Viva & Barnes - Brian Cole Jr. Pleads "Not Guilty" - Again! Virginia Redistricting Results STRUCK DOWN! & MORE!
Aired: 2026-04-23
Duration: 01:44:23


=== Stop Flushing Condoms (02:06) ===

[00:00:00]  Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, it's not always that Canada makes it into the headline news in America, but when it does, it's usually all for the wrong reasons.
[00:00:10]  A throwback to 2016, give or take, when Montreal rerouted the raw sewage directly into the St. Lawrence Riviera.
[00:00:18]  Behold!
[00:00:20]  So it's day two of the Montreal sewage dump.
[00:00:24]  There's a west to east wind, so it's blowing all of the sludge and garbage that's going into the water into the corner of the port here.
[00:00:33]  So we can see what's going into the corner.
[00:00:36]  My brother highlighted something they told us not to flush condoms down the toilet.
[00:00:42]  It's not just that there's one condom, there are multiple condoms.
[00:00:49]  Condom, condom, condom.
[00:00:51]  Just to pause it here to give everyone the context this was when they were doing work on the sewage system and they needed to reroute the raw sewage directly into the St. Lawrence River so they could carry out the necessary repairs.
[00:01:04]  We made it.
[00:01:05]  Into CNN.
[00:01:06]  And I remember it at the time.
[00:01:07]  This video went quasi viral at the time.
[00:01:10]  All of those little long things here this thing, this thing, that thing, that thing those are not jellyfish, those are condoms.
[00:01:18]  There's a purpose to this opening video, people.
[00:01:20]  Condom.
[00:01:22]  There must be 15 condoms there.
[00:01:25]  I'm just going to turn it sideways.
[00:01:29]  I'm zoomed in on my iPhone, so the quality is terrible.
[00:01:33]  Condoms.
[00:01:33]  Condoms.
[00:01:34]  Disgusting.
[00:01:36]  Who flushes condoms down the toilet?
[00:01:38]  To begin with, it's endless condoms floating in there.
[00:01:45]  Zoom in again.
[00:01:53]  Look at them.
[00:01:56]  That is atrocious.
[00:01:58]  Stop flushing your condoms down the toilet, people.
[00:02:03]  The city told you.
[00:02:04]  All right, that was the video back in the day.

=== Medical Assistance Dying (02:35) ===

[00:02:07]  And the news today is that RFK is bringing something to the limelight.
[00:02:12]  In these United States of America.
[00:02:14]  And again, making it into the news for all of the wrong reasons.
[00:02:19]  Listen to this.
[00:02:20]  I think you're going to have to listen to it when I put it into the stream right here.
[00:02:24]  Now you can listen to this.
[00:02:26]  I think those laws are abhorrent.
[00:02:29]  And we see in Canada today, I think it's the number one cause of death assisted suicide.
[00:02:35]  And as you say, it targets people with disabilities.
[00:02:40]  And people who are struggling in their lives.
[00:02:44]  And I don't think we can be a moral society.
[00:02:51]  We can't be a moral authority around the globe if that becomes institutionalized throughout our society.
[00:02:58]  So I'm happy to work with you in whatever way we can.
[00:03:01]  Great.
[00:03:02]  Love to have the help on that.
[00:03:03]  We've now seen a rise of people with eating disorders that are giving access to assisted suicide.
[00:03:08]  And this is just wrong in a multitude of ways.
[00:03:10]  Now, just a minor correction that RF case, you know, it's the leading cause of death.
[00:03:16]  It's.
[00:03:16]  Among the top five leading causes of death, and I'm fairly certain it's now inched up to number four cancer and heart disease are number one and two, respectively, like 27% and 14%.
[00:03:29]  Dying is number four in Canada.
[00:03:32]  And that's wild.
[00:03:35]  And it's wild because it will eventually keep inching its way up because it's going to start taking out the people who would otherwise die of cancer or heart disease.
[00:03:46]  Because instead of them getting to that point or the system, the failing system in Canada, not being able to treat those diseases, they're just going to put them to death.
[00:03:54]  And therefore, you're going to see the number of deaths from heart disease and cancer go down, but the number of medical assistance and dying, as goes the euphemism, go up.
[00:04:02]  And then you're going to probably.
[00:04:03]  Calling the cynicism right now, have a government saying we've tackled cancer and heart disease in Canada because instead of dying of that, they're dying of medical assistance and dying.
[00:04:13]  So we've made it back into the news in Canada, again for the wrong reasons.
[00:04:17]  And you see what happens when socialized healthcare runs amok, gets too big for its own weight, can't handle itself, mass immigration flooding the system with even more problems, and a government saying it's cheaper to kill than it is to treat.
[00:04:30]  And let's keep expanding this to Everybody mentally ill, non terminal illnesses.
[00:04:37]  They contemplated mature minors and that didn't happen yet.
[00:04:40]  That's Canada people.

=== Socialized Healthcare Run Amok (03:12) ===

[00:04:42]  Now, I think I know why I'm getting texted here because it doesn't seem to be working on locals.
[00:04:48]  Let me see something here.
[00:04:49]  What did I do?
[00:04:50]  Give me one second because I think I might have done something wrong.
[00:04:55]  I think I might not have started this on locals.
[00:04:58]  How can I add locals to this now?
[00:05:03]  I'm not sure that there's a way for me to.
[00:05:05]  Set up the link in locals once the stream gets started.
[00:05:09]  If I didn't click both locals and Rumble, and that might be something to add new destination.
[00:05:15]  Locals says connected, but it's not connected for this particular stream.
[00:05:20]  Locals, let me see what I can do about this.
[00:05:22]  I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to do anything right now.
[00:05:24]  So, what I might have to do is just share the link in Rumble over on locals.
[00:05:28]  And you're going to.
[00:05:29]  I'll set up a live chat.
[00:05:31]  That's what we can do.
[00:05:32]  And viva barnslaw.locals.com.
[00:05:35]  Let's go.
[00:05:38]  Live stream.
[00:05:39]  That's not going to work.
[00:05:42]  Give me one second here.
[00:05:44]  Locals, I apologize.
[00:05:45]  I think I screwed up today.
[00:05:47]  Here.
[00:05:47]  So we're going to go Viva Barnes Law.
[00:05:50]  And I'm going to have to put up a post.
[00:05:52]  I screwed up.
[00:05:55]  Here is the link for today's show on Rumble.
[00:06:00]  I will make live chat available.
[00:06:04]  Sorry.
[00:06:05]  Crap.
[00:06:07]  And then we're going to go like this publish.
[00:06:10]  And okay, hold on.
[00:06:13]  That's not okay.
[00:06:15]  There we go.
[00:06:16]  Turn that on mute.
[00:06:17]  And now, how do I create a live chat over on Viva Barnes here?
[00:06:24]  Okay, give me one more second.
[00:06:24]  We're going to see if I can do this.
[00:06:25]  Start chat.
[00:06:26]  There we go.
[00:06:26]  Yes, start chat.
[00:06:27]  Okay, you started a live chat.
[00:06:29]  So we've got a live chat.
[00:06:30]  Everybody watch it on Rumble.
[00:06:31]  I'm sorry about that.
[00:06:32]  There's a on the Rumble new canvas, there's three toggles, and I only hit the one that said Rumble and not Rumble and Locals.
[00:06:40]  For Viva Barnes Law.
[00:06:41]  Locals.com, link to Rumble.
[00:06:44]  We do have a particularly good show today.
[00:06:47]  We're going to get Ivan Rakelin in a bit.
[00:06:49]  I'm not sure where he is, but Ivan Rakelin's going to come in and talk.
[00:06:51]  About A, what's going on with Brian Cole Jr., who had his hearing yesterday, and B, I'm going to start with the Virginia redistricting, which we talked about the other day and has hit a bit of a hurdle, so to speak.
[00:07:06]  But first, before we get into anything, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler, and daily live streams at three o'clock during the Rumble lineup, I want to put something on blast, entirely on blast.
[00:07:22]  Mark Grobert, Lord Buckley on X. We've been doing a weekly show.
[00:07:27]  It was on Commitube, but I have now finessed Rumble platform into this.
[00:07:31]  It takes a little, you know, old dogs take some time to learn new tricks.
[00:07:36]  We're going to be live streaming this on Rumble now going forward as well.
[00:07:40]  The stream for tonight is not up, but the channel is up, and everyone should go and follow on that channel.
[00:07:47]  It's brand new.
[00:07:47]  We're going to upload all of the prior episodes that we've done.
[00:07:50]  We do every Thursday movie reviews.
[00:07:52]  We do the classics.
[00:07:53]  We're not doing the crap.

