The Squad Are Now Iran's Cheerleaders! Kristi Noem in Hot Water! Kalshi Sued! Trump Gaffe & More!
Kristi Noem faces scrutiny over a $240 million self-deportation ad campaign linked to Corey Lewandowski, while 53 Democrats, including AOC, vote against reaffirming Iran's terrorism designation despite Trump's "no new wars" pledge. The episode also covers Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel suing Kalshi for unlicensed sports betting, a deleted Truth Social post on transgender bans, and a fair use defense regarding White House clips from Tropic Thunder. Ultimately, these events highlight deepening political fractures over immigration policy, election integrity, and regulatory enforcement ahead of the 2026 midterms. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, you might be asking yourself why you're staring at a black screen.
It is because I wanted to build the suspense to perhaps one of the greatest memes and intro videos of all time for today's subject matter.
Behold AOC and Elon Musk in a never-existing romantic love affair of a video that is so great, I choose to believe it was real.
I apologize.
That was perfect.
I'm breaking all the rules.
I'm breaking all the rules.
I guess we might make some mistakes.
I think one of the biggest problems we have in D.C. is that everyone's egos are too big.
I actually prefer to have no titles role.
You're opening yourself up.
I'm just being me.
Let's go.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
I believe that was done by Maze escape.
Let's just get out of here.
It was done by Maze back in the day.
And you've all got the link.
Actually, you got the link to who had reposted it, aka FaceUS.
I'll give everybody the link to the actual original tweet.
Share it around.
It's beautiful.
And it will remind us of what we are dealing with today.
AOC and the squad and 53 other Democrats voting no on a resolution to designate Iran a terrorist organization or the leading producers of state-sponsored terrorism.
We're going to talk about a bunch of other stuff, but I want to lead off with this because above and beyond being outraged, above and beyond being shocked.
And by the way, this has nothing to do with how you feel about the broader conflict.
You just want to understand what the hell's going on.
And you can be against this precision strike, non-war military invention, military intervention that is quite clearly a war that's not going to be a forever war, but right now it's slated for a few months because that's how every forever war has ever started.
You can have your concerns about that, but still try to understand how it is that 53 Democrats vote against declaring Iran a state sponsor of terror.
Because my understanding is it's already a done thing to begin with.
Leading the charge, and hence the thumbnail for today's show, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashid Talib, Ayana Presley.
I call them the cheerleader of Iran.
Why the singular cheerleader?
Because it's the squad.
The squad is singular, and now the squad is the cheerleader for Iran among 53 Democrats opposing non-binding house measure.
We'll read the news.
We're going to read the actual text and try to understand.
You don't have to agree with your ideological adversaries.
You probably never will.
That's why they're ideological adversaries.
They're not always wrong, but they are usually wrong because they're idiots.
I'm talking about the Democrats or the capital D Democrats and AOC at large.
Dozens of Democrats have voted against a non-binding resolution in the House that reaffirms Iran as the quote largest state sponsor of terrorism, end quote.
Reaffirms means it's already been affirmed.
Now, I appreciate it.
I'm going to steel man it.
Why would you need to do something that you've already done?
Why wouldn't you do again something that you have already done?
The resolution put forward by rep Brian Mast, Florida, passed by a 372 to 53 vote on Thursday, with all those voting no being Democrats.
Two Democrats also voted present.
That is when you say, I'm here, but I'm not taking a position on this particular resolution.
Among those who voted against the measure, all members of the squad, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayana Presley, Rashida Talib, are we noticing a trend here?
The resolution said the Islamic Republic of Iran remains the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and provides substantial financial and military support to groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.
It added that Iran, quote, you know, let's just get the actual text for a second so that we don't have to do this.
Then you're going to say, well, Viva, you have aired some skepticism about the wisdom of these attacks.
You have aired some cynicism about the opportunity, the seeming, what some believe to be a betrayal of campaign promises.
And you may say it's not a betrayal of the promise because I can find you a video from 13 years ago where he says we should just nuke Iran.
I can find you a clip where on the stage, he said we should just bomb the shit out of Iran, which is sort of like very disingenuous because what you're basically rewarding in a politician is saying both A and not A at any point in time so that you can always say, I was right, no matter what I say.
Anybody who's going to pretend it was not a peace ticket as tweeted out by the GOP in 2024, no new wars and no regime change.
Anybody who pretends that wasn't on the ticket is deluding themselves and attempting to delude others.
You want to rephrase the argument and say, well, it's peace through strength.
He said, no new wars.
This is not a new war.
This is a war that's been waged by Iran against America for 47 years.
You want to try to do that tango pivot.
That's fine.
But then what you're saying is it was always on the table to have a regime change in Iran.
Well, that should have been on the ticket in 2024.
Those of you who are saying this is not a war, you will not be taken seriously ever again, nor do you deserve to be taken seriously.
So, some people are going to say, Viva, you've aired some skepticism, much of which unfortunately seems to be materializing.
Robert Barnes, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, Viva and Barnes Law for the People, during our Sunday night show, predicted that this could devastate and likely will.
It's only a question of mitigating the damage now.
Republicans' chances come midterms and might devastate Republicans' chances come 2028.
That when you have a make America great again, America first policy and you have domestic issues, seeing a president dedicate substantial resources to regime change in Iran to free the Iranian people when you have massive domestic issues at home, some might perceive that to be a bit of a betrayal.
If you start having oil prices spike as they are right now, well, you might be not just betraying what many understood to be the campaign zeitgeist, if you're making life worse, more expensive for Americans while trying to ostensibly liberate Iran from the oppression of the Iranian regime, you're going to have some blowback to that.
Set all that aside, look at the resolution.
H. Rez, 1099, U.S. House of Representatives.
Whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran remains the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and provides substantial financial and military support to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran poses a direct and persistent threat to the United States and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American citizens.
I don't think anybody can really disagree with this.
Whereas according to the Pentagon, Iranian-backed proxy militias are responsible for the deaths of at least 603 United States servicemen in Iraq, roughly one in every six American combat fatalities in Iraq from 2003 to 2011.
Whereas the Iranian regime is responsible for executing dozens of assassination plots targeting American citizens and serving government officials on United States soil.
Whereas Tehran continues to harbor a network of senior al-Qaeda leaders, providing them with sanctuary space to fundraise in support of its fighters.
Whereas in January 2024, United States service members Sergeant William Jerome Rivers, specialist Kennedy Landon Sanders, and specialist Brianna Alexandria Moffitt were killed in an Iranian-backed proxy attack on Tower 22 in Jordan.
Whereas the regime's refusal to abandon its nuclear program and related missile and conventional weapons activities further resulted in the reimposition of six United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting the Iranian regime in September 2025.
And whereas the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, Iran has amassed a large stockpile of enriched uranium and continues to block access to undeclared sites in Iran affiliated with the big ambitious nuclear war program.
