Why Has the Civil Rights Division IGNORED Alex Jones Persecution? Matt Walsh CROSSES A LINE! & MORE!
Alex Jones’ $1.4B Sandy Hook judgment—defaulted by activist judges like Barbara Bellis and Chris Lopez—ignores due process, yet the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dillon remains silent despite alleged constitutional violations, mirroring selective enforcement against figures like Steve Bannon or Trump while targeting critics. Canada’s Bill C-4 (2021) criminalizes therapeutic alternatives to gender transition, potentially worsening mental health crises, as seen in an 18-year-old shooter’s case linked to early medical interventions. The Epstein files’ weaponized release, dismissed as a "red herring" in 2020 but now used against Bannon, reveals political opportunism over justice, with Democrats exploiting the scandal only when it served their agenda. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, of all the offensive and shocking things Matt Walsh has said over the course of his career, nothing has earned him a you shut your filthy mouth more than the shockingly offensive thing he just said about curling.
Behold!
If she delivers again, the Swedes are golden.
Do the trick.
Didn't even land in the target.
So I don't know why the woman was screaming like that.
Pushes the puck down the rank and then starts screaming like a schizophrenic hobo.
And you got the guy with the broom.
And they're not doing anything.
Let's just be real about this, okay?
It's like when you're a kid and your dad's out mowing the lawn and you have your little plastic Fisher Price lawnmower.
Oh, isn't he cute?
He thinks he's doing something.
And I don't want to hear anyone tell me.
Oh, no, Matt.
You know, you don't understand curling.
The broom guy is really important.
Yeah, whatever, nerd.
This nerd, Mr. Matthew Walsh, is going to set the record straight just a little bit.
Now, I do appreciate it's a bizarre sport to like.
I happen to like darts a lot.
Like I can watch darts while I'm jogging all day.
I happen to like poker, but poker obviously is a little bit more exciting.
I happen to like bowling.
I love watching bowling.
The only thing I don't like is the match play where everybody takes two frames.
There are certain games that are just relaxing to watch.
I happen to like bowling as an activity.
I'm not bad.
I've averaged over 200 for my three games week after week now.
I'm not quite as good at darts, but I love darts.
Curling is not just a sport, it is an art.
It is something where if you don't understand the nuance, you wouldn't necessarily understand why it might be so scandalous to have a player systematically nudging the stone as it goes along.
You've all heard about the controversy now.
We have entered Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
We have entered day four of what I am calling Kennedy Fingergate.
We'll just call it Fingergate.
Where the Canadian team, allegedly illegally touching a stone and then apparently denying the violation of the rules, it set off a scandal.
I mean, it's fantastic.
It goes to show you that, you know, this is a first world scandal.
It's a distraction from the darker issues of the world.
And I think that's why a lot of people are jumping on it, or at least getting interested in it.
But for anybody who knows about curling, you would watch that bit from Matt Walsh and you would say, no, sir, this nerd here calls you a buffoon, a shameless buffoon.
Like Boccebald, Boccebald is not quite as intricate as curling.
So curling, you're on the ice.
You got the sweepers.
And don't tell me they don't do nothing.
What they do is actually amazing.
And what people don't understand is it's a game not just of millimeters, such millimeters that they have to take out a device sometimes, which has a little pressure sensor on it to see how close the closest stone is because it's visually imperceptible.
And so you have a game that relies on such skills.
Sometimes it requires a machine that measures.
So you have a little bar and as it strokes the ball, it gives you a number of tension.
And the higher the tension means it is further from the center.
That's how close it is.
And you have the pebbling.
They spray the ice.
It's like cutting grass in the morning on a golf course.
And then you get little bubbles of ice.
And then you have a broom.
And the reason why the sweeping is so flipping amazing is because it absolutely changes the trajectory of the stone.
Back in the day, there was a scandal when the curling players were using new types of fabric for their brooms.
Back in the day, the brooms used to be either horse hair or bristles.
It used to be real bristles.
People don't like the bristles because the bristles would break off the stones.
And if you catch an imperfection on the ice, then it causes the stone to what's called pick, and it'll just go in some wild direction.
And so you sweep regardless just to keep it clean.
But they were using this fabric that could allow you to melt the ice if you were to really brush properly and absolutely, say, artificially navigate the stone in a way that traditional fabrics couldn't.
Now, I was having an argument with someone on the internet who said, Viva, what difference would it have made if, what's his face?
Kennedy did, in fact, nudge the granite of the stone with his finger.
It doesn't do anything.
So doing something that has no impact is irrelevant.
To which I said, you don't know of the intricacies of the sport if you say something like that.
And where is the comet?
Now, I use AI not to think for me, but we use AI as calculators when we use calculators to do math that the brain, at least some brains, are not particularly capable of doing.
Someone says, I genuinely can't believe people are taking the curling scandal so seriously.
Nobody really is, but it's fun to talk about.
No one can explain to me how touching the rock with your finger would help.
I will explain it to you.
How could it be cheating if it doesn't do anything?
It does something.
The one thing I wasn't sure about is whether or not they can use stopwatches in the Olympics because they use them in recreational play.
And that is to say they hit a button as they kick off the hack to push the stone and they measure the time it takes for them to get from the hack, those two little rubber foot pads, to the hog line where you have to release the stone before it crosses the hog line and touches the hog line, not crosses entirely.
And they measure it.
And it can come down to fractions of a second.
And just so you understand this, by the way, because I just wanted to make sure about the math.
Listen, where was it here?
The fracture, where was the second here?
Let me open up the image.
Did I get it here?
Yeah, look at this.
How the stopwatch measures time, not distance.
The stopwatch on the brooms are used to measure the speed of the ice.
Hog to hog, the standard draw is around 14 and a half to 15 and a half seconds from hog line to hogline.
That's from one end of the ring to the other.
We have to release the stone.
A difference of just 0.1 seconds on a stopwatch can indicate the difference in travel of half a foot to a full foot of travel.
So when you see somebody nudging the stone with their finger on the granite, which is already forbidden, the slightest nudge, if you know that you are one tenth of a second slower than you need it to be, can mean the difference between six inches to a foot, depending on how you sweep.
Am I making anybody love curling here or am I just crazy?
And then you want to see some of the shots.
These are the great.
I remember these Jennifer Jones, Homan.
I forget, what was her first name?
I forget Homan's first name.
I went through this.
Shot nine, shot six, shot one.
I'll tell you what's going on as we go through these.
Let me just turn the volume down a little bit.
It's right over here.
Okay.
Watch this.
Now, I forget who's shooting.
This one I think.
Oh, that's right.
They're going to.
Right now it is.
A stolen point for the U.S. Final Rock.
Kevin Cooey.
Keep it.
So look what they're doing.
If you don't sweep, it's going to curl more.
You sweep to keep it straight.
Then once it hits its trajectory, you could let it curl if you wanted to.
They want to keep this one straight because he might have overcurled it if they didn't sweep.
And so it hits the stone, deflects it to the center, and pops out the stone that was there.
Watch this.
Stay with it.
Get off it.
Boom!
Come out!
Look at this.
Ouch!
And they just got shoot.
That's amazing.
Sorry, let me just scream.
I think I'm screaming here.
All right, number six.
That was amazing.
To use the outer stone to deflect it into the industone to deflect out the point that was counting.
So you go count two.
You went down from one up by two.
No stone of the ten.
Yep.
Keeping it straight through the sweep.
Now they let it go so it's not.
Really hard.
Run it back.
Jump it across.
And now sweep the wood out.
You can sweep the stone when it's past the halfway line at the end, and they get three points.
