All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2021 - Viva & Barnes
01:04:31
Live with Harmeet Dhillon - Project Veritas & More! Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I think we're live.
And I just got a warning on my stream yards that I might be out of storage because we might have streamed more than 50 hours in the last month, I think, or maybe a little less.
All right.
Short intro because Harmeet has a hard out at 1330 West Coast time, which is 430 our time.
So people can rewatch this because I'm going to leave it up obviously on YouTube and Rumble.
Harmeet Dillon, for anybody who doesn't know, civil rights attorney, representing James O 'Keefe, represented James Damore, the guy from Google who ran into trouble at Google because of the way he responded to a research question that Google asked him to look into.
So, I'm not even going to go past a minute intro.
Everyone, I'll try to get to your questions now or during the stream, and if I can't, Harmeet leaves at 1.30 or in 30 minutes, and I'll stick around afterwards and answer some more questions.
Get some super chats if I missed them.
Without further ado, Harmeet, how goes the battle?
It's very heavily engaged.
It's busy, and it's a privilege to be fighting for the First Amendment on behalf of many clients, including Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe.
So, for anybody who doesn't know you, I suspect everyone watching does, but...
Anybody discovering you now?
30-second elevator pitch.
Who are you, and how did you get to be doing what you're doing?
Well, I've been a First Amendment lawyer and activist for three decades now, and I have my own law firm in San Francisco, and I'm also the founder and CEO of the Center for American Liberty, a constitutional nonprofit that handles and has handled a lot of COVID litigation, but also First Amendment litigation.
All right.
Now, I guess the question is this.
People are going to want to frame you politically and then say you stick to one side or the other, which they can then use to characterize the work you're doing.
I mean, politically, how do you orient yourself, if you had to describe yourself?
Well, I'm a member of the Republican National Committee, 168 of us in the United States.
I represent California at the RNC as the National Committee woman.
But in my career, I've also been a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is typically considered a liberal organization.
I've been a Republican throughout my life and my career, but I am a Republican who believes in civil rights, and so I've always been consistent in that regard.
Okay, fascinating.
And, you know, I was just...
Pulling up some older stuff.
For those who don't know, you represented James Damore in the Google business.
I think a lot of people have forgotten about that or don't remember it.
Are you able to discuss how that ultimately ended or what the status of that situation was?
Well, the complaint is out there publicly.
People can look at it.
Google tried to, did in fact fire my client for his, you know...
Pushback on what we now call critical race theory, but back then it didn't have a name other than liberal indoctrination.
He was pushing for diversity at the company to include diversity of opinion and thought, and he was fired.
And we sued under California employment law.
And all I can say about the conclusion of that case is that the case is no longer There on the docket.
And so one can infer from that what one infers.
But I am proud of our litigation in that regard.
And, you know, James has moved on with his life.
And so the case was very important in shining a bright light on Google's employment practices, Google's discriminatory practices, I would say, against people who are not liberal and who happen to be white men as well in the organization.
Collateral aspects of that litigation by other plaintiffs in the case have resulted in publicly available resolutions through the National Labor Relations Board, including changes to Google's practices.
So it was a landmark case and has had a lasting impact on Google.
And it's interesting, I was pulling up some older articles and one of the statements you had given in an article in Inc.
back in the day or back when this was all going on, as you said, if this is what goes on internally...
One can only ask how this is reflected in how it trickles down to search results and actual operations of the company.
And I don't know what was known at the time, but that has certainly come to be much more relevant now than it might have been back in the time.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I mean, back then people thought I was...
Some kind of conspiracy theorist until we showed the screenshots in our lawsuit of exactly what was going on in the company and the company's chats.
And the company has changed its practices to a degree to shut down some of those practices.
But what we now know and what people widely believe now, including all the conservatives who thought that we should just let corporations do whatever they want, I think people have woken up to the reality of how social media censorship and manipulation affects the outcome of everything in our lives here in the United States, certainly the outcome of elections.
I'm suing Twitter right now over that issue for Rogan O'Hanley and suing the state of California for colluding with Twitter over those issues.
Today, Twitter has changed its CEO.
That's probably not a sign for the better, frankly, for Internet freedom, for whatever criticism you have of Jack Dorsey.
I think the guy who's coming next is worse.
And so now I think people belatedly understand that it isn't simply...
It's a matter of our freedom being limited by corporations working in conjunction with the government today.
That's happening today.
And if you don't believe it, you aren't paying attention.
Well, I mean, for anybody who had any doubts, there were some issues when you Googled Hillary's emails back in the day, the results that came up.
Probably did not reflect what the actual interests were at the time.
You had a number of other examples where if you Googled inventors, the results would be very interesting given the search terms.
So we've seen concrete examples more specifically and more recently with searching Hunter Biden stuff, the laptop.
The results were, if they weren't filtered, they were certainly skewed in a way that did not reflect actual interests.
But I mean, I guess that's a good segue.
Into what we're here to discuss today, which is what's going on with James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas, and things you can discuss.
I mean, first things first, because people get confused.
Are you representing James O 'Keefe personally and Project Veritas, depending on the suit, or do you stick with James O 'Keefe as an individual and Project Veritas has its own counsel?
Well, it depends on the situation.
I represent in court...
James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas variously in a lawsuit against Twitter in New York and a lawsuit against CNN in Atlanta.
And on top of that, I'm counsel to both in multiple other non-litigation endeavors.
And right now, what is in the news, of course, is a civil lawsuit by Project Veritas against the New York Times.
And a United States Department of Justice investigation into Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe that is resulting in all kinds of constitutional drama.
Really, both of those cases involve a lot of very important issues.
I'm part of the teams there, but I'm not representing either of the individual or the entity in court in either of those cases.
Okay.
Okay, interesting.
And just, I don't want to get into too deep of detail.
The status of the Project Veritas versus Twitter defamation suit, where is that at now?
Twitter tried to remove the case to federal court so they could move the case to California.
They failed.
Their removal was, you know, not successful.
The case is ongoing on a motion-to-dismiss basis in New York Supreme Court, which is actually the trial court in New York in Westchester County.
And that's where that case is, and sort of the CNN case is in a similar procedural posture in federal court in Atlanta.
Okay, and that brings us in then to the Project Veritas versus New York Times, also in New York, which is a little more advanced in terms of where that file has gotten.
New York Times tried to stay depositions, stay the entire file pending the appeal of the rejection or the dismissal of their motion to dismiss.
Last I checked, I couldn't find any news on that.
