Viva & Barnes - BOMBSHELL in Jan. 6 Brian Cole Jr. Prosecution! Birthright Citizenship Oral Arguments & More!
Aired: 2026-04-01
Duration: 01:18:57


=== Japanese Birthright Citizenship Debate (14:53) ===

[00:00:00]  President today, when for the first time in American history, a sitting president has attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court of these United States of America, Katanji Brown Jackson has outdone herself yet again for a question so stupid, a comment so wild.
[00:00:18]  The internet has been set ablaze.
[00:00:20]  For the intro to today's show, enjoy this gem.
[00:00:24]  I was thinking about this, and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have, you obviously have permanent allegiance.
[00:00:34]  Based on being born in whatever country you're from.
[00:00:37]  That's what everybody recognizes.
[00:00:39]  But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign.
[00:00:46]  And I was thinking, you know, I, a US citizen, am visiting Japan.
[00:00:51]  And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me.
[00:01:03]  It's allegiance, meaning can they.
[00:01:06]  Control you as a matter of law.
[00:01:08]  I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it.
[00:01:17]  So there's this relationship based on, even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense.
[00:01:31]  It would appear as though it's a fine nuance of an argument.
[00:01:34]  It would appear that Katanji Brown Jackson is confounding.
[00:01:40]  Allegiance to a foreign government with abiding by the laws of the land when you are a visitor in that land.
[00:01:48]  This is in the context of the birthright citizenship debate, which is one of the debates, actually, where I once upon a time was convinced by the arguments presented by one Robert Barnes.
[00:02:01]  You may know him from Viva and Barnes Law for the People Sunday night show or Viva Barnes Law.
[00:02:06]  Locals.com.
[00:02:07]  And then we had on John Eastman.
[00:02:11]  Who put forward an argument that I found more compelling than the one that Robert Barnes put forward?
[00:02:18]  And the argument put forward by John Eastman, as relates to the birthright citizenship question, who should become a citizen by virtue of being born on the soil?
[00:02:28]  And they go into a historical debate as to what was meant by subject to the authority thereof of these United States of America.
[00:02:38]  And John Eastman put forward the argument that, inasmuch as you were never expecting.
[00:02:43]  The children of diplomats to get citizenship because they never intended to be part of these United States of America.
[00:02:49]  An occupying force, you would not say, well, by virtue of them occupying, you would then give their children citizenship if they're born on the soil that they are occupying.
[00:03:00]  And then you had the arguments that temporary travelers themselves never intended to be in the country permanently, and so it should not be granting citizenship to the children born of people who engage in an industry right now.
[00:03:16]  Of actual birth tourism.
[00:03:21]  And then that would extend to the bulk of the question, which is the children born from illegal aliens, people who have unlawfully entered the country, who are in the country without legal authorization, without following the laws of the land, whether or not their children should be granted citizenship by virtue of the fact that they were born on the soil by parents who are here illegally.
[00:03:46]  They're having their oral arguments today.
[00:03:49]  And from what I understand, by the way, it's the first time in American history, unprecedented, that President Donald John Trump. Attended the hearing.
[00:04:00]  It's the first time, apparently, in the 235 plus year history of the Supreme Court oral arguments that a sitting president has attended the arguments.
[00:04:13]  And it's amazing that he's there.
[00:04:15]  I was listening to it.
[00:04:15]  I did not get through the whole thing.
[00:04:17]  I heard enough to know that General Sauer, what's his name?
[00:04:22]  Sauer, S A U E R, is an extremely intelligent, capable attorney.
[00:04:29]  Phenomenal, even.
[00:04:30]  I'm going to play some of the highlights where he.
[00:04:33]  Thinks quick on his feet, understands the history, understands the context, understands the Constitution, but none of that's going to matter to some of the justices on the bench.
[00:04:45]  First of all, interesting argument to apply Japanese law birthright citizenship in Japan.
[00:04:53]  I suspect Japan does not have a universal birthright citizenship, jus soli.
[00:04:58]  Citizenship is primarily inherited, jus sanguinis, which is from the blood.
[00:05:03]  Meaning, at least one parent must be a Japanese citizen at the time of the birth of the child to acquire citizenship automatically.
[00:05:10]  Birth in Japan to foreign parents does not grant Japanese nationality except to prevent statelessness.
[00:05:18]  So, Katanji Brown Jackson, being one of the sharpest justices in the pencil box of the Supreme Court, doesn't even understand that what she just raised, by way of example, does not talk about loyalty to a foreign government.
[00:05:34]  It does not talk about subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the constitutional sense.
[00:05:38]  What she's saying is you abide by the laws of the land.
[00:05:40]  Yeah, if you commit a crime in Japan, the Japanese criminal system will prosecute you.
[00:05:44]  Speaking of the Japanese legal system, it doesn't even grant the citizenship to foreigners born on Japanese soil the way that they are trying to present those arguments today to this Supreme Court.
[00:05:57]  Now, before we get into the highlights, just the summary of where things are at.
[00:06:02]  This is according to The Guardian.
[00:06:05]  Rubbish, but I've heard it for myself, so now I can.
[00:06:08]  I've heard a substantial amount for myself, so I can determine whether or not The Guardian is being misleading.
[00:06:13]  Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of the Trump administration's argument to restrict birthright citizenship live.
[00:06:18]  They were skeptical, by and large.
[00:06:20]  Alito sent like he was on side.
[00:06:24]  Kagan, I'm going to play one of the highlights because they're idiots.
[00:06:27]  I mean, this is what you call motivated reasoning.
[00:06:31]  I shouldn't be insulting and say idiots because they're not unintelligent.
[00:06:35]  In fact, some might even say that they are.
[00:06:37]  Acutely intelligent, but politically motivated, and hence they try to argue from the conclusions to which they want to get, and so they'll just structure the argument in a way that allows them to get there.
[00:06:47]  Foregone conclusions.
[00:06:49]  Justices seem unsure about the Trump administration's bid to end birthright citizenship, a case that could affect the legal status of hundreds of thousands of U.S. babies.
[00:06:58]  You see how they already bake in?
[00:07:00]  Isn't that the question?
[00:07:02]  Are they U.S. babies?
[00:07:04]  Bake the conclusion into the question, and there you answer it before it's even asked.
[00:07:08]  That's actually pretty good.
[00:07:09]  Write that one down.
[00:07:09]  Supreme Court appears skeptical.
[00:07:11]  Yada, yada, yada.
[00:07:12]  Let's go down here.
[00:07:12]  Here's a recap of oral arguments of the Supreme Court.
[00:07:14]  Justice appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's argument to restrict birthright citizenship for hundreds of thousands of children born to undocumented immigrants of temporary foreign nationals.
[00:07:26]  Undocumented immigrants, we've now institutionalized the legally inaccurate terminology, which already bakes out of the equation the illegal act at the issue.
[00:07:40]  The Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that since non citizens who are in the country temporarily aren't, quote, domiciled, end quote, they aren't pledging, quote, allegiance to the U.S., and that subsequently invalidates their children's claims to citizenship.
[00:07:54]  However, both liberal and conservative blocks of the bench probe Sauer about his position.
[00:07:59]  Since the language of, quote, domicile, end quote, isn't part of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
[00:08:04]  Chief John Roberts at one point referred to part of the government's argument as very quirky, while Justice Elena Kagan said the administration's revisionist theory requires the court to change what people have thought the rule was for more than a century.
[00:08:17]  I heard that talk, and I'm like, yeah, A, the law evolves, and B, sometimes even the Supreme Court gets it wrong, lest you be stuck with bad precedent.
[00:08:29]  That should last forever.
[00:08:33]  However, both.
[00:08:34]  What do we get here?
[00:08:35]  From one of the centuries.
[00:08:36]  Sauer also argued that unrestricted birthright citizenship has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism, which it has, a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties.
[00:08:44]  The argument to that, which I can see SCOTUS making, is go to Congress and have them pass a specific law instead of asking us to interpret the existing provisions so as to come to the conclusion that might need congressional remedy and not interpretive remedy.
[00:08:58]  Justices also grilled the lawyer for challenges.
[00:09:01]  In today's case, Cecilia Wang, the national legal director of the ACLU, who said that Donald Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment would render swaths of American laws senseless.
[00:09:10]  Wang noted that in U.S. versus Wang Kim Ark, a landmark decision on birthright citizenship, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule and that virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen.
[00:09:26]  Throughout their questions, Wang maintained that a foreign national so called allegiance to another country should not affect their child's citizenship.
[00:09:32]  Why not?
[00:09:32]  I mean, if your goal is to invade and destroy a country, why would you care that the child of someone who is illegal, has allegiance to a foreign government, and maybe even a foreign hostile government should become a citizen within that country?
[00:09:45]  And by the way, I don't know which other countries do this.
[00:09:48]  One thing for sure we know is Japan doesn't.
[00:09:50]  Trump attended the hearing on Wednesday.
[00:09:52]  Okay, good.
[00:09:53]  That's about the gist of it.
[00:09:54]  Two particular highlights which I thought were quite insightful.
[00:09:59]  Starting with one.
[00:10:01]  As I scroll through my list of.
[00:10:06]  Items for today.
[00:10:07]  Here's one where Alito asks a question.
[00:10:10]  This one, if I'm not mistaken, had to do with laws as they were drafted at the time should evolve over time.
[00:10:16]  I think that's this one, but let me just play it anyhow and then we'll take it from there.
[00:10:20]  Yeah, I strongly agree with the way that you framed it that there is a general principle that's a broad principle that's adopted in the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
[00:10:26]  And we submit that our theory of allegiance and domicile based allegiance is what explains those specific exceptions that everybody was aware of, but it is broad enough to sweep in.
[00:10:35]  Future situations.
[00:10:36]  And as you pointed out, illegal immigration did not exist then.
[00:10:39]  Now, the problem of temporary visitors did exist.
[00:10:41]  And it's very interesting that as you look at pages 26 and 28 of our brief, commentators going from 1881 until 1922 are uniformly saying the children of temporary visitors are not included.
[00:10:54]  Now, that logic, we say, it naturally extends.
[00:10:56]  It's really an a for sure case.
[00:10:58]  If you have someone who enters illegally by the 1880s, there are restrictions on immigration.
[00:11:02]  If you've entered illegally, it's kind of a well established principle of law going back.
[00:11:07]  The code of Justinian that says you're not allowed to be there.
[00:11:09]  You cannot, you don't have the legal capacity to create domicile there.
[00:11:12]  But I think, General Sauer, that what you just said suggests that you can't be arguing in the way Justice Alito suggests.
[00:11:20]  I pause this one.
[00:11:21]  This is Justice Kagan suggesting that.
[00:11:25]  What was she suggesting here?
[00:11:27]  This is the idea that the reason why temporary sojourners should not be granted birthright citizenship for their kids or their children should not be granted citizenship is because they never had the intention of staying in the country.
[00:11:40]  Permanently.
[00:11:42]  Whereas those who entered illegally, illegal aliens, entered the country illegally with the intention of staying there permanently, such that their children should therefore be granted citizenship.
[00:11:49]  Listen to this.
[00:11:50]  Because most of your brief is not about illegal aliens.
[00:11:54]  Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country, where there was quite clearly.
[00:12:02]  An experience of and understanding of that there were going to be temporary inhabitants.
[00:12:07]  And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.
[00:12:11]  You don't get to talking about undocumented persons until quite later and at much lesser, you know, I think it's like 10 pages to three pages or something like that.
[00:12:22]  Do you appreciate all that she's trying to do is pretend that she actually read the pleadings herself?
[00:12:27]  Hey, what do I give a sweet bugger all that you can reference the amount of pages dedicated to each respective argument?
[00:12:34]  I can take down this idiotic argument in exactly one sentence, but she wants to prove.
[00:12:39]  I didn't have staffers do this to me.
[00:12:40]  I am on with this, and I read it.
[00:12:42]  I read it so thoroughly, I can tell you how many pages you dedicated to each of the arguments.
[00:12:46]  So you can't really be going with Justice Alito's theory.
[00:12:50]  You must be saying that there is a principle that developed, that was there at the time of the 14th Amendment.
[00:12:59]  Isn't that right?
[00:13:00]  Pause it right there, just so you can appreciate what she's getting at.
[00:13:04]  She is suggesting.
[00:13:06]  Am I playing the right one here?
[00:13:08]  She is.
[00:13:09]  Oh, you weren't listening to the right one.
[00:13:13]  How long have you heard what I've been talking about at least?
[00:13:18]  In the chat, let me know if you heard the audio because I didn't realize I didn't scroll sufficiently down on this.
[00:13:23]  Oh, cripe.
[00:13:26]  Interesting segment.
[00:13:27]  It was this one right here.
[00:13:29]  Okay, we did.
[00:13:30]  Let me know if you heard it so that I don't have to play it again.
[00:13:34]  Because if you didn't hear it, then my entire rant might not make any sense.
[00:13:44]  Yes, you heard it.
[00:13:45]  Okay, good.
[00:13:46]  What Kagan is basically saying is well, it makes sense that temporary sojourners should not have their children get citizenship because they had no intention of being there permanently.
[00:13:56]  But the illegal alien that crossed had the intention of staying there permanently, and therefore their kids should get it.
[00:14:04]  The argument that Sauer made later on, which I didn't get to, and you don't need to hear it because it's a one liner.
[00:14:12]  Living in a country illegally where you know that at any point in time you can be lawfully deported is antithetical to being there permanently and having the intention to reside there permanently.
[00:14:22]  It's antithetical, period.
[00:14:25]  So, not only would you not want to create a law or ratify illegal behavior, to say that a sojourner who's there legally knows, I'm there legally, I can stay as long as my vacation visa or whatever it is allows me to, to say that they are inherently temporary, but someone who illegally entered, who can be lawfully deported at any time.
[00:14:47]  Is somehow more permanent, is a contradiction in terms and should be treated as such.

