Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:12

Smollett, Hunter, Canada, Russia AND MORE! Viva Friday!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, people.
	I was not late.
	I was not late, but I'll tell you one thing.
	I made the mistake of washing my hair last night and brushing it.
	So it's particularly fluffy.
	It's particularly fluffy this morning.
	Okay, look, I've got to do a morning stream because I can't do an evening stream.
	I'm going to go live with Eric Hundley at noon.
	So, we're going to end this one up by 11.30, maybe 11.45, maybe 11.59, and then we're going to go right over to Eric Connelly with another Friday noon stream.
	And this morning, am I coming in hot in the sense of the mic, or is the audio good?
	We are...
	What a week!
	The week, the stuff going on in the world is outrageous.
	Make sure I understand what this individual Kinzinger is saying.
	I want to bring it back up.
	I want to understand...
	Oh, I closed the screen.
	I need to understand what the perception of democracy is among elected officials saying, if any individual, however reprehensible they are, get the nominee, we're going to move heaven and earth to make sure they don't get elected?
	I mean, you could loathe Hillary Clinton.
	As much as you want.
	But the idea that if the party, or if she gets the nomination for the Democratic Party, that it's the Democratic politicians or even the Republicans politicians to move heaven and earth to make sure she doesn't win.
	What does that mean?
	Let me see if I can bring this back up again.
	I'm going to have to bring it back up because it's just...
	I'm going to need to go back to my Twitter feed, which has turned into my running diary of notes for...
	For...
	For these streams.
	Oh, and there's a lot.
	There's a lot to talk about today.
	We've got...
	Here it is.
	I'm going to bring it back up again.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	I found you.
	I found you, Kinzinger.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm going to one day figure out how to work this.
	Maybe I'll get a producer one day.
	Share screen.
	Oh, and we have a special guest.
	I think Nate.
	Nate is probably going to be coming.
	Here we go.
	Let's do this again.
	It's not something I'm pursuing.
	I want our party to be better.
	I want this country to be better.
	I want the party to be better and the country to be better.
	I think somebody will carry the torch of what I call actually pro-American republicanism.
	I don't know who that necessarily will be.
	I'm focusing on the country first.
	There's a lot of desire out there for something different.
	If Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination, there are many of us that will move heaven and earth to ensure he doesn't win.
	I think that's the most important.
	He cannot be president again.
	He cannot be president.
	We will move heaven and earth.
	I still hear it again in the background.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me get rid of that.
	Anyhow, so look, we're going to talk about this.
	Jussie Smollett, some stuff going on on the Twitterverse with...
	How do I pause that man's voice in the background, which I still hear?
	Silence you, sir.
	Yeah, the big news of the week.
	Other than Jussie Smollett's sentencing, now he's been released from jail pending his appeal.
	And, you know, the appeal raises certain interesting questions.
	Double Jeopardy being one of them.
	I think that's basically the bulk of the basis of his appeal.
	That when he was given the deferred prosecution agreement, when he agreed to it, Jeopardy had attached, and Jeopardy had been removed, and therefore he cannot be retried, repursued for the same crimes for which there had previously been Jeopardy, because that would be a violation of, I forget which amendment it is, it might be the Fifth Amendment, double Jeopardy.
	But, you know, the amazing thing about that whole story is that Jussie Smollett, after being convicted by a jury of his peers after an entire day of...
	Victim impact statements from the Chicago police as to the costs he incurred.
	And after a day of celebrities, not-for-profits, the bigwigs of the world coming in and saying, Jesse's a good boy, he shouldn't go to jail.
	His grandmother, his 92-year-old grandmother, they spent the day arguing what a good boy Jesse was, how much good he has done for the world when he's not trying to start a race war through false hate crime allegations that he then pursues for two years.
	When he's not doing that, he's a good guy.
	And shouldn't go to jail.
	And then he goes to jail, sentenced to 150 days, on his way out, says, I am not in a mental frame of mind where I'm going to harm myself.
	If anything happens to me in jail, someone else did it to me.
	I didn't do it to myself.
	The patent irony of what he's saying now, if something happens to me, trust me this time, I didn't do it to myself.
	And then apparently once he went into jail, He went on a hunger strike.
	Apparently he had to be fed ice cubes because he wouldn't eat.
	So after saying, I'm not in a position where I'm going to harm myself, if anything happens to me in jail, someone else did it.
	Gets to jail and starts to proceed to go on hunger strike, thus harming himself.
	What else?
	Oh yeah, and then in the meantime now, he has been released pending his appeal.
	And I see Nate Brody is in the background.
	So we're going to do that.
	We're going to talk about Jussie Smollett.
	We're going to talk about some...
	Incredibly bad takes on Twitter of people who are blue checkmark influencers, media people, just with outlandish takes.
	We're going to move into something Canadian, which is, for all of those out there who may not know, I ran for federal office for the People's Party of Canada.
	The leader of which party is a man named Maxime Bernier.
	Mad Max, he's also known as, not to be confused with Mad Maxine Waters in the United States.
	He's suing the federal government over their vaccine passport requirements for international, not international, sorry, national, interprovincial travel via plane and train.
	Because as of now, for those of you who may not know, despite the fact that provinces are pulling back on their vaccine passports, despite the fact that the world as a whole is pulling back on these COVID measures, the federal government which had implemented the vaccine passport for Inter-provincial domestic travel on plane and train is refusing to rescind that.
	And two people have challenged that charter-wise.
	It was Brian Pickton, who was actually one of the founding fathers, the drafters of the 1982 Charter of Rights, and Maxime Bernier, who is an outspoken, unvaccinated individual, and as a result cannot fly or take the train within the country.
	You know.
	So we're going to read his affidavit, which I've got an unofficial translation of his affidavit filed in court.
	It's interesting.
	And what else?
	We'll get to some stuff on Pickford.
	Sorry, did I say, what did I say?
	I said Pickton?
	Brian Pickford.
	All right.
	Sorry about that.
	Brian Peckford.
	Okay, look.
	All right.
	But regardless, we've got Nate Brody in the house.
	It's been a while since Nate and I have, I think it's been a little while.
	Let me see.
	Nate, sir, how are you doing?
	You seem to be on mute, young man.
	That's what I was saying.
	Let me unmute, but I'm saying it.
	Okay, there we go.
	And now I gotta make sure you can see me.
	All right, there it is.
	You can see my wild hair and ugly face.
	You're looking good, and you're looking good all around.
	Except for that Mario Brothers shirt.
	You gotta go with Lonely Island style boys.
	Ah, style boys.
	You know, it's weird.
	You're the Jewish guy, and you got the fro, and I'm a black guy, and I don't have the fro.
	We're mixing it up here.
	I'm supposed to have the fro, so.
	One day, I mean, I was gonna do this and just have this be like the...
	I might do it again, but if there's echo, I'll put on the headphones.
	I believe there's also the term for it.
	It's called the Jufro, but I don't use that.
	I just go with the fuzzy top.
	Nate, what's going on with you?
	Oh, hold on.
	I didn't give disclaimers.
	As a husband, any advice on not letting the current economic depression, World War III, and COVID strain your marriage?
	Life is harder with the world on fire.
	Not a banned account.
	Okay, so first of all, this is a thorough question.
	Standard disclaimers, Super Chats, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They have Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%.
	Better all around if you want to go to Rumble, if you want to support us on Locals, etc.
	If I miss a super chat and you're going to feel upset about it, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling upset.
	And no legal advice, no medical advice, no election undermining fortification advice because we're going to get into some of that talk.
	Nate, maybe you're going to have your take on this as well.
	As a husband, any advice on letting the current economic depression, World War III and COVID strain your marriage?
	My only thing that I say in a marriage...
	The same advice I give in business relationships is be forgiving on your business partner and on your marriage partner.
	Assume good intentions.
	Don't assume that they're always trying to needle you, undermine you, contradict you, insult you.
	And that is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	And then all the other stuff is going to be stress regardless.
	Life is stress.
	But I would just say be forgiving and do not assume ill intentions with your spouse, with your business partners, and relationships tend to be better.
	Nate, have you got any helpful advice?
	It's difficult.
	It's a little more difficult, I think, if you're talking about politically, because me and my wife, for instance, we bump heads politically all the time.
	And I always say this.
	It's not that serious, right?
	The things, what's happening in the UK is not affecting you day-to-day life.
	You're paying a little bit more gas.
	But I think sometimes people forget.
	You're living one life and all these other things that are happening are things in the background.
	So, you know, focus on what's important.
	And this too shall pass.
	I know at the beginning of COVID, now we're at the end.
	The beginning of this conflict and then we're going to be at the end.
	This too shall pass.
	We will survive.
	It's not about what's happening now, but what's going to happen in the future and how you're going to survive through this moment now.
	So that's what I would say.
	Don't let the present dictate your future.
	You know, you take control of the reins and move in the right direction.
	And we got one here.
	Now, I'm also going to say I'm good at giving, you know, like, reason.
	I'm good at saying how to be calm, how to take things in stride.
	I'm good at saying it.
	I internalize a lot of stress as well, and it materializes in other ways.
	So I'm probably the worst person at following my own advice.
	I know the good advice.
	I just can't take it.
	I know what I'm supposed to do for my diet.
	I just don't do it.
	I know that I'm not supposed to have, you know, certain life habits that I do nonetheless.
	So it's easy to dispense advice.
	When it comes to oneself, it's always very hard to actually follow it.
	And listen with your ears and not your words.
	Candice Magnus.
	Agreed.
	Best advice to keeping sane.
	Control what you can.
	This is the Lord's Prayer.
	But know what you cannot.
	Wasted energy on worrying does not help anyone.
	Take that energy and put it into something, anything useful.
	Britt Cormier, it's good advice.
	Yeah, Britt.
	The one piece of advice I am good at following.
	Exercise.
	Get the nervous energy out with physical exertion and not abuse of your body.
	So, you know, nervous eating, nervous other bad habits, smoking, obsessive issues, exercise and get that energy out is the easiest way.
	But Nate, man, okay, look, I guess we start with...
	I want to start with...
	What do we want to start with?
	We have to start with Jussie Smollett.
	Oh, we've just lost Nate.
	Not here.
	I'm here.
	My camera...
	Mike hits.
	When he's in the house, he still smells good, but you compare him to how clean he was on Sunday night.
	The weather outside, it's the thawing of the snow, poop everywhere, and walking a dog is good.
	Get a dog, walk a dog, socialize, no question.
	So Nate, you put out a very thorough deep dive.
	It was from beginning to end of Jussie Smollett yesterday.
	25 minutes.
	I cannot start from point zero on that ever again.
	It's been a two-year journey on this channel.
	But you guys are awesome content.
	I've learned so much.
	I appreciate you guys.
	Thank you very much, Ghost of Recon.
	I like your mask.
	Ghost of Recon has been around for a while.
	I love that guy.
	It starts off in the beginning with the part that I never truly fully appreciated the depths of until only recently.
	The Kim Gardner corruption, because...
	Oh, the Fox.
	Kim Fox.
	Sorry, Kim Gardner's another...
	Another one, another one.
	Jussie, everyone knows the Jussie Smollett, you know, the media hype.
	Steve Harvey comes out, you know, they wanted to pass an anti-lynching bill in the wake of what he claimed happened to him.
	Story fell apart.
	He faced charges.
	He was sued by the city of Chicago, etc., etc.
	We all knew that Kim Fox...
	Who recused herself, if only in spirit, not in fact, from the file.
	I didn't appreciate the degree to which she was still in the backdrop, really pulling strings, really interfering, really literally giving advice to Jussie Smollett through his family.
	Nate, for those who didn't see your video yesterday, and for those who may not know the depths of the corruption to which Kim Fox stooped, not just in the context of dropping the charges, but then in...
	Follow up, you know, consulting, advising to the small family.
	Explain what happens.
	All right, so most people don't understand.
	So the way it works here in Illinois is that the Cook County prosecutor, the prosecutor or the district attorney in the case, that person under the law has the authority to prosecute whoever they want.
	So that person has the state's authority.
	And everyone who, all the assistant, that's what they call him, assistant.
	They assist or delegate an authority from the DA.
	So if there's no DA, then those assistant DAs don't have any authority under Illinois' law.
	So what happens is that when the...
	A conflict of interest, and all attorneys understand, there are apparent conflicts and then there are voluntary conflicts where you can say, well, I mean, voluntary recuse.
	We can say, well, you know, the appearance of impropriety here so much, I'm going to recuse myself.
	But then there are also just conflicts where, let's say if I sleep with the defendant and I'm a prosecutor, that's a conflict that is automatic, right?
	There's no way you can prosecute that case.
	So that's what we're dealing with.
	We're dealing with both apparent conflict and then a voluntary So what Kim Fox did was that she was friends with Jussie Smollett's family.
	She was texting Jussie Smollett's sister.
	She was close with them.
	So she said, well, listen, since I'm so close with them...
	I'm going to recuse myself.
	And in doing so, that recused her full office.
	Her office was accused.
	So that means none of her assistants or anything could prosecute that case.
	So she said, I'm recusing myself.
	And she went on TV, made a hopeful statement, the office.
	In her office, in her office, the attorneys in her office were like, well listen, what you're doing may be illegal.
	Because what you've done is recused yourself, but then handpicked the person who's going to prosecute the case.
	The law doesn't allow that.
	The law doesn't allow you to be conflicted and say, well, I'm going to have my best friend take care of the case.
	The reason why is because that person may be conflicted, has a relationship with you.
	So what the law says is that if the DA is conflicted, a judge appoints some other attorney outside that office, some random attorney from that state, and says, you're going to take care of the case now, who has no dealings with the DA's office.
	Kim Fox didn't do that.
	She appointed her friend.
	So the court, when it looked at it, said, well, hold on, you can't do that.
	Now, any deal that Jesse made with the prosecutor's office was void.
	Because the prosecutor in that case, Kim Fox, did not have the authority to make the deal.
	And then they went and made the deal.
	So that's why Juicy was able to be prosecuted again, because that first prosecution, they had no legal authority to make that.
	To make that deal.
	And now they're coming back and saying that they want that deal to be upheld.
	I'm going to bring this chat up.
	First, we're going to get into two things.
	Why did the defense go through the second trial if it was double jeopardy?
	If they thought that shouldn't they have brought it up before the second trial, did they?
	They did raise the double jeopardy argument, the defense did, and the judge threw it out.
	I remember he threw it out for two reasons, but we'll get there in one second.
	And just so everybody also understands the humor of mistaking...
	Kim Gardner for Kim Fox.
	Kim Gardner is the corrupt prosecutor in the McCloskey case.
	Where they disassembled and reassembled a firearm so that it could be functional, so they could charge Ms. McCloskey with a criminal infraction that required the firearm to be readily capable of lethal use, which it wasn't when they seized it.
	Corruption through and through, but that's another state, another Kim.