What had happened with their request to stay the depositions of Project Veritas against New York Times in that defamation suit?
Okay, briefly, like all of these types of First Amendment cases in states that have an anti-SLAPP statute, the New York Times attempted to get our lawsuit, our client's lawsuit, stricken.
At the outset, not just motion to dismiss and amend, but stricken as violating the First Amendment right of the New York Times to say whatever it wants because it's the New York Times.
They lost, and they immediately appealed that to the Intermediate Appellate Court in New York.
Now, in the court's discretion, at that stage of the case, the court can freeze the proceedings and not allow discovery.
Project Veritas wanted to proceed with discovery.
The New York Times wanted to stop discovery.
The New York Times succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court in ceasing discovery in that case.
That is what is the backdrop against which the New York Times, after the raid of Project Veritas, actually published legal memoranda that are relevant to the lawsuit.
That New York Times case is in the news right now is what we view as a discovery dispute.
The New York Times violating its own requested stay in the case, which was granted by the court.
And so far the court has been agreeing with Project Veritas, although there is a future hearing on that this week.
So one question.
They stayed the case.
They stayed the whole file.
No depositions.
It doesn't go forward until the appeal.
No discovery at this time.
And discovery is defined broadly.
Okay, so very interesting.
So New York Times succeeds.
How long do we expect that delay of the suspension of the discovery to stay in effect?
We're not challenging that at this point.
The court heard the arguments and had its say in discovery estate.
We believe the New York Times is violating that discovery stay by surreptitiously obtaining and publishing our clients' documents that bear directly on the lawsuit, namely legal advice they've been given regarding their...
Their practices.
The issue in that lawsuit is, is it defamatory for the New York Times to call Project Veritas' practices deceptive and unfair?
And the memos in question that the New York Times published briefly are on the very topic of the practices of the entity and how they get their information and publish it.
And for those who are not as familiar as we are, Harmeet, basically New York Times ran a hit piece on Project Veritas saying that their whole bit on Ilhan Omar was deceptively edited, that they ran a misinformation campaign.
Project Veritas sued for defamation.
And when you get the stay of Discovery, and like you say, I didn't know this, but it's interesting, it's interpreted broadly.
Discovery is not only depositions sitting down and asking questions, it's communications of documents.
That's right.
Subsequent, I would imagine, filing of documents.
So New York Times says, we don't want to be deposed.
We don't want to have discoveries in this case until our appeal is heard.
And then what do they do in the meantime?
We're going to get into how they got the documents, but they obtain what are, I think, objectively solicitor-client privilege documents.
That's right.
By a lawyer in the case.
So there are two law firms involved in that lawsuit.
And the memos in question are by one of those lawyers in that case, long-standing outside counsel to Project Veritas, giving legal advice regarding specific practices, journalistic practices, and the boundaries of the law, which is what any, by the way, good journalism outfit does, which is what the New York Times does regularly and everybody does.
It is, in our opinion, a violation of the discovery stay.
So discovery stays of this nature are bilateral.
It isn't that we could not take discovery from the New York Times, but they could do whatever they want with us.
It is verboten for either side to conduct discovery while that stay is pending and while the court is considering the New York Times' appeal of the denial of the anti-slap motion in the Supreme Court in New York.
And I'm always nervous about asking a question that you're not allowed to answer, but I think you are going to be very good in terms of not divulging that which is not already public.
And I know nothing that is not public.
I just read a couple of articles as to the nature of the memos that the New York Times had obtained and then briefly published.
And it was basically, from what I understood, James O 'Keefe consulting with counsel saying, you know, what are our legal limits in terms of what we can do, how we can obtain information for the purposes of a story?
So people can spin it however they want, but typically, you know, you don't inquire as to the limits of the law if your intention is to not respect those limits and comply and operate within the law.
But the New York Times gets these memos, which relate to the defamation case, published them in an article subsequent to the raid of Project Veritas, which we're going to get into.
But that's the idea is they published documents that they had obtained, which were relevant to the file, the defamation lawsuit in which they had sought and obtained a stay of discovery.
So they are themselves effectively conducting discovery, publishing those documents unilaterally for their own benefit while having obtained from the court an order staying.
Well, I want to just clarify that, which is that the memo's in question, and I don't want to describe their contents other than to say that they did predate the lawsuit, but they are about Project Veritas' Methods.
Brothers in the corporate media and their allies that this is some kind of a prior restraint on New York Times' untrammeled right to free speech.
Except for when you're a party in a lawsuit, you do not have an untrammeled right to free speech.
You have to honor the boundaries of the laws, including the court rules.
And it is very interesting and instructive that the New York Times obtained these memos, asked us for comment.
Publish these memos minutes after asking for comment.
A classic shady tactic of journalists who don't actually want your response.
They simply want to be able to say to their readers that they sought your response.
And then they took them down after a period of time later that day only to publish an article about the memos instead of the memos themselves.
And the New York Times has claimed to the court, in open court, that It was a mistake to have published them.
That was erroneous.
They did not mean to publish them.
They simply meant to stage them, I guess, in some back area of the website, except for the pages on which those memos were published included share links for social media and download links.
So I find that hard to believe, and the court can take what it wants.
The court denied the New York Times's...
The court granted Project Veritas' counsel, Claire...
Claire Locke firm's counsel's motion to enjoin the further distribution and publication of these memos pending a hearing on the matter.
The New York Times appealed that to, now this is a week and a half ago, to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the same court that's hearing their appeal.
And the court let the lower court freeze on publication of these materials pending a full hearing stand.
There was a hearing Tuesday last week.
On this discovery dispute.
And the court ordered further briefing.
So the court has not had the last word in this matter as yet.
The New York Times is claiming that it is being subjected to a unconscionable, horrible prior restraint on speech.
And we are claiming that the New York Times is violating its own discovery state that it sought.
It is cheating.
Yeah, and I will say, not that I don't trust the New York Times, but I don't.
And I believe the accident or inadvertent about as much as I read the newspaper of the New York Times, which is not a lot.
And yeah, the prior restraint being, you can't get a court order to prevent a news outlet from publishing something, except the reason why they should not be publishing this is because it's part of an order of state proceedings that they themselves requested and obtained.
So people can make out, you know, what they think of both of those arguments.
But then getting into...
13, 12 minutes left.
How they got these documents and the bigger, I guess perhaps the biggest issue of the day, which is the seizure, the busting down literally the doors of James O 'Keefe, raiding two former journalists, seizing cell phones.
