Alfredo Luna Jr., the "Alpha Warrior," details his January 13, 2025, dismissal of Jan 6 charges by the Biden DOJ, alleging withheld exculpatory evidence and FBI collusion in the Epstein cover-up. The discussion pivots to Trump administration dynamics as a fifth-generation warfare psychological operation, where figures like Candace Owens flip against the president to delegitimize mainstream media. While analyzing Iran war rhetoric as strategic messaging for energy rerouting rather than literal annihilation, the segment concludes that true reform requires exposing systemic corruption through lawfare and vetting sources against foreign agitators to navigate this manufactured divide. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
John Lejoie Throwback00:02:47
Of the interwebs.
In a throwback to when comedy used to be funny, although I should say that maybe John Lejoie has gotten funny again ever since he fell off the wagon a little bit, a throwback to a classic and how it applies to news today.
Behold.
Are you fed up of looking like a regular law abiding citizen?
Need to add a little bad boy to your style?
A little bit of dangerous?
Try rapist glasses.
They make the everyday man look like a sexual predator.
Ladies love the bad boy look, and you can't get much worse than a rapist.
And remember, you don't have to be a rapist to want to look like one.
Rapist glasses.
Buy yours today.
By the way, so if anybody doesn't know who that guy is, his name is still John Lejoie.
He was from, or is from, maybe he's not from there anymore.
Well, he will always be from where he was from Longueuil, Quebec, just south shore of where I used to live in Montreal.
He had some amazing bangers back in the day.
Why might I be starting with John Lejoie's glasses bit?
I posted something earlier today, and I'm not suggesting that Eric Swalwell is, in fact, a sexual assaulter.
He is innocent until proven guilty, although he has admitted to moral depravity, sexual improprieties that warrant his immediate political destruction.
Does anybody see the resemblance?
John Lejoie wearing his rapist glasses and Eric Swalwell, who is now in the news for all of the wrong reasons.
I'll give everybody the link to John LeJoy.
He's got amazing, some amazing stuff back in the day that is hilarious.
The Pedophile Beard was also a very funny follow up skit.
Ordinary Guy was some great rap.
He had some good music.
And then, as with all things, politics ruins everything.
And the more unhinged people become politically, the less funny they get humoristically.
Viva frames, Viva's frames are consensual and totally.
These actually, I think these are the celibacy glasses.
If I weren't married and I wore these, I would either go with Elton John glasses or celibacy glasses.
Certainly, neither a sexual proclivity nor whatever.
People, how goes the battle?
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumble.
Let me make sure we're on the proper mic.
We're on the good camera.
Let me make sure that we're live in our Viva Barnes Law.locals.com community.
We are.
Let me make sure that we are live on Rumble.
We are.
I'm pretty sure we are.
Let me just test this here.
We are.
Good.
Good, Mike.
Good, everything.
And good grief.
We're going to have a fun discussion today.
Alpha Warrior Arrests00:03:13
You may remember Alpha Warrior X or Alpha Warrior.
His handle is Alpha Warrior X.
He was on the channel two years and three months ago.
Alpha, you want to come on in here?
We got to refresh everybody's memory here.
Alpha has been on the channel two years, three months ago.
He was a man that was swept up in the broader Jan 6 persecution.
He's a man who I like, I know, and I refuse to even allow people to think that we are fighting with one another on the interwebs.
Alpha, I know your name is public, but introduce yourself to everybody who may not have watched that original video of interview January 2024.
Yeah, and thanks for having me, Viva.
Alfredo Luna Jr. is my real name.
Alpha is, I guess, my stage name.
That's what it'd be.
But yeah, first and foremost, I'm a father of six girls and one son who will be going to college this summer.
And combat Marine veteran from 2003 and former law enforcement detective, now turned podcaster because the world is strange that way.
Well, the term podcaster has now also taken on negative connotations, as if it's funny.
They use the word podcaster.
Rush Limbaugh would have been a podcaster if he were alive today.
Alfredo, something hit my ear.
Did you say six girls and one boy?
I do.
I have six daughters.
Four of them are adults now, between the ages of 26 and 21.
And then my son, who's 18 years old.
And then I got two little babies one that everybody's very familiar with from the story that I shared, and then her baby sister.
May I ask an indiscreet question?
Are they from the same marriage?
So my four adult daughters are from my military marriage.
Okay.
My one son is from my law enforcement marriage.
And then my two girls were from a completely different relationship than those.
That brought it back.
I think I remembered that, at least a portion of that, from the first time.
We interviewed each other.
That's, that's, well, that's amazing.
First of all, congratulations.
And I'm trying to trick my wife into another baby now, but I'm 47.
We're the same age, give or take.
I think you're 46, 47.
46.
Yep.
And I'm trying to trick her into it, but she's 40, going to be 45, and she thinks that's too late.
And I said, we'll let the unprotected fornication be the judge of that.
All right, Alpha.
So the last time you were, but first of all, we're going to get into all this.
Your channel is what?
What's your schedule?
And what do you cover?
Yeah.
On Rumble, you get to search out the Alpha Warrior show, and it's everything from geopolitics to People's stories to conspiracy stories.
I love conspiracies.
The Alpha Warrior Show.
Going to bring this up right now and share it.
And we're going to.
I'm almost like, I'm tempted.
I want to get into the thick of what I want to talk about today because the shit that's going on on the internet, I think you and I are both living through it and probably neither of us are liking it, irregardless or irrespective of what side of whatever this divide we think we're on.
Alpha, so you got to tell everybody and refresh everybody's memory.
Your anecdote is the one I go to when I bring up how these FBI raids or these pre dawn raids.
Are intended to provoke violent responses so that bad things can happen.
January 6th Charges00:12:38
Refresh everybody's memory of what you were charged with in respect of January 6th.
You don't need to go into the detail of the raid, but ultimately the recent developments, which are a little over a year old, but you had all your charges ultimately dismissed.
Start from the beginning.
Yeah.
So at the time, this was January of 2021.
I was one of two people that were arrested with regards to January 6th that weren't at January 6th.
Everybody knows Enrique Tario, and then I was the other one.
And the reason being was my social media posts on what was then Twitter.
Now, X.
And they said that these posts were adherent to conspiracies and provoking violence and such and such.
So they would raid my home January 15th, 21.
And then on Inauguration Day, they would actually arrest me for one single felony charge of possession of an unregistered assault rifle, which was my patrol rifle from the police department.
And then I would go on a four year battle, which we talked about, that would finally come to a conclusion.
On January 13th of 2025.
So that morning, Viva, my attorney calls me on the phone and he's like, You gotta get to the courthouse now.
I was already on my way.
We were scheduled to get ready for trial.
We're announcing ready.
Judge said there was not gonna be any more delays.
And he goes, I think they're dismissing your case.
So I'm like, Think and do is pretty significantly different.
He's just like, I'll call you back.
Just hurry up and get here.
So, you know, I'm rushing to the courthouse and I get there.
He meets me and he goes, You got your miracle.
He goes, You're going to walk in there and they're dismissing your case.
And he's like, You know, I got to go through the legalities of it.
You know, you can reject this if you want.
And I'm like, There's not a chance.
Like, I've been praying for this.
And he goes, Okay.
I go, Just make sure that when we go in there, you ask for the judge to do a court order to get all my property back, which includes my farms and everything.