	People don't necessarily fully appreciate the Kim Fox corruption.
	Yes.
	So she recused herself.
	She said, I'm too close to this case.
	I have to recuse myself.
	She then appointed some guy.
	I don't know who he was, but basically he became an extension of her mouth.
	Correct.
	While she had been recused and after recusing herself, she was directing him.
	Sister, right?
	No, well, first she texted him, right?
	Because after you recuse yourself, you don't have to have anything to do with the case.
	Then she texts him and is like, yo.
	Don't forget, we're going to go easy on this guy, right?
	Those text messages are actually in the video.
	She texts that guy and says, hey, I'm recused, but understand, wink, wink, you're going to do the right thing here, right?
	So that was the first thing.
	And then she goes and texts Jesse Smollett's sister.
	And tells her, just make sure he stays consistent and keeps quiet, and you'll be okay.
	Go ahead.
	Everyone appreciates this.
	The level of insidious, and I'll say, in my humble opinion, criminal corruption.
	The prosecutor, who withdrew herself from the case for conflict of interest, is then texting the sister saying, if he stays consistent, there shouldn't be a problem.
	It'll be good for him.
	Don't change your story, and it'll make it harder to prosecute, says the prosecutor who...
	Recuse yourself for conflict of interest.
	Yes.
	And how did they get those text messages, Nate?
	I forget how they got them.
	Because it's a freedom...
	Well, she's texting these people on her government phone.
	So they're open.
	So the court just was like, well, give us...
	That's a government phone.
	Give us all the text messages.
	And they saw all the text messages from her to the assistant to the sister.
	And most people don't realize this.
	In the court documents...
	They actually named Michelle Obama.
	If you guys want to look at it, Michelle Obama is actually named within the court documents to show that one of her assistants or something like that was the one who initially called Kim Fox to tell Kim Fox, like, yo, we may want to go easy on the Smollett's.
	And then hooked Kim Fox up with the Smollett family.
	So when people say the Obamas are implicated, that's because in the court documents Michelle Obama is actually named.
	Most people don't know that, but yeah, she's named.
	And if you guys want to see it, I have the documents, so I read them.
	It's amazing.
	That's the degree of corruption.
	Before we even move on, Nate, any chance?
	Is there any investigation?
	I know there was an investigation to Kim Gardner out of the McCloskey case, but not because of the McCloskey case, just because of other egregious misconduct.
	Kim Fox, any chance?
	Any open investigation that you know of?
	They did the investigation.
	They said everything that we're telling you.
	And they said that she didn't violate the law.
	Then she ran for state's attorney again and won.
	And won.
	But it's interesting because Chicago is like 90% Democrat.
	And she only won the 53% of the vote.
	So there was a lot of people out there who voted against her.
	But she won re-elections.
	She's doing it again.
	So what can you do?
	They're going to keep voting her in.
	I see this.
	Everyone's saying, hey, Adam.
	There's an Adam in the chat.
	And I don't know who Adam is.
	But why so many people are saying hi, Adam?
	Okay, maybe it's a meme and I don't know.
	Okay, so that's the corruption level of all of this.
	Oh yes, it's a high level of corruption.
	This is probably one of the most corrupt, because we're able to see behind the scenes, it's probably one of the most corrupt behind the scenes prosecutions.
	And think about what actually happened.
	A prosecutor voluntarily said, I'm giving up my authority to prosecute the case.
	Then created a fake office.
	She literally created a fake office with no legal authority, prosecuted the guy, came to a deal.
	And then told his sister and his family, this is what you need to tell him to get out of, you know, to make it the best deal as possible.
	And now, you guys haven't even figured out the punchline to it.
	She's now coming forward and saying she never officially recused herself.
	She actually stayed on the case.
	The recusal, she says, was colloquial.
	She just said that so people would think it, but she actually technically didn't recuse herself.
	And that's when the court said, well, hold on.
	You can't tell everybody you recused yourself.
	You can't be texting the goddamn sister of Julius Wille and then not be recused.
	No, you were recused.
	So let's stop with the BS.
	That's literally, and again, read the court documents for yourself if you don't trust me.
	That's what happened.
	It's now no longer, oh hi, Mark.
	It's, oh hi, Adam.
	And by the way, someone had asked, should they not have raised this in the trial?
	They did, and the judge dismissed.
	They raised it in both the civil, And criminal, as far as I understand.
	Yes.
	Because basically saying, you can't sue me civilly if you deferred prosecution on me because now you're basically trying to hold me civilly accountable for that for which I was, you know, let off criminally.
	Now, Nate, you'll correct me if I misunderstood with the judge.
	I think it was in the criminal case.
	I think it was in the civil case as well.
	Basically said, no, there is no double jeopardy.
	One of the reasons was Kim Gardner never had the authority to enter into the DPA in the first place.
	Yes.
	But I also understood that there was a more technically a legal nuance in that Jeopardy had never attached in the first place because a grand jury was never impaneled or a jury was never impaneled.
	So he was never legally in any criminal Jeopardy such that it can't be double Jeopardy because they dropped the charge.
	And Smollett's whole argument was that...
	There was no admission of guilt on my behalf.
	They willingly just deferred prosecution.
	I didn't admit to any guilt by relinquishing my bond.
	I didn't agree to any guilt by the community service, which I think he had already performed.
	So he was basically saying, I did not implicitly or explicitly plead guilty to anything as typically is required under a DPA.
	And so basically, the argument in law was that Jeopardy had never attached for there to be double Jeopardy in the first place, above and beyond Kim Gardner never having had any authority to enter into a DPA in the first place.
	Are those two arguments and responses the accurate ones?
	All right.
	So I kind of have to unpack it because there's a lot of law going on with what you just said.
	So the first piece I'm going to respond to is the double jeopardy piece of it.
	Now, double jeopardy, for most people who don't know, double jeopardy, you may hear the term jeopardy attaches.
	You may hear that term.
	Jeopardy has attached.
	Jeopardy has attached.
	So here in the United States, jeopardy generally attaches in a criminal context when a jury is sworn in.
	So when the jury is sworn in, then if the case is dismissed, That's double jeopardy attached.
	You can't re-prosecute.
	And also, and if it's a judge trial, for instance, then it's when the first witness is sworn.
	So jeopardy generally doesn't...
	So here, since there was no trial, technically jeopardy didn't attach in this trial.
	But there's a second component to double jeopardy, which is double punishment.
	So first, if you adjudicate...
	A particular case.
	In other words, you say, okay, do A for B, and if the person does the community service and you dismiss the charges, then jeopardy can attach in the sense of if you charge a person again with a similar, for the same crime, then you can't be punished again for that same crime.
	You've already punished them by the community services.
	So there's kind of two aspects of double jeopardy.
	There's the whether it attaches during a trial, which there was no trial here, or if the person is being punished twice for the same.
	So that's kind of their argument here, that he's being punished for the same offense.
	The second part that you're talking about is what are their arguments in this particular case?
	So their arguments have evolved, right?
	So at the beginning, when you had this first dismissal with Kim Foxx, this crazy dismissal, their argument was that Jesse Smollett was totally innocent.
	And since this was a deferred prosecution, deferred prosecution means you don't have to plead guilty.
	They just dismissed the charges.
	Since they dismissed the charges, there was no plea that he was innocent.
	The DA knew he was innocent, and him giving up the $10,000 and the thing, there was absolutely no deal.
	His defense team was going around for about six or seven months saying there was absolutely no deal, no agreement.
	In fact, just to stop you there, they were doing the victory lap saying that this was the evidence that he was innocent and that his story was true.
	They were not saying that he agreed to a deal and therefore made some sort of culpable admission.
	They said, and they were saying it loud and clear everywhere, this is concrete evidence that he is innocent, that he was the victim of the crime he said he was the victim of.
	Oh, I saw another window come up.
	This is the proof that he was maliciously prosecuted, which is what they argued in Jussie Smollett's motion for malicious prosecution in the context of the civil proceedings.
	You want to bring this up?
	Yeah, this is it.
	This is what they were saying.
	Just so we understand, now they're arguing that they had a deal with the prosecution and that Jussie was punished.
	Because he did the, he paid the fine and did the community service.
	So now they're saying, and that's the reason why Jussie should not, should be able to, that's the reason why Jussie should not be able to be prosecuted the second time.
	But now here's what they were saying after the dismissal.
	So listen, and listen carefully, whether she, whether they had a deal with the prosecutors or not.
	Here we go.
	The discussions were strictly with the prosecutors who were actually handling the case.
	Now the prosecutor's office said that the charges were dropped.
	In exchange for your client's agreement to forfeit $10,000 that he had paid in a bond and to do community service.
	Is that correct?
	Were those conditions on his dismissal of charges?
	There were no conditions and there was no, obviously there was no plea, there was no agreement in place.
	They did want him to forfeit the bond and that's something that we discussed with him and he initially struggled with because he didn't want the perception to be that he had done anything wrong.
	But at the end of the day...
	Forfeiting $10,000 versus putting your life on hold for a year was a small cost to pay.
	But to be clear, because the prosecutors are now trying to say, well, there were conditions.
	This wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
	You're saying he chose to forfeit that bond essentially voluntarily.
	Yeah.
	I mean, well, they had asked if he would do that, and we advised him that he should do that because it was going to cost him...
	Almost, you know, multiples of that number to go to trial.
	What about the community service?
	community service is something we initially raised ourselves at the initial bond hearing saying this is somebody who's volunteered hundreds of hours, thousands of hours since he was a teenager to all sorts of organizations.
	It's something he's always done.
	So in our discussions with the prosecution, we told them about his volunteer service.
	We did show them a few letters of his ongoing community services.
	Was this a condition of the charges being released?
	got to do this community service.
	He had to do nothing.
	There was no obligations, no conditions.
	These are things that he chose to do because that's his character.
	And again, you can find out from multiple sources that this is-So now- I know from multiple sources because they all came and testified the date of the sentencing.
	So if I'm the prosecutor, if I'm the state, and they're now arguing that we had a deal and that he did this for a deal, my exhibit is her.
	Now, she did CNN, NBC, ABC.
	She went all over the place saying that.
	So I think the state's evidence is clear.
	And you're going to hear a lot of people saying, this is like Bill Cosby.
	Bill Cosby had a deal too.
	Bill Cosby, everybody said Bill Cosby had a deal, right?
	But whether they can uphold that deal.
	Here, the defenses say they never had a deal.
	And now they're saying they had a deal.
	This is why, look, people hate lawyers, and rightfully so, because they literally suck and blow in the legal sense at the same time.
	This is back in the day.
	This is Jussie Smollett's counsel.
	When asserting his innocence at the time, because they think they just got off scot-free, they're saying, There was no deal.
	There was no quid pro quo.
	There was no admission.
	There was no renunciation.
	He just did it to make it all go away, basically under protest.
	But there was no admission, no agreement, no deal.
	Now they are literally saying there was double jeopardy because we had a contract, we had a deal, we had an agreement.
	And you said you would not prosecute us if we forfeited our bond and did community service already done.
	And therefore, deal now, no deal then.
	And yeah, these are also statements from counsel.
	I don't know if these would qualify.
	I think they would qualify as extrajudicial admissions coming from counsel.
	So Jussie would have to...
	Basically disown his counsel and say, I didn't authorize them to make those admissions.
	Yes.
	No, that's a squid.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Yeah, go on, Nate.
	No, no, I was going to say, I was laughing.
	I was saying, I think that puts them in a hole.
	I think now it's going to be hard for those attorneys because if I'm on the other side, I'm saying, Your Honor, we have hours and hours of tape with them saying we never had a deal.
	And now they're coming here in front of the court saying they had a deal.
	Were they lying for, literally, there's hours of tapes of them saying there was no deal.
	So how can they now, with a straight face, come and say, we had a deal, it's double jeopardy.
	It doesn't make sense.
	We understand this.
	They argued, in the case for malicious prosecution, that the state withdrew voluntarily the charges, and therefore that was evidence of innocence of Jesse Smollett.
	Not that they had a deal, and therefore it was a contractual agreement.
	And everyone else, with the Bill Cosby, People should appreciate that what they did in Bill Cosby's case was much different because this guy went out and voluntarily spoke despite what he should have done.
	In Bill Cosby, they said, we will not prosecute you if you waive the fifth and plead in a civil case to which Bill Cosby said, okay, fine.
	I accept that agreement.
	I will potentially incriminate myself in civil proceedings under the assurance that you will never criminally prosecute me.
	And then the prosecution says, whoa!
	We just got a bunch of admissions that we would have never otherwise been able to get.
	But for him waiving the fifth and pleading under the assurances, now let's prosecute him.
	Now let's prosecute him.
	Totally different.
	And my goodness, but the lawyers, they are now trying to undo the mess that they did.
	They're basically just trying to argue both things at the same time.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I remember at the time they just said, look, a DPA, typically for it to be binding, there is something of an admission of guilt.
	That was one of the issues that everyone had at the time is that Jussie was still insisting his innocence when they...
	Announced that they were not going to prosecute, which didn't meet the formal definition of an agreed-upon deferred prosecution agreement.
	Yeah.
	I'm innocent.
	This is the evidence.
	Now he's saying, we have an agreement.
	You can't prosecute me.
	But explain how he got out of jail, because who heard the appeal?
	Certainly wasn't the judge who sentenced him to 150 days.
	The two-to-one split decision.
	Yes.
	So there's a three-judge channel that heard the appeal.
	Now, their basis for the appeal is that the appeal is going to take so long.
	That he could essentially have served all his whole sentence.
	That means even the 30 months of probation and the jail sentence.
	And his appeal is based for the jail sentence.
	So they said, what we'll do is we'll stay the jail sentence, and we're going to allow him to come out until there's arguments.
	Now, generally, you'd have to have a viable appeal to do that.
	You know, if you appeal, they'll look at the facts and say this appeal's inviolable.
	The two judges who voted to allow him to come out seemingly believe that he has a viable appeal.
	That doesn't mean he's going to win.
	In other words, he has good issues on appeal.
	The last judge...
	Looking at everything, said this is not really a viable appeal.
	The state's attorney obviously didn't have any authority to do this.
	They're saying that he never had a deal.
	So, you know, how good can the appeal be?
	So the assenting judge, he lost because it was a 2-1, and now he's out.
	But he's not free as of yet because, again, his two basic arguments are, number one, he had a deal.
	He did his part.
	I did my 16 hours, and I gave up $10,000, and now they're trying to punish me again.
	That's essentially what his thing is.
	And the two counterpoints to that is that the people who he made the deal with never had authority.
	Think about this.
	If I go to the courthouse and just start making...
	You've got to have authority to do so.
	And then the second one, obviously, is that did he ever really have a...
	Did he ever really have a deal in the first place?
	I'm going to read this.
	I've got to read this because it's funny.
	Then I've got to read a Rumble rant because we are streaming on Rumble as well.
	Here's the deal.