I don't know what else they seized, Harmeet, you can let us know, over Ashley Biden's allegedly stolen diary, which they have been in possession of, or the issue which broke about a year ago.
So they...
Have not been in possession of this diary for an extended period of time.
It has been known that they had obtained a copy of the allegedly stolen Ashley Biden diary a year ago, and it's only a year later.
Some might say contemporaneously with other trials, contemporaneously with other lawsuits, or contemporaneously with other social political issues.
Out of the blue, get a search warrant for two former journalists and James O 'Keefe himself.
Bust down the door, take stuff, take cell phones, start...
Collecting data, and that's where you come in.
That's the rundown.
So what happened?
So what happened is that, like you said, this diary was in the possession of Project Veritas briefly after an anonymous tipster who they had never dealt with before came forward and said they had legal possession of this diary because it was abandoned property.
And Project Veritas negotiated for the rights to work with this material and evaluate it.
They did evaluate it.
They attempted to confirm its authenticity by contacting both the Biden campaign as well as Ms. Biden.
At no point did any representative of the Biden family or campaign or Ms. Biden authenticate the diary or agree to come and authenticate it in person.
And upon...
The failure of Project Veritas to either authenticate the veracity of this diary or that it was what it purported to be in terms of its contents.
They turned the diary into local law enforcement in Florida, which is where the diary was originally found, according to the tipsters, on Election Day 2020.
So that was November 3rd.
So a year ago and a year later in a day is when...
The FBI showed up at the doors of the two former Project Veritas journalists with search warrants.
A grand jury subpoena was also issued to Project Veritas.
And then two days later, the FBI agents, about 10 of them, dressed in paramilitary-type outfits and with a battering ram, showed up at his door.
Luckily, he was awake.
He opened the door, but it was 6 a.m., and they seized his phones.
After a lengthy search.
Now, this is highly irregular because when you're in contact with a lawyer of a party, you typically ask them to turn over what it is you want directly.
You don't come in with this fake show of force, pre-dawn raids, which is meant only to terrorize and intimidate.
And meant for friendly media.
We saw the same tactic in the Roger Stone situation where CNN was tipped off and had cameras to see the frankly obscene raid, which somebody could have gotten hurt in, of an elderly man's home who was putting up no resistance.
Same situation with James O 'Keefe.
This is absolute thuggery on the part of the state and totally unnecessary and totally irregular, both under United States constitutional law, United States statutory law, and the very rules and regulations of the United States Department of Justice that the current attorney
general, Merrick Garland, instituted in July of this year, namely saying that under almost no circumstances will the DOJ be serving either subpoenas or search warrants on American journalists other than when they are suspected themselves of a criminal.
And so that is the tack that the DOJ has been taking now, is that...
Well, you know, we believe this diary was stolen and they are fronting in court that they have some evidence to believe that Project Veritas had a hand in stealing this diary.
And I want to be very clear.
There's no evidence that the DOJ has presented publicly that the diary was in fact stolen.
There is certainly no evidence, if it was, that Project Veritas had any hand in stealing it.
And even if the diary were stolen, United States Supreme Court precedent in a case called Bartnicki v.
Vopper 20 years ago conclusively provides that journalists are permitted to publish stolen materials provided that they did not have a role in the theft of them.
In fact, one would say that is exactly what the New York Times did with respect to the materials that they published of Project Veritas.
It's clearly not obtained in any legal manner.
And yet, nobody is claiming that nobody is serving subpoenas on the New York Times or breaking down the door of Dean Baquet, their editor.
I mean, same thing, I think, to some extent with the Trump bombshell, the tax bombshell story that they had obtained the documents from Mary Trump from a law firm.
And yeah, double standard.
I don't think anyone would deny it or could deny it.
The idea that...
Bartnicki was interesting.
I had to look it up when I came across it.
The bottom line of that decision was they can publish it so long as they did not have a hand in actually stealing it.
So the exceptions where they will do this are threat to life and limb, I guess, dire emergency, or hard evidence that the news agency participated in the theft, even if that were the case.
There is no such evidence.
I'm going to tell you that right now.
There is no such evidence.
It didn't happen.
Every single day, Project Veritas gets tips from members of the public like investigative journalists do.
About issues that may or may not be interesting.
They have time to evaluate certain tips and they run with a few of those.
So it's kind of like a law firm.
We get dozens and dozens of calls every day.
We end up selecting the ones that we're going to run with.
And that's a subset.
The fact that they did not publish this diary because they could not authenticate it and somehow they're the subject of an FBI raid and, frankly, incredibly obnoxious and high-handed behavior by the Department of Justice that violates its own rules is truly remarkable.
And I think that, you know, right now...
The DOJ really has a lot to answer for.
It appears to have violated its own standards.
And by the way, the Attorney General made a lot of noise about how the prior administration had violated the rights of journalists by serving subpoenas and leak investigations to the New York Times and other institutions.
With great fanfare, they ripped up the gag orders in those cases and said, henceforth, this DOJ will be a friend of the press and will certainly not violate...
The rights of the press.
But what is very insidious here is that the DOJ has made arguments in court that Project Veritas is not the press, is not entitled to the protections of the press, when Project Veritas has actually broken some of the most important stories that we've seen over the last few years.
And secondly, the United States does not license the media.
That's something that tin-pot dictators do.
The government does not get to decide who's the media and then applying these constitutional statutory And it was in one of the filings, the response letter that was filed in this case where it said, apparently the position of the DOJ is Project Veritas is not a real journalist within any meaning because they surreptitiously obtained...
The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers embarrassing our government without the consent of the government.
The New York Times does that all day long, just to compare with one publication.
And that is what journalists do.
Journalists publish stuff that somebody doesn't want published.
That's what makes it news.
I was going to say, they did it with Trump.
And if all that real journalists can do is publish stuff that they have been given consensually and with the consent of the government, like I said in the last video, they're just mouthpieces.
Or worse, they're just government propagandist machines, which a lot of people probably think New York Times is.
So the New York Times then apparently got, or you have no direct information on this, but the theory is that the New York Times got some of the information off of the seized cell phones.
Which is how they then disclosed or published some of these internal solicitor-client memos that magically were published shortly after the raid against James O 'Keefe.
Is that the operating theory or the suspicion?
Look, I...
You know, when we go to law school, we learn a term, a hoary Latin term called res ipsa loquitur.
The thing speaks for itself.
I think people should draw their conclusions.
