Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:02:59

Project Veritas Reveals MASSIVE FBI CORRUPTION! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	United States v.
	Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down VMI's male-only admission policy.
	Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg stated, Supposed inherent differences are no longer accepted as a ground for race or national origin classifications.
	Physical differences between men and women, however, Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?
	Senator, respectfully, I...
	I'm not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it's hard for me to comment as to whether or not.
	I'd love to get your opinion on that, and you can submit that.
	Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?
	Again, because I don't know the case.
	I don't know how I interpret it.
	I need to read the whole thing.
	Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
	Can I provide a definition?
	Yeah.
	I can't.
	You can't?
	Not in this context.
	I'm not a biologist.
	The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?
	Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address...
	If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide.
	The fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.
	Okay Okay, people.
	Good afternoon.
	We're going to come back to that clip.
	I hope I didn't delete it.
	We're going to come back to that.
	Now, funnily enough, there's a part of me that might want to defend the potential upcoming Supreme Court justice because it's conceivable.
	It's conceivable that there will be a lawsuit that will be centered around the definition of woman.
	And so if this judge now says, I know the definition, and if there's hypothetically a lawsuit in which the very definition of the term woman is at issue, well, this judge has already publicly stated how she feels about that.
	How this judge feels about that.
	We're going to get to the absolute absurdity of the clip that we just saw.
	With a little commentary.
	A touch of commentary.
	A touch of philosophical musings.
	But we'll get there in due course.
	How is everybody doing today?
	We're doing a stream today.
	A noon stream.
	Probably be done by 3 o 'clock.
	No later than 3.30 because I've got child pickup duty.
	And this evening, we have a sidebar this evening with none other than Jenna Ellis.
	Who you might know from such law services as Trump's attorney.
	I was on her podcast a while back.
	Timing worked out perfectly.
	We were going to have a doctor.
	I won't mention his name, just in case it doesn't happen.
	I'm not trying to put anyone on blast.
	It didn't work out, and Jenna graciously agreed.
	And we're going to talk about a lot of things, except the things that she, as counsel...
	Who, you know, might know things that she's not allowed discussing, will be able to discuss.
	So that's tonight.
	Jenna Ellis, 7 o 'clock, sidebar.
	Today, this has been billed as the, billed as in B-I-L, this has been promoted as the Project Veritas.
	Breaking news.
	Shocking, outrageous.
	I mean, if you had any lingering doubts about the depth of the swamp, the scope of the corruption, The banana-ness of the banana republic we might be living in right now.
	This will eliminate all doubt.
	Oh, that's right.
	I had to bring up the ACLU statement.
	Hold on one second.
	It's going to blow your mind.
	I had all of my windows opened in the back.
	And then in order to give...
	In order to give...
	In order to share the screen with StreamYards, I had to reboot and then I lost all of my open windows, which were my notes for today's stream.
	A level of corruption that James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas have exposed not only through their journalism, but through the treatment they get as genuine, bona fide investigative journalists, it's going to blow your mind.
	I've been covering it for a while.
	The corruption is just outrageous.
	It's unfathomable.
	It's in your face.
	But this is next level what's going to happen here and what you're going to learn today.
	And I had to get clear on the timeline.
	I had to review their latest filing, which breaks it down but puts it in chronological order.
	And it will leave you jaw-dropped.
	Before we get into any of that, standard disclaimers, keep growing that hair and we will see.
	More news on Sasquatch sightings.
	No, no, I'm far too short for Sasquatch.
	I'd have to, thank you very much, I'd have to put on an extra foot.
	Maybe if I wear my stilettos or whatever, platform shoes.
	But also, surprisingly hairless on my torso and chest and back, so probably not.
	Thank you for the super chat, John.
	Which is the standard intro disclaimer.
	I saw another one.
	This...
	We're gonna get there.
	We're gonna get there.
	SCOTUS already has for Civil Rights Act of 1964, they redefined sex as sexual orientation and gender.
	Alright, standard first disclaimer.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	So I know if some people don't like that and they don't want to support YouTube, you can follow us and watch us right now on Rumble.
	Rumble has the Super Chat equivalent of Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	So you can feel good, the creator gets more, and you can feel good supporting a platform that actually genuinely respects unpolitically weaponized terms of service for actual fruitful discussion.
	Alternative method, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I am currently, as we do this, following the live chat that is occurring.
	Where did it go?
	Yeah, I'm in the live chat.
	I thought it was in the live chat.
	Let's go back into the live chat.
	Good.
	I'm simultaneously following the live chat in Locals, and I'm going to get to some of the questions there, such as BartCop2 says, B-I-T-C-H-E-S.
	Okay.
	Still haven't found a way to simultaneously have the open window of Locals chat to the world, but maybe some people don't want that anyhow.
	All right.
	That's one disclaimer, Super Chats.
	The other disclaimer.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	And someone yesterday said, I feel old.
	I don't know what that means.
	And I had to explain that the, you know, Juan on YouTube is no longer, as of, I forget what date, no longer suggesting that elections in the United States ever have ever been potentially compromised by any outside forces or delegitimized, potentially so.
	You can't talk about that.
	Then this article in Time Magazine, or yeah, Time Magazine came out, or Time Times?
	It was a Time Magazine article explaining how the 2020 elections were saved through fortification by a group of cabal working with big tech and focus groups and special interest groups to control the dissemination of information.
	So now we just refer to, you know...
	One person's corruption is another person's fortification.
	So, that is why I say, jokingly, we cannot talk about election fortification.
	Except to say that, I guess, fortification is good if the right people are doing it.
	And fortification is not wrong if it's done with good intentions.
	The ends justify the means, people!
	Alright, so...
	Oh yeah, sorry, so we're going to do Supreme Court nominee Katenji Brown-Jackson.
	The quickest of updates on Pat King, the latest, what many to believe, and rightly so, political prisoner in Canada, has been in jail since February 18, when he was arrested as part of the Ottawa Convoy on mischief charges, advising to commit mischief, advising to violate court orders, not even court orders, to disobey whatever.
	Mischief-type crimes has been in jail.
	We are now March 23rd, so do the math on that, people.
	Over a month on mischief charges.
	Denied bail, was supposed to have a rehearing.
	We'll get to that in two seconds.
	LGBT employment discrimination is illegal under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.
	Yeah, no, no, we agree on that.
	What does that have to do with defining a woman?
	We'll get to that clip because it's preposterous.
	Thank you very much for the super sticker.
	And to this very day, I can't get a Rumble rant to work.
	No symbols to click on.
	No nothing.
	I just don't get it.
	I would rather use Rumble, but it isn't working for me.
	Keith, they're working on functionality.
	Rumble is going to be...
	I'm not saying it because I like them or because, you know, it might be...
	One day, the world is an amazing thing, but...
	Rumble is the place to be, and it's going to be the up-and-coming bona fide, legitimate competitor.
	Because one day, we will live in a world where respecting freedom of speech will be cool.
	We will live in a world where it will be marketable to say we do not weaponize terms of service for political, ideological, or narrative-driven reasons.
	It will be cool once again to be on that team.
	We're not there yet, but we're getting there.
	Why have separate sports for males and females?
	Well, that's why have weight categories.
	Why have anything?
	The reason for...
	So, this is a question I forgot to ask Robert last Sunday.
	People pointing out that Title IX was about gender discrimination, or gender discrimination, but not about sports.
	Nothing to do with sports, Sarah.
	So, the argument is...
	I appreciate the argument that Title IX had nothing to do with men's and women's sports, but it had to do with discrimination based on sex or gender.
	But I think the idea behind separating the sports was so that, exceptions aside and exceptions sports aside, biological women could compete on par with other biological women because, by and large, biological males have certain genetic testosterone muscular height advantages that in almost every sport will be an advantage.
	Perhaps not in gymnastics or sports which by their nature are subjective that require, I don't know, elegance over brute strength.
	So that's presumably why sports were divided along those lines so that biological women could actually win when competing against other biological women who are all on a similar biological playing field.
	Exceptions aside, I mean you still have...
	Even within males and females, within the animal kingdom, you know, you have Sagittarius, who had a bigger heart than most people.
	You have Usain Bolt, who is just...
	And you have Michael Phelps.
	They're just built to perform in their sport.
	Can Canadian government be sued for cruel punishment?
	No.
	I mean, no, we've talked about it.
	It's just...
	It's malicious prosecution, especially once any form of the prosecution has been ratified by the court.
	It becomes imminently and incredibly unlikely.
	So with that said, I'll break into the first Viva Fry.
	Only sports where women and men compete evenly is equestrian horseback riding.
	Well, maybe things involving target shooting, but I guess if there's...
	What is it called?
	When you ski and shoot, but that might not be...
	Or skeet shooting.
	You know, target things that don't involve muscular activity in between.
	I forget the name of the sport, people.
	Lung capacity for...
	Okay.
	I mean, I guess we'll make common sense discussion popular again as well.
	But is it against the law for a man to refuse...
	Sorry, hold on.
	So I don't...
	Okay, you know what?
	Actually, let me bring this up here.
	There's a funny actual story about that.
	Where was it, Nicol?
	I saw it.
	I saw it as a joke.
	Okay.
	Without commenting on this, it's a little known fact that for those who don't know who...
	The Hedgehog.
	What's his name?
	Ron Jeremy.
	Ron Jeremy was an adult actor.
	Nicknamed the Hedgehog for obvious reasons if you know what Ron Jeremy looks like.
	There was something known as the Ron Jeremy clause in a lot of contracts.
	People who specifically said in their contracts, I will not do work with Ron Jeremy.
	Also, funny story, I forget what it's called, but Ron Jeremy came out with his own line of gin.
	Oh, I think the gin was actually called the Hedgehog.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me open this up.
	I'm not going to open this up for everyone to see.
	I just want to see what Ron Jeremy's...
	Ron Jeremy Gin.
	Was it called the Hedgehog?
	Yeah, they called it the Hedgehog.
	Okay.
	So Ron Jeremy has a gin.
	It's actually not bad.
	I made a funny video once when I used to do the one-minute gin reviews and discretion is the better part of valor or...
	What is it?
	I chose not to publish the one-minute gin review because it was...
	Had a dirty joke in it.
	Okay.
	With that said, people, let's bring up Pat King just to deal with Pat King.
	Everybody also, the new format, I can't see the chat, super chat, or any comments while I have the screen shared, so I'm going to miss a ton of it.
	But I like the way of doing this because we get to talk about stuff in real time when I go find my notes.
	Lara Logan.
	Accused convoy leader Pat King complains that he hasn't been able to see his lawyers.
	I know that we can see it together.
	I'm just going to double-check.
	Good.
	So, Pat King, for those of you who don't know, is the last remaining convoy organizer.
	I mean, it depends if you want to call him an organizer, the leader, a spokesperson, whomever.
	Someone involved in the convoy.
	He's the last one to be in jail subsequent to his arrest on mischief charges in February 18. Tamara Litch, there was the other one who we're going to get, I think it was Barber, Chris Barber.
	We're arrested and released.
	Tamara Lich was released after two and a half weeks in jail on mischief charges, released under such onerous terms that they can still be referred to as, you know, imprisoned, but at least she's home.
	She just had to leave Ottawa within 72 hours.
	She had to post $5,000 bond.
	Her certi had to post a $20,000 certi.
	She's not allowed on social media.
	She's not allowed making public comments, encouraging protests.
	She's not allowed attending any protests.
	It might be limited to convoy protests, but I think it's any protest across Canada.
	So she has been released while having her constitutional rights restricted by the terms of her release.
	Pat King is the only one left in jail right now, and it's been over a month.
	So Ottawa Citizen, accused convoy organizer Pat King complains of limited contact with his lawyers since lockup.
	He's been held at Innes Road Jail since he was taken into custody during the mass arrests on February 18th.
	Mass arrests, people.
	Mass arrests.
	And he's still in jail on mischief charges.
	I think they say...
	We'll get to it in a second.
	But still in jail a month later.
	While the West...