Now, therefore, it be resolved that the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States that Iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
A test.
Why wouldn't anyone agree to that?
I mean, you can imagine.
And I had to make sure that my steelmanning of the argument for the cheerleaders was in fact accurate.
You can understand that what opponents would say is, if I sign off on this, which basically reaffirms facts that are already, I'd say, agreed upon facts, it would serve as a pretext for legitimizing the strikes that I might not now support.
And if you had any doubt as to why they voted against it from the Jewish insider, this is one of the sources I found.
One of the squads put a post on her Facebook page, but I can't actually access my Facebook, nor do I really care to solve that problem because Facebook is a toxic hellhole.
Why did 53 Democrats vote against describing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism?
By the way, it wasn't describing it.
It was reaffirming it because it's already a stated fact.
Some told JI, Jewish insider, they were concerned that President Trump could use it as legal justification to continue the campaign against Iran.
We don't really need to read any more of that because I just needed to affirm what I already believed would be the bogus excuse for not doing it.
They don't want to reaffirm what is already basically accepted fact because they fear that Trump might use it to justify the war in Iran.
And that's fine.
But 53 Democrats basically voted to not affirm what is already accepted fact because of what they fear the administration might do with that affirmation.
Well, now you've affirmed a number of things.
They kill American soldiers as they have done in the past, that they have a nuclear program, that they have enriched uranium beyond the 60% threshold.
Well, now they're going to use that to justify the conflict.
Whereas if you're a relatively savvy politician and you say, yeah, all of this is true and has been true for a while, and there has been no immediate change warranting this intervention.
That would be the retort if you wanted to not be a disgusting weasel and argue intellectually and honestly.
Yep, all of that is true.
I will affirm this.
I'm not going to be a traitor to my country.
And I'll say, because all of that is true and it's been true for a while, it can't now be used as the new pretext to do what some believe to be a violation of campaign promises by starting a war that first started off as not a war precision strikes back in July.
The concern then was you're not going to accomplish everything you wanted to accomplish.
Even if you said you did, you're going to be back in in six months.
And lo and behold, the Panikans were right, put it in quotes.
Anybody who uses that term unironically should be disregarded.
So the concern was: it's never just, it's never a one and done.
It's never just, you know, obliterating and we're out.
It's, oh, cripe, we didn't get everything we needed.
Or now the goalposts have moved.
It's no longer strictly nuclear program.
It's ballistics and drones.
It's no longer just nuclear ballistics and drones.
Now it's regime change because they're oppressing their own people.
As if we've basically just gone back to America World Police, which some of you might like.
My whole issue is: if this were declared policy back during the election, like this is what we're going to do.
Trump is still pissed off that there was allegedly an Iranian plot back in 2024 to assassinate the president.
We're going to go wipe out the entire Iranian regime.
You probably would have had support for that.
It's one of the reasons why they tried to pass off two unrelated assassination attempts or paint them as potentially Iranian related.
You'll remember that.
We talked about it at the time.
Thomas Crookes, they were attempting to claim or draw some connection to the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt and murder of Corey Comperatori to Iran.
There's more Ukraine connections, incidentally, than Iranian connections for the last two attempts.
But they, all right.
If he had said, look, this regime is and will always be an existential threat to these United States of America.
They tried to kill me back in 2024, elect me, and I will wipe them off the face of the earth.
You might have had support and it would have been baked into the equation.
But you've got these scoundrel Democrats who don't want to affirm facts.
This is like the mentality of the Democrats.
They are afraid to admit facts, knowing how they're going to be weaponized, used, exploited.
What is a woman?
They don't want to answer the question because they know what the bloody answer is, but they don't want you using an honest answer against them because of how ill-founded and illogical their thought process is.
So they won't reaffirm what is already affirmed, what is already known, what is already documented, because they're afraid of how it's going to be used.
So instead of just arguing honestly, what they have now done is effectively, and it's great, know their names, judge them by their deeds.
53 Democrats don't sign on to a resolution that states the obvious and reaffirms the obvious.
Now, I say, why do you need to reaffirm something that's already been affirmed?
There's an expression in French, toufaur caspas, too strong doesn't break.
Not always true.
And I do appreciate someone's going to say, well, if it's already illegal, then why not make another law reaffirming the illegality?
And then you get into the Cicero, more laws, less justice.
Why Affirm What's Already Known?00:04:35
I appreciate that.
But it is also useful to do an update to say, all right, last year we declared Iran and affirmed that Iran was the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
We should either affirm that or if it's no longer true, revise it.
So it's not a useless thing to put out there.
Whether or not it would be used by the administration to say, haha, Democrats, you've signed on to this and you've affirmed that it's a state sponsor of terrorism.
They're working on a nuclear program.
They've killed American service members throughout, you know, throughout military bases throughout the world.
And then, if you're a Democrat, you can argue, well, why do we have so many bases in the world to serve as targets for terrorist regimes?
And the flip side argument to that is, well, you need to have bases to actually fight these, defend against these terrorist organizations, these terrorist governments.
But call a boy a boy, call a girl a girl, and reaffirm what you have already affirmed as a matter of fact, instead of giving comfort through spiritual support via silence or being present.
And that's that.
But that meme of AOC and Elon Musk having a AI generated, it's not AI generated, but a edited, creatively edited romantic splice is the greatest thing on earth.
But I think the last thing that Elon needs is another cray cray with more children with another woman.
That's the last thing Elon Musk needs at this point in time.
Oh, I just got distracted.
Oh, maybe I shouldn't get distracted by the chat because I don't know what's going on in the chat.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
How goes the battle?
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler on a beautiful Friday afternoon in the free state of Florida.
I was going to start with something more interesting.
I found a, I thought, you know, the internet's going to not catch you, but correct you in exactly five seconds.
I called it a cockroach.
I knew it wasn't a cockroach.
I didn't know it was a June bug, but now I know it's a June bug.
Found a June bug in the house and it was on the verge of death.
And I said, let's make use of it and go feed it to a local lizard.
Hey, hey, how's it going?
Good.
Okay, so typically it's here that we see them.
Oh, where, hold on.
Where?
Oh, I see it.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah, he's big.
Okay.
So, so, sorry, watch out, watch out.
This is so we're gonna go like this: three, two, like that.
Yeah, kids say no, yes.
Don't, don't, don't move, don't move, don't move.
Now, the lizard's hard to see.
No, don't watch it.
Like this, once this much is ready.
It's right.
Oh, you can see right where my cursor is.
Right there, right there.
No, stop, stop it.
Okay, right there.
Back up, back up, back up.
Right there, where my cursor is.
That and then there you go.
Okay, now you can see it.
Oh, I fallen and I can't get up.
It's a June bug.
It's nature, people.
