Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 14, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:52

Phillips vs. CNN; Canada Law Stuffs Update & MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Forget it.
	I blew it, people.
	Gosh darn it, I blew it.
	I left it to the last minute because I had legal bites running in the background with the Johnny Depp trial.
	And as I'm setting up for this stream, I hear one of Depp's witnesses gets dismissed and testimony struck because it turns out the witness was watching clips of other testimony during the trial.
	And then it makes me late for my own stream.
	Which is not going to be talking about the Johnny Depp trial.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to bring the video in that I intended to start with.
	Not the one that we're going to get to later.
	Yeah, this is the one.
	I'm going to take my face out of this.
	Because I don't want to be on screen at the same time that we watch this.
	And you'll find out why.
	Here.
	Here's why.
	Let me just move this over here.
	I don't want to hear the echo of this voice while I play it.
	So I shall remove myself.
	Do the intro I intended to do, and then we're going to get this stream started.
	Brr, brr.
	We know that the cost of living is going up.
	There are challenges with interest rates, there are challenges with the price of gas, the challenges of the price of groceries.
	What we demonstrated with this budget was a way of being there to support families without making it worse by remaining fiscally responsible.
	Like I said, during the pandemic, like we've been saying for seven years, we will have Canadians' backs as our economy comes roaring back, as we create opportunities, as we fight climate change, and as we support families in their abilities to turn a house into a home.
	Yeah, I'm reading the chat as we're going through that.
	People, I'm going to actually have to replay this and comment on it as we go along.
	This is the stuff that would make Mother Teresa swear.
	This is the type of stuff that would make my late grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life about other people, it would make her say something bad.
	Let's just replay this from the beginning.
	Now, I don't typically make fun of the way people Speak with, you know, their verbal tics or their, you know, speech tics and tics in the sense of bad habits.
	Except when I think it's material to interpreting the load of crap that is being crammed down our throats in real time.
	Justin Trudeau, my impression when he's flailing, when he's lying, which is often, he goes before every sentence because it's like...
	My projection is that it's difficult for him to spew this garbage out.
	But listen.
	We know that the cost of living is going up.
	There are challenges with interest rates.
	There are challenges with the price of gas.
	There are challenges with the price of groceries.
	What we demonstrated with this budget was a way of being there to support families.
	Being there to support families.
	How do you support families from increased costs that result from the government printing cash and sending hundreds of millions across the world?
	What do you do?
	You compensate them for the increased costs because of your actions.
	For someone who says the budget will balance itself, this is the type of fiscal irresponsibility that comes from not understanding how things work.
	Oh, this is my kid.
	Hold on.
	Hello?
	I am not able to pick you up.
	I'm doing a live stream right now.
	Text, text, text mom.
	Text mom.
	Okay.
	Bye.
	Whoops.
	Well, that was my daughter.
	Apparently, I'm going to be late coming home.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	Oh, what was I saying?
	She interrupted me.
	That was supposed to be the beauty of the world, interrupting the rubbish of the...
	Making it worse by remaining fiscally responsible.
	They're not going to make it worse.
	They're not going to make the problems they've made worse, worse by being fiscally responsible.
	What does that mean?
	Remaining fiscally responsible.
	They're to support families without making it worse, by remaining fiscally responsible.
	Does someone want to explain what is not fiscally responsible about printing cash and putting Canadians in debt?
	What is it now?
	An average of like $30,000 of debt per Canadian.
	That's per every single Canadian.
	No, they're being fiscally responsible.
	But wait for the kick in the teeth followed by the uppercut to the groin.
	Or the kick in the groin followed by whatever.
	Like I said, during the pandemic, like we've been saying for seven years.
	Like we've been saying for seven years.
	And this oblivious buffoon doesn't understand what's wrong with him saying, we've been saying this for seven years.
	And the problem just keeps getting worse.
	But we're going to keep saying it, like we've been saying for seven years.
	And you Pavlovian dogs, every time we say it, you seem to sit down and just wait with your tongues out.
	We...
	We'll have Canadians' backs as our economy comes roaring back, as we create opportunities, as we fight climate change, and as we support families in their abilities to turn a house into a home.
	It's enraging.
	It's absolutely enraging.
	Let me remove that.
	To have this guy sit there and say, like he's been saying for seven years, like he has been saying for seven years, we're going to make life better for you.
	Indigenous community, we promise you, you're going to have clean drinking water.
	Like we've been saying for seven years, just keep waiting.
	Canadians, we're going to be fiscally responsible by putting the country in arguably irreversible, crippling debt.
	No, no, no.
	And we're going to invest a billion dollars.
	Not in healthcare, which was why you had to be locked down in your homes, because the healthcare system is so dilapidated that it can't accommodate.
	Several hundred people in a hospital at the flu season.
	We're going to invest a billion dollars, not in healthcare, but in a discriminatory, racist vaccine passport system that you've implemented throughout this country.
	But like he's been saying for seven years, they've got our backs.
	If you say that for seven years and all you've effectively done is stabbed every Canadian in the back, I don't want you behind me anymore.
	I want you away from me.
	I want you in front of me where I can see you.
	And I want you away from me.
	Leave me alone, because nothing you have done in the last seven years has done a lick of good for anyone in this country.
	It's...
	Oh my goodness.
	The indigenous problem, the homeless problem, the drug addiction problem, the mental anguish in adolescence problem, all exacerbated, if not outright created, under Trudeau.
	Oh, but then he goes back and blames Harper.
	Blaming Harper for his failings in real time.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah, he's got our back.
	I don't want you getting my back.
	I want you to leave me the heck alone.
	You've...
	You've utterly destroyed the fabric of this country.
	You've sacrificed the future generations of the children of this country.
	And you want to talk to me about fiscal responsibility.
	I don't pick on people's credentials, ever.
	Except when they've gotten themselves, when they've failed upwards into a position that they have no business holding and they have no life experience to understand.
	The budget will balance itself.
	It's like Nancy Pelosi saying, we have to pass the bill to see what's in it.
	That's not how it works.
	That is what we call bass-ackwards, putting the carriage in front of the horse.
	That is something only.
	An individual who grew up with a trust fund, cushy life, who never had to have a real job, who never worked a business, who never started a business, who never had to hire fire employees, who never had to fill out the insane government regulations to operate a business.
	That's the privilege.
	Of someone like Justin Trudeau that he gets to say, with no knowledge of anything, we're fiscally responsible.
	That nothing this government has done has been responsible.
	From day one of the pandemic, from day one of him coming into office, nothing he has done has been responsible fiscally, morally, constitutionally.
	Fiscally responsible, yeah.
	Let's donate all of Canada's, or not all of, let's donate significant amounts of Canadian PPE to China as the pandemic's coming.
	Oh, what's that?
	Long-term healthcare facilities are ill-equipped and now people are dying in long-term healthcare facilities?
	Well, let's exploit that number so that we can implement draconian unconstitutional Oh, what's that?
	We've locked you down and put you out of a job?
	Let's give each and every one of you $2,000 a month because we put you out of work.
	Oh, what's that?
	There's a massive amount of fraud?
	People making illegal claims, people defrauding the claims, corporations getting the $40,000 and then not repaying it back.
	Oh, we'll worry about that fraud afterwards.
	Right now, we're just going to keep locking you down.
	Oh, what's that?
	We have a billion dollars?
	Yeah, let's implement the vaccine passport system.
	Let's not revamp or actually improve the healthcare system.
	Let's just blow this billion dollars by bribing off the provinces so that we can implement yet more.
	Draconian, unconstitutional, divisive measures.
	Oh yeah, and then let's go ahead and desecrate our Charter of Rights.
	Oh, that wasn't supposed to be the intro, but I guess that became the intro.
	Today's going to be an amazing stream.
	We've got Christopher Phillips.
	Everybody knows him now because that is the young individual.
	The young man who posed a very poignant, well-drafted, well-crafted, and well-presented question to the venerable Brian Stelter.
	And the question itself was a great question.
	Had the answer been proper, I don't think that that video goes viral the way it went viral, but the answer was so embarrassingly bad that it went viral.
	And all for the wrong reasons.
	Although...
	Couldn't have happened to a better person.
	So we're going to have Chris on.
	We're going to talk about the experience.
	We're going to talk about other stuff because I know there's more to this individual than the one, you know, I didn't do it guy.
	And so he's going to be on roughly around 3.30.
	My brother's going to pop in around 4 o 'clock.
	But before we even get there, I've been watching the Johnny Depp trial.
	It's been very interesting.
	Nowhere near as interesting as the Rittenhouse.
	The Rittenhouse was like the first time you hear smashing pumpkins today and it just...
	You know, an experience that can't be replicated in as many times as you listen to it again.
	Yeah, it's a great song, but it never gives you quite the same goosebumps as the first time.
	We will livestream other trials, but it's going to take another trial that's going to, you know, grip a nation, grip the interwebs the way the Rittenhouse did.
	Oh, actually, before we even get there.
	I don't like affirmative action, but as an Indigenous woman, I've been enjoying having businesses medically discriminate against me while I have no jab while saying they are anti-whatever-aphobia.
	Kaylee Iserhoff, you never know when someone writes a chat who they are and what they are, but first of all, yeah.
	You're living the experience of what happens when The government implements discriminatory policies.
	There's a reason, by the way, why the Indigenous populations, not just in Canada, but in the US as well, why ethnic visible minorities are more reluctant or vaccine hesitant, as a polite person calls it, or anti-vaxxers, as CJAD 800 would call it.
	There's a reason why certain ethnic groups, certain minorities are reluctant.
	And, by the way, it has to do with historical government abuse.
	Indigenous Canadians who have been abused, mistreated, experimented on by the Canadian government.
	Why?
	Justin Trudeau just took credit for coming to the biggest settlement in Canadian history to compensate the Indigenous community for past government atrocities committed in part by his own father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, through the residential schools.
	In the residential schools, it wasn't just a question of whisking indigenous children off, prying them away from their families to put them through these religious schools for their own benefit.
	The government only did it for the benefit of the indigenous children to assimilate them for their own benefit.
	They did it for their own good at the time.
	They didn't just do that.
	While they were in these schools, in addition to covering up the excess deaths, they were actually testing on these children.
	They were testing on them by not giving them treatment when they were afflicted with certain illnesses and testing dietary things.
	There was a great many unknown or at the very least not well-known atrocities committed that the government is now compensating for this group.
	So you know that, knowing that African Americans, Black Americans, Black Canadians, because African American is a misnomer, I think Black is the more accurate description.
	Reluctant as well.
	Look into the Tuskegee experiments, which lasted 70 years, I think?
	It lasted decades, where they were purporting to treat Black Americans for syphilis, in some cases giving them syphilis, in other cases knowingly not treating them for syphilis while telling them that they're treating them for syphilis.
	Now these communities are reluctant, and understandably so, I would even argue rightly so, of the government, whereas other communities are not sufficiently.
	Suspicious of the government.
	These are the communities that are more likely to be less or under-vaccinated than Caucasians, than Asians, for example.
	And so what happens?
	This is what happens.
	Who's going to not be able to travel by plane or train, most likely in Canada?
	It's going to disparately affect Indigenous Black Latino community.
	And then meanwhile, the ultimate...
	Kicking the teeth and uppercuts of the groin coming from Justin Trudeau who's got our backs?
	He has the audacity to call those very groups, those very people, the racists, the misogynists.
	He has the audacity to suggest to a woman who may be vaccine reluctant because it has now been recognized and admitted, it affects a cycle.
	It affects the cycle.
	He has the audacity of calling them misogynists.
	He's calling women who are making decisions for their own bodies misogynists.
	He's calling indigenous people who are making decisions for their own bodies based on their own historical abuse from the same government.
	He's calling them racists.
	This is the guy sitting around calling everyone racist, misogynist, phobist, and whatever, who himself is implementing racist, misogynist, and whatever policies in real time.
	I want to say desecrate, defecation of our constitutional charter rights.
	Viva, problem is that Canadians keep voting this narcissist tool into office.
	When will they wake up?
	When will they wake up or we are lost?
	Do you think Johnny Depp has herd immunity?
	I don't get it.
	I don't even know what that means.
	Typing is hard, lol.
	Pardon the errors in the last chat.
	Don't worry about it.
	We got the message.
	So that's that.
	Yeah.
	The Johnny Depp trial is going on and it's fun to watch.
	But the big news of the day, actually.
	Let me just get rid of this chat.
	He is.
	He is.
	He is the intolerant.
	He is the epitome of intolerance.
	He is the epitome of the intolerance he accuses everyone else of.
	And the reason why he sees it in everyone else is because that's how he views the world.
	All right.
	No, the big news before we get Chris Phillips in.
	Elon Musk.
	No, I want to remove this.
	That's not it.
	Elon Musk is back in the news because apparently he has rejected the offer to become a director of Twitter after having acquired 9.2% of the common voting shares of the company under the 10% threshold, which would subject him to other SEC requirements.
	He has...
	Someone says Tuskegee lasted 40 years.
	Sorry.
	Decades.
	It was not a one-off.
