam Altman, speaking of, never mind, never mind.
Not political commentary or Hebrew, but Sam Altman said ChatGPT will get to know you over your life.
Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on its board right now.
Edward Snowden, a man who was responsible for one of the greatest, I would say most important disclosures of all time, has called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
Alexa listens to you, recommends products based on your conversations.
Meta retargets us based on our browsing history.
Why would we assume that AI is going to be any different?
It took us far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with the data that they stole from us over the last decade.
It was an amazing thing.
I was listening to Mike Benz on Rogan.
Like the idea that data, was it Mike Benz?
Whatever.
The idea that data would become a commodity, a currency is amazing.
Open AI has hinted that they might start requiring their users to provide government-issued IDs.
Why would you feel comfortable giving your ID to chat GPT to be able to use it?
Well, AI's got a solution.
It utilizes leading open. source AI models to deliver text code and image generation to your web browser.
No downloads, no installations, no nothing.
You go to Venice.ai.
You'll see, we're going to, let's see here.
Let's just give it a test.
Is Viva Fry right more often than not?
Let's see what it does while we do this, by the way.
But yeah, no, no, they got a pro plan that unlocks the full platform, including features like PDFs, summarizes things.
You can program how it interacts with you.
It's amazing.
If you want to use AI without the fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts, valuable data, personal information to some terrible company, you go to venice.ai forward slash Viva.
You'll get 20% off a pro plan using our link at VivaFry.
Let's see what it says here.
I like Viva Fry is a Canadian lawyer, turned commentator, who shifted from legal vlogs to political and cultural commentary around 2019.
Whether he's right more often than not depends on the domain.
Legal analysis is a trained litigator.
He can break down corporate teams.
Political commentary, he brands himself a truth speaker.
Skeptical of government in mainstream media.
Huh, like this.
Aligning with libertarian individualist views.
General track record.
He built a sizable following by being entertaining and accessible, especially during periods of distrust.
Ooh, I like this.
Bottom line, he's often persuasive and occasionally correct.
Especially on surface-level legal explanations, but his confidence can outpace precision.
And his political commentary is opinion-driven rather than consistently evidence-based.
If you value his perspective, take it as informed advocacy rather than definitive truth.
I like that.
Informed advocacy.
That's going on a shirt, people.
Good afternoon.
How goes the battle?
By the way, Venice.ai forward slash Viva.
The link is in the description.
Thank you very much, Venice.
And let's get going on the rest of the show, shall we?
Oh, let me see here.
Read the emails.
Rothschild is top Illuminati Deep State Hillary emails to The Real Rock says, you know, it's bad.
Okay, I'm not reading that.
People, we're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Next Door Explanation 00:14:44
We are live on Rumble daily, three o'clock.
And we're live on Twitter as well, but that's really, you know, not for nothing.
Bill Brown, do you brand yourself a weed smoker?
I think Viva has more credibility when he has a beard.
So yes, some of you may have already noticed.
I shaved.
I feel young.
I don't actually feel ugly this time.
It just felt good.
I got rid of it, exfoliated, went to the beach yesterday, and took some sun.
When there's a shade of difference between the face that's exposed to the sun and the part that's hidden, that's the time to shave it off, start from scratch, see how much gray hair grows back the next time.
The Epstein files.
We're going to get into today's show.
Just an update on the Tyler Robinson trial, the hearing that occurred last week and where it's going.
A case that you probably didn't hear of.
I mean, it's so crazy coming out of Canada of four Chinese students who had explosives, materials, and guns at University of Western.
Nobody knows what's going on.
But as far as I'm concerned, the biggest story still is the Epstein disclosures.
When you release 3 million documents in PDF form, and it's searchable, so you go to the Epstein database and you can look things up.
And what's amazing, actually, I'll show you all how this works.
You go there and you can have fun.
I'm sure there's an AI method of filtering through so you can find what you're looking for.
It asks you for your age, but I'm going to bring up one.
Just, you know, you put in words and you want to put in suspicious words.
You want to put in curious words.
You put in this word.
If I can type this.
Watch what comes up here.
Oh, yeah, no, but let's be more specific.
Here, torture video.
And there's an email in here, which we're going to get to that requires some explanation.
Do I want to?
I'll click the first one.
I think it's the same document throughout.
This is it requires some explanation.
We were told that there would be redactions for victims to protect the identities of victims and ongoing investigations.
This is the explanation that's coming out of this that sort of defies credibility or defies logic.
That we're being told on the one hand that if there's any new information, please bring it to us so that we can decide who to prosecute, which seems to suggest that there are not new or ongoing prosecutions or investigations for the purposes of prosecution and redactions which either suggest victim or something else.
This is an email from Jeffrey Epstein from his JEEvacation at gmail.com.
Fun fact, if you're not new to the channel, you know this.
He created that email when he was when he got his sweetheart deal in 2007 with Costa because his jail time for having to be a level one registered sex offender was such a vacation that he created this Jeffrey Epstein evacation at gmail.com email address.
It's from him to we don't know whom.
Around about the time, I think when he was serving out his sweetheart deal, Friday, April 24th, 2009, it says, Where are you?
Are you okay?
I loved the torture video.
Does anybody understand what the hell is going on in that?
Does anybody think that we are crazy?
I mean, he could have just been talking about the Nicholas Cage movie Nine Millimeter, and he's like, I just love that torture video.
What the hell's going on?
And if anybody in the chat knows, I mean, I've been trying to do as much due diligence verification as I can, both within the documents and beyond the documents.
A lot of new information is coming out as people dive into this.