Nothing goes to waste in nature.
The lizard sees it.
Now it sees it.
Stop, let me stop.
Look at it.
Look, I'm telling you, I told you it's going to do it.
It just flexed its neck.
Boom.
You see how fast that thing goes?
Told you, I told you, I told them it was going to happen.
Yes nature yep, that was the science lesson of the day, homeschooling children people, the beauty and joys of it.
I'll share everyone the link if you want to have a look at that.
Uh, so some news.
What the heck are we going to talk about today?
The cheerleaders for Iran?
We're going to talk about the Trump gaffe from yesterday.
We're going to talk about a Chaka boot.
Uh, there was another thing.
Oh yes uh, what's?
Her face is in a little bit of hot water, Christy Gnome.
It's amazing it's um, we've been talking about it for a while that there's been some chicanery afoot with certain members of the Trump administration that need to get uh, underhand or underhand under control sooner than later, and it looks like by the time they decide it's time to address it.
They're addressing it with Christy Noome.
We're going to get into it, because it's not just that Christy Gnome has been booted, it's now.
There are a lot of people emphasizing or shining the spotlight on alleged, not just improper relationships, because when we talked about it yesterday, people like, well, what's wrong with having a relationship with a colleague, not just a relationship with a subordinate?
Scrutinizing Consent Laws00:14:27
A problem where there's preferential attribution of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
We're going to get to that.
What did I want to start with, however?
Oh yes yes yes, we're going to start with this.
I like to put my mistakes on greater blast, if possible, than uh, others that period you make a mistake.
I like to, on the one hand, do the audit myself, say, had the mistake happen and how to avoid it in the future.
Some mistakes unavoidable.
In fact, mistakes in general are unavoidable because nobody's perfect and everyone's going to make a mistake at some point in time.
The question is identifying where it went wrong and to the extent that anybody makes mistakes and everybody does make mistakes just uh, you know, thank goodness when the mistakes are consequence free and only impact me.
Yesterday, when we were live in Vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the Locals, ONLY after party and someone put up a post and it said, can you believe Trump tweeted this, And I read the post.
It's a truth post.
Sorry.
And I read the truth post and I say, I can't believe Trump would post this because it doesn't make sense on its face.
This was the truth post, and there's a timestamp on this one, but the timestamp, A, I say means nothing in terms of verifying veracity once something has been deleted.
We look at this truth post at vivabarnslaw.locals.com afterwards.
And I'm reading it.
I was like, ha, the Save America Act, the Save America Act, all voters must show voter ID identification.
All voters must show proof of citizenship in order to vote.
Good.
No mail in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel.
Absolutely.
By the way, all of that, those three have to do with voting.
No men in women's sports.
Okay, that's curious.
Why the hell would that be in the Save America Act, which I thought pertains to voter ID, but there's other stuff in it.
No men in women's sports, everything we all agree on.
No transgender mutilation surgery for children without the express written approval of their parents.
Now, I read that and I said, as we were doing it live, I haven't gone back to rewatch it exactly what my reaction is.
That doesn't make any sense.
I mean, that's basically like saying you can't beat your child.
Let me rephrase this.
A child cannot be beaten without the consent of the parents.
And then some people, I said that somewhere, and then people in the chat were like, that's not true.
You know, back in the school days, they needed the consent of the parents to beat the kids.
It's like, first of all, don't confound corporal punishment, regardless of how you feel about it, with beating.
The idea is you can't commit a crime against a kid without the express authorization of the parent.
Literally means nothing.
It's literally an oxymoron.
It's like nobody can murder someone else's kid without the consent of their parents.
It's as laughably stupid a statement as that is to make.
And so I'm like, it doesn't make any sense.
Okay, I'm going to go check into it.
And then we end the show and then I go check into it and I go to truth.
I have an account there.
I don't often use it.
It's a nice platform, but I prefer the adversarial non-echo chamber of X.
I like to see what my enemies think or my ideological adversaries think.
So I go look for the post and the post that I see, that is the only post that's live at that time, is the Save America Act.
All voters must show voter ID identification.
All voters must show proof of citizenship in order to vote.
No male in ballots except for illness, inability, and military.
No men in women's sports.
No transgender mutilation surgery for children.
Period.
That makes more sense.
So I come out and I say, no, no.
Sorry.
Everybody, I saw people reacting to the original tweet as though it were real.
And I was like, holy crap.
I don't see the original.
And fair warning to everybody who's reacting to this, it's fake.
Truth of the matter is, it wasn't fake.
It had been deleted.
And then the question becomes: how do you correct a mistake?
You delete a tweet, then people say, why did you delete that tweet?
You're trying to hide your mistake.
You leave the tweet up, and then people say, why'd you leave the tweet up?
People are retweeting it as though it's true.
Luckily, I discovered this within the hour that allows you to edit.
And I just said, because I can still edit it, delete it.
Apparently, he didn't tweet, indeed, tweet the version that's widely circulating, but deleted it.
When I checked to confirm, I only saw the deleted post.
This was the one I saw.
And then this is my delete to the tweet.
Live with your mistake, understand it.
And the reality is, after I see it, I was like, there's no way he would have tweeted something quite that stupid.
And then Drew Hernandez tweets, it's real, bro.
Do you know, check.
Then you go check.
You don't find it.
And then the question is: all right, well, now I'm seeing competing screenshots.
I don't have an archived link.
I don't have a video of someone flipping through it.
Like, all right, who the hell?
This is what you call the post-information war, where I say, oh my goodness, someone's trying to put out a fake tweet to get other conservative commentators or analysts to react to it so they can then discredit them to say, haha, you idiot, you reacted to a fake tweet.
Why would Trump tweet that?
Then I come out and say, no, it's fake.
Then they're going to say, ah, Viva got it wrong because it was a real tweet, which is what happens when you delete it and you have no trace of deleting it.
So now this is the information warfare.
How did I know that this is going to be the ultimate flattery Five Times August?
I'm friends with him.
I've been, we've, you know, gone back years now.
When I saw Five Times August say a lot of people saying this was a fake post, it wasn't, but it has since been deleted and removed from his truth account.
I verified earlier and stand by its authenticity.
That's all I need to ever know that that is true.
Now, the problem is people are saying, okay, well, you know, he posted it.
It was a staffer who did it.
It was a stupid thing to post.
It was a mistake.
They deleted it.
And it's the intent that matters.
Well, there's two things as to why this is very important.
We are damn well now going to go scrutinize that law and see what in the name of sweet holy hell is in it that could possibly potentially, in some sinister interpretation or misinterpretation, be used to justify what I believe is child genital mutilation if they have the consent of the parents.
We're now going to go scrutinize the living bejesus out of that law because if there's a possibility that it can be used to do that, well, we now need to look for that.
There were other interpretations that said he was joking.