	Elon Musk has turned down the offer to become a director of Twitter and instead offered to buy the company and take it private.
	He has offered to buy the entire company.
	I think it's for, we're going to get to $63 billion.
	He's buying it or offered to buy it and take it private at $54 a share.
	And he issued some SEC filings which I believe he's required to issue.
	They're interesting to read.
	They're floating around the internet.
	They've been shared online, but we're going to just go through it because it's fascinating.
	It's a good opportunity to share an anecdote.
	I just had lunch yesterday with my former...
	Someone I used to work with.
	I don't want to get anyone in trouble by giving names or allowing them to be identified because...
	It might come to a point where having lunch with the wrong thought person can get your bank accounts frozen.
	But someone I greatly respect and gave me the best piece of advice ever, or at least put into words a thought that I had had, but put it into words more eloquently.
	He said, for anyone to be a litigator, you have to have played four roles prior to.
	And this actually...
	Blends perfectly with, if you want to be prime minister, you have to have had certain life experience if you want to do it properly.
	To be a good litigator, not just a lawyer, not just a litigator, to be a good, competent litigator, you have to have had four roles in life.
	You have to have been a client of a lawyer.
	You have to have been a witness.
	You have to have been a decision maker.
	And you have to have been a litigator.
	And it's really beautiful when you think of anybody who thinks that you can be a good litigator.
	And have never had to pay an attorney, have never been a client to an attorney, have never felt what it's like to give an attorney a $5,000 retainer so they can represent you, has never had the experience with an attorney in the capacity of a client in terms of responsiveness, in terms of getting what you paid for, in terms of feeling well taken care of, not feeling neglected, not feeling exploited.
	Getting invoices and saying, yeah, I don't mind paying this.
	Oh, this is way too much.
	Anybody who wants to be an attorney and has never been a client is going to be missing a critical, and he said it's in hierarchical order, is going to be missing the most important aspect of experience to being a good attorney.
	You need to know what it feels like to be a client, to part with your hard-earned money for representation that has to be worth the thousands and thousands of dollars you're paying for it.
	You have to be a witness.
	You have to have been a witness in order to know what it feels like to sit under the scrutinizing eyes of a judge, to be cross-examined by a party, to have every word you say dissected, twisted, to be verbally abused, to be verbally challenged, and then ultimately to have someone look at your testimony and say whether or not they believe you.
	You have to have had the experience of being a witness if you're going to know the stress that goes along with being a witness, who you're going to have to prepare.
	In the context of your practice.
	You need to be a decision maker because you need to know what it feels like to break someone's heart by saying, no, I think you're wrong and you've got to pay up.
	I don't know.
	That's the tougher one to get the experience of, but I guess it doesn't have to be in law per se, but you need to know what it feels like to render a decision that's going to ruin someone's day and make someone's day, or that's going to ruin everybody's day.
	And then you need to be a lawyer.
	You need to know the law and how to do it.
	So he said all that.
	And now I sort of forget what that was supposed to segue into with the Elon Musk story.
	Oh, because Elon Musk, with this move, is really playing some interesting strategic hardball.
	So he had to file some filings with the SEC because he acquired...
	It's over 5%.
	You're subject to certain legal requirements.
	Don't need to get into it.
	And I won't get into it because I don't know it well enough to even get into it.
	I just know above 5%, under 10%, you have certain SEC requirements for filings.
	Over 10%, you're subject to even more limitations and you are subject to more filings.
	And also, I believe after 10%, there might be something of a presumed intention to take over the company.
	And if you don't disclose your intention to do that, once you've acquired 10%, you can get into trouble.
	I'm not going to go into detail on this because I know the limits of my own knowledge or what I feel comfortable with even trying to explain.
	Just to say that there are different requirements and limitations depending on the amount of shares you own in a company.
	I own...
	What do I own?
	What do I own these days?
	Nokia.
	Tim Pool talked about it a while ago.
	I said, it's cheap enough.
	Hasn't gone anywhere.
	Holding it for a while.
	I own Nokia.
	I own not enough to have any obligations.
	I do own enough to have some rights.
	And this is where we're going to go with this.
	Elon Musk acquired 9.2% of the company for, what was it?
	$3 billion, I believe.
	Now he has made a public filing announcing his intention to acquire all of the shares of the company and take it private.
	And so he's legally required to file some form of SEC filing, which we're going to bring up, and go through, because it's very, very interesting.
	You see, the type is small, and I couldn't figure out a way to get it better, so I'll just try to highlight what I can and go over it.
	I'll probably do a dedicated car vlog to this, but I didn't have the time today, and realizing that I didn't pick up my kid, I...
	Oh, boy.
	Anyways, so we got...
	Let's see if we can expand this on my screen.
	Let me see here.
	Do we see the whole document?
	We do.
	Just expand it a little bit.
	Okay, so we've got, I mean, they're explaining why the filing must be done.
	If the filing person has previously filed a statement on Schedule 13G to report the acquisition that is the subject of this Schedule 13D and this schedule because of yada, yada, yada, check the following box.
	Okay, so he's legally required to file this document with the SEC.
	Tells you how many shares he owns.
	He owns 73 million shares, representing 9.1% of the company.
	And is there anything that we care for there?
	Nothing.
	Okay.
	Then we get the explanatory note, which is recapitulative of the two exhibits.
	I will read through it.
	It's going to be repetitive with the exhibits, but you're going to see what's going on here.
	On April 13, 2022, the reporting person, being Elon, delivered a letter to the issuer.
	The letter.
	Which contained a non-binding proposal to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the issuer not owned by the reporting person for all cash consideration valuing the common stock at $54.20 per share.
	This is relevant and we'll get to it in a second.
	This represents a 54% premium over the closing price of the common stock on January 28, 2022, the trading day before the reporting person began investing in the issuer, and a 38% premium over the closing price of the common stock on April 1, 2022, the trading day before the reporting person's investment in the issuer was publicly announced.
	Why is that relevant?
	Minority shareholder rights.
	And we'll get there.
	Or shareholder rights at large.
	Then you get the caveat that it's non-binding.
	Conditions have to be met even if it's accepted.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And then we got the cover your tushy stuff.
	There can be no assurances that it's going to be executed or if whatever.
	Bottom line, public offer.
	He's stating his intention now before having reached the threshold of 10%, but getting very close to, you know, if he has the stated intention to acquire all of the shares, he has to make it public as of the time he knows that that's his intention.
	The argument's going to be here.
	He did not know that it was his intention when he bought 9.1% of the shares.
	But now he knows that it's his intention because he's realized.
	And where do we get this info from?
	This is where it gets very interesting.
	I'm going to pause and just make sure that everyone can read this while we're going through.
	Okay, we can see it.
	I can see it perfectly there.
	So you have this document.
	And then we've got Exhibit A and Exhibit B. And these are the beautiful exhibits.
	Signature, Elon Musk, yada, yada, yada.
	Exhibit B. Yes.
	Exhibit B. I believe this was a text message.
	Hold on.
	Let's just see if we can see what exhibit B was.
	Oh, yeah.
	So exhibit B is a letter from the...
	It's a letter from Elon Musk.
	So it was a written letter.
	Second one is a text message that is...
	And a voicemail, which is script.
	Okay.
	So this is the letter from Elon Musk.
	Exhibit B. Elon Musk covering his tushy butt proper.
	I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
	Having just watched his TED Talk on the live interview today, I'm reading this in my head in his voice.
	Now, I bought into the company because I believed in it.
	However, since making my investment, I now realize that the company...
	We'll neither thrive nor serve the societal imperative in its current form.
	Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
	So when I bought the shares, I didn't have the interest in acquiring the entire company because I thought I could affect change as a 9.1% shareholder.
	Now I realize this is not the case.
	I need to acquire the entire company and take it private.
	As a result, now I know.
	Now I know I want to buy the company.
	I'm making a public statement and I'm papering the file so that everybody knows.
	I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54 a share.
	We saw this earlier because that statement to the SEC was recapitulating this.
	And why?
	30 seconds.
	Okay, $54, a 54% premium over the trading day and 30% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced.
	My offer is my best and final offer, and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
	We'll get to it.
	Some might view that as a threat.
	If you don't accept it, I'm going to sell my shares.
	And if someone dumps 9.1% of the shares of the company, even unlawfully set aside, lawfully dumps or disposes of 9.1% of the shares of a company, a lot of people's stop losses are going to get triggered.
	Let's just say it like that.
	Hashtag trigger warning of your stop loss.
	And stop loss for those who don't invest and have not actually had one triggered.
	You set a limit.
	When it hits that limit, you sell it because you don't want the stock to go below a certain price.
	And so it reaches the stop loss and it triggers some people's preset stop losses.
	Well, the problem with that is sometimes that creates a cascading effect where in lowering the price because it's triggered certain stop losses, it then triggers other people's stop losses, which were lower down, which in turn exacerbates the triggering of stop losses, which creates one of those nasty little spikes.
	Until people get wise, turn off their stop losses, and people start buying up the stock.
	But he's saying, I would need to reconsider my position if you don't accept my offer to go public.
	Sorry, if you don't accept my offer to buy all the shares and go private, I need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
	But it's not a threat.
	We'll see why it's not a threat, because Elon Musk says it's not a threat.
	And it might not be a threat.
	It might just be a...
	A threat.
	Okay, so this is the text message.
	As I indicated, this is from Elon Musk to...
	Who was this sent to?
	Between Twitter and...
	Okay, so between Twitter and Elon.
	Is that the...
	Well, exhibit B. No, so that's still part of exhibit B. Okay.
	As I indicated this weekend, I believe the company should be private to go through the changes that need to be made.
	After the past several days of thinking this over, I have decided I want to acquire the company and take it private.
	I'm going to send you an offer letter tonight.
	It will be public in the morning.
	Are you available to chat?
	And then this is the voice script, I guess, of his voicemail.
	Listen to this.
	Best and final.
	I'm not playing the back and forth game.
	I have moved straight to the end.
	Everybody in negotiation says this and, you know.
	One lawyer once said to me, well, will you accept the offer for one cent less than what you've offered?
	And you obviously say yes.
	And then he says, well, then we're not done negotiating.
	But at some point you are.
	I have moved straight to the end.
	It's a high price and your shareholders will love it.
	If the deal doesn't work, given that I don't have confidence in the management, nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
	This is not a threat.
	We just know the consequences of what would happen if I do this.
	It's simply not a good investment without the changes that need to be made.
	And those changes won't happen without taking the company private.
	My advisory team, my advisors and my team are available after you get the letter to answer any questions.
	There will be more detail in our public filings after you receive the letter and review the public filings.
	Your team can call my family office with any questions.
	Okay, so it's not a threat.
	And by that, you know, let's just operate on the basis that it's not illegal.
	It's not a threat.
	It's a promise.
	So there's a lot of chess happening here because there would be some risks, as far as I understand, in my limited understanding of this type of law, that if Elon always knew that he wanted to buy the entire company, if he knew that when he bought 9.1% of the company, Maybe he didn't reach that 10% threshold where he'd be legally required to disclose it, but it could maybe perhaps nonetheless be imputed or argue that that was the intention all along.
	So if that were the intention and he knew it then but didn't disclose it until now, that could get him into some hot water.
	So he's covering his butt there.
	He's saying, look, it wasn't my intention when I bought 9.1% of it.
	I thought I could do it publicly through public shares.
	Now I know that's not going to work.
	Now I know that my intention is to buy the company.
	I'm disclosing it publicly.
	When he says it's not a threat that if you don't accept this offer, I'm going to reconsider my shareholdings, well, he knows darn well that would negatively impact the shareholder value.
	So not only would all the current shareholders not get the benefit of this buyout, which he's highlighted in the filing, is 38% more than what it was the day it was publicly announced that he's buying the shares.
	It's $10 more than the stock price today.
	If Twitter management says, no deal, and then Elon sells as he's within his rights to do, and it tanks to $35, all the shareholders now could potentially have a claim against the directors for making a decision that negatively impacted their rights as shareholders, their rights to profits, their rights to benefit from their shareholding in the company.
	It's genius.
	I mean, I would say it's genius.
	It's pretty...
	It might not be like Grandmaster-level chess, but it's definitely 1,800-rating-level chess and not like...
	1,600 or 1,300.
	Basically saying in his papers, I now know that I want to buy the company.
	If you don't accept this offer, which is to buy it at $54, which is a premium over today, a massive premium over what it was before I even filed to acquire shares.
	If you don't say yes to this, I might have to sell my shares.
	It probably will negatively impact the value of the shares.
	And then all your shareholders are going to say, we could have sold for 54 bucks.
	If you said yes, now we're stuck holding a, you know.
	$35 stock, maybe even less.
	And I personally think Twitter is a worthless company.
	It might only have value private.
	So that is the news.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Elon is playing for keeps, and he's employing some pretty good strategy.
	So I see Christopher Phillips is in the backdrop now, and I don't want to keep him waiting for too long.
	I might come back to this afterwards.
	We'll see what my brother gets here.
	One last super chat.
	Well, shareholders have rights.