	Rightly criticizes Russia and Putin for locking up, arresting the women's basketball player who might serve five to ten years hard labor, apparently for alleged drug infractions, if anybody believes that she actually tried to bring in drugs, something that was illegal in Russia that might not have been illegal elsewhere.
	Or who knows?
	Wouldn't trust Russian police not to plant things on people for political purposes so they can use it as a bargaining chip in, I don't know, other conflicts.
	So, while the West criticizes Russia for arbitrary abusive detention of the women's basketball player, and rightly so, one month plus later, mischief charges, Pat King's still in jail.
	But yeah, one tyrant is calling another tyrant a tyrant.
	Accused convoy organizer, Pat King, I don't think he was an organizer anyhow, but that's a separate issue.
	Complaint, he's had little contact with his prospective legal team.
	By the way, this is an interesting framing here.
	Prospective legal team, as he made a brief court appearance Monday and was given three days to try to sort this out before he returns to court Thursday.
	They're referring to it as his prospective legal team because he has had to mandate new counsel and he's complaining that he has not been able to have adequate meetings with his new counsel.
	In the practice of law, when someone gets new counsel repeatedly in the context of a file, my inkling as a lawyer is to think the client might be problematic.
	Pat King might be a problematic client.
	But this is a highly political case, and it's very possible some of these lawyers are saying, I want to have nothing to do with this.
	I don't want the bar reprisals coming to spot check, inspect me, just randomly, but contemporaneously with me representing the defense of the man who's the most hated man in Canada.
	I need to discuss this with somebody because there's supposed to be a team of lawyers working together on this, and it doesn't seem like any one of them know...
	What's going on?
	King said via video link from the Ottawa Carleton Detention Center.
	So, if something's going on, I'd like to speak with somebody.
	King told the judge, yes, sir, I would.
	He's been held at the Innisford Jail since he was taken into custody during the mass arrest.
	February 18th, that brought an end to the three-week demonstration by the so-called Freedom Compact.
	At least Ottawa Citizen called it a demonstration and not an occupation.
	Charged with mischief, counseling others to commit mischief, denied bail February 24th.
	With the justice of the peace citing concerns, he may re-offend while expressing doubt in the reliability of King's proposed surgery.
	I mean, can you imagine?
	He may re-offend.
	Everyone on earth who has been arrested may re-offend.
	By definition.
	The only difference, I guess, is...
	No, there's no difference.
	It's outrageous.
	It's preposterous.
	It's outlandish.
	He might re-offend on mischief charges.
	Okay, that's a risk I'd be willing to let this individual take.
	The individual who ran over the four people in Winnipeg might also re-offend.
	But there, I might say, re-offending by ramming your vehicle into pedestrians, that might be a re-offence that I might be inclined to take less chances with than Pat King going out and re-offending on mischief charges.
	Okay, so that's it.
	He asked the court to adjourn until Thursday to allow time for King to consult with his prospective lawyers to see what path going forward there is.
	Oy!
	Justice of the Peace Stephen Dibley issued another stern warning to observers in the online public gallery who once again appear to be live-streaming the court proceedings, a contravention of established law and of long-standing courtroom decorum.
	Yeah, apparently people...
	We went over this during the Tamara Litch hearing when I thought I was in trouble because I was live summarizing what was going on with an earbud in my ear listening to what was going on.
	Not broadcasting audio, video, or any visual from the court hearing.
	Apparently other people did not listen to my warning when I started that stream.
	And at one point during the proceedings, even King appeared to be pleading with those observers to stop.
	We're hoping to get a publication ban on this hearing due to a co-accused who continuously keeps putting these on social media, which is detrimental to our case, King told the judge.
	You know, he told the publication ban.
	It's interesting.
	The publication bans.
	Those should be exquisitely exceptional, in my humble opinion, and typically they are, but they seem to be politically motivated.
	I don't know what could warrant a publication ban in this case, except maybe the name of the certee of the individual, which was one of the conditions that was addressed in the Tamara Litch re-hearing, where the proposed certee, there was a publication ban on the name of Tamara Litch's proposed certee.
	Okay, the law prohibits people from broadcasting and live streaming.
	Yet we know that.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, what else is there?
	I think that's pretty much it.
	So it's continuing until Thursday.
	By all accounts, King is...
	I'm going to go ahead and close this one up.
	King has not been able to have adequate communications with his counsel.
	And he's apparently seeking new counsel because there's been issues.
	Now, in the practice of law, this is a little pro-life...
	Oh, I just knocked my camera.
	Pro-life tip for any aspiring lawyers out there.
	When you have a client, everyone learns this the hard way, typically.
	When you come across a client who says, yeah, my first lawyer didn't get it.
	My second lawyer was too busy.
	My third lawyer was corrupt.
	Typically, exceptions aside, the more lawyers someone goes through, and whatever they tell you about their previous lawyers, about having been bad, incompetent, not understood the file, Sure as sugar, you can predict that they will be telling a future lawyer that about you.
	And I learned the hard way, when someone comes to you and you're their third lawyer, oftentimes there's a darn good reason for it.
	And it's, you know, the rule of clients, 80% of your clients, hold on, what is it?
	20% of your clients generate 80% of your revenue.
	And then 20% of your clients generate 80% of your headache.
	It might be, it's more like 1090.
	It's actually more like 1090.
	10% of your clients are sucking.
	Dude, I can't keep track of everybody who's live at the same time.
	It's impossible to navigate.
	I apologize.
	If you want Ukrainian, you know, updates in the Ukraine, Gonzalo Lira is live.
	I know, I believe Riccate is live.
	I think Joe Nierman.
	It's impossible to coordinate.
	Sorry.
	So the life pro tip, if you're a practicing attorney, And someone comes to you and you're the nth lawyer, the second, third, fourth, whatever.
	You have to look into what happened.
	It's not unheard of to, you know, when you're taking the file or calling the lawyer saying, look, don't tell me anything confidential.
	Just, I've been contacted by this client.
	Should I take the file?
	And then sometimes if you're going to say, look, I'm going to be the third lawyer in this file.
	I'm going to either suspend disbelief or just hope for the better.
	Just make sure you know what you're doing.
	But with Pat King, This is a wickedly political file.
	I can understand why Pat King might be a difficult client, but there might be lawyers who are saying, geez Louise, this isn't worth it.
	This is simply not worth it.
	I might not get paid.
	I don't know what the circumstances of that are, but this is just not worth the political flack that I'm going to get as an Ottawa attorney practicing in a very small community in Ottawa.
	Judges are human.
	Justice is human.
	Judges may...
	Remember the name of someone who defends Pat King and or potentially defends Pat King a little too successfully.
	How can there be concern for re-offense if he has not been convicted of any crimes yet?
	That is what the judge and Tamara Lich effectively said to counter the reasoning of the officer of the peace or the justice of the peace who said, high likelihood she's going to get convicted.
	The judge who re-heard that said, no, there's not a high likelihood she's going to get re-convicted.
	There's not a high likelihood she's going to serve more time than she might serve if she's waiting in jail pending her trial.
	It's true.
	These individuals are legally innocent.
	Now, that being said, when they say re-offend, what they mean to say is go out and break the law again.
	But conditional release is the constitutional rule.
	Reasonable bail is the constitutional rule, not the exception like these officers and Tamar Litch and Pat King have made it to be.
	If I release him, it's going to undermine faith in the judicial system.
	No!
	That's putting the carriage in front of the horse.
	That is bass-ackwards, as we say.
	Will you be discussing the backdoor deal between Trudeau and Singh?
	I talked about it yesterday.
	That is the coalition of sorts of the New Democrat Party and the Trudeau government.
	Jagmeet Singh, who spent the last six years calling Justin Trudeau dangerous, useless, corrupt, divisive.
	Hey!
	What do you do with the enemy?
	You join them.
	So congratulations, Jagmeet.
	No, but I talked about that yesterday.
	So Pat King, the hearing's gonna be on Thursday.
	I have something Thursday.
	James O 'Keefe, we're going live at 11. So I'll try to stream that afterwards, maybe.
	Stream it in the legal sense, as in I'll be listening and relaying the information the same way they do the live tweeting.
	But people, do not rebroadcast visuals, audios, screen grabs, any image from court.
	You're not allowed going into court and taking pictures of the courtroom and posting them to social media.
	Period.
	So, people have to appreciate that.
	It's not because it's on a Zoom meeting online for people to access that you can rebroadcast it.
	You can't.
	Exceptions aside.
	Unless the judge specifically says you can.
	But like, the judge doesn't want to see super cuts from court.
	The judge doesn't want to see memes made from judges during court.
	It's one thing to go and see it.
	It's another thing to then think you can rebroadcast, republish, and do what the internet does with video.
	So that is, that's Pat King update.
	So apparently it's going to be, if there's a Zoom meeting Thursday, I'll try to get in on it.
	But people, James O 'Keefe and his lawyer are coming on at 11 Thursday to talk about the Project Veritoff stuff.
	Which we're going to get to later on in the stream because I want to go over the paperwork before we bring on the guests because there's a lot of paperwork to go through.
	Freedom George is still being held from convoy.
	Bail was denied.
	No, and by the way, and Artur Pawlowski?
	Hold on.
	Let me just see where he is.
	Artur Pawlowski is still in jail purportedly for violating the terms of his release.
	I'm just going to give you the update on that because people think I'm avoiding it for whatever the reason.
	It's just that they're jailed.
	Hold on.
	Artur Pawlowski.
	February 9th.
	What month are we in?
	News.
	18. Oh, is this it?
	Okay, street.
	Okay, I'll bring this one up.
	Calgary Herald.
	Here, hold on, people.
	Yeah, just so we can get this one out.
	I'm not avoiding this for any reason whatsoever.
	I've covered it a lot, and it's just an egregious injustice.
	The terms of his release were equally offensive from a constitutional perspective.
	Everyone remembers, Pavlovsky was released from jail, but the judge said, issued, A variety of sanctions and conditions on his release, above and beyond tens of thousands of dollars in fines, which was excessive to begin with.
	The judge said Artur Pawlowski was compelled to say certain things when publicly speaking about his protest against COVID restrictions.
	Let me see your project.
	Where did I put it?
	Female definition.
	Bail hearing for church.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Share and close.
	I'm sorry, I'm not...
	Signing up for your stuff.
	Street church minister seeking release on bail despite being ordered detained by one judge.
	Here you go.
	This is getting to the...
	During his speech, Pavlovsky referred to the blockade as our Alamo, a comment the Crown prosecutor called an overt threat to commit violence.
	Let that sink in, people.
	First of all, call me ignorant.
	I'm not exactly clear on what happened at the Alamo, except...
	Yeah, I don't know who could, in their right mind, take that as an overt call to violence, but hey.
	Words can be violence when you want them to, and they can be metaphors when you also so choose to interpret them that way.
	Street church minister Arta Pavlosky will have to wait at least one more day to find out if he'll be freed from a Calgary jail cell.
	This is March 22nd.
	Court of Queens, Justice Galene Kendall, ordered Pavlosky's bail review before her to resume Wednesday.
	So we'll find out today, actually.
	Afternoon.
	After lawyers were unable to complete evidence for her on Tuesday.
	The state hearing conducted virtually via WebEx with the same rules for all this stuff, by the way, guys.
	If anybody's lucky enough to witness this or to view it, don't republish anything.
	Defense lawyer Sarah Miller was granted a publication ban on the proceedings.
	Well, don't worry about that, people.
	I should probably finish the sentences first.
	During Pavlovsky's initial bail application on February 9th, the defense did not seek a publication ban.
	Why are they looking for publication bans?
	Okay, anyhow.
	At the time, Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnson saw Pawlowski's detention pending trial over allegations he incited protesters of anti-COVID-19 health measures not to abandon a blockade at the Coutts International border crossing.
	I mean, this is Canada, people.
	This is Canada while we are lecturing Russia.
	And while if we had good moral standing, we would rightly...
	Be lecturing Russia.
	Even still, we might rightly be lecturing Russia or condemning their, you know, potentially dysfunctional or corrupt judicial system.
	Maybe.
	But when you lose the moral authority, it compromises the nation as a whole.