=== Virginia Redistricting Hurdles (15:48) ===

[00:07:55]  And.
[00:07:56]  We did, what have we done?
[00:07:57]  Casablanca, Seven Days in May or something like that.
[00:08:01]  I forget the movie.
[00:08:01]  Not memorable.
[00:08:03]  We did French Connection.
[00:08:05]  We did, what was the other one that French Connection?
[00:08:07]  Oh, LA Confidential, we recently just did.
[00:08:08]  And tonight we're doing Raging Bull.
[00:08:10]  And it's going to be a banger every Thursday.
[00:08:12]  You want to get your head out of politics and you want to get a distraction, come over to Viva and Lord Buckley, go to the movies.
[00:08:18]  The link is there.
[00:08:20]  And sub, join at 7 o'clock tonight.
[00:08:23]  It's going to be there.
[00:08:23]  And our prior 11 or 12 episodes, I think it's 11 episodes, are going to be.
[00:08:27]  The best movie review channel on Rumble.
[00:08:33]  Coming soon, seven o'clock tonight, Eastern.
[00:08:35]  Booyah.
[00:08:36]  All right.
[00:08:38]  With that said, peeps, I'm going to start by throwing back to a video that we posted.
[00:08:45]  And by we, I mean I, posted on Tuesday with Ivan Rakelin.
[00:08:54]  Now, let me just take my mug out of here so that we can see this without getting distracted.
[00:08:58]  I won't play the whole thing, but I'm going to play enough of it to refresh everybody's memory as to what we were talking about.
[00:09:03]  On Tuesday, there was a referendum in Virginia to change the map, the redistricting map.
[00:09:10]  And Ivan Rakelin, who is a very smart man and a lawyer, was sounding the alarm as to the repercussions of this.
[00:09:19]  Gerrymandering vote to change the electoral call, whatever the map is there that would change the seats and give four new seats to Democrats in Virginia.
[00:09:29]  The referendum happened Tuesday, got very little press, very little publicity.
[00:09:34]  And the referendum, we'll get to the results in a second, but just to refresh everybody's memory as to the importance of that and what it impacted here.
[00:09:42]  Love that.
[00:09:42]  Ivan, you did have an interesting afternoon this afternoon.
[00:09:44]  What the heck happened and what's going on and what do you want to tell the world that is of the utmost importance with a cut off deadline of seven o'clock tonight?
[00:09:51]  Yeah, so today, if you're in Virginia and you haven't voted in the special election, you were like, what?
[00:09:56]  There's an election going on today?
[00:09:57]  Yeah, there is.
[00:09:58]  So today is the election where there's one item on the vote it's to amend the Virginia Constitution so that the Democrats can steal four U.S. House seats through a gerrymandering process that's already been approved by the trifecta Democrat state legislature from February so that they rig the borders of the jurisdiction of the U.S. House seats.
[00:10:21]  There's 11 of them in Virginia.
[00:10:23]  So Rather than it being six Democrats and five Republicans, they're going to change it so that it's going to be 10 Democrats and one Republican.
[00:10:35]  And that's the vote today.
[00:10:36]  So if you vote yes, that means you're voting to amend the Constitution to temporarily change the jurisdiction or the boundaries of the House races so that the Democrats take over four House seats.
[00:10:51]  And that's important because guess what?
[00:10:53]  Right now, the Republicans have a three.
[00:10:55]  Republican member majority in the House.
[00:10:58]  So if those four House seats just and everything else stays the same throughout the country, you're going to have a Hakeem Jeffries as a Speaker of the House just solely by virtue of this state constitutional amendment.
[00:11:12]  Keep in mind, Viva, that I can't remember what state it was, but there were a couple other states throughout the country that there was an attempt to do that in the Republican trifecta states, but they were too cowardly to make that change.
[00:11:26]  So instead, what does the John Brennan CIA lackey, Abigail Spamberger governor, do in Virginia?
[00:11:33]  Boom.
[00:11:34]  I warned about it going into October of last year, saying, hey, where's President Trump?
[00:11:39]  Where's the Republicans?
[00:11:40]  Where's the NRCC?
[00:11:42]  Where's the RNC to basically say, hey, we're going to support the Republican slate to win the governorship, the AG, et cetera.
[00:11:50]  But no, there was nowhere to be heard or seen.
[00:11:53]  That was about the time where Donald Trump got his COVID booster, October 10th, and then started to pivot towards.
[00:12:00]  Making sure that he would listen to Bibi, Miriam.
[00:12:04]  We'll pause it there.
[00:12:05]  Not that I find it objectionable.
[00:12:07]  It just gets a little off track.
[00:12:09]  And Jared instead of the American public.
[00:12:12]  Okay, now that's a perfect place to pause it.
[00:12:14]  So they had the vote on Tuesday, and the results of the vote were as close as the Quebec 1996 referendum when the general population, although I don't know what percentage of the general population actually voted, voted on whether or not Quebec should separate from.
[00:12:32]  The Canadian Federation.
[00:12:34]  And that, I think, was even closer than this.
[00:12:36]  This was a surprisingly close vote.
[00:12:40]  And let me just highlight some of the idiocy in terms of the responses to this.
[00:12:46]  Brian Allen, at AllenAnalYSIS.
[00:12:51]  No, no, sorry, Analysis.
[00:12:53]  You want your daily dose of stupid takes on the internet?
[00:12:57]  You can reliably go to Brian Analysis, Brian Allen.
[00:13:01]  Look it up, and you'll get your daily dose of stupid takes on the internet.
[00:13:09]  So, Brian Analysis, in his infinite wisdom and analysis, says, Let me explain what just happened in Virginia.
[00:13:16]  Yesterday, this was the day before yesterday, 2.5 million Virginians voted.
[00:13:21]  They passed a redistricting amendment, 50.7% to 49.3%.
[00:13:26]  I think I might have been off on my math.
[00:13:30]  It was 1.2%.
[00:13:31]  What the heck is my problem here?
[00:13:34]  I thought it was 49.7 to 50.3.
[00:13:36]  It's 1.4% decided that they were going to redo the districting maps despite an apparent procedural hurdle to this.
[00:13:48]  And he says today, one judge threw out every single vote.
[00:13:54]  And in the ruling, by the way, which we're going to get to in a second RNC committee AL Plaintiff versus Stephen Kosky in his official capacity as commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections.
[00:14:03]  Final judgment.
[00:14:05]  Having considered a plaintiff's motion for final judgment and the record in this case, the court grants final judgment in plaintiff's favor on all counts of their verified complaints, declares that HJR, what is that, the House Resolution 6007, is void ab initio,
[00:14:20]  meaning it never existed in the first place because it violated House Joint Resolution 428 and House Joint Resolution 6001, and any action taken thereon is an invalid expansion of the General Assembly's call to the governor for the 2024 special sessions.
[00:14:37]  Declares that HJR, which is the House Joint Resolution 6000, void ab inicio, yet, yet, I think it says it.
[00:14:42]  Declare that because Virginia Code's whatever has not been complied with, the votes on the proposed constitutional amendment taken during the 2026 regular sessions of the General Assembly are ineffective as being a second vote on the General Assembly under whatever there.
[00:14:55]  Declares that the HB 1184 violates the submission clause and denies any other outstanding issue, overrules any other outstanding issue, suspends any bond requirement, yet, yet, denies the common.
[00:15:06]  A judge came out and said it violates the rules, and 1.4% of those who voted on this don't basically get to override democracy for the general population.
[00:15:18]  Now, bringing in an article because they'll explain it better.
[00:15:20]  I always get a little distracted and bored with gerrymandering redistricting.
[00:15:30]  I understand how it works in theory, and yet it is immensely boring to talk about, although the consequences are severe sometimes.
[00:15:39]  And this is from CNN.
[00:15:41]  Know what your enemies are thinking, people.
[00:15:43]  Judge Barr's certification of Virginia redistricting results, state AG, attorney general promises appeal.
[00:15:48]  Congressional map approved by the Virginia voters.
[00:15:51]  That aims to help Democrats net four U.S. House seats in November's midterm faces another legal hurdle just one day after its passage.
[00:15:57]  Don't you love it?
[00:15:59]  It's the voters who decided.
[00:16:01]  It's like wolves deciding what to eat for dinner.
[00:16:06]  And the sheep are sitting there voting, like, well, let's eat grass.
[00:16:08]  And the four wolves, like, nah, I think we'll just eat three sheep.
[00:16:11]  It would have netted four seats.
[00:16:13]  A judge in rural Southern Virginia Wednesday ordered that the results of Tuesday's vote not be certified on several grounds, including that state lawmakers did not follow their own rules in passing the redistricting referendum.
[00:16:23]  Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley, also called the ballot language, put to voters flagrantly misleading.
[00:16:30]  Hurley barred state election officials from modifying election districts or proceeding with the new maps.
[00:16:35]  The fate of Virginia's referendum was already before the state Supreme Court, which stayed a previous ruling by Hurley in the run up to the referendum and allowed Tuesday's vote to proceed before deciding on the merits of the case.
[00:16:45]  The case before the state Supreme Court is still pending.
[00:16:49]  We'll get to the logistics of that in a second because people flipping out about this.
[00:16:52]  Oh my goodness, a judge just threw it out.
[00:16:54]  They state it pending the results because it could have either been moot or it could have required the intervention of the court for not following the state's own rules.
[00:17:03]  State Attorney General Jay Jones said his office intends to immediately appeal Hurley's Wednesday.
[00:17:12]  Why do I remember that guy's name?
[00:17:14]  Jay Jones.
[00:17:14]  Let me see.
[00:17:15]  Is that the Jay Jones?
[00:17:17]  I think it is.
[00:17:19]  Is that?
[00:17:21]  Oh, yeah, that's the same Jay Jones who.
[00:17:24]  Made the jokes about killing his Republican lawmaker.
[00:17:26]  I knew that name sounded familiar.
[00:17:28]  Andrea Gaines, a spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Elections, said the state officials are aware of the ruling and are in the process of reviewing its impact on the state board certification, yada, yada.
[00:17:36]  Virginians for fair elections, which helped lead the campaign to back the referendum, said in a statement that voters understood exactly what was on the ballot and they chose yes.
[00:17:45]  You know, it's an amazing thing.
[00:17:46]  1.4% of all those who voted, 2.5 million, I don't know what the population of Virginia is, decide that you're going to steal basically democracy from the rest and maybe even from the country.
[00:17:56]  Republicans lost the group, said now they're trying to overturn the will of the voters in court and trying to re litigate an election they couldn't win.
[00:18:02]  Interesting.
[00:18:03]  Confession through projection.
[00:18:05]  Virginians narrowly approved a new map giving Democrats an advantage in 10 of the 11 U.S. House seats, a significant win for the party in a redistricting battle that has raged around the country since last summer.
[00:18:14]  It's been modified.
[00:18:15]  You know what happened, by the way?
[00:18:18]  They had a pending court hearing that said, we're not going to issue a final ruling on this until the vote occurs, because if the vote comes out no 60 40 or 50.7 to 49.3, Then there's nothing to address anymore because the legality or the unlawfulness of violating whatever rules applied would become moot, academic, without object.
[00:18:40]  They put it to the vote and it did pass by 1.7%, 50.7% to 49.3%.
[00:18:45]  And then the court says, well, now we have a hot issue and we get to adjudicate on it because you didn't follow your own bloody rules and you don't get to steal four seats because 1.7% in a very purple, but arguably potentially corrupt ish.
[00:19:02]  Political state decide that, yeah, we're going to go ahead and make our own rules and who cares?
[00:19:09]  We warned about it on Tuesday.
[00:19:11]  Ivan Rakelin, who's going to be coming on shortly, wanted to put it on blast.
[00:19:15]  It was ignored.
[00:19:16]  It might have been ignored because they knew they had this one in the bag.
[00:19:18]  Even if it got passed, it would not get past the courts.
[00:19:21]  A judge, and some people are calling the judge a partisan hack because he is a Republican leaning judge, apparently, has thrown it out and said, nope.
[00:19:33]  You don't get to violate the rules like that.
[00:19:36]  And we suspended this pending.
[00:19:39]  The vote came back in a way that now compelled us to rule, and we ruled.
[00:19:44]  Throw it out.
[00:19:44]  Now we'll see what happens.
[00:19:45]  It'll go up the court system.
[00:19:48]  Jay Jones, by the way, not for nothing.
[00:19:50]  Let's just refresh everybody's memory about the Jay Jones scandal.
[00:19:55]  The man who won after all of this, the attorney general.
[00:20:00]  Let me bring this up.
[00:20:02]  Just refresh everybody's memory.
[00:20:03]  We talked about it heavily at the time.
[00:20:05]  Jay Jones.
[00:20:06]  In October 2025, during his campaign for Virginia Attorney General, Jay Jones faced intense backlash and calls to withdraw from the race following the revelation of a 2022 text message where he made violent threats against Republican former House Speaker Todd Gilbert.
[00:20:19]  What did he say in there?
[00:20:21]  Oh, he said, Gilbert gets two bullets to the head while comparing him to Hitler and Pol Pot.
[00:20:27]  He would piss on the graves of certain Republican colleagues, he said.
[00:20:31]  And you know what the greatest thing about all of that is?
[00:20:33]  And I say great in the sickest, most cynical way possible.
[00:20:36]  He got elected.
[00:20:37]  Because the people of Virginia, in this case, full awareness of fact and law, decided, yeah, that's bad.
[00:20:45]  But we still want him as attorney general because we can trust him to want to put bullets in the heads of our political rivals and he's on our side, so we don't care about it.
[00:20:53]  Ratifying insanity, ratifying injustice, and they thought they could ratify an injustice by putting it to the vote of the same people that voted Jay Jones into office without the courts intervening, who had put it on pause in the interim, anyhow.
[00:21:05]  So what happened is not a rogue judge.
[00:21:07]  Overriding the votes of people.
[00:21:09]  What you had is a judge now adjudicating on something that was put on hold pending the vote to see if they had an issue to be tried.
[00:21:14]  They now adjudicated on it, and we'll see what the Court of Appeal has to say.
[00:21:18]  Bada bing, bada boom.
[00:21:19]  Now, let me see where Ivan is.
[00:21:21]  Get Ray Klin in the house because we want to talk about the update on Brian Cole Jr.
[00:21:28]  You ready to come in?
[00:21:29]  Smiley face.
[00:21:30]  I don't know why my phone is now dictating smiley face.
[00:21:34]  Now, here's what I'm going to have to do because I screwed everything up here.
[00:21:37]  To see what's going on in our Viva Barnes Law.
[00:21:40]  Locals.com community, we've created a live chat.
[00:21:42]  Everyone's got the link.
[00:21:43]  And so we can go see what's going on in the chat.
[00:21:45]  I screwed it up today.
[00:21:48]  Although S. Chaton says he's watching the Tigers game right now.
[00:21:50]  Bottom of the eighth.
[00:21:51]  Okay, I don't know what's going on here.
[00:21:53]  And let's go see what's going on on Viva Barnes Law on Rumble.
[00:21:58]  Viva Fry on Rumble.
[00:21:59]  Hold up.
[00:22:00]  Hold up.
[00:22:01]  Wait a minute.
[00:22:02]  Okay, let's take this.
[00:22:02]  I didn't put the thing up here.
[00:22:04]  So now I don't see the super chat.
[00:22:05]  Stay up here.
[00:22:06]  Texan Fourth Second says Viva, why has this video never been addressed?
[00:22:11]  By the DOJ.
[00:22:12]  Biden is meaning to fraudulent election in 2020.
[00:22:15]  I'll have a look at this.
[00:22:16]  I'm going to be a little skeptical offhand.
[00:22:18]  I forgot to put it up here.
[00:22:23]  I'll have a look at that video afterwards.
[00:22:25]  Maybe I'll put it up in the backdrop while we're waiting.
[00:22:27]  And oh, come on.
[00:22:32]  See, this is why, not to be skeptical, the man is a demented, we know this clip.
[00:22:37]  He's a demented old man flubbing his words and saying stupid things.
[00:22:40]  Everyone's seen this.
[00:22:41]  He didn't admit to anything, but it's.
[00:22:43]  We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.
[00:22:57]  Yeah, it's funny.
[00:22:58]  It's funny, but it's not an admission.
[00:23:00]  I mean, it's a Freudian slip if you believe it.
[00:23:02]  But, okay, hold on.
[00:23:05]  Let me notify him anyhow.
[00:23:07]  Okay.
[00:23:09]  Do we get back to Brian Cole Jr.?
[00:23:11]  Brian Cole Jr., people.
[00:23:13]  No, you know what?
[00:23:15]  I said I was going to do a dedicated segment.
[00:23:17]  The only thing is, if I start it now and then Ivan gets in, then I'm going to interrupt the segment.
[00:23:23]  And I don't know if I want to interrupt the segment.
[00:23:26]  Let's do two minutes and then we're going to see if we come back.
[00:23:28]  So let me see what I got in the backdrop before we want to get to Brian Cole Jr., who was back in court yesterday facing additional charges.
[00:23:35]  Let's just do one quick update because apparently there's been some minor.
[00:23:40]  You remember?
[00:23:41]  I'm not trying to be cynical or glib.

=== Nancy Guthrie DNA Update (02:35) ===

[00:23:43]  Remember the Virginia Guthrie story that was headlines for at least two weeks and just disappears with the news cycle?
[00:23:53]  Well, apparently there is news coming out of Fox News DNA testing in the Nancy Guthrie case could take months, but may be fast tracked.
[00:24:00]  Experts say that's good.
[00:24:01]  FBI says it is asked to test the DNA two months ago, but the Pima County Sheriff sent it to a private Florida lab instead.
[00:24:09]  Leading genetic genealogist.
[00:24:11]  I mean, it's amazing.
[00:24:12]  I say amazing again, cynically, it falls out of the news.
[00:24:16]  The chances of the mother being alive are virtually nil.
[00:24:21]  And it's as though people entirely forgot about what was headline news a couple of months ago, a month ago now.
[00:24:29]  Leading genetic genealogist is predicting that it could take months for testing results on a hair sample sent from a private lab in Florida in the stalled search for answers surrounding the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie.
[00:24:42]  But there are reasons to believe answers could come sooner.
[00:24:44]  It's been more than 80 days since Guthrie's suspected abduction from her home in Catalina Foothills, northern Tucson.
[00:24:50]  She's 84, mother of today's Savannah Guthrie.
[00:24:53]  In my experience, it usually takes months, but I'm assuming they will make it a top priority since most other cases are generally cold.
[00:24:59]  So it must be quicker.
[00:25:00]  Cece Moore, one of the nation's leading genetic genealogists at Parabon Nanolabs in Virginia, Fox News told.
[00:25:09]  It also depends on the little luck I can find.
[00:25:10]  So there's no news.
[00:25:12]  The mother outright disappeared.
[00:25:14]  There has been.
[00:25:16]  No meaningful news on it, but this is the update of the day.
[00:25:19]  Local and federal investigators showed public friction early in the probe when the Pima County Sheriff's Department elected to send DNA evidence to a private lab in Florida called DNA Labs International rather than to the FBI.
[00:25:29]  That's interesting.
[00:25:31]  More than 11 weeks later, tests on the hair sample have led to no publicly known advancement in the case, and authorities finally transfer the sample to the FBI.
[00:25:37]  I wonder what the reason for that.
[00:25:39]  FBI asked to test this DNA two months ago with the same technology we've always had when the local sheriff instead sent it to a private lab, said Ben Williams, the bureau's assistant. Director of Public Affairs.
[00:25:49]  Any further developments we will share as soon as appropriate.
[00:25:51]  It remains to be seen who the hair belongs to and whether they could be considered a suspect.
[00:25:57]  Due to lack of answers, experts like Moore believe the hair sample is rootless, making DNA testing more complicated but not impossible.
[00:26:04]  Hopefully, that will mean SNP profile can be created more quickly.
[00:26:09]  I'm not going to pontificate on who we think could be behind it, but that is the update, which is no update, in fact, at all.

