Hillary Clinton LIES on Epstein? Brian Cole Update! Ivan Raikling Going to SCCHOOL the CIA?
Ivan Rakelin exposes Hillary Clinton’s implausible Epstein denials—26 trips with Bill on Epstein’s plane, 17 White House visits, and dismissed concerns about Ghelene Maxwell at Chelsea’s wedding—while linking Epstein to CIA, military-industrial elites like Rothschilds. He details aggressive disruptions by MPD officer Michael Fanon during Jack Smith hearings, accusing Jim Jordan of enabling him, and plans lawsuits against Fanon and Terry Adiram over vaccine mandate fraud. Confronting Jamie Raskin’s "deranged observer" label, Rakelin challenges his role in January 6th narratives and Sarah Raskin’s alleged Flynn spying. The episode ties Epstein’s crimes to intelligence networks and questions systemic complicity in both cases. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, I have long said that true power comes not with the ability to lie with impunity, but rather to have other people do your lying for you.
Hillary Clinton in her heyday had the entire media apparatus carrying her lies for her such that she need not have lied at the time.
But those days are over, people.
Almost.
Behold, the best question and answer from yesterday's post-Epstein conference with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Behold.
Can I ask?
Why was Colleen Maxwell rightly doing the proper chance of Clinton's wedding in 2010?
He says, might I ask you, why was your daughter, why was Ghelene Maxwell invited to your daughter's wedding after she had been known to be what she was?
She'd already been mentioned in a civil lawsuit.
She had already been mentioned in a civil lawsuit.
By Virginia Guffray before that.
Jeffrey Epstein already was convicted before that.
Jeffrey Epstein had already been convicted.
She came as the plus one, the guest of someone who was invited.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
No more questions.
So that's Hillary Rodham Clinton after her hearing yesterday, in which I can't say lie because it's what we refer to as plausible deniability.
She didn't know about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities.
Neither did Bill Clinton, but she really didn't know.
She didn't know what her husband was up to.
You know, those 26 times he took extended travel vacations with Jeffrey Epstein to Africa and other nations where, you know, hypothetically, if you were in the industry of human trafficking, it would be easy to procure yourselves from children that have no parents anymore.
I didn't know what he was doing, but that particular question is a damn good question.
How did Ghelene Maxwell end up front row at your daughter's wedding?
Plus one.
Thank you.
No follow-ups.
She came as the plus one, the guest of someone who was invited.
But follow-up, I'll follow up Mrs. Clinton before you put it.
Oh, that's it.
It's over.
There's no follow-up.
Who was the plus one?
Now, from the internet, it seems that the plus one or the individual who invited Ghelane Maxwell as his plus one, if we can believe the internet, was tech billionaire Ted Wyatt Wait, Gateway co-founder and Clinton donor.
She described Waite as very close with Bill Clinton, according to Ghelaine Maxwell, who that's her testimony.
She was invited as a plus one from another closely connected Clinton donor.
You know, when you go to these events, it's not like, oh, a plus one.
So I can, you know, just bring Joe Schmo from down the street.
I can bring someone who's a criminal.
I can bring whomever.
No, I can bring someone on a terror watch list.
No.
No.
When you bring someone to the former president's daughter's wedding, there's background checks.
You got to know who the plus one is.
And that plus one's got to get approved.
No follow-up questions, but the chickens are coming home to roost.
After the conference yesterday, Hillary Clinton came out and said, I didn't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein's criminality.
It's possible.
I mean, her husband only flew on the airplane, not just, you know, between Miami and New York, which people don't seem to understand this distinction.
Trump flew on the plane.
Innocuous flights between New York and Miami.
Domestic, because this is what rich people do.
It's like hitching a ride with someone going to the university.
Yeah, you fly domestic between Montreal and New York because somebody's got, everybody's got their stupid planes.
Flying to Africa on humanitarian missions, flying on planes that have beds in the back, that according to Dan Bongino's, what was the word he used?
Unimpeachable sources, where they saw bad things happening with Bill Clinton on any one of those 26 flights, multi-day trips, cross-country, international human-saving trips.
Well, maybe Hillary Clinton doesn't know because she never asked, and that's how plausible deniability goes.
You know how many times Epstein visited the White House when Clinton was there?
Not Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton?
17.
17 times he went to the White House, and we're going to believe that Hillary Clinton knew nothing of Jeffrey Epstein.
We're going to believe that Bill Clinton, who's testifying today and thus far, seems to be saying, I didn't know nothing about his criminality, that they knew nothing.
It's as laughably stupid as Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, saying, I didn't know what Epstein was up to when I went to visit his mansion apartment in New York, when I took $2 million from him for private investment in a company that I was involved in.
I didn't know anything about him.
Yeah, I know, sure, because you know that the former prime minister of Israel doesn't have intel on everybody he has a direct and or indirect interaction with.
Horse crap.
And what we're having right now is something of a throwing under the bus or a sacrifice to some extent.
It hasn't happened yet, but it will happen because these lies will come out.
They will come to light.
Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth, Buddha.
And when you have them out there putting out demonstrable lies, demonstrable lies like, oh, she got there.
We had no idea Gawain Maxwell was attending the wedding.
Hmm, interesting.
Let's see about it.
Bill Clinton taking the stand today.
We'll see where that goes.
Did you read his opening statement?
President Clinton's opening statement to the House Oversight Committee over Hussain Oversight Government Reform.
Is this the right one?
Oh, I hope.
Is this the right one?
Hold on one second.
Okay, fine.
This is the right one.
Jesus, I thought I pulled up the wrong one.
Well, good morning.
Welcome to Chappaqua, Chappaqua.
I am here today for two reasons.
The first is that I love my country, and America was built upon the idea that no person is above the law, even presidents, especially presidents.
Oh, yes.
When you've got nothing to lose, then you can come out and talk.
After having fought tooth and nail, then you can come out and talk.
Democracy requires every person to play their part.
And I hope that by being here today, we can bring ourselves a little further away from the brink of brink and back to being a country where we can disagree with one another civilly, where the search for truth and justice outweighs the partisan urge to score points and create spectrum.
Can you believe this is coming from Bill Clinton?
The second reason I'm here is that the girls and women whose lives Jeffrey Epstein destroyed deserve not only justice, but healing.
This is coming from a man with his own history of sexual abuse, alleged sexual abuse.
It's amazing.
Like sexual abusers of feather flock together, it would seem.
They've been waiting too long for both.
Though my brief acquaintance with Epstein, well, I just lost my track here.
Though my brief through my beef acceptance with Epstein ended years before his crimes came to light, hmm, seems that some people are going to be able to prove that right or wrong.
Came to light subsequent only to 2008.
And though I never witnessed during our limited interactions any indication of what was truly going on, I'm here to offer what little I know so that it might prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
Before we start, I have to get personal.
You made me and Hillary come in.
Oops.
You made Hillary come in.
She had nothing.
Oh, he's defending the women.
My goodness.
He's defending his wife with the same vigor that his wife went out and attacked and sought to destroy the lives of all of the victims of Bill Clinton's alleged sexual abuse.
Oh, you made Hillary come in.
She had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
Nothing.
She has no memory of even meeting him.
She neither traveled with him nor visited any of his properties.
When you subpoena 10 people or 10,000, including her, it was simply not right.
We began this hearing with me raising my hand and taking an oath to tell the truth.
But everyone has a responsibility to be honest with whose they represent.
Whether you raise your hand or not, each and every one of us owe nothing less than the truth and accuracy to the American people.
Now, let me say what you're going to hear from me.