It's really for the New York Times and the DOJ to answer the question.
I will tell you with a high degree of certainty that I would state in court, and we have stated in court, that it is obvious that the New York Times has been getting tip-offs from the Southern District of New York Department of Justice employees, either the FBI or the prosecutors or both.
There's no way that is explainable that the New York Times knew about these raids.
Within minutes, other than the government tipping them off.
There is no other way for the New York Times to have found out.
Because the New York Times called Project Veritas and asked for comment within minutes of the two raids of their former employees on November 4th and within minutes of the raid of James O 'Keefe on November 6th, earlier this month.
So it is obvious that there is a leak in a pipeline between the DOJ and the New York Times.
Then you come to a raid in which phones that include many communications between myself and my client being seized by the government, the government refusing to go through a procedure which involves a special master to segregate those materials and have a third party review them, not the government review them, before producing them for determination to the court.
And so I have no reason to believe that whoever's leaking at the Southern District of New York or the FBI has stopped doing that.
Whether they leaked these materials, a very serious allegation, I don't know that.
I suppose there are other ways that the New York Times could have gotten those materials.
But I think it's for the New York Times to explain itself and for the DOJ to explain itself.
They're on the defensive here.
They should be.
And I'm going to bring this up.
Knowing that you can't answer it, have the DOJ Veritas leaks compromised any sources?
I mean, that's the fear.
That's the concern, obviously.
Sources not related necessarily just to the diary, but rather to ongoing work that Project Veritas is involved in that might be significantly more important than the stolen diary.
Well, I can't comment on that, but what I will say is this, that...
Many would say, I would say, the Biden administration is Obama 2.0.
And the Obama administration absolutely violated the rights, the First Amendment rights, of donors to nonprofits and of the press.
That is very clear.
On that telephone or those telephones include three types of confidential material that are protected by law.
Number one, certainly source materials and information of confidential sources, including confidential sources in the Biden administration and confidential sources in American corporations that are allies of the Biden administration, including in the pharmaceutical industry as well as the big tech industries.
These are serious compromises, and I don't trust them in the hands of the government.
Number two, you have attorney-client communication.
Including myself and according to a court filing that was made by Project Veritas' lawyers, over three dozen prominent lawyers who represent Project Veritas in various litigation and in non-litigation endeavors.
And you have donor information, also protected by the First Amendment and reiterated as protected by the First Amendment in a Supreme Court case earlier this year involving California's Attorney General attempting to get that information.
And so all of that information, do I trust it in the hands of the government?
I don't trust it in the hands of the government for one second.
The government has shown itself to have abused its power by the very dint of doing this pre-dawn raid nonsense and shenanigans, making allegations in court that are shameful regarding the First Amendment, and of course, leaking to the New York Times.
And I know it's a hard 30-minute out for you, Harmeet.
I hear some echo now, which is good timing for it.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to take you out of the screen.
I'm going to just field some questions here.
But Harmeet, fantastic.
And follow-ups.
Maybe one day we'll do a follow-up.
Absolutely.
Thanks for having me.
My pleasure.
Have a good day.
All right, people.
That was amazing.
That was fantastic.
Now, I'm not going to go much longer because I know that Nick is live with the Bruin.
And I know that we're not stepping on each other's toes.
We're just on at the same time because it's impossible not to overlap at some point in time.
But when Harmeet tells me...
I have time at four o 'clock.
I picked up one kid early and sent another kid to a friend's house for dinner because I was doing this hell or high water.
So I'll field as many questions as I can, knowing the limitations of my own knowledge.
And just so it's categorically clear, I know nothing that is not public.
So, sorry, let me rephrase that.
I know nothing that is not public.
That's right.
I only know that which is public.
I don't even risk saying something that I'm not supposed to say because I don't even know things that I'm not supposed to know.
Isn't it a bit late for a special master?
I feel they've already copies of everything by now.
Thoughts?
That is the obvious concern.
Tony Alto.
Oh, Tony Alto.
That's the obvious concern, is that even if they were told to stop extracting the data, I think it's 12 days ago now?
I think it was November 12th, but I might be wrong on the date.
They were told to stop extracting the data.
They got a court order to tell them to stop doing that.
It set out the time frame for the government to respond.
And for Project Veritas to respond to the government's response before final judgment.
And I don't think they've had the final judgment yet.
But that's obviously the risk.
First of all, even if they stop extracting data by the time they got the order, data extracts quickly.
And as Emily D. Baker once said, you can't put the SHIT back in the horse once it's out.
And that might be fait accompli.
Then it's going to be a question of, you know, delete and destroy any and all copies of ill-gotten...
You know, poison fruits or whatever the expression is.
Good luck proving that.
You know, the only time people delete with no ability to recover is when they want to, not when they don't.
So we'll see where that's at.
And then the issue is, you know, whether or not they're even respecting the court order as it goes.
The one question I had for Harmeet was whether or not she gets the impression that the court is a lackey to the government or actually coming down on the government hard.
But I guess we'll see that sooner than later.
Are you concerned that DOJ information seizures may have a chilling effect on anonymous sources and donors, not just for Project Veritas, but in general?
I don't know what her answer would have been.
I think the obvious answer is yes and no.
I think the people who are doing this anonymously, they know the risks in terms of their cover being blown, and I think they probably take for granted that their cover will be blown, which is why so many of them are coming forward publicly regardless, because it's almost better to have...
It's almost better to come public so you have the public behind you, protecting you and knowing who you are, as opposed to the leaks coming out later where people can frame the discussion to demonize the leakers or the providers of information before they can be known publicly.
But I tend to think it will have a chilling effect, but probably not for the people who were brave enough to do it in the first place.
Nice work.
That was fantastic.
I mean, I could have gone...
30 minutes goes by like that, and you imagine I was watching Harmeet on Fox News.
They give her four minutes, and half of that is the reporter person talking.
Let's see if I got any questions here that I missed a couple of chats.
Either way, does Harmeet actually have emotions?
Everyone has emotions, but she is darn good at weighing her words and weighing her emotions.
Which is precisely what makes an attorney great.
Weighing emotions as in not having them, but letting them show when it's proper for them to be shown.
And I have no doubt she shows righteous indignation when she gets in front of a judge and says, the Department of Justice is acting like the, don't want to use the G word of the government, is acting like the secret police of Joe Biden and the Biden regime or the Biden administration.
Can you imagine?
Getting the Department of Justice involved a year later for a stolen diary.