=== Terrorism Related Charges (08:16) ===

[00:26:19]  All right, we're going to refresh everybody's memory as to what's going on with Brian Cole in exactly one second.
[00:26:23]  After we say thank you to King of Biltong, who's in the house.
[00:26:27]  King of Biltong?
[00:26:28]  Premium Biltong from Biltong USA.
[00:26:29]  High protein, keto friendly, no additives, U.S. sourced beef, authentic South African flavor.
[00:26:34]  Get some now at Biltong USA.
[00:26:36]  Use code VIVA for 10% off.
[00:26:39]  And I didn't bring it up here.
[00:26:40]  It's right here.
[00:26:42]  Thank you, Bill Tong.
[00:26:44]  And now the news.
[00:26:48]  We're seeing the same modus operandi play out in the Brian Cole Jr. prosecution.
[00:26:53]  What's amazing is I actually have a friend who might be watching right now and is not familiar with the Brian Cole Jr. situation.
[00:27:01]  And I'm like, what cave are you living in?
[00:27:05]  It sounds beautiful and it sounds totally isolated.
[00:27:09]  Brian Cole Jr., everybody, is the.
[00:27:11]  Suspect, the accused, has been indicted for planting the January 6th pipe bombs.
[00:27:16]  Originally, he was facing a two charge indictment, pleaded not guilty.
[00:27:22]  His attorneys went on a very, very wild offense.
[00:27:26]  And I say wild as in an aggressive offense.
[00:27:28]  His attorneys broke that story a little while back where they filed a motion to compel production of transcripts, I believe, something along those lines, in the Shawnee Kirchhoff. Situation where she was deposed and allegedly, but now confirmed in her own court filing, failed or was told that she failed a polygraph test.
[00:27:52]  The defense attorneys say, We want to advance as a defense to Brian Cole that he could not have done it because this is their argument, not statement of fact.
[00:28:03]  They say, We want to raise the defense that Brian Cole Jr. couldn't have done it because somebody else did it.
[00:28:08]  And their theory is that it might be Shawnee Kirchhoff, and they want transcripts.
[00:28:14]  Subpoenas in order to flesh out that defense for Brian Cole Jr.
[00:28:19]  You'll recall after that broke, it was something of a massive scandal because they filed the subpoenas with that motion, and the subpoenas had home addresses of people that I think it should not have been publicly disclosed, even if this information technically is theoretically publicly discoverable.
[00:28:36]  But the allegation that they made, which they then faced not an accusation, but a motion for contempt, motion to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
[00:28:49]  For disclosing allegedly sensitive information that Shawnee Kirchhoff, in fact, took or was submitted to a polygraph by the FBI and that she was told that she failed that polygraph.
[00:28:59]  The prosecutor, Jocelyn Ballantyne, under the watchful eye of Jeanine Pirro, came out with this motion to show cause, going after the attorneys, saying that they violated the rules, they violated sensitive information by disclosing that information and the subpoenas with the addresses.
[00:29:15]  And what does, I say, a good prosecutor in a cynical, Gross way, what do they do to reward that type of fighting the system and maintaining your innocence?
[00:29:27]  They added two new charges, two new charges to the indictment, superseding indictment involving terrorism related charges.
[00:29:34]  And yesterday, Brian Cole Jr. Was in court.
[00:29:36]  But before we get there, this is Veritas Regnat.
[00:29:42]  This is Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman's new project, new venture, which is also the defendant to Shawnee Kirchhoff's civil suit against Joe Hanneman, Steve Baker, The Blaze, and including adding as a defendant to that civil suit for defamation, their new venture, however you call this, Veritas Regnat.
[00:30:06]  This is from April 17.
[00:30:07]  It's a week ago, but it's important to know.
[00:30:10]  And Joseph Hanneman wrote it.
[00:30:13]  Federal indictment adds new terrorism related charges against pipe bomber suspect Brian Cole Jr.
[00:30:19]  Worth noting, not to play identity politics, he's a 30 year old autistic black man who, even according to his mother, there was a court filing in which his mother signed an affidavit saying that, I don't know, eight years ago, he tried to make rocket fuel at home using bleach.
[00:30:38]  And spilt the bleach on the carpet, probably pissed off his mother because bleach ruins a carpet if you care about those types of things.
[00:30:45]  And that was supposed to be, I guess, some people thought that that's hard evidence that this guy is a criminal mastermind who is at home trying to make rocket fuel and that he definitely then knows how to make black powder pipe bombs and evade justice for five years.
[00:30:59]  And my retort to that is first of all, even his mother in that affidavit said it was an innocuous science experiment that he couldn't even pull off without spilling bleach on the carpet.
[00:31:10]  And we're led to believe now that he managed to put together two pipe bombs after learning how to make them by searching it in 2012, did it without the knowledge of anyone in his family, and then managed to get away with it for five years.
[00:31:21]  Yeah, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
[00:31:23]  But that's it.
[00:31:24]  Okay.
[00:31:24]  Federal jury indictment handed on April 14 adds two terrorism related charges against Jan 6 pipe bomb suspect Brian Cole Jr., bringing his charges to a count of four.
[00:31:34]  It's not so much the counts, how many there are, but rather the potential jail time for each respective charge.
[00:31:42]  Superseding indictment.
[00:31:43]  Posted to the case docket April 15, charges Cole with one count of use of weapons of mass destruction by allegedly planting pipe bombs at the DNC, the RNC.
[00:31:52]  Cole was also charged under District of Columbia code with one count of an act of terrorism while armed for the quote attempted malicious burning, destruction, or injury of property.
[00:32:02]  The original grand jury indictment dated January 6, 2026.
[00:32:07]  The whole thing they went to get like some crappy lower court or state court indictment and then on the eve of the hearing came back finally with a grand jury indictment the way it's supposed to be done.
[00:32:07]  Remember what happened there?
[00:32:17]  All.
[00:32:18]  Prosecutorial abuse, in my humble opinion, irrespective of who is, in fact, the person that we see right here where I'm toggling my cursor.
[00:32:26]  The original grand jury indictment charged Cole with interstate transportation of explosives, malicious attempt to use explosives, et cetera, et cetera.
[00:32:36]  U.S. Department of Justice obtained an indictment against Cole in the District of Columbia, not a federal court, on December 29th.
[00:32:39]  The DOJ argues that indictment avoids the statute of limitations at the issue.
[00:32:43]  There was the issue of statute of limitations, but as I observed in a prior stream on this, the terrorism related charges.
[00:32:49]  The terrorism related charges have a statute of limitations that is eight years and 10 years, respectively.
[00:32:58]  So that doesn't pan out in terms of exclusion.
[00:33:02]  Ivan just said he can't seem to get in with the link, but we're going to do this because it does work.
[00:33:08]  And while he does that, I'm going to bring this back up here and add it to the stage.
[00:33:13]  Boom.
[00:33:14]  DOJ seeks sanctions.
[00:33:17]  Oh, yeah, they said the call will be in district court on April 21st, which was yesterday.
[00:33:21]  It was put off until the day before yesterday, put off until yesterday.
[00:33:24]  For a status hearing, a lot of issues that could come up, including the DOJ's attempt to have defense attorneys held in contempt for posting on the public document three subpoenas.
[00:33:34]  Among those named in the subpoenas, we saw this Kirkhoff, her boyfriend, whatever.
[00:33:38]  According to the defense filing, Kirkhoff became a person of interest in the pipe bomb case on November 6th, two days before the Blaze article was published.
[00:33:45]  It's important to notice, I'm not sure about this, but I'm fairly certain.
[00:33:49]  Two days before the story was published doesn't mean before they had knowledge of the story.
[00:33:56]  As far as I understand, they were.
[00:33:58]  They had received an advanced link to the work for their review.
[00:34:05]  So, my understanding, and I might be wrong, is that they were aware of the article at the time they declared or at the time Kirchhoff became a person of interest.
[00:34:17]  So, it's not like they had no idea that the article was being written by Hanneman and Baker at the Blaze.
[00:34:22]  They knew.
[00:34:23]  FBI administered a polygraph to Kirchhoff.
[00:34:25]  She failed, allegedly.
[00:34:26]  FBI examiner said the results indicated signs of deception.
[00:34:29]  The other subpoenas were for Capitol Police Officer Daniel Dickert.
[00:34:33]  Described as her boyfriend.

=== Live Stream Logistics (03:26) ===

[00:34:35]  And that's it.
[00:34:36]  All right.
[00:34:36]  So that's the update on this.
[00:34:39]  Now, let me see what's going on here.
[00:34:42]  It should work.
[00:34:44]  Well, yesterday he was in court pleading not guilty a second time.
[00:34:50]  Ivan Rakelin was there.
[00:34:52]  And if this hopefully does work, because I'm not going to have to start this a second time, we've got to get Ivan in here.
[00:34:58]  If I have to put him on speakerphone, we're going to get still not working?
[00:35:02]  We're going to get Ivan in here one way or the other.
[00:35:07]  But I'll bring up an article while we wait for Ivan.
[00:35:11]  And basically, just a summary of what happened yesterday, which is pleading not guilty.
[00:35:19]  Hold up, hold up, hold up.
[00:35:20]  Let me see this.
[00:35:20]  Nope.
[00:35:21]  How not?
[00:35:25]  What happens when you click the link?
[00:35:27]  Let me make sure that I've done this properly here.
[00:35:31]  This is the invite, invite.
[00:35:34]  Okay, do not require approval.
[00:35:37]  I am using the new studio, but this hasn't happened with anybody yet.
[00:35:42]  So let me try this.
[00:35:43]  I'm going to get him on speakerphone if I have to, because we're going to at least get to hear what happened at the court.
[00:35:47]  And done will be better than perfect.
[00:35:51]  Hold up one second.
[00:35:52]  We're going to get.
[00:35:56]  I'm going to call him.
[00:35:57]  Your call has been forwarded to voice.
[00:36:02]  It tries to open the app in studio, and then in studio it goes to my studio and not into.
[00:36:07]  Your suit.
[00:36:08]  Hold on.
[00:36:09]  Let's think of how we can do this real quick.
[00:36:12]  We might just have him on speakerphone.
[00:36:15]  Ivan, sir, you're on speakerphone and we're live.
[00:36:19]  Yeah, it's not connecting.
[00:36:21]  It's not connecting.
[00:36:23]  All right.
[00:36:24]  Well, what can I do?
[00:36:27]  I'm on my phone.
[00:36:29]  Say it again.
[00:36:29]  I'm on my phone.
[00:36:32]  I'm not your phone.
[00:36:35]  I connect to the app.
[00:36:37]  I'm not from the app.
[00:36:38]  I just visit the house.
[00:36:40]  I just go on the news.
[00:36:40]  How about a face?
[00:36:42]  Okay, do you mind doing it?
[00:36:43]  I have you on speakerphone now, so just be aware we're live.
[00:36:46]  Do you want to just say what happened live, or is this going to be.
[00:36:50]  There's no way to start the stream anew now.
[00:36:53]  Yeah, that's fine.
[00:36:53]  If you can hear me, you can hear me fine.
[00:36:56]  Let me hear chat.
[00:36:58]  Let me know how we can hear Ivan in this, or if there's a better way.
[00:37:01]  Let me see something here.
[00:37:05]  Is he not on Rumble, but on locals?
[00:37:14]  Let me see.
[00:37:15]  Oh, yeah, that was clear.
[00:37:16]  Let's do it that way.
[00:37:18]  Okay.
[00:37:18]  All right.
[00:37:19]  So hold on.
[00:37:20]  Let me put up a picture of you so we can at least see you while we do this.
[00:37:24]  Yeah, sure.
[00:37:25]  Okay.
[00:37:25]  So I'll make sure that everybody can hear you.
[00:37:27]  Chat, you can hear him really quiet, muffled and low.
[00:37:30]  Try better and clearer.
[00:37:34]  Yeah, this should be fine.
[00:37:35]  I'm just going to mute myself in between speaking.
[00:37:37]  Well, you know what?
[00:37:38]  Let me bring up a picture of you.
[00:37:40]  Boom.
[00:37:41]  And then I'm going to bring this into the stream.
[00:37:42]  Well, this is not a particularly flattering picture, but this is the one that comes up right away.
[00:37:47]  Is it the SPLC one?
[00:37:50]  You look like a UFC fighter.
[00:37:52]  So I guess it kind of looks good.
[00:37:54]  Okay, Ivan, you go ahead.
[00:37:56]  I'm going to make sure that the chat can hear you.
[00:37:57]  And let's hear what happened yesterday at the hearing.
[00:38:01]  Yeah, so I went into the hearing.