First, I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Right?
It's amazing when you believe the lie because you phrase it in such a way.
I didn't have sex with that woman.
In my mind, that woman is someone else.
So when Bill Clinton said it, it wasn't a lie.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
First, I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.
Bullshit.
No matter how many photos you show me of like you getting a back massage by one of the victims of Epstein's sex trafficking, I have two things that at the end of the day matter more than your interpretation of those 20-year-old photos.
I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn't see.
I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn't do.
I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong.
Sorry, as someone who grew up in a home with domestic abuse, it makes you much more likely to commit abuse, Bill Clinton.
It's called hurt people, hurt people for a reason, and the cycle continues.
Not only would I have not flown on his plane, if I had any inkling of what he was doing, I would have turned him in myself and led the call for justice for his crimes, not sweetheart deals.
That's funny.
We knew about this for the last four years under Biden.
Did you see anything then, Bill?
You had the microphone.
But even with 2020 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.
We are here because he hid it from everyone so well for so long.
And by the time it came to light with his 2008 guilty plea, I had long stopped associating with him.
You'll often hear me say that I don't recall.
That might be unsatisfying.
This is what you call setting up for, but I'm not going to say something I'm not sure of.
This was a law, a long time ago, and I forgot.
I forgot a lot.
I'm very old.
Blah, Since I'm on an oath, I will not falsely state that I am looking forward to your questions, but I am ready to answer them to the best of my abilities, consistent with the facts as I know them.
The legitimate, the logical, and even the outlandish.
With that, Mr. Chairman, fire away.
Holy crap, apples.
Do we need to pull up the video of him saying, I did not have sexual relations with that, lying to the face of Americans, I would dare say, past his prologue, exactly like he's lying to the face of Americans right now.
Oh, yeah, y'all remember what his woman-loving wife, you know, these people, these people, these people so much love the victims that Hillary Clinton went and sought to destroy the lives of the victims of Bill Clinton's alleged sexual abuse.
This is from Mays, who posted this.
The day after Bill Clinton gave his famous press conference, during which he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky, it was a lie, to the face of the Americans, bold face.
And at the time, he had the media carrying his lies for him.
They don't carry the same political clout anymore.
They are expendable.
Hillary Clinton went and blamed the scandal on a vast right-wing conspiracy.
She also blamed Lewinsky, calling her a narcissistic loony tune, and claimed that Bill wanted to break it off, but it was beyond his control.
Well, some people might agree with that because some people think Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad honeypot.
Look at the evil smile at the end.
Democrats actually chose Hillary as their fighter for women.
Let's hear this.
January 1998, Bill Clinton is furiously and falsely denying a sexual relationship with a White House intern.
And one day later, First Lady Hillary Clinton blames not the president, but his political foes.
I've always said, look, I appreciate it might not have been illegal.
I appreciate that Monica Lewinsky might have been honeypotting Bill Clinton.
It is absolute abuse of a position of power.
Now, I know some people are going to say, well, Monica Lewinsky was abusing of her position of power, which was being an attractive young female to a horny old pervert.
And, you know, everybody holds different.
I know these arguments.
The president making advances on an intern is morally wrong if it's not illegal.
And I don't even care if she was trying to exploit her youth and beauty to woo the president of the United States so that she could brag about it 30 years later.
You keep your freaking schmekel in your pants and you act like a decent human, which Bill Clinton was not, is not, and probably will never be.
The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.
In private conversations later, notes taken by a longtime friend say Hillary Clinton dismissed Lewinsky as a narcissistic loony toon.
And while she called her husband's behavior grossly inappropriate, she said the affair was consensual and hinted it was spurred by the political pressure he faced.
Consensual is a very subjective term.
I mean, it might have been willing between the both of them.
You don't do it.
You're the godforsaken president of these United States of America.
Maybe he's, I kept my Schmeckle in my pants because I stuck a cigar in her VJJ.
So technically, my Schmeckle was in my pants on that occasion.
So on that occasion, I did not have sex jewel relations with that woman.
You could see how pathological liars can rationalize their lies to themselves as they spew them to the public.
Consensual Lies Explained00:02:54
It was a lapse.
To his credit, he tried to break it off, tried to pull away.
I think she's talking about the cigar right there.
Bada bing, bada boom.
But it was beyond his control.
Her handling of it.
I'm sorry.
I don't mean to laugh at the outright person.
It was beyond his control.
If he pulled away at that point in time, it would have caused lasting pain to his testicles, correct?
The matter is complicated.
For example, when she says survivors of sexual assault have a right to be believed, her critics summon the names of women who have accused her husband of just that.
And we can stop here.
It was the same thing with Tara Reed and Joe Biden.
And Lisa Bloom, the daughter of Gloria Allred, said, We believe you.
We know that Joe Biden was handsy and groped and assaulted women, but we got to defeat Trump.
So sorry.
Too bad.
Buzz off.
That's what's going on today.
I'm going to be on with Dr. Drew this evening.
I'm going to do a hit with RT this afternoon after this show.
We got a new dog.
And Winston is proving to be a bit of a cranky bastard.
And we're going to have to acclimatize, acclimate, whatever.
We're going to have to introduce them.
We've introduced them.
Winston's being a bit cranky, but we're going to do this.
I want to show everybody the beautiful.
We have yet to determine a name.
Now, I did ask our VivaBarneslaw.locals.com community what we should name him.
I know people are going to look at this dog and say he's the ugliest dog on earth, that he looks like a mixture between a jackal, a fox, a corgi, a French bulldog, a Sharpe.
I love these dogs.
Look at that fake.
He looks like a manatee.
That flab of skin over his nose is like a manatee nozzle.
This is him today because he got his nuts removed.
They were crypto, crypto-orchid, crypto-orchidism.
Testes didn't descend, actually, oddly enough, like with Winston.
It's questionable his level of intelligence.
He's extremely cute.
We're deciding on a name, and we are slowly introducing Winston, who is a blind, cranky.
I forgot he's almost six years old now.
Now he's getting, you know, midlife crisis.
Wrinkles isn't bad.
Anyhow, so that's why I'm a little running ragged today because you have your vision of how things are going to go, and then things always get a little more complicated.
Now, that's what's going on with Clinton.
And we're going to catch up on the hearing later on this evening when we start getting news from it.
I'm going to watch it when it becomes public.
I've been watching Les Wexner's hearing.
And I've got to say, the man is well prepared.
Les Wexner, that is, because he did, you know, he does a decent job portraying himself as a dawdling old man who just got exploited to the tune of $100 million by the best con man on earth.
Les Wexner's Hearing Prep00:05:23
Do you understand?
Everybody right now is running the same effing talking point on Epstein.
He was a con man.
Con man.
Holy shit.
That's one hell of a way of describing a man who was a useful tool for the military-industrial complex intelligence apparatuses of various countries, not just Israel, MI6, who was involved in arms dealing,
allegedly, and who might have had his sexual proclivities that he might have demanded for his own continued cooperation, to which the CIA and intelligence might have turned a blind eye, or which he might have used to further his tentacular reach.
I don't even know if that's a word, his reach among the elites of the world.
How the hell is it that he is rubbing elbows with the Rothschilds, CEO of the WEF, various heads of human trafficking organizations, at least the ones that purport to be helping people?
It's wild.
It's coming out.
And Monday, I will be having a public discussion with Michael Tracy on the very Epstein files.
So that's what's going on with Epstein.
Good afternoon, everybody.
How goes the battle?
Viva Fry, David Fryhead, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
We are live across Rumble exclusively daily at three o'clock.
Vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I think we're also on X, but don't watch it on X. Come on over to either the Viva Barnes or watch it on Rumble.
Bill U Bill says, I'm a combat veteran trying to leave a bad situation and need to relocate as quickly as possible.
Please view my give send go.
Everybody, you can do this.
I don't know who Bill Ubill is, and these are not endorsements.
So, Bill, thank you for the crumble print.
And before we bring in our guest, because we're going to catch up on two issues: one is the hearing that occurred today, I think, in what I believe to be the Patsy of the Millennia, Brian Cole Jr., as the alleged pipe bomber, where there was an update today, or there should have been.
Ivan Rakelin, who attended, is going to come in and talk about it.
And also, Ivan Rakelin is being sued by Terry Adiram, former director of the CIA, who got a job in the Trump administration.
And then Ivan Rakelin got her fire.
I would say he got her fired.
He put her record on blast.
And then the administration said, why the hell would we want to keep this person on who was responsible for the COVID atrocities during COVID?
She gets fired.
She then sues the CIA.
She sues Ivan Rakelin for like a number of claims.
I think like effectively tortious interference, allegedly surreptitiously intercepting or obtaining her text messages and defamation.
And the lawsuit was tossed on all but one of the claims.
We're going to get to that.
Before we bring in Ivan, just one second here.
Let me make sure that we are live in Viva.
Oh, I didn't click in the room here.
We're live in vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I think we have a couple of tipped questions, which we shall look at.
Look up Lewinsky's connection with L-band, L-brand Wexner's company.
Well, I'll be doing that, Dapper Dave.
Thank you very much.
Then we got Pam Walker, who says Shadow Vesa, former advisor to Clinton administration, blows the whistle.
They've visited Zoroanch multiple times.
Oh, dude.
Dude, it's going to come out.
Like, this is why I say I don't lie, A, out of fear of God, and or if there happens not to be a God, although I'm getting increasingly convinced there is, out of a fear that you can't get away with a lie.
And once someone knows that you have lied, you will never be trusted again.
And there is no greater curse than to walk this earth and have everybody look at you and say, that is a gosh forsaken liar.
That is everything that everything that everyone thinks when they look at Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.
Dapper Day says, How much do you want to bet?
It was mostly softball questions by both parties.
Probably the same with Bill Clinton today.
Well, did they have opposition?
Because apparently they didn't have any GOP to ask Les Wexner any questions.
And then we're going to get into a terrible, disgusting story of a man who killed a wolf in Wyoming, I think, and struck a plea deal that's going to piss a lot of people off.
All right, without further ado, Ivan, sir, if you're listening and watching, activate your microphone, activate your camera.
We will see if the audio levels are good.
Oh, he's grown wings since the last time I saw him.
Hold on, hold on.
Let me just take myself up for one second.
This is the wings of justice, sir.
All right.
Or the wings of retribution.
Ivan, 30,000-foot overview for those of us who are meeting you for the first time.
Who are you?
All right.
So, 25 years in the national security arena ended with a stint instructing on intelligence analysis, worldwide threats, the U.S. intelligence community, and also as a reservist, as a tech scout in the Silicon Valley area, and also an attorney with some, I guess, high-profile clients that I never discuss.
That's the first time I'm saying that here.
And yes, but we're going to talk about a couple of lawsuits, other ones.
You getting sued.
The defamation one against me.
And actually, if we have time, I'm going to talk about the plan and strategy for the lawsuit for defamation against Michael Fanon, which I know I wanted to do this much earlier, but there's so much that I want to incorporate into it.
Jan 5th Hearing Status00:08:50
It's going to be a massive filing.
Let's start with the Patsy of the century, Brian Cole Jr.
Everybody keep it calm today because you know I'm always bombasting.
We're going to say keep it calm.
Everybody knows what's going on, but the synopsis is that after five years of not being able to find the pipe bomber, despite a number of people with credible leads, credible theories, shortly after Steve Baker, journalist extraordinaire, a journalist, by the way, who was persecuted by the Biden FBI for his attendance and documenting of January 6th, pissed off that FBI.
Whom also attended today's hearing.
Oh, very nice.
Okay.
Well, it's good to know also that he's up and about now because he had a health issue recently.
So Steve Baker puts out his expose that says, I believe it's a Capitol Hill police officer who, as far as I know, by the way, hasn't sued anybody for defamation.
I might be wrong.
I don't think I'm wrong.
He identifies as a public.
Yeah.
I mean, I know they sent somebody a notice not to delete evidence, but that was a while back and nothing's happened.
Steve Baker comes out with his expose and it causes some shockwaves.
And it's sufficiently well substantiated.
Oddly enough, using gate analysis became useful to claim it was Brian Cole Jr. when they said you can't use gate analysis to determine it was who he suspected.
Set that aside, magically, three to four weeks later, give or take, they discover it is a 35-year-old autistic black kid living in Virginia or is it in Maryland?
I want to see Virginia.
Yeah.
And not to say the race is mildly irrelevant, save and except for the fact that if you're making a patsy out of somebody, I mean, this is like the if you're making a patsy out of a 35-year-old autistic black man living with his parents, that's one hell of a patsy to be making.
And the skin color, I think, might only be relevant in terms of definitively, if you had high enough quality images, being able to eliminate that potentiality.
But set that aside, they come out, they arrest this guy.
He's been now detained since, I don't know, I would say like early December.
They had some issues with the indictment that they went by district court jury grand jury instead of a federal court grand jury.
And then that became an issue on the eve of the hearing.
They go and get a proper grand jury.
Yada, yada, yada.
They then argue that he has to be kept in jail until trial because he is such a flight risk, such a menace to society, even though he's been out there for five years.
The guy is, according to family, borderline nonverbal.
According to the 7-Eleven guy, not the guy in the video.
He did speak today.
He uttered yes three times today.
So that was much more than he has done in the past.
Now, there have been a number of hearings in terms of arguing for pretrial detention.
What was the hearing today and how long did it last?
What went down?
Give us the lowdown.
All right.
So it was a status update and probably it didn't go too long, actually.
It was one of the short, probably the shortest one thus far.
It was an update where the judge wanted to get a sense of where discovery was and how much production has already been provided by the government, particularly.
And so Jocelyn Ballantyne, the lead prosecutor, was there, didn't say anything.
I always have to talk about what happens before the actual hearing, if I may, Viva, because that's where all the juicy details start to come out.
So as I'm waiting.
Jocelyn Valentine, we won't do the thorough rundown on her.
She was the January 6th persecutor for a great many, asked Enrique Tario to lie to entrap the president, somehow is still employed at the DOJ.
And same thing with General Flynn.
She went after him.
So this is the individual.
And I'd like to actually find out the names of the FBI agents supposedly or who else was in the room where they tried to get the confession of Brian Cole Jr.
But that's another issue.
Bottom line, this hearing was to get the updates on production.
I guess there's two that were provided.
There's a couple more that they're going to do.
And the next status hearing is scheduled for April 21st at 10 a.m.
So right now it's just really in the discovery phase, right?
So they are detained.
There's no more debate on whether or not he's going to be detained until trial.
He's just in there.
Oh, I did briefly speak with his league, his defense team.
I spoke with the defense team a little bit.
I interacted with his family members, just said hello, and some of the friends that were there in support of Brian Cole Jr.
There was, I can't remember which publication, but one of the mainstream media outlets was there.
Very low footprint from the mainstream media.
One individual and then Steve Baker, like I mentioned before, and effectively me were in there observing.