And in fairness, so Steelman, there was a bag of goods, apparently, that was allegedly left behind in the same Airbnb or whatever, where the tipsters found the diary and bag of personal belongings.
Even still, could you imagine the DOJ getting involved for a stolen diary and a stolen bag of materials belonging to Ashley Biden?
You know, some would say that this has to do with the diary itself.
I think...
The consensus is that the diary is authentic and that the stories...
Incidentally, the diary was apparently published somewhere.
I think it's called the National Files.
I don't know and I haven't read it.
Apparently, there's some not good stories in there by all accounts.
But apparently...
We'll get to that in a second.
Not a banned account.
Apparently, the diary has effectively been confirmed or the thought is that it's real.
In which case, all of this is even more overkill because it's a year after the fact.
A lot of people think this has nothing to do with the diary and everything to do with finding sources, going after those sources, the same way the IRS went after certain politically aligned entities under previous administrations.
And a lot of people feel this has nothing to do with the diary.
It's just a pretext.
My thought today was maybe this is just a pretext to get some solicitor-client memos to help the New York Times in their defamation lawsuit.
But we'll see.
Off topic.
But what's your advice for someone who wants to make YouTube videos but struggling to get over the hurdle of worrying what others will think?
You'll get over it.
That just takes time.
And even still for me, walking down the street talking to my camera is still a little embarrassing.
But get over it and get comfortable with it.
Because when you are not comfortable and when you are insecure, people will see it in the eyes and they will see it in the demeanor.
And if you go back and watch some of my earliest vlogs...
It's cringe uncomfortable because I was not comfortable in my own skin doing what I was doing.
Not being in the courtroom and not having to worry about what a judge would think of me on Monday morning helps a lot.
But get comfortable and just do it.
Practice makes perfect.
I do not use moisturizer for my beard, and I should because it gets all, you know, what's the word?
Itchy and scratchy.
They fight and fight the Streisand effect.
And the thing is, I want this story to get out.
I mean, this is just...
These are just documents in court.
And they're boring.
They're tough to understand.
And the impact of them is difficult to understand because people do not understand.
People hate Project Veritas?
Fine.
People hate Ezra Levant and Rebel Media?
Fine.
But when the government goes after the people you hate, you might get some sick satisfaction that you shouldn't get.
But that's going to be short-lived because one day they're going to be coming after you too.
One day they might be coming after...
I don't want to jinx anything.
They might be coming after people you like.
So the fact that they start with the people you don't like, only to work for the people you like, that's the premise and the principle of freedom of speech, is it doesn't protect the words you like, and the freedom of the press doesn't protect the press that you like.
And if you think you can weasel out of it, not you, everyone watching, because I think we're all ideologically aligned to some extent.
For anyone to say, for the government to say that the media is not real media if it...
Publishes surreptitiously obtained information, documentation, undercover recordings.
Okay.
So the government basically says the only real media is propaganda, government-financed, government-approved propaganda.
I have no doubt that every tyrant, every tyrannical regime, every dictatorship on Earth wants that to be the meaning of free press.
It's fundamentally the opposite meaning of free press.
I'm all for protecting sources, but in this case, the New York Times should be forced to give up their source at the FBI who leaked this information.
And I'll just say, it's suspected.
I like to strawman everything and give the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't believe that it's deserved.
With the New York Times, with James O 'Keefe, it's conceivable.
They've got some employee just literally staked out James O 'Keefe's place in New York 24-7.
Pay someone $200 a day to stay outside 24-7.
If something happens, phone it in.
I could see that happening.
But then to get these solicitor-client memos that they then publish after getting tipped off to these raids, however they got tipped off, they call James O 'Keefe the morning of the raid, where let's just give them the benefit of the doubt that they do not deserve.
Even if they had someone waiting outside that saw this go down and says, hey, I'm going to phone it in so we can be first on the scene.
For the New York Times to then call James O 'Keefe for comment, knowing that he's in cuffs and unable to respond, only to publish in their article, we reached out to James O 'Keefe but got no response.
Liars, deceitful liars, and maliciously deceitful liars.
There I said it.
So even if they deserve the benefit of the doubt at any point, which they don't, none of this flies and none of it passes the smell test of benefit of the doubt.
Organic argan oil brushed in twice daily helps, but what will that do for pimples?
As you can see, I am prone for blemishes.
Anyhow, I'll try it because I like it for my hair.
I'll do it on the mop on top.
It'll help it grow fast.
What's the news on the Maxwell case?
I haven't been able to hear any of it today because that call-in code apparently did not work.
Surprise, surprise.
And I don't know if it didn't work because they have a max that you can log in on as any login for conference call does have.
So I don't know about that.
But I have not gotten any rundown yet.
Robert Grueler.
Watching The Watchers.
He will undoubtedly be covering it tonight.
Booyah, Viva!
Thanks very much for having Harmeet on.
Brilliant Lady of Truth.
Fact.
Agreed.
Viva Barnes' Sidebar is the most important podcast on Earth right now.
I will accept the compliment, but I think I will be humble.
I think there's...
I'll be realistic.
I think there's more...
There are some...
Project Veritas is breaking the news, and we're breaking it down.
I like that.
I like that a lot.
And I want to try to bump over to Raketa and get on with De Bruyne because I had questions, but I don't know what I've missed and I don't want to ask questions that have already been asked.
All right, let's see what we got here.
Okay, let's see here if I got any questions.
Bring them in.
Superchats or no Superchats.
Great scoop.
Viva la différence.
Okay, we got...
Could care less about the Maxwell case as if any justice possible with that.
Well, now I do appreciate subsequent...
What day is it today?
It's Monday.
So we did the stream yesterday with Barnes.
And now I understand the corruption about nominating the judge, Alison Nathan, to the Court of Appeals while the trial is going on because she hasn't been appointed or confirmed.
I thought it was a fait accompli, to speak French again.
It's not.
Now it's sort of...
It'll be a fait accompli if you do your job the way the powers that be who would otherwise confirm you want you to do your job.
You know full well the FBI supports leaking private information against anybody conservative.
For beard pimples, I suggest exfoliating face-wise.
Well, here's the deal.
What I know and what I can prove are two different things.
And at the end of the day, what I know doesn't ever matter in respect of what I can prove.
So if I can't prove it, it'll be a theory.
Even if I know it.
And even if I saw it with my own two eyes and I'm the only one who says I saw it, if I can't prove it, what I know is useless.
I was speaking about the information they posted on their website that was gleaned from O 'Keefe's phone or internal documents.