=== Capitol Police Discovery (04:36) ===

[00:38:02]  It was actually pretty crowded yesterday because I think my assessment is that between the nine agents and DOJ and FBI and maybe other agencies in that front row, it's almost as though they were trying to intimidate.
[00:38:18]  The defense team and the defendant into pleading guilty because maybe that was the expectation with the superseding charges.
[00:38:26]  But that did not actually happen.
[00:38:29]  And so the way that the government responded was I think they were taken aback because not only did he not plead guilty, the defense counsel immediately tried to move to schedule a trial.
[00:38:42]  And the government and the judge wasn't even ready to entertain that.
[00:38:47]  And the purpose of the defense to do that, I think they wanted to set a At least tentatively put something on the schedule so that they can use that as a pivot point as they try to compel folks to schedule people to be deposed, particularly from the legislative branch.
[00:39:03]  So I think this team is identifying that in order to defend Brian Cole Jr., they're going to have to get as much discovery as possible from the legislative branch, meaning the Speaker's Office, the House Sergeant at Arms, the General Counsel of the U.S. Capitol Police, and the rest of the U.S. Capitol Police leadership and Capitol Police Board.
[00:39:23]  So, in the process, though, I know one of the motions was to basically sanction the attorney or hold him in some sort of a sanctioned position based on the release of the PII of Shawnee Kirchhoff.
[00:39:38]  There was a pretty strong colloquy in that hearing between the judge, Judge Ali, and defense counsel.
[00:39:47]  And Ali's voice got it really elevated when defense counsel basically said, Why should I submit to the government every single motion?
[00:39:56]  For them to approve it, it's basically considered pre-publication review.
[00:40:01]  And I think the judge kind of, I would say, lost his cool at that moment and elevated his voice.
[00:40:08]  So that was not expected either.
[00:40:10]  So those are the two components.
[00:40:12]  Other than that, I mean, there were procedural issues that they just had to get through.
[00:40:15]  But right now, they're still in discovery.
[00:40:18]  And as far as the atmospherics go, you had the family there, you had a large contingent entourage with Jocelyn Valentine in that first row behind the bar.
[00:40:33]  Essentially.
[00:40:34]  And I'm not sure if they were there for me or the defense, but at the conclusion, as I was finishing taking my notes and everybody had left, the government team, if you will, the collective team, both in front and behind the bar, were I think Jocelyn saw me and then whispered in whoever that leader was and said, No, let's not exit the regular way because Ivan's right there.
[00:40:55]  Let's go out the side door.
[00:40:56]  So I wasn't able to ask her any questions in the process.
[00:41:01]  And later, I think Carrick, so other people that were there was from Lindell TV, Carrick Castro Nova.
[00:41:07]  You had Ryan J. Riley, the author of the Fake Sedition Hunter book, showed up a little bit, kind of halfway into the.
[00:41:15]  I think he's from Nothing But Chumps, NBC.
[00:41:18]  And then you had Scott McFarlane, who used to be with Commie Bastard Sellouts, CBS, who's now gone, quote unquote, independent, he claims, was also in the courtroom.
[00:41:31]  And sitting right behind us was the New York Post.
[00:41:35]  That's the first for the Post that I've seen them actually.
[00:41:38]  Being at one of the hearings.
[00:41:40]  So that, and then you had, I believe, there were a couple other reporters.
[00:41:44]  I think the Washington Post was represented.
[00:41:46]  I can't remember the individual's name.
[00:41:48]  But one thing that was interesting also was that I think the mother or the grandmother, you'd have to ask Kara, or I'd have to ask Kara on this one, said that one of the government individuals that was sitting in front of me was a taller individual.
[00:42:05]  And the mother or one of the family members said that he was one of the FBI agents that raided the home.
[00:42:13]  And so I don't know if it was a flex or what, but at the end, I put my hand out and said, Hey, how are you doing, sir?
[00:42:18]  Ivan Rakeland.
[00:42:19]  You look familiar.
[00:42:21]  I think we know each other.
[00:42:22]  And he kind of hesitated.
[00:42:24]  He wanted to shake my hand, but it took everything in him to not put his hand out.
[00:42:29]  And he just kind of kept walking.
[00:42:31]  So I'll identify who that individual is probably pretty soon to find out his role in this entire thing.

=== Deep State Civil Lawsuit (15:39) ===

[00:42:39]  Patsy pipe dream, if you will.
[00:42:41]  Well, let me ask you this question because I think I understand from what you're saying is they're looking for discovery of stuff from the Capitol Police, which is not to stroke your own ego, but that's exactly what you've been saying they need to get despite however difficult it is to get.
[00:42:54]  So that's what your impression is that they're going after now in terms of.
[00:42:57]  Right.
[00:42:57]  I'll say this that without me ever engaging with them from the very first discovery when they proposed the discovery plan, they had already essentially started mentioning that they needed things from the U.S. Capitol Police.
[00:43:11]  So I'd like to take credit.
[00:43:13]  For any and all things related to that, but I don't think I can genuinely because they had already gone down that path.
[00:43:19]  And I'm attempting to provide them, you know, like, well, I was on the show with Tommy Tatum a couple days ago.
[00:43:25]  That public tweet I'm trying to get to defense counsel for them just to consider as part of their strategy that, you know, in order to get, I think, everything they need from U.S. Capital, they have to, I got to be careful the term I use, motivate, if you will, the political branch, the legislative branch, to.
[00:43:44]  Lean into the U.S. Capitol Police General Counsel.
[00:43:48]  Because I'm of the opinion, based on my analysis of the statutes, that the General Counsel of the U.S. Capitol Police has anything and everything related to all criminalization of any and all J5, J6 defendants.
[00:44:01]  Because even in this instance, the DNC and the RNC rest within the U.S. Capitol Police's jurisdiction zone concurrently with MPD.
[00:44:10]  So any charges or investigations are going to be coordinated, led, or coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police, specifically the General Counsel.
[00:44:20]  So, all work product, all referrals in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office, whether it's with the U.S. Attorney's Office on federal violations or municipal violations that are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Capitol Police, have to go through the U.S. Capitol Police's general counsel.
[00:44:38]  And considering he is the deep state of the deep state of the legislative branch, because he is the most senior ranking individual in the legislative branch that has remained in his position before, during, and after J6.
[00:44:50]  And is the highest ranking official within the legislative branch that has not moved from that position.
[00:44:57]  Because since then, we've seen a change in Speaker of the House, change in House Sergeant at Arms, change in Senate Majority Leader, change in Senate Sergeant at Arms, change in Capitol Police Chief.
[00:45:08]  And so the next highest ranking individual in the power structure in the legislative branch is that general counsel.
[00:45:15]  And his name is Thomas Aquinas Tobias.
[00:45:18]  D I, capital D, lower I, capital B I A S E.
[00:45:24]  So, if defense counsel listens, that's your guy.
[00:45:28]  And the only way you're going to pierce into him is if you get the Speaker of the House, who currently chairs the House Sergeant at Arms, is Bill McFarlane.
[00:45:41]  He's currently the chair of the Capitol Police Board.
[00:45:43]  So, you have until January 3rd to really lean into the Speaker of the House working with House Admin Chairman Brian Stile, who has oversight responsibility over the Capitol Police.
[00:45:54]  Those two members of Congress are the ones that are in a position to compel the General Counsel of the U.S. Capitol Police to release everything related to January 5th and the Fed's erection, et cetera.
[00:46:07]  And I don't know how to apply leverage and pressure because, let's face it, the General Counsel of the U.S. Capitol Police probably has dirt on every single member of Congress.
[00:46:18]  So, for them to try to leverage against him, he'll probably say, you know what?
[00:46:23]  If you force me into that, I'm bringing the whole ship down.
[00:46:25]  And I don't think these members of Congress are willing to go mutually assured destruction.
[00:46:31]  So, that's where we're at.
[00:46:32]  It's kind of a stalemate.
[00:46:34]  Okay.
[00:46:34]  Fascinating.
[00:46:35]  And I'm, And you had discussed it or brought up.
[00:46:47]  It's not only them, but it's in addition.
[00:46:52]  Obviously, they're going after DOJ holdings and FBI holdings and ATF holdings and any other investigative agency.
[00:47:00]  But the one government entity that has not been looked into by anything related to J6 except for attempted by Tom Fitton in one of his lawsuits against it's like a FOIA against the legislative branch, which you can't FOIA.
[00:47:16]  So then they ended up litigating it.
[00:47:18]  No other J6 defendant has really.
[00:47:21]  Gone towards obtaining U.S. Capitol Police's information through the general counsel.
[00:47:27]  Sorry, I interrupted you.
[00:47:27]  No, no, that's good.
[00:47:29]  I mean, I was seeing you had mentioned this a while back, and it sounds good to the extent that they're adopting it.
[00:47:34]  You mentioned the contempt, and I just showed a screenshot for a second of Grok answering that the judge didn't adjudicate or issue any ruling on the contempt.
[00:47:43]  What was the discussion around the contempt?
[00:47:44]  Because that I find fascinating.
[00:47:45]  He actually ruled that he was not going to, he basically dismissed it without prejudice.
[00:47:51]  On, I believe, that issue so that they could go back and confer the government and defense could confer moving forward on what they wanted to set for parameters on what the defense team before filing their pleadings, how much needed to be shown to the government, any pre publication review.
[00:48:12]  And if they couldn't come to an agreement in that process, I think next week they'll have to make those differences known to the court.
[00:48:23]  And then the court will have to make a determination on moving forward.
[00:48:26]  So I don't think there were no sanctions, but it was threatened by the judge when he said, if you keep this up, I strongly encourage you not to, but you will be held in contempt if you don't coordinate with the government on how to move forward.
[00:48:41]  So it was kind of like a vague threat, if you will.
[00:48:45]  Sort of like not definitively adjudicated, not definitively dismissed, but a warning, and maybe it's sitting on the back burner if they do something that the judge or the prosecutors don't like.
[00:48:54]  Yeah, basically, the way I took it was, hey, You two sort it out and don't bring it to me again.
[00:49:01]  Wink, wink.
[00:49:02]  You figure it out and then I'll.
[00:49:04]  And so he split the baby down the middle, I think, in that ruling.
[00:49:09]  All right.
[00:49:09]  That's.
[00:49:10]  If it was even a decision.
[00:49:11]  That's fascinating.
[00:49:12]  Non decision, whatever you want to call that.
[00:49:15]  All right, Ivan.
[00:49:15]  Well, we're going to keep up with this.
[00:49:18]  And thank you.
[00:49:18]  I mean, it would have been better to see your face, but we're still seeing your face.
[00:49:20]  And I move to what I think is an actual flattering picture where you look stern, serious, yet nonetheless likable and understanding.
[00:49:29]  That is in Shutterstock.
[00:49:30]  The title says Election Denier Ivan Rakeland Listens.
[00:49:34]  And I think it was.
[00:49:35]  Maybe Fauci's hearing, but it's, I don't know if you can see it right now.
[00:49:37]  You're wearing a blue shirt with a gray suit, no tie, and you're looking good.
[00:49:42]  Ivan, so when is the next hearing now?
[00:49:45]  So it appears as though the next hearing is May 29th, I believe they scheduled.
[00:49:53]  And meanwhile, status update.
[00:49:55]  He's still, he's going to be in pretrial detention until the trial, or are they going to have a hearing on whether or not he gets bonded or released in the interim?
[00:50:05]  Yes.
[00:50:05]  The only thing that came up was that, yes, he's currently in.
[00:50:09]  He's in free trial.
[00:50:10]  And they're going to move.
[00:50:11]  The defense team is going to move to change.
[00:50:13]  I think they're trying to change venue.
[00:50:17]  All right.
[00:50:20]  I don't know how fruitful that will be.
[00:50:22]  But I think the key thing to take away from all of this is the way I observed it is that the government was not shocked, but they were taken aback based on their nonverbals that the defense team was ready to roll with a trial date.
[00:50:39]  I think the defense, or excuse me, the government was thinking that, oh, let's go ahead and place superseding charges.
[00:50:46]  Let's go ahead and do our surrogate New York Times hit piece on Steve Baker to dismiss any information regarding Shawnee Kirkhoff, make her into the Ray Apps 2.0 in their New York Times article, which ended up coming out yesterday, literally an hour before the hearing.
[00:51:08]  I think the timing of it is suspect, and you need to consider whether or not.
[00:51:13]  The Brian Cole Jr. hearing, which was supposed to be the day that the lawsuit that Shawnee Kirchhoff dropped.
[00:51:19]  Why was the Brian Cole Jr. hearing pushed a day?
[00:51:22]  Was it because they wanted to get ahead of it with, oh, it's definitely not Shawnee Kirchhoff and Steve Baker and the Blaze Media are conspiracy theorists in order to tee up this going into the following day to potentially get him to, I guess, plead guilty.
[00:51:39]  And when he said not guilty, that's the most I've heard Brian Cole Jr. speak in the three, four hearings I've been in where he said not guilty.
[00:51:48]  But I think they were shocked, effectively, that defense counsel was so aggressively ready to litigate this till the end.
[00:51:56]  And let's face it, if you're government, even if this guy, if you have all the facts on your side, I mean, look at this guy, Brian Cole Jr. I don't see a DC jury convicting him, even if the evidence is pretty much there.
[00:52:13]  Well, I mean, if the evidence is only what they have now and there's nothing more damning than.
[00:52:18]  And definitely if it's only what they have now, there's no way he's going to get convicted.
[00:52:21]  I had on Barnes yesterday, everyone, Ivan also is a lawyer, just so everybody understands that Barnes had hypothesized, and it's an interesting idea that the Kirchhoff. Civil lawsuit is actually just a way for deep state CIA related apparatus to get at strategy from the defense or possibly compel some sort of disclosure that would reveal what Brian Cole Jr. might have in his defense to the criminal prosecution.
[00:52:47]  I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.
[00:52:49]  Oh, that's a fair point.
[00:52:50]  I hadn't thought of that.
[00:52:50]  And that's usually what takes place.
[00:52:52]  I mean, we saw what the FBI did with James O'Keefe.
[00:52:55]  They basically try to pierce any and all, they violate all rules, let's just face it, with attorney client privilege.
[00:53:02]  So, they're trying to use any method that they can in order to get ahead and be able to see what the opposing side is doing to be able to bolster their position.
[00:53:11]  And that's a good argument.
[00:53:12]  I mean, I would probably say that's probably more than even chance part of their strategy.
[00:53:20]  Amazing.
[00:53:22]  Well, Ivan, we got to see your beautiful face anyhow for the hearing.
[00:53:24]  I'm going to go back and hear the audio for this and see how good or bad the audience says the audio is just fine.
[00:53:30]  It's like a call in show.
[00:53:31]  And I'm going to double check in this new Rumble studio if they don't have call in capacity.
[00:53:35]  But Ivan, I'll call you when the show's over and we'll talk offline a bit.
[00:53:39]  But thank you.
[00:53:39]  I appreciate it.
[00:53:40]  Thank you.
[00:53:40]  Thanks for staying on this.
[00:53:41]  I appreciate it.
[00:53:42]  No, I mean, it's amazing.
[00:53:43]  And thank you for staying on this because I would go to court if I could.
[00:53:46]  I can't get up to Virginia every time to do this.
[00:53:48]  But anytime you go, you're welcome back.
[00:53:51]  No, we work it together.
[00:53:54]  Amazing.
[00:53:54]  Amazing, Ivan.
[00:53:56]  Thank you very much.
[00:53:57]  Yep.
[00:53:58]  Talk to you soon.
[00:53:59]  That, you see, people, I'll tell you one thing.
[00:54:04]  In French, there's a word, it's called débrouillardés.
[00:54:07]  Débrouiller means like, you know, find a way to get through it, even though it's not perfect.
[00:54:11]  That's basically a call in show.
[00:54:12]  Instead of, you know, instead of getting to see Ivan in real time, it's sort of like when Donald Trump or the voice impersonator calls up the radio shows and does the call in that way.
[00:54:23]  So that's fantastically, phenomenally interesting.
[00:54:27]  It.
[00:54:29]  My chair is broken.
[00:54:30]  Ivan is a good legal mind, and he's one that I like to pick and see what he has to say about things.
[00:54:36]  Barnes as well.
[00:54:37]  Hell, even the lawyers that I disagree with, go watch Legal Legal.
[00:54:41]  I think he's a lawyer and understand even what the people you dislike or disagree with have to say, and it will either strengthen your arguments or maybe even cause you to rethink something that you hadn't thought of before.
[00:54:52]  I didn't notice the twins behind him.
[00:54:54]  I don't know who those twins are, but they're definitely twins.
[00:54:57]  Let me see what's going on here.
[00:55:00]  Let me bring this back up over on Rumble.
[00:55:03]  I want to show everybody two things.
[00:55:04]  Two things.
[00:55:05]  If you want to support the channel, I'm very bad at plugging my own stuff, but I started something new.
[00:55:10]  And it's basically a video form of cameo.
[00:55:15]  It's Darren Crowder, Steven Crowder's father, called me and said, You might love this platform.
[00:55:20]  You do custom videos for people who want it.
[00:55:22]  It's called shoutout.us.
[00:55:23]  And you can go shoutout.us forward slash VivaFry for custom videos, the custom video message.
[00:55:30]  And we'll see if it works out.
[00:55:32]  It's a cool idea.
[00:55:33]  I like selling the books with custom messages of them.
[00:55:36]  What is it?
[00:55:37]  Louis the Lobster Returns to the Sea.
[00:55:40]  You can support the stuff that I do at shoutout.us forward slash Viva Fry.
[00:55:46]  You can join over at Viva Barnes Law.locals.com if you want to support the work that Robert Barnes and I do there.
[00:55:53]  But I know a lot of you are pissed off at Robert because you're all a bunch of freaking snowflakes.
[00:55:57]  I got to tell this to you.
[00:55:58]  Anybody who comes, hold on, this is what we're at on Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
[00:56:02]  I want to share this message separately.
[00:56:07]  If you come into an unrelated video, an unrelated discussion, an unrelated post, and you make a reference of your dislike or disdain for Robert Barnes, I was thinking about it as I was biking earlier today.
[00:56:19]  You are a vegan.
[00:56:20]  You are the vegan that comes to a barbecue and tries to proselytize everybody, judge everybody, and condemn everybody for eating meat.
[00:56:30]  Nobody cares if you're a vegan.
[00:56:32]  And if you are the person coming into every thread, what about Barnes?
[00:56:36]  You're going to support the 25th on Barnes.
[00:56:38]  You're the vegan who won't shut your stupid trap about being vegan.
[00:56:42]  So, if it makes you feel good, go ahead and do it.
[00:56:45]  You know, from a cynical way, engagement is engagement as far as algorithms go.
[00:56:50]  So, even bad engagement, if that's what it is, still stirs the machine.
[00:56:55]  So, if your goal is to, I don't know what, you know, keep it up, but you are the vegan.
[00:57:01]  So, when you post that message in an unrelated thread, some people follow me over to Instagram, some people come into a video that has nothing to do with Robert, nobody mentioned his name, and you could, you better distance yourself from your boy Barnes.
[00:57:12]  Congrats, vegan.
[00:57:13]  You are just as annoying and just as fanatic as vegans.
[00:57:19]  So that's off my chest.
[00:57:21]  I was thinking, yeah, it's like, how do you know?
[00:57:23]  The old joke, how do you know someone's a vegan?
[00:57:25]  They won't shut up about it for two seconds.
[00:57:27]  How do I know someone is an anti Barnes zealot who's a snowflake that can't stand hearing thoughts that they disagree with?
[00:57:32]  They're in pretty much every response.
[00:57:34]  Now, all that to say, by the way, the Sunday show is going to be at noon on Sunday because I've got an event Sunday night.
[00:57:44]  That's going to be fantastic.
[00:57:46]  So, we'll see how much I'm allowed broadcasting from the event.
[00:57:48]  The Sunday show is going to be at three o'clock.
[00:57:50]  But all that's to say, you want to support the work, you can do shoutout.us.
[00:57:52]  You can, I want to show everybody here.
[00:57:55]  So, you can, here, let's do this here.
[00:57:58]  You can download Rumble Wallet as you should, regardless.
[00:58:03]  Let me just refresh here and do this here.
[00:58:05]  Download Rumble Wallet.
[00:58:06]  And then, when you see this thing over here, go to Tip.
[00:58:08]  And after you've downloaded Rumble Wallet, if you are so inclined to invest in Bitcoin or crypto assets, you got XAUT, which is gold tethered cryptocurrency.