=== Humanitarian Crisis and Retroactive Law (03:19) ===

[00:14:53]  There was another one where I'll just say the other good argument or the other good element of the hearing, and I'll make sure that we're looking at the same thing again, which we are.
[00:15:03]  Let me see another interesting section when that's about the humanitarian crisis.
[00:15:06]  So this is another one where, you know, the issue, and as you read in that Guardian article, they're like, oh, the hundreds of thousands of people could be denied their rights to be part of yada, yada, yada.
[00:15:17]  The reality is, All of this is, as Sauer points out, prospective.
[00:15:23]  They didn't want to do it retroactive because that would create a whole hell of other slew of problems.
[00:15:27]  And for those of you who don't appreciate what that means, prospective meaning it's only going to apply going forward.
[00:15:33]  So everyone who does it is going to be acting in awareness of the law.
[00:15:37]  Retrospective is you can't enact retroactive criminal law because it just violates rules of fundamental justice.
[00:15:45]  And you can't apply it retroactively because people acted in accordance with what they thought the law was at the time.
[00:15:50]  And it's unfair punishment here.
[00:15:53]  Under the minimum definition of domicile, which I think existed in 1868 and continues to exist today, a person's domicile.
[00:16:04]  Is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home.
[00:16:10]  Now, normally you would think that a person who is subject to arrest at any time and removal could not establish a domicile.
[00:16:20]  But we have an unusual situation here because our immigration laws have been ineffectively and in some instances unenthusiastically enforced by federal officials.
[00:16:38]  So, there are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures.
[00:16:49]  But they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here and have established roots.
[00:16:59]  And that raises a humanitarian problem.
[00:17:01]  And I wonder if you could address that.
[00:17:05]  If I may, one legal and one humanitarian.
[00:17:07]  The legal point is if you look at those cases, for example, Carson against Reed, Park against Barr, this court's decisions in Elkins and Toll against Marino, they talk about the legal capacity to create a domicile, excluding someone who may have the subjective intent, which otherwise would be determinative, as being excluded.
[00:17:25]  On the humanitarian point, I would point out, as I said at the beginning, Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship is an outlier among modern nations.
[00:17:35]  It's a very small minority of nations that have that rule.
[00:17:38]  For example, every nation in Europe.
[00:17:42]  Has a different rule.
[00:17:43]  And the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis as a result of not having unrestricted birthright citizenship, I don't think is a strong argument.
[00:17:50]  And I point out, obviously, for reliance related reasons, this executive order applies only prospectively.
[00:17:57]  And we ask the court to rule only prospectively.
[00:18:00]  And I remember when we covered this with Barnes, and I think when we had not the debate, it was the color of the debate between Barnes and Eastman, that was one of the drafting considerations to make sure that it would be.

=== Uphill Battle Against Invasion Fears (04:06) ===

[00:18:13]  More difficult to strike down.
[00:18:14]  Make it perspective so that it doesn't penalize action that's already occurred.
[00:18:18]  There are very few countries that allow this type of facilitated invasion.
[00:18:25]  You know, even in Japan, to avoid statelessness, to the extent that illegal aliens have citizenship in foreign countries, to the extent that birth tourism necessarily have citizenship in other countries, you don't even risk having statelessness.
[00:18:39]  You just prevent the risk of having an invasion of foreigners who take.
[00:18:44]  Of your lax immigration laws.
[00:18:46]  Where does it go?
[00:18:48]  I don't know.
[00:18:49]  I have a feeling that it was an uphill battle to begin with.
[00:18:54]  I don't know exactly which count it's going to go where, if it's going to be six, three, and five.
[00:18:58]  I wouldn't even venture a prediction.
[00:19:00]  I would rely on other people for that.
[00:19:03]  But that's the hearing, and that's the uphill battle that Sauer was facing.
[00:19:07]  Plus, it's a politically difficult issue.
[00:19:13]  In which you get to rely on the prospective human suffering to pull at the heartstrings of people to say it's just not fair.
[00:19:21]  And how can you deny this right to illegal aliens who have children on the soil of a country that they've entered illegally when they want to make a better life?
[00:19:29]  Yada, yada, yada.
[00:19:30]  And I would not be surprised if some of these justices have already come to their conclusion and are now just going to either rely on previous case law, the Juan Kim Ark decision, which came up frequently, and argue that, you know, This was not what was foreseen back when it was enacted back in the 1800s.
[00:19:49]  And if you want a legislative solution to it, go to Congress, have them fix it, and then you can actually debate and pass the law, so on and so forth.
[00:19:56]  That's the hearing on the oral arguments on birthright citizenship.
[00:20:01]  Now, with that said, people, We're getting into a bombshell in a bit.
[00:20:06]  If you are new to the channel, I am Viva Fry, David Fryheit.
[00:20:09]  Fryheit, for those of you who don't know, is verbatim freedom in the German, yeah?
[00:20:14]  When Angela Merkel came out with her book, the biography, and it was called Fryheit.
[00:20:20]  And then everyone's like, she stole your name, Viva.
[00:20:22]  And I'm like, oh my goodness.
[00:20:23]  Anyhow, this is my three o'clock time slot on the Rumble lineup.
[00:20:28]  And we are live.
[00:20:29]  We, I am live daily, three o'clock.
[00:20:33]  To about give or take four.
[00:20:34]  We have our after party at Viva Barnes Law.
[00:20:36]  Locals.com, and we have our Sunday show, which is with Robert Barnes and myself Viva and Barnes Law for the People, Sunday Night Law Extravaganza.
[00:20:46]  And I just got distracted by a rumble rant that just came in, which we're going to get to in a second.
[00:20:51]  And what was I about to say?
[00:20:53]  Oh, yeah, Viva Barnes Law.
[00:20:55]  Locals.com, which is the best above average community out there.
[00:20:59]  If you want to support the work that we do, that is the bestest, most direct way to do it.
[00:21:05]  You can do it through Becoming a monthly subscriber, an annual subscriber, just a member, and tipping with these coins that they have here.
[00:21:13]  Or you can just spread the word and snip, clip, and share away to help the channel grow and the community grow.
[00:21:18]  With that said, before we get into the bombshell, I'm going to read a few tips here.
[00:21:21]  Big Bad Bob says, Viva, you had to write the first time.
[00:21:24]  They are idiots.
[00:21:27]  Calling someone an idiot is fun.
[00:21:28]  But when someone ascends to the Supreme Court of the United States, I would have to concede that they know the law better than me.
[00:21:39]  Dumbness is just a way of writing off addressing the substance of what they're saying, but I think I can even address the substance of what they're saying.
[00:21:46]  And they're not dumb, is the reality, because they know how to twist the law to get to the conclusions that they want to get to.
[00:21:51]  Now, idiots may be in the sense of jerks and not the legally sensed term of an IQ under 60.
[00:21:56]  Maybe we can agree on that.
[00:21:57]  F. Chathon says it's more logical to be there on vacate and to have a legal child than an illegal.
[00:22:04]  Both cases need to be addressed.
[00:22:06]  I mean, absolutely.
[00:22:08]  Dread Robert.
[00:22:09]  Sent a $4.20 tip, which I'm sure is a marijuana joke.
[00:22:13]  Viva, many illegals have overstayed student and tourist visas.
[00:22:16]  This argument by Supremes is ignorant.