	And we're witnessing what happens when a nation legitimately loses its moral authority to lecture anyone else on the exact same things this country is currently doing, except potentially by degrees.
	What ends up happening is it's a destabilizing force for the world as a whole.
	Pavlovsky told the crowd that millions of people had to...
	Okay, well, maybe I don't want to read this and get in trouble.
	He had to die to end world wars to get freedom.
	Pavlovsky said that there were not enough RCMP officers to deal with them, and there was not enough army to deal with them.
	Okay, seems hyperbolic.
	Canada does not have the standard that the US has of the specific true threat.
	So...
	Some people have been warning me since 2016 that we don't have freedom of speech in Canada.
	No comment.
	I'm just going to continue reading this while weighing my words.
	He's clearly, in the context of his speech, referring to the notion that there would be some sort of violence.
	Clearly.
	Clearly.
	During his speech, Pavlovsky referred to the blockade as our Alamo, a comment Johnson called an overt threat to commit violence.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	When you hear dog whistles, you hear them everywhere.
	The wind blows.
	You hear a dog whistle.
	A bird chirps.
	It's a dog whistle.
	Pavlovsky, 48, faces criminal charges for breaching a release order to keep the peace and committing mischief by inciting others to block the lawful use of public property.
	He also faces charges under the Provincial Critical Infrastructures Defense Act.
	All right, so that's Pavlovsky.
	So, you know, while we, the True North Strong and Free lecture Russia, lecture North Korea, you know, hey, I said it before, I'll say it again.
	Otto Warmbier.
	Had a trial before he was sentenced to 10 years hard labor.
	He had a trial.
	These people are being held in jail without even having had their trial yet.
	I mean, sure, his trial lasted one hour by an absolutely corrupt joke of a judicial system.
	But he had a trial, so I guess it had to be lawful.
	But meanwhile, in Canada, these people are being detained for extended periods of time.
	For speech that some prosecutor says clearly was a call to violence?
	Wow.
	But then actual acts of violence, they get bail.
	Makes sense.
	Now is not the time, but there is more to be said about our previous disagreement on sentence.
	I don't know what that means.
	But thank you for his name change.
	The non-coalition.
	Oh, by the way, Matt Christensen just put out a great video, watch it on Rumble, breaking that arson, which they attributed to the convoy, breaking it down.
	To the extent that the act was actually a legitimate act of arson in the first place, it had nothing to do with the convoy.
	Confirmed.
	Six weeks later, don't expect any of the state-funded legacy media to report on that.
	So yeah, Matt Christensen put out a great one.
	And I said...
	I would check in on the chat.
	So let's see what's going in on the locals chat, people.
	Anyone been to...
	See, the thing is this.
	I don't know if people in the locals want me to say their names publicly.
	And that's always the line that I'm walking.
	Sometimes people might not want to be known publicly if they're actually identifiable.
	Anyone been to the Russian Tea Room in New York lately?
	I have not been there.
	Life's sick Canada.
	Oh, LifeSci Canada.
	Did you guys see the ACLU of all people put out this statement yesterday?
	This is on...
	This is from S-Ray.
	Yeah, we're going to get to that.
	The ACLU statement on Project Veritas.
	So that's the latest from Canada.
	Pat King's still in jail.
	He's going to have his hearing tomorrow.
	Arthur Pavlovsky, he's having his hearing today.
	So maybe I'll have an update by tonight's sidebar with Jen Ellis.
	But this...
	The Alamo loss battle was defensively.
	Okay, fine.
	But like...
	I mean, if someone says let's meet at high noon, is that going to be a call to violence?
	If someone says, you're killing me, is that a call to violence?
	Over my dead body?
	There are expressions, there are historical expressions that if anybody deems them to be a call to violence, I would say it's a little bit of the old expression, shame on he or she who would think ill of something so innocent.
	Or it's just, you know.
	Someone wanting to weaponize everything for political purposes.
	Get in their faces.
	Harass them.
	Maxine Waters.
	Fight, fight, fight.
	Who said that one in the US?
	Those aren't calls to violence.
	But Donald Trump say, go down and protest peacefully.
	Inciting an erection.
	I did that on purpose, people.
	Inciting an insurrection.
	By the way, inciting the erection from, what's his face?
	Schumer.
	That might be a Freudian slip above anything else.
	Some of those politicians, man, they're into some...
	Kinky stuff.
	Okay, so that's the latest out of Canada.
	Let me go here and just check something in the backdrop.
	Booyah.
	Okay, good.
	All right, now let's get to Kenji Brown Jackson.
	Cannot say what a woman is.
	I'm going to go play it again.
	It's a two-minute clip.
	We'll watch it.
	Maybe I'll cut it off or skip, but I think we need to watch it because...
	And we're going to actually learn some interesting science out of this as well.
	And I'm just going to have to go to my Twitter feed and do this because I can't find it.
	This is from yesterday.
	Here we go.
	Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg's...
	Let's go here.
	Senator...
	Senator...
	You know, let's listen to this.
	...or national origin classifications.
	Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring.
	The two sexes are not fungible.
	A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.
	Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?
	Now, in fairness, in fairness to Jackson, it's not clear.
	That the summary by what's her name again?
	Oh, I forget the person asking the question.
	It's not clear.
	She's summarizing it.
	And so the normal defense as a lawyer, if I'm a lawyer or I'm a witness, I'm saying, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of Ruth Gader Ginsburg's summary.
	Like, you read it, and then you gave it your own synopsis, your own summary.
	So the fair response would be, I'm not sure that your summary of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said...
	It's entirely accurate, so I'm not sure I can agree with it.
	To which the obvious retort would just be, well, in your humble opinion, are there enduring differences?
	But forget what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
	Are there differences?
	Senator.
	Senator.
	We did this with Zuckerberg.
	I don't know if in their training, if in their rehearsals, they say start every sentence with either um or senator.
	And I'm not picking on Jackson here.
	Everyone seems to do it.
	Senator Zuckerberg.
	Couldn't stop doing it.
	It was like his way of getting, I say getting his thoughts in order, but I would say getting his story in order.
	Respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it's hard for me to...
	Now, under U.S. constitutional law, I don't know if this case that was just cited is like one of those seminal cases that everyone is supposed to know about it, like it's Roe v.
	Wade or...
	Or Dred Scott, or New York Times versus Sullivan.
	I don't know if it's one of those seminal cases, so I don't know if her not knowing it is itself a flaw, an issue.
	But, okay, she doesn't know it.
	She doesn't want to talk about it.
	Comment as to whether or not.
	I'd love to get your opinion on that, and you can submit that.
	Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg's meaning of men and women as male and female?
	Now, again, here, if I'm going to be, if I were the witness and or I'm a lawyer, I'm saying, okay, you're using different terms here.
	Man and woman, male and female.
	One sounds like it might be cultural definitions.
	The other one might be biological.
	So, and that's just if I want to play devil's advocate.
	But it's clear the question being asked and it gets to it right now.
	Again, because I don't know the case.
	I don't know how I interpret it.
	I need to read the whole thing.
	Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
	Can I provide a definition?
	Yeah.
	I can't.
	You can't?
	Not in this context.
	I'm not a biologist.
	So, look, there we go.
	David Amber had a very astute observation.
	I can't give you the definition.
	I'm not a biologist.
	Now, I'm sure other people have said this because it's like in a game of chess.
	There's a good move where if anybody looks at the board, they'd know what would be the good move.
	This is the good move.
	Doesn't her answer suggest that she believes the definition is therefore defined by biology?
	I can't tell you what a woman and a woman is because I'm not a biologist seems to presuppose the hotly disputed conclusion that there is in fact a biological difference between the two sexes, set aside gender and all the other stuff.
	There is a biological difference and it's up to biologists to do it.
	And so she's saying, I'm not a biologist.
	I can't...
	Okay, good.
	Well, you just, in your answer, presupposed, effectively baked into the conclusion, there is a biological difference, and it's measurable and scientific, which I thought in certain realms of the social medias would be a cancelable offense, but we'll see what happens.
	We'll see what happens.
	Another person humorously said, well, can you define what a biologist is?
	It's all...
	It's...
	You know, there's an aspect of this which is almost, what's the word?
	Semantical, Zanonian-type arguments that you can get into.
	For those of you who don't know, going back to my philosophy days.
	Hello, Lisa.
	Going back to my philosophy days, Zeno's paradox.
	There's a few of them.
	The arrow at flight is never in motion.
	And the idea there is that, you know, an arrow in flight, it moves.
	But at any point in time, It necessarily, by definition, can only occupy its own space in time.
	So how does it go from, if you break it down in blocks, block A, one, two, three, four, five.
	If the arrow is five blocks long, how does it make that next skip to the next five blocks, which are different than the current five blocks?
	So the arrow, you agree that at this point in time, it occupies this space.
	Well, how does it get to the next space?
	It would have to go through space and therefore would have to occupy two different points in time at any given point in time.
	That's the arrow paradox.
	What was the other one?
	That it's impossible to get from point A to point B because in order to get from point A to point B, they're all sort of variations of the same thought experiment.
	To get from point A to point B, you got to get through the halfway point and you got to get through the halfway point of that halfway point.
	And there are, we all agree, an infinite many halfway points.
	In between any given two points, such that in order to get from point A to point B, you have to traverse the infinite, which is impossible.
	So you can never get from point A to point B, except with our own eyes, and this was Socrates or Plato's response, we just saw the turtle get from point A to point B. So, that philosophical breakdown aside, already answered.
	Check it out earlier.
	That philosophical question aside, look, okay, what's a woman?
	Can you offer me a definition of a woman?
	Like I said, I could conceive of a lawsuit where the central issue is the definition of the term woman.
	I can conceive of it.
	And so this judge is going to say, well, if I give you the definition now, basically I'm prejudging any case that might ever come before me in which, what is that issue, is the definition of the term itself woman.
	And by the way...
	If she had given that answer, I think it would have been exponentially better than the answer that she did give.
	I can't give you the definition of a woman.
	I'm not a biologist.
	Well, like a number of other people humorously noted, I'm not a veterinarian, but I can tell you what a dog is.
	I'm not a mechanic, but I can tell you what a car is.
	And now, and it's quite analogous because exceptions aside, by and large, we can always identify members of a group.
	We can identify a dog of a group.
	There might be some exceptions where, oh, I didn't know that that was actually technically a canine.
	And I'm thinking of a meerkat.
	I don't think meerkats are canines.
	Let me just go check.
	You know, there might be an outlier example that might be a canine, but you never knew it.
	Meerkat canines.
	Meerkat is a meerkat a cat.
	It's not a member of the cat family.
	Okay.
	Is a meerkat a canine?
	So they're weasels.
	It doesn't look like they're canines.
	So a meerkat, funny enough, someone might think it's a cat or a member of the cat family, but it's not.
	Some people might think a prairie dog.
	Let's see if a prairie dog.
	Is a prairie dog a canine?
	I think prairie dogs are canines.
	Oh, despite the name, they are not actually canines.
	Check this out.
	I'll bring this one up.
	This would be the perfect example, people, where 99% of the time, you don't have to be an expert to know what fits into a category, but there might be some exceptions where you just make a mistake.
	Hold on.
	We're going to get to an even cooler scientific example soon enough.
	And I don't even want to give you the heads up.
	Where is it?
	Oh, I can't find it.
	Whatever.
	Okay, so just trust me.
	It's in Wikipedia.
	It says prairie dogs are not canines.
	Why can't I find it?
	I just had it.
	You know what?
	Forget it.
	We're going here.
	And we're going to go.
	People may not.
	Are prairie dogs canines?
	Here we go.
	Just so you don't take my word for it.
	Despite the name, they are not actually canines.
	Look how cute they are.
	Are these animals or are these just like the cutest thing?
	This can't be real.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, I'm going to get me a prairie dog.
	So they're not canines.
	It would be one of those examples where you say, okay, fuck, I'm not an expert, but I can identify 99% of the time.
	Can you define a woman?
	Well, you know, let's not even...
	Ask the judge this.
	Let's just see what the definition of woman is.