	And if management directors make a decision that prejudices the shareholder rights in the order of 40% easily, there might be a class action lawsuit.
	For all...
	Common shareholders who saw their value drop from a current 45 to whatever from a perspective or offered 54 to whatever.
	So that's where it's at.
	Interesting stuff to be continued.
	But more important than this, and if I've ever...
	Okay, we're bringing them in.
	People, 35 minutes in.
	Christopher Phillips in the house.
	Chris, sir, how goes the battle?
	How's it going?
	Great to be here.
	Thanks for having me.
	The internet is amazing, technology is amazing, in that it allows these absolutely random encounters to occur.
	Chris, do I know, are you in a dorm room or are you at home?
	I'm in my dorm right now, actually.
	Okay.
	When I saw it on the wider angle, I won't stay on this.
	I never lived in a dorm, but I know what they look like.
	Chris, okay, for everybody who doesn't know what's going on, do I need to play the question again or not?
	You might want to play it.
	I think it gives a good explanation as to what's going on.
	I don't think a lot of people would do what I did, so I think it would be great to play the clip.
	Let's do this.
	I'm going to bring it up.
	This is Cernovich who posted it with his good assessment as to the impact, the reach of this video.
	Let's give it a listen.
	Hi, thank you for coming.
	My name is Christopher Phillips.
	I'm a first year at the college.
	My question is for Mr. Stelker.
	We've all spoken extensively about Fox News being a purveyor of disinformation, but CNN is right up there with them.
	They pushed the Russian collusion hoax.
	They pushed the Jussie Smollett hoax.
	They smeared Justice Kavanaugh as a rapist, and they also smeared Nick Stammen as a white supremacist.
	And yes, they dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop affair as pure Russian disinformation.
	With mainstream corporate journalists becoming little more than apologists and cheerleaders for the regime, Is it time to finally declare that the canon of journalist's ethics is dead or no longer operative?
	All the mistakes of the mainstream media, and CNN in particular, seem to magically all go in one direction.
	Are we expected to believe that this is all just some sort of random coincidence?
	Is there something else behind it?
	Too bad.
	It's time for lunch.
	You have 30 seconds.
	No, I mean, there's a clock that says 30 seconds.
	But I think my honest answer to you, and I'll come over and talk in more detail after this, is that I think you're describing a different channel than the one that I watch.
	But I understand that that is a popular right-wing narrative about CNN.
	I think it's important when we talk about shared reality and democracy.
	All these networks, all these networks have to defend democracy.
	And when they screw up, admit it.
	But when Benjamin Hall, the Fox correspondent, was wounded in Ukraine...
	The news crews at CNN and the New York Times stopped what they were doing.
	They tried to help.
	They tried to help them get out of the country.
	They tried to find the dead crew members.
	That's what news outlets do.
	That's how they actually do work together, for your question about sharing those kinds of connections and trust.
	We don't talk about it enough here.
	We don't share that reality about how that happens.
	And with regard to the regime, I think you mean President Biden?
	The last time I spoke with a Biden aide, we yelled at each other.
	So that's the reality of the news business.
	People don't see, people don't hear.
	They imagine that it's a situation that simply is not.
	But I think your question, it speaks to the failure of journalism to show our work and show the reality of how our profession operates.
	We have a lot of work to do, I think.
	All right, man.
	Chris, let's start from the beginning.
	If I may ask how old you are, because you've got to be 21 or 22?
	I just turned 19 a little while ago.
	Tabarouette.
	19, this is not the first time you've forayed into public speaking, I presume, because there's no way you don't have prior experience in public speaking.
	I'd say, you know, just in general, I pride myself on being a good public speaker.
	I practice by myself, but I haven't done Toastmasters or anything like that.
	I've just practiced and made sure that I knew what I was doing and I was articulate.
	A big part of it is knowing what you're talking about.
	I mean, just from a young age, I've seen CNN has spread all these lies, and most of these have come in the last two or three years.
	So it's not hard to recollect all of this fake news that has been spread by CNN.
	So I just rattled them off, and you heard what he said.
	It's amazing.
	The chat's enjoying this.
	So what are you studying right now?
	Right now I'm thinking about econ, policy, and public policy.
	That's a hefty workload.
	I might drop one just because of what's happened, and I might...
	Focus on other endeavors, but just sort of that idea of the intersection between policy and government and free markets, I think is so, so important.
	And I'd love to work in the future in that realm.
	I won't pry too much into, you know, ordinarily when I have a guest on, we go back to childhood.
	But where are you from?
	How many siblings?
	And what, well, I mean, I guess, where did this event even take place?
	Start with siblings and, you know, where are you from?
	Well, yeah, I think that actually in this case, my origins kind of have a big role to play in the story and what this means.
	So I'm from Southern California.
	I went to public school for all but one year of my education.
	You can imagine the political climate is not super amenable in a sense.
	It's not right wing in the slightest.
	But I would say I became politically aware around the time of the 2016 election.
	I had no siblings.
	It was just me and my parents.
	Around the time of the 2016 election, I was in eighth grade.
	And so, I mean, you're like a young kid right there.
	You don't exactly know what you're talking about when you think about anything like that, whether you're conservative or liberal.
	But I began to look into what politics was really all about and sort of theory of it and what actually makes candidates differ besides the colors of the parties.
	So I look into it and I begin to think about what is the difference between I just sort of assumed that that was what he was all about.
	And I didn't really get any dissenting opinions from that.
	There's no diversity of opinion in a place like that.
	But what happened was I began to start, I began to listen to the RNC on The radio.
	And I began to really hear what Trump was saying because, you know, the narrative is Trump is evil.
	Trump is crazy, racist, extremist, whatever.
	And that's what I believe because I was just a young, impressionable kid.
	But I started to do my own research.
	And I suppose it kind of came about organically that.
	Really, I agree with this guy on a lot of what he was saying.
	A lot of it was common sense, but the media freaked out about it.
	The people at my school freaked out about it.
	I was the only outspoken conservative throughout middle school and high school.
	And I was faced with people who, most people were apathetic, but a lot of people fervently disagreed with me.
	And they didn't make that a secret.
	They would come up to me and they'd call me this and that.
	And I never called them anything back because I frankly just took what I believe and I listened to thinkers and other people and I came to my own conclusions.
	And so I'm willing to debate and discuss things with people.
	You know, you're a kid, you're in middle school and high school, people get nasty because they don't know what they're talking about.
	So they have to resort to cheap.
	Attacks and insults, but I believe that it truly came organically.
	It didn't come from my family.
	It didn't come from my peers.
	I listened to this stuff, and I sort of came to my own conclusions.
	And now that I'm at University of Chicago, it's just been spectacular because it's, of course, the majority left-leaning campus, but there are people who think in all different kinds of ways, and I have to respect it so much.
	This is a great school compared to even, I believe.
	The Ivies, right?
	Like Harvard and Princeton.
	They are very monolithic, I think, in their thought.
	They're all woke.
	It's radical left, in my belief, at least, from what I've seen.
	The conservative papers at other schools are all quite mild.
	Compared to us, they don't really stand up for true conservative values is what I have seen.
	I write for a publication called The Chicago Thinker.
	It is the premier publication of the University of Chicago at this point in terms of our audience.
	So that's something we pride ourselves in.
	It's the conservative and libertarian paper at our school.
	And just working with them has been so heartbreaking.
	I didn't really have that support from the people around me.
	Of course, I love my parents, but we didn't share the same ideological background.
	So coming here, I have really just been able to explore that on a whole new level.
	Just JC says, siblings, what does that matter?
	And I think you highlighted anyone who's a soul child or youngest of five, you might appreciate these questions shape, or at least the answers to these questions can shape a person to become who they are.
	My sister's a middle child of five and the only girl.
	That's definitely going to explain, or at the very least allow you to interpret their life experience.
	But no, you said that your parents, and I don't want to get anybody into trouble.
	But you became conservative or you espoused conservative beliefs despite your parents and not because of them?
	Did I understand that accurately?
	That's 100% right.
	So my mom is pretty left-leaning in most things.
	She's actually grown kind of tired of the COVID stuff, but by and large, she is left-leaning.
	My dad is sort of middle of the road in a sense.
	He describes himself as socially conservative but fiscally liberal, which I have some quarrels with that.
	Even existing.
	But that's how he describes himself.
	And it does make some sense.
	He's not super ingrained in the politics.
	He just thinks that most of the woke stuff is kind of silly.
	He doesn't agree with it.
	But in terms of fiscal liberalism, he advocates for high taxes a lot of the time.
	And I personally have differences with him on that.
	So I never had an echo chamber growing up in any sense of that, unless you count.
	The stuff I was watching, which, of course, I'm watching the stuff that sort of informs my opinion.
	So people influencing me.
	Again, I didn't have any siblings.
	And you're absolutely right that your siblings totally influence who you are, whether they're older or younger, particularly if they're older than you.
	But even if they're younger, the people you're around really influence you so, so much, right?
	You think people tell you you're a mix of your top five friends.
	When, you know, that's totally true, but think about your family.
	You spend more time around them.
	So the people you're around totally influence you, and I think it's sort of like a magical case in which the people around me, they certainly influenced me, but in a way that sort of hardened my own ability to articulate my views and my beliefs and really explore and get into it myself.
	And before we get into the actual event, high school, you said outspoken, conservative-ish views.
	What does that look like in a public high school in California?
	Do you get into arguments?
	Do you get into fights?
	Do you make enemies?
	Do you make friends?
	How does that actually, you know, what does that look like in real life for a kid in high school now?
	Right.
	So at public school in Southern California, to be an outspoken conservative, the bar's on the floor, essentially.
	You only have to say...
	I don't believe in this, that, and the other thing.
	And then you're a crazy radical Trump supporter, in a sense.
	So I went farther than that.
	One instance I can think of is during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting.
	I was a freshman in high school when that school shooting tragedy happened in Florida.
	And you may recall that across the country, we had walkouts.
	So kids would leave class, usually under threat of, you know...
	Being punished for skipping class, essentially.
	And they would come out and they would protest for more gun control.
	They call it common sense reform, right?
	They said, you know, we need to take people's guns away because what's happening is not okay.
	And they were totally influenced by the media, I think, which totally gets into what we're going to be talking about with the whole idea of disinformation.
	There's more to it than meets the eye.
	But a certain narrative was pushed onto young people in that era.
	And I looked past that and I...
	Came to my own conclusions.
	So when people came out and they did a walkout, and actually at my school, it was a school-sponsored event.
	So they said, you're not going to be punished.
	You're not going to get detention or whatever if you cut class at this time to do the walkout, which I think is ridiculous.
	But ancient history, right?
	So that's what happened.
	And everyone came out to the front, to like the lunch area.
	And some people had their signs about, you know, no more death, right?
	Common sense, gun reform, whatever it was.
	And so I said, hang on a second.
	I'm going to...
	Use this not as a chance to silence myself because some people who didn't agree with it stayed in class.
	I'm not going to do that.
	I'm not going to silence myself.
	I'm going to come out because I do think change needs to happen, but in a particular way, not in the form of gun control.
	So I came out and I had signs that said stuff like respect the second, arm our staff, things like that.
	I had signs that came out and those went against the narrative.
	And this is a public school with a lot of...
	A lot of young people in the suburbs who are totally impressionable and are not going to agree with me.
	And I came out there with those signs and people got mad pretty quickly, as you might imagine.
	It was a heated issue.
	And I was a freaking freshman in high school at the time.
	And there's older people there.
	So I came.
	Immediately, I was hounded by a bunch of people.
	And this was kind of my first major foray into speaking my mind at such a level.
	People came and hounded me.
	But I grew and I watched so much of this stuff that I was well-versed that I could...
	I won't say I destroyed them, but I could contend with all of them and we could come to a conclusion.
	So I think that was really, really healthy, what happened.
	And if I wasn't there, then people would have not been exposed to that sort of viewpoint.
	And I think that an echo chamber like that is not productive in any sense.
	So I'm proud of what I did in that moment.
	I've done stuff like that.
	That might have been the biggest one, but I've done stuff like that before.
	So that's what it looks like.
	And people in my high school knew me as the crazy conservative kid, and now they definitely do because of all the media that I've gotten in the last little while.
	You know, it's proud.
	I'm proud to stand for my values.
	Did that incident or that event get any media attention at the time?
	A high schooler actually standing up for gun rights despite, you know, what is a clear, easy narrative to run with?
	Actually, no, it didn't.
	There wasn't any media present.
	There weren't any media sources present, but everyone knew who I was at the school itself.
	So that's kind of the purpose that it served.
	Didn't really go over so well in terms of people who didn't know me.
	They sort of have this impression that I'm like a wacko in a sense.
	But they understand that at least a lot of the mature people knew that I'm someone who's going to stand up for my views.
	And maybe if they dig deeper than maybe a couple inches, they're going to understand that I am not some crazy person, but I do just have a separate perspective on things and that I'm willing to talk to anyone.
	I'm tolerant.
	They say we're the intolerant side.
	I'm the most tolerant person.
	I'll talk to Marxists, communists.