So I would say that it's odd, right?
When this is for five years, they went after, oh, J6, J6, J6.
And then next thing you know, no media is really covering it, mainstream media.
But the attorneys told me that they're, I believe they said that they filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is in the same building.
I think it was one floor up.
And they're just waiting on that on whether or not they're appealing his detention.
And so other than that, I don't know anything else.
How do they plausible that they may have a hearing and then make a determination on releasing him?
What does he look like?
What does he look like?
Physically, is he does he?
I don't know if he looks more gaunt, if you can tell from comparative purposes, but what does he look like?
Does he look traumatized or does he just look like he's not digesting the reality of the situation?
He looks exactly like he did the previous several times, and he looks pretty much exact other than in the orange jumpsuit, if you will.
He looks exactly like you've seen them through the public videos that have been released about him.
Photos, videos.
Just a, what's the term I want to use?
Obviously, not elated, not sad, just a really monotone demeanor, right?
There's really not much inflection of any emotion either way, really a neutral posture for the entire time that I saw him in the courtroom.
In terms of the status update, is defense saying that they have not been provided with certain evidence or certain disclosures?
No, there wasn't any pushback.
It appears that defense was basically saying, yes, the government has been producing information.
There's still more to be produced.
The judge had a back and forth with Brian Cole Jr. and defense counsel because everybody wanted to waive the right to speedy trial.
I think 70 days is when they're trying to, is the goal under the rules, federal rules.
But they all waived that because of the volumes of evidence that is needed.
And he went back and forth with Brian Cole Jr., asking him if he understood that by doing so, he's going to continue to be incarcerated and it's going to prolong whatever the due process is going to be offered to him through the course of litigation.
And he said, you know, through that back and forth, that's what I mentioned.
He said yes three times.
And I believe that's the only time that he's ever uttered anything in the courtroom.
And one other thing of note is that there was another individual that I spoke with that was, I guess, a friend of the family or maybe a colleague at that at the company, the Bales Bond company that the family owns, that reiterated that this guy, Brian Cole Jr., is a, you know, he's 30, but effectively, intellectually, it's a 30-year-old in a 15-year-old's body, 50-year-old's,
15-year-old brain in a 30-year-old man's body.
And so I think there was one other thing that, oh, there was a discussion in the hallway where they were thinking that maybe the pardons that were applied to all J6ers would also apply to Brian Cole Jr.
Now, that would be a good thing for his family and for Brian Cole Jr., I said.
But I asked the question, is it good for exposing the truth?
And I don't think it would be beneficial for actually finding out the truth of what occurred on January 5th on in what I call, obviously, and you agree to, the January 5th decoy effort into January 6th for that Fed surrection to play out.
It's an interesting dilemma and strategy.
How do you claim to benefit from a pardon for a crime to which you've pleaded not guilty?
Well, because you don't have to go through that legal process, right?
No, but he's heated risk and costs.
He's formally pleaded not guilty, right?
Brian Cole Jr.
Yeah, so I mean, the question is, the argument is, I don't think the pardon applies.
I mean, on the plain reading of it, he was not charged or indicted at the time that pardon was issued.
I don't see that it applies regardless of.
Jim Jordan's Controversial Arrest Claim00:15:06
We're talking about the blanket pardon related to all things, J6.
It was my last recollection of reading it is it's still talked about, first of all, the events on January 6th, which doesn't include January 5th.
Right.
I agree with you, but I think the defense is also looking at that as a potential strategy in representing their client.
I think it's a bad strategy, but set that aside.
Did you run into Jay?
Yeah, but it doesn't have to be an all-in strategy.
It could be one of several.
Did you run into Jocelyn before or after?
So I ran into her before, of course.
And as she Greeted the defense counsel as they had their little pre hearing discussion.
You know, I looked at her, looked at, and she looked back at me and I said, Good morning, Miss Valentine.
How are you?
And as soon as I engaged with a verbal utterance of complete professional calm demeanor, she looked the other way and I would frame it as disdain and unpleasantness simply for just saying hello.
You are her Jiminy cricket, Ivan.
You're her conscience reminding her of the awful things that she's done.
You are the mirror that she doesn't want to look into.
For any reason, so Brian Cole will go full Fanon.
She actually maintained her cool, you know, and didn't completely go off the rails.
So I have to commend her for that.
Well, let's go full Fanone here.
Let me bring this one up.
This one will take a little less time.
You're actually going to sue him for defamation.
Yes.
I spoke with my attorney yesterday.
We won't go into some of the details.
I'll play this and I'll put the caveat.
I am not playing this to affirm the falsehoods asserted by Michael Fanon.
If you haven't seen it, I think you have everybody watching the channel, but watch this.
This is when Ivan is at.
What was the hearing that you were at for this?
This was where, okay, this is important actually to set the stage.
So remember, Jack Smith, the guy that was hired by the Biden criminal syndicate under the Biden illegitimate regime to go after and weaponize against everything related to Trump and try to frame him into that insurrection narrative, Jack Smith was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee and his four witnesses, no, I wouldn't say witnesses, his four VIP guests, along with Jamie Raskin, who's the ranking member's guests, Michael Fanon,
MPD officer, Harry Dunn, U.S. Capitol Police officer, Akenilo Gannell, U.S. Capitol Police officer, and Daniel Hodges, Metropolitan Police Department officer.
Those were the four that testified before the January 6th Fed Surrection Cover-Up Committee back a few years ago.
They were the four VIP guests of Jack Smith and Jamie Raskin sitting in the first row right next to and behind Jack Smith.
And this is how his VIP guests act when faced with a truth seeker.
Let me actually just ask you this.
There was a clip where at one point Fanon coughed and went, fuck you, or fuck off or something like that.
Did that actually go find that?
Okay, fine.
That's not like an AI thing.
So I said that there's no, how did he not get kicked out right after that?
I don't know.
I'll find that clip while I'm playing this one.
This is the interaction upon which you claim to potentially get kicked out because of Republican cowardice, but we'll get into it after, I guess.
I think your camera might have a fingerprint on it.
That's the okay.
I'm joking.
So that is him.
It says fighting Nazis since Ivan Raymond.
Why do you have to swear at me?
What's that?
Why do you have to swear at me?
Oh, dude, don't pretend like we're not mortal enemies.
You'll fuck yourself.
Well, why do you have to lose your cool like that?
I'm always professional with you.
Every single time I communicate with you.
This is loud enough for everybody in the room to hear, Ivan, correct?
Absolutely.
You're always professional with you.
They've got cameras in the background.
It requires other people to contain your Tourette's syndrome.
Okay?
I'm not going to get through that.
You've threatened my family and you've threatened my life.
Who have you traitor this fucking country?
Why are you so spasmodic?
Am I spasmodic?
Absolutely.
Do something.
Why should I?
I'm communicating with you.
I'm trying to calm you down.
Right?
This is not doing justice.
This is not giving the people with spider web tattoos on their elbows good reputations.
How do you need to control yourself?
You can't even be in the middle of the moment.
Trust me, excuse me, see how many people are constraining you?
Come get me.
Look at me.
Total control over my mind and body.
Total control over my mind and body.
How's this guy not just kicking him out?
Set that aside.
Sorry.
Dominating you right now.
Sir.
Sir.
Totally dominating.
Sir.
Let's step aside.
I'm not.
This guy is threatened.
My family threatened my children.
Threatened to rape my children.
I don't rape my children.
You sick ask him.
I guess we can stop it.
Well, let's more people need to control him because I'm completely dominant, sir.