	Now, Tim Pool did an interesting video on this as well, and I sort of, you know, if you've seen that, this might be repetitive.
	Just go to the definition of woman, and we'll see where this can get thorny.
	So, is that pronounced woman, or is that woman?
	I don't know what these phonetics mean.
	An adult female human being.
	At some point, we agree that definitions get circular, but the definition of a woman...
	According to Google, and this is Google dictionary or whichever dictionary this is, which one is it?
	Whatever.
	Is an adult female human being?
	Okay, well, that's good.
	Except in as much as I don't know what, if you don't know what female means.
	So the next obvious question is, what is female?
	And before we get there, let's just see, I see the, oh, the COP, which I made a mistake on what it was.
	Did I just tune in to see you melt down?
	What wormhole did I find?
	Meerkats and arrows.
	So a woman is an adult female human being.
	Okay, what's female?
	Share a screen.
	Why do I keep screwing this up?
	I don't even know that a producer would help with this, but what is a female?
	Definition.
	Female.
	Adjective.
	Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, let's just open this up, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes ova, which can be fertilized by male gametes.
	So this seems like a very good definition, a very accurate definition of female, which is baked into the definition of woman.
	A woman is an adult female, which is an adult human of the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of women.
	And this is where, you know, we want to get Zanonian in terms of the paradox linguistics.
	Well, there are people who are going to rightly say that there are women, adult females, who cannot bear offspring or who do not produce eggs.
	And so then one is going to say, well, are they any less of a woman?
	Are they any less of a female?
	According to this definition, At least the first half of it, you'll say, okay, fine.
	Maybe childbearing as a rule but not as an individualized issue would be a decent way of defining it.
	But there can be exceptions.
	And do we conclude that those exceptions are not females?
	Obvious answer is no.
	But then you get to the second part.
	Distinguished biologically by the production of gametes, ova, which can be fertilized by male.
	So this is the hypothetical, the potential of the category of species or the subspecies, the sexes within the species.
	By a general rule, that's what distinguishes them.
	People are going to say, well, there will be women who are unable to for whatever the reason, and therefore, are they still female by the definition?
	I think most people are going to say yes, even though they technically might not adhere to this definition.
	Then other people are humorously going to bring out that kindergarten cop meme video and say, like, boys have penises and girls have vaginas.
	To which the obvious response to that is, look, there can be any number of reasons for which there might be outlier examples, birth malformations or accidents in life that, I mean, literally, I'm not trying to be facetious, or cancer issues.
	So if a boy does not have a penis, is he still a boy?
	If a girl does not have, are they still a girl?
	Seems like the bottom line, if it were me in that chair, I would have said, you know, I would.
	Setting aside these exceptional circumstances, setting aside the outlier cases in which the issue, the legal issue, might be the semantical definition, semantic definition of the term woman, by and large, chromosome.
	I mean, that seems like it would be the decent answer.
	XX would be male, man.
	XY would be woman.
	Is it the other way around?
	XX is woman.
	My apologies.
	XX is biological female.
	That's how the answer would probably go.
	And you say, look, the ability to give birth, to lay eggs, etc., etc., as noted by the gametes, whatever it was.
	But then, very interesting and very curious thing, by the way, which some of you might already know, but some of you probably do not.
	If that is the definition, you know, the female in any species gives birth.
	Carries the eggs.
	I mean, that might be actually how this actually works.
	Seahorses.
	No joke.
	Let me see which one I'm going to bring up here.
	This one.
	Seahorses, people.
	And their related fish, the needle pipe or whatever it's called.
	How do seahorses differ from all other animals?
	Seahorses and their close relatives, sea dragons.
	There was another one.
	The needle fish or something.
	I will get to in a second.
	Are the only species in which the male gets pregnant and gives birth?
	My scientific question is, if it's the only animal, the only species on Earth where this is the, I won't say exception to the rule, but this is just abiding by a different rule, why would they scientifically not be called female?
	It's the only one where the male gets pregnant and gives birth.
	Is it possible it's the scientists who might have made a mistake on the designation here?
	I don't know.
	Male seahorses and sea dragons get pregnant and bear young, a unique adaptation in the animal kingdom.
	Seahorses, remember, the pipefish, that's the word I was looking for.
	In addition to their iconic appearance, seahorses possess many interesting attributes.
	Among them are specialized structures in their skins, yada, yada, yada.
	Their truly remarkable biological claim to fame, however, is that male seahorses and sea dragons get pregnant and bear young, a unique adaptation in the animal kingdom.
	It's kind of amazing.
	It doesn't explain why, though.
	And that's the...
	After completing an elaborate dance, the female seahorse transfers her...
	And I guess there we go.
	That the female, the sex of the animal, still is the one who, according to the definition, produces the eggs, transfers them to the male, and basically the male becomes the receptacle, the carrier.
	Very interesting.
	Male seahorse transfer her mature eggs into the male's brood pouch, where they are fertilized.
	At the end of the gestation period, usually lasting from two to four weeks, the pregnant male's abdominal area begins to undulate.
	So this sounds like it's actually just like a technicality of the delivery.
	It's like the male seahorse is like a test tube into which the female lays the eggs, it gets fertilized, and the male serves no other purpose other than being the receptacle in which the babies grow.
	Anyways, fascinating, if nobody knew that.
	Now let's just get back to the stuff of this.
	So, I mean, that's the semantics.
	That's the issue.
	There would have been a better way, a far better way for Jackson to answer that question.
	But we are living in a world where laws are predicated on distinguishing men from women.
	Like, actual laws, actual court precedent in the case that they were talking about, distinguishing men from women for the purposes of protecting women's rights, and you're getting a Supreme Court recommended nominee, who by and large is going to get confirmed, who cannot say, cannot even explain why she cannot define what a woman is.
	I mean, how...
	And that might set the precedent.
	I mean, we don't have to go too far with this.
	That precedent that was established to protect women's rights to the extent now that we can't define a woman, well, goodbye to that precedent and goodbye to the protections that that precedent was intended to produce for women at large.
	So it's...
	I mean, it's shocking, and it's a sign of where things are.
	And there are a lot of people who have different takes on this, that this is a troll intended to just deliberately weaponize everything, deliberately muddle everything and befuddle everyone.
	Some people say it's an outright attack on women's rights.
	And when you see what's going on with The NCAA, and you see some biological women athletes coming out and saying, this is just trampling on our rights.
	But now you have a nominee to the SCOTUS who's basically saying, not basically, who's confirming viva voce in real time.
	I can't even tell you what a woman is.
	Then the next question would be, well, how on earth are you going to defend women's rights then?
	As a justice of the highest court of the land, how on earth are you going to...
	Defend women's rights if you can't even define or tell me that you can identify what a woman is.
	If biological differences didn't exist internally, then you would not need hormones.
	Well, this is an argument that we were talking about.
	If there were no biological advantage for biological males, they wouldn't set testosterone limits in order for transgender athletes, biological male to female, to compete in biological female sports.
	You wouldn't have that.
	You wouldn't have that medically, scientifically, biologically recognized threshold if there were not biological differences between the two sexes that procured, by and large, exceptions aside, one, a physiological advantage over the other.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	You take it to where it goes, and it goes to a world of madness where...
	Where biological males, albeit transitioning, albeit who abide by the NCAA-imposed rules, who've spent their entire life acquiring the muscle mass, bone density, height advantage, reach advantage, after one year of transition therapy where they've gotten their testosterone during that year below a certain recognized threshold because above which you would have an unfair advantage, they are competing with...
	Biological females and one person's choice to transition and as much as they have that right because they do is now trumping an entire category of humans who didn't have any choice in this and who are seeing their rights compromised, trampled on as a result of someone else's decision, someone else's life choice that procures them an advantage.
	And I would even dare say a recognized unfair advantage, which is why the NCAA had to put in rules to temper that unfair advantage that they recognize exists by pure physiology.
	Know the vlog!
	So that's it.
	The interesting thing, the seahorse, it still abides by the definition of female in that the female of the species still produces the eggs.
	They just happen to put them into the male's pouch where they then get fertilized and grow.
	I mean, I guess it's no different than...
	Which animal is it?
	Well, I guess some of the male animals, you know, they protect their babies in their mouth or whatever.
	I don't know.
	Nobody frets about whether a car that has no wheels removed is still a car.
	These questions are the essence of critical theory.
	The goal isn't to find truth, but ruthlessly criticize such that finding truth is impossible.
	Can't disagree with it.
	By the way, fun fact, ostriches don't hide their head in the sand.
	Fun fact also, an ostrich one-on-one with a lion...
	Is a fair fight, 50-50, from what I've been told from an ostrich farmer.
	Eric the Viking, thank you very much.
	So that's it.
	The confirmation hearings are continuing.
	We're going to discuss that with Jenna Ellis tonight, Donald Trump's lawyer, because we're going to have some fun discussion tonight.
	So that's it.
	But it's, I can't, well, yeah, well, then there's the issue, even defining pornography.
	It's a purely subjective term.
	I would say obscenity.
	It wasn't pornography, I don't think.
	And obscenity is a purely subjective term.
	I know that one person's obscene is another person's Saturday night.
	One person's obscene is another person's comedy.
	But then there is levels of obscenity that I would say should be objective.
	When it comes to art, Who knows, so long as it's consenting adults.
	I mean, that's the bottom line.
	There was this artist, I forget who he was, a very famous photographer who did very peculiar things to himself involving the American flag.
	Someone in the chat, if you guys know who this is, I forget his name, I Google it, but it involved, like, doing things in his own body, with his own body, in the presence of an American flag, and doing things, you know.
	People considered it absolutely obscene.
	I believe he also urinated on a religious symbol, you know, for art.
	But anyhow, obscenity, art, you know, these things, admittedly, I think those are more subjective than things which can be biologically by, you know, Jackson's own admission recognized.
	But what a consenting adult decides to do to himself to the extent it doesn't hurt other people, that should be up to that person when it comes into the P word or the CP word.
	Very different world.
	In saying that, they want you to accept their science when they don't accept science.
	That is part of the irony in all of this.
	Trust the science, except when it tells you that there are biological differences between the sexes.
	This whole thing is a semantic debate.
	Gender is different than sex, period.
	Gender, I think people are confounding gender with sexuality, which is how one feels about themselves, how one feels about who they're attracted to, their preferences.
	Gender, And the way it's being used, to me, is a question of preference, and that's absolutely up to every individual human being.
	People confounding gender with sex, with gender with biological differences, that's where you take the subjective and try to infuse it with the otherwise objective, setting aside exceptional examples where, you know, hermaphrodites, I don't exactly know how that works genetically, but, you know, 99% of the time, you can identify a member of the canine species, and then 1% of the time, you might make a mistake.
	And yeah, it's not about boobs, it's not about penises, it's not about vaginas, because every now and again, people can look differently, but nonetheless be something else.
	I mean, that's, again, confounding visual appearances, confounding choices, preferences, with underlying biology.
	Oh, sorry, hold on, I didn't want to bring up that, this one, here.
	Didn't realize how wide-ranging your vlog streams are, appreciate your tangents.
	Well, this, I'm just watching the, I'm watching the hearings, and it's just, it is interesting, because it does.
	Broach other issues.
	These are linguistic debates at the end of the day.
	But it goes back to the Zenonian paradox.
	Yeah, okay, conceptually, I can never get from point A to point B because to get there, I have to get through an infinite many midway points.
	But no one asked me to count the midway points.
	You didn't ask me to do the impossible.
	You just asked me to do the possible.
	And by the way, I think Zeno's paradox on the arrow in flight is never in motion.
	I think that also breaks down now because I do think that we've identified the smallest indivisible unit of measurement, which I think is the plank, if I'm not mistaken.
	So I think even that paradox now has been disproven by science, where there will be segment, what is the word?
	Not atomic, but there will be movements along certain minimal particles or minimal units of measurement.
	A woman can breastfeed a baby if around babies for a while, even though she hasn't had a baby herself.
	That's unique.
	I would say...
	And typically a woman characteristic?
	Well, I don't think men lactate, but I do know that there are situations where men produce fluid from their nipples, but typically it's during puberty.