	If you display or read this, I will be tracking your eyes.
	You tracked my eyes before, Britt.
	You owe me $50.
	However, if you do not read or display this, you owe me $50 because then I will know you read it.
	No deal, sir, but I read it.
	And then let me just pull up the one Rumble rant that I just saw on Rumble.
	Where is Rumble rant?
	Okay, here it is.
	Sorry.
	Oh, did I miss it?
	Okay, it's from Tatone, who says, Viva, I'm watching my country spiral towards World War III because we have corrupt traitors in the White House and a Congress who profit from war.
	Thank you for you and Barnes for showing how to fight back.
	You keep me sane.
	Thank you very much.
	Look, I'm feeling the same pressure here in Canada.
	I mean, we've got Justin Trudeau now who is hell-bent on finding his next crisis to continue to distract from his own corruption.
	War is very good for politics, though.
	Because let's not forget, and I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but understand if you're coming into an election year, the best thing for the politician who's in office is conflict.
	Because nobody wants to change horses in the middle of a battle, right?
	You don't want to change the general.
	You're already in it, and that's, you know, it's just great for the population.
	Political power party that's in power.
	And I think it's good for Biden because it's changed the whole narrative, right?
	From this mishandling of all this stuff to now we're talking about war.
	Now their whole thing, war, war, war, war, war.
	By the way, I know some people might not care about Jussie.
	We're going to finish it up in a few minutes because there's one argument, Nate, that I've got to say.
	Everyone knows what I feel about Jussie Smollett in the case.
	The argument that Kim...
	Kim Fox did not have the authority to enter into the agreement.
	Look, if I'm a lawyer and I have kept my mouth shut and told my client to keep my mouth shut and they haven't incriminated themselves with the prior statements, I would make the argument that I don't...
	To me, I don't care if Kim Fox didn't have the authority.
	She wears the title of the DA or whatever it is, circuit attorney there.
	She wears the title, rules of indoor management.
	I am not bound to know whether or not internally the woman purporting to be the district attorney...
	Does or does not have the authority.
	She warranted to me that she does.
	I was in my rights to believe that she did, and therefore enter into the agreement.
	But for the other facts, the small facts, I can be amenable to that argument.
	Yes, but the only issue is that, I'm not sure how it is where you guys are at, but here, a lawyer who's in a case is supposed to be an expert on the law.
	You're assumed to be an expert on the law.
	That's the reason why you're barred.
	So, if that's the case...
	The counter-argument to that point is going to be, well, you were represented by learned counsel.
	And your counsel was well aware that the state's attorney's office recused themselves.
	So under state law, under state law, if that happened, then you as the attorney, as an expert in the law, should have known that the state's attorney did not have any authority to prosecute your client.
	Because you, you as an attorney, a barred attorney, know the law.
	State prosecutor...
	And it's interesting because even during this same case, there was another case Kim Fox recused herself from.
	The same exact way.
	And said the same thing.
	Well, I don't have an authority to prosecute this case.
	So the argument can be maybe this, what's it called?
	What's it called?
	Counterintuitive?
	No, no.
	When your counsel doesn't...
	I forget the term of art now.
	Will your lawyers do a bad job?
	Incompetence, negligible, negligible.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But ineffective assistance of counsel.
	That's what I think.
	So you could actually make the argument ineffective as the council.
	She recused herself.
	It's just like me going, the DA says, I recuse myself, but now I want to make a deal with you.
	Whose fault is that?
	Temporal fact that the DPA was after she recused herself and not before?
	Yes.
	The DPA was after she recused herself.
	So they said, we recuse ourselves, but now we're going to make a deal with you.
	Now, I heard, by the way, that they're going...
	I saw Russell Brand's thumbnail, but haven't watched his video yet, so I'm going to watch it today.
	Maybe reach out to Russell Brand, and we can have a discussion.
	I don't know what they're coming after him for, but he has been speaking a little too much truth these days.
	He's a little...
	He's got a little too much to think.
	Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.
	So they let him out pending the appeal.
	In an ideal world, I understand if they say he's got robust grounds of appeal.
	Yeah.
	Let him out in the meantime, but the facts of this case...
	I mean, I expedite the appeal, but, you know, this seems like preferential treatment if I'm...
	Oh, hell yes, preferential treatment.
	Listen, if we don't have enough money to have lawyers appealing forever and, oh, you know, emergency appeals, this is...
	Let's just be cold about it.
	This is about money.
	And Jesse, he rings all the bells.
	Black, gay, Jewish.
	Let's just call it what it is.
	And he's got millions and millions of dollars.
	So this is not...
	When the DA is calling your sister saying, tell him to keep his mouth shut and he'll be okay.
	You know, when Michelle Obama is making phone calls to the state, you know, Michelle Obama's assistant making phone calls to the state's attorney saying, hey, you know, we know this guy.
	That's a, you know, it's a, this is not a normal case.
	So, and him spending 60, I was surprised he got any jail time, but he did get jail time.
	And I think the problem here now.
	Is that the corruption is so blatant, so out in your face.
	It's just like, you know, what can we do?
	It's really that bad.
	It's really that bad.
	If people really look into this case, they'll really see one of the most corrupt persecutions I think I've been able to see.
	And the funny thing is, this case is so corrupt, it manages to make the Chicago police look clean in this, because all that they want now is to steal for their overtime.
	I'm going to bring this question up.
	JB, it's not a bad question.
	Why didn't the truck, because I'm going to read it the way I think it should be read, put their assets into a trust, yada, yada, yada, so the government can't go over it.
	So, you know, disposing of your assets right after you've been sued, when you know that you're likely to be sued, it doesn't offer any protection because it's basically fraudulent disposal of assets, which is why people typically keep their assets separate before they run into liability, because if you try to hide them after the exposure or after the lawsuit or after the complaint, then it becomes fraudulent disposal of assets, potentially.
	So it wouldn't have worked after they were in trouble, but it would have worked beforehand.
	But from what I understand, you know, Give, Send, Go is reimbursing the $10 million to all of the donors because now by their own standards, they cannot accomplish the stated objective of the campaign, and so they can't disperse the funds.
	No way Jussie wins an appeal?
	I don't think so either.
	It's worth to see him hauled off to jail twice.
	This super chat gave a 0% cut to YouTube.
	Okay, but hold on.
	Before we even leave this, Nate, I've got to go back.
	I'm not listening to this guy again.
	We've got to go and just...
	This is not Jussie Smollett, people.
	This is the epically bad takes on the Twitterverse because...
	How do I go here?
	Twitter?
	Mark Lamont Hill.
	Oh my god.
	The thing that pisses me off, why are they trying to make this into a black and white issue and race issue?
	Jussie Smollett is not, you know, no matter what you say about Juicy, he is not being treated like any regular black defendant in this case, right?
	There's no question.
	Matter of fact, he's not being treated as a white person.
	He's being treated as even more special than that, right?
	We see the screen is sharing properly?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Make it a little bigger.
	I don't know that I can.
	It's okay, it's okay.
	Mark Lamont Hill.
	I don't know who he is exactly as a commentator.
	On CNN.
	It remains stunning to me how many of y 'all are committed to seeing Jussie Smollett incarcerated.
	First of all, this is not the funny one, but this is not an argument.
	It remains stunning.
	He committed a felonious act.
	He dragged it out for two years.
	He impugned the legal system, the political system.
	He made a mockery of hate crimes in general.
	Why does he not deserve to go to jail?
	Is he special?
	It was a non-violent felony.
	Yeah, right.
	He was found guilty of lying to police, filing a false police report.
	The underlying statement of which he lied was a hate crime and arguably tried to start a race war, if not just undermine actual victims of actual hate crimes.
	Why should he not go to jail?
	But that wasn't the outrageous part of this.
	I don't know if I can still see it because I got blocked by the guy.
	It was...
	Oh, who was the one?
	It was a CBS reporter.
	Hold on.
	How do I do this, people?
	I need to get it.
	I need to get it because it was so preposterous.
	Oh, here we go.
	This, this, this.
	Okay, so this other guy says, Don Walton.
	I don't know how many followers he has.
	I don't pick on people, and I don't punch down.
	When I saw this comment, blue checkmark, and then I go, and it seems that he works for CBS News.
	CBS TV, Showtime, HBO.
	So I don't care that he's got 500 followers.
	This is a blue checkmark influencer who works in media and is supposed to put out news and information.
	And he puts out, meanwhile, the people that stormed the Capitol are sipping margaritas on some beach in Florida.
	Now, at first I thought it was a joke.
	At first I thought it was sarcasm.
	And then I saw the guy's timeline, and it was neither a joke nor sarcasm.
	It was actual egregious misinformation, the likes of which it's malicious in that it's not just false, but it actually lies about the victims of what we all agree is over-the-top criminal prosecution.
	And I was sassy.
	Are you that stupid that you don't know how many of the January 6th defendants have been incarcerated for over a year?
	Pre-trial detention, which is somewhat different than post-trial conviction.
	You abject idiot.
	And then I was swiftly blocked.
	People have to appreciate the nuance there, Nate.
	And I mean, you can harp on it more than me.
	Pre-trial detention is still a legally innocent individual.
	Post-trial conviction, he had his day in court.
	But Nate, I mean, you know what's going on.
	I personally, a pretrial detention, you know, is essentially what you're doing is locking up someone who's technically innocent so they can come to court.
	I honestly don't really agree with it unless you're, you know, they find you to be, like, for instance, we have here in New York City, they're letting out murderers, people who've got, you know, murderers and violent felons.
	Then, yeah, pretrial detention is really us to...
	To keep the public safe because your crime was so insidious or something like that.
	What they're trying to do is equate is say that Juicy Smollett, and I'm going to call him Juicy, is innocent because he's...
	And this is only happening to him because he's black.
	Now, I made the joke the other day that this Juicy Smollett is such an example of racism, right?
	They're making it seem like Juicy is such a racist.
	And I watch all the black feeds.
	And it's so wild because I made the comment, and I was swiftly blocked too.
	I said, only in America can a black Jewish gay man hire two black Nigerians whose skin is darker than coal, right?
	To play white guys.
	And then, when caught and busted, claim the system is racist against him!
	It's like, this is really the system we're living in.
	He hired two black...
	He couldn't even find two white guys.
	He had to hire two black guys to play white guys.
	This is where we live at.
	I presume most people would not be crazy enough to go...
	This is not a race issue.
	This is just a city issue.
	Most people would not be meandering around Chicago at 2 in the morning from what I know of Chicago.
	Two white guys in Chicago.
	Let's just keep it real.
	Let's stop pussyfooting around.
	It's like two white guys walking around in the middle of Harlem at 2 o 'clock in the morning.
	That's what we're really talking about.
	Two white guys walking around are black.
	We're bleach.
	We're rope.
	As a matter of fact, it's 23 below zero.
	Like, only an idiot would have looked at, would have heard those facts and be like, okay, that sounds real.
	And yet, I just happened to be going to Subway.
	They just happened to know I was leaving my house at 2 o 'clock in the morning to go to Subway.
	The story was all bullshit.
	But the thing is, is that they're so dependent.
	They're so, you know, race, race, race, that now nobody wants to even look at the story.
	He hired two.
	He couldn't find two white guys.
	He had to hire two black guys to do it.
	That's what we're talking about.
	I don't often do these types of sassy tweets, but Jussie Smollett being released from jail pending his appeal is the greatest sign of white privilege I have ever seen.
	It's true!
	First of all, I did not actually fully appreciate the fact that his grandmother is both white and Jewish, and when she gets up there saying, you know, my grandson's a good boy, don't send him to jail, you know, it's family, and so can't blame her.
	And let's not forget, too, he blamed the Holocaust.
	He blamed the Ukraine War.
	They blamed everything.
	You name it, they blamed it, right?
	They blamed it all.
	And this has nothing.
	The only racist in this whole story was the racist who hired two actors, black actors, to play two white guys, to beat him up and to tell the public that we're that...
	Trump supporters are so racist that they're wearing MAGA hats in the middle of a black neighborhood hunting down black men at random.
	That's as racist as you get.
	And we live in a society where they flipped that and said the people who prosecuted him for those lies are the racist.
	Think about that.
	Really, really think about that.
	The racists aren't the people who did the racist acts.
	It's the people who stopped them and found it out.
	That's America today.
	It's atrocious.
	It's atrocious.
	It's absurd.
	We'll see what happens, people.
	Someone said, you know, you'll see him get hauled back off the veil a second time.
	Okay, well, that's the latest of the news.
	Barnes and I will talk about it again on Sunday night, and, you know, we'll get Barnes' take.
	But I think, you know, by and large, we all agree on pretrial detention.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Except unless violence, like, you know, recidivism.
	Recidivism.
	Danger to the community, egregious flight risk given the accusations.
	Imagine their pretrial trespass.
	I don't care.
	I know January 6th was purported to have been a year plus in jail.
	And in Canada, pretrial detention for people accused of mischief.
	Meanwhile, the dude who ran over four people in a Winnipeg protest released on bail.
	A big bail, but released nonetheless.
	Let me see here because we got some interesting...
	Do I want to...
	I'm not bringing up the New York Times.
	We'll bring up the New York Post.
	Because speaking of conspiracy theory one day, truth the next.
	Let's share away, people.
	Can we see this from the New York Post?
	Icebreaker.
	But you know what, though?
	I'm going to say this.
	It shows you how...
	And I gotta make sure, I gotta be careful here.
	So I did a video on this, right?
	On the whole Hunter Biden thing.
	Because I found that I didn't keep it like, Nate, do a deep dive because you love the Democrats.
	So I said, I'll do a deep dive.
	So I did a deep dive and pulled up all the pictures of Hunter Biden.
	I did everything I was supposed to do.
	That video was so suppressed on YouTube, so suppressed.
	People who were getting notifications from me didn't even get the notifications for that video.
	That's how much they were suppressing the story.
	And then I put the link to the story in the thing, and then first they blocked the thing, and then they opened it back up.
	It was that story, I don't know what, but now since the New York Times has confirmed it, now, oh my God, it's a real story.
	That story was real when it first came out.
	It was real when it first came out.
	Not everybody lives on social media the way we do.
	Twitter was blocking access to links to the story.
	On the basis that it was either hacked material or misinformation at the time.
	I forget who it was.
	I think it was the woman with the purple hair who snuck the questions to Hillary Clinton was suggesting that it was a Russian plant.
	Russian propaganda.
	Listen to this.
	Hunter Biden's infamous laptop confirmed in New York Times report.
	The New York Post, by the way, was blocked from their Twitter feed for violating the rules of...
	Disseminating the product of hacked material.
	They said that the computer guy who was the source of this story had hacked Hunter Biden's laptop, which was false.
	By the way, if the time frame is relevant, right at the election period.
	It is relevant.
	I had friends in New York City who voted who didn't know about this story beforehand.