=== Canada's Vaccine Injury Program Collapse (10:58) ===

[00:22:20]  Co do Ted.
[00:22:22]  Maybe convoluted?
[00:22:24]  Yeah, well, that's the other thing.
[00:22:26]  It's like you get a visa, you overstay your visa, like many of the student visas up in Canada.
[00:22:31]  And that's also how you invade a country and replace the population, which is totally not being replaced, but it's a good thing that it is.
[00:22:40]  All right, now I just saw a $100 Rumble rent.
[00:22:44]  Over on Rumble.
[00:22:46]  Thank you, Cultivated Mind.
[00:22:48]  Great to see you, Eva.
[00:22:49]  Watch out for those birds.
[00:22:49]  The Canadian government might want to euthanize your family now.
[00:22:54]  The jokes, I mean, the jokes.
[00:22:57]  And the only reason why some of these jokes are funny is because there's an element of truth in them.
[00:23:01]  And we're not far off from.
[00:23:05]  You know what?
[00:23:05]  Let's do a quick interim before we get into the major story of today's show, which is the bombshell in the Brian Cole Jr. case.
[00:23:15]  A lot of people send me some stuff, you know, just say, hey, don't forget about what's going on up in Canada.
[00:23:22]  Canada has fallen off the rails and it fell off the rails during COVID.
[00:23:27]  It's the main reason why I ultimately left that country after having run for federal governments to try to make political change.
[00:23:34]  But you can't save people who don't want to save themselves.
[00:23:38]  And as they always say, if someone's drowning, you don't serve any positive purpose by jumping in the water and having them pull you down with them.
[00:23:49]  Canada went full tyranny during COVID, mandated federally the jab.
[00:23:54]  They even enacted rules and regulations that if you were unvaccinated, you couldn't fly on planes and take buses and trains because.
[00:24:04]  You don't get to put my children at danger if you choose not to get vaccinated.
[00:24:09]  That was Justin Trudeau, the scum of all scum.
[00:24:12]  I haven't heard very much from him other than that demonic selfie he took with his girlfriend now after having gotten divorced, Katy Perry.
[00:24:20]  So the federal government imposed vaccine mandates, excommunicated people, removed people from the military, fired people from federal jobs, the federal courts slowly but surely getting around to righting some of those wrongs.
[00:24:33]  The government of Canada implemented what was known as the VISP.
[00:24:37]  And if you have a LISP, it's fun to say VISP, the Vaccine Injury Support Program.
[00:24:43]  And that was intended to compensate people for injuries sustained from the COVID shot.
[00:24:49]  It was actually implemented about the same time as the rollout, but silent like you would have never known.
[00:24:55]  When was Canada's VISP enacted?
[00:25:00]  You never would have known that it existed because they did nothing to publicize it because they didn't want to do anything to.
[00:25:07]  Create vaccine hesitancy.
[00:25:09]  And so, you know, while in the States, you have the Biden administration going after Facebook to take down misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.
[00:25:19]  Do we all understand those three terms?
[00:25:24]  I think disinformation is factually incorrect, misinformation is misleading information, and malinformation is information that is accurate but harmful to an agenda.
[00:25:37]  Canada's vaccine injury support program was not enacted as formal legislation by Parliament.
[00:25:41]  Federal administrative program established by the Public Health Agency of Canada, announced December 2020 by then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, officially launched June 1, 2021, after they had officially rolled out this safe and effective jibby jab that has now, according to some, maimed or killed more people than COVID itself.
[00:26:03]  That is not medical advice.
[00:26:05]  COVID.
[00:26:06]  ConnieTube YouTube, when I published this there, that is a statement made by many and contradicted by medical professionals who say that vaccination is the safest way to avoid a pandemic, even if you're vaccinating into it.
[00:26:15]  Pandemic, even with an untested drug that was mass produced on a rush basis because the companies wouldn't do it otherwise, and that's why they needed immunity.
[00:26:21]  That's the caveat.
[00:26:22]  You can suck on it, Commitube.
[00:26:24]  From CTV News, by the way.
[00:26:26]  So, what happens is they implement this vaccine injury support program.
[00:26:28]  Nobody knows it exists for a little while.
[00:26:30]  They cap damages at about a quarter of a million dollars, and it gets absolutely overrun.
[00:26:37]  It's run by a bunch of bureaucrat idiots.
[00:26:40]  The government does nothing more efficiently than the private sector, other than cause mass starvation, kill people, and lock people up.
[00:26:49]  And so now you have people who have been waiting years.
[00:26:52]  Kayla Pollack was rendered a quadriplegic from her Moderna booster after two Pfizer shots.
[00:26:58]  The government can't take care of her, but they can offer her medical assistance in dying, which is now the fifth leading cause of death in Canada.
[00:27:06]  And I'm not joking, by the way.
[00:27:07]  They've offered Kayla Pollack, you all know her, she's been on the channel a few times and I cover the story, death because they can't take care of her.
[00:27:14]  They injure her with a federally mandated jab, although she wasn't federally mandated.
[00:27:19]  She took it to be a good, responsible civilian.
[00:27:23]  They injure you.
[00:27:24]  They deny your injury.
[00:27:25]  They then tell you they can't treat your injury and then they offer you death.
[00:27:28]  She is suing Moderna.
[00:27:31]  And then you've got the story of Dan Hartman, father of now deceased Sean Hartman, whose son died 30 some odd days after the first Pfizer shot.
[00:27:41]  He was 17 years old.
[00:27:44]  And he's suing Pfizer and he filed a vaccine injury support program claim, which was initially rejected.
[00:27:51]  And I think they filed an appeal.
[00:27:53]  I don't know what we are, four years out now?
[00:27:56]  Hasn't gotten an answer yet.
[00:27:57]  He's suing Pfizer, by the way.
[00:27:59]  And the reason why I suspect he hasn't gotten an answer on the injury, which is black and white confirmed by medical professionals now.
[00:28:05]  Is that if they confirmed that his son died from the Pfizer shot, it would be used as evidence in his lawsuit against Pfizer?
[00:28:10]  Effing corruption over effing corruption.
[00:28:14]  And what else happens for this thing?
[00:28:15]  People are not getting the relief that they need because it's overwhelmed.
[00:28:19]  They got a bunch of employees who don't know what the hell they're doing.
[00:28:23]  And this is from CTV News from yesterday.
[00:28:26]  Vaccine injury program prompted by rollout of COVID shots taken over amid backlog of cases.
[00:28:33]  The Federal Public Health Agency is taking over administration of a program that.
[00:28:37]  Compensates people who have been injured by vaccines and pledging to review claims that were refused by a third party administrator for being filed too late.
[00:28:45]  They sit on it.
[00:28:47]  They take their sweet ass time.
[00:28:50]  What's the expression?
[00:28:51]  It's ripe in November, moot in October, whatever.
[00:28:55]  It goes from ripe to moot.
[00:28:57]  Too early, too late, too bad.
[00:28:59]  The vaccine injury support program began accepting claims in June 2021 after the widespread rollout of the COVID 19 vaccine in Canada.
[00:29:06]  People who experienced, quote, a serious and permanent injury.
[00:29:09]  End quote, as a result of the vaccine authorized by Health Canada.
[00:29:13]  The Health Canada authorized it.
[00:29:15]  Pfizer produced it with a hold harmless clause in their supply agreements in Canada.
[00:29:19]  In the States, he had the PrEP Act immunity.
[00:29:25]  People who took it were eligible to make a claim.
[00:29:27]  It's also been the subject of complaints from claimants who say the process is slow and communication is poor.
[00:29:31]  Well, I mean, you know, it's the federal government, but not, no, it was one of their, they subcontracted it out to an entity.
[00:29:39]  The government signed a contract with a third party administrator, Oxaro, to run the program.
[00:29:43]  With an initial budget of $50 million over five years.
[00:29:47]  The contract expired on Tuesday, and a news release said the Public Health Agency of Canada will take over the renamed Vaccine Impact Assistance Program.
[00:29:54]  Oh, my goodness.
[00:29:55]  They call it the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program.
[00:29:58]  Now it's called the VAP.
[00:30:00]  Another $17 million has been allocated for the transition.
[00:30:03]  Applications submitted to the old program will transfer to the new one automatically.
[00:30:06]  Quebec has a separate compensation program that will continue to be administered by the province.
[00:30:10]  PHHC will be working to address the existing backlog of applications while improving the consistency and transparency of the claims processes.
[00:30:17]  The news release said, You know what they're hoping?
[00:30:19]  That people just die off.
[00:30:21]  Enough people die off, it'll reduce whatever paltry amount they give for the injury that they sustained.
[00:30:27]  And I'm not saying that a quarter of a million dollars is paltry, but when you've become a paraplegic, a quarter of a million dollars is paltry.
[00:30:33]  It's an insult to the injury.
[00:30:35]  More than 105 million COVID 19 vaccine doses were given out in Canada between December 20 and December 23.
[00:30:40]  Data shows adverse events were extremely rare.
[00:30:44]  Health Canada reported that 58,000 adverse events reports were made in that time, representing a 0.05% Of all shots, and that 11,000 were considered serious.
[00:30:56]  Can you imagine these numbers?
[00:30:58]  What were the numbers of COVID for the people that are experiencing these injuries?
[00:31:02]  58,000 were reported.
[00:31:04]  That's assuming that people even knew what happened to them.
[00:31:06]  When people just drop dead, you don't even know what happens.
[00:31:09]  I know, as a matter of personal connection, that I'm talking to someone, relative.
[00:31:16]  I was like, yeah, we went to a funeral the other day, and a 70-some-odd-year-old person just died in their bathtub.
[00:31:22]  And we go to the funeral and we're like, oh, yeah, it's weird.
[00:31:25]  She just got the shot the day before.
[00:31:27]  That one does not go down as one of them.
[00:31:30]  So you get 58,000 of those that have been filed, of those that have even gone through the process.
[00:31:37]  Caleb Pollock is one of the 39 people who says she was injured by the vaccine.
[00:31:43]  The Ontario woman says she was an athletic and outgoing before getting her COVID 19 shot in 2022, paralyzed from the chest down with limited function of her arms, diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis, inflammation of the spinal cord.
[00:31:55]  Pollock applied for compensation in 2022 and said her claim still has not been finalized.
[00:31:59]  She can get a maximum of a quarter of a million dollars.
[00:32:01]  This is three years later.
[00:32:02]  They tried to kill her three times.
[00:32:05]  The government tried to kill her three times, at least, while they dragged their feet on what minimal relief a quarter of a million dollars will bring to someone who's going to be a quadriplegic for the rest of their lives.
[00:32:15]  Pollock isn't convinced the government will do a better job.
[00:32:17]  I think it's very fitting that the fools are to take over on April Fool's Day, she said.
[00:32:22]  Officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada said they do not have the service standards for the new program.
[00:32:26]  Yet, yet, yet.
[00:32:27]  The program will have more flexible eligibility going forward.
[00:32:30]  So 225 people whose claims were denied because of a three year cutoff will now have those claims reviewed.
[00:32:35]  Whoopty freaking do.
[00:32:38]  Data from the Vaccine Injury Support Program shows 3,557 people made claims as of December 1, 2025.
[00:32:44]  Of those, 451 were found inadmissible.
[00:32:47]  And just over 3,000 claims were sent for medical review.
[00:32:50]  More than 850 people were still collecting medical records in December.
[00:32:54]  252 people whose claims were approved have collected more than $21 million in compensation.
[00:32:59]  The program's website does not provide wait times, but says collecting medical records can take a significant amount of time.
[00:33:04]  That is what your government can do for you, people.
[00:33:07]  Socialized healthcare for everyone is crap for everyone.
[00:33:11]  And incentivizes the government to literally offer death to minimize its costs and minimize its wait times.