	All right, super sticker.
	Thank you very much.
	Let me see now if there's anything in the chat on the locals that I will get into.
	Gender is the character manifestation of sex.
	That is mighty pale.
	Gender is the character manifestation of sex.
	I'm not sure what that means, but my two cents, gender is preference, and there's nothing wrong with it.
	Everyone should live the way they want to live.
	But gender is not sex, period.
	And then there may be exceptions, and there may be outlier examples.
	But anyway, that's it.
	So the Supreme Court nominee cannot define what a woman is.
	And is going to be expected to interpret law that was intended to protect women's rights.
	Okay.
	See how that works out.
	Identification should eliminate sex, gender, and just go with chromosomes.
	I think so.
	But now in the chat, are there any exceptions to the XX or XY chromosome?
	And I agree with that.
	Don't pick gender.
	Don't pick sex on your passport.
	It's just chromosomes.
	Although, I guess the question is going to be, how do they measure the chromosomes?
	How do they determine the chromosomes of a newborn baby?
	I don't even know how you actually do that.
	Can you do it from the umbilical cord and you're going to have to wait?
	You're going to have to wait until they get the results back from the umbilical cord to say if your baby's XX or XY, notwithstanding visual indications that might give you a hint as to where it's probably going.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	All right.
	So that's SCOTUS.
	I don't think I had anything more on that.
	Let me see here.
	The seahorses we got to.
	Yeah.
	One hour in.
	It's a good time to get to Project Veritas.
	Let me just see what we got in the chat here.
	Sharing screen was canceled.
	No, that's fine.
	Oh, hold on.
	Someone just said something here.
	There is an XXY and XXX, but the probability is 1 in 100,000.
	So hold on, but that's not all that little.
	That would be 1 in 100,000 would be 10 in a million, which is going to be 10 in a million.
	It's going to be a thousand and a billion.
	There's going to be a lot of people like that on Earth.
	So hold on.
	What does that manifest as?
	XXY and XXX.
	Hold on, people.
	Can't leave on unanswered questions.
	XXX.
	Oh, there was XXS.
	That's a wrapper.
	Chromosome.
	Let's see here.
	XXX syndromes.
	Okay, this is from Mayo Clinic.
	Let's bring this up.
	We're going to answer a question.
	If I've got the question, guaranteed other people have the same question.
	Let me just bring this chat out so I can...
	Oh, is that...
	Okay, and I don't know if that's inappropriate, if that's an offensive derogatory term anymore, and I use it myself.
	I'm being facetious somewhat here.
	Hold on.
	Hermaphrodite.
	I mean, maybe that is...
	Okay, so XXX...
	XXX syndrome, also called trisotomy.
	Oh, but that's...
	Is that Down syndrome?
	XXX...
	It's a genetic disorder that affects 1 in 1,000 females.
	Females normally have 2X chromosomes in the cells, 1X from each parent.
	In XXX, a female has 3X chromosomes.
	Many girls and women with XXX syndrome don't experience symptoms or have only mild symptoms, and other symptoms may be more apparent, possibly including developmental delays and learning disabilities, seizure, kidney problems occur in small number of girls.
	Interesting.
	Symptoms.
	Delayed development, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, psychological problems.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Now let's go to XXY.
	Let's see what that does.
	So this looks like Kleinfelter syndrome.
	Not Kleinfeld.
	Kleinfelter.
	Kleinfelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome.
	It's a genetic condition affecting males and is...
	And it often isn't diagnosed until adulthood.
	Symptoms.
	Let's get to the symptoms.
	Signs may include weak muscles, slow motor development, taking longer than average to sit up, crawl, or walk, delay in speaking, problems at birth, such as testicles that haven't descended into the scrotum.
	Boys and teenagers, taller than average, longer legs, shorter torso, absent, delayed, incomplete puberty, small penis, weak bones, low energy.
	Interesting.
	Men, low sperm count.
	Okay.
	Went to see a doctor.
	Well, I think I would have seen a doctor.
	I mean, that's interesting.
	Okay.
	Now we know.
	Klinefelter syndrome.
	I presume named after the man who discovered it or the man who first suffered from it, Klinefelter.
	All right.
	So anyways, that's it.
	That's the end of our discussion on that.
	There are women that have XY chromosomes but are androgen insensitive due to...
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	Well, anyways, look, I know the limitation.
	One day we'll have a doctor who might be able to discuss this.
	7,000 people out of 7 billion is rare.
	True, but there are still 7,000 of them.
	It's the old expression, you know, if you're one in a million, even in certain countries, that means there's still a thousand others just like you.
	Okay, what else we got here?
	There's a rare condition where a person with XY chromosomes produces female hormones and grows up with all female organs and appearances, but is infertile.
	Many don't know they have it.
	Okay.
	Let's move on to Project Veritas, people.
	Oh, and let's see if there's anything on Rumble.
	Rumble rants.
	Hold on, peeps.
	Let's just do this.
	Kenji Brown Jackson is done.
	I can take that off the list.
	FBI.
	Massive corruption.
	Okay, Rumble rants.
	I don't see any, but I see everyone on the Rumble chat talking about this.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I love this expression.
	I don't know if I made it up because there is spontaneous creation, but there are no exceptions to rules.
	There are just other subsets of rules that we did not know existed.
	When I was thinking about this, I'm trying to teach a kid how to play chess.
	I was like, okay, pawns always...
	Pawns can only move forward.
	No exception.
	Unless they become a queen or another piece, and then they can move as that piece.
	In which case, they're no longer a pawn, so it's not an exception to the rule.
	It's just an overriding or subset of a rule.
	Pawns can only move forward one square at a time, unless it's an opening move.
	In which case, it's not an exception to the rule, it's just a subset to the rule.
	Pawns can move two squares only when opening, and only then.
	If they move one, they can't move two ever again.
	Not an exception, it's just a subset to the rule.
	And then the en passant, which many people don't know, which is if you have a pawn.
	If you have a pawn...
	Of an enemy pawn that is on what would be the second row that the pawn moves to, that pawn can knock off the pawn diagonally only on that next move.
	I hope everyone understands what I mean.
	There's a pawn on the file to which a pawn is now moving two squares on its first move.
	That is the only time an enemy pawn can knock a pawn off diagonally and then take the place one square before.
	En passant.
	Again.
	Not an exception to the rule.
	It's just another rule that many people don't know.
	So even when it comes to these things, the rule, I think, is still the rule biologically, definitionally.
	There just may be other rules that might look like exceptions, but just be subsets to the rule.
	But in life, I like to say there are no exceptions to the rules, just another set of rules that you might not have been aware of.
	Okay.
	Obsess and abuse all women for a few hundred Twitter feelings.
	That is a global cult of abusers.
	Okay, I hope you're not talking about me because I don't think you are.
	Yep, ready for James.
	Let's do it.
	She's going to be a Supreme Court justice applying laws that were intended to protect women's rights.
	And she can't define...
	She cannot give a definition to the group of humans that she's going to be on the highest bench of the land.
	Applying law to protect.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I don't make these glib jokes.
	There are some things where I have a good sense of humor, just so everybody appreciates.
	It is, well, first of all, another interesting rule of chess.
	The pawn does not need to turn into a queen.
	It can turn into any other piece on the table except a pawn.
	And there are some great, great chess puzzles where the move is actually not to queen the pawn, it's to knight the pawn.
	Or bishop.
	No.
	No, it's actually only knight because every other piece is redundant with the queen except the knight.
	I've been trying to get back into chess, and I'm just not good anymore.
	I'm not good, and it bothers me.
	I hate losing, and I'm playing on the app.
	It's called...
	It's called...
	Where is it on my phone here?
	Chess.
	That's a great name for it.
	It's called chess.com.
	My account is Viva Fry, if anybody wants to try to meet me there and play.
	And I was thinking about doing something exclusive to locals, like a weekly...
	Five minute blitz game.
	I hate losing a chess because it's the only game in the world that's played table open.
	You see everything.
	And if you don't see it, it's because of your brain.
	Not because of anything else.
	There's no cheating in chess.
	There's no, you should have told me that you were doing this in chess.
	It's all there for you to see.
	And if you don't see it, you have only yourself to blame.
	Okay.
	Let's get the Protec Veritas.
	Protec Veritas, people.
	They are doing the last of the real journalism.
	And I mean the last of the real journalism in the sense that absolute, pure investigative journalism that used to be the norm back in the day.
	I used to watch 60 Minutes with my parents.
	And they used to have the person come in with a briefcase that had a camera.
	They had the cameras and the hat.
	They had undercover...
	People recording to get the CEOs of the company making admissions that they knew that they were peddling tainted products.
	That used to be the standard.
	I mean, until the media became the mouthpieces of the government, until they became so politically weaponized that they became the tools of their political party and not what they were intended to be, which is a service to the people.
	And then what ends up happening is when they get subsidized by the government, directly or indirectly, they no longer have any loyalty to quality.
	They just have loyalty to party.
	But James O 'Keefe is still doing the absolute legit journalism undercover.
	It's not all bombshell stuff.
	Some of it is stronger than others, but some of it is damn strong.
	Some of it is so strong, in fact, that the FBI and the Department of Justice and all the other weaponized branches of government are going after them with a sledgehammer.
	They're using the government apparatus to go after them.
	They're using the media apparatus to go after them.
	And luckily, and I say luckily, the courts seem to have been upholding the judicial apparatus in terms of the treatment of Prodig Veritas, both as plaintiff and as defendant.
	They had a bit of a setback this week with CNN where their defamation lawsuit against CNN was dismissed because the judge said when CNN said that Project Veritas or James O 'Keefe, I forget which exactly, I think it was Project Veritas,
	when CNN said that they were kicked off Twitter for providing misinformation, when the real reason that they were allegedly kicked off Twitter was because Twitter alleged that they had provided private information, the court said, eh, substitute.
	The false for the true and the damage would have been the same.
	Accuse a journalist of getting booted off a platform for having provided misinformation, that's just as damaging to their reputation as accusing them of having gotten booted from a platform for providing confidential or private information.
	To which I would have swiftly said, horse manure.
	Judicial manure is what that is.
	Calling a journalist a liar is much different than saying that they leaked private information.
	Much different.
	One impugns their integrity as a journalist.
	The other impugns their judgment or their honor as a human.
	Okay.
	I met you, Viva.
	I know you're a good person and would never interpret or say a bad thing about you.
	Thank you.
	Hope that book helped.
	Tell me which book it was.
	I got a lot of books.
	A lot of them were Bibles.
	One of them was about politics.
	But thank you very much.
	And either way, I've got pretty thick skin.
	And the other problem is a lot of time people...
	Take things more seriously than they're intended to be taken.
	I try to assume most things are jest, and I try to hope that people assume most things that I say are said with love, respect, and even if we disagree, mutual respect.
	Okay, so they had that CNN lawsuit defamation case tossed.
	We'll see if they appeal it.
	It's preposterous to me, but I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, and I like to say that I was wrong for the right reasons, but I was still wrong.
	That case should not have been tossed, but we'll see.
	This is not about the CNN case.
	This is not even about their defamation case against the New York Times, which is still ongoing.
	This is about Ashley Biden's diary.
	Many people did not even know prior to the election, because I don't think I knew that Joe Biden had a daughter during the election.
	I think most people discovered this afterwards.
	Probably a lot of people knew beforehand.
	Joe Biden's got a daughter.
	His son, Beau Biden, passed away.
	He's got Hunter Biden.
	Everybody knows about Hunter Biden, but I don't think people have seen Hunter Biden in a while.
	People are asking themselves, where is Hunter?
	But that's a separate issue.
	He has a daughter, Ashley Biden, and by all accounts, they don't...
	Clean something off my computer here.
	By all accounts, they don't seem to have a good relationship.
	And I'm not projecting and I'm not imputing intentions.
	They don't seem...
	They don't seem to have had a good relationship, especially from what is alleged to have been in that diary.
	So Ashley Biden is Joe Biden's daughter.
	We discovered her, those of us who did not know that Joe had a daughter, because I'm going to get mixed up on the timeline.