Because if he doesn't do it, you know, the way it is, the process is just so much harder to get to.
So we go in there, and a lot of the DAs that I've worked with over the years are all in there.
And my case gets called up, and it says, or the judge announces that the case is being dismissed.
The state and the FBI attorney are there.
They acknowledge that this is the case, and I was free.
I mean, this probably will segue into a couple of issues that are in the forefront now in terms of the current DOJ, but your charges are dismissed on January 13th.
After the election, but prior to Inauguration Day.
So it's still the Biden DOJ, it's still the Biden FBI.
Who were the prosecutors in your case or the DA's prosecutors?
Who were the bad guys in your case that were going after you?
It was the FBI, it was Rialto Police Department, and it was the Riverside County DA's office.
Okay.
Did they now dismiss, I presume, with prejudice so they can never bring these charges back?
I don't have to worry about this ever again, Viva.
Did they give you any possible explanation?
I mean, the obvious conspiracy theory is that, well, say the obvious explanation is they know it's going to come one way or the other under Trump or before Trump.
And maybe they want to just get this cleaned up before Trump comes into power and his DOJ, his FBI come into power.
What was the explanation?
What was the impetus for that at that time?
They didn't provide one.
However, and this I will share with you offline because it was shared to me in confidence, and it's something we're going to be using in the counter lawsuit.
Okay.
But it is.
Go on.
Sorry, sorry.
Offline.
Well, I don't like things.
We'll talk afterwards.
I always say, I don't even want things offline because I don't think anything is ever truly offline.
Very true.
If you are going to do it, well, we're going to get to it.
So, no impetus or no immediate thing that triggered this, as far as you know or that you can disclose right now.
What I could share is my mindset at the time that I had was we knew because remember, they had the criminal case, which is the one that's here, but they also had the civil case that was going, which was the California's gun violence protective orders.
And even though the Rivers County DA's office kept, you know, we lost every motion, like every motion we went, we lost, we lost it.
I mean, it was no different than anybody else's story.
But my attorney said, hey, when we get to the civil case on the gun violence protective order, these agents are going to take the stand and they are going to have to answer these questions.
They don't get to dodge that.
In the civil case.
So the morning of the civil case, they dismissed it.
So that was, and that was about halfway in.
So I was probably around the two year mark right about when they dismissed the civil case.
So that told me right then and there, they do not want these agents on the stand with the questions that we're going to ask them.
Are you allowed?
Are the names of those agents public?
Absolutely.
The FBI agent was Special Agent Enrique Armenta.
And then it was Rialto, now retired.
Police Detective John Candice.
Now, not we're going to get political, but are these people, the FBI that was involved in your prosecution, civil criminal, were they bad people?
I mean, were they malicious or did you have any good sentiment of them and what they were doing?
Yeah, 100% malicious.
And this is not just because handcuffs were put on me.
This is not just because I was put in solitary confinement.
This is because of four years of a counter investigation.
We found out that they were lying in the search warrant.
We found out that there was exculpatory information that was left out.
All those things.
And then on top of that, you know, when they presented the information in front of me, two questions, and I, you know, some that saw the first interview remember this, but there's two questions they asked me.
And I've never asked people this in an investigation what political party am I registered with and who I voted for?
And so right out of the gate at the onset of this, I knew it was political.
And now the obvious question is one of them retired.
What about I was trying to find out what happened to Enrique, what's his name?
Armento.
Armento.
What happened to him?
Is he still within the FBI?
I've been pulling teeth to find out.
And I haven't found it.
I do not know.
Now, here's what I find interesting.
So, Enrique Armenta, the special agent Enrique Armenta, he's the same one that was handling Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone's case.
So, Fanone was the one that was on Time Life magazine, the one, oh, they tased me.
He's got the tattoo.
Yeah, he's the one who had the run in with Ivan Rakelin and has proven himself to be a A loose cannon or a loose nut.
100%.
And so when we were going to question Special Agent Armenta, there were things in there that it was going to create a Brady issue for him.
And we know that's why they didn't want him to testify.
Now, the issue with that is if that creates a Brady issue in my case, it's not just my case that at that point, every case that he's been a part of during that time window can get called back into the courtroom.
Well, Fanon's case would have been one of those.
Well, this is part of what we're going to get into in terms of what the hell's going on with the current FBI, the current DOJ.
So, this guy, malicious political from the get go, what was the exculpatory information that they did not or failed to disclose to you?
So, when they were questioning me, I told them, I go, how did you guys?
Well, what I told them is that first I told them about a tweet.
I go, you're saying that I was advocating for people to go down to the Capitol.
To commit violence, I go in just a few days ago, which would have been around January 10th, 11th at the time, 2021.
I had told people not to go.
There was a tweet going around and it had a picture of the Statue of Liberty with like three yellow stars, a red flag.
No one was taking any claim to it, but it was telling people to go to the national or the state capitals armed.
Well, I had reposted that and said, absolutely do not go and do this.
This sounds like another Antifa or BLM trap to get American patriots in trouble.
So I asked them, I go, how did you guys get a judge?
To sign this when I'm telling people not to do it.
Now, they should have just kept lying and said they didn't see it, but they actually acknowledge it.
They go, Yeah, but you know, you were telling people not to go because there was BLM and Antifa.
I said, I don't care if I'm telling people not to go because it's cold.
There's no way a judge is going to sign this when you're telling them I'm advocating for people to go and a recent tweet shows that I'm doing the opposite.
So, right then and there, I was like, This tweet is not in that search warrant.
And so, in the first couple of pages, because to this day, they still haven't released the whole search warrant.
But in those couple pages that we had, that tweet was not in there.
I want to bring up, I won't spend too much time focusing on the idiots in the chat.
Oh, look, now the TDS Viva will go after the FBI and the DOJ.
Go fuck yourself, Viva.
People don't seem to understand what is that issue here.
People don't seem to understand that the people who were the victims of the FBI abuse and the DOJ abuse under the past administration might themselves, much like Enrique Itario, be a little bit upset that some of the people who persecuted them are still there.
You are suing this.
Have you filed a suit for malicious prosecution damages?
Waiting on one more thing.
So here's the other thing.
Remember, I told you that I got a court order to get all my firearms returned?
Well, went down to Rialto Police Department because that's where JTTF has my firearms and they refused to return them to me.
And I said, I have a court order to get my firearms back.
And property says, well, you know, California's policy and our policy is you got to do this state form in order so we can verify that you can still own guns.
I said, that's great, but policy doesn't supersede law.
This is a court order.
And so they refused to get them.
Well, at the same time, cause you remember local media, mainstream media, they ran my name through the mud, corrupt cop, all that crazy stuff.
Well, what people didn't understand is not even almost three weeks after my case was dropped.
I got called by the same DA that was prosecuting me to not come and testify as an expert witness on all those gang cases that I still had that were outstanding for my career, which of course I was going to do that.
These are bad people.
A lot of people are like, well, why would you do that?
Bad people still need to get taken off the street.
And so when I showed up to these court cases, these gang members saw that now I'm back and I'm going to be testifying against them.
So that created an immediate danger for me and my family because the FBI had doxed my address and said that I didn't have any guns back in the original story.
So now Rialto doesn't want to give me my guns.
I'm testifying for the DA and the gangs know that I'm there and I got no guns.