Now, number one, number one, Jennifer Jones.
It will give you goosebumps.
I remember the Canadian champion if she makes this shot.
The most difficult attempt.
Trying to come in.
Awful stun on the outside.
Trying to get the roll to the straight.
Keep it straight.
Watch this.
so i take this moment to remind everybody curling is in fact an amazing sport and And a nudge of a finger, if you realize by the time you hit the hogline and let go of the handle that you are one tenth of a second behind where you need it to be, you nudge it, you will have an impact on it.
Now, some people say, well, you're going to nudge it in the wrong direction.
The dude's not an idiot.
It's like saying anybody who, you know, if you walk in front of your ball in golf, it's cheating because you sort of carve out the path.
Rumble Wallet: Protecting Tips and Transgender Rights00:05:17
Jennifer Jones, Homan, what was Homan's first name?
Curling is not a sport.
You see, these are fighting words.
These are fighting words.
Anyhow, the scandal, again, is never about the scandal itself.
It was about the cover-up, the unnecessary cover-up.
Matt Walsh, I'm sure if he got into curling, he would love it as much as Americans love baseball.
I'm joking about that.
That's actually probably not the case.
But that is it.
It's also a joke, people should take it with a grain of salt.
This is not a distraction from the rest of the world because we can still do two things at once and pay attention to the important issues.
It's not a false scandal.
It's just the Olympics.
And my goodness, has it made some people Tom Homan is not Tom Homan?
Good afternoon, everybody.
How goes the battle?
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
Are there separate men's and women's curling teams?
Yes, there are.
And then they also have the mixed divisions.
It's a lot of fun to watch sometimes.
And when they do a good draw when it doesn't connect off anything and you let it curl, and then once it gets its curl in the right direction, you don't want it to overcurl, you sweep it and you just draw it in right on the button.
It's beautiful.
What's up, Viva?
Real name redacted.
All right, I'm a little under the weather still.
Woke up with a bit of a coughing fit this morning.
Went outside and got some sunlight, some vitamin D, went for a bike ride with the kid.
And that's it.
Now we'll get back to the stuff of the world that really makes a difference.
We talked about Alex Jones' lawsuit yesterday.
I was on with Breanna Morello on InfoWars this morning talking about that, talking about the Epstein stuff.
We're going to get to that.
We're going to get to the Canadian stuff, which is also, I say, the recent mass shooting.
And a media that is seemingly trying to not only pretend that because it was a transgender individual who did this, not only that that's not relevant, but now the transgender community is going to face backlash.
And so the actual victims of the shooting up in Canada is the transgender community who's going to face backlash because of the fact that a transgender shooter who's yet another name in a long list of trans shooters killed a bunch of people.
Norm McDonald, if he were still alive, would have to redo his joke about terrorism with transgenderism.
Hey, just imagine there's another shooting there.
Imagine the backlash to the transgender community.
Now, but before we get into that and before we get into the Canadian stuff, or while we're still on the topic of the Canadian stuff, people, the sponsor of today's show, Rumble Wallet, and you'll understand why it's important.
You may have seen the conversations happening online lately.
Censorship is back and it's happening everywhere.
Platforms are controlling narratives and pushing the stuff they want us to see.
We need to fight back.
And Rumble is the only company that stood the test of time and deserves our support.
It's why I'm here, people.
On one side of Rumble, it's challenging big tech censorship.
And now on the other side, it's introducing something that will give you protection from big banks, from tyrannical government, and from being shut off from your own finances overnight.
Banks can cancel our accounts and freeze our cards like they did in Canada.
That's why Rumble launched Rumble Wallet, a wallet that no one can cancel and a wallet that supporters can use to instantly tip creators like myself without any middlemen taking their cuts, without anybody saying, we now freeze that and you don't get access to it.
They can't kick you off ComiTube like they did to the guy that I was with on that Star Wars girl steal $10,000 of his that they owed him because they said you broke the rules.
No.
With Rumble Wallet, you control your money.
Not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it.
It's yours, only yours, yours to protect you and your family.
You can buy and save digital assets at your risks in peril people, but look into it.
You can buy Bitcoin, Tether Gold.
Tether Gold is real gold on a blockchain with ownership of actual real physical bars.
It's not a wallet to buy and save.
It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them with the click of a button.
In fact, let me show you how it's done because you can go, who is on?
Now you see if you want to click, let's look at the wrong, let's look at, let's look at how to do it with Jeremy.
You go, you see this little button right here.
You click on it.
You can go tip with another wallet.
You can scan.
Here, you want to tip Jeremy with crypto?
Go do it right now and say Vivo sent you.
You click there.
You can click.
You can tip with XAUT, which is gold-backed crypto like that.
Peeps, it's the future.
You can support my channel and the creators on this platform through the tip button.
Go to wallet.rumble.com.
Download the Rumble wallet.
It's available for both iPhone and the other one there.
What's the other one?
I don't know what the other one's called.
I'm joking.
I know what it's called.
Come on.
What's the other one called?
iPhone and Samsung.
Check it out.
It's in the link.
Rumble.
Innovators in terms of free speech.
Innovators in terms of tech, innovators in terms of financial security.
Oh, now let me make sure that we are in fact live across the three platforms.
We are live daily, three o'clock on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, Rumble and Twitter, but nobody really cares about Twitter.
I want to see what's going on in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community before we get into the theme of the day.
We've got good memes.
Alex Jones's Constitutional Claim00:15:23
This one's coming from a special SOV.
Green eggs and ham.
What are we?
Green eggs and damn, what are, okay, I don't know what's going on here.
And we got a tip question up here before we get into the show.
Please consider having Bridget Fettesey on from Dumpster Fire.
She is hilarious.
Good luck finding a dog.
Thank you.
Well, yeah, and I reply to that.
I've been on with her a couple of times at the very least.
All right, everybody.
We're going to start from the beginning of this just to refresh everybody's memory because I actually want to go through the lawsuit of Alex Jones.
You will remember that Alex Jones is in bankruptcy court right now in Texas, where they are trying to execute on a $1.4 billion judgment against Alex Jones, Free Speech Systems, you know, the parent companies that was operating Infowars.
And we live in such a batshit, crazy world that people probably forgot about all of the backdrop to the Alex Jones story, to the Alex Jones persecution.
The fact that it was something of an intelligence-driven operation against Alex Jones that only started pretty much after he helped Trump beat Hillary Clinton, where you had actual FBI looking for potential litigants to litigate against Alex Jones, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
There were some unfair business practices claims out of Connecticut where they were saying that he was profiting commercially off of his lies as if That would be even a legitimate cause of action, even if the theory worked out.
It wasn't false advertisement of products.
It was advertising products while spreading, according to them, disinformation.
Imagine if that were the criteria, the field day you could have with CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, any MSM outlet that spread propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, whether it was about Kyle Rittenhouse, Nicholas Sandman, while also running ads on their program and monetizing their content.
Imagine if that were the case.
So they took these cases in Connecticut, defaulted Alex Jones into liability in Connecticut, which they then used to default Alex Jones in Files into liability in Texas.
Now, we're just going to show the receipts just to refresh everybody's memory before we get into Alex Jones's claim in the context of the bankruptcy.
Now that the Supreme Court has refused to listen to this, to hear the case, this is from back in the day, NPR.
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ruled liable in Sandy Hook defamation case.
And they always have to use a very unflattering picture of the man that they're trying to demonize, vilify, bankrupt, jail, kill, you know, whatever.
Family members of some of the victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings have won a court battle by default.