And there's some highlights.
I mean, that's one of them.
Just so you, we memorialize this in real time from Jeffrey Epstein to we don't know whom.
Where are you?
Are you okay?
I loved the torture video.
Maybe it was a typo and auto-dictated.
He meant the tortoise video.
Who knows?
I'm not even trying to be glib.
So there's that.
There's been a bunch of other documents that require some explanation, not the least of which is one involving Howard Luttnick.
Now, we covered this back in the day: that Luttnick bought the property that was Literally next door to Jeffrey Epstein.
And it was through entities that were directly or indirectly related to Jeffrey Epstein's businesses.
Let me see where this one is.
I want to bring up, I want to play the video of an answer that Luttnick gave to a question which hasn't aged particularly well.
And these are the frustrating things: is that you're told X, Y, and Z or X, Y, and Z.
And then you see things which contradict what you've heard before.
And then you start to lose some serious, serious faith in the people who are making the decisions in an administration that you want to succeed and that needs to succeed.
Now, what in the name of sweet.
Oh, gosh.
Now I just, oh, gosh, what did I just do here?
No, no, it's here.
I can't flipping.
Find the video.
Hold on one second.
Give me one second.
I'm going to get this here.
Give me a link to the tweet where Viva Fry tweets at Ludnick.
Lutnik.
It's very frustrating.
I'm trying to keep track of my thoughts here.
I think I have this one in the backdrop somewhere.
We're going to get to the video of the suicide of the alleged suicide, which we were also told existed.
Okay, this is it right here.
So hold on here.
Okay, it's right here.
Let me bring this up.
Bring this up in incognito.
And we're going to talk about this one right now.
You were number 11.
Here it is right here.
Okay.
He was your neighbor.
I'll play this answer.
This is with Miranda Devine, an answer that he gave a little while back.
And I'll play this out as well.
Maybe not all of it.
He was your neighbor for 10 years.
How well did you know him?
All right.
So we are in number 11 and he lives in number nine.
Right.
So we renovate, we buy our house, and our house is pigeons and mice.
Right.
Okay.
That's it.
It was derelict.
Right.
So we build, we rebuild our house.
We move in in 2005.
Okay.
Jeffrey Epstein is arrested in like 08, I think, or something like that.
So knock on the door.
His assistant on like a Saturday says, Mr. Epstein, your neighbor would like to invite you over for coffee.
So my wife and I go next door.
You know, we walk the seven steps to the next house for coffee.
We share a wall.
Right.
Right.
So it's in New York City.
So he invites us in.
We have coffee in this, and he says, Do you want a tour?
I said, Great.
Interesting.
He's got a really big house.
Every room you went into?
He's got, he's got it.
Well, I'll tell you.
So his house is like super big, really wide.
And so he gives me a tour in the living room, big living room.
And then across from it is double doors.
I assume it's the dining room.
Yeah.
And he opens the doors and there's a massage table in the middle of the room and candles all around and stuff.
So I ask very insightful, cutting questions.
I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house?
How often do you have a massage?
And he says, every day.
And then he gets like weirdly close to me.
And he says, and the right kind of massage.
Now, my wife is standing here.
So she looks at me and I look at her.
And we say, I'm sorry.
We have to go.
And we left.
And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.
All right.
Now, I'll correct myself on something here in real time.
The Howard Luttnick bought the property from a trust called Comet Trust.
Jeffrey Epstein sold the property to Comet Trust.
Two years later, it sold to Howard Luttnick.
They lived, they were next door neighbors to each other for an extended period of time.
And that was, you know, by Luttnick's own admission, his first and creepy interaction with Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, it turns out, as now has been disclosed, that he was actually mildly in business.
Now, I'm taking from Fox News, by the way, because you go to CBS News and they're going to say Luttnick lies, was in business as released, as revealed by the Epstein files.
I'll take from Fox News, which is definitely more sympathetic to the Trump administration to see how they frame this.
Massey, top oversight Democrat, called for Secretary Luttnick to resign for, quote, lying about alleged Epstein ties.
Luttnick accused of lying about relationship with Epstein after DOJ files suggest 2012 investment partnership.
And now people are going to say, what is this guilt by association?
How much, what are the levels of business ties that you should avoid because you know that you're going to, I don't know, have some sort of shared interest with someone who, even according to Luttnick, is a disgusting pervert who had a massage room and was getting the right types of massages.
This is the story.
Top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee piled onto calls from Rep Thomas Massey, Kentucky, on Monday for Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick to step down in light of alleged business ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Files released by the DOJ suggest that Luttnick and Epstein bought stakes together in a technology company called Adfin in 2012.
Luttnick, who was listed among nine other investors, appears as a signatory alongside Epstein, who is named as a preferred holder.
Now, I ask these questions.
Everything sounds tongue-in-cheek and more sassy than it should on Twitter.
If the explanation from Luttnick is, I knew this guy, I had no interactions with him.
We're investors in a company and I can't control who the other investors are.
And I'm not going to turn down business opportunities just because there's some guy who gave me the heebie jeebies four years earlier who was listed as a preferred holder.
But did you actively try to conceal that because of how Epstein's reputation turned out and how everybody who had anything to do with Epstein needs to resign from their jobs or get fired or whatever?
Notably, the purchase is dated four years after Epstein was convicted in 2008 of sexual abuse involving a 14-year-old girl.
Rep Garcia said the documents clearly contradicts previous statements from Luttnick about his relationship with Epstein.
It's now clear that Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick has been lying about his relationship with Epstein.