=== Epstein Files Redactions and Sabotage (08:41) ===

[00:33:18]  And that's the detour before we get to the story of the day.
[00:33:22]  And before we get to the story of the day, let's read some of these tip questions and rumble rants.
[00:33:26]  Old man, old man, Toby.
[00:33:28]  Shit, hold on a second.
[00:33:32]  Dan Bongino just retracted his criticism of both joke.
[00:33:35]  Oh, it's an April Fool's joke.
[00:33:37]  Okay.
[00:33:38]  The Visp was just a visper, says Ron 4T.
[00:33:41]  Ginger Ninja, I hate April Fool's Day.
[00:33:43]  For this very reason, says Dan Bongino just retracted his criticism of both Joe Kent and Thomas Massey.
[00:33:48]  Happy April Fools, everyone.
[00:33:50]  Dominant One says King of Biltong is busy today at Biltong USA, packing Anton's firm and juicy meat into put in the mouths of real men.
[00:33:55]  Do not use code SUCK IT SUCK IT at checkout.
[00:33:57]  Backdoor delivery is not available.
[00:33:58]  King of Biltong is in the house.
[00:34:00]  This isn't just Biltong.
[00:34:02]  It's premium meat, real craftsmanship, and clean ingredients, all made in house and sold direct.
[00:34:07]  Welcome to BiltongUSA.com.
[00:34:09]  Use code VIVA for 10% off.
[00:34:11]  Now, old man Toby says, off topic VIVA.
[00:34:14]  But what do you think about the people seeing comparisons between now and Germany after World War II?
[00:34:19]  Germany after World War II.
[00:34:22]  I'm going to have to think about that one because I'm not sure what you mean by that.
[00:34:26]  I was not in Germany after World War II, nor was my grandfather.
[00:34:30]  In fact, nor was anyone in my family because those who lived in Poland who didn't leave died.
[00:34:34]  And the one who did leave was my grandfather.
[00:34:37]  There might have been another one, I think, an Esther who left.
[00:34:42]  I'm sorry, I'm just laughing.
[00:34:43]  Sorry, I couldn't help it.
[00:34:44]  I had one.
[00:34:44]  So I don't know what Germany looked like afterwards.
[00:34:46]  I don't know what Poland looked like afterwards.
[00:34:48]  I know that of the 26 members of my family, Freiheit, my grandfather left, and maybe another one named Esther who ended up, I think, in Israel.
[00:34:56]  And the other 24, 25 did not make it.
[00:35:01]  All right.
[00:35:07]  How do I start this?
[00:35:08]  This is a bombshell.
[00:35:09]  And I don't use the word bombshell lightly.
[00:35:12]  I actually find it mildly irritating, all of those stupid posts on Twitter, bombshell breaking, and they put the little red flashing lights.
[00:35:18]  It feels cheap, it feels tawdry, and by and large, it is.
[00:35:22]  I am saying that this is an actual bombshell.
[00:35:25]  For those who don't know, set the context a little bit.
[00:35:28]  If you're new, like, share, subscribe, snip, clip, share away.
[00:35:32]  Brian Cole Jr. is the 30 year old autistic black man who has now been arrested for, charged with the January 6th pipe bombs.
[00:35:46]  Now, for those of you who don't recall, On the day of the January 6th insurrection, and I'm putting that in quotes because it wasn't an insurrection.
[00:35:56]  It was maybe at worst a protest that got violent or got a little rowdy, whether or not that had to do with police.
[00:36:04]  Firing tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd to agitate them, whether or not it had to do with agitators in the crowd, federal agents in the crowd, agitating the crowd.
[00:36:13]  There were pockets of violence.
[00:36:15]  Nobody can deny that.
[00:36:17]  It was not an insurrection.
[00:36:18]  If you think it's an insurrection and you say it's an insurrection, you're an idiot.
[00:36:22]  At the time, few people had heard that the night before, on January 5th, two pipe bombs were planted outside the RNC and outside the DNC.
[00:36:30]  The day of, there was scant reporting on it.
[00:36:32]  It was mentioned, and then it was buried.
[00:36:35]  Like, literally buried.
[00:36:36]  At the time, I don't want to forget anybody who might have been covering it.
[00:36:40]  Revolver, Darren Beatty from The Revolver.
[00:36:43]  I'm fairly certain Julie Kelly was covering it at the time as well.
[00:36:47]  I'm fairly certain Mike Cernovich was covering it at the time because I do remember back when I didn't even hear of the story, shortly after January 6th, what about the pipe bombs?
[00:36:57]  I remember Mike Cernovich tweeting and I'm like, what pipe bombs?
[00:37:00]  There were two pipe bombs that were placed in convenient locations that were discovered the day of, and the story disappeared for years.
[00:37:09]  But for the investigative journalism of Darren Beatty at Revolver.
[00:37:14]  Couldn't find the person.
[00:37:15]  It just went on.
[00:37:17]  Trump wins the miracle of the election that 2024 was.
[00:37:22]  Comes into power and appoints his, you know, members of his cabinet.
[00:37:28]  Pan Bondi, Kash Patel, director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, deputy director of the FBI, and their mission this was one of the top three, top five.
[00:37:38]  It was top three, and I think it might have been number one find the pipe bomber.
[00:37:42]  Nobody's going to plant bombs in DC and not be able to get arrested for it.
[00:37:47]  It is inconceivable that someone would plant bombs in the most densely populated area in terms of CCTV, closed circuit television, and get away with it, as had happened for five freaking years.
[00:38:02]  They get into power, Trump's term starts, and we have some hiccups early on.
[00:38:09]  Now, I had had a theory running for a very long time.
[00:38:12]  As relates to the Epstein rollout debacle, I was not one of the people who was ever going to pull a 180 and say, forget about the Epstein files, they're irrelevant.
[00:38:23]  It was never going to happen.
[00:38:24]  When we were told that the Epstein files were going to be released, you know, Pam Bondi now infamously said, the files on my desk, we're going to have it rolling out in phases.
[00:38:32]  Oh, we're not going to have it rolling out.
[00:38:34]  We've got to get Thomas Massey to come in with Ro Khanna to put together a bill for the Epstein disclosures.
[00:38:39]  Then the Epstein disclosures come out and they are bungled to the point where I said, It's not even possible it can result from this level of incompetence.
[00:38:50]  I posited that the Epstein debacle was so egregious and so bad it would have to be sabotaged or could possibly be sabotaged to undermine Trump's DOJ, to humiliate key members of it, key members of the MAGA movement, to cause strife, to cause disenfranchisement or disillusionment with the MAGA base, to cost Trump the midterms.
[00:39:11]  And I'm just going to go pull back a few of these tweets because.
[00:39:16]  When it came to the debacle of the rollout, set aside the initial rollout, humiliating all of those so called influencers, the alternative media, when they had binders of newly released information that was none of it was new and it was actually more redactive than what was in the public sphere already.
[00:39:29]  After the documents were compelled to be disclosed by law, the bungling continued with unnecessary redactions, unnecessary, and redactions that were not done that were required to be done.
[00:39:43]  It was so bad, it gave the snakes, like Chuck Schumer, Talking points that were quasi legitimate.
[00:39:50]  Listen to this one.
[00:39:51]  Yes.
[00:39:53]  This is a man who puts cheese on a raw burger before barbecuing it because he has no idea how to make a barbecue.
[00:39:58]  Three million files that have not been released, and many, it seems, of the files that have been released.
[00:40:03]  The main redacted or have parts redacted.
[00:40:05]  So, what steps are you taking to ensure that those redactions are under?
[00:40:10]  Yeah, we're going to demand.
[00:40:11]  The question was about redactions that were improper or not done, and what are you going to do about getting the redactions done properly?
[00:40:17]  Justification for any redactions, and if the redactions are cover ups as opposed to protecting identities, we're going to get to the bottom of it.
[00:40:24]  We're going to get to the bottom of it.
[00:40:26]  And I said that, you know, some of this stuff, I just want you.
[00:40:29]  An abject disaster, totally unnecessary, totally unforced, squarely the fault of Pan Bondi, hand feeding talking points to scumbag Schumer.
[00:40:35]  At this point, one seriously has to wonder if Pan Bondi isn't trying to sabotage.
[00:40:38]  Donald Trump.
[00:40:39]  I had a few more of these.
[00:40:41]  And it's very nice to go back and review these things.
[00:40:49]  The internet is forever, and the Twitter is something of a diary that I have.
[00:40:52]  And I said in this one Raskin is among the most despicable members of government.
[00:40:56]  That Bondi's bungles have given Raskin quasi legitimate talking points as further evidence she needs to be fired.
[00:41:01]  That said, Raskin still gets it wrong.
[00:41:03]  The Epstein disclosure, unnecessarily bungled as it has been, has ultimately done nothing except exonerate Trump.
[00:41:09]  It's not a cover up.
[00:41:10]  Rep Raskin, it's sabotage.
[00:41:13]  You're running a massive Epstein cover up right out of the Department of Justice.
[00:41:18]  You've been ordered by subpoena and by Congress to turn over 6 million documents, photographs, and videos in the Epstein files, but you've turned over only 3 million.
[00:41:28]  You say you're not turning over the other 3 million because they're somehow duplicative, but we know that there are actual memos of victim statements in there.
[00:41:37]  And you also took down the Department of Justice's prosecution memo.
[00:41:42]  From 2019.
[00:41:44]  I have to pause it because I cannot listen to this man's voice.
[00:41:48]  The disclosures did nothing except exonerate Donald John Trump.
[00:41:53]  So the question would be why would they have fought tooth and nail those disclosures to the extent it literally did nothing except exonerate Donald Trump?