Remember this, because when we get into Alex Jones's claim and how it's constitutional violations, because the judge took away the trial by jury, the judge basically usurped or abdicated the constitutional roles of a judge and jury and basically gave it to the plaintiffs to adjudicate their own success, their own victory.
He won the court by default against right-wing media personality Alex Jones.
A Monday ruling from a Connecticut court, which founds Jones and the other defendants liable for defamation, brought swift reaction from an attorney representing the families, high-profile politicians, yada, yada, yada.
Connecticut judge, remember her name, Barbara Bellis, cited the defendants' quote, willful non-compliance with the discovery process as the reasoning behind the ruling.
Bellis noted that defendants failed to turn over financial and analytic data that were requested multiple times by the Sandy Hook family plaintiffs.
Remember, by this time, Alex had been shut out of his Google accounts, Facebook accounts.
They're asking for analytics that he no longer has.
But appreciate also what they're asking for.
They're asking for the finances as relates to the alleged defamatory intentional infliction of emotional distress statements.
They never made the evidence of the statements.
They never made the evidence of the damages.
They said, oh, you didn't show us the analytics behind the financials.
And so we default you into liability where the plaintiffs don't even have to prove their case.
Attorney Chris Mate, who represents the victim's family in the suit, said statements, they were grateful for Monday's ruling.
Of course, saves them their day in court, but said their battle to shed light on how deeply Mr. Jones has harmed their families continues.
Jones was given every opportunity to comply, but when he chose instead to withhold evidence for more than two years, the court was left with no choice.
No, no, of course.
Remember, no, we'll back it out here.
That was one element.
They never proved their case.
They never argued for their case.
They never argued against statutory issues, legal issues, or even made any evidence of their claim.
Judge Bellis said, liability into default.
We'll have a hearing on the quantum.
Okay, so that was that was part one to refresh your memories.
Part two: Supreme Court doesn't hear Alex Jones's petition to have these lower courts' decisions overturned.
This was from October 2025.
Supreme Court declines to hear Alex Jones' appeal.
Last week, conservative media personality Alex Jones filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court asking the justices to pause a lower court ruling that would require him to pay more than $1.4 billion for making false claims about the 2012 school shooting in Sandy Hook.
I mean, imagine if this was the new ruling and people saying that the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting on Trump was a hoax.
It's a billion dollars right there.
Oh, that Trump was a catch-up pack and it was a he set it up himself.
Last week, the conservative media, yada, yada, okay, fine.
As the applicant noted, it was the second request for the Supreme Court's help in a little over a month.
On September 5th, Jones urged the court to hear his appeal of lower court proceedings, contending that he improperly was found liable for defamation and emotional distress experienced by the families.
The justices considered the petition for reviewing yada yada yada and announced Tuesday that they will not hear Jones's appeal.
Well, we know who Alex Jones is, we know what happened.
Did Alex Jones pay the families after the default judgments were announced?
Jones and Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy protection.
Sandy Hook family became part of those proceedings first to try to prevent the bankruptcy proceedings from stalling their pre-existing cases and then to take part in negotiations on how they would pay them.
In Jones, in June, Chris Lopez, the judge, ordered the liquidation of Jones' personal assets, including his stake in Infowars.
That decision led to high-profile auction of InfoWars and a dispute between the bidders.
Let me just hear: is this where we got another thing, by the way, just to remember, in terms of this persecution, when you had one of the attorneys say, you know, this is not about justice.
I'm paraphrasing.
This is about shutting Alex Jones up.
They wanted to buy his likeness out of bankruptcy.
You have to appreciate what that means.
They wanted as one of the assets of the bankruptcy Alex Jones's likeness and image so that they could effectively own not only InfoWars, not only Alex Jones, but so they can own his voice, his likeness, his image in perpetuity.
Now, listen to this.
This is from Above the Law, 2024.
Just refresh everybody's memory.
Alex Jones' lawyers object to entering his client's words into the record.
The never-ending Alex Jones bankruptcy stories continues this afternoon in a Texas courtroom.
As part of this writing, the shit poster's lawyers are challenging Chapter 7 trustee Murray's selection of global.
Oh, yeah, so this is when the B was trying to buy his stuff.
As with most of Jones' production, it's a shit show.
This is a guy who this is someone you know you can rely on.
The complaint alleged gross malfeasance by the trustee, attacked the underlying state court judgments, and insisted that the sale of the IP assets was definitionally illegal.
Remember how they defined it: Mr. Jones has property rights in the Jones IP rights, which he brings this action to both obtain a declaration of ownership of and to protect through injunctive relief against anyone's unauthorized use thereof, including without limitation, Alex Jones's unique personal name, image, likeness, unique voice, and or other personal identifying attributes associated with Alex Jones, which belong to him personally and cannot be sold.
Among other things, consumers will suffer massive market confusion if his personal rights are marketed by anyone other than himself.
Remember, we talked about it at the time, and then we saw that it actually came to fruition.
They wanted to actually claim as an asset in the bankruptcy that they could seize in satisfaction of this bullcrap judgment Alex Jones's voice and likeness.
And what I said at the time is: holy crap, they want to basically use his voice to create AI-generated messaging in his voice that would totally either undermine everything he said in the past or be used to satirize him into a legacy of mere satire.
And that's exactly what happened when The Onion came in there and tried to buy up the assets and turn InfoWars into something as unfunny as The Onion.
And so that is the broad context of what was going on in this persecution.
It was lawfare of the highest order.
It was activist judges in these liberal districts because you think Texas, okay, fine, Austin is closer to Connecticut than it is to traditional Texas.
And it was lawfare from the beginning.
You know, they didn't foreclose or eliminate any positive defenses by Alex Jones.
They just defaulted him into liability based on concocted, manufactured, and outright lies of alleged non-compliance with discovery.
Alex Jones petitions the Supreme Court twice, and they say no.
I don't know what other remedy Alex Jones, InfoWars, et cetera, could have to the Supreme Court where they can write this wrong, because it is a wrong, whether you like Alex Jones or not.
Whether or not you think some of the things he said were stupid, wrong, hurtful, $1.4 billion hurtful for what Alex Jones did, in fact, say, if you even knew it, a few statements, a few minutes over a decade.
He wasn't allowed to say he said sorry.
He wasn't allowed to say he acknowledged that the shooting happened.
He wasn't allowed to say he acknowledged that the kids were murdered that day.
He wasn't allowed to say that he retracted and apologized.
He wasn't allowed to affirm or assert his innocence under penalty of contempt.
That was the Texas judge.
Defaulted into $1.4 billion.
They want to take everything and not just everything that he has, the future of his own likeness.
Now, faced with that, what has he done recently?
We talked about it briefly yesterday during the Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
He's filed a motion in the context of the bankruptcy proceedings.
You can see here, I'm going to just go through the highlight paragraphs of this so that we can understand what's going on.
And then I'll get to my black pill conclusion, which is that it's not going to do a darn thing.
This is the lawsuit.
This is the claim in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Alexander E., which I believe stands for Emmerich Jones, the debtor.
You get the plaintiffs.
Jones, Second Amendment answer, affirmative defenses subject thereto in counterclaims to the Honorable Lopez.
Judge Lopez has been the most reasonable judge in all of this.
It's in bankruptcy court.
And if the bankruptcy law and bankruptcy court system in the U.S. is anything like it was in Canada, you tend to have commercially reasonable judges in there.
In connection with the Connecticut counterclaim, let's go over here.
Jones incorporates by reference the admissions, denial of the disabled.
We summarize what was in the other one.