Now I understand why you're quite as angry as you are.
So he actually said that so loud because it got louder towards the end.
If everybody heard the go fuck yourself, then he said, You threatened to rape.
Ivan, I've known you for a little bit.
I don't know that we have we met.
I don't know if we've met in person.
Have we met in person?
No, we haven't.
It's going to happen.
I know you fairly well.
I would be shocked if I were to learn that you actually threatened to rape his children.
What the hell is he talking about?
No, I don't even think those thoughts, right?
Like, let's kind of, I want to, this is how I said it immediately: is that I've never said that to him publicly, privately.
I've never said that to anybody publicly or privately, nor do I ever think those thoughts to even think to say them.
That's kind of that's the reality.
And we're going to play this out in litigation.
So, a lot of people ask me, well, why did he say this?
The only thing that I can attribute it to is that when you look at his body cam footage and help stop hate, Dave Summerall on X, he's published his entire Michael Fanon's body cam footage.
And when you watch the body cam footage and match it with all of his statements and when he testified before the J6 committee and then his CNN hits and MSNBC hits, everything he says publicly about his experience on January 6th is a complete fabrication.
And so if you take that to the next level, is when he's confronted by somebody wanting to get to the truth of him and his role of January 6th, such as in my case, and he realizes that I'm not going to back down, that's when he has to come up with concoctions and just these lies.
And I think that was his reaction.
His reaction is to immediately lose his cool, and just like he did on January 6th, me hyperventilating, yelling, screaming, and then just he never basically never passed out.
He was never attacked.
It's all a fabrication.
And he was mad that I was there confronting him.
That was the third time that I confronted him.
All three times.
That is the demeanor in which I communicate with him.
No, Ivan, I've never seen you behave.
I've never seen you behave any different, you know, and you're on camera a lot.
When he says you threatened me, maybe there I could say, well, no, if you say he's guilty of treason, someone's going to say, well, the punishment for treason is X, and therefore that's a threat by accusing me of treason.
That I can understand.
Threatening to rape, and then to say it loud enough for everybody in there who then might look at you with a stink eye and say, What's this?
This, this guy's a is this guy a pervert or something.
All right, I can understand it.
I still don't not sure that you should do it, but whatever.
It'll be, that's up to you.
And I don't wish litigation on anybody, but Ivan.
I think that he said that in order to change the frame of me exposing him to make me look like the mad guy.
And it worked for a few seconds, if you notice.
So when there are about 20 angles of this interaction, because you had media on the left, the audience in the back, I think members of Congress recorded it.
The C-SPAN footage, the committee footage, the Fox News had a thing on it, and other media outlets on the right.
So collectively, I think I counted maybe 20 video camera angles in addition to my very own that you just played.
So, when you look at all of them, the shorter U.S. Capitol police officers that you saw step in between us, he was effectively told, along with the other U.S. Capitol police officer that came later, that I was the aggressor and that I was the threat in this circumstance.
But you notice that immediately he sees that I'm calm and I'm expressing to him, I'm just standing here and I'm calm because he wants me to move aside.
I was like, hey, this is where I'm sitting.
I'm just standing, not violating anything.
And then, as he hears and feels Fanon behind him, he had to pivot.
So, a couple of weeks after that incident, I actually spoke with one of the officers and he, when he came up to me, said, Ivan, I apologize.
Had I known the circumstances, I would have actually went and had an interaction with Mr. Fanon, not you.
It's just that everybody came up to me trying to convince me that you were the root cause of it.
Well, that clearly was not the case.
And that's what I think Fanon was trying to get to.
And then, same thing with the guy standing next to Fanon, which is Akanilo Ganel, U.S. Capitol Police Officer.
He tried to direct this shorter U.S. Capitol police officer on duty to come after me.
But once he saw my calmness, this guy gentleman right here, that's one he immediately this guy right here.
Right.
No, no.
The one with his finger up.
No, no, that's the capital police officer.
Who's the guy that was back is Harry Dunn, U.S. Capitol Police officer, that was instrumental in lying along with David Lazarus, who was Pelosi's head of dignitary protection, to lie in the oath keepers trial to criminally go after him.
By the way, Steve Baker was the one that exposed it after the CCTV footage came out, where he could prove that David Lazarus and by extension, Harry Dunn, were perjuring themselves in that oath keepers trial.
But I digress, but that's the Harry Dunn.
Again, all four of these guys have something in their background that obviously is, I mean, there's dirt and lies and perjury in their background.
So just to close this thought, is that I talked to the U.S. Capitol Police officer on duty for about 30 minutes.
It was last week.
And I just said, I just want to say thank you because you were politically pressured into trying to go after me.
But within a few seconds, you immediately realized that what you were told is completely not realistic.
And that's when he pivoted to the side and along with his partner, was observing Michael Fanone.
And he was completely professional.
I got no issue whatsoever.
What I do take issue with is that the chairman of that committee, Jim Jordan, should have had the U.S. Capitol Police arrest Michael Fanon because after his interaction with me, it is very clear on video, a different angle, where Fanon actually pushes balls into elbows and assaults a capital police officer.
I know I saw that.
I saw that in person.
Yeah, four crimes that he committed during that interaction.
His interruption, excuse me, interruption, his distraction, the GFY during one of the Congress member Troy Nells was going back and forth with Jack Smith.
And then the assault.
I don't know if you're pulling that up right now.
If I would have done that, Viva, jail, a thousand percent.
I would have been on the floor, shackled immediately, like completely manhandled by multiple capital police officers.
And I would have expected it.
I would have said, exactly, that's how you should treat me if I'm going to aggress and physically assault one of your capital police officers.
Because if I were a capital police officer and I see somebody act in that manner that's in the hearing, guess what?
I'm going to make an example of you that you do not do that to my fellow capital police officers.
But yet nothing happens to him because Jim Jordan is a complete cuck coward, as evidenced by that.
And number two, he was Jack Smith and Jamie Raskin's beloved witness.
Jamie Raskin, after that interaction, called me a deranged observer, right?
And it's on video, and that's why I confronted.
I don't know if you saw the confrontation I had with Jamie Raskin Tuesday.
No, that one's worth noting.
You might want to play that since we're on a roll here before we get into the Terry and Darius.
Now, all the way, we might have a short locals after party because I got a 415 with RT and then a 445 with Dr. Drew.
Oh my God, you're going to be a Russian agent?
You know that they're a foreign agent, right?
RT?
I've been on the church.
A registered foreign agent in America.
Well, I mean, first of all, also I never do it.
No, I'm like, Ivan, I can never do RT.
I have a multiple times, refused every single one.
I don't mind doing interviews or talking about issues with any news agency, even the CBC, BBC, NPR, which are all equally state-run.
But yeah, bring it up and you can share the screen on your end.
I'm going to try to see if I can find it.
And have you retained counsel, Ivan?
I have.
I have.
Yes.
So we, after that, the very following day, we sent a cease and desist and demand for apology.
But before that actually went out, that same night, Michael Fanon went on Jim Acosta's show and Jim Acosta amplified that, took it for being truthful.
So, guess what, Jim Acosta?
Expect to be a co-defendant with Mr. Fanon in this defamation case.
And so we're working.
I know a lot of people are like, oh, you should have filed it already.
Well, guess what?
I'm going to file it on my timeline, but it will be filed.
Is this?
Let me see if this is where he puts his hands on.
Watch his elbow right here.
Boom.
See that?
Yep.
He just leans in and elbows her.
You know, it's people say, well, I've seen worse if he just wants she was directing him and he made contact with her.