So I go down to a local gun shop that's out here, get a new rifle, get a new pistol, do the background check, clear all that, get my new firearms.
So now I call Rialto back.
I said, Hey, you said you needed to make sure that I could buy firearms.
I can show you my gun receipts.
I can provide you the background packet they completed and I gave you the serial number.
So now you can verify it.
Well, you still got to complete the form.
I said, Well, if the form was to determine whether I can legally own firearms, There's now an overwhelming amount of evidence to support that, in addition to a court order.
There's a few more things with that that we're going to get together and then the lawsuit.
Very cool.
And now I say very cool, it's absolutely not cool.
But when they took your firearms, you didn't have a prohibition on possession, correct?
Like you could have been.
Okay.
Yeah, zero criminal history.
There was nothing, still nothing, that prevents me from owning firearms.
Okay.
So it wasn't like they were being seized under any sort of alleged threat that you posed.
I don't know if it was under.
Forfeiture laws that they took them, or if they were allegedly evidence that they needed to keep, you could have procured other ones.
You saw what's going on with James O'Keefe over in Florida, where he got some court order that basically tried to strip him of his right to possess a firearm.
And I'm like, that is exactly what you said the announcement of a sitting duck type easy target for someone like James O'Keefe, where the person who got or was attempting to get that order would have put it on blast so that everybody who's an enemy of James O'Keefe knows.
So you are going to go testify still against gang members.
You have the ability to own firearms, but they haven't given your firearms back.
Not to go back to the, you know, the, the, I won't use words that are insulting words, but the people who are seemingly short sighted and don't know where the problems lie.
FBI Resource Misuse00:14:50
You were persecuted by the former FBI.
You don't know what happened to some of the people who were involved in that persecution.
We know that some of the people that were involved in that persecution, at least many of the Jan Sixers, still have their jobs.
And now you're going to go sue, you know, presumably at some point, malicious prosecution, whatever, damages.
What is your perception of how the, The FBI that persecuted you differs than the current FBI that we have right now.
So, this is where I frustrate some people, including some of my audience.
I still support the FBI, I still support law enforcement.
Now, I have personal things that I am not satisfied with.
I am not satisfied that nobody has reached out to me to be like, hey, is there any complaint?
Is there anything our agents did that is considered unlawful that we can start an internal affairs investigation or do it through the IG, whatever the course is?
So, on a personal level, I am not happy at all with the way the FBI has handled my circumstances to this day.
But I also understand that what's at stake right now is far greater than me.
And my story, as important as it is to me on the grander scale, is it pales in comparison to what's going on in our country right now.
You know, Biden's administration flooded in a bunch of very bad people.
And, you know, if, and this is where the if comes in.
The FBI is committing its resources to things like that, then I understand if a situation like mine is on the back burner.
However, if that is not what's happening and the FBI is not working on things that are very important, well, then I probably share the same opinion that a lot of people do.
My kind of red line in the sand is right around midterms for a lot of things, and that might shift my opinion.
But I do see that there are human traffickers being arrested, a little over 16,000.
That makes me happy.
I see that kids are being located.
That makes me happy.
I see that there are some terrorist attempts, especially out here in Southern California, that were forfeited.
That makes me happy.
But that also doesn't make me forget there's still a lot of work to get done.
And it is among the most reasonable takes.
And reasonable takes are not popular because they don't please either side.
They don't please either of the, I'll say, rabid extremists on one end or the other.
And people either say, well, they'll get frustrated if they say it's a perfect institution.
They'll also get frustrated if you say, well, it needs to be dismantled.
But when it comes to crime reduction in general, and you probably know better than most people, these victories that some people attribute to the FBI, there's a flip side argument that it's state law enforcement working with.
Is the FBI necessary as an institution for these criminal successes, the reduction in crime rate, or is it by and large more attributed to state law enforcement with the assistance of the FBI when necessary?
Well, now I'm going to get back on somebody's map.
So, you know, my perspective, Viva, and, you know, why I kind of frustrate people, Viva, is this is what I spent on, you know, a decade and a half of my life doing.
So, my understanding of the way this kind of mechanism operates behind the scene is kind of where my mindset is.
And I can understand why people, you know, want more rapid.
But my personal opinion if Trump called me into the Oval Office and said, hey, how can I fix law enforcement at the state and federal level, I would tell him completely remove the FBI.
And as not only remove the FBI, remove municipalities, state police, you know, police are not supposed to have the same powers as the sheriffs.
We could have sheriffs all across the United States.
And the good cops at these municipalities would get absorbed into the sheriff's departments, anyways.
But all we need is sheriffs, the US Marshals.
Now, if you wanted to have a federal FBI, my take would be as long as they're not field agents, if you want to create an analysis bureau that works for the sheriffs and works for the marshals, Then that's fine.
But what we've seen is that the FBI historically has been abused.
I mean, it's someone in the chat says the CIA is more dangerous than the FBI.
That may be true.
The issue is not a question of dismantling the FBI.
I know a lot of people want to do that, but the reality is they do useful law enforcement when you get terroristic threats or when Benny Johnson was getting threats.
You go to the FBI, they work with state and local law enforcement and they arrest the people.
Here's the truth, though.
And because I know what people are thinking, people are thinking what we've seen in the movies.
The blue jackets with the big yellow letters.
But let me tell the realities.
I was on a task force with an FBI agent that was assigned to us.
These guys are not what you're showing in the movies.
What we consider the FBI on the task force, and I'm sure there's exceptions, but the vast majority of people that I know and they still share these opinions, the FBI represents a checkbook.
It allows these task forces to tap into funds that locally we don't have.
But to the point you're making, when we say the FBI has all these arrest statistics and all that, I would venture 75% of that is built off the local intelligence.
There's no FBI agent that is going to have more intelligence on the ground of a specific area more than what the local detective, gang officer, and narcotics officer has.
There's never going to be a scenario where the FBI has more knowledge than that guy.
So it's interesting.
And you have the same objective as me and as most reasonable people, which is you want to see this current administration succeed.
But there are certain institutions which are not unique to administrations.
They are literally the perma institutions that survive, like, I don't want to say like animals living under the ground when there's a cataclysmic change and they still come out afterwards.
And it's the same institutions.
When Cash was coming and he says, We're going to reform the FBI.
And now, I guess the question is from the perspective of someone who is a victim of the persecution of the FBI, has the FBI as an institution been reformed in any meaningful way?
And if it hasn't, what would you tell Cash?
What would you tell President Trump?
There's been some movement, and a lot of that movement has been, in my opinion, the results of one of a mutual friend of ours that put out the names that needed to be looked at.
For all the ridicule he got, those names eventually we saw being removed.
And I think that's an important thing for people to know.
But I think you can't have, there's no way people are going to come out and say, I trust the FBI when there's people that still work there that abuse the powers of the FBI.
Now, granted, I understand that you can't just go in and fire people.
The way the structure is built, it's not that easy.
As much as everybody wants, it's not.
Because then these people will do counter lawsuits and they'll come back in with more power and more protection.
So there is a way that you have to go about fighting these people to get them fired, and that is time consuming.
And if they did that at the beginning and, and, and, you know, these, you know, lawyers and attorneys are fighting in the back end, it shouldn't take longer than a year and a half.
So we should be close to those people being fired if that was the course that they took anyways.