And now we get into our second amended counterclaim to the honorable judge of said court, defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, Alex Emmerich Jones here in Alex Jones, for himself on behalf of all of his companies, yada yada, files this second amended counterclaim pursuant to 42 USC and the United States Constitution.
That's the various Connecticut counterclaim defendants.
Yada yada yada.
All right, we won't get too far into the weeds of the introduction.
As I would say, for the sake of clarity, Jones makes it clear that counterclaim does not challenge the filing of the study.
This action instead addresses a separate and independent constitutional injury.
The State District Court of Connecticut's abdication of its non-delegable judicial responsibilities in a civil case involving a media defendant, speech matters of public concern, and claims brought by public figures involving fundamental constitutional rights.
You know what my problem with this is?
Not to be blackpilled or not because I don't like Alex Jones.
I do.
He's bringing a constitutional claim in the context of the bankruptcy proceedings, where the Supreme Court of these United States of America has already refused to hear, to overturn, to contemplate what went on at not just the lower court level, but the appellate level.
So this is a, like I said on InfoWars with Breanna Morello this morning, this might not be a case to win in the courts, but it might be a case or a motion to wage in the court of public opinion.
There's constitutional violations, free speech, excessive fines and seizures, and basic due process.
Due process.
How do Americans say process or process?
Abdication of its non-delegable judicial responsibilities.
There's a principle in law that says delegatum non potes delegar.
Those to whom things have been delegated cannot themselves choose to delegate to somebody else.
And to some extent, the law gave a certain power to the courts, and the courts can't then say we're not going to adjudicate on the evidence.
We're not going to allow a jury to hear it.
We're just going to let the plaintiffs default their way into liability.
So that is intro element of this.
Let me just get to the next paragraph here.
I lost my page.
Paragraph six: Jones is without question a press media defendant.
His daily broadcast reached tens of millions.
They basically stripped Alex Jones of his free speech, due process, and then imposed excessive fines.
Paragraph 14.
We're going to scroll a little bit.
This is old school.
Old school vlogs in real time live daily, three o'clock on Rumble.
As to the Connecticut judgment, this counterclaim additionally asserts that given its size, it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Jones's property in violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution and unconstitutional excessive fine and penalty under the Eighth, both incorporated under the 14th Amendment, which could not have happened but for the intentional violations of civil rights.
I'm going to bring this out here for a second.
Alex Jones' Civil Rights Violation00:13:58
Like people think, oh, okay, they had a trial.
They didn't.
Well, he was defaulted into liability.
That's one violation.
He wasn't allowed to avail himself to free speech rights.
Discourse on matters of public interest.
The criteria that applies to public figures.
Whether you like it or not, everyone who was obviously unwillingly thrown into the spotlight under Sandy Hook are what we refer to as single-purpose public figures.
It was the news for a very long period of time.
And therefore, you have to show that when someone made statements that might have been false, that it was made with actual malice, which is what the criteria is when it comes to public figures.
But you can be what they refer to as a single-purpose public figure on one specific issue.
So they violated rights, imposed an excessive fine upon some people.
They said, well, it was a jury that did it.
That doesn't mean anything.
You don't get to throw out due process just because a jury now has been unduly empowered to impose an excessive fine, which constitutes takings.
Now, get ready for Viva Immature, paragraph 104.
You can scroll all.
I mean, this is largely repetitive of what we've already covered.
They didn't let him bring in Hillary Clinton to talk about how this law affair got started.
That's evidence, which they never needed because they never got to any hearing on the merits.
Jones's constitutional challenges, constitutional rights, were violated.
Paragraph 104 in relinquishing its judicial duties and responsibilities and its adjudicative function, conferring such on the counterclaimed defendants, Jones was deprived of his inalienable constitutional rights in violation of Section 42 USC 1983, including his right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
As a result of this abdication, you have to just bear in mind what happened.
This is like the case of every Spider-Man pointing at the other person.
Judge Bellis says, We don't, you know, we don't, I don't need to adjudicate any evidence.
Jury doesn't need to hear any evidence.
I say that Alex Jones defaulted on his discovery obligations to such a degree that not only is he foreclosed from pleading, that would mean he doesn't get to defend himself, but plaintiffs still need to prove their case.
Plaintiffs don't need to prove their case anymore.
It could be time barred.
Doesn't matter.
The statements could be materially true.
Doesn't matter.
Alex Jones might not have been the one to initiate the statements, which was the case.
Doesn't matter.
They bypassed any evidentiary hearing altogether because of an activist judge who used as a pretextual excuse alleged discovery violations.
Now, by the way, you know this.
I've been a lawyer for a long time.
Try to look up a case where failure to comply with discovery has resulted in a liability by default finding.
Try it.
It'll take you a while.
You might even be hard-pressed to find cases where there was actual destruction of evidence and a person was defaulted into liability.
So I got a cough again.
So Alex has filed this.
I don't see it going anywhere because what you have is basically a second kick at the can, but at a lower level of the court system, where the upper level, the Supreme Court has already refused to hear it.
But maybe if this gets enough, I say traction for lack of a better word, if this gets enough attention, then people will say, maybe the Supreme Court should finally rule on this.
Maybe the Supreme Court should rule whether or not it's unconstitutional to default a defendant into liability.
Maybe a judge of the Supreme Court should determine whether or not it's unconstitutional to basically say a judge can decide that the due process is very selective.
But I don't think this is going to go anywhere because the Supreme Court has already said no.
He's going to now ask a bankruptcy court to acknowledge constitutional violations, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, I think 14th Amendment, that the Supreme Court itself has, for some reason, refused to hear.
Maybe there's another path to get back to the Supreme Court because maybe if Judge Lopez of the bankruptcy division doesn't listen to this, doesn't hear this case, Alex can then petition the Supreme Court and say, you need to hear this.
Now you absolutely need to hear it.
What am I supposed to do?
You know what's going to drive me crazy?
I've been on the wrong microphone the entire show and I'm not going to change it right now.
Nobody corrected me on the microphone.
The other question I have in all of this is where the hell is Harmeet Dillon?
Where the hell is the civil rights division of the Department of Justice?
This is an obvious, abject violation of civil rights.
Obvious.
And on multiple fronts.
Nothing.
And you know why there's nothing?
Politics.
Am I wearing the shirt?
No, I'm not.
I'm wearing the Viva Fry shirt.
Politics ruins everything.
At some point, to some people, and Robert Barnes, last night during our Viva and Barnes Law for the People Sunday Night Show, he's got his theory that allegedly, by rumors, and it's rumor inc, take it for what it's worth, but it doesn't even matter because we're at consequences inc.
And the consequences, Inc. are thus far, Harmee Dillon, Civil Rights Division, DOJ, has not intervened in this egregious violation.
The rumor is that Todd Blanche, who's been a Democrat the better part of his life, arguably or maybe not, you know, an anti-Trump Democrat up until recently, quashed it and said, no, we're not getting involved in this.
And Harmee, you're not getting involved with this.
You know, you'll go, you'll do the low-hanging fruit, and Pam Bondi is going to screw that one up with the church in Minnesota.
But Alex Jones, it's too politically unpopular.
The Democrats think that he got what he deserved.
The Democrats like this precedent where you can now, you know, sue people for billions of dollars for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I mean, they like the precedent because they used it against Donald Trump for allegedly defaming Eugene Carroll.
Sums that are beyond comprehension.
Let me just do it.
So Harmed is AWOL, and not just on this one.
And you wait, you know, like you don't want to be an ingrate.
You don't want to push people away if they're taking their time for some strategic reason.
But nothing is happening.
And this precedent, which violated every norm of procedural fairness, every norm of legal standards, stands to this day.