	A comprehensive report about The ongoing federal probe into Hunter Biden's tax filing, published by the New York Times on Wednesday night, confirmed the existence of the first son's infamous laptop.
	In October, the Post exclusively reported on the contents that he ditched at a Delaware repair shop.
	By the way, they went ahead and ruined that guy's life as well.
	Yeah.
	It contained a trove of emails, 10% to the big guy.
	Remember that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, no.
	It was the whole Hunter Biden laptop thing.
	Was suppressed because they wanted Biden to win the election.
	Let's, you know, I'm just not going to, I'm not even going to sugarcoat it.
	They did not want this story to get out.
	And just so everybody can appreciate the backstory here, Hunter Biden went to get, he couldn't get into the laptop.
	So he went and asked this repair guy, hey, can you get into this laptop for me?
	He said, break into the laptop.
	The guy had a receipt.
	They did everything he showed.
	Hey, listen, I need to get into this laptop.
	The guy did it.
	He did what Hunter Biden paid him to do.
	Hunter Biden never came back for the laptop.
	So he went into the laptop to try to find out, well, I got to contact this guy, right?
	Let me find out if there's any contact information.
	And when he went inside there...
	That's when...
	When he went inside there, by the way, set aside the 10% for the big guy, the tax info.
	When he went in there, he saw stuff that was sufficiently serious.
	He had to contact the FBI.
	So, typically, you don't contact the FBI over tax information, over, you know, out of context, emails or text messages.
	That's my own hypothesis, but it comes from smarter people than myself.
	But let me add this to the stream.
	Yeah, hold up.
	Let's do this, because I hate talking in abstractions.
	After you finish this, I have the clips of the pics that are censored, so I'm not going to get you struck.
	But here's what they found.
	Nate, I reserve the right not to bring that up.
	Hold on.
	They're all censored, though, so I censored them out.
	Listen to this, people.
	The New York Times says authenticated emails that appear to have a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden in Delaware.
	Why are you asking this question?
	She just shook her head like this.
	I pointed to the Department of Justice and also to Hunter Biden's representatives.
	He doesn't work in the government.
	He doesn't work in the government.
	Very interesting way of saying something.
	He doesn't work in the government.
	Does he work with the government?
	Does he benefit from family connections to the government?
	Yeah, we all know he doesn't work in the government.
	I don't think he's employable by the government or any response.
	What a weasel of an answer and her face.
	She's shaking her head no.
	Please don't ask this question.
	I'm not a modern language expert.
	I just trust my opinion, people.
	Oh, what did I just do?
	Hold on.
	Oh, sorry.
	He was doing the book tour, too.
	So that was one of the issues why he got caught up.
	But those things were real.
	And it's interesting.
	One thing, and again, I hate being the conspiratorial guy, but Hunter Biden had all those...
	So with Trump, Trump had the bad phone call with Zelensky, right?
	The bad phone call, you know, do that stuff.
	But now, Hunter Biden had deals with Ukraine.
	He was going to try to get money for the big guy with Ukraine.
	Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
	He was dead deep.
	In that laptop, they had all that stuff about Ukraine.
	How come we haven't heard anything more about Ukraine than the Bidens?
	We've heard none of that stuff.
	People don't understand what's going on.
	Even if you talk about this stuff now, you become a Putin apologist to acknowledge that all governments across the world are corrupt.
	Putin, Zelensky, Biden, Trudeau.
	To acknowledge that they're all corrupt and therefore one, Corrupt government now telling you to go to war with another corrupt government because it's gone to war with another corrupt government.
	You become an apologist for saying you're all a bunch of pathological liars and don't get me involved in your wars and certainly not a World War III for your path.
	Everyone should appreciate what was going on in Ukraine, what is going on.
	All of this was about at the time and now it's coming to a head as to billions of dollars in aid going to Ukraine.
	And the vice president's son employed by the entities within Ukraine to get paid to do nothing and then bringing 10% back to the big guy and under the promise of more billions of dollars in aid that goes to a government which is right up there on the corruption list to get funneled off to all various entities.
	No, but don't pay attention to any of that.
	Just listen now to the politicians that have been lying to you for the last two years to forever, the media that's been lying to you for the last...
	Two years to forever.
	Listen to them now and believe them when they say this is good versus evil, black and white, existential threat.
	And if you are questioning anything they say, you're a Putin apologist.
	I mean, people have suspended disbelief at this point in time.
	But no, but so the bottom line to that, by the way, conspiracy theory last year, social media censored.
	Arguably, but not arguably, affected the outcome of a federal presidential election in the United States.
	Confirmed truth today.
	And the New York Times, Operation Mockingbird, corrupt partisan journalists, pathological liars, lied to you then, and a year later, two years later, a good enough time before the next election, just quietly, yeah, okay, fine, what we said was wrong then is true now.
	Listen, I will say this, though.
	The one bad part about this whole Hunter Biden...
	There were YouTubers who reported on this story who got channel strikes for this story.
	And now, the story is confirmed?
	I don't believe YouTube is going to make them whole again, right?
	And that's the problem with this censorship, is that this story was confirmed.
	We all knew it happened back then.
	And they suppressed it, and they suppressed it to the point where they were taking people's livelihoods away.
	Striking someone's channel and suspending them, that's taking their livelihood away.
	If you're telling a story that is backed with facts, and today, a year later, after it doesn't have any effect on election, about two years later, right?
	No effect on election.
	Right now, the stories, and now they're going to, you know, when a war is happening, all this other stuff, and they're quietly trying to say, well, hey, you know what?
	We've confirmed the laptop.
	Guess what?
	That story is true.
	Because they're hoping people just ignore it.
	That's what they're hoping for.
	Hi, Tobon.
	I suppose the Ukrainian civilian population being murdered by Putin's goons is just right.
	No, it's not.
	No, it's absolutely wrong.
	And now the question is this.
	You can just say, it's Putin's goons.
	And then the question is whether or not other states, through their actions, have put the Ukrainian civilians at this point of risk.
	And the answer is, you may not like it, but the answer is yes.
	The civilians are the victims.
	Of Putin's aggression now, and of the geopolitics and the situation that has been created that put them in that position in the first place, of Zelensky's conduct as president, of the existence of bioweapons research facilities in Ukraine, these things put innocent civilians in the crosshairs.
	And just to pretend that it's only Putin's fault at this moment in time, as though this conflict doesn't go back at the very least to 2014, and at the very least much earlier, I mean, you are then just oversimplifying it and saying, it's all Putin.
	It's Putin right now.
	And Ukrainian civilians are absolutely dying as a result of this.
	And it's absolutely horrendous.
	And it's why, on an international geopolitical scale, when you put weapons facilities on the soil of an existential threat, you are putting the civilians in harm's way.
	That's the, what's it called?
	The Cuban Missile Crisis.
	Cuban Missile Crisis.
	So if people want a good analog to it.
	But, you know, I also think, though...
	It's one of those things where any time one side decides to initiate violence as a means to an end, it's always going to get a lot of condemnation.
	And then right now, I think what you're saying is right.
	There's a contextual piece to it, too, because when the Cubans put missiles on that island...
	Russian missiles.
	We weren't having that, right?
	We invaded.
	We invaded.
	We invaded Cuba, the Cuban Missile Crisis, right?
	The Bay of Pigs.
	So, you know, this is not like...
	I just want people to understand, contextually, it's not like they're the only ones who've ever done that.
	We've done this before.
	And it's, you know, it's...
	It's the way the world works, unfortunately.
	Even though, don't get me wrong, I condemn what Russia's doing and the fact that they pulled that trigger.
	But to make it seem like we have clean hands, we've never done it before, we have.
	People want to, when you view things in a historical vacuum, yeah, like, I want to, the short thing I could put on.
	Hello, everybody.
	Thank you for sharing your time with me.
	I'm sending this message to various different channels.
	So Schwarzenegger goes on for nine minutes, and it's a very well-delivered, compelling speech.
	Oversimplified is an understatement.
	The interesting thing about what Schwarzenegger says is, you know, he says at some point things are so bad that everyone has to speak out about it.
	The January 6th insurrection.
	He cites as one of these examples.
	He, in this speech, goes on to say the Russians protesting in the streets, protesting their government in the street, are heroes.
	They're suffering the consequences of their actions because Putin, you know, treats dissent in Russia worse, but only by scale to the way Trudeau and Biden treat dissent locally here.
	Don't everyone forget.
	Trudeau suspended constitutional rights, declared an emergency, a national emergency, locked up protesters, froze bank accounts, seized bank accounts of people who were just peacefully protesting in the streets.
	But Schwarzenegger says, you know, the January 6 people, they were bad.
	They got what they deserved.
	But the people protesting in the streets of Russia are heroes.
	But there was a comment here.
	I want to see what someone said.
	I just got to go on record.
	I can't compare people, anti-war protesters in Russia to the January 6th.
	I think that's a bridge.
	I would go too far to make that comparison.
	But I will say, though, is that it's good that they're exercising their free speech rights to whatever they can.
	I also believe that the January 6th people were exercising their free speech rights and should have.
	If they stayed outside, I would have been all for it.
	But as soon as you go inside and start breaking property, that's one thing.
	And over there, if they're doing that same thing, that's the same thing.
	So I think there's a remarkable difference in the two.
	Well, we'll get to that difference in a second.
	I can't find it.
	But my point with this is that someone said to Schwarzenegger...
	Replace the word Ukraine and Russia with Palestine and Israel.
	This is the exact problem that happens when you historically take out of context or just take it in a vacuum.
	It's only as of 2022.
	It's only as of this moment in time that Israel is being the aggressor.
	All the arguments apply mutandus mutandus.
	And again, I have my own personal beliefs there, but I'm not going to take sides.
	I'm going to say that even in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is exquisitely complicated.
	And who's caught in the crosshairs of two governments playing chess with other people's pieces?
	It's the innocent Palestinian civilians that are caught in the crosshairs.
	And do I think they should be subjected to that?
	Absolutely not.
	Because at this point in time, Israel is...
	Making an incursion?
	No, because it goes back a little bit further.
	There's a little bit more at play between two governments here than people want to oversimplify.
	Here's the thing about the January 6th.
	We saw some videos.
	There was objectively more violence at the January 6th protest than anywhere in the Ottawa protest.
	The question is whether or not those incidents, those pockets of violence were sufficiently The issue is not whether or not there were elements of violence on January 6th.
	The question is whether or not those elements of violence were weaponized to then go after the shaman.
	I agree.
	Of course.
	He's going to jail for five years.
	He didn't commit any acts of violence with his bare hands.
	Of course.
	I think you have to realize because January 6th is a political football.
	It helped the Democrats, right?
	So, of course, they're going to politicize.
	They did the hearings.
	They did the hearings.
	That was going to happen, just like, I think, BLM.
	When they go bad and they have their rights and stuff like that, that helps the other political...
	So whenever you have that political piece to it, of course.
	And let's not forget it, and I did the review.
	There was a permit for the event.
	Trump said, hey, go down there peacefully, do all this.
	None of that narrative was put out there because it didn't help the political narrative.
	The truth is, there was an event that went bad.
	And I personally blame, on January 6th, I blame...
	The people, the security apparatus for January 6th, less than the people who actually rioted.
	Now, before I get canceled, let me explain why.
	The reason why is because during, let's say, Black Lives Matter rallies that happened at the Capitol, there were something like 10 or 15 times more police staged there.
	They had barricades.
	They made sure you couldn't get close to the building.
	When January 6th happened...
	Even the people in Congress, even their own people say, we didn't have enough people.
	They had like six people and they knew we had thousands of people coming to the building.
	So it's like you're saying, they were letting people into the building.
	So the security failed there.
	And I think that security failure is the reason why January 6th happened.
	But now, you know, there's some people saying that, you know, why did they let it fail and all that stuff.
	So there are issues there.
	But I think at the end of the day, as a political matter.
	Yes, January 6th, the shaman, he's doing five years, not because of how bad an event was.
	It was because politics dictate that, yeah, we shouldn't treat this harsher.
	And we all know that.
	That's just a fact of reality.
	And by the way, so Arnie, the son of an actual Yarsi, supporting, in his nine-minute speech, he talks about how his father, it was his father or it was his father, who besieged Leningrad and who was an actual Yahtzee soldier.
	Fighting actual communists.
	So here, another one of those nuanced times in history where you have one fascist murderous regime fighting another murderous regime, because it's not like the Soviets, it's not like the communists didn't kill 50 million people either.
	You have the Yahtzees fighting the communists, two evil forces, but historically, Russia goes down as the hero because they defeated.
	Because one...
	Evil force defeated the other evil force.
	They were on the side that won.
	The winners write the story, right?
	It's his story.
	The winners are the ones who write the story.
	I wouldn't hold his father's history against him.
	No, of course not.
	I hold his own conduct against him.
	Let's all remember, this is the same Schwarzenegger who sat back in his jacuzzi with a cigar telling us, quarantine's not so bad, just do it, it'll be over in two weeks.
	Which then led into him saying, screw your freedoms, verbatim.
	This is the same guy who said, screw your freedoms, is now telling people to go up and protest a tyrannical Soviet, or sorry, Russian government for their freedoms and for the freedoms of others.
	Let me see here.
	Director of the RCMP financial crime FinTrack fine trucker convoy donations came from Canadians fed up with COVID restrictions.
	And he said verbatim.
	These were just innocent Canadians who thought they lived in a democratic society, who thought they were supporting a cause that they believed in.
	So that's it.
	I mean, that's what's going on with...
	What's his face?
	With Schwarzenegger.
	But he's coming out.
	It's a nine-minute...
	To pretend that innocent civilians are not suffering and dying...
	I don't know anybody that's doing that.
	And anybody that is pretending that civilians are not being killed is...
	I don't know.
	I won't argue intent.
	It's wrong.
	The issue is how, why, and what's the solution?
	Because you may not like the idea.
	If an existential threat that people have said is a madman who wants to bring the world down, if you are either putting, setting up, supplying, financing, provided training, logistics, and electronics communications to bio-research labs on that soil...
	You are effectively putting innocent civilians in the crosshairs of a drug war.
	I mean, that's what you're doing.
	And so the question is, is it the case?
	If it's the case, why is it happening?
	Who's responsible?
	And how do you resolve this?
	But now speaking, do we move on to the Canadian stuff, Nate?
	I mean, look, I have not read David myself.
	Let me see if I can share screen window.
	Son of a beasting.
	Where is it?
	Hold on.
	Let me bring it up here.
	I can never figure out how to share a PDF.
	I see the PDF right there.
	I see it.
	Let me see if I can go share.
	This is Maxime Bernier's PDF in his lawsuit against the federal government.
	Let me see.
	Does this work, Nate?
	Yes.
	Can you zoom in just a little bit?
	There you go.
	Perfect.
	Unofficial use.
	This is not a leaked document.
	This is a translation of the French affidavit.