=== Kirchhoff Dog Video Alibi Dispute (14:54) ===

[00:42:00]  Some would argue it's a plausible argument.
[00:42:01]  It embarrassed people in his orbit, such as Lutnik, for example, and others.
[00:42:05]  It's a plausible argument.
[00:42:07]  Another plausible argument is that it was sabotage because you can't be that incompetent and you can't screw something up that badly over that extended period of time to the point where now people believe that the Iran war. Is a distraction from or the result of the Epstein debacle.
[00:42:22]  That's a long winded way of coming right back to the Brian Cole arrest.
[00:42:27]  So you have the pipe bombers.
[00:42:29]  You have the new DOJ, the new FBI coming in, promising to uncover who the pipe bomber was.
[00:42:35]  And for about January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, for about, let's say, 10 months, nothing.
[00:42:43]  Until Steve Baker, who was a journalist at the Blaze, rumors are that.
[00:42:49]  You know, as he mentioned during my show, that he might not have that job for long if he still has it at all.
[00:42:53]  Steve Baker comes out with an expose, and we've talked about it at length, which identified someone who he suspected as being the bomber based on date analysis, based on a number of other factors, which were not only purely speculative or circumstantial.
[00:43:11]  Around November, give or take, his story comes out and it pinpoints an individual.
[00:43:19]  Before that article came out, or before the Brian quote, there was a, you know, the CBS ran a cover on.
[00:43:24]  Story saying it couldn't have been her because she has a video of her playing with her puppies, yada, yada, yada.
[00:43:28]  Shortly after the bombshell expose, Steve Baker identifying a former Capitol Police officer as being the probable potential January 6th pipe bomber, the FBI suddenly or the DOJ discovers Brian Cole Jr. as the pipe bomber.
[00:43:48]  We all saw that press conference.
[00:43:50]  And I want to highlight a few things from it.
[00:43:52]  I took some notes.
[00:43:53]  I went back and rewatched it, and everything makes more sense when you go back and rewatch it.
[00:43:57]  So, something Janine Pirro said, and then something Kash Patel said, I think.
[00:44:01]  Listen to this.
[00:44:02]  In general, was it forensic?
[00:44:04]  Was it a phone call?
[00:44:06]  They're asking what the aha moment was, what the evidence was that led them to finally arrest Brian Cole Jr., an autistic 30 year old black man.
[00:44:15]  Now, I don't care about autism and I don't care about race.
[00:44:18]  The only reason why it's relevant now is you're dealing with body movements, video evidence.
[00:44:23]  Oddly enough, the video evidence that the Capitol Police or DC provided was the FBI pixelated, reduced to one frame per second, so you couldn't get any meaningful analysis of how smooth and confident a person walked.
[00:44:36]  As opposed to or compared to an autistic 25 year old at the time.
[00:44:40]  I say a black kid because presumably you would be able to identify the race of the individual at some point in all of that video footage, unless it was inexplicably pixelated.
[00:44:52]  Apparently, there was a testimony of someone who came across someone who's suspected to have been the pipe bomber, and that person, who's I think a member of the government, thought it was a white male.
[00:45:03]  And when you see the person, or once you understand who the suspect was as identified, Not suspect, but rather the individual who the Blaze and Steve Baker identify through his journalism.
[00:45:12]  You can understand how someone thought that was a male.
[00:45:16]  They find after Steve Baker's expose comes out, they found their aha moment and they found out it was a 30 year old autistic black man who lives with his family, who doesn't have a normal walk, who doesn't have a normal body proportion, who doesn't have normal shoe size.
[00:45:29]  He's got a size, apparently, a size 12 foot.
[00:45:31]  Listen to this.
[00:45:32]  Is it something about a vehicle?
[00:45:35]  I will just leave it generally forensic evidence.
[00:45:38]  Yeah, it's fair enough.
[00:45:39]  Look at Janine Pirro.
[00:45:40]  Excuse me, how long ago that was?
[00:45:43]  I'd rather not say because of the ongoing interview process.
[00:45:46]  Can I assume one thing?
[00:45:47]  Yeah, yeah.
[00:45:48]  Please do.
[00:45:48]  I just want to add something to tell you.
[00:45:51]  We all know that Janine Pirro was credibly accused of withholding exculpatory evidence from someone who was arrested, that she arrested, that kept detained.
[00:45:58]  I'll get the details on that.
[00:45:59]  I'd like to remind everybody about who we're dealing with here.
[00:46:01]  How thorough this team was.
[00:46:04]  That moment that was kind of like the aha moment, that wasn't the end.
[00:46:10]  This team continued to work and work and work to get every bit of evidence that we could get.
[00:46:17]  We didn't stop at that moment.
[00:46:19]  And that's a testament to the fact that the team wanted every possible evidence, piece of evidence that they could gather.
[00:46:28]  One more?
[00:46:28]  Should we do one more?
[00:46:29]  Kelly and Donald.
[00:46:31]  Thank you so much.
[00:46:32]  Have you recovered the notable sneakers?
[00:46:36]  Have you done surveillance of this suspect?
[00:46:42]  From that aha moment to when you exercise the search warrants today.
[00:46:46]  But by the way, everyone should go back and watch this entire press conference again in light of the information that has been released today.
[00:46:54]  And obviously, this happened on January 5th into January 6th.
[00:46:58]  How should the public look at this case separate from all of the cases related to what transpired on January 6th and the president's subsequent parties?
[00:47:08]  I'm going to let Director Patel take the evidence part.
[00:47:11]  We have to be careful again.
[00:47:13]  You've asked very good investigative questions, but this is ongoing, very active.
[00:47:18]  But America should feel safer today.
[00:47:20]  We say a pipe bomb.
[00:47:21]  These are bombs.
[00:47:22]  These were live, active bombs.
[00:47:26]  A fact that is hotly disputed, but immaterial right now.
[00:47:31]  That were placed in Washington, D.C. Director.
[00:47:35]  This is December 4th, by the way.
[00:47:37]  This is December 4th.
[00:47:39]  Pay attention to the dates.
[00:47:40]  Shows you how much detail you and the American public have paid attention to this case.
[00:47:44]  We have.
[00:47:45]  Of course, we analyze everything that you're seeing on this poster board and information that you will see through the formal charging process and court process.
[00:47:54]  But we want to let that evidence speak for itself because, again, we do not want to disrupt the accountability that we owe the American public.
[00:48:02]  Yes, you heard about the cell phone tower data.
[00:48:04]  Yes, you heard about, of course, we surveil individuals who we think we're going to blow up American citizens.
[00:48:09]  But how and when we do it and why we do it is not something we're ever going to reveal unless the Department of Justice deems it fit at trial.
[00:48:16]  So we appreciate your attention to detail and your hardcore investigative work.
[00:48:20]  But you can just imagine some of those same skills were being utilized by this FBI, this Department of Justice, our partners, the ATF, and everybody across the board.
[00:48:28]  And this is an interagency win for the American people.
[00:48:31]  Let's pause right here.
[00:48:32]  Have you heard the breaking news of the day?
[00:48:34]  So they arrest Brian Cole.
[00:48:36]  They've detained him now since his arrest.
[00:48:38]  It's been three months.
[00:48:39]  Three months pre trial detention of a 30 year old autistic kid who did not lead a functional life prior to this event.
[00:48:49]  And they recently, they say the government provided disclosures to the defense team.
[00:48:58]  And what's in those disclosures is nothing shy of astonishing.
[00:49:02]  And I'll say allegedly because this is.
[00:49:04]  A motion from the defendant.
[00:49:06]  So it's allegations.
[00:49:07]  These are not proven facts.
[00:49:10]  As I said in one of my lengthy email analysis, you know, Twitter analysis, there might be a good explanation for all of this.
[00:49:17]  Some of these allegations might turn out to be false, but I would be hard pressed to believe that when it comes to certain allegations of fact, the defense counsel are going to get themselves disbarred and possibly worse for making allegations of fact that are factually incorrect.
[00:49:30]  This came down today, April 1st, 2026, in the United States District Courts of the District of Columbia.
[00:49:38]  United States versus Brian Cole.
[00:49:40]  Defendant Brian Cole's Jr.'s motion for early return of subpoenas.
[00:49:44]  Defendant Brian Cole threw in counsel pursuant to yada, yada, yada, states as follows.
[00:49:48]  Reading from the allegations Shawnee Kirchhoff was named as a person of interest in the January 5 to 6, 2021 pipe bomb investigation.
[00:49:56]  Ms. Kirchhoff was a U.S. Capitol Police officer on January 6, 2021.
[00:50:01]  We know that as a pure matter of fact because there's video of Kirchhoff allegedly seemingly shooting rubber bullets at a crowd, and then there were questions as to whether or not it fit protocol for.
[00:50:11]  Proper use of non lethal weapons.
[00:50:13]  We know this.
[00:50:14]  This is a fact.
[00:50:15]  And was present at the Capitol on that date.
[00:50:17]  Ms. Kirchhoff now works for the Central Intelligence Agency.
[00:50:20]  According to discovery produced by the government in this case, the FBI began investigating, questioning, and covertly surveilling Ms. Kirchhoff during the time it began to investigate Mr. Cole.
[00:50:32]  Understand this right now.
[00:50:33]  This is the.
[00:50:35]  You want to talk about aha moments from someone who's been following this for a long time?
[00:50:41]  The discovery was produced by the government.
[00:50:43]  To the defense, confirms that the FBI began investigating, questioning, and covertly surveilling Kirchhoff during the time it was investigating Mr. Cole.
[00:50:53]  Why?
[00:50:54]  Nothing happens until Kirchhoff gets identified in that Blaze article.
[00:50:59]  Pay attention to the dates.
[00:51:00]  They arrested Cole on December 5th, I believe.
[00:51:05]  I'm reading back from the motion right now.
[00:51:07]  On November 6, 2025, Ms. Kirchhoff was interviewed by the FBI and took a polygraph examination.
[00:51:14]  She was asked two relevant questions.
[00:51:16]  One, did you place those pipe bombs?
[00:51:18]  And two, did you place those pipe bombs that evening?
[00:51:21]  Now, this is an interesting discussion, distinction here.
[00:51:25]  There is some dispute, even according to Julie Kelly.
[00:51:28]  She doesn't believe, I don't know if she believes it anymore.
[00:51:30]  She never believed that Kirchhoff was the proper suspect.
[00:51:33]  She had her own theory and thought that Steve Baker got it wrong.
[00:51:37]  Julie Kelly, independent journalist, doesn't believe the pipe bombs were placed on the 5th.
[00:51:43]  She believes that they were placed, or at least replaced, maybe they were taken away, but replaced on the 6th, which is why I find this question already very interesting.
[00:51:50]  Did you place those bombs?
[00:51:53]  The second one is sort of redundant.
[00:51:54]  If she didn't place the bombs, she didn't place them that evening.
[00:51:56]  But did you replace them that evening?
[00:51:58]  Or I don't know if they asked the third question did you place them the next day?
[00:52:03]  And Ms. Kirchhoff failed the polygraph.
[00:52:06]  The FBI polygraph examiner noted Kirchhoff's, quote, very controlled reaction to the news of her failing the polygraph and seemingly rehearsed responses to examiners' questions.
[00:52:18]  I've been, you know, told I have never, I don't, I don't, I've never worked in law enforcement.
[00:52:23]  The interesting thing is that not only do they say that she failed the questions, whatever that's worth, and we can get into the evidentiary value of that, but it looked like she had been rehearsed according to the quote.
[00:52:34]  And I want to see where that's from in this.
[00:52:37]  Motion.
[00:52:37]  On November 7, five days before the FBI opened a file on Mr. Cole, the FBI named Ms. Kirchhoff as a person of interest in the pipe bomb investigation and opened a file on her.
[00:52:47]  The government immediately issued subpoenas and preservation requests for numerous electronic devices accounts associated with Ms. Kirchhoff.
[00:52:52]  On November 12, the same day the government officially opened its investigation into Mr. Cole, FBI agents attempted to question Ms. Kirchhoff and Mr. Dickert at her residence.
[00:53:01]  Dickert's her boyfriend.
[00:53:02]  The next day, the FBI interviewed Ms. Kirchhoff's dog walker.
[00:53:05]  The following day, we're now on November 13, give or take.
[00:53:08]  Ms. Kirchhoff and her boyfriend, Daniel Dickard, also a Capitol Police officer, were interviewed together by the FBI and the ASUA Ballantine.
[00:53:18]  Do we remember who Jocelyn Ballantine is?
[00:53:21]  She's the one who tried to extort a plea, a guilty plea out of Michael Flynn.
[00:53:27]  She's the one who tried to coerce Enrique Tario into perjury to incriminate Donald John Trump.
[00:53:34]  She's the one who allegedly hid exculpatory evidence from the January 6th defendants.
[00:53:40]  And tried to get them to lie in statements of facts in order to frame the president of these United States of America, Donald John Trump.
[00:53:47]  And she's still working.
[00:53:48]  And she's working this case.
[00:53:51]  Throughout November 2025, the FBI interviewed Ms. Kirchhoff's co workers, police, her neighbors, surveilled her without her knowledge, requested her employment records from the CIA, and sent surveillance footage of her walking to a podiatrist, likely for a gait analysis.
[00:54:03]  I thought the gait analysis was worthless, right?
[00:54:06]  Oh.
[00:54:06]  Mr. Cole was arrested on December 5th.
[00:54:09]  One month later, the FBI closed the surveillance lead on Ms. Kirchhoff on January 7.
[00:54:14]  Ms. Cole requests issuance of an early return of three subpoenas relevant to Kirchhoff.
[00:54:19]  One, a subpoena to Ms. Kirchhoff for the video of Ms. Kirchhoff's dog taken at her home with her voice allegedly in the background.
[00:54:28]  Highlight with her voice allegedly in the background.
[00:54:32]  You will recall, I mentioned it at the beginning, that the way they exonerated Kirchhoff in the article from CBS, CBS, I think, I don't know if they actually name her in the article because everybody's CBS Kirchhoff.
[00:54:45]  Let me see if I can pull up that article.
[00:54:47]  Real quick, CBS Capitol Police, Steve Baker.
[00:54:53]  Let's see if I can get that one real quick.
[00:54:57]  In that article, they say that the alibi was a video of her playing with her puppies the night the bombs were placed.
[00:55:10]  Here, hold on a second.
[00:55:11]  This is House Sources.
[00:55:12]  This is the article, but let me just get this here.
[00:55:15]  It might not have been CBS.
[00:55:16]  Yeah, it was CBS here.
[00:55:19]  Remember this because this is now critical.
[00:55:21]  Because we're going to go back to the affidavit, and now we're going to understand that apparently the reality is not necessarily what we've been told.
[00:55:26]  How an innocent woman's name was tied to the January 6 pipe bombs.
[00:55:29]  A federal security officer linked to the.
[00:55:31]  This is from November 25, 2025, after Steve Baker's expose.
[00:55:36]  She was named, but only after her name circulated on social media.
[00:55:39]  How an innocent woman's name came to be publicly linked to the unexploded pipe bombs has raised questions, yada, yada, yada.
[00:55:44]  CBS is not naming the officer or her workplace.
[00:55:45]  Well, now it's been named in a filing, and now it's a matter of public record.
[00:55:50]  Multiple sources.
[00:55:51]  Said that a unit overseen by DNI Tulsi Gabbard drafted a memo identifying the woman, describing allegations that she placed explosive devices outside the DNC.
[00:56:01]  ODNI officials said they received a tip from a person affiliated with a media organization.
[00:56:05]  Fine.
[00:56:05]  Copy of the unfinished memo was given to senior staff and then leaked.
[00:56:09]  Now, I want to get to the puppies.
[00:56:14]  What was in the first paragraph?
[00:56:15]  A federal security officer linked to a thwarted attack cleared her name by providing an alibi, a video of her playing with her puppies at the time the devices were placed.
[00:56:27]  Okay.
[00:56:27]  A, puppies.
[00:56:29]  B, video.
[00:56:31]  And now let's get back to this because what does it say?
[00:56:34]  The video, the subpoena relates to a video of Ms. Kirchhoff's dog taken at her home with her voice allegedly in the background.
[00:56:43]  Now it seems that the video was not of her playing with her puppies, but it might just be a video of her puppies and a voice in the background, which someone says is her voice to exonerate her from having been there at the time, which some people even dispute the time the pipe bombs were placed.