Okay, no, no.
Yeah, I got it.
No question.
There's no question.
It happens all the...
For goodness sake, we talked about it.
It happened with Flynn.
It's the Pelosi wrap-up smear.
It's how it happens.
They leak it.
So that it gets reported, so they can then exploit it for other purposes.
I mean, it happens all the time.
Anyone who doesn't think it's happening is not paying attention because they are just historically virgin.
They have a virgin brain when it comes to history.
Like, they have not been exposed to the awful truths that are so more awful than the truths they can possibly imagine.
I told my kids, horror movies are not the worst thing on Earth because they're fiction and they are fantasy.
True horror is what humans actually do.
Roger Stone.
Viva!
God bless man!
Thank you, Steve.
Oh, and by the way, we're going to have a sidebar this Wednesday regardless of whether or not Robert can make it.
And I'll say regardless, but if he can't make it, I've been given the blessing to go ahead.
And I don't know if I can confirm who it's going to be yet unless they've...
Confirmed?
They haven't confirmed exactly, but stay tuned.
Wednesday's gonna be amazing.
Okay, let's see what we got here.
Agreed.
I'm revolting.
That's, okay.
So, people, I'm gonna try to get in on Riquet's stream unless there's some questions that I haven't gotten to.
This was sort of a short notice impromptu.
Greetings from Ville Saint-Laurent.
That's in Montreal.
Mark, one Montrealer to another.
I've heard some horrendous Sasquatch stories.
Yeah, we know that Sasquatch doesn't exist because nobody can get a darn picture of it.
DOJ snake pit.
Don't think anyone's going to disagree with that.
Okay, here we go.
I like this.
Scott Sherman says, Harmeet and other lawyers like her are a thorn in the side of the leftist administrations.
It's a possibility for attorneys being targeted.
The funny thing is, they always say that in law, even in criminal law, let's take out politics and government, but would a criminal not want to take out the prosecutor?
Or would an angry witness not want to take out the defense attorney?
Whatever.
The problem is, take out one attorney, there's going to be another one to fill their shoes, so you're not actually doing anything except for creating exposure for yourself.
The way to go after them, it's interesting, Sidney Powell and how Sidney...
The trajectory of Sydney's career and evolution.
Yeah, I mean, there's ways to go after that are not that direct.
Discredit, mock, ostracize, dig up tax issues, you know, whatever.
But, anyhow, Harmeet is undoubtedly wickedly smart, to quote Good Will Hunting, as is Robert Barnes.
So, I mean, they know the game, and they know what they have to do to make sure that they are always, you know, clean.
On the clean and narrow.
And then you get the lawyers who are not smart enough to play on the clean and narrow.
And then when the political tide turns against them, not looking at any lawyers who have been found guilty of fraud, but they push the limits of what they can get away with.
And then all of a sudden, when they're not politically convenient, they get thrown under the political bus.
James Comey is the daughter in...
I've heard that as well.
James Comey's daughter.
It's a small, incestuous world, the world of law.
Even in Montreal law.
It's a small incestuous world, which makes for corruption.
But it is the way the industry is.
It's a small industry in the best of circumstances.
And daughters and people work at law firms, get appointed to judges.
They know partners.
They get married to another lawyer at another law firm.
It's just one big incestuous family.
But it certainly does seem to have implications based on political alignment.
What are the ongoing major court battles against cough measures in Canada?
We only hear about the freedom struggles in the United States in the news.
I cover them.
They're just depressing because the courts in Canada will not intervene on the injunctive basis.
Everybody out there knows, if you've watched any of our videos, to intervene on an injunction, there's a presumption of validity of a law that you have to overcome.
On injunctive basis, if you want to come in with an injunction, which is an emergency court order to stay the application of a rule of law, which is presumed to be constitutional at that stage.
On the merits, it's not presumed to be constitutional, so the government just has to prove it.
And so the burden to overcome, in addition to presumption of constitutionality, you have to come up with the other four criteria.
Irreparable harm, urgency, color of right, balance of inconvenience.
You have to...
Prove all four of these things on an interim basis to get the court to grant the injunctive relief being sought.
And it's a high bar to overcome, even in commercial settings.
And so when you're coming into these circumstances where you have government medical experts and yada, yada, yada, presumption of constitutionality, the courts don't want to come in and overrule government measures, government edicts, because the courts are not there to...
Regulate.
They're there to ensure the compliance of the regulations if it's contested.
So they don't want to do anything.
And they haven't done anything.
They've done nothing.
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
They declared the curfew.
They did not grant an injunction against the curfew last year.
Said a curfew is not that serious of an infringement.
They did not grant the injunction just recently for the vaccine passports.
They said that's just an embarrassment, inconvenience, nothing serious.
No serious constitutional violation.
Did not grant the injunction.
Go to the merits.
You'll have a final decision in 2022.
Healthcare workers forced vaccination, even though the government suspended that policy.
Court comes in and says, we're not the regulators.
We don't do what the government is supposed to do.
And so, you know, we're not intervening on an injunctive basis.
I say it's only a matter of time now before the government says, we're going to reimplement that measure that we said, that we suspended twice.
Because now the court basically just gave us our blessing.
They didn't declare the quarantine hotels unconstitutional.
None of it.
The courts are not coming to the aid of the people.
So it's got to be a political solution.
And if 70% of Canadians want this, yep, that'll be Canada.
It'll be Canada.
Nepotism viva.
Yeah, it's nepotism.
Well, nepotism, I guess, is the better way of saying it as opposed to incestuous.
But yes, it's nepotistic.
Oh, yeah.
So Omicron...
No, hold on.
There was a...
I thought there was an extra N in it at some point, but if...
I saw this yesterday.
I'm going to have to go look it up.
I thought there was an extra N in there somewhere, so maybe I'm spelling Omicron wrong.
What's your take on Kyle Caruth's shooting?
I said it yesterday.
It's on pop.
I've listened to everybody.
I'm Canadian.
I don't know American law, and I didn't do criminal law in Canada, but I know criminal law nonetheless.
We studied it.
I know how I feel about it morally.
I know my initial reactions.
My feeling, if I'm making a prediction, Kyle Carothers is not going to get charged.
And if he does get charged, he's going to get acquitted.
And I listened to Andrew Branca, his law of self-defense breakdown, where he describes the window of opportunity to use lethal force for self-defense.
I understand exactly what he's saying.
And my only observation in this case is...