He said he had no interactions with Epstein.
Now he might not have had interactions with him.
If that's the explanation, he should make it.
Sure, we invested in the company, we signed off.
That's it.
I don't know what the other eight people were like in their private lives either.
Luttnicks must resign or be fired and he must answer our questions, Garcia added.
Garcia calls follow similar comments made by Massey on Sunday.
I can see why people don't like Massey these days, or at least some people.
When asked about Lutnick's appearance in the files on CNN, Massey also said that Luttnick should step down.
He should resign.
Prince Andrew lost his title for less than what we've seen Howard Luttnick lie about, Massey said, referring to the member of the royal family who was stripped of his titles last year for his association with Epstein.
I don't know if it was for less than what Luttnick may, in fact, have done in real life.
I think it might have been a little bit more.
There's some credible evidence and credible allegations against what's his face?
Prince Andrew.
He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein, and this was many years after Epstein was convicted of sex crime.
So he's got a lot to answer for.
Other documents in the Epstein files reveal communications between Lutnick and Epstein's staff that suggests Lutnick may have met with Epstein in the Virgin Islands.
Jeffrey Epstein understands you will be down in St. Thomas sometime over the holidays.
Jeffrey requested, I please pass along some phone numbers to you so you can probably get together.
In response to an inquiry from Fox News, on the criticism from Garcia and Massey, a spokesperson for the Department of Commerce framed their demands as a distraction.
Mr. Luttnick met Jeffrey Epstein in 2005, had very limited interactions with him over the next 14 years.
There's nothing more than a failing attempt by the legacy media to distract from the administration's accomplishments, including securing trillions of dollars in investment, delivering historic trade deals, and fighting for American worker.
Host Oversight Committee James Comer did not respond to a request for comment on whether the committee would consider questioning Lutnick as part of the committee's ongoing probes.
What a tangle web we weave when at first we seek to deceive.
The reality is, it might not be anything more than tangential business interactions.
I don't know, they're in the same neighborhoods.
They live literally next door to each other.
But that type of inaccurate statement that comes back to haunt you, you can't blame people for arguably, but not arguably, making a mountain of a molehill.
It seems like not much of an oversight to have forgotten about, and whether or not you didn't disclose it because it was, in your mind, insignificant and irrelevant.
Well, it's rearing its ugly head again.
And I say this to someone, Luttnick, when was he just at the WEF and he had a statement that I liked?
Let me see this here.
Link to tweet where Viva Fry compliments Luttnick at WF Davos.
He said something great in his statement to Davos.
I want to bring it up so that it's here.
Hold on, is this it?
Hmm, that one doesn't exist.
Well, he had a good statement at Davos.
I forget exactly what it was about, but I remember being very much in agreement about it.
But this is not the type of thing that you can now think.
You're going to have to answer these questions, period.
Buy the next door property from a trust that Epstein sold his house to.
You see that in the title.
You know who he is.
You live next door to him.
You say it was such a perverted, gross relationship.
Memo in August 00:15:28
The first experience, it was a one and done.
And then stuff indicates it wasn't a one and done.
Maybe there's a good explanation for it.
Maybe there's not, but an explanation, you know, maybe this will fade out of the current news cycle and the world will move on with the torrent of information that we are getting into.
Which brings us to another one.
Epstein allegedly took his own life, allegedly, on August 10th.
And we were at first told that there was video evidence showing that he took his own life.
That video evidence turned into as much of a bungled rollout as the Epstein files phase one under Pam Bondi.
It showed nothing, absolutely nothing.
It, in fact, raised more questions as to how there could be so nothing to show that 12 hours showed nothing, except for the fact that there were three minutes missing, which caused people to, you know, get a little suspicious.
But it showed nothing.
But we were told that there was video that was going to maybe not definitively, but seriously show that Epstein was alone in his cell and could only have taken his own life.
And now it seems that that's not exactly the case.
This is coming from CBS, a report that found what is it called, a memo in the Epstein files indicating that there might be a little bit more than meets the eye here.
And some video suggesting that there might be more than meets the eye.
Listen to this.
The report says someone, probably Noel, carries a bundle of bedding or clothing up the stairs.
It's a rare instance the video does catch movement on the stairs, but barely.
Let's see that zoomed in and in slow motion again.
Several of the video forensic experts we spoke with were skeptical about the report's conclusion and thought that the video could be showing an inmate walking up the stairs.
Authorities say this was the last time anyone approached his cell block until his body was discovered the next morning.
Again, while the video does not contradict that, experts who viewed the video say the limited field of view makes it impossible to definitively conclude that no one used those stairs in that time period.
It makes it impossible to definitively conclude that nobody used those stairs.
That's like sort of a double negative.
We cannot conclude that nobody used those stairs.
It raises some questions.
Beyond this, there are other issues our investigation and others have uncovered.
At 1121 p.m. and 34 seconds, a cursor appears briefly on screen, indicating the video may have been recorded with a camera or a screen recording and was not an export of the raw file.
The report says someone, probably Noel, carries a bundle of bedding or clothing up the stairs.
It's a rare instance the video does catch movement on the stairs, but barely.
Let's see that zoomed in and in slow motion again.
Several of the video forensic experts we spoke been recorded with a camera or a screen recording and was not an export of the raw file.
The report says...
So then we get back to the beginning of the file.
So you can't rule out that someone may have had access to Jeffrey Epstein's cell.
I'll give you that link right there.
Then it gets a little bit more suspicious.
If you haven't seen this, you're going to flip out.
I won't even read my analysis of it before we get there.