	I'll talk to anyone.
	But there's people who won't talk to me and who criticize me without even knowing me.
	So I tell them that we should have a conversation about it because, frankly, what you're doing is singling people out and you're limiting your own intellectual growth.
	Do you actually believe in the achievement of finding the best ideas?
	Do you believe in the value of discourse?
	Or do you just want to be right?
	And so I think that that's something that a lot of people, particularly in high school, because, you know, you're less mature then than you are at a university, but people couldn't really contend with the idea that someone disagreed with stuff that was agreed upon by so many people.
	They couldn't really understand the idea that you had to contend with ideas.
	So people kind of, you know, had their thoughts about me, but in reality, I guess I just stuck with it.
	Have you had any Twitter social media exchange with David Hogg at any point in time?
	No, I was too young at the time.
	You know, he's sort of maybe four or five years ahead of me.
	But I've only recently been on Twitter in the sense that really since this blew up, that's been my entire presence.
	So maybe five or six days.
	But it's been fun and I've been on social media.
	I haven't really contended with too many people.
	But I think that the response that I've been getting from the question that I asked has been overwhelmingly positive.
	I think that even at this school, it's a majority left-leaning institution, and actually writing for The Thinker, I have received in the past a lot of people talking stuff behind your back, et cetera, et cetera.
	People have their views of you.
	Similar to high school, but there's not people coming up to you and confronting you because they've been radicalized themselves and they think you're some crazy threat to the country or whatever.
	A threat to democracy, as the title of the conference would have suggested.
	The title of the conference was Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.
	So they believe that if you don't agree with their viewpoint, if you don't believe CNN and the mainstream media, you're trying to essentially destroy the West, which is so, so foolish.
	If anything, I think it's the other way around.
	But I have received a lot of positive support, actually, from people who are at this school who are mostly leftists.
	They come up to me and they say, "Hey, you know, I don't agree with what you do most of the time, but that question you asked Brian, I thought that was excellent because I'm tired of these corporate Democrats who don't actually believe in my values and they just want to control people." So I'm happy that you asked them that question and put them on the spot.
	Good work.
	And I say, you know, thank you so much for that.
	Because they don't have to say that, right?
	They don't have to come up to me and express their support.
	So I think it's really exceptional.
	And I think it's a testament to the quality of the student body at the University of Chicago.
	We're a school, like I said previously, that is fundamentally based on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and debating ideas.
	I believe we've been voted number one in free speech for like maybe five or six years in a row.
	So I just think it's exceptional, and it really proves that we are who we say we are, and I'm happy that I can be part of this school and debate my ideas with people, including panelists, who a lot of the times people are not going to be able to ask a question like that to a panelist.
	It's not easy, but I'm happy that I'm able to do that here.
	Yeah, well, just on one point you mentioned earlier about the Second Amendment armed the security guards, in the context of high school shootings, it always amazed me that...
	You know, you have armed guards for delivering or picking up, you know, money from a bank, goods from a store.
	You have armed guards.
	You don't say, you know, restrict firearms to prevent robberies.
	You say, guard money, guard jewels, guard valuables, but don't employ the same guarding of the most valuable thing, which are, you know, young lives.
	I never understood the aversion to that argument, but another argument for another day, and I want to bring this up because I can read this in English.
	It says, Which means in Hebrew, this is the small one who's large as well.
	The small one is big.
	So I think it's a compliment.
	But Chris, the event itself.
	So how did it come to be and how did you get a ticket to go?
	And how many people were there?
	What was the event, attendance, and format?
	And how did you get your questioning?
	So this panel was part of a broader conference, again, titled Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.
	So I feel like when you hear that, you know that it's already going to be a huge venue to spread disinformation.
	It was put on by the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, supposedly a nonpartisan institute for debating politics and government.
	It's run by David Axelrod.
	Obama guy.
	He worked with the campaign.
	He was the chief of staff, I believe.
	So he's heavily ingrained in this society of elites.
	And at the end of the day, he brings on conservatives too, but these are all token conservatives.
	So it's people like Bill Kristol.
	He wasn't here, but he was in another event of theirs.
	Jonah Goldberg was at this place.
	He's at CNN now.
	It's a far cry from a real conservative.
	Silly excuse to call them a real conservative.
	But regardless, you know, he brought Adam Kissinger to this place.
	So obviously, you know, it's not people that represent the true conservative movement today.
	But regardless, this is about preventing disinformation, supposedly.
	And what that intrinsically translates to in this case is, you know, the narrative of the mainstream media must be trusted in anyone who dissents from that, anyone who has an opposing perspective or wants to cover something that the mainstream media Deem to be unimportant are now fake news and they're liars.
	And that is a chance for big tech to weaponize this term and censor people who don't agree with them.
	And that's exactly what you were just talking about with Elon Musk.
	I think it's so important what's going on with this sort of shift in big tech.
	Potentially, you know, it's nothing set in stone yet, but it's just a hundred percent true that we need to protect integrity of journalism because nowadays mainstream corporate journalists can be, can be bought by so many interests.
	So it's so, so important.
	We protect freedom of the press and freedom of speech because it is under attack like never before.
	So this event was basically meant, I believe, to spread an agenda.
	Towards censorship, an agenda towards shutting people up who don't agree with the elitist narrative.
	So we have people like Brian Stelter, legacy media personnel.
	We have politicians like I said, Adam Kissinger, and also Senator Amy Klobuchar.
	She was there.
	President Obama was there.
	Also, he gave an hour-long talk on the first day.
	So these are all kind of people who are in agreement, people who believe that, yes, we need to start silencing people immediately.
	So we come in and we think, hang on, we need to ask questions about this.
	So I actually reached out to a friend of mine in the IOP and we got press passes for the Chicago Thinker.
	Like we said, we're a big publication on campus, right?
	What's the IOP?
	So the IOP is the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago.
	That's the organization run by David Axelrod that put on this event in the first place.
	So we got press passes for the Chicago Thinker.
	It's our publication.
	That's on our website, by the way.
	You can check it out, thechicagothinker.com.
	We're also on Twitter and Instagram, so feel free to check us out whenever you get a chance.
	But we come in, and it's myself and two of my colleagues, Daniel Schmidt and Avita Duffy.
	So we three go in, and we sit through this panel, and we think, of course, there's a lack of diversity of perspectives.
	They're all sort of agreeing that Fox News, for instance, is totally fake news, clearly.
	And then CNN is like the indisputable arbiter of truth, frankly.
	And, you know, everyone makes mistakes.
	It's true.
	I agree with that.
	Everyone makes mistakes.
	I think what CNN does is more than just mistakes, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.
	And if he's going to claim that they're mistakes, I asked him a question after his panel.
	It was all totally random.
	So I think, you know, divine intervention, maybe that I got the question, that I got the mic, because so many people wanted to ask the question.
	But so I asked him, I had a question, you know, prepared.
	I kind of put it together during his panel.
	I asked him, well, why is it that even though Fox News is not perfect, clearly, they have an agenda, but they admit it, in a sense.
	Their motto is standing up for what's right, with a capital R. So you know what that's about.
	CNN is the most trusted name in news.
	So that's not indicative of any sort of agenda.
	That's sort of putting on the idea that you are objective, in a sense, and totally unbiased, which everyone knows is untrue.
	So I asked him, Why is it that every time CNN makes a mistake, which I gave them the benefit of the doubt, it's a mistake, it always goes towards favoring the Democrats.
	It always goes towards favoring the left-wing establishment and against right-wing conservative values.
	That would be a total coincidence if it were not for CNN being totally biased.
	So I asked him, you know, what gives?
	And he didn't really have a great answer for it.
	He said that he yelled at a Biden aide one time, so that meant he was unbiased.
	He said that...
	One time they helped out a wounded Fox News reporter, so that means they're unbiased.
	I found those random things to be pretty pathetic, frankly, for an answer.
	Because at the end of the day, there is no good answer to what I asked.
	Because, of course, they're biased.
	Of course, they spread an agenda.
	There's no way to get out of that, honestly.
	But what he can at least do is say, CNN makes mistakes, and we're sorry.
	We retract the stories when we can.
	We try and keep a clean slate.
	We can't always do that, so excuse us for that.
	We try and go with journalistic integrity as much as we can, but we can't always.
	So in a sense, that would be what I expected, but he didn't even go there.
	He told me, I don't know what network you're talking about, but you're watching a different network than what I watch or what I'm featured on.
	When in reality, you can go back.
	There's actually an article written about this story that did this.
	You can go back.
	Every single one of the things I said.
	There are documented instances on CNN where he himself said these things.
	He pushed these ideas of Jesse Smollett, Russian collusion hopes.
	I mean, two and a half years we spent on that, and absolutely nothing came out of it.
	What is it?
	A Hunter Biden laptop being squashed.
	Of course, we know that this happened, and it happened with CNN in particular.
	And he obfuscates, he pushes away from it, but in reality, we know that this is true.
	And so the least he can do is apologize, but he didn't even do that.
	Well, that's the amazing thing and the ultimate insult to injuries.
	They never even apologized for Nick Sandman in particular.
	They will never apologize for the Russiagate hoax because at the time they were reporting on it, that was the news.
	They make the news so they can report on the news.
	And then when it turns out to be bunk, well, we were just reporting on the news.
	And we saw Stelter's answer was a bumbling joke.
	But someone had asked in the chat, it was one of my questions.
	He says, I'll come to you afterwards.
	We'll talk later.
	I presume he did not come up to you afterwards?
	Well, actually, he did.
	And I have to give him credit.
	He did come down to me after.
	So he held off on lunch for a little while.
	He came to me, and it was him, two or three of his goons, and then a couple other attendees.
	So this room was about maybe 150 people in total, attendees plus panelists plus other media or whatever.
	Maybe about 150 people.
	So it was him and two of the guys from his posse, and then it was maybe eight other people that were interested in what he had to say.
	I think also one of the panelists came down with him, and we had a conversation.
	In reality, when he was on the stage, he was spirited and happy, right?
	That's what he has to put on, this idea of, we can make this journalism thing work, but we have a lot of work to do.
	Just believe what we tell you.
	And then you're looking at real news, essentially, is what his answer was on the panel.
	But he came down to me.
	And his entire career is chapter after chapter of kind of being humiliated.
	And it's kind of sad because his job is he's reliable sources.
	That's his TV show, is reliable sources.
	And so his job is to take other members of his industry, other members of the media, and basically call them fake news and discredit their work.
	And that's a recipe to make a ton of enemies in your industry.
	So that's why it seems like everyone in his line of work kind of hates him.
	But he gave that answer up top and then he came down because he was frustrated because he kind of knew that...
	I had opened up a new chapter in that, and he was already kind of on the fence.
	His bosses were on the fence about keeping him on.
	He's being shifted to CNN Plus now, and that is failing totally, of course.
	So people don't really know what his future is.
	And apparently behind the scenes, a lot of people are talking about he's going to be fired.
	So I would have hated to have ended this man's career, quite literally.
	But he came down to me, and he was frustrated.
	And he talked to me, and he was...
	He was bitter and he was cold.
	And instead of trying to look for common ground or trying to figure out what we could find as a shared reality, as he himself described, he was quipping different things like, "What does CNN lie about?" No, that didn't actually happen.
	We retracted that.
	No, we covered this a week ago, et cetera, et cetera.
	So he was really on his game, and I don't think he's super bright, but he's obviously well-versed in the whole media thing.
	I have to, of course, give him credit.
	All these people are.
	So he comes to me, and he's trying to basically gaslight me into not believing what I just said, which is that these lies all happened.
	What gives?
	He's using his tricks, right?
	And so these media people have tricks, of course.
	They're very talented in that.
	So he's just trying to obfuscate, he's trying to direct away from the idea that is, you know, you people lie, trying to intimidate me.
	That's exactly right.
	He's lying, in a sense, every step of the way.
	So I'm trying to keep this conversation focused.
	I'm asking him, well, for instance, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the mainstream media totally squashed that.
	You guys talked about how it wasn't relevant.
	It was a product of Russian disinformation.
	Yep.
	Yeah, so this idea that the Hunter Biden laptop story was not legitimate, that it was a lie, or that it was totally overblown, that was totally wrong.
	I asked him, I told him, now people are looking into it, you have to, because everyone knows that it's real, and the New York Times just confirmed the legitimacy.
	And so he said, oh, well, no, actually, just four or five days ago, we did a whole two-hour segment on the Hunter Biden laptop story, so we're actually not...
	You know, gearing people away from that.
	And then I come in and I say, well, hang on, because of course that's true, because the New York Times just confirmed the legitimacy of the contents of the laptop.
	So now you have to report on it.
	Prior to that, you wanted to distract people from it.
	And he didn't have an answer for it.
	So, you know, you can catch these people in their lives by just focusing the debate.
	Don't let them obfuscate.
	Don't let them get away from it.
	You focus the debate on you told this lie, this lie, and this lie.
	What do you have to say for yourself?
	How do you explain that?
	They can't do it.
	They have to go away from it.
	It's like political.
	It's like a politician.