If we get to the two year mark, if we, if we start to get, you know, into the late 26 of this year and early 27, these people still haven't been fired.
There's not a story you're going to be able to solve why.
I say not just that.
This is the double edged sword where people say if Democrats come back into power and you have that same underlying corrupt structure, which it was.
I mean, the FBI from its inception was corrupt.
The CIA, I don't know from its inception, but we'd argue that it's probably corrupt.
It probably foils some plots, but it also obviously and historically has participated in actually creating plots, selling illegal firearms, selling drugs, and the worst of the worst.
The problem is, Alpha, we're already at the midterms now.
And If we don't start seeing these fruits bearing, then we're going to be dealing with a tree that's not bearing fruits.
I mean, you're not wrong, you know, and midterms before this administration started, you know, midterms was always kind of my marker because if you start to open up lawsuits and fire people, or if, you know, you start to arrest, you know, the Brennans and things like that, and you do it after midterms, well, you know how long court cases take, you know, between delays and things like that, those court cases are going to go beyond the threshold of the end of Trump's presidency.
And if Trump's not in office, then how do you ensure that those cases are going to lead to convictions?
And this is where I tell people to take a lot of pause too.
I want arrests just as much as everybody else.
But if the arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, then all it was was a headline.
And so if, you know, Cash and the DOJ are doing cases, you know, the right way, you know, because, and I know some people are going to push back on me on this, you know, well, it doesn't take that long to do a case.
It does, but it definitely does when the prior case had corruption, you know, and I'll use Epstein as an example.
I absolutely know, and I think most people know that there was a lot of cover up and fraud that happened in that initial investigation.
And so, if I was a special agent and Cash or Pam Bondi came up to me and says, Hey, Alpha, you're going to be the new special agent to handle the Epstein case.
Well, the first thing I'm going to tell him is that, well, there's no way I'm doing a supplemental to the existing investigation because no matter what, if I do my investigation the correct way, 100% honesty, you don't only present my supplemental to a grand jury or jury, you have to present that entire investigative packet.
And if that other investigative packet has fraud and perjury and cover up, which I speculate it does, then that creates reasonable doubt for a jury.
So it doesn't matter how great my investigation is, those people will walk.
So I would tell them what I'll do is I'll do a systemic review of that existing investigation and I'll create a new case, something similar to like a RICO case.
And I'll start and I'll go from there.
Now, what's going to make it complicated is as you're doing that systemic review of the existing Epstein investigation and you identify cover ups and perjury and fraud, each one of those becomes a new investigation.
And that stuff takes time.
And, you know, when Tulsi came out and announced that she was doing the RICO investigation into the Russia hoax, that gave me a lot of hope that, okay, there's probably going to be more going on.
Yeah, well, and meanwhile, we're still waiting.
And it's interesting, like, we're not, I don't think we're ideologically different at all.
It's just that the strategy and the patience level is different, where people are saying, Viva, you're being too premature.
And it would be the first time someone said that, but you got to wait, you got to wait.
And I was like, you can't wait until midterms because the success of the midterms is predicated on the administration's campaign promises being achieved before then.
Like, nobody's going to, you're not going to win at midterms if you haven't done at least important stuff that you promised.
Before then.
And so when people are saying, just wait, you know, Pam Bondi, you know, it's got to be done properly.
You don't want the charges being dropped like they were against Comey or dismissed.
My issue is like, you get to midterms, and if they haven't achieved it, that's going to impact the midterms.
And then after that, it's just, it's a done deal.
And also, but, you know, what you say about the FBI, you go in, you can't work from the existing file.
It's like building your house on the faulty foundation of the general contractor that laid the foundation.
You got to tear it up and you got to lay a new foundation.
But people got mad when, I believe it's fair criticism saying when Bongino and Patel come out and say, we've reviewed the file, Epstein killed himself.
I was like, that file, everything that you guys are working on, has been produced by prior corrupt FBIs, DOJs, has been in the possession of a corrupt FBI, DOJ for the last four years.
It's poisoned fruit.
But I mean, I guess the practical question, and people say it, Viva, what can they do?
And Alpha, how do you go back and start investigations from scratch when you're talking about something that's now damn near 17, 18 years old?
Well, the first thing is, We need people that have your perspective and are delivering it reasonable.
You can't have everybody that's operating from my mindset.
Hey, this takes time.
Let's stay calm.
Let's be patient because that can get abused.
The administration can take that and look at it as being like, oh, see, there's no real pressure here.
Um, we need people that are going to constantly be calling out the DOJ and the said administration saying, we want work.
We want work.
We want results.
We want results.
So this way the administration recognizes, all right, the court of public opinion is here.
It creates a balance.
And, and I think you need both of these conversations there.
I think it's friction that, that nets a positive outcome in the end.
Um, as, as far as, you know, how do you go back and undo these things?
This is where it gets so complicated, Viva, because one is we have the Smith Mutt Modernization Act.
And so, you know, for those that aren't familiar with it, in short, the Smith Munt Act itself prevented the use of propaganda against American people, but we did it to everybody else in the rest of the world.
Then, because of the dawn of technology and the interweb during Obama's administration, they said, well, there's no way we can do this now without it getting in front of American audience.
So then we get the Smith Munt Monitorization Act.
So now, you know, military governments allow to use this media apparatus to lie to us.
So right then, that's already not voting well in our favor.
The other side of that, Is, I hope I get this one right from memory.
I believe it's 18 USC 3521.
It's WTSEC.
Now, the interesting thing about that code, and if I'm wrong, I'll give it to you later, but I believe it's 18 USC 3521 is when you put someone into witness protection, and this, you know, allow me a little tinfoil hat here.
When you allow people to go into this, the only people that need to know about this.
Is the attorney general or the deputy attorney general?
There is no oversight to this specific section.
There's no judicial oversight.
There's not a judge that has to grant this.
This means the AG can come and do this and don't got to tell nobody.
Now, in the past, people say, well, but there's no evidence of these mafia members and cartel members doing it.
Destroyed Evidence Risks00:09:20
And that's a true statement.
The only thing we have to rely on is whistleblowers that have come forward from those institutions that have said we've done it.
And family members that have come forward and said, Yeah, we thought he was dead.
We were even shown death certificates and he wasn't.
So, you know, if, and this is a big if with an even bigger asterisk, if Kash Patel and Bongino went and reviewed a document that showed that, you know, Epstein killed himself as per what the documents read, well, they can only report what they're reading.
But is it that is specifically how Bongino phrased it as well, according to the file?
Like, that's those are the important words.
But sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Yeah.
And so, this and this is where I say Alpha's little part in this, I think, does help because I do pay attention to what people say, what they don't say, and what's written.
For instance, remember when that memo came out and had the FBI's logo and the DOJ's logo, but there was no date stamp, no signature on it?
Well, I mean, obviously they wanted us to read it.
And everybody went to that second paragraph, and that second paragraph, I think it was the second or third paragraph where it said, um, There's no leads here to create further investigation of some type of writing there.
And everybody got upset over that.
But everybody ignored two things.
And if you can find that document and bring it up, Viva, your audience is going to love something that I'm going to show you guys on this.
In that particular paragraph, everybody focused on that, but they didn't focus on the first sentence of that paragraph.
And in the first, and it was the one that was from Axios.
Now I remember Axios was the first one.
It was Leaked Axios.