It was supposed to be sarcastic because of its absurdity.
And I very much respect Mike Cernovich.
Follow him on Twitter.
And that was his take.
He says, look, this was Trump was obviously joking about the mutilation of children.
I realize people are on edge.
That's why they say touch grass.
I was chuckling.
He's shaming parents who would do this to their precious children.
This is what Cerno posted.
I said, it's an interesting interpretation.
If it was a joke, he should have clarified in the repost or after having deleted it.
And I say also it's kind of a serious subject matter for an attempt of humor.
And the major issue also is like it's the reality of the internet.
You can't make certain jokes because your ideological adversaries will pretend that you didn't mean them as jokes.
And I still remember this from when I ran for the People's Party of Canada.
And Maxime Bernier, the leader of the party, made a joke.
You have to be retarded to not understand that it was a joke.
Maoists and communists have infiltrated the Canadian government.
And Journal de Morélle pretended that that tweet was not hyperbolic, you know, comedy, but that he truly believed that Maoists and communists have infiltrated the Canadian government to try to make him look like a crazy person.
Even if it was a joke, it's a bad time to joke because people are going to pretend it wasn't and they're going to forever say he condoned it with the consent of parents.
The other problem is there's an unfortunate evidence out there.
And now it's from a while back, and there is a material distinction that I would make in all of this in the statement.
But this is a clip from, I had to ask when it was from.
I think it was 2024.
Yeah, it was not that you can trust Grok for everything, but the post was recent.
But the clip is from 2024.
And it's only 16 seconds, and you got to be careful.
And you don't know if it's AI generated anymore, but it looks like it's legit.
And by all accounts, it seems to be verifiable.
We need borders.
We need fair elections.
We don't want men playing in women's sports.
We don't want transgender operations without parental consent.
Yeah, it's there's so many things, but it's 99.9% is common sense.
So now the problem becomes: it's not clear that a joke interpretation could explain the post.
Now, in this particular clip, and I'll steel man it, you can call me a Trump sycophant, where he says transgender operations.
We don't want transgender operations.
We need fair elections.
We don't want men playing in women's sports.
We don't want transgender operations without parental consent.
So what does he mean by transgender operations?
I mean, you take it at its face, operations to mutilate children without parental consent.
This might have been in the specific context of a discussion where it was the argument was children or 14, 15 year olds, whatever, deciding to do it on their own without notifying their parents.
And that is the important caveat to steel man that particular sound clip.
But it sort of undermines the potential argument for it was just a joke.
It might have been said with the same intent.
We don't want 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds going to doctors and having procedures without notifying the parents.
I say you don't let anyone who's not old enough to get a tattoo decide to modify or mutilate because it impedes the proper functioning of their genitals.
You don't let them do it, period.
And so, whether or not it was a staffer, whether or not it was him making a joke, whether or not it was just a terrible enunciation of policy, the one bottom line to all of it, being a boot-licking Trump sycophant and saying, there's nothing wrong with this, and we've got to defend it.
No, Trump reads the comments.
Trump reads the room when there's a sufficient backlash.
And there is value in being a good faith, constructive critic of Donald Trump to ensure that he avoids making unforced errors.
But that was one hell of an unforced error.
And in as much as I thought it was too absurd to be true, and when I went to verify, it was no longer there.
Sometimes reality is crazier than fiction.
And it darn well appeared to have been, and in fact was a real truth post, subsequently deleted.
Now the correct policy has been enunciated, and it is going to be up to all of us to go read through that Save Act and any provisions dealing with transgender mutilation to make sure that there is no caveat that you can mutilate a child if you have the consent of the parents in the name of transgender ideology.
And that's that.
I'm really naive if I truly believe Trump reads the room.
Okay, I'm naive.
And meanwhile, he responded to the massive backlash.
So whether or not that's reading the room, we might be arguing semantics.
Let me go see what's going on over in holy crab apples.
Do I have the thing opened up here?
Yeah, let me go read some tipped questions, some rumble rants.
Israel is the, I'm not saying it 808 because I'm not having anybody snap, take that clip.
But 808, Scotty, thank you for the rumble rant.
And now we're going to go to King of Bill Tongue.
And I, as always, people, obviously, will exercise discernment.
You can support the channel via rumble rants and tip questions and whatever.
And I reserve the right.
Thank you for the support.
No one's going to have an oral clip of me saying that.
The N-word, the six-letter F-word.
That's the one with two G's in the middle.
All right.
Oh, that was childish Gambino.
You can call me the six-letter F-word, but I got more than two Gs.
Those are good lyrics.
Okay.
King of Biltong says one of the items were not no more war.
It was the ticket item.
Hold on a second.
One of the ticket items were not no more war.
It was the ticket item.
The bank accounts of the rich are coated with the blood of our children, says King of Biltong.
No, what drives me nuts is the moving goalposts.
I mean, it's like you realize motivated reasoning is as much a left human tendency as it is a right human tendency.
No new wars.
This is not a war.
It's a precision strike.
Okay, we're now into a week of precision strikes, and there's some debate as to how precise they are because there's a shit ton of collateral damage.
And I'm not going to get into the girl school being struck because I understand there is some debate about that.
Although I do believe today it seems that it was confirmed.
Set that aside.
It's no longer just precision strikes.
We are now six days or whatever into a war that is now being predicted to last a long time.
And boots on the ground is now floated as a potentiality.
The moving goalposts and the people saying, don't be a panican, idiots.
Do not ever use the word panican or blackpillar, unironically, unless it's sort of judgmentally, but it's the materializing of exactly what were the concerns at the time.
And those people who were called panikins and blackpillars are now called right.
Moving Goalposts and Long Wars00:06:43
Old man Toby says, Viva, what do you think about the crown prince of Iran?
His party seems to have a decent plan and the public seems to be behind him.
Could he be a good pick?
The crown prince of Iran.
Hold on.
Who's the one that's living?
I'm going to not answer that question right now because I don't have a decent answer.
But I mean, you say just the premise of the question, the public seems to be behind him.
It's a country of 90 million people.
You can find 10 million people be behind him and then 80 million people who are going to be pissed off that their spiritual religious leader was just killed in a foreign country is deciding who gets to be the next leader.
So I don't know how the public can be some not ubiquitous, but ideologically homogeneous entity, which it absolutely is not all the more so in that region, but specifically in Iran.
But I'll definitely look into it.
Need to remove APAC from our political system and ban dual citizens from our government as well.
Well, remove, you want to remove all lobbyists for foreign entities?
Fine.
Do you want to pick on APAC and ignore others?
That might be what some people will call blinders.
I would be down with the first part: ban all lobbying, lobbyist organizations.
And I'm already down with, if you serve in government, you should not have dual citizenship to any other country.
Period, full stop.