=== Rumble Wallet Support (03:43) ===

[00:58:18]  Courtesy of Tether, an amazing company that now has a wonderful partnership with Rumble.
[00:58:23]  You go there and you can scan the QR code.
[00:58:25]  What is it, sir?
[00:58:28]  Yes.
[00:58:29]  The kid wants to go play baseball when I'm done.
[00:58:31]  We can do that.
[00:58:31]  Scan the QR code if you want to donate via USAT.
[00:58:35]  Oh, that was XAT.
[00:58:35]  You can do Bitcoin here, scan that.
[00:58:37]  If you want to support, whatever.
[00:58:38]  It's easy.
[00:58:39]  The easiest, simplest, I didn't show it.
[00:58:42]  The easiest, simplest, and freest way because it's just share the channel.
[00:58:49]  Snip, clip, share away, and XAUT is here.
[00:58:52]  It's very cool.
[00:58:53]  Download the Rumble wallet, not the sponsor of this particular show, but it's the sponsor of the channel.
[00:58:57]  And Rumble is the best platform on earth.
[00:58:59]  Locals is the best creator supported, independent creator supported platform on earth.
[00:59:04]  And our Viva Barnes Law.
[00:59:05]  Locals.com committee, community, excuse me, is the best on earth.
[00:59:10]  So that's how you can support.
[00:59:12]  I'm going to do a standalone segment on the Shawnee Kirchhoff lawsuit.
[00:59:16]  Oh, there's no after party today because I did set it up on locals.
[00:59:21]  I'm going to do it here anyhow.
[00:59:22]  We're going to go Raid Redacted, who is the next show in the Rumble lineup.
[00:59:26]  And I know some of you, I don't know.
[00:59:29]  Oh, no, who?
[00:59:30]  Who do we got?
[00:59:30]  Tim Cast out here.
[00:59:31]  Okay.
[00:59:31]  Oh, you got Ann Coulter breaking down the MAGA divide?
[00:59:36]  Go check it out, people.
[00:59:37]  We're going to do, I'm going to do the standalone segment, just go through some of the highlights from the Shawnee Kirkhoff defamation lawsuit, which I've wanted to do, but haven't gotten around to doing in my car.
[00:59:46]  Go raid the culture war with Tim Pool.
[00:59:50]  Confirm raid.
[00:59:51]  And let me go see what's going on in the chat.
[00:59:54]  I just want to see what's going on in the chat here because I saw some fun stuff, but I don't know.
[00:59:59]  Waiting for the, no, for the record, Barnes went Candace.
[01:00:02]  We didn't go grow up here.
[01:00:05]  Locksmith, for the record, you did go Groyper, much in the same way when Barnes had the debate with Nick Fuentes.
[01:00:11]  And all I saw in my chats of other videos is slamo fascist.
[01:00:15]  Hey, jackasses.
[01:00:17]  Hey, thanks.
[01:00:18]  But no, you went Groyper.
[01:00:20]  He didn't go Candace.
[01:00:21]  He didn't do anything that is beyond constitutionally defensible discussion.
[01:00:28]  And everybody's saying he called for the 25th.
[01:00:30]  Go watch the clip.
[01:00:32]  He specifically says you can't really do a 25th because it requires two thirds.
[01:00:35]  Now, you might disagree with his assessment on Trump's mental state.
[01:00:39]  I do.
[01:00:40]  But if you are a flipping snowflake that can't hear that and you feel compelled to come into every chat and talk about Barnes, you're a vegan, you're a Groyper, and substitute Barnes has gone full Candace with Barnes is Islamofascist, Zolafascist.
[01:00:53]  My goodness, the amount of shit I had to deal with after that.
[01:00:55]  I don't care, it's fun, but it is Neurodivergent.
[01:00:58]  It is noon Eastern Sunday show.
[01:01:02]  I thought you shouldn't dismiss other opinions, Viva.
[01:01:04]  Barnes sucks.
[01:01:05]  I thought you shouldn't dismiss other opinions, Viva.
[01:01:08]  I'm not dismissing opinions.
[01:01:10]  I'm dismissing opinions.
[01:01:12]  I'm not even dismissing it.
[01:01:12]  I'm commenting on zealot like behavior.
[01:01:16]  You would disagree with Barnes.
[01:01:17]  Disagree with Barnes.
[01:01:19]  I told my vegan daughter not to bring any Antifa people if she comes over.
[01:01:23]  Okay, fine.
[01:01:25]  And so that's that.
[01:01:25]  That's all I have to say about that.
[01:01:26]  Now, are we still here?
[01:01:28]  Still here.
[01:01:31]  One thing I do have to remember is not that the presupposition of knowledge or context.
[01:01:38]  I appreciate sometimes when I start talking about something that I've been following, not everybody tunes in every day.
[01:01:43]  And so sometimes they're tuning in and they're not up to speed on what the latest is.
[01:01:48]  Let us recap the Shawnee Kirchhoff civil defamation claim against Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman and The Blaze and their new project.
[01:01:57]  Shawnee Kirchhoff is the Capitol police officer who was identified by.

=== January 6th Pipe Bomber (03:58) ===

[01:02:02]  Steven Baker and Joe Hanneman and The Blaze, in their article that was published on November 8th, 2025, in which they, through what is referred to as gait analysis, analyzing how a body moves.
[01:02:16]  And no, it's not just like as simple as saying they look the same.
[01:02:19]  You know, you do hip measurements, you do shoulder measurements, you do strides.
[01:02:23]  And there's, I don't understand the technology behind it, but there's a great amount of technology where if you have the data, what is it called?
[01:02:31]  The gyroscopic data on a phone, if you are able to get it.
[01:02:35]  You can determine to damn near scientific precision, although it's not necessarily the best as direct evidence itself, you can determine who people are based on how their body moves through time and space.
[01:02:47]  They come out with their article, their expose, on November 8th.
[01:02:50]  A few, you know, I don't know if it's a day or a week later, CBS News comes out with an article debunking Steve Baker's and Joe Hanneman's expose in the blaze.
[01:03:01]  They say they don't name the woman because at the time it was sort of like the Eric. Sharmella name, like you cannot mention the name, even if it's to say that the individual claims not to be the right person and is threatening litigation.
[01:03:16]  CBS News comes out with an article saying how an innocent woman whose name shall not be named got dragged into internet conspiracy theory about being the January 6th pipe bomber based on junk science and an untenable, unsubstantiated hit piece from the blaze that's going to land them in court.
[01:03:34]  And then about November 8th, December 5th, December 4th.
[01:03:39]  Yeah.
[01:03:39]  Oddly enough, about a month later, they go and find the culprit of the January 6th pipe bombs.
[01:03:47]  Five years later, without any additional information, as we subsequently learned from the press conference, and they arrested an autistic 30 year old black man claiming he was the January 6th pipe bomber.
[01:03:59]  Now, why do I continually reference black men?
[01:04:03]  Not for identity politics, not for any racial reasons, simply for Identification purpose reasons.
[01:04:10]  In theory, if you have proper enough surveillance footage or clear enough color surveillance footage, and even if not, you know, other means of identification, you could distinguish between a black man and a white man.
[01:04:26]  You can distinguish between a black man and a white woman if the person, you know, that you're looking for happens to be a woman.
[01:04:31]  And I'm not saying that she is.
[01:04:32]  One of the congressmen, I forget who it was, involved in the investigation into the January 6th pipe bombs.
[01:04:39]  Had talked with someone or who had come across the person that was the January 6th pipe bomber and said he was a white man.
[01:04:47]  Now, why that could be a confusion is obvious enough to anybody with eyes who knows who we're talking about.
[01:04:53]  Some men look like women and some women could look like men.
[01:04:56]  And so it would be easy to misidentify if they're wearing hoodies and sunglasses walking around at night.
[01:05:01]  But you don't make a mistake between a white man and a black man, period.
[01:05:07]  So, with all that said, a month later they go and arrest Brian Cole Jr. as the pipe bomber.
[01:05:14]  In the interim, a law firm called Claire Locke had sent basically cease and desist to some extent and also preservation of evidence, preservation of documents, letters to the Blaze, to Hanneman, to Baker, to Kyle Serafin as well.
[01:05:32]  The Blaze subsequently did a half assed retraction of their story.
[01:05:36]  Said, in light of the arrest of Brian Cole Jr., we have to retract the story and we can no longer assert or we can no longer defend the expose that suggested it was another person who has not been arrested for the crime.
[01:05:50]  Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman steadfastly stand by their work and specifically on other occasions said, We're not retracting anything.
[01:05:58]  We've never retracted anything and we do not retract anything.