Yeah, I would expect, like you say, any other person of political Jim Jordan.
Yeah.
If I were advising Jim Jordan, here's what he should have done.
If he would have heard that that occurred, he would have said, Mr. Capitol Police, why don't you go ahead and escort and arrest Mr. Fanone?
And Mr. Ragland, because of your professionalism and your restraint, I would like to offer you a seat and to take over Mr. Fanone's seat as a guest of this committee as you continue to set the example of decorum and tone and demeanor.
That would have been a complete checkmate move, I think, because Jim Jordan knows who I am.
Jim Jordan's Missed Opportunity00:05:44
You know, we've talked in the past.
I attend a lot of these hearings.
They know that I behave.
Okay.
And so that would have been, I think, the really ballsy move to do.
And that would have taken over the narrative and really, I think, castrated effectively Jack Smith's testimony.
Because I think that would have really gutted his narrative.
And the story would have been, you know, liar Fanon making these false accusations.
Meanwhile, the chairman is siding with the truth.
But he refused to do that.
And I find that to be unfortunate.
But if he, I would be happy to be a guest at a future hearing, Mr. Chairman Jordan.
And I will retract any of the negative commentary that I've provided thus far about you.
Because I, I mean, I don't, I judge people based on their actions, right?
And so if they auto-correct, I have to change how I assess them.
So for now, I felt as though that interaction was inadequate.
It was over the top.
He gave a middle finger.
He said, go fuck yourself while coffee.
And he managed to say something about him.
By allowing him, he was Chairman Jordan enabled him to continue to disrupt it.
Are you mentioning who your counsel is that you've retained for this matter?
No, it's uh actually, no.
I'll ask him if I don't think he wants his name out there too public.
Obviously, it's going to be in the in the document, but we're just going to do it the proper way without he doesn't want to be participating in my style of uh i guess bombast.
So well, now so from suing potentially to getting sued, you have been sued by Terry Adirim, along with you know defendants who have now been kicked out of the case.
For those who don't remember, let me just bring this up.
It's another amazing situation where uh Terry Adirim, she was the head of the CIA.
I can't plan this.
God is good to me, Viva.
I'm literally at the vortex of exposing January 6th because let's face it, Fanon is their mouthpiece, right?
For the J6 fake insurrection, the Fed surrection, excuse me, their insurrection narrative.
And through the process of litigating with him, you know, if they don't settle, guess what?
We're going to go into massive discovery of showing his propensity to lie and defame people in order to make the case.
And I don't know how far we'll get with that, but I'm going to expose it all, okay?
Unlimited.
Like, I have unlimited energy and resources, in my opinion, to crush him, okay?
Legally, morally, and ethically.
Peace.
And then the same is going to go with this lawsuit.
So please.
So, what was Terry Adirim's position within the CIA when she issued the proclamation mandating this?
She was the director.
So her position was she was the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.
She was the one person that signed the implementation, the unlawful implementation memo that forced the quote-unquote so-called vaccine onto the entire Department of Defense.
That was dated September 14th or 17th of 2021.
Remember the unlawful vaccine orders?
Yeah, I'm bringing it up right now.
Secretary Noam, if you go to the there's so much, I should have sent you some of these assets.
No, no, Dorbita.
This is um, is this it?
Is this the one on August 23rd?
FDA approved, there's no date on this document.
Assistant Secretary of Defense, memorandum.
Hold on, right there.
If you look at the signature block in small print, you can see the date.
And it's probably not it looks like September 14, 2021.
Okay.
August 23rd, the U.S. FDA approved the biologics license for the Comar Nati vaccine.
Yada, yada, yada.
Consistent with FDA guidance, Department of Defense healthcare providers will use both the Pfizer, yada, yada, vaccine interchangeably.
My point of context.
And then we see here, per USC guidance, these two vaccines are interchangeable, uneffing believable.
So she mandates.
She mandates.
So remember, at this time, there was no FDA-approved product that was produced.
It was only the biologic licensing agreement was approved.
And so the label was approved, but they never actually created the product to then inject into people.
So the only one that was physically manufactured and available to force into people's arms was the emergency use authorized product.
So effectively, she was the initiating salvo of an unlawful order.
So if the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, wants to go after people for issuing unlawful orders, I got you somebody right here, sir.
Her name's Terry Adirim.
So this was, she basically mandates.
I love how they say it's the Comar Nati vaccine was approved.
It was never the one that was manufactured and sold.
And that was the bait and switch.
Yes, exactly.
And then the issue also, I just love how they interchangeable.
Like they've done enough research to interchange the, which one was it?
They said the Comar Nati vaccine per USC guide.
Yeah, the Biontech was the EUA and the Comar Nati was the same.
And you could flip it around with the Moderna if you so choose, or just go get two fires.
And so she gets then hired by the Trump's administration.
No, no, she was there during the Biden reign of terror, the criminal syndicate, as the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.
And then after the election, after President Trump wins re-election, she goes over to be the senior health officer at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ivan Rakeland's Complaint00:15:11
And so I put out a message after, so I saw on her LinkedIn, you know, I keep an eye on things, on people on the DSTL, if you will.
And so I saw that she posted on her LinkedIn that she had taken on an SES position, the senior executive service, within the U.S. government.
So then I go to search it, and there's no information anywhere stating that she was, she got, there's a couple publications like FedGov, I can't remember, that kind of tracks all these things, the SES positions.
And I couldn't find her name anywhere.
So I'm thinking to myself, huh, I live in Northern Virginia.
She's DC based.
Which organizations could she be an SES for where that wouldn't be publicly disclosed?
What's the first one that comes to mind?
America.
Viva, what do you think?
I don't know, and I don't want to look stupid.
No, so when you're doing a search, because usually when there's an appointment for an SES position, it's published in a couple of industry journals.
But her name, when I did a search, her name was nowhere to be seen.
I was only relying on her publicly facing LinkedIn post that said she just took on a position.
So I took it as thinking that, you know, I would guess that maybe it's the CIA.
I don't know.
So I made a post out there saying that, huh?
And I tagged Ratcliffe and I tagged a bunch of people and I said, is Terry Adirham burrowing in at the CIA?
And I didn't know that that was the case until she sued me, that that was true.
So, but she sued you because she gets fired by the CIA when the public backlash, as I highlighted in the article, public backlash, she gets fired.
She sues the CIA.
I had nothing to do with it, but I would like to claim it.
I mean, I would like to claim the scalp, but unfortunately, I had nothing to do with it.
No, so after she gets fired, she tries to get a restraining order to basically enjoin her firing, prevent her from getting fired.
Judge says no, you're fired.
She then sues a number of other people, CIA, you, for a slew of different cases, a slew of different causes of action.
Yeah, four counts.
Tell us what they are because I'm going to pull up the decision.
Yeah, so the initial one from May of 2025 last year, it was defamation, intentional, the second one, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The third one, conversion, and then the fourth one, tortious interference.
Yes, tortious interference is getting involved in other spreading lies that result in interfering with contracts to which you're not a party.
It has to be lies.
It's interesting because that one got tossed.
Conversion was all four of them were tossed in the initial complaint.
She amended the complaint, and I was waiting on the decision by the judge for that second amended complaint.
And the second, or excuse me, the first amended complaint only then left the conversion claim and the defamation claim.
So now we're down to two.
And while we're waiting, her attorney and she files a second amended complaint to try to bring in Tulsi Gabbard as a co-defendant, along with the DNI and I think the weaponization working group, which would have consisted of Pam Bondi and Ed Martin as co-defendants.