You got a Supreme Court that, like it was too cowardly in 2020 to deal with the election cases, too cowardly in 2024, 2025, sorry, to take up the Alex Jones.
And now you got the victim of lawfare, the victim of constitutional violations, the victim of due process, trying to get a second kick at the can before the bankruptcy division to undo the damage that the courts of Connecticut, the courts of Texas have done, and that the Supreme Court has refused to undo.
And now you don't have the civil rights division getting involved, not with this.
And again, not to be too negative, but I'm not going to tag Harmeet because I'm not trying to be annoying anymore.
Plus, I'm, you know, whatever.
Who am I?
There's always a good reason to do nothing.
Tina Peters rotting away in a Colorado jail for blowing the whistle on election fraud.
Dexter Taylor rotting away in a New York jail for peacefully exercising his Second Amendment rights.
No deep state arrests.
No Russia gate hoax arrests.
No election fraud arrests.
Georgia investigation pending because they did something there.
James Comey, Letitia James probably holding hands, rearranging shells on a beach.
Just shut up and wait and don't be a black pilling pannikin.
That's where we're at.
And it's a big problem because, you know, there's a philosophical story.
What is it called?
It's somebody's ass and not in the sense of a but Herodotus' ass, the ass philosophy dies deciding between bales of hay.
Let me just get the actual name for this.
It's called Buridian's ass, is a 14th century philosophical thought experiment, often attributed to Jean Buridan.
Buridan's ass.
Don't forget this one.
This is a great one.
It's not entirely applicable, but conceptually, it is, you know, like, shut up and wait, shut up and wait.
You'll get it later.
Shut up wait.
Oh, and it's too late.
Buridan's ass is a 14th century philosophical thought experiment, often attributed to Jean Buridan, though likely developed as a critique of his work that explores free will, determinism, and rational decision making.
It depicts a hypothetical ass perfectly equidistant between two identical, equally desirable bales of hay, resulting in the animal starving to death.
Doesn't say that, but starving due to an inability to rationally choose one over the other.
Not exactly where we're at right now, but you exactly see where I'm going, you task me, Tand.
It's like, just wait, just wait, just wait.
Wait until when?
Wait until Tina Peters is dead and then you know, posthumously vindicate her.
We give her, give her some medal in death.
Wait for what?
For Dexter Taylor, who's, I forget how old now, 56, 60 years old?
Just wait for him to wither away and then they'll get to an oh, yeah, we'll affirm the Second Amendment rights to peacefully, lawfully assemble a firearm in your own apartment.
Just wait, just wait with Alex Jones.
Let's let it play out.
And so that in five years from now, when the new standard has been baked into societal norms, you know, you'll have your vindication like we had in Canada on our COVID cases.
Just wait, just wait.
Oh, yeah, four years from now.
Well, they overturned some of the edicts and the declaration of the emergency.
Well, nobody cares anymore.
So my understanding is that it was politically motivated for which they did not intervene in Alex Jones's case.
Now he's left fighting on his own.
And maybe if there's enough of a political stir, legal stir, the Supreme Court might take this case up and undo what has been an absolute egregious injustice and setting of an absolute untenable, horrible standard going forward.
And if Harmit is listening, better late than never, but at some point, it does become too late, especially when the balance of power might shift and then you're going to have other battles.
Well, now we can't do it in 2026 because we got to focus on winning 2028.
So, Alex, sorry, you'll just have to be bankrupt and keep paying this $1.6 billion, some of which, much of which is never dischargeable.
So, you'll be paying that off until you die.
We've basically created an indentured servant.
We outlawed slavery.
We no longer allow for indentured servants.
But, Alex, you're going to be paying other people for the rest of your life.
That's all I have to say about that.
Now, let me get to some of the.
Oh, I didn't bring it up here.
We got King of Bill Tongs in the house.
Let me bring this up here.
King of Biltong says, Looking for real food, try some Bill Tong made with clean ingredients and done the right way at Biltong USA.
We don't make processed junk.
Check out Bill Tongusa.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
Fantastic.
I hope I didn't miss any other ones.
And then let me go see what we got going on in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community before we move on to, I say fun stuff.
None of this is fun, yet it must be done.
And it must be put on hyper-super duper mega blast.
Let's see what's going on in our viva barnslaw.locals.com community.
Mushroom clouds arise in the distance.
Don't worry, the Dow's over 50,000.
Mandalichi says, I'm going to be patient with Harmit.
She is doing a fabulous job.
Remember that patience is a virtue.
True.
There's a few expressions in the English language that are mutually incompatible or mutually conflicting.
You know, he who hesitates is lost.
Look before you leap.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder, out of state, out of mind, or out of sight, out of mind.
Patience is a virtue.
I agree.
But you wait too long, you miss the opportunity.
You wait too long.
The opportunity is no longer there.
You wait too long, like Buridian's ass contemplating which bale of hay to eat from, you starve to death.
So there's a line.
I don't know when that line was.
It wasn't day one.
It's 11 months in.
Alex Jones is eight years into this saga, maybe even more.
Tina Peters has now been in jail, locked up, a gold star mom whose son died in service.
She's been locked up since October.
Dexter Taylor, no criminal record, has been locked up since March 2024.
It's easy for everybody on the inside to say, just sit and wait while people are languishing in gulags in commie states for constitutional violations.
I'm not trying to pick on you, Mandalichi.
I understand and respect the comment.
But that's also the predictable and understandable response to it.
There's a point at which you've waited too long, and I think we're getting there fast.
Prohibiting Conversion Therapy00:06:24
Now, let me see what else I had on the backdrop here.
Alex Jones.
Matt Walsh, the important things.
I'm going to play you a clip of my appearance on Matt Walsh.
Matt Walsh, Matt Gates.
I'm sorry, Matt.
And we're going to get into a lesser-known fact, just useful to remind Canadians.
This is in response to the shooting up in Canada.
Yeah, President Trump's administration is working against this new wave of transitioning children.
And we've also seen efforts against some of the hospital systems that do these types of really bizarre surgeries.
Is Canada worse than that, better than that?
How does Canada think about these types of transitions and what they do to people's mental health?
Canada has codified as a hate crime, transphobia.
Canada has made it illegal for psychiatrists and counselors to treat these patients.
You can no longer correct and you can no longer treat.
You can only affirm.
And you're affirming mental illness.
This is exactly what's going to happen.
Canada is on a highway to hell, and Trump and his administration is in the right direction.
But Canada, it's institutionalized madness when you have these RCMP officers coming out and giving land acknowledgements before reporting on two missing children.
And now you have them coming out and saying, we're going to refer to the mass murderer now deceased by their chosen pronouns because we now somehow want to be respectful to the dead murderer.
It's insanity, but it's institutionalized insanity.
Now, let me also just refresh everybody's memory.
Bill C, what was the name of the law?
C4.
You wouldn't remember this if you didn't know it happened.
And you wouldn't believe it if you weren't reminded of it.
Banning of conversion therapy, which was approved unanimously by both conservatives and liberals and NDP and the block and whatever, was a piece of legislation that outlawed, and I put it in quotes, conversion therapy.
And people out there, some people say, you know, Viva, it was actually very rough and very brutal to forcibly try to convince gay kids that they weren't gay and what the religious fanatics did.
It was terrible.
It was all sorts of things.
My retort to that would be: how many people in Canada were victims of conversion therapy that would be otherwise just abuse?
Like, this is where you get into Cicero.
More laws, less justice.
Conversion therapy, that was both abusive and violent and harassment and whatever, was not illegal because it was conversion therapy.