The argument is going to be how long that window is open for, because we're talking about six seconds from beginning to end and two seconds, two and a half seconds from shoving Kyle off the porch with his gun and sling to the shots being fired.
Morally, I think it was an individual who was out looking for a reason, and I think under Texas law he found a reason that he's not going to get prosecuted for.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, but that's my take.
I do think it's...
The whole situation is disgusting in general.
It's like that situation, I think it was New Jersey or New York, where a neighbor was shoveling snow onto their other neighbor's lawn.
Fight escalates.
People get shot dead over a neighborly dispute over snow.
And this, someone gets shot dead over a family dispute.
It's just not how it should work.
You're dealing in a situation where everybody escalates the situation.
Everybody.
And they're adults, and they should just de-escalate.
They should have a little...
There's compassion for everyone under all these circumstances, but there's obviously a lot more backstory to that situation than we know of.
And from a personal perspective, someone comes out with a gun and says, get off my property, leave.
Dude, I'm not a coward, but I'm running as fast as I can, just looking over my shoulder to make sure that they're not still looking to come after me.
I'm out of there.
Call the cops and come back.
And do whatever afterwards if you think that it was an unlawful thing to have done in the first place.
Oh, Shenandoah Valley.
Shenandoah, I don't know what you're talking about, but the words Shenandoah reminded me of upstate New York where there was the Turning Stone Casino where once upon a time when borders were open and travel was free and life was free, I used to go with my dad and play poker.
He's still alive.
My dad's fine.
But travel has become such an unpleasant experience.
Oh, so Jamie says, Branca was totally right on this one, and I should explain.
Branca's conclusion was manslaughter.
He said it's an unjustifiable shooting, an unjustifiable killing, but manslaughter might be the lesser charge because of provocation in the moment, which would explain the conduct or attenuate the wrongful nature of the conduct.
So Branca says...
Dude, I...
I don't trespass.
Even in Quebec, trespass is not illegal, but I don't trespass because you never know what people have set up in their backyards.
You don't want to stumble across things.
But Branca's take was that unlawful manslaughter at best because maybe the circumstances could attenuate what happened.
But he has a very good justification for it.
He has a very good explanation for it.
I just know what I think seeing it because Came out with a gun, said leave, and then the individual grabbed the gun and chest bumped.
And, you know, I don't know how long you have to decide this person's not responding to a clear instruction and actually escalating.
But coming out with a gun escalates it in the first place.
I would go in, lock the door, then sit there with the rifle, and if it escalates, then you are more than morally justified.
But people are going to say, no obligation to go into your house.
No obligation to retreat in Texas.
No obligation to do that which other people would have done to de-escalate a situation.
But then you get into, I'm right but miserable.
Okay?
And then the question is always in life, would you rather be right or happy?
Same thing in the McMichaels.
Despite all the arguments, even if you think that the McMichaels were justified in what they did, lives ruined.
And even if they were acquitted, I mean, their lives are ruined anyhow.
So, would you rather be right than happy?
Let me just see this.
Does Mortimer tell you to cut your hair, you damn hippie?
As a matter of fact, he doesn't say cut your damn hair, you hippie.
He doesn't like it.
But I gotta tell you what.
I like it.
I like this.
I like the way it makes me feel at this point in my life.
I see this to be more a reflection of my spirit than the skin fade.
But we'll see.
I saw another super chat here.
What do we got?
Faith101 says...
Oh, no, your name is Asterix.
Many of them.
Faith101.
I think both Calhoun and his girlfriend to be...
Charged and convicted is so much mess on both sides of the story, and I believe it will make a great LMN movie.
Here's the thing.
Lies are ruined either way.
All of their lies are ruined.
Charged and convicted, not charged, charged and acquitted.
Kids are going to be forever angry.
It looks like someone was trying to create an incident among the adults, recording it from the beginning so they could go use it in court.
Maybe they didn't know it was going to escalate.
I suspect they did not know it was going to escalate to someone being killed.
They knew it was going to be escalated, and that's why they were recording it so they can go and exploit the escalation in court to try to get custody or whatever, you know, provoking, causing situations, and then, you know, trying to exploit them for whatever the reason, and in this case, family court.
Here, if a kidnapper tells you to leave, you would leave your child liar, liar, liar, liar, liar.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
In this case, they thought...
Apparently in this case, first of all...
Okay, in this case, the idea is that Chad was under the impression his kid was in the house.
So if the guy says leave, then it's not kidnapping anyhow.
And then even still, the kid is with the kid.
I don't leave my kid with kidnappers, period.
So to use the kidnapping analogy, it fails because I wouldn't leave my kid with a kidnapper until 3.15 and then come pick him up.
So analogy fails.
And so when you try to disprove an argument, don't set up a straw man misrepresentation because this is just inapplicable.
The idea is that Chad thought or some people think he thought that his kid was in the house.
So leave now, but it's his time with his kid.
I don't know that that is tantamount to kidnapping.
It certainly is violating a court order if that's what the court order said.
But my understanding is that Chad knew.
That the kid wasn't there.
That's why the mother was saying, I'll take you to where he is.
So, straw man, but I appreciate your point.
But inapplicable under the circumstances, regardless.
Coming from a guy who's in his 20s and is almost completely bald, keep your hair and enjoy it.
Aaron Porter, I think I would deal well with baldness as well, because I think Bruce Willis, you know, I'd like to think I'd be a Bruce Willis.
Maybe we're about the same height, actually.
But the thing I've noticed is it's getting thinner.
Maybe I don't remember what my lush hair used to feel like in my 20s, but thank you.
Anyways, I'm going to keep it.
New York Times is evil.
I think we all can agree on...
I think we can all agree on that.
Their scumbaggery exploitation of Brian Sicknick's death is where...
That's the one I will never forgive them for.
I mean, that's what turned my stomach.
Because I remember the day it happened.
And I remember hearing stories.
People asking, where was the fire?
Is there video of the fire extinguisher?
And then I heard people say, that's not what happened.
But the New York Times stuck with it.
They stuck with it to demonize Trump supporters.
He dreamed of being a Capitol Police officer.
Then an angry mob of Trump supporters beat him to death.
And that's still up on Google if you go look for that.
Scumbaggery.
Counterpoint to the manslaughter line of thought.
It's Lubbock, Texas.
Great stream as always.
Well, we talked about it yesterday with Robert.
I can't make these jokes because if I make these jokes, it's based on pure stereotypes.
Of Texans and the Southerners from a Canadian perspective.