This is, come on, come on.
Are we done?
Let's not spoil the surprise here.
This is it appears to be a draft memo from the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Berman for immediate release Friday, August 9, 2019.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jeffrey S. Berman said, quote, earlier this morning, oh, this statement on the Manhattan U.S. Attorney of the death of defendant Jeffrey Epstein.
Berman says, earlier this morning, the Manhattan Correctional Office confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein, who faced charges brought by this office of engaging in the sex trafficking of minors, had been found unresponsive in a cell and pronounced dead shortly thereafter.
Today's events are disturbing, and we are deeply aware of their potential to present yet another hurdle to giving Epstein's many victims their day in court.
Oh, that's actually kind of an interesting admission I didn't pick up on the first time.
Yeah, it's going to make it very difficult to pursue justice against Epstein.
We're very disappointed.
We're deeply aware of that.
Some might argue that that's the feature and not the bug.
Set that aside.
To those brave young women who have already come forward, yada, yada, yada.
Let me reinstate we remain committed to standing for you in our investigation.
Yada yada.
Okay, fine.
I obviously glossed over the Friday, August 9, 2019.
You know what the only problem with that is?
Jeffrey Epstein allegedly committed suicide on Saturday, August 10th.
This is the final version of the memo that actually they put the right date on it, August 10th.
I went to find the right memo, make sure about it.
Saturday, August 10th.
So it's not just that they said Saturday, August 9, or they just said August 9.
They put in Friday, August 9.
And people are saying, oh, they drafted the memo before it happened.
More likely than not, the memo was drafted after, but they took, I don't know, a memo that they started on Friday.
It was a Saturday, so they pulled the one they had from Friday.
They started making changes to it, and they forget to change the date.
There's another interesting distinction in here that people brought to my attention.
Manhattan USDA.
Okay, said, early this morning, the Manhattan Correctional Center confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein, who faced charges brought by this office for engaging in the sex trafficking of minors, had been found unresponsive in his cell and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter of an apparent suicide.
That wasn't in the original, was found dead shortly thereafter.
And then they added of an apparent suicide, which some people are making hay of.
And so the question is, it would be useful to provide, have access to the metadata of the document so that we could see when that document was created to the extent that it's possible.
See, you can't tell anything from this unless you get the metadata.
Even if you get the metadata and it shows that it was created August 9, that wouldn't prove anything necessarily.
Because anybody who's ever worked in law, you know, you take an old document that you may have created three years ago, and then you just share, or the week before, letters of demand, you know, service documents, and you just change the things, and then you re-save it for the day of.
So the metadata might not reveal anything.
But it would be good if FBI, Pam Bondi, Director Cash, could provide the metadata, link to the metadata on the draft statement or some clarification.
Because when you open things up to the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs, people are going to piece things together arguably better than so-called intelligence.
And so now you have video potentially showing a flash of green in the scene of Epstein's jail.
And remember, by the way, Noel and the other guard there, the prison guard, they've been working back-to-back shifts.
They apparently fell asleep.
They didn't do the required check-ins on Jeffrey Epstein, who was on Suicide Watch, but taken off Suicide Watch, who was in a cell with this burly quadruple homicide ex-cop, evil man, who allegedly tried to kill him.
This is what Jeffrey Epstein said.
And then they take him off Suicide Watch, don't check him every 30 minutes or whatever.
And then the two prison guards, they disappear off into the night.
So now you have video evidence contradicting the video evidence that we were told was going to show that Epstein took his own life.
A draft memo that is apparently a draft dated the day before it actually happens.
And you can't believe, but you can't blame people for having thoughts, conspiratorial thoughts.
Now, I would say getting into it.
I didn't get into it.
I get along with a lot of people on the internet, even when I disagree with them.
And there's somebody I follow whose name is Michael Triple.
Here we go.
This was it.
I want to bring this up.
And you'll tell me if I'm being overly semantic.
Dominique Michel Triple.
We follow each other.
He's a good source.
And it's just good.
The internet is about just sharing knowledge, sharing links and sharing insights, writes, new.
Epstein, quote, decoy, end quote, dead body, used an effort to mislead media, which allowed Jeffrey Epstein's real body to be transported unnoticed out of the New York City jail following his death, according to the FBI files.
Some people say, well, where's the link?
And he posted the link and I went to look at the document.
You'll tell me if I'm being too meticulous when it comes to phraseology.
Epstein, quote, decoy dead body.
Now, when I read that, I said, oh my goodness, are they using it?
Are there two dead bodies in here?
And is that going to be used as some sort of argument to support the idea that Jeffrey Epstein is still alive?
Yes, I've seen the picture of the guy with the long gray hair, the beard, the sunglasses.
I thought it was Mel Gibson.
But I said, you know, is it, is it, it's not exactly what happened here.
They did not use a decoy dead body.
They used boxes to make it look like a body while apparently sneaking the real body out in a separate vehicle.
The scripture makes it sound like there were two dead bodies, which would be very, very suspicious.
And this is from the document where they say, due to the large news media presence outside the MCC, which is the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a male OCME official called and said he would be arriving at the loading dock with a black vehicle in order to thwart the media, blank, blank, and blank, used boxes and sheets to create what appeared to be a human body, which was put into the white OCME vehicle, which the press followed, allowing the black vehicle to depart with Epstein's body.
So, you know, I say what we know, and this seems mildly logical that they would try to avoid the media.
I don't know how that would solve any problem because the media would then go and presumably hound the vehicle that had the decoy dead body.
And this is where I say it's semantics or it's not.