It was illegal already because it was abuse.
You didn't need a new law to illegalize what would otherwise be abuse and torture under the pretext or guise of conversion therapy.
But they say, oh, no, let's put it in another law.
It's not clear enough.
You know, it's not clear.
Can't, I don't know, whip the homosexuality out of somebody.
I don't know what they do to actually try to convert gays to straight.
I happen to not think it's something that is, you know, other than your desire to want to procreate sexual orientation.
I think it's, you know, genetically predisposed and set aside the linguistic issues as to whether or not the union should be recognized as marriage or whether or not it should be recognized under the law.
These are legal issues.
What two consenting adults want to do among themselves is up to them and it's of no business to me.
Now, set that aside, they say, well, we need to put in a new law.
We need to call, we need to ban conversion therapy because it's terrible, disgusting, and atrocious.
So let's go ahead and define what conversion therapy is.
This is the actual definition.
Definition of conversion therapy.
Let me read my tweet first.
Just a public service announcement.
This is the actual law in Canada.
You can groom kids into transgenderism, but it's criminal to talk them out of it.
And now the human saxophone who signed this into law unanimously hold hands as cry, hold hands and cry as one of the mentally ill subjects of this experiment killed seven innocent people.
Blood on your hands, Pierre.
And then people say, well, it wasn't Carney that didn't.
It was the liberals.
And they were warned, Pierre, the conservatives at the time of what this law meant and what it would lead to.
Conversion therapy.
The definition of conversion therapy, section 320.101 in sections 320, 101, 102, 104.
Conversion therapy means a practice treatment or service designed to, A, change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual.
Just remember that.
This is a one-way street.
You can change them to gay.
You can change them to trans.
You cannot change a person.
You cannot engage in a practice, treatment, or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual.
You can't engage in a practice, treatment, or service designed to change a person's gender identity to cisgender.
You can't engage in something that the purpose of which is to change a person's gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth.
Repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior.
Repress a person's non-cisgender gender.
What the fuck does this even mean?
This is under the pretext of prohibiting the abusive practices of trying to convert a gay guy back to being straight, whatever the fanatics did in that process.
You can't engage in a practice, treatment, or whatever that is designed to repress or reduce a person's gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.
For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment, or service that relates to the exploration or development of an integrated personal identity, such as a practice, treatment, or service that relates to a person's gender transition and that is not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is to be preferred over another.
What in the name of sweet holy hell does that even mean?
Holy crap, what retards wrote this law says CIA torture camp?
It's, can you understand it?
A Tragedy Ratified00:03:01
Here's a link just so you all know that it's there.
And now, after a transgender 18-year-old, 17-year-old shoots up a school after killing his mother, who doped this kid up with all sorts of medication, HRT, while the kid was exploring or experimenting with psychotropic, psychedelic drugs, kills his mother, kills his stepbrother after being indoctrinated by the mother.
By the way, the mother was all in on this.
After all of this happens, what do you get?
You get this, people.
Look at these.
How many times do I have to quote Tom McDonald?
They kill you and they make it the news.
Look at all of these.
I mean, first of all, it's a tragedy.
It's beyond tragedy.
It's horror.
And so me criticizing these opportunistic, scumbag politicians who come and dance on the graves of the victims of their own policy, I'm not minimizing the tragedy.
I'm highlighting the hypocrisy.
These are the same SOB POSs who signed that law unanimously.
Now they come with their flowers to lay it on the bodies of the people who were just murdered because of the mental illness that they basically ratified into law and prohibited therapy to treat.
That's Mark Carney and his wife.
Heavy into the transgender.
That's Pierre Boilier.
I think you got the leader of the block somewhere in there.
You know what would be better than laying wreaths on the memorial to seven people murdered by a mentally ill, transgender kid who had been affirmed into this?
Treatment would have been better.
Oh, there's Elizabeth May, leader of the NDP, or a spokesperson, whatever.
of the ndb not the ndb the green party and then you hear yes this is the On December 2021, Conservative members of parliament voted unanimously alongside other parties to pass Bill C4, which bans conversion therapy by approving a motion to fast-track legislation without amendment.
This was a surprise, as only months earlier in June, 62 Conservative MPs had voted against a previous similar version of the bill.
Well, it's not there, kids.
And those are the people in power up in Canada.
Was there anything more I had to add on that?
Let me see here.
Just double check.
No.
That's it.
It's atrocious.
Let's go see what's going on in the chat for a little bit.
Rothschilds And Borderline Comments00:06:03
Then we'll get into the latest on some Epstein stuff before we raid the next show.
And it's the medication, not the transition, says TSM money.
One thing, this is where you'll never be able to pinpoint exactly what it's a system.
Transgenderism is obviously not the sole cause of mass shootings.
Whether or not there's an underlying connection between SSRIs in general over medication, over prescription.
One thing that's clear is the toughest gun laws on earth don't mean jack squat where they're not properly enforced.
Did you do it twice?
I think Bill Tom might have tipped twice.
Well, thank you, Bill Tong.
This shooter up in Canada had his guns taken away from him, was clearly mentally ill, had multiple run-ins with the law based on his mental illness, and managed to still get his guns back after petitioning in court for them after they were taken away.
The point of the negative optics Bondi is your reaction, i.e. cultivating public demand.
Well, okay, let's get into the latest on the Epstein stuff.
I have to go through my Twitter feed because it's.
I would like, I have to reach out to Sean Farash.
I had Sean Farash on a while back, I think, for his political insights.
He's the guy who does an amazing impression of Trump.
And what's truly astonishing is that many of the people who said the Epstein files disclosure is a red herring distraction are now loving it to go after Bannon.
And Bannon's got some explainings.
From what I understand, he might have made a statement, and I haven't heard it still catching up on the news.
But Sean Frash puts out a tweet and says, is this a text exchange between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein?
Is this for real?
I don't want to fall for nonsense because if this is legitimate, then truly what the F.
And I still, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
I don't.
So this is on the right is Epstein.
Schiff trying to find knowledgeable financial people.
It's intriguing as I guess they can't use his best guys at the IRS or Treasury, the best.
Wow, says Steve Bannon, to which Epstein says, hell of a year.
Next will be biblical.
We either own 2019 or it will surely own us, Bannon says.
I'm back in the FB biz only.
FB director.
No, it does not stand for fuck and blow.
Spoke to my Dems this weekend.
Boy, are emotions running high.
Bannon says, gonna blow him up right out of the box.
White House has zero plan to punch back.
Fort Apache with no cavalry en route.
I don't know why they're redacting Epstein, but and no soldiers in the fort.
He is really borderline, not sure what he may do.
I think it's beyond borderline.
25th Amendment.
And then you have something from Epstein.
Now, this I can understand what people are suggesting is that Bannon is himself proposing the 25th Amendment.
What others might read that as saying is Bannon is just anticipating what the argument from the Dems is going to be or has been because that was the argument at the time.
But what's interesting right now, and I've been getting into it with a few people, is the people, some of whom were the very same people saying the Epstein disclosure is a waste of time, forget about it, now are saying, holy crap, anybody who associates with Bannon after this is guilty of something I don't know what.
I want to bring this one up.
This was from Barnes mentioned it during our stream, and I sort of forgot about the import of this.
I won't play the, do I want to play the whole thing?
This is when I had Dershowitz on, and I asked him how many times he'd been to the Epstein Island.
And he mentioned something about the Rothschilds.
I learned about it several years later.
So in 19, I met him in 1996, and we had this acquaintanceship.
But he had done nothing wrong, as far as I could tell.