	It's unofficial, not for court, but it's basically as much of a translation of the affidavit as possible.
	I won't be able to see the chat while I'm doing this.
	This is Maxime Bernier, leader of the PPC, People's Party of Canada, who cannot travel within the country despite our Charter of Rights because he's not vaccinated.
	But hold on.
	One thing, though.
	You know you could save the Super Chats now or whatever comments you like, right?
	You know you can do that.
	On StreamYard?
	On StreamYard, yeah.
	So what you do is you click on the comment and you'll see a star on the upper right-hand corner of the thing and you click that star and you'll see where it saves it so you can see it later.
	Hold on, I click on the Super Chat?
	Yeah, so click on the Super Chat.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	And you see the star on the upper left-hand side of the Super Chat and you click on that star and you see it's a shit and then you can go back later and just go to that and look at the Super Chat.
	Yeah, we're going to see if that works.
	But the problem is I still can't even see the chat as I read from the document.
	Not when you read from the document.
	So if you see a chat, something that you want to respond to later, you can just save it.
	We'll go through this quickly.
	Ah, son of a beasting.
	Okay.
	PPC, it's a leading federal party.
	The party got 5% of the vote, which is amazing.
	Only leader of a major political party that stands for individual freedom and responsibility.
	You know, they say, by the way, that sometimes court filings...
	are less for the court and more for public opinion or at least public education.
	So we will educate.
	Although anyone who's been following me for any period of time knows this.
	The PPC was the only party saying no lockdowns, none of this crap.
	The cure can't be worse than the illness.
	He participated in the application.
	There's some technicalities here.
	I further note that persons who can demonstrate that they have previously contracted COVID Or who have antibodies are not considered fully...
	So this is another issue.
	When you talk about trusting the science, now it's becoming to get trusted where the CDC is thinking about recognizing prior infection because you have effective antibodies against future infection.
	And I know that Maxime Bernier had contracted it previously.
	So he's the only political leader who's been outspokenly, openly opposed as a matter of principle and since the beginning of the pandemic to lockdown measures, travel restrictions, curfews, mandatory closures of business, etc., etc., etc.
	The PPC receives very little attention in the mainstream Canadian print, radio, and television media relative to the other federal parties.
	The press reviews that my communications director provides me with...
	On a daily basis and that I have been receiving for the past few years, allow me to state this with certainty.
	No one would disagree with that.
	How do I go back to...
	Well, let's see.
	Let's get to the bulk of this real quick.
	I can't navigate this thing.
	Oh, it's because I zoomed in on it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	So he's talking about reaching out to thousands of people.
	The opportunity to meet people in person is also particularly important for senior voters who are less familiar with the internet, live in Montreal, yada, yada, yada.
	I guess, bottom line.
	Doesn't that cut against them a little bit?
	Because aren't those the ones who are more vulnerable to COVID?
	That's a good point, Nate.
	Well, basically, they're vulnerable to COVID, but if he's already had an infection and he, in theory, has immune for a certain period of time, they won't be at risk.
	But I think the other issue is not so much other precautions, like you can take negative PCR tests before holding an event.
	Here, they're basically saying he can't travel across Canada to meet his potential constituents.
	But that doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, that's ridiculous, though.
	It's ridiculous.
	I mean, you could drive it, but you can't train or fly.
	In 2021, I flew over 79,000 kilometers in Canada for work purposes.
	That's quite impressive.
	That's a lot.
	PPC, he cannot afford a charter plane for his own political activities.
	That's if you're asking for an injunction, you have to be able to show that there's no alternative remedy to what you're seeking.
	He lives in Montreal, yada, yada.
	Traveling tens of thousands of kilometers by car or bus would take far more time than an efficient schedule would allow.
	On December 16, 2021, the Prime Minister directed the Minister of Transport to require that travelers on commercial flights in and out of Canada be vaccinated, as set out in the mandate December 16, 2021.
	It all depends on you guys' rights, because I know here we have the no-fly list, which I definitely, and I know Barnes also has a big issue with the no-fly list, too.
	So those of you who don't know, you don't have to be committed of any crime, right?
	If the government says, we think you're kind of iffy, They can put you on the no-fly list and you can't fly anywhere, right?
	So they have a lot of power when it comes to the no-fly list.
	But I'm not sure if you guys have the right, you know, you guys, it's actually your right to fly.
	Well, we have a constitutional right to interprovincial travel.
	And so the question is, obviously, it's a similar question.
	I don't know.
	For here, you have a right to travel, but you don't have the right to the mode of travel.
	That's how the law is here.
	I see now.
	Okay, so hold on.
	No, I see.
	So I saved it.
	Oh, start.
	Oh my goodness, Nate.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so you can...
	Yep.
	Now you've discovered the star.
	Boom!
	All right, well, that's cool.
	No, so we'll finish.
	I mean, this is...
	It's a very intuitive...
	It's an intuitive affidavit.
	It's basically saying, you're restricting my rights.
	There's no logical reason for it.
	By restricting mobility based on my vaccination status, the orders...
	Violate my rights to participate in democratic discussions and the electoral process.
	I agree.
	By vaccination status, it's also...
	I don't know that we have a no-fly list in Canada.
	I suspect we do, but I don't think...
	Because if that's the case, like here, they would dismiss this based on the fact that the government has the right to determine...
	For instance, the no-fly list, they don't have to have any reason, right?
	Just that we don't feel like we should fly after 9-11.
	So if that's the case, then something like this would be well within those realms, even though I don't agree that they should do it based on your COVID status.
	But it's now about whether they have the authority to do it.
	And again, I'm not sure in Canada if they do.
	I'm not going to read this.
	I'll read this.
	He's in good physical condition.
	Anyone who's seen Maxime Bernier knows that he is.
	He's aged very well.
	A runner.
	And he's talking about statistics and paragraph 30. I love it when people draft it like this because some people don't mince their words.
	Sorry, hold on.
	I'll leave it up there.
	But do you guys still have these stupid restrictions?
	Even here in New York City, they've released them all.
	None of this stuff makes sense anymore at this point in time.
	None of it makes sense anymore, and especially since the provinces are rolling it back.
	Look, the federal is slow to learn and slow to learn.
	Hold on one second.
	Time to get a call.
	Okay, you do that.
	So I prefer to develop natural immunity.
	He did, in fact, contract COVID.
	I have recovered without difficulty.
	About a week after the first symptoms, I went back to normal.
	Yada, yada.
	Let me see here.
	The Prime Minister, this is paragraph 42, made intolerant and defamatory comments about people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, as appears from the audio and video excerpts attached as Exhibit E. And I hope that some of my Twitter feed videos are there, because...
	This is the same guy who said those people are putting us all at risk, racist, misogynist, extremists.
	They don't know what's good for them.
	They're conspiracy theorists.
	They're unacceptable people holding unacceptable views.
	I like paragraph 43. I've witnessed since the beginning of 2021 the peddling of stereotypes, degrading, and defamatory statements, lies, and near-hate allegations about the unvaccinated by mainstream news media, including public figures and many federal and provincial politicians, including the Prime Minister.
	He still capitalizes his name, as shown in the written audio-video excerpts attached here, too.
	All right?
	That's the affidavit.
	So we're going to see what happens.
	Let me just get this up here.
	I'm not going to say...
	Cynical or skeptical.
	Just see what they're going for.
	If they're going for an injunction, the bar is high to an injunction.
	There's a presumption of constitutionality of the law that you have to overcome.
	The arguments for and the arguments against, they're going to be obvious.
	He can drive.
	He can charter his own plane.
	Raise a little more money.
	Unacceptable views was the expression.
	But it's...
	It's the absolute state of Canada.
	And, you know, and now Justin Trudeau is so happy to turn his bought and paid for media onto another crisis so they can ignore this.
	I said I would shed some light on Maxine Bernier's lawsuit.
	Brian Pektin is also suing.
	This is a guy who is a, you know, he's not an eccentric politician.
	People will write Maxime Bernier off.
	The media has already done it.
	The courts might try to.
	But when you're dealing with Brian Peckton, and I love where Max mentions that.
	Hey, dude, it's, and by the way, let me share one more thing.
	Just so I won't read it, just so everybody can understand it, because it's.
	Do they have to have a rational basis for this?
	Like, if these things aren't making...
	If the science says these things aren't making sense anymore, we can read...
	How are they just allowed to just do this, you know, even in front of the science?
	If the science says we're over, you know, this doesn't make any sense to me.
	A mandate.
	I don't even know what mandates mean anymore.
	No legislative process.
	No public debate.
	No evidence.
	And here, people, let's just...
	I will go straight to the government website.
	You guys can read this.
	Let me just draw your attention to this section right here.
	Do the math, people.
	I don't know why they picked 5 out of 10,000 instead of really showing it's 1 out of 2,000.
	Just read it, people.
	I'll crack my knuckles.
	Oh, yeah.
	And my elbows.
	And my back.
	Oh, God.
	That was a good one.
	All right.
	And now we're taking it out.
	Nate, what else do we have?
	Wow.
	That's crazy.
	So it's like 95%?
	Vaccine rate.
	So why the hell are they locking down anything?
	You guys are like beyond herd immunity.
	It makes no sense.
	This literally makes no sense.
	What are you fooling?
	What are you showing us?
	Whatever they do, they're absolutely there.
	91%.
	And do you want to take a guess, Nate, as to the demographic of the remaining 9% that are not fully vaccinated?
	I can tell you one thing.
	They're not...
	They're not Caucasian liberals.
	I can tell you that much.
	We have the same demographics, statistical anomalies in Canada.
	Latino, Indigenous, Black Canadians are reluctant to get the vaccine for obvious reasons.
	It has nothing to do with the fact that our government just paid out the biggest settlement in Canadian history to the Indigenous.
	Because once upon a time, they whisked young Indigenous peoples off to residential schools, stole them from their family.
	Didn't report their deaths.
	While they were there, actually did all various forms of experimentation on Indigenous children.
	They're paying it out now, but the government's different now.
	You have to trust them.
	I was going to go here to check the status of this stream.
	Let me just see one thing here.
	How do I open up a window?
	I'm going to go back to Rumble in a bit.
	Nate, what do you have on the menu these days for what you're working on?
	I got a couple of more of these bad takes, legal takes for the Jussie Smollett thing because I'm trying to just knock down a lot of misinformation about how Jussie Smollett's in jail because he's black, which is ridiculous.
	And then I have just some other stuff about...
	Right now, one of the things that are pissing me off is that the fact that the government...
	Well, this Hunter Biden thing, I'm going to jump on now, too, because I'm going to re-upload that video.
	Because I think people really need to appreciate the fact that the government loves to lie to you and loves to give you one particular narrative.
	And it's not by accident.
	It's not by accident.
	It's on purpose.
	And they are so well at...
	And one of the consequences of it is social media, something like YouTube and stuff, because I think the Hunter Biden story, I think the story with the Hunter Biden story is more about suppression of Twitter, of Facebook, of YouTube, rather of a story that's factually correct.
	Than people's opinion about the story.
	So I think that's the true story about the Hunter Biden laptop.
	It's not the fact that the sensationalism of it, because we all know about that.
	It's this oppression.
	It's this censorship.
	And how true stories are now propaganda.
	Well, propaganda could be true.
	But these true stories are said that your misinformation conspiracy theories, no matter how good or valid the story is, it's not about the story.
	It's about what the story entails for the ruling class.
	And election interference.
	I'm not talking about...
	It is election interference.
	100%.
	Someone said, talking about Russia, well, in America you have elections.
	You vote every four years.
	They don't have that in Russia.
	First of all, I think they do have elections in Russia.
	It's just a question of what confidence you have in those elections not being interfered with by Putin who wants to maintain power.
	But compare that...
	Elsewhere, you have the Time article magazine, the Time magazine article, detailing in thorough detail how the fortification of the 2020 elections, how you had cabals working with social media, working with big tech to control the flow of information.
	And one, it's not even an arguable statement, one determinate piece of information that was suppressed and controlled by the cabal in conjunction with big tech was the Hunter Biden story, where you had a poll.
	See if I can find that.
	You had a poll of people confirming that had they known, it would have affected their vote.
	You're talking about the Hunter Biden story?
	Yeah, Hunter, Biden.
	Of course it would have affected their vote.
	But the thing is, let's not be naive in the sense of all elections, right?
	They have this, you know, it's really an information war.
	Every election is information war.
	And that's why you see as much bad information about your opponent.
	And if you can suppress that information about yourself, that's why they had the catch-and-kill deal with the National Enquirer.
	They would catch stories and kill it.
	That's why you had the catch-and-kill stuff with Hunter Biden.
	So both sides do it.
	It's just to the extreme.
	But I think when it comes to the left, I think they have a lot more amplitude because the right doesn't have Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube also suppressing stuff on social media.
	I think the right side doesn't have that.
	I'll say something about the catch and kill in a second.
	This is from the Federalists, so you can take it for what it's worth, people.
	Poll one in six Biden voters would have changed their vote if they had known about scandals suppressed by the media.
	And that makes sense.
	So let's go to the report just to see where it comes from.
	MRC.
	A left-wing...
	Okay, let's see.
	I don't know what this entity is here.
	America's media watchdog.
	The left-wing news media didn't just poison the information environment with their incessantly negative coverage of President Trump.
	They also refused to give airtime to important arguments of the Republican campaign, both pro-Trump and anti-Biden.
	So, it's a survey.
	Look, you can poo-poo it all you want.
	No, well...
	Let's talk about a real-world example that's happening now.
	They have the bill in Texas and Florida, the bill against transitioning children.
	I'm not going to say it.
	Yes.
	But essentially what they're saying is that children who are under the age of 15 or 16, they don't have the mental capacity to know how they want to identify themselves.
	So they're saying, well, we're not going to do these life...
	You know, altering surgeries.
	And they actually had people who went through it and said, hey, my parents, you know, I didn't know that I didn't want to be a, you know, I just said, hey, I want to be a girl.
	And my parents went through that process.
	And, you know, and it changed me for the rest of my life.
	You know, I didn't know what I was talking about.
	So they're saying, okay, if you're going to do something like that, we're going to consider that wrong.
	You can't do something like that.
	We want people to be able to make informed decisions, maybe when they're an adult that they want to do it, but we're not going to let the parents just say, we're going to do these life-altering surgeries that are going to have these horrible effects.
	But they've changed that to now Texas is anti-LGBTQ.
	And I think Joe Rogan had Adam on, the left-wing Adam, and he was saying, hey, listen, You can't just say that parents, because they were making the argument that parents can do anything with their children.
	Like, no, I can't feed my children poison.
	I can't do anything with my children, right?
	The state tells you there are certain things that you can't abuse your children.
	And when it comes to changing their gender, something that's so crazy that's going through the surgery and all that stuff, then yeah, the state can say...
	You can't do that to someone who doesn't really understand the consequences of it.
	They should be able to do it when they're informed, when there may be an adult.