And as of two days ago, the judge ruled that they were going to dismiss everything against the government.
Everything against the government, everything and then half, you know, half against the well, half of what's left of the initial four.
So, you're down to a quarter of what she went after.
And now the only claim that she has against you, just read the opening: plaintiff Terry Dirham, medical doctor who served in the U.S. CIA, yada, yada, yada, filed suit against its former direct director, John Ratcliffe, Ivan Rakeland, over alleged constitutional statutory common law violations related to her termination.
Court previously denied a plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order.
That was from the article we saw earlier, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint against him.
Now, defendant Ratcliffe, I feel bad when I'm saying his name.
This is his name, Ratcliffe, CIA Rakeland, moved to dismiss.
And bottom line, dismissed against everybody entirely, with the exception of one claim against you for defamation.
Ivan, what was the claim for which she gets to proceed that she claims was defamatory?
I don't think it's listed in here.
It is.
There are a couple of statements that are listed in there, and primarily is you can see it in there.
I don't want to misquote it.
Yeah, hold on.
Let me bring it up here.
So it would be more appropriate for you to exactly promote it.
Defendant Ivan Rakeland staunchly opposed the mandate, claimed that the COVID vaccine ended up killing lots of people.
Rakeland stated on podcast hosted by Roseanne Barr that plaintiff should be convicted of genocide and mass mutilation.
That's an opinion.
Rakeland described the individual as deep state on his deep state target list.
That's just a matter of fact.
She's on your list.
It's a proverbial, it's not a metaphoric list.
It's a political list, nothing else.
Rakeland also claimed he had obtained copies of plaintiffs' private messages, which he did, but I don't know that there was anything illegal about that.
Let me see what the last one was.
No, so that one was dismissed, the private claim.
All right.
And that's so that's the extent of it.
You basically accuse her of genocide, crimes against humanity, mutilation, and I don't know if treason was in there, but as far as I'm concerned, those are all quite clearly statements of opinion and your own obvious assessment of a situation.
But if they want to proceed to discovery, which they will now, Ivan, so what's the strategy and the tact in terms of responding to the fact that you get to go forward on one of the claims against you?
Right.
So this is working out brilliantly, exactly according to plan.
So as I list off what potentially could be the strategy, I want folks that are listening in to include you, Viva, to give me some more ideas.
Let's get the creative juices flowing.
I'll look at our local community for the recommendations there.
So the discovery strategy is to look at, oh, the decision made.
I need to prove the truth that these statements were actually truthful and not lies, right?
And so how do I do that?
Well, that means I need to bring in discovery, which would be all the deliberative documents related to her making the decision to sign the memo that you just talked about.
Also, I can bring in the unlawful memo that literally states by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personal Readiness that that memo was unlawful.
Additionally, I just sent you via text the two days, literally one day before the judge makes the decision that the Department of Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Noam, calls the mandate unlawful, or excuse me, unconstitutional.
So anyway, there's that.
So we can bring in things like that.
Also, her Terry Adirim's communications related to the decision-making process related to her signing the memo and any negative impacts that she was told about during those communications, both in her role as a CI at the CIA and the Department of Defense at the time.
And guess what witnesses?
I mean, let's go through this.
These are the witnesses that I would like to have in order to make sure that my Statements are backed by my understanding that this meets the threshold of the potential future crimes that the government should consider prosecuting her for.
So, doesn't Elon Musk have Fauci files, right, that he could provide?
So, I would like to actually subpoena Elon Musk, Laurel Loomer, right, Donald Trump Jr., who was mentioned in the case, John Ratcliffe himself, a couple of whistleblowers, Dr. Jane Ruby, Dr. Chambers, Teresa Long, Mark Bashaw, Sam Sigaloff.
I'll predict.
Well, first of all, you got to add Albert Burla to that.
I don't know if you're going to.
Well, hold up.
You're getting ahead of me here.
Other internal DOD whistleblowers support whistleblowers like accounts of Mandate's fallout that resulted in essentially mutiny and the destruction of the force with numbers.
It would be several people such as Commander Green, Brad Miller, others.
Dr. Peter McCullough can show the negative efficacy of the Jabs.
Dr. Malone, Dr. Martin, Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Michael Yeden, others that have litigated some aspects of the genocidal impact of the Jabs, which would be Del Bigtree, you've heard of him, Todd Callender, Aaron Seary, Francis Boyle, Reiner Fulmick, who went after Bill Gates out in The Hague, I believe.
I would also want to call Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Thomas Massey, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, Bobby Kennedy would be a very nice thing.
I'll predict what's going to happen is the judge is going to say this is you're making a mockery of the court system.
None of this is relevant to your statements as it relates to, you'll get a bunch.
I mean, it's all relevant because I consumed the information that all these individuals provided, and I can show it in the run-up to making the statements that I made about Terry Adirim that formed my scienter and knowledge and intent related to the statements that I made on that Roseanne Barr show that they say that I was defaming her on.
Robert Redfield, former CDC director, his content.
James O'Keefe and his investigation of Pfizer.
I also potentially, let's just, I'll just say it this way.
I may or may not have undercover video of senior level officials at Pfizer that are going to be very favorable to me, Mr. Frey, that I'm going to save till the end.
Okay, so then other witnesses that I think should be brought in.
Obviously, Dr. Fauci, Walinski, Jared Kushner, and Mike Pence in their role on the COVID task force, Pfizer CEO, Birla, Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, Millie.
Just make sure you're going to get a scenario.
You're going to get a judge who's going to say you're crazy.
You're a vexatious litigant and you're going to be defaulted into a finding of liability like they did with Alex Jones.
So that would be my only caution because someone might say, Mr. Rakeland.
Well, no, this is well, I'm going to address that by bringing the following witnesses.
And that would be how the reason why the judge and the, well, I should say the court, I think, may think that I'm not providing.
Let me put it this way.
The reason why the court may think this way, like you just suggested, is because it was Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and former FBI employees James Baker and then Twitter employees that censored all of humanity into believing that these things were safe and effective.
So I have listed here Vijay Gaday, Yoel Roth, Nina Yankowicz, Brian Otten, Joe Pienka, Elvis Chan, Laura Demlo.
These are former FBI officials that were working with Twitter 1.0 to censor this.
So those are just my initial thoughts on who should be included.
And, you know, I may not have to call them in as witnesses.
I pretty much have most of these individuals' contact information, and most of them have already indicated to me that they would be willing to sign a sworn affidavit.
That would definitely be supportive.
That would be good.
I don't know exactly what the procedure is, but you get a sworn statement.
And then, if the other party opposes it, then their testimony becomes necessary because they won't admit by way of sworn statements.
If they want to examine on the statement, they can go ahead and do it.
Where can people find you to keep up with this?
This has months to think about this.
I've been following it now.
I've been following it for a while now.
It's good to see some progress.
I'm excited to see where this goes.
Ivan, where can people find you in order to keep up to date and to support the work that you're doing?
You're on X and it's Ivan Rakelin.
There's another one called Rayklin, a handle.
Yeah, so that was the one that the FBI censored me out of.
So I switched over to Ivan Rakelin.
I mean, that one still exists, but whatever.
This is the primary one, Ivan Rakeland.
Now, if you do want to, like, let's be honest, this takes resources, right, and time.
And I'm going to do this with or without anybody's help.
I get it.
But if you do want this to go complete scorched earth against the whole COVID cabal, I set up a gift send go specifically geared towards exposing Terry Adirum.
And that's giftsendgo.com forward slash Terry Adirium.