=== Bad Actors and Polygraph Evidence (15:33) ===

[00:56:54]  Purported from the evening of January 5, shown to FBI agents by her or Mr. Dickard on November 25, and any photo, video, audio created the same day, January 25.
[00:57:03]  January 5, 2021.
[00:57:05]  You know, only the things that a lot of us have been saying, hey, why hasn't that exonerating video been shown to the public?
[00:57:11]  The identity of the phones on which the dog was stored, Ms. Kirchhoff's employment records.
[00:57:16]  Let's see here.
[00:57:17]  Her offer letter from the CIA, her standard form 86 questionnaire.
[00:57:20]  We can skip through some of this.
[00:57:21]  Documents provided by Ms. Kirchhoff to the government as part of its pipe bomb investigation.
[00:57:24]  Kirchhoff's home camera recording from January 5, 6.
[00:57:27]  Communications between Mr. Kirchhoff and Mr. Dickard on January 5, 6.
[00:57:30]  The identity of the electronic devices used by Ms. Kirchhoff from December 15, 2020 through January 8, 2021.
[00:57:36]  Documents reflecting Ms. Kirchhoff's work schedule, yada, yada, yada.
[00:57:39]  A subpoena to Daniel Dickard, this is her boyfriend.
[00:57:42]  The video of the dogs with her voice allegedly in the background, purportedly from the evening of January 5.
[00:57:48]  Yada, yada, yada.
[00:57:49]  We could skip through this.
[00:57:49]  We'll do what else we got.
[00:57:51]  Communication between Mr. Dickard and the government and Mr. Dickard and Mr. Kirchhoff from November 1, 2025 through present, related to her polygraph.
[00:57:58]  The January 5 6 pipe bomb investigation and any video purporting to be the alibi for Ms. Kirchhoff's whereabouts on January 5.
[00:58:05]  A subpoena to Dr. Michael Nirenberg.
[00:58:08]  DPM documents communications concerning any foot gate analysis performed of Ms. Kirchhoff and documents communicated concerning any other foot gate analysis related to the investigation.
[00:58:20]  So let me go through the rules here.
[00:58:21]  Federal rule of criminal procedure explicitly permits early return of document subpoenas stating that, quote, the court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial.
[00:58:30]  To grant a pretrial subpoena under Rule 17C1, the court must find that, one, the documents are evidentiary and relevant.
[00:58:35]  Obviously, they are not otherwise reasonably procured before trial through due diligence.
[00:58:39]  I don't know how they would get them except through this.
[00:58:41]  The party cannot properly prepare for trial without advanced production and dispassion, and failure to obtain such inspections may unreasonably delay trial.
[00:58:49]  Seems applicable.
[00:58:50]  The application is made in good faith, not intended to be a general fishing expedition.
[00:58:53]  This is not targeted, specific, relating to the alleged alibi that allegedly exonerated her, that led to the FBI coming out and parading around the 30 year old autistic black kid who's never done a thing in his life of criminality.
[00:59:12]  And we're going to get to the bizarreness of this.
[00:59:16]  First, the requested documents are evidentiary and relevant.
[00:59:19]  Okay, we got all that.
[00:59:20]  Requested documents which include Ms. Kirchhoff's purported alibi, her communications, yada, yada.
[00:59:26]  Mr. Dickert's purported alibi.
[00:59:28]  I mean, this is all goes without saying.
[00:59:30]  Documents are not otherwise procurable.
[00:59:32]  Third, advanced production is necessary for pretrial detention, yada, yada, yada.
[00:59:37]  That's the motion.
[00:59:41]  It's a flipping bombshell.
[00:59:43]  And now, Someone said, I hope it's not an April Fool's joke.
[00:59:47]  I hate April Fool's.
[00:59:48]  I don't like the stupid jokes.
[00:59:49]  They're not funny.
[00:59:50]  I hate it when people who otherwise have quasi serious Twitter accounts post these things.
[00:59:55]  Then you're like, oh, you don't know.
[00:59:56]  Doesn't matter.
[00:59:56]  This is April 1st.
[00:59:57]  None of this is a joke.
[00:59:58]  It's actually the opposite of a joke.
[00:59:59]  It's sick.
[01:00:01]  So, this comes out, and the timing is critical.
[01:00:09]  I want to walk through my tweet on this just so I don't forget any of the points, and then highlight an alternative that I didn't think of until going to the comment section in our Viva Barnes Law.
[01:00:19]  Locals. com community.
[01:00:20]  Evidence that I might be getting too cynical.
[01:00:22]  I didn't even see a white pill, white hat alternative to all of this.
[01:00:26]  Don't often use the word bombshell.
[01:00:28]  The government produced discovery to Brian Cole Jr.'s defense attorneys.
[01:00:32]  We all know who he is.
[01:00:34]  The government just provided a discovery of Cole's defense team, which alleges that on November 6th, Kirchhoff was subject and failed to a polygraph.
[01:00:41]  Subject to a polygraph and failed.
[01:00:43]  Pause here.
[01:00:44]  I appreciate some people are going to say polygraphs are useless.
[01:00:47]  They're unreliable.
[01:00:48]  They're not admissible as evidence in criminal trials.
[01:00:50]  That's fine and well.
[01:00:51]  And you're not wrong.
[01:00:53]  We're not talking about evidence in a criminal trial, it's protocol within intelligence agencies for certain purposes.
[01:01:01]  If you fail a polygraph, and I think we talked about this with Kyle Seraphine a while back.
[01:01:06]  For the purposes of getting clearance, you won't get clearance if you fail a polygraph.
[01:01:10]  And the reasons are there's multiple reasons and they're obvious.
[01:01:14]  A, you could be a nefarious bad actor.
[01:01:17]  Fine.
[01:01:18]  B, if you fail a polygraph on something that's even unrelated to your work, it could indicate blackmail material.
[01:01:24]  It could indicate that someone might have something that they can use to extort, coerce, or whatever out of you.
[01:01:29]  So we're not talking about criminal evidence admissibility.
[01:01:34]  You're right.
[01:01:35]  It's not admissible in criminal court.
[01:01:36]  And so you can.
[01:01:37]  Attenuate whatever impact you attribute to having failed a polygraph, but it's protocol in intelligence agencies for access, for removal of access, and for certain security clearances.
[01:01:48]  Now, some of you are going to say, well, this doesn't apply to any of those.
[01:01:51]  And you're right.
[01:01:53]  I don't know that this applies to access for security.
[01:01:57]  From what I understand, if you fail a polygraph, it might result in having clearance pulled because there's an issue there that needs to be investigated.
[01:02:03]  The bottom line is, it's protocol for certain aspects of intelligence.
[01:02:07]  So to say it's irrelevant, who gives a crap is wrong.
[01:02:10]  If it were irrelevant, who gives a crap?
[01:02:12]  It wouldn't be protocol within intelligence agencies for certain access or the removal thereof.
[01:02:18]  The date is critical because the polygraph apparently occurred two days before Steve Baker's expose was published.
[01:02:24]  Now, I did have to say, two days before the expose was published, not before it was known.
[01:02:31]  That article had to be circulated, it had to be cleared through legal.
[01:02:33]  The blaze cleared it through legal.
[01:02:35]  And presumably people knew of it and were either happy or not happy with it or had to start.
[01:02:42]  Making headway to find out who they were going to claim was the actual culprit to the extent that it wasn't the culprit identified by Baker in the Blaze Exposé.
[01:02:53]  Is this it?
[01:02:55]  So now this is what's amazing.
[01:02:57]  I'll take it out of the backdrop so that I can remember this part.
[01:03:01]  How on earth did they communicate that to the defense team?
[01:03:05]  Some of you are going to say, well, it's, you know, I don't know if it's Brady is the technical term here for this type of disclosure, but you got to disclose, communicate to the defendant.
[01:03:14]  Any and all potentially exculpatory evidence, period.
[01:03:17]  It's an obligation under law.
[01:03:19]  It wouldn't be the first time on earth, and not even the first time within the context of the January 6th persecutions, that the prosecutors would have failed in the Brady disclosure obligations to defendants.
[01:03:31]  We know, and I talked about it with Enrique Tario, specifically as relates to certain people who are still within the DOJ, who actively concealed, withheld, Or potentially even attempted to destroy exculpatory evidence so as not to communicate it to the defendants.
[01:03:52]  It's not the first time it ever happened, and it happened in the context of the January 6th persecution.
[01:03:56]  So to say the government is doing nothing but respecting its discovery obligations.
[01:04:01]  You might choose to believe that because it's the Trump administration's DOJ and you have faith in Trump, as we all have to, because if shit goes sideways, it goes sideways for everybody.
[01:04:11]  Some of you might say, no, this administration's DOJ is just being much more transparent and they're communicating it.
[01:04:16]  Okay, fine.
[01:04:17]  I mean, that is the most naive explanation in all of it because the consequences of this disclosure could be earth shattering.
[01:04:25]  Some people are going to say the polygraph is irrelevant.