	It doesn't really matter, except for the critical stuff on which I will not get mistaken on the timeline.
	It was during the election period-ish.
	Anonymous sources reach out to Project Veritas and say, We stumbled across Ashley Biden's diary, abandoned, forgotten, whatever, left over in an Airbnb, apparently, along with some other personal belongings of Ashley Biden.
	Would you like to have a look at it and see if it's newsworthy for you to publish?
	So, Project Veritas receives this...
	I mean, literally, I think it's a bag of stuff, a diary and some other stuff, from these anonymous tipsters who...
	Are doing their business through attorneys, which is also, you know, in my mind, this is why I can't practice law anymore because I just, I don't, I have difficulty trusting anybody.
	This I would have never touched in a million years, but I'm not an investigative journalist like James O 'Keefe and Prode Veritas, and I don't have the same threshold for dealing with this stuff.
	This would have smelled like a stink to me from the beginning where I would never, just leave me alone.
	No thank you, keep it.
	Project Veritas takes the diary.
	They look it over.
	They, according to their own story here, are unable to authenticate the diary.
	And they choose not to publish it.
	Now, I'm always fully transparent.
	Apparently, at roughly the same time someone might know where this diary was in fact published, apparently the diary was nonetheless published somewhere else.
	It was on a conservative website.
	I'm not saying that for political reasons.
	Let me just see if I can find...
	Where it was published.
	Someone might know in the chat.
	Ashley...
	But I'm not sharing it because I don't...
	I heard it was in that diary and I'm not interested in...
	Ashley Biden diary published.
	And it was published on Conservative Voice.
	Does that sound right?
	You got Salon.
	I'm never going to find it in any ordinary search results.
	Let's see if I put in the word conservative.
	It was published somewhere.
	Some people might say conservative groups acquisition.
	Some people might accuse Project Veritas of discreetly, indirectly leaking the diary on another publication.
	I don't believe it because why would they have done that?
	Project Veritas is not after malice.
	If they were going to leak it, they're not going to leak it.
	They're not going to do that in a way that's going to impugn their reputation as journalists, period.
	Some people might think that.
	Fine.
	Just full disclosure.
	It was published somewhere else.
	The release of the privileged info related to Project Veritas by the FBI to the New York Times is one of the highest criminal acts that seem to be protected by our courts.
	We'll get there.
	And we're going to see in the meantime if anybody in the chat knew.
	It wasn't Revolver.
	It wasn't Gateway Pundit.
	Oh, I want to say conservative.
	National File.
	That's where it was.
	Thank you, Dustin.
	That's a thousand percent the name.
	It was published in national file.
	So I don't know the backstory to that.
	I doubt that James O 'Keefe or Project Veritas would have deliberately done that.
	It's conceivable that a disgruntled individual might have leaked it once they determined that Project Veritas was not going to publish it.
	Project Veritas says, no go on this.
	We can't verify its authenticity.
	We're not, can't do it.
	Take it back.
	When things get even more suspicious, apparently the lawyers say, we're not taking it back.
	We don't want it.
	So, it's like a bag of dog crabs.
	Like, sorry, you got it.
	I'm not taking that back.
	Or, you know, you give them the weapon that's been used in a crime and they say, well, take this weapon back.
	It's like, what weapon?
	I'm not taking this back.
	So, the lawyer said, we're not taking it back.
	Project Veritas then says, well, we got nothing.
	What are we going to do with this?
	We're going to give it to the FBI and say, look, we don't want this.
	This anonymous tipster doesn't want it back.
	Neither do their lawyers.
	You take it.
	You know, do what you will with it.
	It was a year later.
	A year later, Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe, and two former journalists, I don't think they were journalists at the time, hot potato.
	A potato people will take, or at least you juggle, because it'll still be good afterwards.
	But a potato, no one's taken.
	It was about a year later, James O 'Keefe and two former journalists get raided.
	It was the two journalists first, then James O 'Keefe.
	Pre-dawn raid.
	I have.
	I've also seen the Wikipedia description of me.
	Don't go to Wikipedia for description of anyone who thinks that there might actually be a definition of the term woman.
	A year later, they raid two former journalists.
	A week later, they raid James O 'Keefe.
	Pre-dawn, it's a dawn raid.
	I don't know when pre-dawn starts.
	Six o 'clock in the morning.
	From what I understand, James is in his underwear.
	He recently released some of the footage.
	They come with arms, hands in the air, put hands in the air, yelling at James O 'Keefe.
	They seize, sorry, they don't steal.
	They seize his cell phone and they seize his cell phone, which contains not just journalistic information, not just sources, which is typically...
	Not just protected, but like the most protected of all protected information.
	It contains privileged information between him and his lawyer.
	Privileged correspondence between him and his lawyer.
	James O 'Keefe petitions the court.
	I'm giving a very long-winded description here, but we'll get into the document.
	The document will read faster once I bring it up.
	They petition the court to appoint what is known as a special master.
	In theory, an independent third party.
	Who's not part of the plaintiff prosecution, not part of the defense, to safeguard the information at issue, to do the triage, to sift through it, to make sure that the FBI, the DOD, what is it, Department of Justice, the prosecution does not get access to privileged confidential information that they're not entitled to have access to without a court authorizing it, or irrelevant information that they might want but might have nothing to do with the object of their seizure.
	Annalisa Taurus, the judge, Judge Annalisa Taurus, grants the motion for a special master.
	She gave strict orders to this special master as to what to do with the information, what to do with the phones, what to do with all the stuff, how to protect the potentially privileged confidential information.
	And she issues that order.
	Subsequently issues an order that not only...
	Did the court appoint a special master?
	But James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas themselves don't have to pay the $45,000 for the special master.
	The government does.
	Okay.
	Well, what did James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas just discover the other day?
	I'm going to quote someone else so that I don't get accused of...
	My biggest concern is I might know things that I don't...
	I might know things that I do not disclose, that I cannot disclose, and my biggest phobia in life is accidentally disclosing something.
	That I'm not supposed to disclose.
	Same thing as with a lawyer.
	When I was a lawyer, it's like out of respect to people, out of confidentiality.
	So I'm just going to go to Lara Logan.
	Let me just make sure we're in tandem here.
	And we are.
	Now we bring this down, bring this back up.
	Lara Logan, breaking.
	DOJ spied on journalists.
	Emails via...
	Sealed search warrants and non-disclosure orders.
	Microsoft legal docs reveal Department of Justice repeatedly concealed possession of privileged communications from federal judge.
	And then you got the link.
	Go watch it.
	In fact, you know what I'm going to do right now?
	Copy.
	Hold on, I'll do this actually.
	And I'll stop it.
	You know, I'm going to close it.
	Okay.
	I'm going to close it.
	I'm not going to play this because it's their work.
	And I would not be able to play a small enough portion without playing the entire thing.
	So I'm going to go ahead and do that.
	And now you can go ahead and watch it.
	But it's going to blow your freaking minds, people.
	Because there is no other word for it other than abject corruption.
	And it's very important to appreciate why...
	Stop sharing.
	It's very important to appreciate why the special master was appointed in the first place.
	The special master was appointed because James O 'Keefe successfully argued in front of a federal judge, Judge Annalisa Torres, that the FBI, whoever it is, DOJ prosecution, they seized and are in possession of my cell phone, which they know contains confidential information, sources, privileged communications between counsel and attorney.
	The FBI or the prosecution's argument...
	Against the appointment of the special master was that Projet Veritas, they're not journalists.
	And they went to say, they're not journalists so that their communications, they're not informants, but their sources, not confidential because they're not journalists.
	And they went furthermore to say that we still, I forget the exact argument, but that we still have access.
	We should still have right to access their solicitor client communications, which are privileged constitutionally above and beyond being a journalist.
	It's even more privileged than journalist communications.
	I say the backbone, it's a pillar.
	It's an underlying principle of a law-abiding society that people can freely discourse with their attorneys, with their mandated counsel, without fear of that being compelable communications.
	Otherwise, society falls apart.
	And I'm not saying that to be hyperbolic at all.
	If you cannot have privileged and confidential communications with your attorney, the legal system falls apart, and necessarily, in due course, the entire system falls apart.
	So that's the reason for which they appointed the special master.
	The special master was appointed by a federal court to safeguard...
	Privileged and confidential information that the FBI had seized that they might not be entitled to access.
	What does James O 'Keefe discover?
	Project Veritas, what do they discover?
	Prior to this, the FBI...
	Now might be a time to bring up the documents so that I do not mangle this.
	Share.
	Share screen.
	Windows.
	Okay, I gotta go like this.
	And then I believe...
	If I bring this here...
	Yes.
	Entire screen.
	No, not entire screen.
	Window app.
	Share.
	And now let me just make sure that I'm only seeing, I want to make sure not to pull up a portion of the document.
	It's a public document anyhow, but I just don't want to pull up anything that could be construed as an address because there is, whatever, lawyer's address.
	Maybe I'm denying them publicity because they're doing great work.
	But here.
	Judge in research warrant dated November 5, 2021.
	Spoiler alert.
	Project Veritas discovered that the FBI, through other secret confidential search warrants, had obtained the very same, if not more, privilege and confidential information by subpoenaing and searching Outlook and getting emails from Project Veritas prior to the seizure.
	And they renewed the secrecy orders of those prior...
	Search warrants.
	They renewed them, the secrecy order, so that they couldn't be disclosed publicly after Judge Annalisa Torres issued her special master appointment.
	So they're basically saying, the bottom line, the FBI is like...
	Enjoy your special master and all the protections they're giving to those documents on your cell phone because we already have all of them and Judge Annalisa Torres doesn't know and we are renewing secrecy orders so that she will never know that the order that she issued in this case for a special master is not even worth toilet paper.
	I mean, at some point toilet paper was worth a lot so maybe that's not a good analogy.
	It's worthless because that which is the object of that special master we have through a variety of other means And not only did we not disclose it to you, Judge, we actively, after you issued your order, sought that it continued to be withheld from your knowledge.
	That is the level of respect we have for you, Justice Torres.
	We write to request preliminary relief from multiple government seizures of newsgathering, attorney-client privilege, and personal materials from Project Veritas and its journalists, separate and apart from the warrants that are the subject of this court's December 8, 2021 order.
	I don't think we need to read this because we already covered that.
	Compounding the privilege violation arising from this invasion, the seizure of the phones, the government also muzzled Microsoft with a series of...
	Oh, you know what?
	We might have to go back and read this.
	Sorry, this is the critical paragraph.
	We have recently learned, however, that the government already had in place mechanisms for circumventing these protective processes and invading the First Amendment and attorney-client privileges of Project Veritas and its journalists.
	The existence of which the government concealed from counsel for Project Veritas and its journalists, and we believe from this court.
	By the way, this is how you politely, discreetly tell a judge that a party has made a fool of him or her.
	They're basically saying these people lied to you through omission, and not only did they not tell you something that you might have had a mild interest in knowing because it might have governed subsequent court orders, they deliberately, behind your back, Sought to renew those very secrecy orders to prevent you from learning this and finding out that you just issued an order that was worthless.
	We made you talk for nothing.
	And we embarrassed you.
	We have discovered that from November 20 to April 2021, the government used compulsory demands, including secret warrants and 18 USC...
	Do I look that up?
	Better.
	Hold on.
	This I can't toggle too easily between too many windows.
	Let's just see.
	I'll read it out loud.
	2703D USC.
	Yeah.
	Let's see here.
	USC 2703D.
	Required disclosure of customer communications or records.
	And we'll go to...
	What was it?
	It was 2703D.
	The reason why laws are drafted so long and convolutedly is so that lawyers can maintain their monopoly on the practice.
	Because if laws were drafted for people to read and understand, lawyers might be out of the job.
	This is so convoluted, I can't even find the subparagraph D. Bear with me, people.
	There are like 15 subparagraphs.
	Here's E. Okay.
	Requirements for court order.
	A court order for disclosure under subsection B or C may be issued.
	By any court.
	All right, whatever.
	I'm not doing it.