It was Todd Blanch who was referencing it.
And here I brought it.
I think this is it right here.
Let me see if we can read this.
Yes.
All right.
This is it.
Yes.
So, in that first red box, this is the one that got everybody up in arms.
But I picked down the semantics of this at the time because the systematic review revealed no incriminating client list.
And I said, there's so many ways that that can be true and misleading.
It's a client list, but it's not incriminating.
It's incriminating, but it's not a client list.
Well, here's read me the first three words in that red box the systematic review.
Review.
Now, that's very important because now read the first few words of the second red box.
After a thorough investigation.
So there is one is a cursory, a systematic cursory review versus a thorough investigation, which are two different things.
So, from someone from my world, when I read this, fireworks are just boom, on this.
Because what this tells me is the author authors, when they wrote this, made the distinction between a review and an investigation.
And that's important because what they're saying in that first one, it kind of falls in line with my theory.
I would do a systemic review.
Of the existing investigation, but create a new one.
The second part where it says we did an investigation to the Epstein death, well, that shows that they understand the difference between the two and they chose to show the distinction between the two, at least from my perspective.
My perspective could be wrong, but that's one of those things that tells me that there's more going on.
Now, where this gets me frustrated with media and the alt media world is if there are RICO cases that are taking place beyond the Russia hoax, nobody's going to talk about it.
They can't.
You would jeopardize it.
And so, if you wanted to subvert the support for the FBI or the DOJ or this administration in general, you could attack those specific things knowing that they can't push back against it.
And in the absence of not being pushed back against it, that's where you create doubt.
And so, where I'm at is we've seen things like, you know, Comey and Bolton on the first one.
We've seen Comey getting called in again, but this time as a witness, which is very interesting.
And so this tells me that things are happening.
Now, I, like I said, I have a calendar too.
You know, I am patient given my background and I understand, you know, because I've been a part of, you know, trust me, Viva, and this is on a much smaller scale, but the formula still resonates.
We would see the community get very frustrated.
Why aren't they doing anything with this gang problem?
We just had another shooting on this street, we had another murder over here.
But what they didn't realize is we were actually in the process of doing a gang injunction case that takes months to do, but we can't come out and say it because then you jeopardize the case.
They're not going to know until they know.
And that's when the arrests and the door kicks and all that happen.
And so, again, a much smaller scale, but that's kind of the mindset that I have right now for what's happening.
It's interesting.
I want to bring up the memo one more time because I read it as a lawyer who deals in semantics and just where.
That line, I remember it caught my attention.
I didn't make the distinction between a review and an investigation.
I just thought they're using synonyms so they can have an eloquent vocabulary.
I just love the fact that it said it was no incriminating and they put it in quotes.
And so, literally, if it was not called a client list, it could have been a ledger, it could have been checkbooks, then that statement would be factually correct, but grossly misleading.
And the fact that it was never signed off on and Todd Blanche said everybody approved of it, when in light of certain statements that were made recently and Bondi getting fired, I don't think everybody did agree with it at the time.
Let me ask you, I'm not trying to get you in trouble with this one.
I think Epstein's dead.
I'm about 80%, verse 80% he's in some type of witsack, is where my mind is.
80% that he is alive and in witness protection.
That he is alive and he's in witness protection.
And just so that I can make people understand, you're not crazy for thinking this.
I am not there yet because this doesn't look different enough to me to warrant that level of doubt.
There are people who claim, you know, there's good reason to believe that the autopsy, or at least the photos of the dead body, were not his.
I think there was something about a prostate issue that also could lend credence to the idea that the body that was brought to the autopsy was not his.
I think he was murdered and not suicided himself.
And even if he did kill himself, it's, you know, because someone let it happen.
So you think 80% that he's still alive in Wittseck and what he's, they're using him for testimony, evidence?
Like what would he have that the FBI wouldn't already have, having raided his place and, you know, his lawyers having, Had what they had and taken what they took before the raid.
What would they need him alive for at this point?
Well, you're pulling the conspiracy side out of me.
So I love this because it's a lot of fun, Viva.
It's a serious topic, but, and even though it's conspiracy, I try to look at it as plausible conspiracy.
And one of the things that caught my attention, and for those that have been following kind of the Epstein story for many years now and what he could have potentially been involved with, as well as high government officials and nation state leaders, et cetera, I noticed that a lot of the people, That, you know, subscribe to the idea that these people are in these Epstein's books and logs, we're calling for the release of this investigation.
And, and, and like I said, I'm not making any convictions of people, just the stories and the allegations of people like Kevin Spacey and these other characters.
And yet, these people were calling for the investigation.
So it really made me like, why would you call for an investigation that everybody suspects that you're in?
Now, if you're truly innocent and that would be a way of vindicating yourself, I understand it.
But some of these people are very dark, in my opinion.
So, Why would they?
Well, if you believe that the FBI investigation was tainted, the one that was done under the bad administrations, and they knew that Trump was going to come into office, would they really just leave all that evidence and stuff behind that would destroy them and put them in jail or worse for the rest of their lives?
They wouldn't.
But if you left behind a fabricated investigation that was going to implicate the good people and protect the bad people, well, then I would definitely call.
For that investigation to be surfaced.
If it was going to implicate people like Trump and others, I'd be like, yeah, bring it.
But then again, if Trump came forward and then presented an investigation that had all these people that were in there, people are still going to doubt it.
It's always going to be, you know, that political, it's my side abusing the law versus your side.
But if all of a sudden a witness took the stand and that witness was a Jeffrey Epstein and said, this is what I can confirm and this is what I can't, you shut up, everybody.
There's no argument to be made against that.
It's interesting.
I would say my response to that would be no one would believe a word Epstein or Ghulain would say now.
And if it couldn't be substantiated with Material evidence, which I suspect has long since been destroyed or is in the possession of, them being alive just makes it more risky than it makes it more risky than them being useful to be alive.
And I would, you know, if they don't have that evidence or that evidence has now been destroyed or seized or whatever, their viva voce testimony would be meaningless.
Motivated Reasoning Attacks00:14:11
But that's interesting.
The idea of that.
If you had victims that testified and corroborated his statements, how would that affect you?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
It's an interesting theory, though, about demanding the release of it when you're operating on the basis that it's been basically falsified already to exonerate the guilty and incriminate the innocent.
And that would actually play into why Trump might have been duped into not going with a straight release of this file.
All right.
That's interesting.
But now, then, the question is this Your line is the midterms, it's not too late yet.
But.
What is your impression of the way things are going?
Like, how do you feel this administration is going?
And what do you make of it?
We call it a divide.
Ordinarily, I would just call it, you know, reasonable, not even infighting if it were just kept to issues, but it's the demonizing of individuals and humans and trying to cancel people.
What do you make of where this administration is at and the so called infighting that we're seeing right now on the interwebs?
Well, so it would depend on what world I'm operating in.
If I'm operating in the world where I live, you know, my family, my friends, my community, Everybody I know, there's a very small number that have started to doubt the president, but there hasn't really been a shift in like my actual world where I live.
Now, if we go into the digital world where we operate, social media, alt media, podcasts, you know, there's a lot of big voices that have come in and now, you know, flipped on Trump, you know, and made some strong allegations against him, you know, Candace being one, you know, AJ joining those ranks now.
And what I tell people is, is, There's psychological operations at play, 100%.