It's not a decoy dead body, which would seem like it's a dead body that's being used as a decoy.
It's a decoy dead body, and that it's not actually a dead body.
But the bottom line, now we're seeing that they created a fake decoy so they could then smuggle Jeffrey Epstein's body out without media attention, which is leading some people to believe that there's might be something, there might be a there there.
He might not be dead.
He might be, I don't know where.
I'm going to see if I can find this picture that everybody's Jeffrey Epstein photo.
Let me see if we can find this picture.
No, I won't be able to find that.
I'll make a funny joke.
Yesterday during the Oscars, during the Oscars, during the Super Bowl, I made a joke about an Epstein joke here.
There's this picture, and it looks like, I think it looks more like Mel Gibson than Jeffrey Epstein, but I can definitely understand how people think it looks like Jeffrey Epstein.
This was my joke.
Roger Federer, Super Bowl.
Super Bowl.
Everybody's here.
Great Rogers Federer down on the field before the game.
Taking it some of the science.
That's Jeffrey Epstein.
Come on, guys.
That kind of looks like Jeffrey Epstein.
Yes.
People are like, Viva, it says John Bon Jovi right underneath.
It's like, my goodness.
It says, if you look at the small print under John Bon Jovi, it says, you don't have a sense of humor.
That kind of looks like Jeffrey.
Jeffrey Epstein, he's at the game.
Jeffrey Epstein is so, oh, that's not Jeffrey Epstein.
So, yeah, there are people out there who actually believe that John Bon Jovi, John Bon Epstein.
There's people out there who believe that Jeffrey Epstein is still alive.
And let me see this here.
There's a pic of someone people claim is Jeffrey Epstein.
Link, please.
Let me see if I can find this.
I don't know if the picture is real.
This is why I haven't shared it, retweeted it.
Oh, apparently, so it might be AI generated.
There's a picture, and everyone's saying, oh, it says, Grok, trim the beard and cut the hair.
And it looks just like Jeffrey Epstein.
It's impossible to know what to trust and what not to trust.
But the bottom line, everything we've been told, the more information that comes out seems to contradict official statements, official positions, what we were told and assured by Bonte.
I mean, I start to go back to that, the files on my desk.
Oh, there's nothing to see here.
And oh, there's 3 million documents that seem to contradict what we were telling you at the time, which was that video evidence that he took his own life.
The more access to info that comes out, the more questions that people have, and understandably so.
Now, there's a bunch of crumble rants before we get any further into this.
And I want to bring them up here and see what the chat has to say about things and what our viva barns law.locals.com community has to say.
And I love the fact that Tim Dylan's sunglasses match the king of Bill Tong purple.
We got old man Toby who says, Viva, does this mean that everyone who is in business with Epstein should lose their job?
How many congressmen and senators should resign too?
Bring it all down.
I had this discussion with someone yesterday, a member of my family, and I said, they say, it's guilt by association.
I say, there are degrees to this.
You know, like I'm being told, Viva, you're being unfair to Joanna Rubenstein.
I mean, this is the UN woman in Sweden who just resigned from her position.
Let me just bring this one up so that you can refresh memories on this.
I'll pick a random article.
I mean, Viva, you're being unfair.
It's just people who tangentially knew him.
everybody should lose their lose their uh their jobs over this well i want to chair of sweden for u-n-h-c-r This is the refugee thing.
Yeah, we're not going to get it.
Resigned.
And people say, you're being unfair.
Like, all that she did was visit his island after she knew that he was a sex criminal with her family, no less.
And like, first of all, I'm not saying anybody who owns shares in GM.
All right.
Jeffrey Epstein owns shares in GM.
I own shares in GM.
Publicly traded company.
No, that would be a little bit too much.
All right.
So someone was friendly with Jeffrey Epstein before they found out he was a sexual deviant and then excommunicated him from their golf club.
I'm talking about Trump right now.
Yeah, no, I don't hold that in any sort of culpable sense.
Someone who takes their family to his private island in Little St. James after with their family, with their daughter, after knowing that he was a convicted, pleaded guilty to sex trafficking a minor.
Oh, I didn't know how bad his crimes were.
Holy shit, you knew that.
And by the way, she says, I knew that at the time, but I didn't know the extent of his crimes.
There are degrees of connection, which are going to be more or less culpable depending on how close they get.
And I'll make that discretion in my own discretion.
I'll make that decision in my own discretion.
And I trust my own discretion.
So not anybody who had anything to do with him, but the more intimate, the more culpable, prima fasci.
Maybe there's good explanations as to why.
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 Tong.
Go to Billtongusa.com.
It's delicious.
It's amazing.
Outraged Over Human Trafficking 00:04:17
Use code Viva 10 for 10.
Use code Viva for 10% or done with.
Just support Anton because he makes amazing.
It's called Bill Tong.
It's like beef jerky.
It's delicious.
You will not regret it.
Bucklebrush Jones says, I sent the clip where Patel changed co-conspirator to victims while testifying to Massey.
I'll double check that.
Women enjoy good health and nutrition by.
Okay.
Dominant one, thank you.
I'm not going to, out of respect for the circumstances of the stream right now.
I will not read that.
But thank you very much, Dominant One.
And then let's see what's going on in our viva barnslaw.locals.com community and see what's going on here.
The way back wipe is what do we got here?
We got good memes.
So they say, weak ass Republicans, Democrats, media, dumbass influencers, and conservatives.
The largest invasion in human history funded by and allowed to happen by Democrats and their judges and police chiefs that led to rapes and murders and American moms and daughters.