	And that, I think, is the part that the media is missing.
	But I think it's easier just to call them all homophobic than to actually, because I think the media knows Texas wins the argument, right?
	The argument of sensibility they went, but they lose the argument of homophobia.
	And that's why the media portrays it.
	They're homophobic versus telling you the facts behind it.
	I mean, the bill does not only pertain to kindergarten to grade 3. I think it's kindergarten to grade 12, but as relates to K through 3, it's about not talking about certain issues.
	And then the argument is, well, what if they're talking about a kid who has two fathers or two mothers?
	Talking about a homosexual couple has nothing to do with the bill.
	I appreciate there's ambiguity in the bill.
	First of all...
	Yes, there's going to be ambiguity pretty much in every bill or every law that does not have hard dates.
	And even then, you can still argue for ambiguity.
	But conceptually, look, void for ambiguity, fine.
	If it's that ambiguous, it'll be tested in court.
	But what's quite clear is it's not about saying you can't say that little Jimmy has two moms or two dads, period.
	Full stop.
	I'm not sure that you should be teaching kindergartners about sex in general, period.
	Let the parents do that.
	I don't know what, and this whole gender thing, and don't get me wrong, you know, do what you want with your body.
	If you're an adult, love who you love, do what you want.
	I have no issue with that.
	That is fine.
	But don't teach it to my three-year-old, right?
	Don't teach.
	I want my three-year-old learning A, B, C. And matter of fact, I don't even know if I want you to teach it to my 16-year-old.
	I want them to learn that stuff from me, right?
	I'm the parent.
	I'm like, you know, your job is to teach them how to read, write, and do all that stuff.
	My job is to teach them how to be a woman or a man, to teach them how to be an adult.
	Now, when you start trying to teach them how to be an adult, you've gone too far.
	That's my job.
	And that's what most parents are telling you.
	Don't teach my kid anything.
	You're only supposed to teach my kid these basics.
	When you step across that boundary, then you've gone too far.
	And the left wing wants the schools to teach my kids their beards and the bees.
	No, that's not their job.
	That is just factually not their job.
	I concur, Nate.
	But no, getting back to the catch and kill thing, which you say both parties do.
	Because everyone knows that Trump did it with the, was it Stormy Daniels?
	And the National Enquirer story?
	Yeah, and I'm going to say this, this is going to be crazy.
	But I think Stormy Daniels, like when the Stormy Daniels thing came out, the first thing I did say is, hey, even if that's true, the fact that she got paid and it was a catch and kill deal.
	That should just kill the, and now the fact that Avenatti and all that stuff, so it just shows you how, even back then, Avenatti was a scumbag, but yeah, he paid, but so what though, right?
	Think about Bill Clinton.
	How many people who Bill Clinton have wanted to pay to get out, right?
	I hold that against Bill Clinton.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	$850,000.
	I mean, do I hold it against Trump, the payment?
	Context is a little different, but it doesn't look good.
	But my issue with the catch and kill, though, there's a difference when it's a catch and kill among the parties versus a catch and kill among big tech.
	Of course, yes.
	They're both bad, but I will say that big tech that controls the floodgates to information in the public square, catching and killing for their own politically motivated reasons, is far different than the parties settling and then the party itself.
	Look, if it gets leaked, that there was a catch and kill, yeah, it'll be used against you and I might draw some negative inferences, but that's a party doing it and not big tech in conjunction with cabals and politicians doing it for the benefit and ultimately affecting the outcome potentially of an election.
	That's an extremely great distinction, and you're right.
	I agree 100%.
	And now there are currently 22,000 young people who have detransitioned in the U.S. over 40. And then there's the issue as to whether or not it's even physically possible to fully detransition once you've done it.
	I think what's going to change this game, It's when a number of these children grow up to sue their parents for what they've done.
	When they reach the age of majority and they say, Mom and Dad, you administered chemical irreversible treatments to me at the age of 10, 11, 12, 13, even 14. When I'm a developing person and I have all sorts of ideas that should be respected, they should be dealt with, but not necessarily acted upon.
	When the kids start suing their parents, then parents are going to start thinking twice about whether or not...
	What they're doing is going to create exposure for them once their children reach the age of majority and can have causes of action against their parents be born.
	And you know what?
	Because I'm called a bigot for my views on the LGBT thing.
	And I totally understand why, right?
	It's easier just to say I'm a bigot than to listen to my ideas.
	Fine.
	The issue is that we don't care what you do with your own body when you're a adult.
	We don't care who you love.
	We don't care about any of that.
	I just don't want you teaching it to my kids, right?
	Because I want to teach it to them myself.
	Why can't I have that?
	They're my kids.
	Why should you force those ideas onto my kids?
	And then on the back end of it, too, is that if I disagree with something, that doesn't mean I'm a bigger...
	Like right now, they have the Leah Thompson.
	That's another story I'm going to be covering.
	She's the swimmer.
	Who's transgender, who just broke all the records, right?
	Broke all the women's records at NCAA.
	She was.
	She's an All-American, right?
	I believe that that's wrong.
	Two years ago or three years ago, that person was one of the top male swimmers in the school.
	Transitioning now is the best women's swimmer in college, right?
	And I think you can make the argument that, hey, I don't think that may be fair, the reason why we have men's and women's leagues and all that stuff.
	But then the first thing I'll say is you're a bigot.
	You don't want transgender women to compete.
	No, I want them to compete fairly.
	I want them to compete fairly.
	If you're a man, you compete with men.
	If you're a woman, you compete with women.
	If you're transitioning, then we got to have to find something because it's not fair that a woman...
	And the reason why we don't have women competing with men is because we know it's inherently unfair.
	That shouldn't be a bigoted thing to say.
	Well, and it's the man and the woman part.
	It's the gender issue.
	Like, okay, I can all acknowledge, I'll admit, gender is a social construct.
	Fine.
	Yes.
	Biology isn't.
	And so we had this discussion.
	I forget whom it was with.
	But it was the question of, you know, when you've done steroids and it's procured you a muscular advantage.
	Merely cessation of the steroids doesn't actually ever undo that advantage because you've used that chemical advantage to reach the next level.
	It's like you kick out the ladder and you don't just fall back down.
	And so that analogy, it was Eric Hundley, who we'll be going live with at noon.
	That's why those who have been found to have used steroids, Lance Armstrong and others, you can never compete again because you've already derived Too much of an advantage.
	It's not irreparable, but it's rather you cannot go back on the benefit that you've gotten.
	Yes, yes.
	It's going through puberty with testosterone.
	You build bone density, you build muscle strips, you get narrow hips versus wide hips.
	So all those benefits you gain.
	Just because you stop or reduce your testosterone doesn't take away your bone structure and your muscle mass.
	Those things still stay.
	So that's what you're talking about.
	Yeah.
	And now, by the way, I don't know what MAPS means.
	I have an idea.
	I know that put in the chat.
	I don't know what MAPS means in this context, but I know that I have an idea as to what you're alluding to.
	So, you know, fine.
	Gender is a social construct.
	Gender is sexuality.
	And as far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business.
	I would never ask and I would never expect people to offer that information to me.
	It's personal.
	It's private.
	And it's your thing.
	That's fine.
	No judgment.
	Full stop.
	Biology, don't call it men and women.
	Just call it XX and XY chromosomes.
	And someone who was born biologically male, went through puberty as a biological male, grew the bone density, the hand structure, the body, the height.
	Men are taller than women, whether you like it or not, on average.
	I might be an exception to that.
	To deny that is to deny science and then to say, in order to accommodate...
	Leah Thompson or Thomas?
	Leah Thompson's...
	I'm thinking it's Thompson.
	I'm not sure.
	In order to accommodate her life decisions, you now have to effectively gut women's rights of any meaning.
	It's a problem.
	I was trying to find the article that said that Leah Thompson was a heavy favorite, but I think that article came before the actual results, which...
	Let's just see.
	It's coming from the New York Post again.
	Transgender swimmer Leah Thomas, sorry, wins women's 500-yard NCAA title.
	Leah Thomas, the transgender swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, won the NCAA championship in the 500-yard race on Thursday.
	I'm going to say this before you continue to read.
	I live in New York, and you read more of the New York Post than I ever will.
	It just comes up.
	For whatever reason, these stories are not so much covered in other platforms.
	Yeah, I read the posts all the time, too.
	They're good.
	Sorry.
	Well, you know what's amazing is that the differential is 1.75 seconds.
	I mean, that's pretty interesting.
	Thomas swam for three years at Penn as a male.
	Before transitioning.
	Sat out a year while undergoing testosterone suppression treatment and returned to compete as a woman.
	So think about this.
	They had this heightened level of testosterone for, what, almost 20, 20-something years of their life, right?
	Building up all that muscle mass, building up all that.
	Stop for one year, right?
	And then compete with women.
	And then one thing people didn't really notice is that her first...
	They actually recorded.
	She was so fast that she had finished the race and the second person hadn't even gone.
	She had lapped the person by three laps or something like that.
	So she was waiting.
	And then the next race, she pulled back.
	All of a sudden, she wasn't as fast.
	And this one, she made it tighter because she didn't want to just blow everybody out.
	But the fact of the matter is, when she went full speed, she had lapped them by so much.
	And that's what people start saying.
	This is unfair.
	This is just not fair.
	And it's not.
	It's not.
	I don't care what people say.
	It's not fair.
	Hunley says the steroid argument was mine.
	Thank you, Hunley.
	Did you see?
	Go ahead.
	I was going to say also the idea that gender is a social construct.
	Biological males who transition to female are females, but we're imposing testosterone levels because science.
	So at some point in there, people acknowledge that there is a biological reason to set testosterone threshold limits.
	But it's all a social construct that needs scientific measurement to remedy, to rectify the inequality that exists because of biology.
	These arguments are mutually incompatible.
	Okay, that was what I was going to say.
	You go for it, Nate.
	No, you know, it's funny.
	There was a big story.
	A lot of people may not realize how the transgender story really blew up, and it actually started in Connecticut.
	Where it was two black athletes.
	What they did, they were two male athletes on the track team.
	And they couldn't get into the top five or something like that to be able to go on to state.
	So what they did was they said, well, we are going to identify ourselves as women now.
	And started identifying themselves as women.
	And then ran on the women's team.
	So this would give you still the same advantages as being on the men's team.
	Because the men, you know, you get their scholarships.
	So they went to, and then they broke.
	All the records for all the women's teams.
	So some students then sued.
	Some women, some female students sued saying, well, this is just not fair.
	The reason why we have women versus men's sports is because we can't compete with men.
	And now what you just did is to have two men essentially put on outfits and run with women and now are the top two quote-unquote women of the thing.
	So that's kind of how this all started.
	And now you'll hear the...
	The propaganda on one side saying, well, you know, there is actually no difference when you stop, you know, and they should be allowed to do this.
	And what they say, they say everybody has a competitive advantage all the time between even women.
	But the fact of the matter is the reason why we have women's leagues and men's leagues is because we know the advantage between men and women is so extreme that, you know, you would essentially kill women's sports.
	And that's essentially what this could lead to.
	Now, what the answer is, I don't know.
	I'm not saying that transgender women...
	People shouldn't compete in sports, but I think it's one of the biggest things that has changed my mind about this thing is that we always see men transitioning to women's sports.
	I've never seen a woman who transitions to being a man then compete in men's sports.
	I've just not seen it.
	It'll sound weird, but by the way, Hundley, if you're watching, I just sent you the link if you want to pop in on the stream before your stream.
	Once we acknowledge, once we can just state objective facts, testosterone is an advantage for muscular growth, bone density, and a number of other things, which is why biological males have a biological advantage over biological females, by and large.
	There's a lot of women out there who can beat me at a lot of things.
	We're just talking at the upper echelon of competitive sports, where once you filter out all of the mediocrity like myself, when you get to the cream of the crop of competitive athletes in respective genders...
	There are biological differences that will make virtual certainty of certain outcomes with certain exceptions, potentially.
	And then there's other sports where I don't think biology makes the slightest difference.
	Darts is one that I'm thinking of.
	I don't understand why men consistently win at darts.
	There have been women that make it there that get into the competitive level.
	I don't understand why in that sport where muscle is, you know, a factor but not a determinant one, why that's the case.
	We got Hunley in the back.
	Hold on.
	Hunley!
	Hunley's coming in.
	But...
	I forgot.
	It doesn't matter.
	Hunley, how goes the battle, sir?
	I'm here.
	I got dressed for the conversation.
	Eric is wearing my merch.
	I'm wearing Lonely Island, and Nate's promoting Super Mario.
	Nintendo!
	Isn't their use of the term social construct a way to invalidate the fact that these are just defined, proven biological tendencies?
	Shouldn't we stop using language designed to cause societal chaos?
	No, gender is how you feel is different than what you are.
	That's bottom line.
	That's what I was going to say.
	Women who want to compete in men's sports, I've never understood the restriction for it.
	There is no restriction.
	Most people don't realize.
	There is no barrier to men's sports.
	So the only barrier is men playing in women's sports.
	There was, Nate.
	There was.
	In football, definitely, so women wouldn't get injured.
	There was concerns about injuries.
	I don't know if that's taken out, and I think there might even be a couple kickers.
	Yeah, because now, I think now...
	For the NCAA, there are women who are kickers in football.
	So there was no bar for women to actually play.
	And like, for instance, at the NBA.
	Women can play in the NBA if they're good.
	There's even leagues around the country.
	But when you talk about going the opposite way, there was a bar saying, yes, men can't compete in women's leagues, but women, if they're good enough, can compete in men's leagues.
	Well, I remember with Manon Rayom in hockey, I don't know if they changed the rules.
	A water polo.
	Emily was on a men's team.
	Emily D. Baker.
	And who was the female kicker that kicked for football?
	And that was a big deal.
	I thought they had changed the rules to allow for it after petitioning.
	But the idea of preventing injury, look, we saw what happened with the trans fighter in the UFC.
	Look, injury happens.
	So whether or not it was directly related to the trans fighter fighting a biological female, people get injured all the time.
	But there's a reason why you have gender, not gender, sorry, sex divisions.
	And weight divisions.
	Good point on weight.
	Here's the story.
	It's 90 seconds, but here's the story about the thing that started this whole mess.
	I'm going to pull it up?
	It's right there.
	It's on the screen.
	Look at the beautiful layout.
	Okay, go for it.
	How do I bring up the audio?
	I got it.
	They hope this lawsuit that they filed today will make a change quicker as they see their high school sporting careers winding down.
	Now, the ACLU speaking out today, they're representing the interest of transgender American Civil Liberties Union.
	inclusion in sports.
	Unless you're a woman.
	Twice I finished well enough to win an all new England award.
	And yet each of those times I've been displaced by biological mail.
	For the first time.
	And she becomes the bigot in all of this.
	Title IX advocate.