	They have to get away from it by saying, well, Fox News, we helped this wounded guy in Ukraine.
	That has nothing to do with the fact that you lie on a daily basis to the American people.
	So you have to direct the conversation.
	And this was the point, yeah.
	Oh, we did a two-hour expose on it.
	That needed to be done before the election, not after your agenda, which, I mean, you didn't get it into your question, but my goodness, I don't know how much more you could have gotten into that question, but Jeff Zucker's, you know, Project Veritas revealing undercover footage of their stated objective to spin anti-Trump.
	So, you know, you didn't get that in, but what would Brian Schelter have possibly responded to that?
	CEO, you are directed to editorialize, anti-Trump.
	Oh, good.
	You corrected your lies a year after the election.
	Two years after the election, damage is done.
	You got what you wanted based on your narrative.
	But no, he came on to intimidate you with one thing.
	Did he do anything that would be remotely threatening or say anything that could be misinterpreted as like, you know, I'll remember you type thing?
	How long did that after the question encounter last?
	So we spoke for maybe 10 or 12 minutes after the panel because he, of course, he had to get to lunch.
	So he asked me all these different things.
	And then he sort of said, okay, when the tide started to turn against him, when we kind of realized all we have to do is just press him on his lies, say, why did you lie?
	And then he can't get out of it, right?
	So once we kind of realized that that's all we had to do, he sort of checked out and he said, guys, I got to get to lunch.
	Feel free to send me an email, is what he said.
	I don't really believe that he wanted to remember me for this.
	At the end of the day, I am just a college student.
	This is sort of my first foray into this world of media.
	But I think that he understood that this was going to open up a big, humiliating chapter in his career.
	Unfortunately for him, it could be his last.
	We have to see what really happens.
	I don't wish anything terrible on the man, but I just think that he lies all the time.
	So what happens is he leaves after 10 or 12 minutes and he basically doesn't say anything else.
	He tries to brush it off.
	I think this is a chapter that he would rather forget.
	I'm going to just make sure.
	Is my audio better now, people?
	Let me know if it's still muffled.
	And I'll find out why it's muffled.
	Maybe I have a loose wire.
	Okay, reading the chat.
	Is it better now, people?
	And while we're doing that, look, the chat...
	Okay, it's better now.
	Good.
	That's amazing.
	He comes down to you, and he's no longer smiley and jovial.
	You call it obfuscation, and I just say it's the spaghetti on the wall.
	Throw up as much stuff to try to confuse the issue so you can't stick to one subject.
	Move the goalposts.
	Scott Adams describes it as loser think.
	It's just classic tactics of avoidion, to quote Kent Brockman.
	And just throw so much stuff out there that you don't know what to respond to in real time.
	And dropping a name in terms of reading material, people are asking, what do you read?
	Where do you get your information from?
	And who are your authors that you like to follow?
	Well, I have a lot of thinkers that I follow just in general.
	My friends even more so because they're older than me and the thinker.
	I've only been in college for five or six months.
	But, you know, I think of all different kinds of people.
	I have consumed a lot of, you know, news media.
	I read a lot of policy books in general.
	I'm particularly interested in geopolitics.
	So I sort of understand this idea of, like, globalization and taking power away from America, away from the dying West, and transferring it to, you know, elites, essentially, wherever they may be.
	So that's something that is big to me.
	I read a lot of Mark Levin.
	I think he's a smart guy.
	Particularly, he's a media guy, so he knows in particular on this issue what's really happening.
	I've read Tucker Carlson's books.
	I was on his show, actually.
	That was like a dream come true, of course.
	He has done a lot, and I've read his literature as well.
	The particular areas that I look at are...
	You know, geopolitics and in particular, and also domestic policy in terms of how it relates to the broader scheme of things and how the progression of history is moving.
	And so are our rights being affirmed or are they being taken away?
	And what are going to be the consequences of that, positive or negative?
	So I'm really, you know, trying to get into it.
	I've got a lot of books on my list.
	I've actually got a few right here.
	Of course, American Marxism, I've kind of begun to get into that one by Mark Levin.
	But regardless, this concept of ideologies competing, that's exactly what I come to college for, is to try and find the best ideology.
	But I've been looking into this stuff for a while compared to a lot of other people.
	So we'll see where it goes from here.
	But in general, I am interested in my career and just emboldening the values of this country and what made us great.
	We don't want to lose that because then we give up.
	So I think that it's important that we don't let our rights and the common law and common sovereignty be taken from us and put into the hands of a small number of elites because then they can do whatever they want to us.
	And I think that with technology expanding, there's a lot more potential.
	For powerful people to take rights from us.
	They have big data.
	They know everything about us.
	They can make you shut up with the blink of an eye.
	They ban you from Twitter.
	The freaking president of the United States is banned from Twitter.
	And then the Ayatollah and Taliban are tweeting.
	Are you serious?
	That's like insane.
	Who would have thought?
	So I think it's just important to protect that.
	The worst thing about the Trump ban.
	And I hope my audio is good now.
	The worst thing about the Trump man, he was still the sitting president of the United States of America when they did it.
	It's not that they did it after he lost and after he left.
	They deplatformed the sitting president of the United States of America.
	They said, set aside the fact that we think he's worse than the Ayatollah.
	Set aside the fact that they said, we think he's worse than known designated terrorist organizations.
	They said, we think he's, that's fine, that's bad judgment.
	But they said, we think we're more powerful than the sitting president of the United States of America, who is using this as a tool of his presidency.
	We think we're more powerful than the president.
	Well, guess what?
	That means they think they are the president and not just in the United States of America.
	Question, did Seltzer block you on Twitter?
	I have not seen that.
	I checked his account just a few days ago, and he hasn't blocked me.
	I'm good on him, I suppose.
	That's like, you know, rock bottom.
	But actually, a friend of mine asked Ann Applebaum a question, Atlantic, you know, lady who has written stuff in the past.
	He asked her, you know, you covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	He asked her this the day before I asked Brian his question.
	My friend Daniel Schmidt, he asked her, you totally did this.
	You were complicit in this cover-up.
	Why did you do that?
	And do you think that you should have acted differently?
	And then her answer was even more pathetic.
	Her answer was basically, I don't care.
	I don't think that that's an important story.
	Which, that is such a ridiculous thing to say.
	The fact that the son of the President of the United States has business deals in other countries and they're getting 10% for the big guy.
	And he's a sex addict and he's got these crack pipes and all of this stuff is on this laptop.
	You don't think that's an important story?
	That could be like the biggest scandal in American history.
	So it's a total cop-out.
	Not a sound answer, but she actually blocked us on Twitter.
	She blocked the Chicago Thinker.
	We're a bunch of college kids and we ask her a question.
	Why did you cover up this story?
	She gets so flustered that she has to block us.
	Are you kidding me?
	It's not like we're tweeting her every day, trolling her.
	She literally got so mad at us that she had to block her.
	We're college students.
	We're undergraduates.
	And she's supposed to be this big media lady and she can't even handle us.
	That is so, so pitiful.
	So Brian has not blocked me, but Ann Applebaum has actually come out and blocked us and blocked at least one of our members on their personal account.
	So I just think that that's so weak.
	I've taken out my mic, so now I'm onto the computer audio.
	Chris, you can hear me fine?
	It's good, yeah.
	I think so.
	Sorry about that, people.
	It's probably a loose wire.
	I'll figure it out afterwards.
	Hypothetically, Stelter invites you onto CNN.
	Do you go?
	I have actually put some thought into this.
	I don't really plan on reaching out to him, asking him to go on his show, but I think I would do it because I haven't really been in these super contentious debates with media personalities.
	It's a lot harder than it looks, frankly, to contend with these individuals.
	You watch the TV and you think, I could...
	Outsmart him, but they've got their tricks.
	You've got your earpiece in, and they bring down the volume so you can't hear what they're saying.
	They cut the camera.
	They cut the mic.
	They have all these tricks in the book to try and basically trick you and make you look foolish when it's unfair, frankly, because it's their network.
	So maybe potentially if they flew me in and brought me in for an interview, but I don't even think then because they are so dishonest in their debate skills, and I'm not super well-versed on.
	I know the formal art of debate.
	I'm not in debate, but I think I can contend and argue with people who are not out to get me and make me look like a fool.
	I also think they might dig up stuff from middle school and high school to make me look bad.
	I don't know what these people will do, frankly, because I think they're on their heels, in a sense, because I just know that...
	What they're doing is wrong.
	What they're doing is fake news.
	But then again, you have to think, like I just said, all you have to do is limit the debate.
	Just shrink it.
	Don't allow for this to begin on the wall, as you said.
	Name this slide, this slide, and this slide.
	Jussie Smollett, you smeared Nick Salmon and you lost big time in the court, which, by the way, in the United States, it's very hard to sue someone for libel or slander.
	That's a tough standard to prove, and they still had to settle.
	That's how egregious it was.
	So you limit it to these lies that they told.
	You cite it specifically, then you say, why did you say that?
	And by the way, Project Veritas comes out with these clips of Zucker saying, yeah, Russia's a big nothing burger.
	It's nothing.
	He says this stuff.
	So they know that it's all lies.
	They know that they're focusing on stuff that's not true in order to push an agenda and keep themselves in power.
	This is not, like, willful ignorance.
	Like, oh, well, we're just covering the story because this investigation might lead to something.
	Who knows?
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	So as long as you limit the debate to just naming their lies, don't allow them to bring in, they yelled at a Biden aide.
	That means nothing.
	And I think maybe I would even do it.
	But, you know, I'm kind of mistrustful of them, clearly.
	So I don't know.
	I'd have to think about it if they actually did bring it up.
	Stettler might have yelled at the Biden.
	They might have been getting yelled at by the Biden aide because they weren't doing a good enough job keeping the Biden laptop story under wraps.
	I mean, getting yelled at, they might not have been doing their job properly.
	They're not fighting over being honest.
	The last thing on earth that I would ever believe is that Brian Stettler is yelling at the Hunter Biden aide, the Biden administration aide.
	Because they say, don't run that story.
	It says, damn you, we're going to run that Hunter Biden story.
	I had never actually thought about the...
	I thought about the debate intellectual dishonesty tricks.
	Never thought about the actual technical glitch.
	It's like, make him look stupid, make him hesitate, and then go to break and don't let him answer because it's not going anywhere.
	Hadn't thought about that.
	At one point, I broke down Stelter's interview with Jenna Ellis, which was...
	You know, I think employed intimidation tactics, bringing up her signature on screen and saying, is this your signature?
	Showing to the world what her signature looks like.
	You know, intimidation tactics like that.
	And she did well for herself.
	You think exquisitely fast on your feet.
	It would be interesting.
	But they would bombard you.
	And they would try to talk over you.
	And even if they had you there, they might not let you get a word in edgewise to get your message out.
	You gotten any hate?
	Like any meaningful online hate or harassment?
	Well, like I said, actually, I think that the response has been outstandingly positive.
	You know, you're not going to please 100% of the people, but compared to these individuals who have been sort of slandered by the media, like, let's say, Nick Sandler, of course, or Kyle Rittenhouse, a lot of people in this country hate them, right?
	Of course, they got a significant portion of the population that do believe the lies of the media and despise these people.
	I think I'm very fortunate in the sense that not a lot of people...
	I actually disagree with what I'm saying because I think a lot of Americans know it's true that, of course, CNN has an agenda.
	Of course, Fox News has an agenda, but CNN, they don't make it known.
	So they pretend like they're objective.
	So a lot of Americans, I think, are frustrated.
	Even my mom, who's the leftist, before 2016 elections, she would watch CNN all the time.
	And it was fairly objective, right?
	Of course, it's never perfect.
	But she said that even from her left-leaning background, she can't hardly stand CNN anymore because it just feels like they're lying to her.
	She doesn't believe it.
	So in that sense, you know, everyone knows that CNN has this insane agenda that they're pushing, this radical agenda at that.
	So I think that, you know, just in the broad scheme of things, that is the case and that different media sources are going to be doing that.
	So as for the hate that I've received...
	It has not been so great, honestly, and I'm so happy for that.
	There's not been a lot of hate.
	You're never going to please 100% of the people, but I'll put it this way.
	All of the DMs that I've received, all of the emails that I've received have been positive.
	Someone will send a reply to one of my tweets or whatever that is challenging what I'm saying.
	They'll say, well, why don't you call out Fox News too?
	And I say, well, I'm not the defender of Fox News.
	I don't know what they're doing, but the matter of the fact is CNN is lying right here, right here, and right here.
	How do you explain that?
	Why are they lying?
	And so that doesn't change based on what Fox News is doing, based on what whoever is doing.
	So that's the point I'm trying to make, is that CNN is sort of respected almost, or at least they believe they are, as the established indisputable arbiter of truth in journalism.
	And that's not true, because you grind up your credibility when you lie time and time again and try and smear and defame people, and then you don't meaningfully retract those stories.
	People see that, and then they know that you're just a bunch of frauds.
	So I think I have not gotten a lot of hate.
	Certainly people have not come up to me in person.