You cannot have loyalties to the country you were elected to serve when you, by definition, share a passport with another country that might have conflicting loyalties.
Period.
It's not just Israel.
Any member of government cannot have a passport to another country.
There's no way, not just there's no way to prevent conflict of interest.
It's inherent.
It's almost definitional.
And it's the whole issue about, you know, new arrivals, naturalized citizens, and then you run into issues like what we're seeing up in Minnesota.
Whose interests?
They're nationalized, sorry, naturalized.
They're Americans through naturalization, but not Americans through birth, not Americans through history, not Americans through heritage.
And then the question becomes: whose interests are they serving?
And we're seeing the grotesque fallout of that in states like Minnesota.
King of Bill Tong says, Bill Tong is one of the highest protein snacks in the world, boasting over 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Visit Billtongusa.com and use code Viva for 10% off.
Bill Tong has found the life hack for amazing advertising.
Thank you for the Rumble Rant, Bill Tong, as always.
And Dominic One says, and then this is how it works.
Dominant One says, Did you print out the new instructions for real men to handle Anton's firm and juicy meat with both hands and avoid any sense of gayness?
And okay, thank you.
Forced name change says, hey, Viva, hey, chat, neuro, king, American son, and all the rest.
Hello.
And then Dominic One says, the only successful example we have to fix a bad government is the only successful example we have to fix a bad government is 1776.
And let's just go over to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com, take the tip questions there, and then we're going to go back to covering news of the day.
Dred Robert says, I'm curious where the USA and Israel on the state sponsor of terrorism rankings.
I mean, the USA has a long relationship with ISIS and the cartels.
Israel is a supporter of Hamas since the 1980s onward.
Those are just two acknowledged terrorist organizations.
Iran may be ahead of those two, but it can't be by much.
Gray 101 says, does the Iran war have a danger of anti-Semitism rising in Western countries like Canada or the United States?
Well, does it have a risk of backlash against the Jewish communities?
Obviously, because people, rightly or wrongly, I mean, you can call people whatever names you want, people and a lot of them, and not, I'm not even referencing Muslims.
There's a lot of natural-born Americans, natural-born Canadians who feel that this country is, though it might be for the benefit of America, it's certainly also for the benefit of Israel.
And there are people who don't like even the illusion, the impression that America is participating in or prioritizing countries for the benefit, wars for the benefit of foreign countries over America.
When RFK Jr. Came in to the race in 2024, and he had his announcement speech.
And he said, A country at war abroad can never be at peace at home.
You're neglecting to fix the problems at home while creating more problems abroad.
And he was right when he said it then.
And that's what people expected, believed they were getting from the coalition with RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
This is what they've got now.
There's a certain element of coping with it.
There's a certain element of, you could say, I can appreciate if it all works out well, obviously no one's going to complain.
The only question is, what's the historical precedent for this type of action, intervention, working out well?
Has there ever been an example where this has worked out well, this type of intervention?
And then it becomes a question of: it is agreed that it's a violation, but it's a necessary violation of campaign promises.
You can't pretend it's not.
And you can't pretend that because he did say at one point, I'm going to bomb the shit out of Iran, or he said 13 years ago, we can go into Iran, we should have just taken them out, or that he said in 1980, after the hostage crisis in Iran, we should have just taken out the entire government.
You can't pretend that what he said 10, 13, 40 years ago now justifies a seeming 180 from what he said in 2024.
That being said, you do not, even if you disagree with the course of action, you try to save this administration from hurting itself through policy.
You do not try to aid and abet and give comfort to what is otherwise a known recognized enemy, even in the absence of this conflict.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Now, let's take a very interesting case that got sent to me by one of my many.
Let me rephrase that.
A very interesting case that got sent to me by one of the many wonderful members of our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
Every now and again, I establish relationships, friendships with some of the members, and they become amazing sources of stuff that I might otherwise not have read about or might have, you know, not known existed.
Michigan Sports Betting Laws00:07:04
Such as this one, which came out of Michigan yesterday.
Now, many of you know, have I ever been, I do not believe that I've ever been sponsored by Kalshi.
I wouldn't mind because, you know, it's something that I do use.
Although, listening to Steve-O on Joe Rogan, it is a futures prediction market.
Some people would consider it gambling, and it certainly could lead to problems if you have a propensity or a weakness for those types of things.
I occasionally use it for UFC and occasionally use it for politics when there are certain things that I believe are going to happen because of what I believe to be my more accurate assessment of the state of politics, one of which was Robert Barnes and I talked about it a lot, the pardons was a great time where you could have invested in your prediction of what was going to happen in politics.
Now, market predictions are different than gambling.
And whether you agree with the distinction or not, roulette is gambling because there's no strategy.
It's pure odds and you do not control or have any predictive element on the outcome.
You know, it could be black forever.
It could be red forever.
As a matter of fact, it'll flip back and forth.
You don't control the outcome.
It's random.
That's the definition of gambling.
Markets prediction is a little bit different.
At least, you know, I would say definitionally.
Who's going to win an election?
It's not something that's beyond control and it's not something that is purely random.
And it's something that if you understand things properly, you can predict outcomes.
And if you believe your own assessment, there are now platforms that allow you to invest in your own intellectual assessments of outcomes.
And had you followed, let's just take Richard Barris, People's Pundit, his advice during the 2024 elections, well, you could have bet on the specific electoral college outcome of the 2024 elections and you could have made some sweet, sweet dough.
You could have bit within the window and made some sweet, sweet dough.
Go back and look, by the way.
I predicted it to one electoral college, and it was only because I didn't realize one of the states, I want to say New England, but it might have been Maine or New Haven.
I think it was Maine.
I didn't realize that a small state like Maine actually had a division for its electoral college votes.
So I didn't factor that into the equation.
I was off by one electoral college and my prediction of how 2024 was going to go down.
Well, it seems that an argument is being made here that Calci is using its platform for prediction markets to circumvent laws that regulate sports betting.
And this is the one where even if you don't like the logic or the rationale, you're going to understand it.
Because if there are laws that regulate sports betting, whether or not sports betting should not be treated like roulette gambling, and whether or not you don't think it's as predictive or an intellectual exercise as political predictive outcomes, if there are laws governing sports betting and Calci is bypassing them, you can understand where Michigan is coming from.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is asking a judge to shut down a prediction market platform.
She says she's illegally offering sports betting to residents.
Tuesday, she filed a lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit, yada, yada, yada, against Calci, a company that allows people to trade contracts based on the likely outcome of events.
Nestle alleges that Calci operates as an online sports betting platform without being properly licensed.
It certainly does offer options for sports betting.
Corporations cannot circumvent state gaming laws, said Nestle in a press statement.
My office will hold those who sidestep Michigan consumer protection accountable and ensure that betting in our state remains lawful, fair, subject to the oversights of the oversight our residents expect and deserves.