Some dude named Epstein who poses no threat to your moms and daughters.
Well, first of all, I think a lot of people were outraged at both, and you can be.
It's not like being outraged at Epstein means that you're not outraged at the open border.
A lot of people were.
So this is a bad meme.
This is not a good example of the good memes.
A lot of Republicans are outraged at both, as they should be.
And I've been listening to, finally got through the, I finally got through the Mike Benz podcast.
And I say, not in the sense it was not difficult to get through.
It was just dense.
And, you know, I'm going to play you at Mike Benz, what I think is the most important two minutes of that podcast.
And then we're going to talk about this a little more afterwards.
But this is what Mike Ben.
This is what the most important thing about the Epstein scandal is.
And yes, tons of Republicans were outraged by the open borders, the human trafficking.
In fact, I mean, I know it's a matter of fact.
You can go back and through my Twitter feed, find tweets where I commented that this was to facilitate human trafficking.
In the same way, by the way, that they went to Haiti to get human trafficking.
And by the way, that UN official, coincidentally enough, involved with Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexual human trafficking, given the UN's history of sexual human trafficking.
You know, it's not a match made in heaven.
It's a match made in hell.
Listen to what Mike Benz has to say.
It's magnificent.
The point I'm getting to here is, given Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in the BCCI network, given Jeffrey's involvement in the 1990s with all the foreign policy activities happening in the Middle East at that time, given Jeffrey Epstein's involvement through the early 2000s, Clinton era and everything, given his involvement in everything from Israeli to Saudi to British to French high-level government officials, can you Jeffrey Epstein was investigated by the SEC in the 1980s?
He was one of the two people who ran the biggest Ponzi scheme in history at the time in the United States, the Tower's financial collapse.
Epstein's business partner goes to jail for like 30 years or 20 years or whatever.
But Epstein skates completely free.
Epstein gets involved in this huge fraud in the U.S. Virgin Islands with this billion-dollar fraud case in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Never prosecuted for any of it.
Why is that?
Well, one is, you know, he may have, we know in the U.S. Virgin Islands case, he was sponsoring the campaigns, basically the politics.
To get the gist of it, he's financing the campaigns.
That's exactly what happened in 2006.
The punchline of this is that he says, look, he wasn't investigated because it would have been a massive embarrassment to intelligence agencies.
And so, you know, I'm not going to hypothesize or pontificate that Epstein has anything to do with the open borders.
You know, that I would argue might be more activist organizations and NGOs and then other people who profit from human trafficking.
But you can be outraged at two things at once, as you should be.
And now, because I saw them come in over in our locals community, before we get to the other element of this story, and before I get to some of the stories which we're going to have at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, Finnboy Slick says, this one came out long before the files and it had me fairly convinced that something was wrong.
Rfk Jr's Close Call 00:05:09
Do I want to see what this?
Oh, this is the I'll show what this is in a second.
This is to show that it wasn't Epstein that came out of that cell.
Good meme for you.
Remember back before OnlyFans, when your mom just sold Avon?
That is from Bill Brown, veteran, member of our community, awesome guy.
Text me, great memes, which I don't always necessarily share.
This was the alleged evidence that it was not Epstein that came out of the cell.
I'm not neither approving nor disproving.
I say to fake the death.
And, you know, I don't know what happens to the human body when all the muscles are, you know, officially permanently relaxed or atrophied for that matter.
So like corpses don't look the same as living bodies.
And I appreciate some people are going to say, well, you can't change the cartilage on the ear.
Okay, fine.
That will not be conclusive for me one way or the other.
And it's too much to actually attempt to decipher.
Now, what else did we have?
Oh, some of the other breaking stuff.
Some of the, some of the, you want to know where the, I should have done this one before with the Guilt by Association.
You know what Association I don't give one sweet bugger all about?
They thought they got the own on RFK Jr.
These mother effers, like I say, no matter how much you hate these scumbags, you do not hate them enough.
The Daily Beast comes out.
Holy shit, they're going to take down RFK Jr.
They didn't get him with the eating the dog meat because you know it wasn't a dog, it was a goat.
They're going to get him, they're going to take him down with this.
Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy went hunting for dinosaur bones in the Dakotas with child sex traffickers Jeffrey Epstein and Ghelain Maxwell.
Holy shiot, people.
Do you know the details?
How long?
What year would you guess that he went to the Dakotas with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghelaine Maxwell?
This is from the article.
If you bother to click on it, then you bother to read it.
Then you bother to go down all the way.
One of those plane rides, he told News Nation at the time, took place in 1993 when I went 1993, when I went to visit my mother in Palm Beach in Florida.
The other, he said, took place two years later, 93 and 95.
We took my kids fossil hunting in Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.
That was the extent of anything that I had to do with Jeffrey Epstein's airplane, he said.
Now that I read that actually out loud, hold on.
Was that the plane that he took, or was it with Jeffrey Epstein?
RFK Jr.'s bizarre trip with Epstein and Glaine Maxwell.
So they took his plane with them on it.
Health Secretary Robert went hunting for dinosaur bones in the Dakotas with child sex traffickers, Glaine Maxwell, according to the latest tranche of documents.
As the follow-up of the Epstein files continues, an email exchange between the two sex predators center now centers on the now Trump cabinet secretary, one of the many prominent people whose friendships the pair cultivated over years.
The exchange took place in 2012, seven years before Epstein died in Manhattan jail.
In one email, Epstein writes to Maxwell about a trip involving dinosaur and fossil hunting sick with Jack Horner and the wrench right up your alley.