	...near Selena Sol and Alana Smith of Danbury say competing against transgender athletes is robbing them of a fair playing field And they can also be called transphobic.
	Victimized twice.
	A handful of boards of education.
	Mm-hmm.
	These girls are losing irretrievable opportunities to medal, to win championships, and to experience What did I just do here?
	What did I just do?
	Sorry, no.
	No.
	The ACLU released statements today from two Connecticut transgender Special Olympics is another decent example.
	The more we are told that we don't belong and should be ashamed of who we are, the fewer opportunities we have to participate in sports at all.
	And Andrea Yearwood said, It's an amazing thing.
	If a special needs individual wants to compete in the ordinary Olympics, ordinary, no problem, but an able-bodied individual...
	An able-bodied individual who wants to compete in Special Olympics.
	I mean, why is that not analogous?
	Yeah, it's weird because don't get me wrong.
	I feel for someone who says, hey, I want to still compete in sports, but I believe.
	But the thing is that there's some line here, and there's fundamental fairness.
	And I just don't think...
	You can say it's fundamentally fair for women to lose these opportunities.
	And people think, oh, it's just sports.
	It's nothing.
	This is paying for someone's education.
	If you meddle and you qualify, you can get free college education.
	You can go to these great schools, right?
	Just because you're women.
	And Title IX doesn't affect.
	So these girls are saying that, hey...
	Opportunities to get better colleges, to go to school, to further our careers are being stopped because someone who has this unfair advantage is taking these opportunities from us.
	And that's the reality of it.
	And I think people have to understand these people aren't bigots.
	They're just saying, we just want a fair playing field.
	And right now, the playing field is not fair.
	It's an interesting thing, and I'm just thinking out loud now, is that there is an element of choice in this that people don't actually...
	Factor in.
	The argument make a trans league is probably not going to be viable because there won't be enough participation to make it a deep enough league for competition.
	Which is ironic because as much as I hear about it, I would think there were thousands of them.
	You would think, oh my god, there's trans in every school.
	They should have a handful.
	It's a one-way problem in this debate.
	It's not an issue of a biological female transitioning to male who can't compete in males.
	They can, and whether or not they succeed, they will not have started off with any biological advantage by virtue of being biological women.
	The only place where this becomes a one-way problem is biological males who decide to transition to female and say, now I can't compete in female because people want to block me because of a biological advantage for being born a biological male.
	But people are not factoring in the decision in this.
	If an individual decides to transition from biological male to female, they've made a decision that, in theory, in a society in which people live with the consequences of their decision, they'll say, okay, fine.
	If I decide to do that...
	I may have to continue to compete in biological male, maybe at a disadvantage if I take hormone therapy or testosterone suppressing therapy, maybe at a disadvantage, but that's my decision.
	Whereas a female born biological female who has had no decision, no choice to make in all of this is now seeing their rights violated by someone who decides to do something which procures them a biological advantage.
	Well, one person's choice is now infringing on another person's.
	Biological, unchosen state of being.
	And I think, you know, at some point, if people want to be adults and say, I'm going to live with the consequences of my decisions, if I decide to transition from biological male to biological female, I will have to live with the consequence of nonetheless competing in the biological category into which I was born, whether I liked it or not.
	David, another point, too.
	We get so caught up on that back and forth and all that.
	Life's not fair.
	Why aren't you playing in the NBA, dude?
	I think David should be in the NBA.
	It's because I'm Jewish and it's because the NBA is anti-Semitic.
	There I said it.
	Thank you.
	It gets to be ridiculous in the sense that we have biological women's sports or biological sex, however you want to put it.
	Female sports.
	Not every female can participate in female sports because they don't qualify.
	So there is a qualification standard.
	Not every male can participate in every male sport.
	So when we get into the whole thing of like, well, it's just not fair.
	I want to do this decision knowing that you have a structural, definite advantage.
	And I'm so freaking tired of it.
	You are correct.
	It always goes one direction.
	Some of these things are really, really simple.
	And you have to wonder, why is it?
	We're still talking about it because it's so blatantly obvious that all you do is throwing a bunch of feelings and language and everything else at it, but you're not expressing the very basic fact that...
	If it was truly meaningless, you would have female to males transitioning and jumping on the male team.
	Haven't seen it happen.
	It may happen.
	I won't count it out.
	There's some badasses out there, but...
	There's also some sports.
	There are some sports where testosterone levels will be less of a factor.
	I mean, I can think of...
	Golf, to a degree.
	Yeah.
	Well, no, for distance and range, it might be a problem, but...
	Well, no, but even still, like, within golf, or accuracy, it might be more accuracy, because within golf, there's nothing that's out of range for anybody on any given day.
	It's just a question of consistency.
	Bowling.
	Bowling's a good one.
	Bowling is a good one.
	I mean, if a woman can and often do bowl 300 games, there's no reason...
	But we're talking about skill-based games versus strength and speed-based games, like track and field and basketball.
	Those are strength versus skill-based.
	Ultra running actually starts to even it out.
	That's one thing that's interesting.
	If you look at the more distance there is, the tighter the band will be, and you'll see that the top females sometimes win the race or are a sane number in the top 10. Or represent themselves percentage-wise as much or more than men.
	And longest is swimming, too.
	Yes, good point.
	Women live longer than men, and so if the Olympics is just live longer, women are going to have that advantage all the time.
	Not only is bowling a sport, sir, bowling is a highly scientific, very fine-tuned sport.
	And by the way, I'm short.
	They don't have to set a height limit in basketball.
	You'll have your anomalies.
	Muggsy Bowes.
	Muggsy Bowes is the one I'm thinking of.
	But when I used to do Greco-Roman wrestling in high school, grade 8 and 9, I weighed like 155.
	I haven't really changed physically since grade 8 or 9. So I was a 13-year-old kid, and because of my weight category, I was wrestling guys in grade 11. And it was unfair on the one hand.
	I lacked the experience.
	I really ultimately lacked the muscle tuning, but I had the mass.
	But such is life.
	I wasn't asking to wrestle in the 120 weight category.
	All right.
	Yes, I did read Born to Run.
	It's a great book.
	Eric, who's coming on the panel today on your channel?
	Well, two of you are here.
	Start the panel.
	And guess what?
	Rakeda.
	Oh, yeah.
	And Runkle of the Bailey.
	Booyah.
	That's nice.
	We're going to have good Canadian representation.
	And Viva was born.
	Well, you know, when I was born, I was 10 and a half pounds, and I think 19 inches long.
	I was basically the same physique then, just stretched out a little bit.
	What else do we have on the menu?
	Oh, yeah, by the way, my issue with bowling now is that the bowling alley at which I've got my 100 games, in the last two years, they've changed all of their pin technology, and now the big pins, Nate, have strings on the top.
	I hate the string pins.
	I feel like they don't fall as natural as the...
	I don't know.
	Maybe it might just be mentally, but I feel like when the strings are on the pins, they just don't fall the same way.
	Like the string affects it or something.
	I don't know.
	Maybe it's just me.
	Hold on a second.
	Mike Bruno, I won't judge you from previous comments, but should everyone take a test of testosterone levels prior to competition?
	They do in competitive sports to make sure that no one's doping.
	And by the way...
	And if your point is that they shouldn't...
	Abolish all gender.
	Abolish all categories.
	Yeah, just make it a sport when you're done.
	You and a woman win another award, Mike.
	But by the way, they do do testosterone levels.
	It's to ensure that everybody has unnatural levels based on drugs.
	Also, though, like we were stating earlier, the steroid argument, it doesn't matter if their levels are down, if they've already got the physique out of it.
	And to point out, Leah Thompson, we'll go right back to that, training as a swimmer too.
	So not only developing fully into the male body, but then training and focusing the effort of same said body as...
	A male, then doing the transition.
	So doped to the gills, if you want to think about it, to get to the very tippy-top best that she could be, then transitions.
	If you guys ever have a chance to look it up, back in the 19, I think it's 50s or 60s, the Russian team.
	To avoid the doping, what they would do is they would train and dope up all during the year and then stop a month before the Olympics.
	And then when they get tested, there was no doping.
	It's Berlin.
	Yeah, it's Berlin.
	And then they would go and win everything and then go back to training and dope everything up.
	And then people were like, well, they stopped and they were like, but because you're doping.
	So that's why now...
	The doping agency has random testing all throughout the year, all throughout the training to make sure that you're not doping when you're off and then compete with natural levels.
	Do people hear an echo?
	Yep, of course they do.
	Ah, cripe.
	But again, a lot of these people, what they think is that if you just lower testosterone levels or stop testosterone, then you automatically become like a woman and lose all those advantages.
	And that's just not true at all.
	That is the opposite of true.
	By the way, there's an echo only when there's three or more people.
	With two people, there's no echo.
	That's not true.
	Let me back that up.
	If there's not a sufficient delay...
	Okay, forget it.
	Drop that.
	I have never had...
	Fred Durst is in the house.
	I only get the echo when we do something with someone who's overseas at two people or when there's three or more.
	Had everyone seen that skit on SNL about the all-drugs Olympics with Kevin Nealon and he rips his arms off trying to lift up?
	Nobody remembers that.
	You have to go find it.
	It was called the All Drug Olympics or the Doping Olympics and they were allowed to do as much drugs as they wanted and there was one bit where they were like, I think he's even taken some horse tranquilizer and Kevin Nealon goes to lift up a record pull and he rips his arms out of the socket and his arms are holding on to the bar and there's blood.
	It's hilarious.
	I'm showing my age, I guess, but also my affinity for SNL.
	People say they saw it.
	It was hilarious.
	Speaking of doping, Tour de France.
	Have you ever read up on some of the history there?
	I only heard what Lance Armstrong and the others were doing.
	He was just the latest.
	Oh, no, no, no, no.
	They have a history of it.
	There's actually somebody you can watch.
	I mean, it's a terrible thing, but you can watch the person die online.
	They have the footage of it.
	They have so much cocaine and everything.
	Because Lance Armstrong did EPO.
	They used to do coke, booze, everything else.
	I can't say the full medical thing.
	It's EPO, but what it does is it thickens the blood to absorb more oxygen and allows you to heal.
	That's why Lance Armstrong has a ridiculously low heart rate.
	I think it's like 36 beats a minute or so.
	And that allows you to just recover faster.
	And that's one of the things about steroids and whatnot that people don't get.
	People will be like, oh, roid rage, which is a thing or a side effect, but most steroids are about recovery.
	Yes.
	So these athletes are training to an extreme degree that will cause injuries, but then they take the dope and then that allows them to recover faster and then hit it again.
	That's why it's so powerful and effective is because they are, in essence, able to train with more weights, more speed, more whatever than they would naturally be able to do.
	So then they build themselves to that peak.
	So even when they drop down a little bit, well, they're still a little bit off.
	But why did he get cancer?
	There could be something to that.
	I don't know if it's related to it or not.
	And there are a couple of different ways to do the blood thing, too.
	Like, I know if you go up into high-altitude training.
	Yes, Kenya.
	That's why Kenya has so many good runners, that and EPO, because they're dopers, too.
	A lot of them.
	But you could do hypoxic tents.
	You can do, and you can also blood dope.
	Yeah, blood dope is increasing.
	No, you just save up your blood and then add extra blood so you have more blood.
	The more blood you have, the more oxygen you can produce.
	And for a high endurance sport like a running or a cycling, that is very, very effective.
	Yeah, no, the Lance Armstrong, what they were doing, and I think they were like swapping, not swapping in more blood, but swapping out.
	Their own blood.
	They saved their own blood.
	For highly oxygenated blood, right?
	It was like pre-oxygenated.
	Right, but even just your own blood.
	If you have your blood in a bag and you stick it in yourself, every bit of oxygen you bring in is going to spread through more blood.
	It's the basic level.
	There are people who are arguing that you could just flat out say because there are natural ways to induce the EPO effect through elevation, hypoxytents, and blood doping.
	And drugs is just say, okay, everybody cannot be above this level of EPO and I don't care how you get there.
	And that is something that has been discussed for endurance sports, especially Lance Armstrong.
	One problem with him is after he got popped, you realize that the record, you know, all the races he won still don't have a winner because they went all the way to like number 13 and they were all doped.
	Why did they give it to the number two?
	Because they were also doping.
	Everyone knew it.
	He just got away with it because he...
	He was such an ass about it to everyone.
	That's what really went down.
	The other ones who were doping were saying, no, no, I didn't dope, nope, nope, nope, and they held it, but they weren't like Lance.
	Lance ruined people's lives.
	He would sue them.
	He went after them, and it was teammates and his friends, and they all hate his guts because of that.
	That's why Lance is the poster child for it, because he held himself up as this great cancer survivor, clean athlete, and everybody just hates me.
	Like another guy that you guys have been talking about.
	The whole world against Lance, the whole world against Jussie.
	Well, I was going to say, gender is a historic idea by humans.
	All that it means is that it was created to adopt linguistics to what we all know to be true.
	Social construct is a term created to manipulate us into believing they can change at will.
	Yeah, well, that's okay.
	That's one question, Ghost of Recon.
	But Jussie Smollett and Lance Armstrong have very similar, I would say, narcissistic personality disorder.
	And even when Lance Armstrong apologized, which is his only step up on Jussie, even his apology, if you saw it on Oprah Winfrey, was a narcissistic, totally disingenuous apology.
	It's weird, though, that he saw apologizing as the way to get out of his problem, notwithstanding his narcissistic disorder, whereas Jussie Smollett sees doubling down, tripling down, and arguably harming himself as the way of getting out of his problem.
	It's just different ways of resolving their own problems.
	The only problem is Juicy just didn't realize that at a point, because Lance understood the game was up, right?
	He was like, everybody's already, the game is up.
	Juicy just doesn't want to hit the reality the game is up, that he's caught.
	That's the problem.
	And that's the reason why he's doing what he did.
	He's got jail time because he sat there.
	And like the judge said, we got the tape of you doing it, right?
	You obviously are lying.
	Why can't you just come to the realization?
	If you would have just said...
	Well, you just shut up.
	Just shut up.
	You didn't have to do anything.
	Just shut up.
	And he would be free.
	He would have been free.
	But he wanted to make a mockery and make us all believe that we're...
	And they're still doing that.
	He still is trying to convince people he's innocent.
	And that's just BS.
	And I'm convinced that Jussie Smollett is the degree of his disorder.
	He is susceptible of harming himself seriously at this point.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Continue perpetrating this line.
	Well, not yet because everybody's...
	Not everybody, but he has enough people.
	Who indulge his behavior that he doesn't.
	By the way, on the flip side, because let's point out something good.
	I did not realize this happened, but do you remember Logan Paul in Suicide Forest?
	Yep.
	He just released another video, or he was on another show, and it's four years later, and he discussed his apology and everything.
	And it was really, really amazing, because I will say this about Logan.
	I don't know if you saw the original apology and all that went down with it.
	It was a good apology.