The company, the complaint alleges that Calci is operating as a sports betting platform, which violates the state's lawful sports betting act, requiring such platforms to be licensed through the Michigan Gaming Control Board.
The state is seeking an order declaring that Calci is a sports betting app and a permanent injunction to stop the company from operating in the state.
Here's where, even as a lawyer, I'll understand Michigan's argument, not agree with it entirely.
But if there are laws that apply to sports betting in the state, if I'm not trying to ask for more than I'm entitled to, I ask that Calci either be required to get licensed under the lawful sports betting act, or that it no longer offer sports betting as markets on the platform.
You don't get to shut down the entire platform if it's offering predictive markets for the midterms, if all it's doing is also offering UFC fight outcomes for tomorrow night.
Stay tuned for my picks.
Calci operates a so-called prediction market through which residents of the state of Michigan can engage in unlicensed gambling under the guise of trading event contracts.
The market is an online trading platform through which users may wager on the likelihood of a sports-related occurrence according to the lawsuit.
It's not a gambling website.
I mean, it could be used by people to gamble.
There are certain elements in there.
There are certain markets that are, I don't know if it's beyond the prediction of like roulette, but I forget which one of these platforms had like markets.
What's going to be the average temperature for New York City for the month of February?
What's going to be the high temperature in Los Angeles on March 6th as of six o'clock as determined by the national weather board, whatever.
So certain elements of it can be certainly used for gambling, and you can use it to lose a lot of money if you have no self-control and get into that.
But if it were me, and my argument would be: if your issue is the sports element, we won't do sports in your state.
You don't get to prohibit markets for items that are clearly not gambling and or just get licensed in that state for whatever that's worth or for however you do that.
And then you can operate lawfully in the state of Michigan.
We'll see where it goes.
But I am curious.
I thought initially when I got sent that link that it was going to be alleging that Calci wasn't honoring the description for the payouts of the markets because they have this concept called rule suck, which means that according to the rules, the outcome might not be that which we see in reality.
There were some election outcomes where they were determining it not by the actual results, but by how news outlets were reporting the results.
But no, this is they're offering sports markets in Michigan, and that's governed by a specific sports gambling law.
And Calci is not licensed and they need to get licensed.
Propaganda and Name Changes00:10:59
No, that was the non-political story of the day.
King of Biltong says, I have to make a comment, Viva, as there are many trolling in the chat.
I find your show the most balanced and your views the most fair on all topics, even the ones you support or oppose.
Thank you.
Well, what's going on with the trolls here?
Forced name change says the problem in Iran, the regime in Iran is a problem.
The regime in Iran has been a problem for a long time.
Doing nothing but sanctions has had zero effect on solving this problem, one of two.
Perhaps we should just bring the soldiers home and Iran can go back to what they were doing before and we can pass our problem on to the next generation.
I'm detecting maybe a little sarcasm there, but forced name change.
If that's the case, then you run on that in 2024.
You don't do something.
You don't engage in what some people might perceive to be a bait and switch.
No new wars, no regime change.
Well, I'm doing a new war and a regime change because I've always had to because it's necessary.
You run on that.
And you might have had the support anyhow.
You might have had to make the argument for it.
You might have had some debates, some public questions, and you might have actually had the support to do it in the first place.
The concern here is the apparent bait and switch, where now they want to say, well, the situation has changed since when?
Since 2024?
The situation has changed since when?
Since 2025, when the strikes took out their nuclear, well, it didn't take them out for good.
Okay.
It sounds like, and then the argument, well, now it's peace through strength.
It's not a new war.
It's ending an existing war.
Those arguments, I mean, they're sort of sleight of hand arguments.
The debate should have been had at the policy level during the election.
And quite clearly, I would argue, maybe I live in a silo where I think there's more people who view this as something of a bait and switch.
You're going to have a portion of the base that's going to view this as a bait and switch.
And then you're going to have the political fallout that ensues, which is going to lead to potentially crushing the loss in 2026, which people said wasn't going to happen in 2025.
And now they say, yeah, it's going to happen, but it always happens.
I mean, it's the exact same moving goalpost, intellectual dishonesty.
It's not a war.
Okay, it's a war, but it's only going to be short.
Okay, it might not be so short, but it's necessary.
And back in 2025, I lived it.
I was there.
They said this is going to hurt the Republicans come midterms.
Then we were called black pillars, dooms, pillars, whatever.
No, no, no, nothing's going to happen.
It's going to be fine.
And now basically the consensus is, well, the party in power always loses in the midterms.
Can we agree?
Can we argue one thing at a time?
Election or the war?
The switcheroo on the election, very douchery.
The war, probably necessary.
That is the debate.
The debate is: you're telling me it's necessary now when we elected a government to not get into this a year and a half ago, not even a year ago.
That is the issue.
And that's the switcheroo that is the problem.
So the switcheroo is very douchey.
I mean, if that's what you want to call it, but that is the issue.
And then the issue is how that impacts future elections.
And now, okay, fine.
It's necessary.
Okay.
Now you're going to have Democrats, you know, crush it during the midterms.
You might have a Democrat president in 2028.
What do you think that's going to do for global peace?
Who knows?
And some people, I don't necessarily believe that Nick Fuentes is actually going to vote Democrat.
I think it's more trolling, but what does that do?
You lose power.
Some of these people are going to end up impeached and potentially in jail.
You're going to end up, all right, well, you know, yeah, so we took care of Iran and now America has fallen to the commies.
So yeah, it's a problem.
Anyhow, I do hope to be wrong in my concerns.
And even if I, regardless of how I feel, you pray for the best at this point in time.
Get in, get out, you know, maybe wreak sufficient havoc.
Hope that you can have a replacement regime, a replacement government that gets, I don't know, sufficient support, that is not hell-bent on supporting terrorism.
But we'll see.
All right.
And we got a, does the Iran war have a danger?
Oh, no, that one we already got.
He ran on Abram Accords that separated Iran.
This was in hope of negotiating their change.
When that did not happen, it went to removal.
I mean, we're going to argue on what he ran on.
You're telling people out there that they're wrong in their impression.
And that's not going to get them to vote for you.
That's not going to get them to come out and vote in 2026.
You're telling them, no, your impression is wrong.
He didn't say what you think he said.
It's it, okay.
Good luck.
It's not, that's not how you convince people to support you.
And that sure as hell is not how you invigorate people to show up come midterms.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, actually, you know what?
While we're on the subject, this was posted earlier by the White House.
Now, set aside the arguments that, you know, this is not a laughing matter.
It's not meme material.
This is war.
People are dying.
Americans are dying.
And it's not something to make light-hearted, humorous montages like this.
Set aside that issue.
And let me open up a parentheses here.
I went to see the guy who was on the daily show, the South African guy.
It's his name.