T-E-R-R-Y-A-D-I-R-I.
And if you want to help me go after Fanone, then it's Fanon.
I'm bringing a Franklin v. Fanone.
Okay, no, I got an error for that the first time.
So, well, I think the idea.
Okay, either way, they can get both of them on your Twitter handle.
I don't know which one to share right now.
Ivan, we're going to keep in time.
I mean, I'm going to call you back after this.
Right now, I'm going to wind this up real quick and read the Rumble Rants and Super Chats.
Not Rumble Rants and tip questions over on locals, and then I got to wind this down in a few minutes.
Ivan.
You want to end it on the interaction I had with Jamie Raskin?
Let's see if we got.
We're going to run a little low on time.
Did I bring it up here?
Hold on.
You sent it to me and I brought it up and then took it down.
Yes.
No, you're going to like this one.
It's going to be entertaining for the end of the week.
Okay, right here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Okay, hold up.
Bring it here.
Put this one here.
Put this here.
It's therapeutic.
Some of us might have different therapy sessions.
Ivan Rakeland, as my biggest fan, sir.
Why did you call me a deranged observer at Jack Smith's hearing last week or a couple weeks ago?
Mr. Chairman, please control the deranged observer, Mr. Rakelin.
So he doesn't create any other problems with us today.
You want to apologize?
I maintain full professionalism while interacting, and you protected the liar, Mr. Fanon.
Why was that?
Did you see his body cam footage on January 6th?
All his statements do not comport with anything on the body cam footage.
Another question is: I'd like to ask whether or not your wife, why did your wife, Sarah, unmasked General Flynn and illegally spied on him?
Sir, why did your wife Sarah spy on General Flynn when she was at the Treasury Department during the transition period in 2016 to 2017?
Come on, Mr. Askin.
Care to apologize?
Why'd you call me a deranged observer?
How do you get to Ivan?
How do you get to just walk through the building like this?
I'm that good, I guess.
No, it's public.
You just got to know when and where they're going to be for a different event, and then you know where to leave.
Actually, the last part's pretty good because I challenged him to a three-hour debate about the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and January 6th.
And he just doing is making sounds.
First Amendment sounds.
Lord Buckley's Raid Plans00:05:59
You skipped over it.
Any platform for that committee.
How about this?
Last question, sir.
Would you take me up on a debate about January 6th on any platform anywhere on the planet, but for a minimum of three hours?
January 6th, Electoral Count Agreement, 12th Amendment.
Come on, you're a constitutional law scholar, right?
I'd like to challenge you to a debate, laying out the details of January 6th.
He's running, running like like a like a he even sprints faster at the next segment.
It gets better every time, but you got to do it.
You're doing the Lord's work.
I'm going to read the super chats and then got to wind this up within the next seven minutes.
Ivan, you'll come back on.
We'll do.
We're going to catch up on this.
Absolutely.
I appreciate you having me on and platforming me because this is a fantastic show.
A lot of people.
I got to talk about the Epstein stuff.
I'm not talking about the war in Iran stuff because I find it too depressing, but it's good to talk about different stuff.
I mean, the rumble lineup, the tendency is everybody's talking about sort of the same thing.
And okay, everybody's got a hot take.
You're up to some interesting stuff.
And we got the update on Brian Cole, which I don't want people forgetting about.
And we'll follow the Terry Adirim lawsuit.
Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes, Terry.
Ivan, thank you very much.
Appreciate it, Viva.
Godspeed.
Okay, now, real quick, Lack, before we're going to raid, we're going to read and we're going to run.
Raid, read, and run.
That's not bad.
Someone remind me to put that on a shirt.
Okay.
Hyphen says, call your new dog Orwell.
Someone suggested Manny over in our locals community, I think, and I like it.
Manny, because he looks like a manatee.
King of Biltong says, want more protein in your diet.
Try some healthy, high-protein Biltong packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
Get some now at Billtongusa.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
It's delicious.
And I eat a half a bag after a show, and it carries me through until dinner.
Of course, it's quite a lot of meat that I eat, but it's flipping delicious.
It's prosciutto made from beef.
It's like beef jerky, but soft and delicious.
Now we're going to get some dirty jokes.
Dominant one says, Neuro, do not let Jacob Castro, do not trust Jacob Caster when he has Anton's firm and juicy meat in his hand from killing a Biltong at Biltong.
He will not share it with you.
Dominant One says, Biltong, but you never get lost in the kitchen while handling Anton's firm and juicy meat.
Then we got King of Biltong who says, Viva, Ivan looks like a man that could use some Biltong.
Let me know and I'll send him some.
I will, absolutely.
Okay, we've done that.
Now we're going to go over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I think we're going to go raid Badlands Media.
I think they're, uh, they're live now in the tipped section, which we are at.
Let me just refresh and make sure we got the, I'm not calling the dog Pucker.
Look at this little bastard.
Oh, beautiful.
We're not going to neglect Winston.
And even though I find the new dog physically more appealing because of that face, Winston is beautiful and he still smells good from his latest haircut.
Chris Kraft 2 says, I'll pay for Fanon's tuition to the Bill Brown 2 Academy of Re-education.
Expensive, but worth it.
Given Bill's inventory.
Okay, fine.
I'll say, given his inventory of quit weaponry, Fanon's case, we may have to charge Bill, but he would really enjoy humiliating him.
Francis Chauton says, Vita, can you ask Chris P what's up with locals?
It's getting frustrating in chat with chat and burden with Barnes not working.
They're not neglecting.
I know they've had issues this week.
So I know I responded texty when we were live.
I'm going to ask them because there's been issues this week.
And I don't know if it's.
I don't know what, but I will ask.
Look up Lewinsky's connection to Elbrand.
Okay, there we go.
Now let's just go on the side here.
Pucker?
No, I can't do Pucker.
What just happened there?
Hold on one second.
Now I'm back to the get in here.
Wait, don't check sabe.
Okay, so we got Viva.
You suggested his name, Manny.
Yes, I like that very much.
He's a cutie pucker.
Plausible deniability only works if there's a corrupt media.
Absolutely, says Rich.
Iran did not hose down.
Iran did not hose down the Butler Pennsylvania crime scene.
The FBI did.
Mike Pence and Bill Bard did not use Iran to orchestrate January 6th.
They used the FBI.
Yoda.
Yoda's not bad.
Actually, I can see what the kids have to say about that.
Okay, so now, locals, and I apologize for running.
Today's going to be running ragged because I can't let the dogs be unattended with each other just yet because Winston's a little bastard.
So I'm going to run, get ready for 4:15.
Then I'm going to get ready for 4:45.
And then it's the weekend.
Although, as I always say, with what I do in life, every day is a Monday in the best way because I don't mind Mondays.
We're going to raid Geopolitics with Ghost EP episode 88 on Badlands Media.
Unless, let me see something here.
Yeah, let's do that because Roseanne is replaying and it's not live.
We're going to go.
We're going to raid Badlands Media.
Let them know from whence he came.
Show some love and tell him I sent you.
And Badland Media does great work if you don't know who they are.
And that's it.
You know, they're live right now.
So Viva has raided the stream at Viva Raid Booyah with the typo.
And that's it.
I'm going to have to end the stream entirely.
Locals, I'll make it up to you later tonight.
I'll show you some live action of Quinston.
And they're waiting for me.
Okay, I'm out.
Peace out.
Got Sunday night, Viva and Barnes, Law for the People.
Thursday, seven o'clock.
It is Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies.
It's a new channel.
It's great.
Let me just give everybody the link so you can go there.