Nobody's ever going to convince me otherwise that that's not the case.
General Flynn put out a book a few years ago with Boone Cutler on fifth generation warfare.
I think if people read that small little book, you could do it in a weekend.
It would give everybody a great foundation of what these psychological operations look like.
A term people need to know is targeted audiences and targeted groups.
And you need to recognize that because when information comes out, whether it's a big name podcaster that puts out a position against President Trump, Is that information meant to sway me?
Am I in that targeted group?
And because at the end of the day, is we that that's the one phenomenal.
I'm getting this this afternoon.
I'm going to screenshot this.
There's a lot of stuff that's being said.
Here's what, let me rewind it just a little bit.
You cannot sell propaganda without truth.
If propaganda is a complete lie, human discernment will detect it and it will never sell.
So that means that there's always going to be a little bit of truth mixed in with propaganda.
And the more truth, the easier it is to sway people with the propaganda.
So, what I tell people is go back to what Trump did in 2016, 2017.
And, you know, when he came out, we all laughed and we thought of him as this kind of Trolling the media, but he said, you know, fake news, fake news, fake news.
And what people, I think, fail to recognize is that was not the future president just trolling the media.
That was a future president doing what I feel is the most important phase of this entire plan to bring our country to sovereignty he was delegitimizing and removing the authority of information from the most powerful structure that exists, mainstream media, mockingbird media, especially with the understanding of the Smith Modernization Act.
Now, what that did.
Is it kind of decentralized media?
All of a sudden, alt media takes off, you know, podcasts and these, you know, spaces and all these things.
Well, that's a great thing.
But where people, I think, made a mistake is everybody just took that as a victory.
And I hate to break it to people, but mainstream media didn't just go and say, they got us, folks.
It was a good run.
Let's go home, pack up shop.
No, never.
They're going to rebrand themselves.
They're going to look like us.
They're going to look like space hosts.
They're going to look like podcasters.
They're going to look like Substack writers.
It's going to be an infiltration into the new media world.
And so now the only safety against that, there's a gentleman, you know Chase Hughes?
Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Yeah, I saw a clip that he did.
I saw it a few weeks ago.
It's probably older, but he said one of the most powerful things you can do to protect yourself from all this is one word maybe.
If someone goes out and puts something out there, just tell yourself, maybe.
You know, you guys heard my perspective to say, maybe.
If you can prevent yourself from being emotionally sucked into all of this, you're already ahead of 90% of society that's getting that information.
But the other thing, too, Viva, is people just have to go back and we can't be lazy.
If you hear something I say, you got to research it, you got to vet it yourself.
I mean, like what Viva is doing in real time bring up the memo, bring up this.
Like, folks, you have to do that.
And then I get it, you know, people are working two jobs, three jobs, you know, it's hard.
Then if you don't have the time, Then you have to really vet the people that you're going to trust to provide you that information.
You got to really vet those people.
And here's the thing you know, there's an Achilles heel for everybody.
So somebody that was good and honorable two or three years ago, you don't know if something happened or was leveraged against them or a threat was made or maybe they were bought.
You don't know.
So we constantly have to be revetting the people that we trust because there is a psychological operation that's at play.
You know, and I always tell people, I have no issue when people come up because it's very confusing, Viva.
And I see everyone's frustration.
You know, like a lot of times people misinterpret it.
So you're saying we can't question the president?
Never.
We should always question our government, especially the president.
But there's a lot of people that I call them, you know, or Trump calls them FAGA, right?
The MAGA infiltrators that would come out and say, well, I'm just questioning the president.
So the one I haven't heard the term FAGA.
Why do I feel like I've been living in a cave?
What do they call it?
I want to say foreign agitator.
What would the acronym be?
It was fake ASS.
For mega.
Okay.
Okay.
Well done.
That is catchy.
So, when they would come on and they say, I'm just questioning him, the first thing I would do, Viva, is I would go to their timeline and I would look at the last year and the last two years.
And if it was someone that I saw, well, you've never talked about anything positive that this administration's done, it's always been attack, attack, attack, attack.
What that tells me is you're attacking and you're doing it under the guise of concern and questioning.
Versus if I see someone come in, they're questioning a policy or something Trump's doing, and I go through their timeline, I'm like, oh, look, they acknowledge he did something good here in the border.
This is somebody that's sincere.
But the only way you know that is if you're willing to invest the time to research.
Well, it's interesting.
I mean, the obvious risk about that is what I call motivated reasoning, which is if someone was never complimentary of the president, you use it to write off what they're saying.
But if they were prior complimentary of the president and now they're criticizing, will they do what they're doing with Fuentes with Candace, and they say, Oh, they've been bought off, they've been brainwashed, they've gone crazy.
So you can always read whatever the results are in the way that says they're bought off, they're paid for their shills.
Because if they were never pro Trump, you'll say never pro Trump, and it was always financially in their best interest, versus if they were at one point and now they're critical, you say, Oh, they've been bought off by the Qataris or whatever.
And so you can dismiss that.
My issue is like, you know, there are people, once you find out that they've actually been paid for posts, you can never listen to them again.
There's the other, not more insidious level, but of I don't know if it's corruption.
You know, people have an audience, people have advertisers.
And I appreciate if anybody limits what they say, their criticism based on their advertisers, they too can also no longer ever be trusted.
You can tell when people cater to their audience.
And that's where audience capture, I would say, is less of a form of corruption and more of a form of, you know, natural evolution when you're getting the feedback that you want.
But at the end of the day, someone who's still bought out or whatever might still have legitimate points.
And I feel like we're in an era now where it doesn't matter what the person is saying, everything that they say is going to be disregarded based on the filter that's been applied to them, based on what their perceived political leanings are now.
Well, we have to be fair and honest.
Because you're right about what you're saying.
So one of the things people can do is human behavior.
If all of a sudden I'm pro Trump, pro Trump, pro Trump, I'm hardcore Trump, and then Tuesday shows up and I'm completely against them.
Well, if there was something significant that happened, maybe Trump did a speech, maybe he passed a policy, maybe he did something, there could be something that, like, you know, hey, that's something that shifted my, that's something that is consistent with the change of behavior that I demonstrated.
But if there's just an absence of anything to indicate why that change of opinion happened, then that's something that I would, I would, okay, there's a red flag.
But there's, you have to zoom out.
There has to be like the totality of stuff.
There's not any one indicator, you know, because like you said, you can have someone that just gradually gets frustrated and they shift the opinion, and that's honest.
You know, that's understandable.
But this is what, this is something that the audience can do if they're on social media.
When somebody comes out and has a position against President Trump, or just not even Trump, just has a political position or a headline, copy that post, go to the search bar, search it out, and look at all the accounts that populate that in a small window of time, less than 10 minutes.
And then once you do that, write in your notepad and do this after a period of time.
And what you're going to start to realize is circles and networks.
And once you see those circles and networks, you can't unsee it.
The next thing to do is now those networks that you found.
You drop it another level and you apply that same practice, and you'll see these people that amplify it.
And what you end up finding is the same circles and the same networks that keep amplifying the same message in a small window.
That's never organic.
It just doesn't happen that way.
And so, again, it could be something good, it could be something bad.
It's just being aware that the information you're seeing was positioned or put there through something formal.
Well, it's interesting.