	You'll look it up by yourselves.
	Required disclosure of customer communications or records.
	I mean, that's the bottom line of what we are now learning.
	I want to refer to them properly.
	The government.
	I mean, they're saying the government.
	So it's the FBI or the Department of Justice, whatever.
	They go to Outlook and they say, give us some client communications here.
	Voluminous records from Microsoft.
	The email service.
	Provider used by Project Veritas spanning the email accounts of eight journalists and Project Veritas human resources manager.
	This means that by the time the undersigned filed the motion to appoint a special master on November 10, 2021, the government had already seized Project Veritas' journalistic and attorney-client privileged materials without regard to topic of the aforementioned privileges and far outside the relevant time period.
	So appreciate this.
	My understanding from the orders that...
	The government got against Outlook that it wasn't even specifically related to the diary.
	It was everything.
	And it wasn't even everything as temporally limited to the diary.
	It was eight months prior to.
	So basically, everything.
	Let's see what Project Veritas and their journalists and their human resources people, let's see what they're talking about.
	Lives of others, people.
	The lives of others.
	Just spying.
	On people.
	So this is what they're asking for.
	Okay, this is what they're requesting, which is the important part.
	The government apparently disdains the free press and candor to the court and opposing counsel.
	They're liars.
	This is the polite way of calling someone a bold-faced liar with no respect to the court.
	For the court, sorry.
	In light of the government's violations of Project Veritas First Amendment, journalistic and attorney-client privileges, as well as the government's attendant failure.
	To disclose these matters before or during the litigation of our motion for appointment of the Special Master, Project Veritas...
	I would love to be in court when this goes down.
	Request to the court, pursuant to its powers, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, enter an order requiring the government to A, 1, immediately halt access, review, investigative use of Project Veritas materials that the government obtained from Microsoft.
	Inform this court and other...
	And counsel.
	Whether the government used a filter team...
	Tell us what they did with that information when they got it.
	How did they go through it?
	Just read it?
	Read it all?
	Inform this court and counsel of the identities of any prosecutor's agents or other members of the investigative team who have reviewed any data seized from Microsoft.
	Disclosed to the court counsel identity of any other third party to which the government issued demands for Project Veritas data under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act with or without non-disclosure order.
	And then we get into the detail, but let's just see.
	The amazing stuff is this is what they've issued.
	This is who they issued it against.
	And this is how long it was issued for.
	Time period.
	Emails through subpoena.
	And I believe the non-disclosure order.
	They got a non-disclosure order so that Outlook or their employees could not talk about it.
	And it was initially one year and extended 180 days.
	And my understanding...
	Is they sought and obtained the extension from other courts after the judge in their special master case issued the special master with those requirements.
	Let's just see here.
	I didn't highlight the other sections.
	I mean, you can go through it.
	It's wonderful.
	It's long.
	Actually, not that long anyhow.
	How many pages was it?
	It's long, but it just describes it.
	And it sets out the law.
	It sets out the outrage.
	And it is outrageous.
	The government's secrecy orders and its failure to disclose that it had already obtained Project Veritas' privileged material.
	The government obtained 2705 secrecy orders.
	Let's just go ahead and...
	Well, I mean, we know what those are.
	That prevented Microsoft from disclosing the existence of the government's demands, which in turn rendered Project Veritas unable to protect its privileges from the government's prying eyes.
	I'm reading this in James O 'Keefe's voice.
	I don't know who else is doing that.
	To justify its extraordinary invasion of the rights of the free press.
	I mean, James didn't...
	I suspect he didn't draft this.
	I'm just reading it in his voice.
	The government made boilerplate recitations that its diary investigation would be jeopardized.
	A specious concern as it continued its non-disclosure orders long after Project Veritas was aware that the government's bad fate of the...
	They're saying that if they had disclosed their investigation into an abandoned diary...
	Let that just sink in there.
	This is not international violence.
	This is an allegedly stolen diary, by all accounts abandoned, but I think at this point we can probably now assume that this diary and its contents are as legitimate as Hunter Biden's computer and its contents, which might explain this wicked, weaponized government acting secretly, exploiting the judicial system.
	In secret for the benefit of the very government that's in power.
	I mean, people have to appreciate what is going on here.
	And when they talk about boilerplates, I mean, I don't know what the threshold for these secrecy orders are in the United States.
	I mean, I know what they would be for here if you're talking about a Mariva injunction where you've got to get the injunction without even disclosing the existence of the proceedings to the party because you're afraid they're going to destroy all the evidence.
	So you need to go get a secret court order authorizing the seizure before anything happens.
	Without even notifying the party, so ex parte.
	If it's anything analogous to that, and I suspect it is, the threshold is high, not boilerplate allegations.
	We think that they will destroy the evidence if we notify them.
	Therefore, exception to public notification.
	Exceptions to the basic rule of law.
	Oy.
	And then they talk about the criteria.
	So to survive strict scrutiny, the government's speech restraints like 18 U.S.C.
	We're talking about violations of people's right to know what's going on, right to represent themselves.
	The secrecy orders must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
	We know those criteria.
	And must do so through the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
	Okay.
	Because a core purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free discussion of government affairs.
	Speech about this government activity is entitled to special protection and rests on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.
	I love the way these are drafted.
	It's interesting.
	The procedure here, they're drafting by way of letters to the judge and not by way of proceedings with allegations.
	So it reads like a letter, but it reads well.
	Okay, I think we're getting close to the relevant parts that we wanted to cover.
	Oh, this is fun.
	This was not a matter of the government passively allowing secrecy orders to maintain in place.
	This is the important thing.
	They didn't just hide their past wrong conduct.
	They ratified their past wrong conduct with current wrong conduct.
	Rather, the government affirmatively sought and obtained four extensions of its secrecy orders even after its diary investigation was public and the special master litigation began.
	In fact, the government made two of its four requests.
	So you got four after this whole thing is public now.
	So the risk of destruction of evidence, that argument would ostensibly fail.
	After this court's order granting the aggrieved journalist motion, unabbreviated chronology makes the government's utter lack of justification for continued secrecy.
	I think we went through this as well.
	11-19-90.
	We've got the timeline.
	We've got the timeline.
	The bottom line is, after the special master was appointed, the judge goes and gets a secrecy order renewed.
	In front of another judge.
	Because what do you think might have happened if they tried to get that secrecy order renewed by Judge Annalisa Torres?
	She'd say like, I'm sorry.
	What secrecy order was in place in the first place?
	I'm sorry.
	What documents do you have in your possession that are governed by the secrecy order that the special master is not controlling the triage of?
	So I think that's basically it.
	Conclusion, I'm not going to go further because there's some exhibits and I'm not sure that I don't want to take chances on them being public.
	I think they are public, but I don't care because project Veritas researched a potential news story about what Ashley Biden's diary recounted about her father, the United States attorney's office for the Southern district of New York, which we know is the most, by all accounts, the most, um,
	As far as we know, the federal government has never before investigated an abandoned diary.
	There might be an argument.
	That what they got with the Outlook warrants was not the same as was on the cell phones.
	I doubt it, because if they're using...
	I mean, there might be additional stuff on the cell phones, but I would venture that...
	Which one would cover the other?
	You would have Outlook on the phones, but you might not have all of the phones on the Outlook.
	But bottom line is, there's an overlap, and they hid it from the judge.
	The litigation...
	Where were we?
	I forgot this.
	Okay, the government concealed its past privileged invasions through unjustified secrecy orders, which it moved to extend even while the special master litigation was pending.
	These abuses of power must not go unpunished.
	The free press must not go unprotected.
	That's that.
	And we're going to have James and I believe his attorney as well.
	Let me bring this up.
	We're going to have James and his attorney on tomorrow to go over this.
	Outrageous.
	Outrageous.
	I want to see if I can get back a little bit.
	Pick up some super chats that I might have missed.
	Did you guys see the bill introduced to stop Americans from buying Russian gold?
	Very broad extension of power.
	And what do we got here?
	The New York Times just confirmed the diary.
	Did they really?
	I mean, I know they just confirmed the Hunter Biden laptop after they and other intelligence officers said it was Russia misinformation.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, let's see what the comments were that I might have missed.
	Project Veritas wanted to verify the authenticity of that.
	Knock, knock, knock.
	This is the FBI.
	Yeah, the diary is authentic.
	And look, I haven't read it.
	I just know what it says.
	Hold on, I'm going to cough now.
	Let the jokes in the chat begin.
	I had carbonated water.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	I mean, that's where they're at.
	I don't know how it goes procedurally.
	I don't know if they can seek sanctions.
	I know they're seeking court orders that are protective and that the court punished them.
	I mean, sanctions?
	Contempt?
	This is what I'm going to ask James O 'Keefe and his lawyer.
	Jared Eade, I think, is going to be the lawyer tomorrow.
	Go to Rumble, someone said.
	I would ask what sanctions they can get.
	And I would ask if this is...
	Ex-fasci contempt.
	We're 3,700 watching on Rumble.
	Booyah.
	Privacy falls under unreasonable search and seizure.
	This is Ubuk.
	Love you all.
	Wake up, Domino 7. Impeach Biden.
	Verestopes.
	Okay, so there's no Rumble rants here.
	I'm not reading some of these.
	Yeah, so if you guys want to read what the diary might have been about, Rumble might be the place.
	But no, it's...
	I mean, I wonder if it's not contemptuous.
	Ex-fasci contempt.
	Or even in-fasci contempt.
	Ex-fasci out of court, which typically is failing to abide by a court order.
	I mean, is that not what we're at right now?
	And do I care that...
	This is my...
	I got three questions.
	People will remind me for tomorrow.
	That one.
	Is it contempt?
	What sanctions can they get?
	But also, did they not disclose to the other judges?
	What was pleaded in the context of those secrecy orders, the renewal, the two renewals that they got after the special master was appointed?
	Did they disclose that to the courts?
	And then the other question is, even if they didn't disclose that to the court, It may not be judicial knowledge because you don't presume every judge knows what every other judge has issued by way of ruling, but would they not have known about this given the high-profile nature of the case?
	Did those four judges...
	Oh, no, sorry.
	It would have been two judges.
	Did the judges...
	There may have been one judge.
	I don't know.
	Maybe they made those two orders in front of the same judge.
	Did the judge who renewed the secrecy orders, the two that were made after the appointment of the special master, did they know the existence of the special master?
	Did they know about that court file?
	And if they did, how do they justify...
	Extending a secrecy order that governs or that might encompass documents that were protected by the special master order.
	Or did they lie to multiple judges?
	We'll see.
	I'll ask that tomorrow.
	It's the worst shirt I've ever designed.
	And I'm in discussion now.
	When I had asked previously if anybody knew of an all-in-one platform that can handle all merch above and beyond shirts.
	In a way that I'd have hands off and just like, you know, here's the logo, put it on mugs, whatever people want to order.
	Preferably made in Canada or at least made in America.
	A few people reached out and I've reached out to them.
	We're going to see if we can do this, but this is what I did on representing.
	At least I didn't make a typo on the back.
	Remember...
	I don't know that.
	I'm going to have to Google that.
	Cameron, thank you.
	Nice to see you again, sir.
	Can't talk about that either.
	Makes you a Russian Putin apologist.
	And someone...
	Anyhow.
	All right.
	Yeah, that's one of the themes.
	The theories out there is, you know, it's over until midterms.
	Or it's over and, you know, there's going to be a midterm variant or a 2024 variant.
	Okay, so that's it.
	That's the latest in Project Veritas.
	It's outrageous.
	Yep.
	Let me see.
	There was other stuff to discuss.
	Share screen.
	I had some other windows up.
	So I got the Lara Logan.
	Oh, you know what?
	Let's pull up an article here.
	No, is that?
	That's YouTube.
	So we already went with that one.
	Oh, that's right.
	The ACLU statement.
	It's good that I take notes.
	I'm senile.
	It's so egregious, by the way, that the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been questionable these days, it was so bad that they had to come up with a public statement.
	And let me see.
	Yeah, no, I'll donate to charities that I feel stronger in.
	Okay, we're good.