I'm not going to remember his name, but you know I'm talking with the comic.
And the only, I got tickets, someone invited me, so it was in, it was in Canada.
Trevor Noah.
So I got taken, I got invited to go see Trevor Noah do stand-up.
It wasn't particularly funny, but he had one big, which actually wasn't funny at all.
It was just insightful.
And Cernovich sort of alluded to it in his tweet.
Society, what society can tolerate by way of humor is an indication of the times.
And in good times, when people are relaxed, people can tolerate edgy comedy.
They can tolerate absurd comedy.
They can tolerate raunchy comedy.
When they're on edge and when they're stressed and when they're unhappy, they can't tolerate comedy or they misconstrue comedy.
And we're sort of at one of those points right now where we're like, okay, in good times, this would be funny.
Set aside the appropriateness of the comedy.
There's a legal question in here.
Wake up, Daddy Sean.
Welcome, Help.
Strength and honor.
Strength and honor.
will you do without freedom?
Mavericks inbound.
You can't conceive of what I'm capable of.
Finishing this fight.
Yeah, I'm taking on back.
I'm here to fight for truth and justice in the American way.
I am the danger.
Time to find out.
Maximum effort.
Here it comes.
Thou had this flawless victory.
Some would call that just more.
I don't want to say propaganda might not be the right word.
Motivating content, motivating material, and actually not as much humor.
Ben Stiller, you know, who's never met an outrage that he doesn't like, says, Hey, White House, please remove the Tropic Thunder clip.
We never gave you permission and have no interest in being part of your propaganda machine.
War is not a movie.
Can you appreciate the absolute stupidity of Ben Stiller, who makes movies about war?
That's what Tropic Thunder.
Take it away.
We're not part of your propaganda machine.
War is not a movie.
You were literally holding a head in Tropic Thunder, a movie that was allegedly, you know, a movie that was itself a movie about war.
These idiots now saying, war, it's not a funny thing.
You made a comedy about war.
In your particular comedy, real people in the movie were getting killed and you thought it was a movie.
And that was the comedy.
Now high end mighty.
Don't use our stuff for your propaganda machine.
First of all, I went for a double whammy on this.
First of all, Ben Stiller doesn't own the rights to anything in Tropic Thunder.
I forget what was the company.
Hold on, let me get this out of here.
What was the company that actually owned the rights?
It's one of Paramount.
It's one of the stupid.
It's one of the agencies that owns the rights.
He doesn't own the rights to say what people can and can't do with a movie that he's appeared in.
Number one, so you don't own the rights, shut your trap.
Number two, that would qualify in any realm of the universe as fair use, in my humble opinion.
Take it for what it's worth.
I'm a Canadian lawyer, former Canadian lawyer, former Quebec lawyer.
That would qualify as fair use, sufficiently transformative, or even more, de minimis use.
Using if something is so little, there is zero prejudicial effect on the original copyright holder, which isn't Ben Stiller in the first place.
But, you know, another thing, don't use my clips for montages.
Even if it were propaganda, essentially, there's no like there's no carve-out of the exception of fair use for quote propaganda.
And then, as far as I'm concerned, the only issue is, as one of the people thinking, is it appropriate to be making light-hearted, humorous, sort of rah-rah Team America montages like that about war that is an issue that is deeply dividing Americans?
I think the wisdom of the montage is questionable.
The legality of it and the claim of ownership over a de minimis use of a clip from a movie that Ben Stiller doesn't own the rights to is hogwash.
And I said, Congrats, you got two strikes.
Try to make it a hat-trick or a strikeout.
I don't think we're going to get to.
But I'm curious, I'm curious.
I like some Ben Stiller movies, but he's an idiot.
That no, he's got a bunch of great movies.
Dodgeball is great.
Happy Gilmore is great.
I just watched Night at the Museum with the kids, actually.
Pretty, you know, fun movie.
Meet the Falkers.
I never liked.
War movies are propaganda with a few glimmers of truth allowed to remain.
Now, that well, that much, if you've been watching Viva and Lord Buckley, go to the movies.
If you haven't, by the way, go look, go, go check us out.
Yesterday we watched and reviewed, or we re-reviewed Bonnie and Clyde, and next week we are reviewing the French Connection next week.
But Mark Grobert, Lord Buckley, when he sent, you know, he sensitized me thoroughly to the fact that, yeah, when they make these movies, they've got to get, you know, if they want insights, assistance from the government, from military, they've got to make sure that it's flattering to the military and that it promotes, you know, the military propaganda, Top Gun, all the likes.
So that was Ben Stiller.
Noam AD Scandal00:11:48
All right.
Last one before we head on over to viva barnslaw.locals.com for the afterparty.
Um, Chrissy Noam should probably start getting nervous a little bit.
Let me just let me just see one thing here.
Got my phone on.
Do not disturb.
Do not disturb.
Christy Noam should probably start getting nervous right now because a lot of stuff that was the worst kept secret in DC is now fair game, it would seem.
August to September, October, November, December, January, February, March.
Seven months where it says Slate reporting.
Like, I don't like the gossip, but this is beyond gossip.
This could be potential corruption.
An alleged, not-so-secret DC affair tells us everything about the Trump administration.
Rumors have swirled around these two since Trump's first term.
For the past six months, Corey Lewandowski has occupied a, shall we say, non-traditional role at the Department of Homeland Security.
The longtime Trump ally and early 2016 campaign manager is not officially at the DHS roster, nor does he draw a DHS salary.
But Trump administration officials and DHS staff have told reporters he is performing the functions of Secretary Christy Noam's chief of staff, while the actual chief of staff has not been filled.
He has accompanied Noam on trips to confer with foreign leaders in Israel, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico.
Often, yada, yada, yada.
There was an issue about, let me see something here.
There was the issue about allegedly using Corey's companies or companies in which Corey Lewandowski has an interest for Christy Noam's ad campaign.
Christy Noam ad campaign.
Lewandowski.
Let's see if I can find this.
Sorry, I thought that was the.
Yeah, let's try this one.
Bloomberg.
And I say this again.
You don't do an administration.
I don't want this.
You don't do it.
I'm not logging in.
You don't do an administration any favors by ignoring problems that are going to be weaponized by your ideological adversaries.
You, in fact, do your utmost to make sure the administration doesn't make these mistakes, finds out about these mistakes, and starts writing them.
This is from March 6th.
Noam ad blitz benefits media firms linked to Trump campaigns.
Records show DHS spent millions through subcontractors that had worked with her top aide, Corey Lewandowski.
Trump fired Noam on Thursday.
It's not betrayal and it's not disloyalty to have called these things out as we have been doing Sunday show, Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
It is in fact true loyalty to make sure you don't get stuck holding a big steaming bag of shit.