	I have gotten a good number of people who have come up to me and said, "Hey, great question, Chris.
	I really liked it." Or, "Hey man, what's your name?
	I really liked that question you asked Brian Stelter." And I say, "Of course, thank you." There are people who I know text about me to their friends and stuff.
	They've shown me it.
	But in reality, people are always going to be talking behind your back.
	I'm no stranger to this.
	This is nothing new to me.
	In middle school and high school, I was the same way.
	And people were always talking to me.
	But the difference is back then, they were immature and they didn't understand what made a good question, what made a good political thought, what made a good inquisitive question.
	They didn't really get that.
	But now at this university, I think these people are intelligent.
	Of course, it's a top university.
	The bar is high to get into this place.
	I think that pretty much all the people here are quite intelligent.
	And so they recognize that regardless of your political views, whether you prefer CNN or Fox News, this was a good question to ask.
	So I have not really received too much hate.
	It's been nice.
	And the amazing thing is it would be a good question to ask of any of the major CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post.
	It applies to all of them.
	And people want to say, well, you know, Fox News is no better.
	They're a little better not just because they have an agenda, they might be open about it.
	They just have not fallen for a lot of these tricks or these traps.
	And I don't know, they made a mistake with Arizona, you know, calling Arizona early.
	I think they became the news instead of reporting on it.
	They made a mistake, a meaningful one, up in Ottawa.
	But their mistakes are more like, you know, I won't say honest mistakes.
	They seem to be nonpartisan mistakes.
	And even in a way contrary to their partisan interest mistakes, calling Arizona early is not what a Trump supporting network would have done.
	Now, first of all, it's amazing stuff.
	The chat is rightly Impressed by your eloquence and your thought process.
	I have another question, somewhat off topic.
	But you're in university.
	It might be less woke, less leftist than others.
	But what is life like now on campus?
	Not just for the political wokeness, but for all of the other, you know, all the other wokeness stuff that affects behavior, that affects how, you know...
	Males interact with females.
	The culture, the climate on campus.
	What's that like now to be in university as a 19-year-old?
	Sure, yeah.
	And just sort of on your prior point, people are freaking out about Elon Musk owning Twitter, right?
	People on the left.
	They don't realize that Jeff Bezos literally owns the Washington Post.
	And they treat that as, you know, 100% okay in the sense of free journalism.
	They think that that's fine or they just, you know, conveniently ignore it.
	So I think that that's an important distinction that needs to be made.
	So there's something else that you mentioned.
	As for life on campus, I think, again, I haven't been here so long compared to, you know, some of my classmates.
	But it is definitely different than high school in a sense.
	But I think a lot of people in America probably go to college and it becomes more woke.
	More suffocatingly leftists, right?
	But in my case, I sort of have a unique case where I went to school in beautiful blue Southern California.
	And so in a sense, it actually became less woke, ironically.
	But, you know, it's still pretty left wing.
	So again, it's not something I haven't contended with before.
	Now, in this case, I have a group of people who will be my friends.
	They're ride or die because we kind of stick together.
	People on the thinker.
	And there's also...
	Thinker adjacent people, people who are not involved in the movement but who totally agree with me and who agree with what we're all saying.
	So these people will give you a lot more credit.
	So I think that I have sort of a safety net almost.
	And I'm willing to speak my truth and say what I want because I know that I'm going to have people that are going to hold me down and I will never truly be alone in this world.
	You'll never be alone because you always have God on your side.
	But even in terms of the people who are around you, I have people who will support me at this place.
	And I think that that's so beautiful.
	That's not something that you would have at another institution, potentially.
	As for daily life, you see people doing crazy stuff.
	Literally right before this, I was in the dining hall and I saw this person who had a KN95 mask on.
	We call them the suffocation masks.
	They had this mask on.
	They're sitting at the dining table and they got the plate of food in front of them.
	They pull it down and then they take a bite of food and then they replace it.
	I just, and they're sitting all by themselves in the corner of the building.
	What are you doing?
	It's like, there's a point where it eclipses common sense to the point where you are just, you just look so foolish.
	I have to say that a lot of these people are dealing with this stuff.
	People will ask you your pronouns, and if you refuse to say he, him, his, then they will literally, they will go to just calling you they.
	Like, you know what I am.
	Look at me.
	Right?
	Take a freaking guess, please.
	So a lot of this stuff just eclipses common sense.
	And it's kind of unfortunate, but I have to say that in a lot of my classes...
	I have felt free to speak my mind.
	Maybe that's just because I am who I am.
	But I will say whatever.
	Frankly, my humanity sequence is language and the human.
	So it's sort of like critical language theory in a sense.
	Like these people talk different.
	So there's like layers of oppression, et cetera, et cetera.
	I come in and I'm the voice of reason, I feel.
	I provide the opposite perspective.
	And the teacher lets me speak.
	So I have to give them a lot of credit for that.
	And the people will contend with me on an intellectual level.
	But by and large, people who are left to their own devices and who are not being challenged by conservative, I think, common sense thought, these individuals that are all by themselves, they do stuff that I just think is so contrary to common sense and human nature, things like with the mask stuff.
	It's ridiculous.
	I love the guy, but my professor from my other class, he was going to take a drink of his coffee and he said, excuse me a minute, I'm going to go take a drink.
	He actually had to leave the room to lower his mask to drink the coffee and then return in the room.
	I just think that that's utterly absurd.
	Where has our common sense gone?
	But what we're doing with The Thinker, if anything, it makes our job easier at The Chicago Thinker.
	We cover stuff and we just say what's common sense.
	We don't have to get super intellectual.
	We say, why are you wearing four masks over your face?
	That's foolish.
	That's all we have to do.
	And it riles people up, but at the same time, I think it changes a lot of people's minds.
	That's phenomenal.
	I had one other question.
	It had to do with the logic.
	I forgot what I was going to say.
	And you haven't noticed any indirect reprisals from professors' inexplicable bad grades or other type of indirect reprisals from people who might be frustrated hearing someone speak common sense?
	So I've got friends who are not super conservative, right?
	Like I said, I talk to people of all backgrounds and beliefs, even apolitical, right?
	I can get along with anyone.
	I have people who, and then all of their friends are radical leftists, as I would say.
	So then they show me their phones, and they're talking about my question.
	They're talking about, did you see Christmas on Tucker, man?
	Someone said, how do you not rethink all your life decisions after you're on that show?
	And I think that that's just like coping and seething, basically, the fact that I'm on this level.
	And it's not even about me.
	It's just that I'm...
	I'm sticking true to my values, and they can't break me down, and then I'm seeing such success in terms of spreading my truth.
	I think that it's also important that if you're a young conservative, in particular at an institution, whether you're in middle school or high school or college or even out of college, and you feel afraid to speak your mind, I can't encourage you enough to just stand true to who you are, because if you're even the only person in your life who's conservative like I was...
	You can make a difference one day.
	And I thought I wouldn't be doing this stuff until maybe senior year or I was out of college.
	It freaking came up to me six months into college.
	So it can happen at any time.
	So I just encourage you to stand true to who you are and don't back down to these people, even if it seems that you're under every single threat.
	You're under threat of low grades from lack of friends.
	God has a plan for you.
	And so just stand true to who you are and it will all be okay.
	So as for my professors, I think that a lot of them have been...
	Positive, actually.
	You know, you would expect sort of dissent from them, but a professor I had in a previous quarter actually emailed me and said, hey, I saw your question.
	Great job, young man.
	Keep asking questions in the mainstream media and keep, you know, being inquisitive.
	So I have to, you know, give these people so much respect for that because this is not even a right-wing guy.
	He taught the language of the human sequence, the critical language theory sequence.
	But he came to me and he emailed me and he said, "Great job." So I have to give these people respect that they're not as monolithic or single-minded as we might think.
	They're not as averse to common sense and to compromise.
	So I can't thank everyone enough for the response that I've gotten.
	I think that it has been overwhelmingly positive.
	Some of my professors don't even know about it, actually.
	I had a professor today who I spoke with, who you would think because it's University of Chicago specific, which UChicago doesn't always make the headlines like Harvard or Yale do.
	And I think that that's, you know, I just think that it's because of the name recognition that Harvard and Yale have.
	So this conference was big.
	We were on like every Fox primetime show on all these different places.
	I'm with you right now.
	It really made the wave.
	So I assume that at least the faculty would all kind of know about it.
	But a lot of my professors haven't said anything or even indicated that they know.
	So I think that's actually for the better, probably, you know, in terms of grading my papers.
	It might be for the better, but I'll tell you one thing.
	I presumed that there was going to be more...
	My preconceived notion that the university was going to be unhappy with this.
	It speaks well to University of Chicago, and they must appreciate this.
	It's not just publicity.
	It's good publicity, and it shows tolerance of thought and openness of thought and discussion on campus that this occurred, and that it seems to be...
	Welcome from the campus itself.
	I mean, it's great.
	It speaks well to you of Chicago.
	So hopefully they don't do anything to make that not the case anymore.
	You'll see when this settles down, you're going to be craving that moment again, that energy that comes from it.
	But what are your plans for the future for your degree going forward?
	Well, you know, I've got a lot of work to do.
	That's true that I'm loving what's happening right now, just in the sense that we're able to actually...
	Make waves and our audience has expanded greatly.
	I believe we had maybe 5,000 followers on Twitter previously and now we've got about 30 or 35. So it has just blown up and we're by far the biggest college conservative paper in the country.
	So I'm just so, so proud to be part of this group of people that...
	is working so hard to speak their truth and to look at campus craziness through a conservative lens.
	And by the way, of course, again, you can reach us at thechicagothinker.com or on Instagram at the Chicago Thinker and on Twitter at Thinker Chicago.
	So you really ought to check us out because it is sort of a different perspective than you're going to get from any other college students in the country, I feel like.
	So I'm just so proud to be part of this group.
	But regardless, I have a long ways to go.
	I got three-plus years left.
	Again, I was thinking about triple majoring, but at this point, I got other stuff going on, so that might fall through.
	But in general, I'm looking at studying the intersection of politics and government and getting into all different sorts of areas around the preservation of the values of our country.
	A lot of people in college don't know what they want to do.
	I think that's really going to help me in terms of knowing what I want to do early, which is protect this country from threats foreign and domestic and make sure that we are preserved and that American sovereignty and American strength are protected because it's just what...
	has made our country and I think the world so great.
	So that's exactly what I want to do.
	I could be in media.
	A lot of people are telling me I got to go become a journalist and save the world.
	And I thank them for that.
	But I consider journalism.
	I consider working on campaigns and with elected officials.
	And there's a lot of ways to go about it.
	But I want to help protect this country.
	That's what I want to do.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	We've been going for an hour, and people will now know this was not a one-off, and it was not...
	It was not a prepared answer.
	It was not a prepared question from a superficial young man.
	Chris, it's amazing.
	What you did was amazing.
	You're eloquent, well-spoken, and you think well.
	What drives me nuts is I don't even like calling this conservative thought.
	It just sounds like common sense.
	It's just thought.
	It's amazing.
	Keep it up.
	We'll be in touch.
	Thank you immensely for coming on and spending this much time with me.
	It was great.
	I'm not going to end the stream now.
	I'm going to click you up and I'll message you afterwards.
	I'm going to put all of your links in the pinned comment of this stream when it's done.
	Right now, The Chronicles is already up there as the pinned comment in the chat.
	But Chris, keep it up.
	I mean, you don't need anyone to encourage you.
	You are motivated, you're driven, and you're principled.
	So those are the three best things any human can aspire for.
	One last thought for the crowd before we say goodbye.
	Well, thank you so much.
	It's been such an honor.
	It's been a lot of fun.
	A lot of my friends are huge, huge fans of yours.
	When I told them that you invited me on the show, they said, what?
	That's crazy, man.
	You got to take it.
	So I planned on it anyway, but you got a big, big influence and I appreciate you having me on.
	Again, if you're a young conservative or even an old conservative and you're in an environment that is unfriendly to your thought, I encourage you to stand true to what you believe in and speak your mind because sooner or later, you will be very happy that you did so.
	So I encourage you to do all that.
	You can hit us at TheChicagoThinker and you can also hit me on Twitter and Instagram at CrispyTheTruth.
	For more content.
	But I thank you so much for having me on.
	I'm happy to come on anytime.
	It's been great.
	Beautiful.
	I'll talk to you soon.
	I'll message you afterwards and all the links will be there.
	Chris, thank you very much.
	Have a good day.
	Great.
	Thanks.
	Yeah.
	That was amazing.
	And I want to say this.
	Not surprisingly amazing, but what's the word I'm looking for?
	There's always a sense of concern that someone is not going to, you know, Sit down for a one hour and be as eloquent and well thought out as Chris was and is and will be.
	And I'm happy.
	I mean, I'm also just happy that there hasn't been what I would have feared would have been the blowback from this university-wise, friend-wise.
	Kids got a head on a shoulder.
	Shoulders, I should say.
	Amazing stuff.
	Let me see what's in the chat.
	There is one chat I'm going to get to, which is off topic, but it's off this topic, but into a topic that I had going on in the backdrop.