	You don't know that he was completely convinced with it, but he did say the right words and everything.
	And at the end of it, he kept saying, I'm a better person.
	I will do better.
	I'm going to be better, etc.
	So it's kind of like he acted in a manner.
	And a friend of mine, Spidey, who does the Behavioral Arts Channel, did a great breakdown talking about it.
	How Logan Paul was kind of like a child.
	And he was pretty immature at the time.
	He was really young, too.
	Yeah, you compare him and Jake, and they're two different people in a lot of ways.
	But he was really young, and he was kind of like the kid that got caught who knew that he was wrong and everybody's mad at him, but doesn't quite understand what he did wrong, if that makes sense.
	So he's apologizing.
	He's sincere, but it's sort of without understanding.
	Four years later, though, it's great to see because he said, essentially, you know, he goes, That time in my life, he said, I know this is going to harm a lot of people or whatever.
	He said, that was maybe the best thing that ever could have happened to me.
	What was going on in the world, life needed to come in and check me.
	Because I was headed down a path, and I was getting out of control.
	And he said, a lot of my fans may not like this, but I cannot watch any of my videos before that point.
	And he had this total look of contempt.
	So it was like...
	He's matured in these four years, and it's kind of refreshing to see this guy just blatantly come out, and then he talked about the apologies, and he said, I'm doing an apology, and I'm the same person who did the act that's doing the apology at the time, so then I put out a bullshit apology, and then a month later, I do a little bit better of an apology.
	He said, then I have these two apologies hanging over my head out there.
	And I just thought it was a really, really fascinating exploration.
	Sorry, I didn't know if you guys had seen it.
	I hadn't seen that.
	I'm going to go watch it because I think I covered something related to that at the time.
	I have to go back and check my videos.
	But look, I didn't think what he did was...
	It was young.
	It was immature.
	It was exploitive.
	It's the type of thing that...
	I don't think it's pathological.
	I don't think it's narcissistic.
	I just think he's an idiot.
	You get lost in the moment where you think...
	There's no bounds to the entertainment.
	Click, click, click.
	Everything's about a click.
	I didn't think he was a bad person.
	He made a very serious mistake.
	I wouldn't have written him off as a human forever.
	You live long enough.
	We've done things as children.
	He's still a kid, but he was a younger kid then.
	What the hell was I thinking?
	When I decided to show my friend how to fishtail a suburban, and then I ended up...
	Fishtailing too much, slamming into a rock, rolling it over.
	It crashed on the roof.
	What the hell was I thinking?
	It sounded like a fun idea right up until the time that we were in a suburban on its roof.
	And I'm like, what the hell did I just do?
	And this is a true story, by the way.
	It was 17 years old.
	You look back and say, but for the grace of God, I could have killed somebody.
	And but for the grace of God, I could have killed myself or my friend.
	It sounded like a good idea at the time.
	You go to what is known as the suicide forest in Japan, and just your luck, you stumble across, and you're like, holy cows, I'm not even going to think about the fact that this is a human.
	This is just content.
	And then you live long enough to realize, was it a real...
	There was talk at the time that it was actually not a bona fide victim, but rather he set it up.
	I think it was real.
	I don't know.
	But I mean, yeah, it was horrible.
	It would have been bad.
	If he set it up, it would have been bad.
	If it was authentic, it's even worse.
	But you have to live long enough to appreciate that what you did at the time, it wasn't just an inanimate object on a tree.
	It was something with a history and a life, a family, people who love them.
	And you made a mockery and desecrated all of that.
	You have to live long enough to actually understand and appreciate it.
	And I think he has.
	Compare that with Jussie Smollett or Lance Armstrong.
	I won't trust him.
	I don't think he's actually capable of learning, but he's certainly capable of feigning.
	Right, right.
	That's why I wanted to bring it up, just because, I mean, there's so many out there that I complain about and look at, but I do feel like we sometimes need to step back and say, hey, by the way, there's a good apology.
	Or, you know, there's somebody who has actually learned and set an example, because sometimes that is a good example to say, okay, here's somebody.
	Who just really screw things up, but then look how they own it.
	Look how they're moving on.
	So all of us, when we screw something up, we can own it, but we know that we can still move on.
	That it's not too late.
	We can grow from it and still potentially be good people.
	I don't know.
	Just a thought.
	Chris H., that sounds awesome.
	I hope you did your due diligence on the landing before you did it.
	I'm just trying to think of apologies that I...
	Genuinely believe we're sincere.
	And I'm thinking PewDiePie when he used the N-word.
	How about Rogan with the N-word?
	Rogan's, I think, was...
	But the thing is that right now, because we live...
	You know, the worst part is we live in a society now where it's like...
	What's his name says it?
	Dave Chappelle.
	Perfection.
	We expect people to be perfect.
	And then when we find out that they're not perfect, we want to destroy them.
	And we understand, you know...
	As human beings, we learn from mistakes.
	It's actually the best teachers that you make a mistake and then you learn, okay, I'm not going to do that anymore.
	And I think in this type of culture, it's now people are afraid to make the mistakes.
	And the problem is that if you expect any of us...
	To have not made, said things that are inaccurate or still do this, then you have, then you're thinking too highly of us, right?
	We are human beings.
	We are flawed.
	And I've said things that are racist, that are transphobic, that are all these different things.
	Not because I am those things, because I may have been uneducated, because I may have just been in poor taste, but that doesn't, you know, but...
	That doesn't mean that everything that I've done since then or everything I'm going to do is going to be marred by that.
	It's now we live in a moment where we judge people based on their worst moment in life and say that that's who they are.
	And that's just not the case.
	If that's the case, then no one, everyone else, everyone should be canceled.
	It's kind of scary to think.
	How long did the act or incident actually take out of the percentage of a person's life?
	It's just...
	I'm amazing to consider.
	It's like point...
	It's like just seconds.
	It's the inverted curve.
	The longer you've lived...
	I guess it's not inverted, but the less of a fraction of a life that it constitutes, in order for it to be a cancelable offense, the more serious it has to be as an act.
	An act of violence is a split second, but I'm prepared to agree that that might...
	People can repent and they can...
	The worse the act, the longer it takes to be forgiven for.
	But, you know, when PewDiePie used the N-word, when Joe Rogan used it, I have to...
	I don't know the context in which Joe Rogan used it.
	When you're using it in stand-up comedy, it's not even...
	I'm not sure that you need to...
	He was using a context like literally Richard Pryor's album name.
	He would read it direct.
	That's kind of hard.
	It's like the guy's album was this and like Corolla had...
	He was doing a feature on a black race car driver who went through a ton of controversy and everything else.
	The same race car driver demanded the title of the documentary be Uppity Inn.
	Yes.
	And it didn't happen, but literally, so it's like...
	What do you do with that?
	And so he wanted this title.
	And he would say, this is the title that was requested.
	And he would say the word.
	And that's what gets so hard because there is actually a point to what this driver wanted.
	Because he was called that.
	He didn't like that.
	He was taking ownership of it and kind of saying, yeah, I'm the uppity in.
	Look at me.
	Look what I've accomplished.
	You couldn't stop me.
	One thing about the Joe Rogan thing that you keep mentioning, and I love the fact that this happened.
	So TYT did the whole thing.
	Joe Rogan's a horrible person.
	How's the context?
	So somebody went through their 13 years of material and pulled out every time they used the N-word.
	More than Joe Rogan!
	And did the same exact thing, put it in, and then they were, oh, well, then they came out in the next video.
	Oh, well, we should be canceled because we said this thing.
	Nobody's looking at the context.
	And we're like, you did the same exact thing as Joroki.
	You didn't look at the context.
	You said there was no context in which the word should be used that many times.
	And then somebody pulled you guys saying it that many times and went out the context in the same exact thing.
	And that's the thing about cancel culture.
	I think people need to understand it.
	Cancel culture is not about what's being said.
	It's more about who's saying it.
	That's what it's about.
	If the wrong person says the thing, you're cancelled.
	But if the right person says it, it's okay, you're forgiven.
	That's them.
	That's okay.
	You forgive your allies, you never forgive your enemies.
	You will always find a way to justify something in one context and condemn it in another.
	By the way, TYT is the Young Turks, for those who don't know.
	And I do recall Schenk Uygur talking about legalizing bestiality at one point.
	Yes, he said a lot.
	But it's funny.
	Nate, you saw the follow-up right after the Rogan and the TYK.
	They're afraid of saying dwarf now.
	Because they were like, because the whole Dinklage thing, and by the way, Peter Dinklage, up yours, you little shit.
	What did Dinklage do?
	Well, Dinklage actually went out, now this is a guy who has made his career off of Game of Thrones.
	Now, he did other stuff.
	He's a very talented actor.
	But he played a character who was a dwarf, written as a dwarf in every way.
	And he is a dwarf, playing a dwarf, got very rich, got very famous, and got very powerful.
	And then he's coming forth saying, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, because there are people complaining, I think, that the Snow White is a Puerto Rican or something now.
	Yeah, so what?
	Who cares?
	But then it's like, he said, well, what about the dwarfs?
	Haven't we moved beyond that?
	Do we have to have dwarfs in the movie?
	And it's like, Yo, Dick, what did you play?
	And then, by the way, at least a couple dwarfs came out and said, hey, Peter, thank you very much, but I'll take that job.
	There's not that many dwarf roles, and it's literally Seven White and the Seven Dwarfs, you twit.
	They're headliners of the movie.
	Hold on, I'm going to bring this up, and this is not...
	Let me just bring this down.
	Full hashtag, don't cancel me.
	This is actually to understand the distinction between what has traditionally been, people who have traditionally been called dwarves versus midgets, because there is a medical difference, and I just want to bring it up here.
	Dwarf versus midgets.
	Just qualification.
	That word, the M word, is allegedly offensive.
	Some are trying to wipe out dwarf, too, and just say little person.
	It's like, just stop.
	I'm reading from Defend.
	Let's just see when this article was published.
	I don't even know what different is.
	Just for the YouTube gods.
	I won't even speak the words anymore.
	A D. It's an extremely short adult who is less than 58 inches tall.
	The word M is considered derogatory and offensive.
	Both words describe a short person, but refer to a different physical characteristic and genetic conditions.
	M. It's offensive, but we're going to use it.
	Refers to a person who is very short, but normally proportioned.
	The term M is now rarely used and is considered offensive, but its usage was very common until the end of the 20th century.
	They had midget wrestling, for God's sake.
	I think they still do.
	It's like literally the name of the league.
	Short person or little person?
	Well, they refer to me as a short person, so I think this is when language becomes ambiguous to the point where little person.
	Why would an M-word want to be referred to as a little person?
	I mean, this almost sounds a little worse.
	The D-word refers to a person with one or several varieties of a specific genetic condition called dwarfism.
	I don't know if we can use that word.
	A disproportionate body parts.
	Right, they usually have larger heads and things like that.
	Well, we're sometimes hung, by the way, from what I understand.
	So disproportionately hung, too.
	Just wanted to see something.
	Okay, so normal life expectancy.
	Interesting.
	Dwarfism.
	Just wanted to see that, because in cases of proportionate dwarfism...
	Let me just see here.
	Life.
	Most have a nearly normal life expectancy.
	Extremely tall people are the ones who die very young.
	Oh yeah, like the world record and Andre the Giant.
	There's a guy that's 8 '6 or something.
	Out of Iowa, I believe.
	I think he lived to 21 or 22. That's gravity.
	Gravity starts taking a real serious toll.
	I'm not laughing at that.
	The joke was going up that I did play high school basketball.
	I took exactly one shot and they played me for exactly two minutes.
	Then I found another sport.
	Even then I was still too short.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Eric, look, I have to eat breakfast before we go live at noon.
	We've been going two and a quarter hours.
	You should hang up now.
	Everyone, by the way, tune back into Hunley.
	This is on Laidback News or is this on Eric Hundley?
	Laidback News.
	I was wearing your unstructured shirt yesterday to exercise.
	I thought I might have been still wearing it.
	I have another one upstairs that's clean.
	I'll put that one on.
	Let me put the link in the chat before you log on.
	Yes, and I will pin it.
	Now I've got to unstar this chat.
	Eric does have a reminder.
	The funny thing is, my morning now, I'm getting up earlier and earlier.
	I'm getting more and more done, except I don't find time to eat.
	I have to take three kids.
	I do carpool from 7.30 to what is effectively 9.05 in the morning.
	Oh, good Lord.
	I can just imagine it's easier to do these live streams than these produced videos, because the produced videos are just so tenuous.
	They take forever.
	Now the news moves so quickly.
	By the time you finish editing the video, the news has changed.
	It's easier to produce, and it's as much work, if not a little more, because you've got to look into a number of topics instead of just doing one highly edited 10-minute video on one subject.
	So more research, which I'm going to be doing anyhow, but a very, very much easier production.
	And then we clip snippets and post it on the second channel.
	But I like the conversational format, and maybe I'm seeing things that don't exist on YouTube.
	I think people want the longer format conversational.
	I'm not saying investigative, but, you know, discussion as opposed to 5 to 10 minutes.
	Yeah, I think there's context for both, but I still think, like, for me, the 10-minute, 15-minute thing, because I'm someone who can't watch anything over 15 minutes, right?
	I'm just like, if you can't tell it to me in 15 minutes, I'm trying to look for something that's quick.
	But there are some, sometimes I do want the full context and want to hear what people say.
	So it really depends on my mood, but generally I'm someone who's...
	The attention span is just not there.
	Well, these are hangs, Nate and David.
	This is like hanging out.
	It really is.
	It's interactive with the chat as well, which is a produced video is not.
	You can't answer the questions there.
	You have to go read the comments and come back.
	I think it's the future of legal analyses on the interwebs.
	That's true.
	I definitely think that's true.
	Can I hear my dog bark?
	Layback news.
	We'll see you guys in 15-20 minutes.
	Wait, Nate, post the link again.
	I'm going to pin it.
	Okay, here we go.
	You said it was on laidback news.
	Yes.
	Okay, beautiful.
	You can still subscribe to Eric Hundley.
	I won't stop you.
	I won't fight you.
	Please subscribe to both.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm looking for Nate.
	Nate, did you post it?
	Post it again.
	Here it is.
	I'm going to go watch Russell Brand.
	Look at the chat.
	There it is.
	Boom.
	Right below Simple Jack.
	Simple Jack, that is a fantastic name.
	I don't know, man.
	Soon enough, that's going to be a cancelable...
	There we go.
	Boom.
	They tried to cancel him.
	They tried to cancel Robert Downey Jr. for the blackface in that movie.
	And then they tried to cancel the movie because of the whole Simple Jack piece.
	I'm going to go pin the comment, people.
	Thank you all for everything.
	Thank you for the chats.
	Thank you for the support.
	Check out Nate.
	Check out Eric.
	We're going to be there in 43 minutes.
	Peace out, peeps.

▲