He adds the following day.
Maxwell says, Love that.
Didn't we go fossil hunting with him and Bobby in North Dakota?
So he went with somebody else on there in 1993.
Yeah, that's where I would say, who gives a sweet bugger all?
And you see, no matter how much you hate these mother effers, you do not hate them enough.
He went fossil hunting with them in 1993 before any plea deal, before any meaningful knowledge.
While, if Benz is right, while Epstein was neck deep in CIA stuff, Iran-Contra arms deals.
Oh, yeah, he went fossil hunting with another guy.
That's where I would draw the line.
That would be an unreasonable, stupid thing to hold over RFK Jr.'s head, and you have to be an idiot who reads the Daily Beast to believe it.
And that's that.
I think we've covered the essentials of the latest Epstein dump.
Let's go see what's going on in the chat one more time here before we get on to the uh we'll do the we'll do the Canadian Chinese story and then we're going to go to uh then we're going to go to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Hold up.
I'm going to bring it up here.
Let's go down here.
Let's go down here.
Hunting dynabon sounds cool.
Oh, dude, when we went up to the uh, I want to say Peace River up in Florida to do megalodon tooth hunting in the rivers.
It's very cool.
It's cool, except for the fact that there's gators in that river.
Like we saw them on the on the banks.
RFK Jr. had to make his hello vivo.
Oh, I wrote a book, Louis the Lobster.
I did.
It's right here.
Look at this.
If you want to get it, it's on Amazon.
Okay, so we got some rioting for Anne Speaking.
Okay, I don't know what that is.
And we'll go very quickly over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and see if they disagree or agree with the insights coming from yours.
True, we go to all and more memes.
And what else?
Download Rumble Wallet 00:02:42
They need to verify.
They need to vilify RFK Jr. because if he fixes food and medicine to quit killing brain cells, we'll start to think on our own.
Says Kitten is a geek.
They really got their goat, didn't they?
That was when they said RFK Jr. was eating a dog.
Stephen Britton says, I think Epstein is dead, but I don't think he killed himself.
But anyways, that's also, you know, that's also a what's the word I'm looking for?
Six of one way, half a dozen the other.
Even if he did kill himself, it's a conspiracy that he was allowed the opportunity to do so with extra linens in his cell with no supervision, no oversight, and nobody doing the required visits.
Like even if he did take his own life because they told him it's only going to get worse from here.
So here's your opportunity.
You better make sure to do it.
That's a conspiracy that needs to be looked into.
And I don't, that's a facilitated suicide.
And yeah, bottom line, that's the latest.
And we're not talking about Bad Bunny.
You know what we're going to do?
I'm saving the Canadian Chinese students for viva barnslaw.locals.com and the afterparty.
We go there after every show, people.
You can join our wonderful community if you are so inclined.
Here's the link to locals: 10 bucks a month.
You get the whole year for 100 bucks.
There's a ton of stuff that is just open to everybody.
You don't even have to pay to support the work that we do.
You can be a member, and I think I would say like the vast majority of content on our locals community is available to everybody.
There's some stuff that's behind a paywall for the supporters to thank them for our support, to thank them for their support, to make it possible for Robert Barnes and me to do what we do.
What I did want to show you is if you want to actually, hold on, here we go.
If you want to support the channel, you can go download the Rumble Wallet and tip in crypto.
You all know about this?
Download the Rumble app regardless, so you get immediate real-time notifications.
Just go to Rumble, download the Rumble app.
It's amazing.
I've got it.
I got Rumble Studio, Rumble App, and the Rumble Wallet.
If you want to tip using Bitcoin and you have a wallet, what's Bitcoin at today?
You can tip with Bitcoin.
You can also tip.
You go to Rumble, the Google Play or the Apple Store, and you can download Rumble Wallet.
You can tip with Bitcoin.
You can tip with XAUT, which is gold-tethered crypto.
Tethered to actual price of gold.
If you think gold is going to go up, you buy it.
If you think gold is going to go down, you wait, and then you buy it.
And if you want to redeem it, you can redeem it for actual gold.
It's beautiful.
Scan that.
You can do it.
And then there's the US dollar tether.
This is with Tether coming from the partner now that has an interest in Rumble, an actual financial stake, and is making innovations with Rumble that are going to change the world and the platforms as we know them.
Redacted DNA Ruling 00:08:57
And I see now that Bill Tong's in the back.
You look much younger without the beard, Viva.
I don't like it.
It'll grow back.
It'll grow back.
Yeah, I don't, but it's funny.
I didn't feel as ugly this time as I typically do.
The only thing is I notice when I do my jaw clench, it's not as pronounced as it is when I have the beard.
And the only thing I don't like is they say if you keep doing that, your face is going to stay like that.
I got these.
It's like the old man grumpy scowl.
And they're staying there.
Here, here, and this one.
And I was thinking, like, you know, I will never get Botox for aesthetic reasons.
It's got to force myself to smile and I'll get new wrinkles.
Okay.
With that said, the update in the Tyler Robinson hearing that occurred last week.
Tyler Robinson's defense attorney is like, I covered a bit of the highlights last week.
Just want to keep everybody up to speed on it because it's an interesting case and they had better make sure that that trial remains public when it goes when it goes when it goes to trial.
There was, hold on one second.
Hold up.
Wait a minute.
Where's the link?
Come on.
Department of State, Canada.
That's the students one.
Oh, Charlie Kirk.
Here we go.
Last week, they were having a motion to disqualify the prosecutor, the prosecution office, the Utah prosecution office, because the daughter of one of the prosecutors was at the event, but didn't see the shooting, didn't see the actual moment.