	Let me see if I can find this.
	I thought it was a joke at first.
	It's a green avatar accusing me of misinformation.
	I thought it was a joke because it relates to Pat King.
	If I see the chat, someone saying that I said Pat King had been freed.
	I didn't say that because he hasn't been.
	He had a hearing today and I was trying to get the news on that.
	And I did get the news on that.
	And the news is that they abruptly ended the hearing for reasons apparently, reasons related to his attorney.
	Let me see if I can not find the comment.
	And at the risk, I thought, first I thought it was a joke and people say don't entertain the trolls, but I do like to make things perfectly clear.
	Oh, here we go.
	Viva needs to man up and apologize.
	Last first.
	I guess the joke might be, make the accusation and then get someone to respond and, you know, congratulations.
	No, Pat King has not been released from jail.
	I've been following it because I find it to be among the most shocking legal stories coming out of Canada.
	Pat King, we're now, he was arrested February 18th.
	We're now two months in to his imprisonment, pre-trial detention.
	Oh, that's right.
	Apparently, the hearing was suspended because he got new charges pressed against him.
	See, here I have the link.
	Pat King bail adjourned.
	This is CBC, people, so take it with a grain of state-funded propagandist salt.
	The saltiest kind, because it causes high blood pressure.
	I just made that up on the spot, and I'm happy with myself.
	Chris Phillips, I'll put the links up.
	Amazing stuff.
	Pat King.
	His bail hearing was continued from April 4 when it was re-adjourned to, you know, argue over stuff.
	Apparently he had had trouble getting new attorneys because he had had problems with former attorneys, miscommunications.
	Postpone, postpone, postpone.
	And every time they postpone it, the dude is still sitting in jail off mischief charges.
	Mischief charges or charges related to mischief.
	Oh, my brother's supposed to be joining us.
	That's right.
	I forgot about that.
	Is he in the back?
	When my brother gets here, I'll bring him in.
	Pat King bail review adjourned again, this time in response to new charges against him.
	Bail review for hearing was abruptly adjourned Wednesday when King's lawyer's computer was hacked.
	So that's what happened.
	What day is it today?
	That's what happened yesterday.
	The news was reporting an abrupt adjourning of the hearing because his attorney's computer was hacked.
	Today it was adjourned, apparently, for new charges.
	A key figure of the Freedom Convoy protest will remain in custody for now.
	For now.
	It's not indefinite pretrial detention, people.
	And if you say that, it's misinformation.
	It's just detention.
	Month after month, with no end in sight, and multiple repeated postponements, adjournments.
	But it's not indefinite detention, because that's something they do in North Korea.
	It's not what you do in...
	It's not something we do in Canada.
	But he's still in jail.
	Two months later, and it's been postponed again.
	Pat King's defense lawyer had requested a review of the decision to keep him in custody.
	We saw this.
	The bail review hearing started Wednesday, but came to an unexpected stop when King's lawyer, David Goodman, better hope he's not related to Saul Goodman, who was appearing virtually, interrupted court to alert everyone his computer had been hacked.
	My goodness.
	Through Goodman's computer speakers, a cryptic voice repeatedly said the computer had been locked.
	What's he opening up attachments during a hearing for?
	I don't know what happened.
	I wasn't able to tune in yesterday, and I tuned in today, but the hearing was over, so I'm sitting in there waiting on hold for indefinitely.
	Proceeding was adjourned until Thursday, and Justice Graham Mew ordered a publication ban on the hacking.
	All right, well...
	CBC reported it, so I'm not in trouble.
	When the hearing resumed Thursday, the publication ban on the hacking was lifted.
	Goodman told Court his computer issue had been fully resolved, nothing was corrupted, and his files were safe and secure.
	All evidence presented at the bail review remains subject to a publication ban, which is often requested and granted to prevent potential jurors from being prejudiced ahead of trial.
	Yeah, my butt.
	That's the concern?
	If Pat King is supposed to have jurors of his peers come from the Ottawa region, They've already been tainted.
	Okay, he was arrested in February.
	Let's see.
	Oh, yeah.
	Four charges, by the way.
	These are the charges, but there's more now.
	The longer he sits in jail, the more charges they find.
	Four charges.
	Mischief.
	Counseling to commit mischief.
	Counseling to commit the offense of disobeying a court order.
	People, listen to this.
	Counseling to commit the offense of disobeying a court order.
	Counseling someone to commit the offense of contempt, disobeying a court order.
	So telling someone to do something which they say would be tantamount to telling them to disobey a court order, he's in jail on these charges.
	Two months.
	Two months he's been sitting in jail for this.
	King is now facing additional charges of obstruction, of obstructing justice and perjury.
	It's more of the same.
	I'll put the article here.
	You can go read this.
	It's nauseating.
	We have political prisoners in Canada.
	Let me post the link here.
	Counseling people to honk.
	Hold on.
	Let me get that chat up here.
	You joke.
	Splendiferous.
	You joke.
	Telling people to hold the line can be counseling mischief.
	The protest, which itself was never declared unlawful.
	The protest, which was declared unlawful.
	Holy crap, apples.
	I got 19 text messages.
	Where's my brother?
	Yes, comma, 430 is good, period.
	The crowd is waiting.
	Smiley face.
	So Pat King sits in jail.
	The hearing was postponed until...
	When was the hearing postponed until...
	Let me just get that date, if I can find it.
	I closed the article.
	I won't be able to get it, but...
	Sitting in jail.
	Another hearing postponed.
	Am I out of focus?
	I'm not out of focus.
	Politics ruins everything.
	I see my brother.
	I see my brother.
	Make sure he's driving.
	Make sure it is not in your hands, not distracted driving.
	Looks like he's pulling over.
	No, he has pulled over.
	Now he just dropped his camera.
	Now he's, okay, I'm gonna bring him in.
	I'm bringing him in.
	Everybody, if you don't know, this is one of my four siblings, one of my three brothers, Daniel.
	He and I are two of the four lawyers of the family.
	He is in Ontario, Toronto area, still practicing.
	He still seems to like it.
	Dan, are you ready?
	Give me the thumbs up if you're ready.
	Okay.
	Oh, Danny boy, the pipes.
	What's up?
	Man, we're going for a walk, people.
	Bearing in mind that Dad is probably watching.
	Where are we going?
	Well, I had to get called out on an emergency carpool drive, so while I was coming back to the office, I thought I'd stop by our local MP's office.
	So we're going to drop by our local MP's office, my friend.
	I don't think you need to put it quite so close to your mouth.
	Okay, sorry.
	Who's your MP?
	Mendocino, I think?
	Oh, Mendocino.
	I believe so.
	Yeah, the one who said that the protesters were threatening...
	A fault of a various nature on women, apparently.
	Hold on, wait.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Mendocino's the one who, he's the one who drafted the, I think, I believe he's the one who drafted the Executive, the Emergencies Act Declaration.
	Wait, what's his first name?
	Mark Mendocino?
	Yeah, Mark, okay.
	Wow.
	Okay, so I heard from another lawyer that our federal government is basically AWOL.
	Like, you can't go to the constituency office.
	Like, the offices are closed.
	I was like, come on, that's not true.
	And I was told, indeed, these offices, these local constituency offices have been closed for business by appointment only.
	Or maybe the very rare, very rare attempt to get in.
	I couldn't believe it.
	Yeah, the whole argument is what that protest was preventing the politicians from, you know, they didn't say interfering with government affairs, but, you know, it was so dangerous that they couldn't go to their offices.
	Well, but I think a lot of them are working remotely anyhow because, or at least the constituency offices, most people are working remotely.
	And I think that's the whole federal government's plan is to move as many people remotely now as possible.
	And so you have, like, all the buildings, all the downtown buildings are going to be emptied.
	That's part of the new budget, right?
	So, yeah, all these constituency offices, I don't know, you know, who's going to be in them or, like, how you can access government in person anymore.
	Do me one thing.
	Don't put it close to your mouth, but hold the thing from clicking on your shirt.
	Oh, sorry.
	And I'm going to bring this up.
	I'm going to impress everybody.
	I can still read Hebrew.
	This is from Mark Sidloy.
	It says, Not bad.
	Yeah, that means...
	Have a good Passover to your family?
	Yeah, something along those lines.
	I understood that.
	It's hard to read it on the computer.
	Thank you very much.
	Happy Passover and Happy Easter to all the viewers.
	Happy Easter, Happy Holidays to everybody.
	You are...
	Now, so you're going to go see if Mendocino's office...
	Yeah, let's go see because I was told you really...
	So basically, this office is particularly unique because the storefront is also like you can't actually see into it.
	And I don't know if they do that to all the constituency offices for security, or if it's just because of the sun.
	I guess for the summer it probably gets sunny.
	But you've got to see, like, it's just kind of creepy.
	It's locked.
	So you can, basically, the public can walk in to get a coffee, right?
	But the public cannot go to their local MP.
	Yeah, here he is.
	There's Marco Mendocino.
	Mendocino.
	Can you see?
	Yeah, let's see.
	So, look, I'm all for safety, right?
	And if there's a pandemic, you don't want to spread it, right?
	But what are the hours?
	10 to 4?
	I have to...
	Maybe they'll let me in if I don't, you know...
	If I called, I could have probably booked an appointment, right?
	So you can book an appointment, and they're available on the phone, right?
	But the pandemic is so dangerous that the government has to shut its physical presence.
	Yeah, but meanwhile, ruling by edict and diktat through non-legislative implemented policies over two years, because that's how democracies function in times of emergency.
	So this is my question to the viewers.
	I'm just curious, in other jurisdictions, are you able to...
	Is it operating the same way now, given the outbreaks in your local communities?
	Can people access their government like that, physically, just walking in?
	I'd be curious.
	Dan, Ford just passed Bill 100.
	Status reached royal assent.
	I understand not all members were notified for the vote.
	Ontario protesters just lost a lot more rights.
	What is Bill 100?
	Hold on a second.
	I haven't heard this.
	Yeah, hold on.
	Let me pull it up while we're talking.
	Maybe that's the...
	Oh, let's just see here.
	Hold on a second, people.
	Bear with me.
	Google Bill...
	Sorry, I haven't been able to follow this because I've been watching the Johnny Depp trial.
	Bill...
	Yeah, here we go.
	Bill 100 passed.
	We'll just pull up...
	I dropped my mask.
	Protecting what matters most act.
	Let me see.
	No, that's it.
	Let me get the news.
	Why can't I find this in the news?
	It prevents blockades at borders.
	Okay, here we go.
	I'll bring this up.
	We can bring up CTV News, not because we trust it, but we can trust it if it's negative to be accurate.
	Hold on.
	Share screen.
	Here we go.
	Ontario legislation to prevent blockades.
	I think this is the act.
	Ontario legislation to prevent blockades at borders still too broad, advocates say, so it seems like it was passed.
	Progressive Conservative legislation that would prevent protesters from illegally blocking Ontario's border crossings may still be too broad and could potentially have a, quote, significant impact on expressive activity and peaceful assembly, according to civil liberties advocates.
	The Keeping Ontario Open for Business Act was tabled on Monday and in the past would provide law enforcement with the power to impose roadside suspension of driver's licenses and vehicles, seized license plate, and tow vehicles being used in a blockade at an international border.
	That doesn't sound offhand entirely crazy.
	Like, they could basically do that as it is now.
	They have pretty broad powers.
	Let me stop you there.
	If you can basically do it now, that's the whole point.
	There is existing legislation to deal with this.
	More legislation, less laws, tacitus.
	It's just...
	I mean, that's...
	Okay.
	Here we go.
	Bill 100 was passed late last night.
	Stealth.
	They're progressive conservatives, all right.
	More progressive than conservative.
	On that point, by the way, I didn't realize that the blockade, there was actually a lane open.
	I guess it should be obvious, but that there was a lane open, first of all.
	And second of all, the court injunction that they got specifically allowed for peaceful protest as long as it wasn't blocking the bridge.
	There's some weird stuff going on with that whole event.
	We'll probably get into it later.
	We'll hear more about that.
	We covered it in real time.
	People were saying there was a lane open.
	They were also explaining that there were alternative methods of travel, although the underground tunnel would not allow trucks of certain sizes or carrying certain materials.
	Right.
	And someone says, Kimberly James is right.
	Legislation instead of law is the point.
	But they already have mischief.
	Mischief is it?
	I mean, for goodness sake, they've already arrested Pat King on mischief charges.
	So what do they need to pass a new law in order to have more tools to already do what they have tools to do?
	Okay, hold on.
	We got Lee Richards.
	It says, in the U.S., federal employees went back into offices and the doors are open as of March 30th.
	Okay, so it's recent.
	But Dan, so we had two things we were going to discuss, and I forgot what they were now.
	Well, I think it was relating to ongoing...
	Oh, yes.
	I wanted to talk about what I'm seeing a lot of in the wrongful dismissal, what I call wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, leave without pay that's been going on interminably.
	And again, it's not interminable.
	Like you say with Pat King's detention, it's not interminable.
	It's just...
	It's undefined.