=== Polygraph Test Evidence (15:12) ===

[01:06:00]  And important caveat.
[01:06:01]  Their expose did not definitively say it is Madam X. Their expose said, based on gait analysis, the likelihood that it is this person is 94 to 96%, give or take, something along those lines.
[01:06:16]  I've been saying for a relatively long time that the fact that Claire Locke had issued these letters and not sued, in my view, was an indication that they couldn't sue because you go to discovery, you can find things out.
[01:06:30]  And if indeed the expose is accurate based on its probabilities, You would not sue if it were in fact the case that you are, you know, the individual that was identified in there because in theory it would come out in discovery.
[01:06:44]  Now, I know a lot of conspiracy theorists are going to say, well, if you've had enough time to do what you need to do, to put it that way, well, you take that time, you do what you need to do, and then you can sue when you've covered your ass, covered your bases, and made sure you'll make it difficult for anyone to obtain whatever might be incriminating or Contradicting evidence if you decide to, you know, make the move and actually sue.
[01:07:14]  So recently, Shawnee Kirchhoff, through Claire Locke, which is a very, very pricey law firm, they were behind the lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion.
[01:07:28]  They filed suit.
[01:07:30]  And I've read through it and I've read through it now multiple times because I want to make sure I understand it.
[01:07:35]  It's a sprawling 127 page suit.
[01:07:38]  And I want to just go through specific highlights that I think are the most relevant in terms of this lawsuit.
[01:07:45]  And I've said it before and I'll say it again.
[01:07:47]  The lawsuit reads like a full throated defense of the Capitol Police, who some people believe had a hand in, if not the Fed's erection, because I will never not believe it was a Fed's erection.
[01:08:01]  The Capitol Police, not arguably, in fact, demonstrably, might not have dealt with crowd control properly.
[01:08:08]  And this defamation lawsuit spends an inordinate amount of time defending the Capitol Police.
[01:08:15]  Now, obviously, the reason why is because at the time, Shawnee Kirchhoff, the plaintiff in this civil claim, Was an officer working for the Capitol Police.
[01:08:24]  She was involved in incidents on January 6th involving less than lethal use of force on protesters, which Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman, in a piece that predated their expose, suggested was improper use of less than lethal force.
[01:08:38]  In fact, I remember at the time the article stipulated or hypothesized and had, based on experts, that the manner in which Shawnee Kirchhoff and her team employed the so called less than lethal munitions was in fact potentially lethal and therefore violated protocol.
[01:08:54]  Protesters were shot in the head with pepper spray balls, rubber bullets.
[01:08:59]  One protester was shot through the cheek.
[01:09:00]  It blew a hole in his cheek because they were, if not aiming at heads, at the very least hitting heads.
[01:09:06]  And so, an inordinate amount of time of this 127 page sprawling lawsuit deals with defending the Capitol Police and not so much the alleged defamation.
[01:09:19]  So, how do I bring this up?
[01:09:21]  I want to bring up why can I not?
[01:09:23]  Oh, does it let you do it in incognito?
[01:09:25]  That's a pain in the neck.
[01:09:26]  Hold on one second.
[01:09:26]  I'm going to bring this up in.
[01:09:28]  Straight up, so we can just read through a bunch of this.
[01:09:31]  Yeah, it's a give, give, give Elon credit.
[01:09:34]  Makes it very difficult to use things when you're not logged in in your real account on X.
[01:09:41]  So we've gone over before United States districts, they're in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, Shawnee Kirkhoff versus Blaze Media, Stephen Baker, Hanneman, Veritas, Regnat.
[01:09:52]  Okay, defendant Blaze Media, a multi-net, a multimedia firm and aspiring rival to Fox News.
[01:10:00]  Staked its brand on a baseless conspiracy theory that the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol was an, quote, inside job, end quote, by Washington elites and federal law enforcement.
[01:10:13]  You know who else suggested full throatedly that it was an inside job?
[01:10:17]  Just go look.
[01:10:19]  I mean, Google it.
[01:10:20]  Go to X, ask Rock.
[01:10:22]  Ask which prominent figures have consistently said that it was an inside job.
[01:10:28]  You might be surprised.
[01:10:30]  It hired two reporters, Baker and Hanneman, to promote the theory full time.
[01:10:33]  Baker had stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
[01:10:36]  That's a lie.
[01:10:37]  He was prosecuted for his crimes.
[01:10:39]  That's true.
[01:10:39]  Part of the persecution of January 6th.
[01:10:41]  And he sought vindication.
[01:10:43]  Oh, yes.
[01:10:43]  They're going for motive now.
[01:10:46]  Now that the dogs have made it in there and they're going to have fun with it.
[01:10:49]  Hanneman was a veteran of conspiracist media and sought professional relevance.
[01:10:54]  Do you see, like, I want to highlight stupid thoughts and bad arguments.
[01:11:00]  When you can't.
[01:11:01]  Deal specifically with substance, you always go into mind reading and imputing ill intentions.
[01:11:06]  So, a veteran conspiracist media, I don't know what that means, and he sought relevance.
[01:11:10]  Guys, what are you doing?
[01:11:12]  Come on, I'm live here.
[01:11:15]  Lacking any evidence to advance their claims, they seized on a genuine mystery the night before the riot surveillance.
[01:11:21]  Hold on, sorry, that's a little annoying.
[01:11:22]  Get up, get up, let's go.
[01:11:24]  Come on.
[01:11:26]  Yeah, you're gonna have to get up.
[01:11:33]  Yeah.
[01:11:33]  Dog doesn't bark all that often and he decides to do it now.
[01:11:36]  All right.
[01:11:37]  So now we can see how they're framing this.
[01:11:39]  Okay, fine.
[01:11:40]  Paragraph seven.
[01:11:41]  I wanted to bring this one up.
[01:11:43]  Defendants' spurious claims eventually fell apart.
[01:11:46]  For one, Ms. Kirchhoff had an alibi.
[01:11:48]  This is the claims that Gate Analysis identified Kirchhoff and that she was the culprit.
[01:11:54]  Spurious claims.
[01:11:56]  The alibi.
[01:11:57]  She gave prosecutors and law enforcement evidence that on the evening of January 5, 2021, she was not.
[01:12:02]  Planting pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., but was rather at home with her boyfriend, who was video recording Bella, their greyhound, as they watched Bella twitch in her sleep.
[01:12:13]  Ms. Kirchhoff's voice was clear in the video.
[01:12:15]  I told you, Ms. Kirchhoff said, laughing.
[01:12:18]  You can see her neck vein sticking out.
[01:12:20]  Do you see it?
[01:12:21]  We still haven't seen that video, but do recall, and this is not adjudicating anything here.
[01:12:30]  Just remember what we were told at the time in that CBS News article was that.
[01:12:35]  There's video of Shawnee and her boyfriend at home the night of, at the time the bombs were placed, by the way, which is a disputed fact in and of itself, playing with her puppies.
[01:12:47]  And now in this lawsuit, they're saying no puppies, and she's not on video.
[01:12:52]  It's her voice in the background, and they're recording their dogs sleeping.
[01:12:55]  Okay, just relevant facts to bear in mind.
[01:12:59]  Why did I have paragraph 136 here?
[01:13:01]  At one point, this is now getting to the polygraph test.
[01:13:04]  So the alibi that we were told was an alibi of a video of her playing with her puppies.
[01:13:10]  Is now that CBS News article, which was based on three anonymous sources, is now contradicted by allegations in the claim.
[01:13:18]  And the interesting thing, also, by the way, I jokingly said some of these allegations are, in fact, admissions that there's good reason that Baker believed what he believes or wrote what he wrote.
[01:13:33]  And you make an allegation in a lawsuit, but if the allegation actually runs contrary to your interests, you make the argument that it's actually an admission.
[01:13:43]  And I don't know what the procedure is in American civil law, and I won't pretend to.
[01:13:47]  I imagine it would be roughly the same as it is in Canada and Quebec.
[01:13:52]  You know, when you want to amend a claim, you can amend a lawsuit and you can add or strike paragraphs.
[01:13:58]  Now, in my practice, and I practiced for 13 years in commercial litigation, it doesn't happen often, but sometimes you say, like, no, no, I'm not, you want to amend and strike a paragraph.
[01:14:07]  No, I want you to keep that paragraph in because I don't view that paragraph as an allegation, I view that paragraph as an admission.
[01:14:14]  And in this lawsuit, what's stunning is that you have some paragraphs which contradict the other narratives that were put out.
[01:14:22]  And not that it shows that Shawnee Kirchhoff is what the expose alleges she is and did what the expose alleges she did, but lends an argument that it was not patently malicious what Baker and Tanneman wrote and believed, and that it didn't lack a sufficient, at least prima facie, evidentiary basis not to support the legitimacy of the claim, but to support the idea that it was not.
[01:14:47]  Published with actual malice, which is the threshold under the circumstances in terms of proving defamation.
[01:14:53]  So now they say, oh, yeah, there was no video of her on video playing with her puppies because she only had one.
[01:14:59]  It wasn't a puppy.
[01:15:00]  She wasn't on video and it's an audio of her voice in the background.
[01:15:04]  And trust us, the metadata checks out.
[01:15:05]  We'll see when we get it.
[01:15:07]  That, in my view, would be an admission, at least if I'm from Steve Baker's attorney's side.
[01:15:13]  I wouldn't want them to take that allegation out.
[01:15:15]  I would say, oh, that substantiates the good faith belief that was being put forward by Steve Baker.
[01:15:23]  That's an argument.
[01:15:24]  We'll get there.
[01:15:25]  Okay.
[01:15:26]  When it comes to the polygraph, which I don't know who knew of that at the time, I'm fairly certain that the Blaze and Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman didn't know that Shawnee Kirchhoff was deemed to be a person of interest by the FBI, had the FBI raid on her house or come down on her and submit her to a polygraph that she was then told that she failed.
[01:15:49]  If they had known that, I suspect that would have been alleged in their article as well to substantiate not necessarily the veracity or the 100% truth of what they were putting forward, but at the very least, the good faith, substantial evidence of the belief to contradict any argument of actual malice.
[01:16:07]  Paragraph 136.
[01:16:08]  At one point, the interrogator represented to Ms. Kirchhoff that she had failed the polygraph test.
[01:16:13]  Ms. Kirchhoff assumed that this was an interrogation technique because she knew she was telling the truth.
[01:16:18]  Ms. Kirchhoff also knew that the person cannot fail.
[01:16:21]  A polygraph test, which merely measures physiological responses.
[01:16:25]  And she was not surprised that she might have shown signs of stress given the exhausting day and intense interrogation she faced.
[01:16:31]  But the interrogator put Ms. Kirchhoff in a catch 22.
[01:16:34]  It's an amazing thing, actually.
[01:16:36]  They're throwing the interrogator of the FBI under the bus, insisting Ms. Kirchhoff was, on one hand, showing signs of physiological distress, and on the other hand, appeared very controlled.
[01:16:47]  This is in their lawsuit.
[01:16:49]  So now there's an FBI interrogator who they're saying, well, she couldn't have been lying because she's telling the truth.
[01:16:55]  And then she was in a catch 22 where they said she's showing physiological stress, but also appeared very controlled.
[01:17:00]  By the way, those two things are not mutually incompatible at all.
[01:17:06]  Because sometimes the physiological stress is something that you can't control in your demeanor.
[01:17:10]  So you do appear very controlled sitting here like this.
[01:17:13]  But if my heart rate's going at 166, I can look very controlled, but my physiological stress is still showing despite not physically showing.
[01:17:21]  I say, like, some of these allegations don't let the momentum take these things out.
[01:17:26]  This is evidence that there was.
[01:17:29]  Zero argument for actual malice, and it adds to the arguments against actual malice by Steve Baker and Joe Hanneman and the police.
[01:17:38]  Kirchhoff continued the interrogation just as she had before.
[01:17:41]  Okay, fine.
[01:17:41]  Then they go into the American Psychological Association.
[01:17:44]  Okay, what do we have here?
[01:17:47]  More.
[01:17:47]  More.
[01:17:48]  Why did I highlight this?
[01:17:49]  Here we go.
[01:17:49]  We're at paragraph 294.
[01:17:51]  Dependents published their false accusations against Ms. Kirchhoff to further a preconceived narrative that the January 6th riot was an inside job and twisted the facts to fit that preconceived narrative.
[01:18:02]  Everyone should go up and look.
[01:18:03]  Just Google it.
[01:18:05]  Who has referred to the January 6th Fed's erection as an inside job?
[01:18:10]  Actually, I just want to do this here.
[01:18:12]  I'm going to do it because there's lawmakers.
[01:18:15]  There's, I would suspect, Kash Patel himself.
[01:18:21]  Did Kash Patel refer to Jan 6 as an inside job?
[01:18:27]  Let's do this in real time.
[01:18:29]  Let me bring this out.
[01:18:31]  Kash Patel might not have been the best example because I'm not a thousand percent certain.
[01:18:36]  But I'm pretty certain.
[01:18:37]  Let's just see.
[01:18:38]  Let's just see here.
[01:18:39]  In real time from Grok.
[01:18:43]  Patel suggests implies government FBI complicity in Jane.
[01:18:47]  Oh, I love this.
[01:18:47]  This is just going to be hilarious to see in real time.
[01:18:49]  I don't know the results.
[01:18:50]  I haven't actually done it with Kash Patel.
[01:18:55]  Now we're seeing the agents argue with one another.
[01:18:58]  Yes.
[01:18:59]  Argue, agents.
[01:19:00]  Come to the truth.
[01:19:01]  No, Kash Patel did not refer to January 6th as an inside job using that exact phrase.
[01:19:05]  He has, however, repeatedly promoted conspiracy adjacent claims that imply significant FBI or government complicity in planning, instigating, or covering up the Capitol events.
[01:19:15]  Language that critics, including Senator Dick Durbin, have summarized as him claiming January 6th was an inside job.
[01:19:21]  What Patel actually said.
[01:19:22]  What was the FBI doing planning January 6th for a year?
[01:19:26]  He said.
[01:19:27]  Democrats repeatedly used this exact quote against him during confirmation hearings.
[01:19:31]  In his book, Government Gangsters, he talked about strange agitators who stirred up the crowd to breach the Capitol.
[01:19:38]  Can you believe this?
[01:19:40]  My goodness.
[01:19:40]  It sounds like Kirchhoff's attorneys are actually throwing Patel under the bus with this filing.
[01:19:47]  Don't let him amend it to take these allegations out.
[01:19:51]  Let's get back to that paragraph.
[01:19:52]  It is actually fascinating.
[01:19:56]  Defendants' reckless disregard for the truth, further demonstrated by the fact that they published their false accusations against Ms. Kirchhoff to further their preconceived narrative that the January 6th riot was an inside job orchestrated by the deep state.
[01:20:07]  Sounds like Kash Patel just said the same thing.
[01:20:09]  A baseless conspiracy theory on which they had staked their entire professional identity.
[01:20:13]  Are you talking about Baker and Hanneman?
[01:20:15]  Are you talking about Kash Patel?
[01:20:17]  Oh, my goodness.
[01:20:18]  Long before defendants falsely accused Ms. Kirchhoff, they spent years publicly advancing the theory that the January 6th was orchestrated by federal law enforcement and Washington elites.
[01:20:25]  For example, in February, Baker wrote that the riot was an attempt by the occupying elites of the U.S. Capitol to capture an unprecedented amount of political territory.
[01:20:33]  Well, whether or not that was the goal, they sure as hell did that for the four years of the persecution that followed.
[01:20:37]  Hanneman produced an Epoch Times documentary that presented the riot as an inside job orchestrated by the deep state and blamed Capitol Police for provoking rioters by deploying less than lethal force.
[01:20:47]  Some of this stuff has aged rather well.
[01:20:50]  Blaze Media hired Baker and Hanneman specifically to advance these series, and they published scores of articles and countless social media posts doing just that.
[01:20:58]  Fascinating.
[01:21:01]  So let's get rid of that one.
[01:21:02]  I'll give everybody the link to that one so you can have these things as I say, to document.
[01:21:11]  And I should put them in the pinned comments, but I don't always do that.