I never saw him in the presence of anybody young.
My wife and I spent some time with him, my daughter.
And so in 1998, he buys this island.
And in April, he then refurbishes it.
And in December of that year, which is my best recollection, I can check the records, but I'm pretty sure it's December that year.
It's a few months after he buys the island.
My wife, my daughter, and I were vacationing on Guadalupe over Christmas.
And he said, Alan, I just bought this island.
I'd love to have you and Carolyn.
He goes with his wife.
Nothing happened.
But where's the part with Rothschilds?
He was contributing money to Harvard.
Lady Rothschild, a very eminent, eminent person.
I should have just played from the beginning.
Okay, let me play from the beginning and shut my big mouth.
How many times have you been to Epstein's Island?
And then we're going to.
Okay, let's be very clear.
Epstein bought his island.
Let me start out, back up a little bit.
The day Epstein was disclosed to have done anything wrong was the day my acquaintanceship with him terminated.
I never had a friendship with him from that day on.
When I first met him, I met him in the summer of 1996.
I was introduced to him by the lady Rothschild, a very eminent, eminent person, previously married to the borough president of Manhattan, currently married to the Lord Evelyn Rothschild.
She introduced me to him, said he was a great man.
He was a scientist.
He was contributing money to Harvard.
He was a close friend of the president of Harvard.
He had built the Harvard Hill Ale along with Leslie Wexner.
As far as I knew, he was the most eminent person possible.
And so I went to his seminars.
We could end it there.
What the hell is the Rothschilds connection?
Is amazing.
You see how this Forrest Gump is everywhere with the Rothschilds, with the United Arab Emirates, with Ehud Barak.
And everybody wants to be in his orbit because of who he is.
It's kind of wild.
But what was I going to say?
Maga Revelations Disclosed00:12:34
Oh, yeah, no, that's right.
So now, now that some stuff is coming out that allows for people who consider themselves to be MAGA now to turn on Bannon, although it's understandable, predictable, and we have to hear what Bannon has to say about this.
Now they're sort of happy about what's been disclosed in the files.
You will notice, by the way, there's a new line of attack, and it's absolutely beyond obtuse.
Where during yesterday's show, someone mentioned that Tom Luongo had said Barnes was named in the Epstein files and at length in there.
And here's what I have to find the clip.
The idea that to me, it always looked like a sting operation on Trump's part.
I was like, let's.
What do I just do here?
Hold on a second.
Let me bring this up.
I want to play this clip and then play the what people are now raising is get this out of here.
Where did it just go?
Here?
Here, escape.
Here we go.
The idea that to me, it always looked like a sting operation on Trump's part.
I was like, let's deny that I want to bring the Epstein files out and everything else.
And it turns out, oh, by the way, I'm the guy who like turned Epstein in.
All of these people who have been out there trying to split MAGA apart, the Steve Bannons, the Robert Barnes, all these guys, they all wind up in the Epstein files, having long conversations, long relationships with them and everything else.
And then what's happening, Peter Manny.
Okay, so escape.
I would say, for lack of a better word, called out long.
And I said, this is demonstrably false.
You should probably, you know, apologize.
And he says, okay, tying Barnes into the Epstein files was misspeak.
No problem pulling that back.
What do you say for the rest?
The point was about Bannon.
Those in Bannon's orbit are therefore suspect as to their motives because Bannon's motives are crystal clear.
I stand by what I said, that Barnes is part of a crowd to split MAGA and torpedo Trump.
His actions have done nothing to win him a cash with me.
Do whatever damage control you need to do, Viva.
Not sure what that last part means.
Maybe I'm biased to Barnes's advice, but using this now, the disclosures, pretending that Trump's opposition was strategic when we were called names for saying it's a bungled disclosure.
You don't need to cause this damage to goodwill, which is what Barnes and I was saying at the time.
Dennis, that was sowing discord, but it was a sting operation by Trump that he was always going to do it anyhow.
So the people complaining about it being an unnecessary bungle were actually right all along, and then accused those people who were giving the proper advice at the time of trying to divide MAGA.
It's mental gymnastics.
But then the talking point that you're seeing right now, and I want to get to a good one, this is the problem.
And I'm not trying to pick on Matthew David.
I want to address what I think is totally flawed reasoning.
This is the problem with dumping the Epstein files onto the public.
You see, people are engaging in mutually incompatible statements.
There's nothing to disclose.
We can't disclose it because it'll be too confusing to digest.
And so we then have to lie about there being nothing to disclose in the first place.
This is the problem with dumping the Epstein files into the public because the entire thing is a Salem Witch Trials 2.0.
However, not dumping them assumes something to hide.
So White House waited for a grand standard to rise and we become detectives.
That would suggest that Thomas Massey was right in his pursuit.
That would suggest that those who are criticizing the unnecessary bungle were right in their advice and were actually looking out for Trump and MAGA and not trying to divide it and splinter it.
But the rationale, you're going to see a lot of people doing it as you are.
This is why we couldn't release it because now you can go look for Barnes' name and say he appears five times in the files.
You see Cat Turd doing this, and I don't know if he's doing it ironically or unironically.
The idea that you couldn't disclose it because people would lie or misrepresent what is in it is exactly why you had to disclose it.
Oh, you can't disclose it because people are going to say that Barnes' name appears in it, and then it's going to be a misunderstanding.
When it takes all of three minutes to understand the context of how someone is named in those files, whether it be in intimate text exchanges, flight logs to the island, or because their name appeared in legal documents and articles that were cited, when you can do that in three minutes, you would have avoided any confusion, and the liars would have been outed real fast, and you would have actually gotten to the truth a whole hell of a lot faster.
There's a difference between being cited in there as a reference in news articles versus lengthy text exchanges, email threats, and whatever.
And so, but you're seeing it now in real time.
And pay attention to the people who are doing it.
This is why we couldn't disclose it because it would have led to confusion, because it would have led to misrepresentations.
You know what allows for misrepresentations more than disclosure?
Not disclosing it.
No one for a minute thought everyone in the black book was an Epstein client.
Alec Baldwin was in it.
You could go through and look for names.
That was never an excuse not to disclose that book.
And by the time that book had been disclosed, everybody knew.
Well, being in a list of contacts in Epstein's Black book was not evidence of being a client.
It was not evidence of having gone to the island.
But being on the flight log to the island sure as hell meant something different.
Having lunch on the island could arguably mean something different.
What it is, in fact, it's sycophants and yes men who so want to be told that they're loyal and want a place at the table that they won't confront the head of that table to tell them when they're doing something counterproductive or strategically wrong.
I'm lucky.
I never had access to give up in the first place.
I never had access to forfeit.
I sure won't get any invites anytime soon, but I'm not interested in sitting at the table.
That clip of me and Dershowitz was from 2020, December 2020, five years ago.
If I had a Volta Fas and betrayed the principles that I have been espousing for five, six years, I would be so ashamed of myself, I wouldn't want to be seen in public, let alone at that table where I sold my soul, my good reason, my honesty for a seat.
But you're seeing it now.
And the spin is going to be, as it has been evolving over time, that you think you're being loyal by praising Bondi.
And maybe to some extent, you are being loyal, just counterproductive.
But we've gone full circle of the moving goalposts of discourse.
We're going to release the files.
Whoops, they're on my desk.
You won't believe what's in there.
Oh, what's this?
There's nothing really there.
No, we're not going to release any more files.
There's nothing to release.
Oh, now we have to legally do it.
We're going to screw it up while we do it.
Now you see why we couldn't do it because it gets so screwed up because we can't do it properly.
And anybody's in the file?