You mentioned there could be an argument for how it is organic or predictable where people start getting stuck in their silos and then one side.
You know, not demonizes, but just mischaracterizes, oversimplifies the other side, and the other side does the same thing.
And so then what you end up happening is everybody getting forced into silos.
Like when Wikipedia starts calling me, you know, conspiracy theorist, far right winger, then the left says, well, I don't want to have him on my channel and I don't want to go on his.
And so they sort of force you into these respective Venn diagram bubbles.
So I could see an organic way that happens through the natural process of the infighting, which is alienating people.
So now, You have the Sean Farashes of the world and their ecosystem because Sean Farash and Misfit Patriot, to name a few, and not to demonize them, just say that now is one side which has demonized the other side, which will be, let's just call it the Richard Barrises and the Robert Barneses.
Not so much me.
I'm still not in the middle.
I think I'm reasonable.
But what ends up happening then is everyone says, well, now I'm only going to play in my own sandbox because I don't want to have to do with them.
And so they get pushed into these things where you can see it happening in real time.
And now the people that interact with Richard Barrises are the people who think like Richard Barrises who have been demonized by.
The Misfit Patriots and vice versa.
So that's what I'm sort of noticing.
Whether it's organic, I do believe there is something of an operation going on because a lot of the noise that supports even the authentic voices, because I don't think Sean Farage has been co opted, there might be some influence for access, for available, you know, so that you don't get shunned by the administration and you want to get interviews, you want to go on certain shows, you won't say certain things, which is itself not corruption, it's just politics.
But I have no doubt that newly created accounts that give You know, apparent prima facie support to some of these positions.
And that led other people to think, oh, look, look how many people say the same thing.
Then that further pushes people organically or inorganically into their respective silos.
That was a long winded rant.
Because it works.
It works.
And so, and that's why us as the people have to realize we've got to stop being loyal to faces and names and just be loyal to the truth.
Here's the thing if you see someone you don't like, but they put out information that you're like, I agree with that, then be okay with that.
Don't be like, I don't like that person 90% of the time, so I'm not going to be okay with that information.
It's, we got to be loyal to the truth, regardless of who it's coming from.
And I think part of this psychological operation that's happening is kind of forcing us down that path.
I mean, we got, gosh, I hate calling them Uncle Fester, it's just how I recognize them from the Democratic Party.
Fetterman, aren't you?
Fetterman, yeah.
Well, you know, if the description works to help identify, you know, but you listen to some of the stuff he comes out and says, and you're just like, well, I agree with that.
Well, that's okay.
That's the only way we destroy tribalism because tribalism is what's been used to weaponize it.
It's been weaponized against us.
Well, Tiffany, you also did say, like, if you see someone who has a diametrically opposed position or had a radical shift, if there's not a logical explanation in the timeline, Then you can sort of go to nefarious influences.
And I know people are shitting all over Alex Jones, and Alex Jones is in the business.
And I don't say business of clicks.
He's always been hyperbolic.
When he said they're turning the frogs gay, he didn't mean they're turning them gay, but the underlying message was pretty scientifically accurate.
When he says Trump is possessed by demons, whether or not he actually believes it's demons, he means that there's been a spiritual, political, ideological shift in Trump.
Weaponized Tribalism00:02:58
And I believe that he's sincere in it and don't believe that Tucker Carlson has changed his views.
I don't know if they've been changed because he's being paid by Qatar.
But What drives me nuts, and I'm not naming names here at all, everybody can do this on their own.
Go Google people who said things like, and Defiant Else does a good job, no new wars, no war in Iran.
And then some of these people are the biggest cheerleaders now of the war.
And then I try to look for the element that was the material element that caused them to change their views.
And my ultimate conclusion is, but for it being the leader who has now done what I think is something of a pivot, there is no good excuse.
But I don't know if that's just me trying to make sense of my own foregone conclusions to myself because of what I believe.
When it comes to the Trump administration, I don't want to get you in trouble.
I don't know, I'm not trying to get you to have enemies.
Do you think specifically on the war with Iran that there's been something of a pivot in the Trump administration policy wise that you would have difficulty accounting to a material change in facts?
Well, one is there's absolutely been a lot of hypocrisy all over the place, all over the place.
But I also think that a lot of people will pick the messages and the posts that support that.
Like, I can go pick, you know, 10 posts right now of Trump saying that we're not going to have any wars.
And that would be accurate.
But then I can go play the video clip from some of his campaigns when he's like, and I ran, I'm going to bomb the shit out of them.
You know, you go back to, I think it was Barbara Walters that he did an interview with like 20 plus years ago.
1987.
I think it was 87.
It was a long time ago.
And he has this position that he's doing now.
And I think that all that confusion is on purpose.
Here's what I'll say.
And I, I'm not going to speak for other people.
And I think some people maybe didn't articulate their positions.
You know, like a lot of people say, well, aren't you against wars, Alpha?
And I'm like, no, I'm not against wars.
I'm against banker wars.
I'm against wars for the military industrial complex.
I'm against the wars that are fake, the wars that have been weaponized against us.
You might be against all wars.
Bada bing, bada boom, maybe with the exception of World War II.
But I've seen the evil that exists in this world.
And there's a level of evil that exists in this world that laws is not going to keep it at bay.
You know, policies aren't going to keep it at bay.
The only thing that's going to keep that evil from ever amplifying itself is knowing that there are good men willing to bring stronger violence against it.
So, you know, if we should ever have a legitimate war and it's under those circumstances, then I would support it.
I wouldn't want it.
You know, I don't want wars, but I would support us in a situation like that.
And so, you know, when it comes to Iran, you know, when Trump's like going to annihilate a whole civilization.
You know, a lot of people, they ran with that, you know, because of the text of it.
Tariffs and Deep State00:06:26
But we got to remember that Trump is a businessman.
That's what he's forcing negotiations.
The man is, if he goes and he drops a nuke and wipes out all of Iran, you know, there's not an honest person in the world that can say they can support that.
That would be a lie.
So it's understanding what's his messaging and what's the purpose of it.
You know, you look at what's going on with the Strait of Hormuz, and now all the ships are coming this way.
He's like, I'm going to shut it down.
It's just like all these games are taking place.
But here's what's important is what did we learn in this, all this kind of her moose debacle that's going on?
We're like, man, it only means about 1% to 3% to us.
Why are we so invested in that area when it has such a little meaning to us percentage wise?
But then we start realizing the London insurance companies and how they play into it.
And everybody starts to recognize this and we start to realize, well, why are we doing it?
Why aren't these allies coming in and putting in work for it?
And so I think what Trump is doing, and I'll land this rant here for you, Viva, is everybody says, we want arrests.
We want to see these big names in the deep state arrested.
And this is what I would tell people.
If you think the Pelosi's and the Clinton's and the Obamas are the people that you want arrested, you don't think the deep state has 100 people lined up to replace these people?
Of course they do.
So arrests feed our egos, but they don't end the problem.
And what I see Trump doing here is what the deep state I feel fears the most.
He's exposing the mechanism of how this thing works at all levels.
And the one example I'll use is remember when he did the tariffs?
And we were like, oh man, he's sending checks to our military.
He's going to pay off some of these different things.
So it was a good thing.
And then we saw the lawfare that happened against it.
But then I think it was Scott Besant that came out and said, oh, it doesn't matter.
We have these other tariffs that absolutely work.