=== ODNI Memorandum Allegations (15:20) ===

[01:21:13]  All right.
[01:21:13]  So that's one.
[01:21:15]  Let me get to another one of more allegations from this lawsuit throwing FBI under the bus, throwing Kash Patel under the bus, and also attempting clearly to throw the ODNI under the bus, which was also the specific.
[01:21:35]  Objective, in my humble opinion, of the CBS News article.
[01:21:42]  Now, I wrote in this tweet setting aside all issues relating to Kirchhoff's alleged potential denied involvement in the January 6 pipe bombs, once you understand that her defamation lawsuit, much like the CBS article, is actually a disguised hit piece on the ODNI, you will read everything differently.
[01:21:55]  Look, this is my baseline perspective.
[01:22:01]  It was an inside job, it was a Fed's direction, and they are using it to go after Trump loyalists.
[01:22:09]  We may have our grievances with Kash Patel now, based on what he's been doing or not been doing at the FBI.
[01:22:17]  But he was a Trump loyalist.
[01:22:19]  And if you had deep state actors still within the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, that wanted to discredit Kash Patel, A, you'd get them to arrest the wrong person and then have that blow up later on.
[01:22:30]  And it will, in my humble view and prediction.
[01:22:33]  You'd also throw them under the bus in this filing, which they are doing.
[01:22:37]  Understand that they are throwing Kash Patel under the bus with that filing because he is.
[01:22:42]  One who has posed many of the views that they are now claiming are baseless conspiracy theories.
[01:22:46]  They want to throw Tulsi Gabbard under the bus as well.
[01:22:48]  She might not have been a Trump loyalist, but she is most certainly one of the most populist thorn in the sides of the deep state element remaining in Trump's cabinet.
[01:22:59]  Now, let's go here.
[01:23:01]  Paragraph 124 on the aspect that this is a hit piece on the ODNI.
[01:23:05]  Defendants manufacture news and attempt to reinforce their own false claims by sharing their false findings with federal officials.
[01:23:11]  This is the reverse uno of the wrap up smear.
[01:23:15]  The way the intelligence officers do it, the intelligence does it, they don't leak information to FBI officials or federal officials.
[01:23:25]  They are federal officials who leak it to the media so the media publishes, so that they can then, as federal officials, say, Look what was published in the media, therefore it must be true.
[01:23:34]  It's what they did with Russiagate.
[01:23:35]  It's the wrap up smear that is described by Nancy Pelosi.
[01:23:39]  It's what they did with the Steele dossier.
[01:23:41]  Agents, federal agents leak it to the media, the media publishes it, and then the federal agents take it, go to court with it, and say, Look what the media published.
[01:23:47]  Now we get to get our secret FISA war and illegal, unlawful fourth renewal.
[01:23:52]  They are describing the wrap up smear in reverse, suggesting now that it's the media leaking it to federal officials, and then the federal officials run with it so that they, the media, can run with their story.
[01:24:03]  That's what they're suggesting.
[01:24:04]  It's ass backwards.
[01:24:05]  It's accusing your adversaries of doing what you are doing, and that's what they're describing right here.
[01:24:09]  Baker did not only preview his baseless accusations to Blaze Media readers, he also, in his own words, took it to a source in one of the most important, highest level investigative federal agencies in the country.
[01:24:21]  That agency was the ODNI, Office of Director of National Intelligence, the federal body that coordinates U.S. intelligence agencies.
[01:24:28]  Baker did not take his, quote, investigation or his, quote, findings to the FBI because he didn't trust them.
[01:24:33]  I mean, he mentioned that in an interview that we did, which would have had an appropriate jurisdiction to investigate the claims and was leading the pipe bomb investigation, even offering a cash reward for valid tips to identify the January 6th pipe bomber.
[01:24:47]  According to Baker, he did not report his findings to the FBI because it was actively engaged in the cover up.
[01:24:52]  Understand something, by the way, what they're saying here.
[01:24:54]  Also, doesn't make sense.
[01:24:55]  Given what they already said about the FBI raiding and interrogating Shawnee Kirchhoff, he didn't bring it to the FBI, even though they were investigating it, but it made its way to the FBI from the ODNI based on their internal memo that they drafted that went to the White House.
[01:25:08]  And then the FBI got involved and identified Kirchhoff as a person of interest.
[01:25:12]  You think that these arguments that they're making in their civil claim are going to be sufficient to demonstrate actual malice?
[01:25:17]  That he knew what he was saying was a lie or published it with reckless disregard for its truthfulness?
[01:25:24]  I mean, again, you don't even need a comment on whether or not you think.
[01:25:28]  Whoever planted the pipe bombs, it wasn't Brian Cole Jr. directly or at least alone.
[01:25:33]  We'll get there.
[01:25:35]  This is an attack on the ODNI and a confirmation that not only did Baker and Hanneman not act with actual malice, they seem to be suggesting, well, the FBI was looking into it.
[01:25:45]  They even offered a cash reward.
[01:25:46]  Yeah, and that FBI then identified Kirchhoff as a person of interest, submitted her to a polygraph that she failed.
[01:25:53]  Whatever else happens after that, actual malice has not only been proven, the allegations of this lawsuit have disproven any argument for actual malice by Baker and Hanneman.
[01:26:03]  Paragraph 126.
[01:26:04]  Baker shared his tip with the ODNI weeks before his planned reporting on Ms. Kirchhoff.
[01:26:08]  On information and belief, this tip was a key component in defendants' orchestrated plan to falsely name Ms. Kirchhoff as a pipe bomber.
[01:26:13]  Standing alone, gate analysis was not enough to name Ms. Kirchhoff.
[01:26:17]  But if defendants could reference an existing investigation in line with their own conclusions, this is the Steele dossier in reverse, they could create an illusion of credibility for their claims.
[01:26:26]  It's almost like the ODNI is such a poor babe in the woods, such an ignorant, juvenile organization that it would just go and make something.
[01:26:34]  Real out of a tip from a journalist, however baseless it was.
[01:26:37]  Baker set out to manufacture the exact corroborative evidence he needed by taking his tip to the agency he handpicked.
[01:26:43]  It made it to the FBI and the White House.
[01:26:45]  I don't think they realized they also alleged that in this lawsuit.
[01:26:48]  What happened next was first reported by CBS News in the debunking.
[01:26:51]  Okay, we got to that debunking.
[01:26:54]  Paragraph 126.
[01:26:55]  Oh, that's the same paragraph.
[01:27:01]  Did I highlight the same paragraph twice?
[01:27:03]  Well, it would seem that I did.
[01:27:06]  Let's go to the next one.
[01:27:07]  202 CBS News reported.
[01:27:09]  CBS News report further confirmed what Baker had represented in his November 5th article, specifically that his false flag findings to a federal agency other than the FBI.
[01:27:17]  This part we got.
[01:27:17]  Okay, so he took it to the ODNI.
[01:27:19]  On information and belief, had Baker, this is paragraph 242, taken his tip to the ODNI, ODNI would.
[01:27:26]  Have drafted on information and belief had Baker never taken his tip to the ODI and I, ODI never would have drafted the memorandum.
[01:27:34]  First of all, how do you know what would have happened had something that happened not happened?
[01:27:37]  Had he not done it, it never happened.
[01:27:40]  How do you know?
[01:27:42]  How do you know the FBI wouldn't have subsequently determined or referenced Kirchhoff as a person of interest and then forced her to submit to a polygraph that she was told that she felt?
[01:27:51]  How do you know?
[01:27:51]  You don't know.
[01:27:52]  You never know what didn't happen based on something that did happen that didn't.
[01:27:57]  Where am I?
[01:27:59]  It would never have been landed at the.
[01:28:01]  Oh, yeah, here we go.
[01:28:01]  On information and belief, they would never draft the memorandum.
[01:28:04]  Had ODNI never drafted the memorandum, the memorandum would never have landed at the FBI.
[01:28:08]  That might be the bug, not the feature.
[01:28:11]  Had the memorandum never landed at the FBI, the FBI would never have investigated Ms. Kirchhoff.
[01:28:16]  Investigating and identifying as a person of interest and forcing to submit to a polygraph that she was told that she failed are two very different things, but keep making the arguments against actual malice, which indicates that the FBI sought an independent gay now.
[01:28:29]  Oh, The FBI would never investigate Ms. Kirchhoff.
[01:28:32]  This is confirmed by the request for subpoena, which indicated the FBI sought an independent gate analysis, an expert forensic methodology that has never been used in trial American court.
[01:28:40]  Well, did they get a gate analysis?
[01:28:41]  That's going to be something for discovery.
[01:28:44]  They're trying to make the ODNI look stupid, complicit, and like a tool in framing someone who they're claiming is an innocent individual.
[01:28:59]  If they succeed, or if they're Attack on Baker is right.
[01:29:03]  Well, by Ricochet, they are attacking the ODNI who contributed to this defamatory hit piece of an expose.
[01:29:11]  It's an amazing thing, though.
[01:29:12]  Had Baker never taken his tip to the ODNI, the ODNI wouldn't have ever prepared that draft internal memo.
[01:29:19]  It would have never made its way to the White House and the FBI, and the FBI would have never investigated Kirchhoff after identifying her as a person of interest, swarming by the lawsuit itself, swarming on her residence.
[01:29:32]  With helicopters in an intimidating manner, rifling through all of her stuff.
[01:29:36]  My goodness, it's like the FBI is so stupid that they just act on totally baseless, malicious, defamatory tips.
[01:29:44]  Wild.
[01:29:47]  And then we get into this long one, which I say basically the tweet itself is arguing for everything that I've already been saying here.
[01:29:53]  ODNI, you know, hit piece on the ODNI, but I want to bring up a couple of these.
[01:30:00]  ODNI employees drafted the memorandum.
[01:30:02]  Okay, we got that part.
[01:30:03]  The unfinished draft of the memorandum was passed along to the officials in the Trump administration, bouncing among agency and intelligence officials, even making it to the White House.
[01:30:11]  Eventually, it was shared with the CIA where Ms. Kirchhoff worked.
[01:30:14]  She was put on administrative leave.
[01:30:16]  It was so baseless and so defamatory and so implausible.
[01:30:18]  She was put on administrative leave by the CIA.
[01:30:21]  If you don't think that this is an argument against actual malice by Steve Baker, that all of these agencies are so damn dumb, so damn incompetent, that they act on unsubstantiated, bogusly.
[01:30:31]  Bo, no, no.
[01:30:31]  But the FBI and the CIA wouldn't have done it had the ODNI not drafted that internal memo.
[01:30:35]  So it's really Tulsi Gabbard and the ODNI's fault.
[01:30:37]  Understand that that's what they want to do.
[01:30:41]  Agents questioned Ms. Kirchhoff about her location and activities the night of January 5, 2021.
[01:30:46]  More than four years had passed and she did not immediately recall.
[01:30:48]  They requested Ms. Kirchhoff's consent to search her phone, car, and house.
[01:30:51]  She consented to the phone and car searches.
[01:30:53]  Did she not consent to the house search?
[01:30:55]  Did not, however, immediately consent to the house search.
[01:30:58]  She told them it was her boyfriend's, Mr. Dickert's house, and they would need his consent.
[01:31:02]  He subsequently told them he would need to discuss it with Ms. Kirchhoff first.
[01:31:05]  That's an interesting thing to allege in the suit.
[01:31:07]  I mean, if they're describing it this way, you know that something even more serious went on in terms of an initial refusal to let them search her house.
[01:31:15]  How long did it take before they authorized the search of the house?
[01:31:20]  That is very interesting.
[01:31:20]  I actually didn't.
[01:31:21]  Realize, pick on that, pick up on that the first time.
[01:31:24]  She didn't immediately consent to the search of the house.
[01:31:26]  She said it was her boyfriend.
[01:31:27]  So her boyfriend said, I need to discuss with Kirchhoff, who said, I need to discuss with him.
[01:31:32]  So how long did this go about and what was done and how much time did they have before they searched the house or did they even search the house?
[01:31:38]  I'm fairly certain they did because she talked about it at length here.
[01:31:41]  Paragraph 133 About an hour and a half after Ms. Kirchhoff and Mr. Dickard arrived home, a caravan of FBI vehicles, an hour, a half hour after they arrived home.
[01:31:51]  So they had a half hour, I guess.
[01:31:52]  Hold on, let's go back.
[01:31:53]  This is, this is.
[01:31:54]  Kirkhoff and Dickert were driving home.
[01:31:55]  The agents called again, claiming they were stuck in traffic and they would be late.
[01:31:59]  This is so interesting.
[01:32:00]  As Ms. Kirkhoff and Mr. Dickert were driving home, the agents called again, claiming they were stuck in traffic and would be late.
[01:32:06]  They told Ms. Kirkhoff and Mr. Dickert, oh, I got to see what that end of the paragraph was.
[01:32:10]  About a half hour after Ms. Kirkhoff and Ms. Dickert arrived at home, a caravan of FBI vehicles descended on their street and parked outside their house.
[01:32:18]  The FBI brought a bomb disposal truck and a helicopter, which hovered loudly overhead.
[01:32:22]  Agents exited their vehicles with guns drawn in full tactical gear.
[01:32:26]  An agent called Mr. Dickert and commanded him to come out of the house unarmed with your dogs.
[01:32:31]  Mr. Dickert and Ms. Kirchhoff complied, stepped outside.
[01:32:33]  Agents swept through the house, then reentered with bomb sniffing dogs.
[01:32:35]  They opened cabinets, rifled through drawers, scattered Ms. Kirchhoff's belongings, all without obtaining Mr. Kirchhoff and Mr. Dickert's consent.
[01:32:42]  It suddenly occurred to Mr. Kirchhoff that they were not simply looking for a pair of shoes.
[01:32:46]  Why would that have even been the thought in the first place?
[01:32:51]  Dude, I'm telling you, you read through this every time you read through it.
[01:32:53]  It's like you get a different level of understanding.
[01:32:55]  It suddenly occurred to Ms. Kirchhoff that they were not simply looking for a pair of shoes.
[01:33:01]  So she knew that they were looking for a pair of shoes or suspected they were and had no idea what it was about.
[01:33:06]  Interesting.
[01:33:08]  And she had 30 minutes, half hour after they got home.
[01:33:12]  So they had 30 minutes.
[01:33:13]  Okay.
[01:33:13]  Search of Ms. Kirchhoff and Ms. Dickert's home ended around 8 p.m.
[01:33:17]  One of the agents introduced himself as a senior FBI official.
[01:33:20]  Of the FBI's Washington, D.C. office, a role that does not typically involve executing search warrants.
[01:33:25]  Kirchhoff knew his presence was indicated the FBI believed this was an extraordinarily sensitive case.
[01:33:31]  She asked him why he would do all this to investigate online chatter.
[01:33:34]  The senior official responded that his orders came from, quote, higher up, end quote, but that Ms. Kirchhoff could, quote, clear everything up that night if she would accompany the agents for a polygraph interview, which she did, and we got that part.
[01:33:47]  Told that she failed.
[01:33:49]  And then I just highlighted this one here paragraph 149 Defendants refuse to disclose what software algorithm they use, what methods it applied.
[01:33:55]  Whether those methods were scientifically accepted and whether it had been designed or approved to run the type of analysis defendants asked it to perform.
[01:34:01]  They did not explain what data set of gates the software used or how it collected them on information and belief because forensic gate analysis does not allow for the particular identification of an individual.
[01:34:10]  Defendants did not use a scientifically accepted method.
[01:34:13]  So there is one.
[01:34:14]  Either they did not use a software algorithm that was designed to compare individual gates to reach their 94% conclusion, or alternatively, they misrepresented the software algorithm's output to appear to support their false accusations.
[01:34:26]  Defendants also did not explain.
[01:34:27]  Who ran their software algorithm?
[01:34:29]  How or what qualifications they possessed to run and evaluate its results on information and belief?
[01:34:35]  No qualified gate analysis analyst operated the software or endorsed its purported 94% conclusion.
[01:34:41]  As current gate analysis science does not allow for such conclusions, either defendants found an unqualified individual to operate the software or they simply made it up.
[01:34:48]  Well, there's another alternative.
[01:34:49]  There's another alternative.
[01:34:56]  They have a qualified one.
[01:34:57]  I mean, and I don't know.
[01:34:58]  They have a qualified one.
[01:34:59]  They ran scientifically acceptable data.
[01:35:04]  It was done properly, and their conclusions were scientifically reached at based on appropriate data and may or may not be 100% accurate because it only says 94%.
[01:35:17]  So that's where it's at.
[01:35:21]  It's a, it is, you go and read through it now, and I'm doing it again.
[01:35:28]  And it's alleged that the order to come down on Kirchhoff's home came from higher up.
[01:35:36]  And we are now going to believe that they didn't internally think there was good reason to, it's just a SWAT call.
[01:35:43]  You know, it's like when people call and have Owen Shroyer SWATed, you know, the local police come because someone says there's kidnapping and whatever.
[01:35:50]  Well, you know, we got to act on that.
[01:35:53]  Internal memo circulated, made it from ODNI to the White House to the CIA to the FBI, came from higher up.
[01:35:58]  They saw it was sufficiently important that they came down with helicopters, submitted to a polygraph, which they allege she was told she failed.
[01:36:10]  And again, one of the arguments here we're not trying to argue beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal conviction as relates to anything about Shawnee.
[01:36:19]  The question is only civil defamation against Steve Baker.
[01:36:24]  I would argue, and I think it's a damn compelling argument from the allegations of the lawsuit itself, other than what fun there will be in discovery.
[01:36:31]  Because I've asked a lot of questions.