[01:04:30]  They might have administered the polygraph improperly and the The failure was the result of the interpretations of the polygraph administrator and not the deceptiveness or the lack of transparency of the answers.
[01:04:40]  That might be an explanation.
[01:04:42]  If it's true that Kirchhoff failed the polygraph and nobody knew about it at the time because they hadn't announced that there was any investigation whatsoever, but then they found a culprit, it will undoubtedly benefit the defense.
[01:04:55]  So the question is this why on earth would they have willingly communicated documentation to the defense that will absolutely, it might not?
[01:05:03]  Get the case dismissed, but it will undoubtedly help the defense.
[01:05:06]  Why would they have done it?
[01:05:07]  Someone wants to choose to believe that it's just a question of transparency.
[01:05:10]  This DOJ operates differently than Biden's DOJ.
[01:05:14]  Jocelyn Ballantyne is the same woman who persecuted the Jan Sixers in this case.
[01:05:18]  Don't think that she had a coming to Jesus moment and decided now to abide by all of the laws in terms of disclosure.
[01:05:23]  So I'll scrap that one, but I'll leave it open.
[01:05:26]  The other option is it was done by accident.
[01:05:28]  They didn't know what was in there.
[01:05:29]  There's hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, there's terabytes of information.
[01:05:34]  And they simply didn't know that it was in there and they communicated it by accident.
[01:05:39]  And now it's going to blow the case out of the water.
[01:05:42]  The third option, and we're going all the way back to the beginning here where, you know, reasonable or conspiratorial thoughts of sabotage.
[01:05:49]  This feels like it could be sabotage.
[01:05:52]  If you wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the credibility of this DOJ, you have this case blow up in a way that makes Janine Pirro look like a schlock, like she's imprisoning yet another innocent person on whom she had.
[01:06:08]  Exculpatory evidence.
[01:06:10]  And for those of you who don't remember, Jeffrey Mark Deskovitz accused Janine Pirro, who was the Westchester County DA from 1994 to 2005, of effectively keeping an innocent man in prison by refusing to review his case or allow post conviction DNA testing that later exonerated him.
[01:06:28]  That's Janine Pirro.
[01:06:30]  You want to destroy any and all credibility that this DOJ has?
[01:06:34]  Make it look like they're framing or otherwise not allowing for the exoneration of an otherwise innocent 30 year old black autistic dude?
[01:06:43]  This is how you do it.
[01:06:45]  Slip them information that you know will blow the case up because you're actually not a good faith actor on the other end and you want to take down the DOJ.
[01:06:52]  That's what you would do.
[01:06:56]  And just one other alternative, which is the white pill, is that someone in there with a conscience says, We can't let this kid go to jail for what he didn't do and we're going to make it look like an accident or we're going to make it look like transparency, but we're going to give this to the defense and let them do what the defense counsel is going to do with it.
[01:07:14]  But it's mind blowing that if you wanted to do something that would make Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, everyone involved look like either incompetent or in on it, what else would you do?
[01:07:29]  Now, I go back to that press conference at the beginning and where you had, you know, Bongino came and said there was an aha moment.
[01:07:35]  I get the call from someone at the FBI and they say, we got him.
[01:07:39]  I know some of you out there don't have nice things to say about Dan Bongino.
[01:07:44]  I know some of you out there, you impute ill intent and you can't say that there's not.
[01:07:48]  An argument that people have to impute ill intent at this point in time.
[01:07:52]  Let's operate on the basis of assuming good faith.
[01:07:54]  I don't care if it pisses some of you off, just assume good faith.
[01:07:57]  Assume that someone who is of bad faith or wants to sabotage.
[01:08:01]  This DOJ on the inside says, This is what we're going to do.
[01:08:05]  We know Pam Bondi is not really on top of all of these files.
[01:08:07]  She doesn't know the details.
[01:08:08]  She doesn't know what cases are going up before the Supreme Court.
[01:08:11]  If we tell her what's in here, she'll believe it.
[01:08:13]  She'll buy it.
[01:08:14]  She'll regurgitate it on Fox News.
[01:08:16]  Assume that.
[01:08:17]  They get the call.
[01:08:17]  You got your bad actors.
[01:08:19]  They've been planning this alibi for five years.
[01:08:23]  Hold on.
[01:08:24]  Let me bring up the press conference again.
[01:08:26]  When they say, you know, the thousands of data points, it was at 20 minutes and 28 seconds.
[01:08:31]  The thousands of data points that they had to look at here.
[01:08:34]  Listen to this.
[01:08:34]  Job is to provide full accountability in the court of law with Judge Pirro's team.
[01:08:39]  And in order to do that, we have to preserve the chain of custody and evidentiary value.
[01:08:43]  What I will say generally is that when you go through 3 million lines of information, y'all can think about the amount of cell phone data that has to be ingested, triangulated, dumped, and received.
[01:08:54]  You also have to think of just sheer human ingenuity.
[01:08:57]  We brought in a team of experts who are the best at what they do in their specific fields to reevaluate that evidence, to dive back in, and to not come back with a no for an answer until they had found the suspect.
[01:09:09]  To not come back with a no for an answer.
[01:09:13]  Maybe I'm imputing some interpretive value to this.
[01:09:16]  To not come back with a no for an answer.
[01:09:18]  We go through 3 million points of data.
[01:09:21]  You can find dots to connect.
[01:09:23]  Don't come back with no for an answer.
[01:09:26]  This is a month after we now know, allegedly, according to this filing, to the extent that it's true.
[01:09:34]  And if you wanted to discredit Kash Patel for the rest of his career, you would have him come out, positively assert, we got him.
[01:09:43]  By feeding them information that you know they're not going to know is wrong until it's too damn late, by hiding from them information that you know might be relevant to them.
[01:09:53]  Maybe Patel and Bondi did know about the failed polygraph and they just wrote it off as a failed test.
[01:09:57]  They investigated, they surveilled, they tailed, they got alleged exculpatory alibi, then they leaked it to the media.
[01:10:07]  Do you remember that CBS article?
[01:10:09]  Do you remember that?
[01:10:10]  I remember calling it at the time.
[01:10:12]  What was it?
[01:10:13]  Familiar.
[01:10:14]  No, was it going to be familiar?
[01:10:16]  No, I want to go source.
[01:10:18]  Here we go.
[01:10:19]  I remember saying at the time, who the hell saw this video?
[01:10:22]  It could have come from Kirchhoff's own attorneys.
[01:10:25]  They provided an alibi at the time.
[01:10:29]  Sources told CBC.
[01:10:30]  We don't know which sources those were.
[01:10:32]  And now we find out all of this.
[01:10:37]  If you wanted to destroy the credibility of this DOJ and come midterms, what a time to break this news.
[01:10:42]  What a time to communicate it to the defense.
[01:10:44]  And if you assume maybe they knew about the failed polygraph, they say no big deal, or they didn't because they didn't know it occurred and the bad actors within an agency that they have not.
[01:10:52]  Purged of those bad actors, say, hey, they're going to buy it.
[01:10:57]  And by the time it blows up, it'll be perfect timing.
[01:11:02]  That is what's going on with this breaking story.
[01:11:04]  This all came out of Joe Hanneman, who I'm not sure where he stands now with The Blaze, but Joe Hanneman is breaking this story.
[01:11:17]  I want to, you know, when I had on Steve Baker, he says, look, you mentioned me, you got to mention Joe in the work that we're doing.
[01:11:23]  And this is the tweet from Joe Hanneman, bombshell.
[01:11:27]  Former Capitol Police officer Shawnee Kirchhoff failed a November polygraph test when asked.
[01:11:32]  This is, you know, going back to the theory, you can say it's malice, you can say it's incompetence, or you could say it's sabotage.
[01:11:41]  One thing is certain this case just took a wildly interesting twist.
[01:11:45]  I've been saying it from the beginning and unapologetically so.
[01:11:49]  I believe Brian Cole Jr. is an absolute patsy of all patsies.
[01:11:53]  I don't know who did do this.
[01:11:55]  I know what seems more likely than not based on the evidence that exists as of now.
[01:12:00]  And now.
[01:12:02]  To the extent that the allegations in Brian Cole Jr.'s motion for early release of subpoenas are in fact true, they are allegations.
[01:12:08]  They haven't been proven fact, but I don't think certain things are going to be wrong because that would be outright lying.
[01:12:12]  And the attorneys aren't going to do it.
[01:12:14]  To the extent that those facts are true, this case just took a wild, wild turn, and we are going to follow it.
[01:12:21]  All right, people, let me see what's going on in the chat.