So then people were like, well, why didn't he just use those in the beginning?
He exposed the mechanism.
He exposed the lawfare.
He showed how much that most of our government just hates us.
Well, the funny thing about the tariffs is people like myself and Barnes were taking shit at the time because we were seeing some of his tweets, his posts, in as much as he's bombastic, are going to undermine his arguments to the courts, which they did.
And then, you know, true, they're going to go find another method of the tariffs and hopefully, you know, Congress will come in and solve the issue.
But it is the issue that some of the posts, bombastic as they may be, not to be taken literally as they are, have not helped him very much in some of this.
I'm looking at the chat also, whether I just Just to see what's going on.
I want to say that anybody who says this is not a war should not be listened to anymore.
Anybody who says, anybody who took the position, this is not a war at the beginning, just strategic strikes, you can't be listened to anymore.
Anybody who says, there was another one that said, this war has been going on for a very long time and it needs to be finished.
That would be a fair policy if that were the election platform.
We will finish the war with Iran.
If that were the 2024 election campaign, you might have even had support for it.
Where I was listening to Duncan Trussell on Joe Rogan, and I don't know if you know who Duncan Trussell is.
No.
He's a stand up comic.
I like him just because spiritually, I very much like him.
I don't know if he's a nice guy.
He might be up to full degeneracy, but he's turned very religious, very Christian.
And I remember he gave an anecdote about his understanding of the Bible and Jesus on the cross, and he was forgiving his crucifiers.
And he says, What kind of mind is that?
That Jesus is up there being crucified and literally forgiving his murderers, and they have to go home at night knowing that they're murdering somebody who's actually.
You know, forgiving them and praying for their soul.
And I remember where I was when I was listening to that.
It was a spiritual thing.
But this guy, you know, he comes out and he says, I feel like I got conned because, you know, I'm a peace Nick and no 2024 came around and I wanted no new wars.
Had the argument been, we will finish the war with Iran in 2024, the outcome of the election might have been the same.
It might have been different, but it would have been baked into the equation where you would then be able to say, not rely on a video that's 40 years old of Trump saying something, but of one and a half years old about which the election took place, that we're going to finish the war with Iran.
That is the political issue, which Justified or not, the war may be, if the political blowback is losing the support of the people who got you elected and losing the midterms and letting Democrats come back into power, you know, hopefully you win the war, but you're still going to lose the politics and the criminals are going to be right back at the helm of the machine come 2026 and maybe on steroids come 2028.
That I always thought was the issue, is it was the not the about face, but it was not the arguments being made were not what the election was about.
And people feel like they've been three card Monty'd.
Well, the other thing is, how has he been able to do these combat operationsslash war?
And it's through, you know, the last time we used Congress to declare war was, I think, World War II, wasn't it?
There was a great meme where they said, Korean War, not a war.
They didn't say Vietnam, that was just military kinetic.
It was a whole funny thing.
We went, Iraq War was just kinetic strikes.
But yeah, I think World War II was the last formally declared war.
So we've been operating outside the scope of the way it should be for decades.
And again, you know, this goes back to during the COVID era.
You know, Trump comes out and says something, they do the opposite.
And one of the things that I think that he's done with this is he's gone the side of government and the people that are opposed to him to be like, you know, this authorization of military use, you know, this isn't right.
We should do away with it.
And I think we should.
But what he's doing is he's showing this goes back to when he was the first debate with Hillary Clinton.
And I forget how it was presented, but it was about taxes.
And he's just like, well, fix it.
He goes, you don't want me to exploit this weakness you have in the tax system?
Fix it.
And so, I think when we remember how Trump operates, I think it gives a different perspective to look at it.
And is he using this to accomplish goals that he has?
Yeah, he is.
But in the same process, he's showing us again how this entire mechanism has been exploited and broken and how we need to fix it.
Because if they do it to stop Trump and they codify it in law, then that means whoever comes after Trump also is not going to be able to do it.
And I think that's what's really important.
It's great when it's the man we trust, but what happens when it's the man we don't or woman?
Well, it might be.
I'm thinking Tulsi is looking, you know, her odds are going up.
Exploited Political Mechanisms00:03:05
I still, you know, obviously love JD come 2028.
Alpha, do you have more time?
I've got a few more minutes.
Okay, good.
Let me do one thing here.
We're going to raid Redacted, even though it's, you know, some people don't like Redacted, but they're talking about the Straits of Hormuz closed off.
Now the U.S. has imposed a blockade, and it seems that the, I don't want to say the spin, it seems that the victory being declared is that now 120 some odd empty tankers are on their way to America to refill in the Gulf of America.
And I'm trying to understand the situation before formulating an opinion on it.
My concern is that the argument is now going to turn to that this is financially beneficial for America.
And therefore, the war was actually never about nukes, but about rerouting the energy supply to American oil, which, although strategically advantageous, might piss some people off if they were sold on the idea that this war was about nukes, uranium, not regime change, but regime change.
We've got some questions for you here.
And we're going to raid, and then we're going to go Rumble exclusive actors or Rumble Premium and locals.
Heard Alpha Story.
Prior and still pains me to know what he and his family have been through.
Yeah, your story was one of the ones that traumatized me in terms of the pre Dawn raid with the flashbangs.
And they knew exactly what they wanted you to do, which is what happened to that 70 year old deaf guy two years later, where they startle somebody into self defense and then they shoot them, saying he came to the door with a gun.
Denise Antu says, Hey Alpha, great job at Gart.
Can't wait to meet you in person in Deadwood.
Denise Antu has been around the channel for a long time.
King of Biltong, I can't bring it up because I didn't put the cash thing on the thing, but Premium Biltong USA Hike.
Oh, I'm going to hook you up with Biltong after this.
High protein, keto friendly, no additives, US source beef, authentic African flavor.
Biltongusa.com, code VIVA, 10% off.
F. Chartrand says the evidence still exists.
Whoever has it, like stolen Nazi art, is very rich and powerful.
Yeah, like the Ark of the Covenant out of the first Raiders of the Lost Ark.
What I have noticed is that the Rs are more likely to vote across party lines while the Ds are in locks.
That makes little sense to me to vote D unless you are a hardcore D. There's no question.
They are very much in a loyal position.
A loyal cult.
Like they don't, they don't, they treat their apostates very badly, but a lot of them just stay there forever.
What are your thoughts about the large rumble creators flagging down other creators because they hurt his feelings?
Do you think these types of principles rubble sports?
First of all, I think I know what you're alluding to, Bull, Brand, Bull.
I don't get into petty infighting and petty judging other people.
I think I know what you're talking about.
Don't know the details and I don't care because that's not my wheelhouse.
VegCon says, I still remember, what is this?
Jokes about bombing Soviet Union 30 years ago, so I can't, I can bring that up.
And then last one here.
I honestly believe this war is spiritual.
Trump may not realize it, but God is using him against the spiritual forces.
Behind Islam in Iran.
Well, Rodiotto, nobody ran on that.
Sorry.
Alpha, before we go to the smaller crowd, what's your schedule on Rumble?
And I'm going to show everybody your links.
I'm going to put them on the pinned comment.
You go live daily?
Yeah, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, evening time.
The hours fluctuate, but Monday to Thursday night, guys.
Okay, link to Alpha.
I'm going to put it in the pinned comment afterwards as well.