I know what people tell me, however.
When you can get shot dead for trespassing, I mean, you can't do that in Canada.
You're allowed to defend yourself in your home.
You're allowed to self-defense.
But it's exquisitely harder in Canada, if only because it's exquisitely harder just to obtain a firearm in Canada.
And you're not allowed owning a firearm for the purposes of self-defense.
Or home defense, unless you get a special permit for that.
But hunting is still, you know, very legal in Canada and very popular.
Viva Fry, I forgive you for robbing my anagram credit and suggest you subject your head to cold weather with no hat or toque to help teach it to keep itself warm again.
I'm not reading your name.
Oh, you're a hooker.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
I'm going to put a video up on my second channel, Viva Family, because just yesterday...
We did a dry sauna, and then I went into the yet unfrozen lake, but there was snow everywhere, and it was blistering cold.
And it got the blood flowing.
Scumbaggery, sounds like.
Yep.
Oh, boy.
Okay, let's see what we got here.
Does everyone know if Nick is actually still going live?
I'm going to abandon that.
I'm not going to go get on with De Bruin, but maybe I'm going to get De Bruin on.
And maybe get someone else on for Wednesday night.
And I think it's going to happen.
I just have to confirm the time.
You can call me.
No, you.
Okay, touche.
My wife gets suspended tomorrow from Nova Scotia Health.
Unpaid leave for not disclosing VAC status.
Advice, check with an attorney in Nova Scotia.
So I presume NS is Nova Scotia.
I'm only Quebec.
Quebec is civil law.
Nova Scotia, the rest of the province common law.
I mean, I know the arguments are going to be.
And Nova Scotia Health is going to be a government entity.
The question is going to be whether or not it's potentially discrimination under the charter.
But like I say, the courts are not coming to the rescue of the people here.
Check with a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
And that's assuming you can afford a lawyer.
They're so flipping expensive.
Even lawyers can't afford lawyers.
Oh, so he's still live with the Bruin.
Okay, so maybe I'll wind down.
Let's go for another few minutes and then we'll wind down.
What do you think of the Saskatchewan Healthcare Act?
The premier can seize property, livestock and crops.
Okay, so Steve, again, so I'm not a specialist in these things.
I noticed a lot of people were making a big deal of that.
I asked John Carpe, the president of...
Kids are making some noise upstairs.
I asked the president of John Carpe, the president of the JCCF Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, if what I thought was accurate.
It's nothing new.
I mean, if you read the word quarantine, if you read the Quarantine Act, which has been in effect for 100 years, but revised in 2012, I think, after the other SARS outbreak, they had the right to do that anyhow under the Quarantine Act.
They have the right.
They have the right, basically, to turn private property into government property.
They have the right to lock you down under the Quarantine Act itself already.
So this was nothing new and it doesn't say anything new.
It just reiterates what was already within the power under the Quarantine Act, assuming it's a constitutional law in the first place.
Its constitutionality has not been challenged.
So that's it.
I mean, man, when you read some of these laws, you realize that thing that was an allegedly leaked memo about a year ago from an angry liberal politician who was leaking the plan of action for the government for the next four quarters leading into 2022, lockdowns, building quarantine hotels, yada, yada, yada.
I said, the only reason I knew that that was probably a fake is that they didn't need to build quarantine hotels.
They don't need to build facilities.
To be big, bad, scary quarantine hotels.
All they needed to do, and I said it at the time, designate empty hotels as quarantine hotels, which they did.
I don't think they were empty at the time.
You just have to redesignate any existing property as a quarantine hotel or quarantine facility.
You don't need to build them.
So you could see where people were trying to hype up the fear, but the reality is scarier than that.
It was already there.
We just didn't know.
We had no idea.
I didn't even know there was a quarantine act until this thing broke.
Yeah, so Australia is building them.
Yes, and that's another interesting thing.
I don't think they're building them because they have to.
I think they're building them because they can and because it's very profitable to certain groups to build them because you can get the government to basically launder taxpayer dollars to connected financial interests for the purposes of doing that which they don't have to do.
Whereas in Canada, you could just, you know, I mean...
I presume they could have done the same thing in Australia.
I don't know Australia law.
Full stop.
I presume they could have done the same thing, but I think there's also money to be made in building unnecessary detention facilities because it gives everyone a job and it gives everyone something to do in government.
The government is a make-work project.
How does the FBI have any jurisdiction with the diary?
If they're purporting, alleging, that a federal crime was broken and that they have probable cause to suspect James O 'Keefe or Project Veritas broke a federal law in obtaining, soliciting, or doing something with either the diary or the bag of personal belongings to Ashley Biden.
That's the only explanation.
I don't think many people are buying it, so we'll see where it goes.
All right, let's do it.
If there's any other questions, we have exactly two and a half minutes to get to them.
And I'm going to see if we can.
But I think we did everything.
It was great.
Wednesday night, we have a sidebar.
I may not get a video out today.
I'm a little tired.
Went late last night, watched a movie with my kid after the live stream and went to bed at 12.30.
And when you're 42 years old, going to bed at 12.30 does the number on you for the day after.
Is Kangaroo Court an Australian?
Oh, touche.
Well played, sir.
Well played, Dabaklis.
The Omicron variant will vaccinate everyone.
No medical advice, no legal advice.
I'm reading the theories on the Twitterverse.
Only a matter of time before the new CEO decides to control what goes on on Twitter, even more so than what was already being done.
We don't put up with chest bumping here in Texas.
It was more than that.
It's easy to escalate.
I'm going to go and try to get on with the rackets.
I did not want to step on his toes with this, but I think we're all...
Fully vaccinated adults.
In French, the expression is des adultes vaccinés.
It's an expression.
We're all grown-ups here.
We can deal with the overlaps because it's the nature of the beast.
John Bravo, thank you very much.
I'm not reading some of these chats.
Everybody, share this around.
It's short enough.
I might segment the Harmeet Dillon interview itself just so that it's easier to share and a shorter version.
But everybody, thank you for tuning in.
Sorry for the short notice.
Wednesday is going to be awesome.
Thursday, I might also...
I'm going to be going live with the quartering at some point this week.
So just a question of finding the time.
And majeure et vacciner.
That's the word in French.
Majure et vacciner means adult and vaccinated.
It predates COVID.
It's just an expression for full-grown adults.
So with that said, peeps, VivaFro is going to continue growing and I will see you Wednesday night.
No later, maybe earlier.
▲
Export Selection