=== Wild Turn in the Raid Case (06:29) ===

[01:12:27]  Bring it up here.
[01:12:29]  We're going to go down all the way.
[01:12:32]  Uh, let's see here.
[01:12:33]  War, uh, no, okay, we got this.
[01:12:35]  Sorry, David, I couldn't help it.
[01:12:37]  Says Ginger World War One.
[01:12:39]  Sorry, oh, hold on one second.
[01:12:41]  Going back here, was that about the Germany after World War One?
[01:12:45]  Oh, well, now I might get it a little bit more, but even still, Kate Tender or K8 Tender says, Check out Steve Oatley on YouTube, he's been covering this for a year at least.
[01:12:55]  Kids' families involved in USAID and bail bonds, all them funded Nexus something company.
[01:13:01]  I've seen some of those, but that wouldn't.
[01:13:03]  Oh, no, hold on a second, that wouldn't explain why.
[01:13:06]  Unless you think he was arrested as some sort of retribution.
[01:13:09]  This is about the bail bond.
[01:13:11]  They were Democrats.
[01:13:13]  That might explain why they didn't, if you believe that it was Brian Cole, why the Biden administration didn't go after him.
[01:13:18]  But this is Ginger Ninja.
[01:13:22]  I'm reading it.
[01:13:24]  These are a rumble rant on rumble.
[01:13:26]  My absolute hate for these suit wearing tyrants cannot be put in tours.
[01:13:29]  I look forward to the day they are all impeached and prosecuted.
[01:13:32]  If that's where they go with this, Ginger Ninja says if Dan was just blindly trusting the word of nefarious individuals when he gets the public pushback on the weakness of it, Do you go and do what Dan did, or do you say, show me the evidence?
[01:13:43]  Pride goeth before the fall.
[01:13:45]  And this is not to make excuses for human weakness and human frailty.
[01:13:52]  I like to pretend that I know how I would react under all these circumstances.
[01:13:56]  I like to think I would be, you know, whenever I go biking and I take two different loops back, one is on a backcountry Everglades road, and the other one is on the road, depending on what time it is.
[01:14:07]  And like, I always like to say, you know, if I see a car accident, I would like to think that I will spring into action.
[01:14:12]  Not even think about my own well being and try to save a person.
[01:14:15]  Nobody knows how you react until you're in those circumstances.
[01:14:26]  Francis Chaffon says, breaking news Epstein is officially dead.
[01:14:29]  Are we sharing?
[01:14:39]  Never want to hit you up.
[01:14:41]  Never want to look you down.
[01:14:42]  Those are not the lyrics.
[01:14:43]  I don't know what the lyrics are.
[01:14:44]  That's a Rick Roll.
[01:14:45]  I got you.
[01:14:45]  Okay, it's April Fool's Epstein.
[01:14:47]  Okay, we're going back over here.
[01:14:48]  Viva, are you not done with that?
[01:14:50]  He looked like a total degenerate in his debate with Dan B yesterday.
[01:14:53]  Hold on, hold on a second.
[01:14:55]  Francis, who's who here?
[01:14:57]  Dan B?
[01:15:00]  Dan B?
[01:15:02]  What debate happened yesterday?
[01:15:03]  I think maybe you meant Thomas Massey.
[01:15:07]  Dredd Roberts says, Viva, many illegals have overstayed student visas, tourist visas.
[01:15:11]  This argument.
[01:15:12]  Okay, we got that.
[01:15:14]  Okay, now what we got to do is we actually got to go raid redacted and do the after show.
[01:15:17]  I've got to do a TV appearance at TV.
[01:15:20]  I've got to do an interview at Five o'clock, and then it's we've got a family dinner tonight.
[01:15:26]  Now, hold on one second.
[01:15:27]  I wanted to show you one thing.
[01:15:28]  Okay, so here we got that.
[01:15:30]  Here we got me.
[01:15:32]  If you want to support the channel, also, then it's download the Rumble wallet, support Rumble.
[01:15:37]  It's a true free speech platform, and may it continue and may it succeed and may it de platform Com YouTube at one point in time.
[01:15:46]  If you want to support the channel, what you can do is download Rumble wallet, click on the tip section, and go and get this.
[01:15:53]  You follow the thing here.
[01:15:54]  Scan the QR code if you want to tip with Bitcoin.
[01:15:56]  If you have crypto, if you want to invest in crypto, download the Rumble wallet.
[01:15:59]  It's a non custodial wallet.
[01:16:01]  This is not the sponsor of today's show, but it's First of all, you know, something doesn't need to be a sponsor to be a good product that I would always and obviously promote regardless.
[01:16:08]  Here's XAUT if you want to tip with crypto that is backed tethered to gold.
[01:16:14]  Do I have new merch out?
[01:16:15]  Let me see if I think, hold on, let me leave that thing up here for a few more seconds.
[01:16:21]  Here, if you wanted to, no, that's the wallet.
[01:16:23]  Download Rumble Wallet, by the way.
[01:16:24]  It's a non custodial wallet.
[01:16:25]  You own it.
[01:16:26]  Nobody can shut it off.
[01:16:26]  Don't lose your 12 seed password.
[01:16:28]  I'll leave that up if anybody wants to tip.
[01:16:29]  What was it like in a VivaFry.com?
[01:16:34]  No, the new shirt is not there, which is getting irritating.
[01:16:38]  Okay, we're going to have new shirts sooner than later, anyhow.
[01:16:41]  And that is all.
[01:16:44]  Let's go to the after party, and we're going to have a good one.
[01:16:46]  So, what we're doing now, we're going to raid Redacted, and then we're going to have our Iran news today.
[01:16:52]  US slams Iran with bunker busting bombs.
[01:16:54]  Iran ready to attack US targets.
[01:16:56]  This is.
[01:16:58]  They've got Rep Matthew Ho on.
[01:17:01]  And if anybody doesn't like Redacted, look, I know it's a little doom pilling.
[01:17:06]  This too shall pass.
[01:17:07]  Have faith, people.
[01:17:08]  And at the end of the day, I'm not even going to spoil the after party feature.
[01:17:14]  It involves a clip with Mike Tyson.
[01:17:15]  Confirming raid.
[01:17:17]  Go.
[01:17:18]  And while that raid occurs, hold on.
[01:17:21]  Are there two $100 Rumble rants from you?
[01:17:27]  And I hope you didn't mean to do two, or I hope it didn't register accidentally as two.
[01:17:31]  I see it twice on one side, but once on the other.
[01:17:33]  So I think it might have just gone through once.
[01:17:36]  That is it.
[01:17:36]  That's today's show.
[01:17:38]  It's an interview.
[01:17:38]  We're doing a hit with.
[01:17:40]  RT about the Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson developments.
[01:17:45]  And I want to make sure everybody understands what that grossly misleading headline says and does not say so that people don't feed.
[01:17:54]  It's nice, be skeptical, ask questions.
[01:17:58]  Don't make yourself look stupid by repeating things that are demonstrably false or misunderstanding things and repeating them with affirmation that is not warranted.
[01:18:06]  So we are ending it now on Rumble.
[01:18:08]  Joe Kent is coming on tomorrow.
[01:18:11]  Everyone, be warned.
[01:18:12]  Three o'clock.
[01:18:13]  I thought it was today.
[01:18:14]  I forgot to mention that.
[01:18:15]  It's tomorrow.
[01:18:16]  And Joe Kent is coming on at three o'clock.
[01:18:18]  And then Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies at seven o'clock.
[01:18:20]  And I think we're doing Shawshank Redemption tomorrow night.
[01:18:23]  Actually, before we do that, I'm going to set up the Rumble channel because Grobert hasn't done that yet.
[01:18:29]  And we want to be able to cross stream this on Rumble as well as Comic Tube.
[01:18:37]  We did Casablanca.
[01:18:38]  Go subscribe to the channel and show some love and, you know, A good distraction from the awful nastiness, supreme nastiness, yes, of politics.
[01:18:48]  So we're updating now.
[01:18:50]  That is all.
[01:18:50]  Stay tuned.
[01:18:51]  Godspeed, Rumble.
[01:18:51]  And for everyone else, for the after party, hold up.
[01:18:54]  Wait a minute.
[01:18:56]  Something ain't right.