	We're lined up here.
	I'm going to go ahead and close this document and bring this one up.
	Okay.
	Close.
	Save to desktop?
	Sure, why not?
	Okay, here it is.
	ACLU comment on allegations of federal law enforcement secretly accessing Project Veritas emails.
	March 22, 2022.
	22, 2022.
	The following is a statement from Brian House, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project in response to allegations.
	What happens if I click this?
	Let me just see here.
	Politico.
	Okay, good.
	In response to allegations from Project Veritas that prosecutors misled a federal court and sought unwarranted gag orders during a federal investigation of the group's ties to the alleged theft of a diary.
	This sounds like the Breakfast Club mystery.
	Like, the mystery of the stolen diary.
	It's a kid's book.
	This is not federal stuff here.
	Sorry, I haven't actually read this in total.
	By the way, Even when agreeing with your enemy, you have to start off by insulting your enemy.
	We deplore Project Veritas' deceptions.
	And we don't have a full picture of the government's investigation.
	We deplore Project Veritas' deceptions.
	Are they going to get a lawsuit for defamation for their public statements supporting the Project Veritas?
	What deceptions, Mr. House?
	Mr. House in the House, what deceptions?
	But leave that alone.
	We deplore Project Veritas' deceptions, and we don't have a full picture of the government's investigation.
	But we're concerned that the precedent set by this case could have serious consequences for press freedom.
	Hmm.
	Something tells me that maybe Mr. House and the ACLU have some compromising emails that they don't want government officials secretly obtaining.
	Maybe they're not actually protecting Project Veritas here.
	They're protecting themselves.
	Maybe.
	Although I do appreciate only soi qui malipance.
	Someone can accuse me of that.
	Someone can accuse me of confession through projection.
	I take for granted every text message and every email I ever write, send, receive, or view is being viewed by somebody else.
	I've always taken that for granted.
	Okay.
	We're deeply troubled by reports that the Department of Justice obtained secret electronic surveillance orders requiring sweeping disclosure of, quote, all content, end quote, of communications associated with Project Veritas email accounts, including attorney-kind communications.
	Compounding these concerns, the government suppressed electronic, sorry, suppressed existence about the existence, suppressed information about the existence of the electronic surveillance orders, even after the investigation became public knowledge and the district court appointed a special master to supervise prosecutors' access to Project Veritas.
	The government must immediately suspend this review of the materials obtained.
	Unsee it, government.
	Unsee all of that.
	Unsee your obtaining solicitor-client privilege.
	Unsee the names of informants or sources for Project Veritas.
	Do not go after them.
	And if anybody goes after them, I'm sure it was just the administration of justice operating the way it worked.
	It must immediately suspend its review of the materials obtained pursuant to its electronic surveillance orders and fully disclose the extent of its actions so the court can consider appropriate relief.
	Very nice.
	Beautiful.
	Beautiful.
	We deplore Project Veritas' deception.
	You know what?
	I deplore your presumption of ignorance, ACLU.
	You could have done just the right thing, but instead you got to do the right thing like an idiot.
	Okay.
	I will see your FBI and Miley and raise you.
	Okay.
	So the ACLU came out and they had their...
	How is this popping?
	What kind of avatar is that?
	I know even where that's from.
	So that's what the ACLU said.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Let's do this here.
	Let me just go and see one thing.
	I believe the ACLU had an interesting history.
	ACLU history.
	Let's see here.
	American Civil Rights Liberty was founded by Roger Baldwin and others in the 1920s.
	What was the story?
	of their origins.
	Um, I don't know.
	Okay, I won't get into it.
	I remember there being some interesting story.
	It might not have been the ACAU.
	It might have been the ADL, actually.
	I might be mistaken in it.
	Well, the ACAU...
	Oh, look at that beautiful dog.
	They might be a joke, but at least they did partly the right thing.
	I love pugs.
	I love Winston.
	He's sitting somewhere behind me, but as much as I love Winston, I love the mushy-faced dogs and always will.
	So that's the ACLU.
	What else was there?
	I think I had some other notes taken.
	Chrome tab.
	The Seahorse, Definition of Woman, Ashley Biden Diary, published at the National File.
	That's it.
	But just because I know there was something else on my Twitter feed that I wanted, Or will want to...
	Come on, get us out of here.
	Forward slash the Viva Fry.
	Let's see here.
	Yeah, what was going on in the world today?
	There was some funny, funny stuff.
	Oh, yeah, Nikki Freed.
	I have to stop following her.
	Her stuff is actually just...
	Doesn't make any sense.
	Well, everyone who accuses me...
	Of being a Putin talking point, I tell you that I apply the same skepticism to everything.
	There are these images of people, people are retweeting these with certain captions that this is what is going on in Ukraine, that they're tying up Russians and humiliating them publicly.
	And I simply say, you know, I don't know.
	It's impossible to tell from these captions.
	There are people saying that these are looters who are being tied up and humiliated.
	One, I am skeptical of all of these things.
	You don't know context.
	You don't get follow-ups.
	And so before people retweet this thinking it proves anything, on whatever side you're on, and if you're in the middle, don't get duped and retweet and say, look how bad it is.
	Sorry, that context wasn't anything like what you said.
	It was actually something totally different.
	Sometimes you don't have to retweet things in support if you just can't vet it.
	Francois Legault, in Quebec, we have some fun news.
	Government up for re-election now is just throwing money at everybody.
	Oh, guys, guys, let's do it.
	Today, our Minister of Finance, he filed his budget.
	He made some good news.
	All adults who make under $100,000 a year.
	We're going to get $500.
	$1,000 for a couple.
	I promise to help you.
	He promised to help you.
	In light of this massive inflation, that's what he's doing.
	After two years of violating each and every one of your constitutional rights, destroying lives, destroying livelihoods, locking people up in their homes, and I'm going to say literally killing people after implementing policy.
	That has killed more young people than COVID itself.
	After decimating people's lives and livelihoods.
	After creating or participating.
	I think the inflation is a little bit beyond the province.
	After participating in a system that has resulted in massive inflation.
	Right before the election, which is in November 2022.
	They filed their budget.
	And they're going to give $500 to everyone making under $100,000 a year.
	Here's 500 bucks.
	Go screw yourself.
	Yeah, I mean, it's nothing.
	He may as well get that in $20 bills and slap everyone across the face with it before he gives it to them.
	He's spitting in your face and saying it's raining.
	That's what's going on in Quebec.
	Okay, then we got...
	I think that might be it.
	Yeah, stupid trend of people doing stupid things.
	Project Veritas.
	Oh, well, I guess we could do this here.
	No, I did it yesterday.
	I talked about it yesterday.
	Jagmeet Singh.
	Joining forces with the evil tyrant that he has spent the last several years berating, condemning on social media.
	He's joining forces with them because, you know, that's it.
	All right, well, that's it we've got for today.
	A couple hours.
	What time is it now?
	Two o 'clock.
	We're back at seven, people, with Jenna Ellis, and we're going to have an awesome sidebar tonight.
	So bring questions.
	It's going to be a delicate one because Jenna Ellis was Trump's attorney, so there are certain things we can't talk about, but there are some things we can't talk about.
	$500 on $100,000, by the way, is a half a percent, and inflation is at 4.7%.
	Fuck.
	These freaking guys.
	Yep.
	Enjoy your $500.
	Oh, and by the way, gas is at almost $2 a liter.
	Yeah.
	Here's your $500.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, that's the other thing.
	I think Quebec is getting $14 billion in equalization payments this year.
	I think that's right.
	Yep.
	It's almost like...
	No, whatever.
	There's it.
	So...
	Not yet.
	Not yet.
	The West has fallen.
	It's certainly on a precarious ledge.
	Remember your $1,400 payoff.
	That's it.
	And it's so great.
	$500.
	And right before the election.
	This flipping guy.
	Okay.
	So that's Quebec.
	That's what we have today.
	Tonight's going to be awesome.
	Jenna Ellis.
	I'll create the link after this so you can all share it around because I can't create two links simultaneously.
	Just double-check on Rumble, how we're doing, if I missed anything.
	I don't think I did.
	Let me go back to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If anybody wants to support, I mean, that's a great place.
	And by the way, it's an open thing that you want to do if you want to support the channel.
	There's a lot of exclusive content on Locals, but there's a lot of content that is for everybody who's a member which is not behind a paywall.
	But never, never.
	Someone had said early in the chat, Viva, cut your hair and make a, you know, you can make something out of it and donate it.
	I think I could actually raise more money for charity in a don't cut your hair marathon.
	But thank you very much.
	Hi.
	Oh, hi, hi.
	So, oh, I was just, I'm not, I'm not just all over the place.
	So locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where there has been a live chat going the entire time.
	And let's just see if I've missed anything.
	Viva.
	Any accountability for FBI or the judges related to pursuing confidential info and lying to illegally obtaining it?
	That's from Mighty P. We're going to find out.
	Oh, and we've got Cameron's in the house here as well.
	Cameron says...
	I'm not sure I'm going to read that here, Cameron.
	The discussion on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com is uncensored.
	It's not abusive by any means.
	It's just things we can't talk about on the YouTubes.
	Let's see.
	Here we got...
	Yeah, okay, whitewashing language and definitions, and I think that goes back to the original intro discussion.
	I think I first saw the diary on BreitbartNews.com, who excerpted and credited the breaking article from National File.
	That's from S-Ray.
	And that's it.
	Well, there's been a discussion.
	Oh, and there's some people who, showing pictures of old dictionaries.
	Because once you have it in print, it can't get memory hold quite as easily as things get memory hold on the interwebs.
	$500.
	It's not even, it's an insult.
	It's an insult when people understand how expensive things have gotten.
	Ah, thank you.
	Thanks kindly.
	Okay, so that is it, people.
	Thank you very much for tuning in.
	This was great.
	The three subjects.
	If anybody wants to timestamp them, but anyhow, that's one thing I should get better at.
	I'll post the clips of some of these on Viva Clips if anybody doesn't know that I have that other channel there.
	And we will see you...
	This is not advice, people.
	I have not made any money on...
	I've made very little money on investments.
	In fact, I've lost a lot of money.
	The big ones that bit me were Kodak, Nortel, GM, Ford, a lithium company I was involved in.
	Thus far, I haven't made a penny on anything of the cryptocurrencies.
	So yeah, my advice would be get an advisor who you can trust, which I've done with whatever I have left over.
	But yeah, your hair's looking decidedly...
	Public.
	It's looking decidedly public.
	Thank you.
	Hit the like button before you leave if you are so inclined.
	Out of the 5,000 people here, how many people know?
	What is the difference between a man and a woman, whether it's Canada, America, or anywhere around the world?
	And does anybody know the difference between the two?
	Well, we read the definition in the beginning.
	Woman is an adult female.
	Female has the definition, the criteria of producing the eggs or the...
	Gamotes?
	Gamets?
	Something along those lines.
	And then everything else is a question of preference.
	It's a question of choice, individual choice, and being respected for that individual choice, but not demanding, I call them rights, which are invariably going to trump other rights, which are protected rights themselves, due to biological differences that even the potential next Supreme Court justice acknowledges are, in fact, biological differences.
	So that's it.
	I do not give or take legal advice, but I will look at this.
	How low is it now?
	It must have taken a hit in the last few months.
	Okay, people, thank you.
	7 o 'clock tomorrow night, the link is coming.
	Quite clear, don't take financial advice.
	Do not, do not take financial advice.
	At least not investment advice.
	Because I think it's legalized gambling and we are on the back end of the information.
	That is accessible.
	By the time we learn something that is beneficial for a product or a stock, those in the know already know and have already made the purchase or made the sale, whether they are insiders or government officials.
	Okay, peeps, check it out.
	Thank you all for everything.
	Thank you for the support.
	Share around, clip, you know, post on the Twitterverse.
	And I will see you all tonight, 7 o 'clock, Jenna Ellis, Robert Barnes for the sidebar, and tomorrow, James O 'Keefe and his attorney to talk about in detail, answer some questions, what we talked about today.
	Enjoy the rest of the day, peeps.

▲