=== Reliable Impeachment Analysis (04:37) ===

[01:36:33]  You read those paragraphs.
[01:36:35]  And yeah, you alleged it.
[01:36:39]  Who were the higher ups that gave that order?
[01:36:42]  Well, I don't know.
[01:36:43]  They just told me it was the higher ups.
[01:36:44]  I don't know who it was.
[01:36:45]  Well, let's find out, shall we?
[01:36:47]  What was the reason for which she was placed on administrative leave?
[01:36:50]  Do they just do that because of anonymous tips from social media?
[01:36:55]  Because of internet chatter?
[01:36:57]  She knew it was not just about shoes anymore.
[01:37:02]  She initially thought it was just about shoes.
[01:37:05]  Lots of questions to be asked, which I presume will be asked if this ever gets to discovery stage.
[01:37:09]  The question is going to be whether or not this gets dismissed at a preliminary stage on anti slap or motion to dismiss.
[01:37:16]  Whether or not, on the face of the pleadings itself, there's no plausible claim for actual malice because the allegations of the lawsuit itself evidence the exact opposite of actual malice.
[01:37:28]  Rather, Well thought out belief, well thought out, or at least credibly held beliefs that were not demonstrably false and certainly not published with reckless disregard for their truth.
[01:37:47]  And that is it.
[01:37:49]  Oh, we found the vegan people.
[01:37:53]  We found a vegan.
[01:37:55]  Barnes is making a fool of himself and taking Viva along.
[01:37:58]  One patriot, Deb.
[01:38:00]  Let me hold on.
[01:38:01]  Hold on.
[01:38:01]  Hold on.
[01:38:02]  Let me read.
[01:38:03]  If we found the vegan people, he's taking Viva with him.
[01:38:10]  Nobody takes me along with their words.
[01:38:13]  And if you are the type of person that says he's taking Viva along, that's in your own head.
[01:38:18]  And appreciate that.
[01:38:19]  You are the one.
[01:38:20]  Saying, holy, hey Deb, can I let me let me let me see who all of your friends are and to see well, if you're friends with that person and that person says something crazy, well, that friend's taking you down.
[01:38:30]  No, only in the mind of someone who operates on the basis of guilt by association, but we found the vegan.
[01:38:37]  All right, now with that said, I think we're I think we're to call it quits here because I got a kid who's been peeping his head in here non stop to see what's going on.
[01:38:43]  Did I miss any tipped questions?
[01:38:47]  I missed one, and sorry about the get this out of here.
[01:38:50]  Sorry about the uh hiccups from today.
[01:38:51]  I think uh.
[01:38:52]  I'll have to do a test run with Ivan.
[01:38:54]  That was the first time we ever had a problem with someone being able to log on.
[01:38:57]  It's been actually much smoother with the new Rumble.
[01:39:00]  Andrea62703 says opinions are like a money, money holes.
[01:39:05]  Everyone has one and they all stink.
[01:39:09]  Yeah.
[01:39:11]  Me thinks Viva thinks before he speaks a little more than Robert.
[01:39:15]  No, I think Robert thinks before he speaks as well.
[01:39:17]  Oh, I didn't add it to stage.
[01:39:18]  Robert thinks before he speaks.
[01:39:19]  I got to say, it's a wild thing.
[01:39:23]  And that's not to say that everybody's always right.
[01:39:25]  But Robert speaks before he thinks.
[01:39:28]  And you might want to say, well, what drives me nuts, and I was thinking about it, I don't do the inventory as to when I've got something wrong, and I like to do the self audit.
[01:39:37]  But I was just going through my head again as I'm biking, like, okay, I think I was pretty, pretty decent, pretty reliable on COVID.
[01:39:45]  I think I was pretty reliable on the analysis of the first impeachment, the second impeachment.
[01:39:52]  I think I was pretty good, understood the points on the Ukraine war.
[01:39:57]  I think I was pretty good at getting to the bulk of the January 6th.
[01:40:00]  Fed's erection, the persecutions of the January 6th insurrectionists.
[01:40:05]  I was pretty good on the Colorado analysis of removing Trump from the ballot, pretty good on the election lawsuits, pretty good on, let me just keep thinking of a few more here, the Canadian election, pretty good on the 2024 election, came within one, what's it called?
[01:40:22]  One electoral college of my prediction, only because I didn't realize I think it was New England or Maine.
[01:40:28]  I think it's Maine has like two in one electoral college.
[01:40:32]  Pretty good on all of that.
[01:40:34]  Barnes was pretty good as well.
[01:40:35]  He's got, you know, if you think after all that, that people have just gone batshit crazy on Iran, it might be your own cognitive dissonance.
[01:40:45]  Which is like, yeah, people who have been consistently reliable, and I speak for myself, I try to be and try to be thoughtful, and when I make a mistake, understand it to not make it again.
[01:40:53]  Consistently reliable on a number of issues spanning a damn near a decade now.
[01:40:58]  And if you're the one who thinks I've gone off the deep end on a specific issue, that might be on you and not on me.

=== Cognitive Dissonance Explained (03:13) ===

[01:41:10]  And the real Rex says, I just don't like it when people get personal just because they disagree.
[01:41:14]  Why is it so hard just to have an honest conversation?
[01:41:16]  That is the defensiveness of not being confident in your own position.
[01:41:21]  Okay, fine.
[01:41:22]  You don't think Trump is suffering for you.
[01:41:25]  I'm not a fan of the armchair diagnoses.
[01:41:27]  With Joe Biden, it was a little bit easier, but there are various types of dementia.
[01:41:31]  Everybody knew Joe Biden was losing his mind.
[01:41:33]  I'm not as convinced that Trump is, you know, compared to what Barnes thinks.
[01:41:39]  You do notice a material difference between truth posts from now versus Kim Jong un posts.
[01:41:46]  People get older and whatever.
[01:41:47]  I don't see it to the same degree.
[01:41:50]  We'll see.
[01:41:51]  But the bottom line is anybody who freaks out so viciously and so rabidly because someone is saying something that they don't agree with, that it shocks their conscience, it's because of their own defensiveness in their own beliefs.
[01:42:02]  And they don't like being challenged and they're.
[01:42:04]  Effectively intimidated or threatened when someone is basically telling them something that contradicts what they deeply believe but have difficulty justifying to themselves as a pure matter of fact.
[01:42:14]  So that's it.
[01:42:14]  I always say that everyone should practice law, get used to arguing with people, get used to being insulted, get used to being attacked, and understand that when you get in front of a judge, insults and attacks don't convince a judge, they actually detract from your arguments.
[01:42:25]  So get to the substance of it.
[01:42:30]  And that's that.
[01:42:34]  And I'm gonna, so that's the lawsuit, everybody.
[01:42:36]  Okay, I'm gonna go see what my kid is doing.
[01:42:37]  Tonight, seven o'clock, Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies.
[01:42:42]  If you're still watching, make sure you like, share, subscribe.
[01:42:46]  Y'all know what to do.
[01:42:49]  There we go.
[01:42:50]  Barnes is a retard.
[01:42:51]  This is another one that I love about the right now.
[01:42:54]  We didn't bring back the word retard so that idiots can use it as though it is the argument.
[01:43:00]  You bring back the word retard so that you can be glib, sassy, and you know, like when I called Elizabeth May.
[01:43:06]  That's Elizabeth May.
[01:43:07]  The leader of the NDP, retarded, a drunk.
[01:43:11]  You use it as a compliment, a rhetorical, humoristic extra ingredient to substance.
[01:43:17]  You don't just use it as an argument itself because it's not so great.
[01:43:22]  The right brought back the word retard so that it could substitute for logical thought.
[01:43:27]  Congrats, Joe Doe McGuinness.
[01:43:30]  Robert is a retard.
[01:43:31]  Now, you would have to say Robert's retarded, or Robert's a retard, and add a little substance to that so that we can at least have a substantive discussion about it.
[01:43:38]  But no.
[01:43:38]  Robert is not retarded.
[01:43:39]  He hasn't gone full Candace.
[01:43:41]  And he's, you know, as smart now as he's ever been.
[01:43:45]  And if your reaction is this, that might be on you, not on him.
[01:43:48]  David backs up his statements in real time from the net.
[01:43:51]  Robert from memory.
[01:43:52]  Robert's got a, I always say like his ability to contextualize information in its historical aspect is amazing.
[01:44:02]  Okay.
[01:44:03]  Anyways, that's it.
[01:44:06]  All that to say, seven o'clock, people.
[01:44:08]  It's on Commit Tube if you want to find it there.
[01:44:10]  But, Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies.
[01:44:12]  I got to do some work about that now and get some of the stuff up and make sure we have our link ready for seven o'clock.
[01:44:16]  So go, locals.
[01:44:17]  Sorry about today.
[01:44:18]  That was on me and for Ivan.
[01:44:20]  I'm glad it worked out.
[01:44:21]  But Godspeed, everyone.
[01:44:22]  God bless.
[01:44:23]  I will see you all.