This is why we had to not do it.
And there's a whole hell of a lot of stuff in there.
And by the way, you better rely on that stuff right now.
Do you want to talk about dividing MAGA?
Bannon's got some serious questions to answer.
He's got some serious realities to face for fraternizing with the known devil.
And maybe he's got plausible explanations.
As of yet, there's no evidence he engaged in criminality, but engaging in the rehabilitation of a known sex offender, though not criminal, arguably, but not arguably, immoral.
I thought this was serious for a second.
If you're still talking about Epstein, you ain't MAGA.
All that I'm happy about is everything, at least on Epstein, everything that I've said from the beginning has proven out to be absolutely 1,000% accurate.
It would have been the best advice from the beginning.
Maybe this turns out to be net positive by the end.
But we are now February 16, 2026, entering the midterms.
There's still time to spin, not even spin this, to reframe this as the W that it always was.
The Democrats only cared about the Epstein files when they no longer had the power to actually release it.
They only cared about the Epstein files when they thought they could use it against Trump.
And the only thing that actually was used against Trump in the Epstein files was the bungled disclosure of the Epstein files.
Very little to do with the content.
Yeah, it's embarrassing for Lutnick.
He'll have to answer some questions.
It's embarrassing for Bannon.
He'll have to answer some questions.
But they were not in there colluding with Epstein.
They weren't in there taking texts from Epstein during congressional hearings.
Stacey Plaskin, I'm looking at you.
Michael Wolf, I'm looking at you.
They only cared about it when they no longer had the power to actually do anything about it.
And then the relentless war on Thomas Massey.
Anyhow, that's it.
So that's where we're at.
Now, with that said, we're going to go over to viva barn.locals.com after we take a little bit of the chat and see what else is going on here.
Let's go to, I do like going to the chat.
Hold on here.
This, this, down here.
Let's open it up a little bit more and see.
Can I do this?
Make sure you hit the follow smash button.
This, thank you very much, NeuroDivergent.
Watch Man in America's video from yesterday.
I don't want to get it.
If there was major arrests, a lot of people would still be complaining because the media would manipulate.
Well, let's get to the first half of that.
Let's just have some major arrests.
Again, there is time.
There is, look, they have the October surprise for the presidential elections for a reason.
There is plenty of time.
And maybe there's something even juicier in these files that either hasn't come out yet.
Let me see what the explanation for it.
Bannon will attach himself to anyone he feels he can make money off of.
What is that?
Yeah.
His Chinese partner arrested in New York for massive fraud.
The Chinese cryptocurrency he sold in China.
Stacy is the name.
Okay, let's get out of there.
Let's go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and see what's going on over there.
And that's that.
Bill Brown Proverbs.
What do we got here?
Yeah, donkeys are cute.
We have these little fellas hanging around our village.
Okay, we got to watch here.
Massey brings it on himself.
I disagree.
Pam Bondi provides injustice.
And the war on Marjorie Taylor Greene, it was unnecessary.
What did I say about that?
It would have been nice for them to reunify, to make amends.
It's not too late for that.
Although sometimes even in fighting, you say things that you cannot unsay.
Lutnick needs to resign, says Allie Michael.
It is interesting.
Allie Michael also says, I quit watching Bannon.
He's not guilty of a criminal offense, but he was dirt-talking Trump with Epstein.
I'd like to have a discussion with Ben and see what the hell was going on in his mind.
Bottom line, I was right about Marjorie Taylor Greene.
There was zero reason to suggest she was a traitor for pursuing the Epstein files.
I was right about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey, where they should have been pissed off at the way their righteous movement was hijacked by opportunistic, I think it was Lisa Blue, Gloria Allred-type jackasses who wanted to jump on this when they thought they could use it against Trump.
I was right talking about Nancy Pelosi, who couldn't give a sweet bugger all about the Epstein files for the four years Biden was in office.
All the other ones, I think Adam Schiff, go look up Viva Fry and posts where I call up people, you know, just say, hey, it's Thomas Massey, not having tweeted about it four years ago, it was understandable.
It wasn't as much in the political four as it was then.
But the Democrats, who actually had the reins of power, to all of a sudden come around and say, now we care about it because we think we can use it against Trump when all that ever came out of it was that Trump was proactively going after Epstein and Ghillain.
Bungled, unnecessarily so.
The damage is done.
It can be undone.
But that's it.
Viva Should Raid Cecil00:03:53
Oh, they're Shetland ponies.
Well, that's very cool.
Had a pony named Sparkles when we were kids.
Okay, we're going to do the vivabarneslaw.locals.com after party.
What else did I have to say?
Was there anything else I had to say?
I think that does it for the day.
Hold on, hold on.
Let me make sure.
Oh, crap.
Hold on.
I'm hearing something in the backdrop.
I'm hearing something in the backdrop, and I don't know how to stop it.
All right, people.
I'm hearing the audio from another stream and don't know where it's coming from.
Okay, good.
I cleared up.
That'll make you feel like you're going crazy.
I hear Russell Brand in the background, and I don't know where the window is, and I found the window.
All right, we're going to find somebody to raid tomorrow, three o'clock.
We'll be back on.
Is Russell Brand still live?
Yeah, Russell Brand looks like he's still live.
The cost of facing the past.
Let's go raid Russell Brown, Brand.
Tell him I say hi.
Come on over to viva barneslaw.locals.com.
We're going to have our after party.
And that's it.
I'm not taking a nap.
I can't take a nap.
I might go back into the sun.
There you go.
Go raid Russell Brand.
Say I said hi and hope he's doing well.
Rumble.
There you go.
If you're coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I'll give you all the links.
You can do that.
If you want to support the channel, you know how, people.
Rumble wallet.
Hold up.
I like prayer.
Hold on, hold on.
May Jesus bless you, Viva.
Believe in him, please, says Lisa.
Wasn't Barnes supposed to be live with?
I forget who he was supposed to be live with.
He was supposed to be live at someone today at three o'clock.
Proof of an operation.
Elon was trolling when he said Trump's in the Epstein files.
Well, he wasn't trolling.
He was right by the same rationale.
But even when he said that, we all understood what it meant at that time.
It doesn't mean Jack Squat.
Poor Viva.
What's a Canadian to do?
Why, what happened?
NeuroDivergent.
Oh, he's on premium.
Oh, well, cried.
Let me go see who else we can raid then.
Well, okay, hold on.
Hold on one second.
Let's go see who else is live right now.
We'll go raid somebody.
Can I raid a second time?
I don't even know if we can raid a second time.
Well, I've screwed it up, people.
What day is it?
It's Monday.
Oh, so Redact is not live.
Okay, well, whatever.
Don't raid.
Come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Viva should raid Cecil says sometimes.
Is he live right now?
Cecil, I'm going to cough.
Hold on, get my mute button.
Excuse me, although nobody heard that.
Cecil says he's live right now.
Let's go raid Cecil says.
I don't know who Cecil says is, so I hope I'm not stepping into a problem.
Raid.
There's no way.
Am I allowed to do another raid?
Is the question.
Hmm.
Let me see what's going on here.
Send only your raid.
Forward raid. Cecil says.
What am I doing here?
Am I in my chat?
Let me refresh this.
I don't know if we can do Cecil.
I'll just, I'm going to put the link in here and you can all go raid him.
Okay, link.
Go raid, Cecil says.
I don't know why.
Viva, you have to wait 10 minutes.
I can send another one in about seven minutes.
As we know whatever.
Okay, Neuro.
Thank you.
As we cascade into the infinite window in, window, in window, we're going to end this stream and go over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.