President Trump announced Thursday that he would remove Christy Noam from Homeland Security after she faced bipartisan criticism for her handling of the department, including a $240 million ad campaign prominently featuring herself.
A Bloomberg news investigation found that the bulk of the funds are allocated for placing ads through at least two firms with long-standing ties to Trump campaigns.
I think it's going to be more to Lewandowski.
This is how they now lump Trump into this mess.
One of the DHS ad buyers, Virginia-based Strategic Media Services Inc., received more than $269 million to work on Trump's 2024 campaign while Noam's top aide, Corey Lundowski, was advising the campaign's senior leadership team according to Open Secrets.
Hold on one second.
I had to cough.
Now I lost the article.
Where's the article?
It's right here.
No, that's not the article.
Hold on.
Ah, for goodness sake.
Where did I put the article?
Bring it up here.
It's Bloomberg.
Here we go.
Sorry.
One of the DHS ad buyers, Virginia-based strategic.
Okay, we got that one.
All right.
The DHS ad campaigns were designed to persuade undocumented immigrants to self-deport and to recruit immigration officers.
One of the 200, one of the 240 million, at least 54 million had been spent on TV ad placements through the end of 2025, according to data from Ad Impact.
Now we've got to see what the connection is here.
This is a very scary-looking flowchart.
Christy Noam approved, it goes through Safe America.
Placed ICE recruitment ads media overlapped on other political ad campaigns with Corin Lewandowski.
The question is going to be: what, if any, financial benefit did Corey Lewandowski, in fact, derive from this or none?
And by the, I say rumorings is probably not the best word anymore.
By the understandings of many insiders, it might be documented and it might be a problem.
And when they lump it together with the Trump campaign, what they're actually just doing is lumping it through tangentially Corey Lewandowski in an attempt to use it to harm Trump.
And people have been warning about this for a long time.
DHS Boast Circuit has said that the agency doesn't decide which media buyers its contractors hire or how much they pay them.
We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies, the spokesperson said in response to questions from Bloomberg.
Spokesperson said Gnome and the White House Office of Management of Budget reviewed and signed off on contract summaries.
Previously, the agency had said Nome approved all DHS contracts over $100,000, but she disputed that at the U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday.
She disputed that, didn't dispute her relationship, which now is admitted.
DHS awarded the largest contract worth $143 million to a newly incorporated company with no office, website, or publicly listed phone number.
The firm Safe America Media LLC then hired Strategic Media Services Inc. and Smart Media Group LLC as subcontractors to place the TV ads.
Both firms have worked on multiple political campaigns during the past decade with Lewandowski and numerous other Trump allies and affiliated organizations.
This is how you get dragged down by the incompetence and corruption of your picks.
And loyalty is not pretending it doesn't exist.
And loyalty is not keeping them on for long enough to do potentially irreparable harm or give the talking points to your ideological adversaries.
The other lead contractor, people who think LLC, limited liability company or corporation, won a $52 million contract to execute an international version of the DHS campaign.
That company was co-founded by Jay Connaughten, a former Trump media advisor who worked on the president's 20th.
See, none of this does, it sounds sinister, but obviously you're going to use people you know.
The question is, Corey Lewandowski in there in his capacity as a subordinate to the woman who he's shtupping, potentially getting some form of financial compensation, direct or indirect, from her allocation of a quarter of a billion dollars for an ad featuring her talking about deporting and self-deporting.
It looks like textbook cronyism, that's fine.
Textbook cronyism is not textbook corruption.
Ad tracking data raises questions about the effectiveness of the TV ads.
Who cares about that?
So that's the scandal right now.
And it looks like Christy Noam is sufficiently persona non grata that people are digging into this and they might be finding stuff that could be highly problematic.
To use a word that the late, great Scott Adams said is not a good word to use.
Do not use problematic to describe things.
It means nothing and it's fluff talk.
It could be a big freaking problem.
Let's put it that way.
All right.
Now let's see what's going on over in viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Before we decide to take the potty on over there, I find it hilarious that people claiming that we need to fight around because they're run by religious fundamentalists are using insane religious messaging about bringing about an apocalyptic war that will usher in the second coming.
Trump's religious advisor, Paula White, speaks in tongues.
She might as well handle snakes.
And let's see if we got anything over on Viva Barnes Law.
No, on Rumble, on Rumble.
Let's just see.
Are we getting any tip questions in?
Can we agree on one thing at a time?
Okay, no.
What we're going to do before we head on over to raid whomever is live right now, $200 million for ads, no money for the wall.
And there were no bid contracts, also, which is another issue from what I understand.
Why they would be no bid contracts.
There's not really a good answer for that.
Russell Brand raided in.
Booyah.
Well, thank you, Russell.
Because they fight.
Okay, let's go here.
Let's see what's going on here.
Cares if someone on the right farts, you and the lefties will always start screaming.
It's a bad argument.
There's a difference between farting and spending a quarter of a billion dollars on ads that indirectly potentially fund the person you're boning in the office who's not a official government employee.
King of Biltong says, I would love to have around, but I need to go.
I would like to hang around, but need to go.
Viva, going over my allocated time slot here, no respect.
Haha, cheers, everyone.
Oh, is Anton live?
Well, we're going to take our party over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
I'm going to go look to see who's fighting tomorrow.
I think Max Holloway version 2.0 is fighting, which is going to be amazing.
And now let's see.
Russell Brand, I think, has gone to his Rumble exclusive after party.
Well, let's see.
Hold on one second.
King of Biltong.
Is that going to work?
Oh, it was Eat at Anton.
Here we go.
Eat at Anton.
Oh, he's not live right now.
Well, I'll give everybody the link to Eat at Anton's channel anyhow.
And you can go sign up if you're so inclined.
We'll go raid.
What do we want to do?
Politics or do we want to change from politics?
All right.
Tommy Robinson is on with Roseanne Barr.
So we'll go and you can watch that.
Is it live or is it not live?
It's not live.
All right.
Hold on.
We're going to go to Nerd Roddick.
So let's do that.
It'll be not politics.
We're going to go raid Nerd Roddick.
Come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com if you are so inclined.
If you're not, don't worry.
Sunday, Viva and Barnes.
No, I screwed it up here.
Forward raid.
And we're going to confirm it.
Sunday night is going to be one hell of a show.
Come one, come all.
Clips are on CommiTube.
Be sure to, you know, whatever if you want to continue patronizing that at least just to maintain the platform to reach other people and bring them over to Rumble or VivabarnesLaw.locals.com, which is where we're going right now for our daily locals after party.
Everybody, if you're not coming, Godspeed.
Let me see what I've got left in the backdrop to cover over on.
Oh, yeah, we've got some good news coming out of Canada.
Good news, COVID-related.
And yeah, we'll talk about some other stuff.
Mark Wayne Mullins, there's an interesting video of him going around.
We're going to have our discussion at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.