And defense attorney is doing what defense attorneys do, which is, you know, use every avenue of procedure and substantive and procedural law to try to frustrate the prosecution's ability to secure a conviction.
They say, I want the entire Utah prosecution office out of this.
They had asked that it be referred to the Attorney General's office so they can appoint someone else because the Utah prosecution office was so conflicted they couldn't even argue against their own disqualification.
The judge said, no, they can.
During that hearing, they wanted to limit, they wanted to preclude the video of Charlie Kirk being murdered from the evidence because they said it would be so prejudicial, not from the trial.
So this is the distinction that people have to appreciate, just from the hearing on the motion to disqualify.
They did not want the video to be played.
And from my understanding of what occurred, the video was not played during that debate on the disqualification.
It does not mean that the video is not going to be played during the trial, which I think some outlets might have misunderstood.
And it would be inconceivable that they're going to have a trial and not be able to show the primary piece of evidence of the murder.
Now, the argument during the motion to disqualify was defense is saying, we don't deny that it happened.
We're just denying, obviously, that our guy did it, and they'll do that at the trial.
But we're just arguing that the prosecution's office is conflicted.
There's no need to play the video.
It's going to inflame everyone's passions to the point where they're going to be more inclined to refuse the disqualification.
And The Guardian is reporting this.
When is this from?
February 3rd.
So it's a little old, but lawyers for accused Tyler Robinson urge removal because the prosecutor's daughter attended the rally where Kirk was killed.
Robinson's attorneys argued that a judge should disqualify local prosecutors because the adult daughter of Chad Grunander, a deputy county attorney, was in attendance at the rally.
Gruninger said his daughter testified before the judge, Utah, on Tuesday.
Grunander told the court that his daughter's presence did not play into the office to seek the death penalty.
So that's the repetitive part.
The judge is going to issue the ruling towards the end of February.
So the confusion was not that they're not going to show the video at trial.
They argued not to show the video on the hearing of the motion to disqualify.
They didn't show it.
Under deliberation, or the judge is going to issue an oral ruling followed by a written ruling.
And I'm going to make my prediction.
They're not going to get disqualified.
You know, they'll have tried to, I don't know, I want to say poison the well.
They tried to get out some evidence during this hearing.
And it's the clip that I played last week, which was the defense attorney asking a question which was totally loaded, putting into evidence, or I say putting out into the public domain information which was not in evidence and there was no objection to it, which I found problematic, about there being a mixture of DNA at the scene of the crime,
which I hadn't heard was the case.
And apparently it wasn't the case.
And just to refresh everybody's memory so it's complete with this presentation, this was the not this was not, this was the ruling.
This was the question right here.
Let's listen to this and appreciate what the defense attorney is doing, which is loading a question with a, I put it as a fact, which is not in evidence yet.
Evidence in the legal trial sense, loading the question with it, baking the question with it, knowing that it's going to get to the public's ears and possibly taint a jury pool who are now going to, for some reason, believe that there were five people's DNA mixed in with the DNA at the scene that implicated Tyler Robinson.
Listen, 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?
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.
I'm not aware of that implies that that is a fact.
That is a bullshit question that demanded an objection that didn't come.
And now that soundbite, that piece of information, oh, there's five people's DNA.
Well, now I've now I've got reasonable doubt as to who was on the roof that shot Charlie Kirk.
All right.
Well, that's it.
Bill Brown says, come on, Viva, just one.
Damn, you kids, get another, get it, get on here.
Oh, get on out of here, right?
Get on out of here.
Let's go.
We're going to take this party over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
And for those who are on the fence as to whether or not you're going to go raid, redacted, or come on over to Viva Barnes, come on over because I'm going to talk about my brush up.
Brush up?
Is that a word?
No.
My brush in?
My run-in.
What?
A little fight that I'm having with Alex Berenson on Twitter.
And people using semantics to avoid reality.
And that semantics is going to be what is meant by evidence.
Is there evidence in the Epstein file that he actually sexually abused children?
Well, according to Alex Berenson and others, unless you got a conviction, there's no evidence in the legal sense of evidence that was accepted as judicial fact by the judge.
Whereas, generally speaking, without getting into it too early, if I say, you know what, there's evidence that there are rats in the wall, because you know, I could see like dirt on the ground and rat poop.
Well, there's been no judicial finding that there have been rats in the wall, but that would qualify as evidence in the sense that everybody understands language and people are pretending not to understand ordinary parlance to try to argue that there's no there there in these Epstein files.
We'll get there.
But for now, we are going to go raid redacted, whom are live.
And their show today says Epstein, unredacted Epstein files released to Congress and Epstein's killer about to be revealed.
Ooh, that makes me want to go over to Redacted.
Maybe I'll write over there after the show, but I'm not going now.
Now, because we're going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party and go raid redacted.
Let him know from whence he came.
The quartering, Jeremy, thank you for the raid.
And we do this beautiful thing where we keep the flow going from one show to the next.
Jeremy, thank you.
And now go let redacted know and tell them that we sent you Viva Fry Raid.
Boo yeah, vooya.
Whatever, that's close enough.
All right.
And now we're going to go over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'm going to see if they've fixed this up yet.
They haven't.
It's only for local supporters, people.
And we're going to have our after party.
And we're going to talk some Chinese student spies who seem intent on blowing shit up in Canada.
Go if you're go raid redacted.
If you're not, come over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
And if you're not into redacted, I'm sure you'll find something else to watch on Rumble.
Export Selection