	They say stop touching your mic, Dan.
	Stop touching it, Dan.
	No, leave it down and stop touching it.
	We've been talking about this here.
	The federal employees who are subject to a vaccine mandate, if they don't comply, they're placed on unpaid administrative leave.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	I'm speaking in legal terms.
	To me, that looks like, if it's not wrongful dismissal, it's at the very least constructive dismissal in that they've renegotiated a clause into the contract, presumably, which says...
	When we when we hired you, you did not agree to this, but now we're imposing it.
	And if you refuse to do it, we're not firing you.
	We're just putting you on unpaid administrative leave.
	Right.
	So what is the difference?
	What is the difference between that and firing someone?
	It's a bit of a gray area because it's kind of like keeping someone in jail for as part of it.
	Right.
	It's like, how long can the person go before it's just considered firing?
	Like two years?
	One year?
	Like what's the what's the threshold?
	Right.
	So you have some people, I think they're up at four months now.
	They've had to sell assets to survive.
	Maybe they've taken other part-time gigs.
	They haven't qualified necessarily for employment insurance because, again, our leader, our dear leader, somehow, through the chain of command, implemented a policy at employment insurance, an employment insurance policy that prevents people from getting any basic income.
	So what you're seeing, in my view...
	It's a massive taking of property by the federal government.
	This is like people's severance packages.
	If we consider this wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, it's a huge amount of money that is basically being taken from these employees.
	And it's happening on a scale.
	From my perspective, it's huge because you're dealing with hundreds or thousands, tens of thousands of employees that have had anywhere from $10,000, let's say, or to $200,000 taken from them.
	And it's adding up.
	It's a massive taking.
	And again, I...
	I'm reading a chat.
	Kimberly Jane says 39 city workers in BC won their job back and won back pay in BC.
	Small start.
	It's actually...
	I'm going to go look into that because I wouldn't even call that a small start.
	I would call that a very big start, especially because BC, or anybody who lives in Canada, won't call them the wokest of provinces, but they're among the wokest.
	BC is where you have a lot of the Human Rights Tribunal decisions coming out.
	You know, awarding punitive damages for misgendering to particular cases.
	So, BC as a court system, as a province, is exquisitely on the left of the spectrum if we break it down that way.
	So, I wouldn't call that small.
	And, you know, the bottom line is, people are going to sue.
	I think they can and they should win.
	And the government's just going to end up, you know, good.
	They won back pay from the government.
	We all pay for that.
	So that's the idea.
	The idea is that they're all going to eventually succeed either at arbitration or, you know, in the courts.
	But it's time, like how long.
	So right now, you know, one of the unions is waiting for an arbitration decision from last week.
	So depending on when that sweet decision comes out, yeah, they'll get their back pay.
	So in that case, you know, we're wrong.
	So that wasn't constructive dismissal.
	They get all their...
	The damage has been repaired, right?
	That would be the result of...
	I mean, you can hire them back and pay them back with back pay or severance them and package and who would want to go back working for that employer, but some people won't have a choice.
	Well, that's right.
	That's the other issue that you're seeing now is this toxic culture of, you know, now they're back at work.
	Some people are very pro-vaccine, some are very anti, you know, so it's like it's hard to get people back at the table now.
	Even when you do get your, you know, when the person gets their job back.
	So it's very tricky, you know.
	Do you have any of these files that you're currently involved in?
	Yeah, I've got a couple in there.
	They're like negotiation stage, right?
	So, but yeah, there's a couple out there.
	I mean, again, a lot of the big decisions are kind of floating out there still in terms of the arbitration result.
	But yeah, we've negotiated a couple and a couple are still in progress.
	Yeah, the thing is, and we don't need to get into your details, but they don't need to settle.
	They need a court precedent.
	I'm going to check out the one out of BC, and someone says, get the lawyer on if we can.
	But the problem with the precedent, too, is that not everybody has to follow it, because yes, it's good to have in the arsenal, but another employer will say, well, that case is a bit different.
	We can distinguish that work setting because it's more of a congregate setting.
	So everyone can game the system.
	If they're not, if they don't have the higher principle in mind, which is that we have to, you have to, in my view, you have to accommodate as much as possible.
	Someone even who doesn't want to get back, whatever reason they don't want to, you can't, I would never recommend firing that person on the spot, on the basis of misconduct.
	It's just, it's not justifiable based on the, you know, it's just not justifiable.
	So you negotiate a severance package for all these folks.
	That would have resolved all this dispute.
	Probably most of the truckers as well.
	I can't speak for them, but if I was a trucker and I got a two-year severance package to go find another job, re-educate myself in a different industry, yeah, that's not a bad gig.
	Of course, there's still the feeling of I was terminated because of a policy, a bizarre policy, but that's kind of a separate issue.
	Well, I mean, on the subject related, I want to find the article from the CBC that you had an interesting exchange with.
	Oh, yeah.
	Give me the subject matter of the article.
	Well, it said the NACI.
	Yeah, the CBC's NACI policy updates its policy.
	I'll pull it up.
	It says Canada's vaccine advisory body strongly recommends boosters for all adults as viruses.
	Don't spoil the punchline.
	Don't spoil the punchline.
	You're getting me riled up.
	I got you.
	Anyone who knows the Jerky Boys, I got you riled up, Jack.
	Okay, here we go.
	Dan, you see the article like I see it?
	Yeah, Canada's Vaccine Advisor strongly recommends boosters for all adults.
	Okay, let's read it.
	That's the headline.
	Let's go and see where the lead is buried here.
	Recommendation comes as country is seeing a resurgence in COVID-19 cases.
	Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization.
	It's called the...
	I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
	We're being covered by...
	We're going to pronounce it Italian-like.
	It's NACI.
	NACI.
	Or NACI.
	I like that.
	You can't make this up, people.
	It's almost as bad as La Coalition Avenir de Québec's acronym is CAQ.
	We'll pronounce that a different way as well.
	It is now strongly recommending that all adults and immunocompromised children aged 12 to 17 get a first COVID-19 booster shot, as Canada experiences and researchers have.
	NACI previously said that boosters for those two groups should be considered discretionary.
	Okay?
	Let's just...
	It's now strongly recommending they had previously said that the boosters for those two groups should be considered discretionary.
	Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Dr. Theresa Tam, the woman who said you should strongly consider wearing a face mask during sexual activity, among other...
	Well, some people might do that anyhow.
	She might.
	Oh, there she is.
	Okay.
	Said Tuesday that booster shots...
	We'll offer stronger protection as caseloads increase.
	It doesn't matter where you are in Canada right now, I would advise getting that booster shot, Tam told a press conference, after she told people to wear face masks during sexual activity to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
	While Nachi is strongly recommending that immunocompromised children aged 12 to 17 receive boosters, it's also now saying all children can be offered a booster doses.
	Okay, Dan, where's the punchline I'm trying to get to?
	I don't know what punchline.
	Well, what became your point of disagreement with...
	Well, my point of issue is that most of NACI's advice is that the vaccine should be offered.
	So they're very careful in their language, for the most part, in their publications, that the vaccine should be offered to people.
	And the reason I believe that language is used is because you cannot...
	Anybody giving legal advice to a doctor would never say...
	to tell everybody to get vaccinated because you have to take into account everyone's individual situation.
	And there are people that have exemptions and that people should not get vaccinated based on existing complications.
	So the fact that CBC is promoting this very subtle but important twist of NACI's recommendations is a problem because it gets amplified and amplified and it's even confusing doctors.
	Like, because doctors then say, well, I'm supposed to offer this, or I'm supposed to recommend you get it.
	I'm like, because then I do the follow-up.
	Where did you get that from?
	And then they point me to NACI's website, and it's not there.
	It's not, you know.
	So I'm taking issue with the CBC on this, and hopefully they're going to, you know, clarify and correct it.
	If I may ask, what did you do?
	Oh, I could have done it like that the whole time.
	Your beard is getting gray there, Danny.
	I know.
	When was the last time we saw each other?
	Too long, bro.
	So what did you do?
	You reached out and you haven't gotten a response yet?
	There's some follow-up.
	You know, I really believe the strategy going forward, you know, you have to have these small, intimate, and, you know, respectful discussions with everybody.
	Everyone I reach out to on an individual basis to, you know, to discuss these policy issues, they're for the most part very responsive and respectful, and they, like, I'm not, you know, respect people's views, but challenge them.
	Respectfully.
	So, yeah, I'm waiting to hear back from the CBC on that.
	I think it's an important point because I think, like I say, it's getting distorted all the way down the chain from Toronto Public Health to, you know, down to the different school boards.
	You know, you cannot recommend everyone get a vaccine.
	I cannot go around telling people.
	That's what the politicians are doing.
	They're telling everyone go get vaccinated.
	But that's not what the doctors...
	Non-medical professionals dispensing medical advice, whereas as if you could ever give blanket medical advice, it's like giving blanket legal advice without knowing the individual facts of the individual story.
	It's just as bad.
	Plump lettuce.
	Interesting name.
	The seizure of private property is their focus.
	This is in Bill 100.
	It's the main thrust of Bill 100.
	But by the way, I'll say it after.
	It's the whole point of Q and E and intentional inflation.
	They're working to seize bank accounts, etc.
	You'll own nothing.
	So I can agree with you if the seizure was the thrust of it.
	But we now know that they use seizure provisions to seize the funds raised from the truckers.
	They already have.
	What is it?
	OPE.
	But they would have to...
	You mean the warrantless seizure of bank accounts?
	Yeah, what was it called?
	Offense-related property.
	They already have...
	Offense-related property, they already have provisions in the criminal code.
	If you're committing mischief offense with your vehicle, they already have a provision of law to go seize it.
	With a court order.
	Maybe this is to do it without a court order.
	Roadside seizures, they already exist for driving 160 over the speed limit.
	They already have it.
	So, cameras.
	Anyhow, it's more, as far as I'm concerned, more legislation where existing legislation already provides the existing remedy.
	But there's an expression in French, trop fort, casse pas.
	Too strong does not break.
	That's not true.
	More laws, less justice for good reason.
	It creates ambiguity.
	Why would they have implemented a second law if they already had all these powers under the first law?
	Therefore, the second law must offer something that the first law does not.
	Otherwise, they would not have enacted the second law.
	So let's read it differently.
	Yeah.
	That's interesting.
	What else have you got going on?
	Apart from that, you know, not too much.
	I mean, that's pretty much it.
	I just wanted to...
	Can you take your hat off for a second?
	Do you mind?
	Yeah, I got the fro going too.
	Yeah, dude, you got it going on.
	That's some competition.
	Oh, no, no.
	I will always have eight months of hair growth ahead of you, Dan.
	It's a nightmare, a ridiculous nightmare, stupidity carried around on a silver platter.
	I mean, I tend to agree.
	Right, you need to study it.
	No, that's it.
	I'm going to go check the Bill 100.
	Hey, who knows?
	Maybe I'll get Doug for...
	I don't want to make a joke there.
	I'm not making a joke.
	It's Doug Ford.
	It is Doug Ford.
	And you know what?
	He's a very personable guy running for re-election.
	And a lot of these government folks are trying their best and they're caught in a very difficult situation where they have to find some group to satisfy here, right?
	So everybody's yelling at them.
	They found a group dissatisfied.
	It's called the WEF.
	I'm past the point of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
	They don't deserve it.
	They've proven that they don't deserve it.
	François Legault in Quebec.
	Anybody who's not paying attention to that, to the Herron Report, H-E-R-R-O-N, which is the old person home where a quarter of the residents died within a month in March.
	And the government knew about it, said they didn't know about it, lied about not knowing about it.
	Now it became clear that they did know about it.
	The police call has been released of a director, I think, of the private long-term care, leaving a call with the police saying 33 residents died within a month.
	You need to open an investigation.
	And the government lies, moves on, and then insult to injury.
	uses that number of deaths in the province to lock down the healthy instead of protecting the vulnerable.
	Doug Ford no longer benefited the doubt for me, but...
	Well, right.
	And the issue is, yeah, in a period of uncertainty, yeah, my concern is using incarceration and using, you know, this is GCT tactical.
	These folks, I don't work for them, but this is like tactical use of force, okay?
	At one point I was trying to be a, you know, security guard until I realized that lawyers are exempt from the Security Guards Act.
	By the way, everyone should realize, my brother, he's skinny, he's wiry, he's very strong, but I'm thicker than my brother.
	Thicker in the head, thicker in the muscles, and thicker in the thighs.
	What do you weigh these days?
	I'm about 160, I think.
	Getting up there?
	But yeah, it's when the government uses incarceration and the heavy hand of law when we're really not sure what's the best outcome.
	So that's where I think there has to be more caution in terms of when we're not sure what the best thing to do is.
	Don't throw people in jail.
	Don't arrest people.
	Dan, let's quote the officer of the peace, the magistrate in Ontario who said, keeping Pat King in jail is what will reinstate, reinstore.
	Confidence in the legal system.
	If we were to let this individual out who was advising people to commit mischief, it would undermine people's faith in the judicial system.
	My but.
	So, by the way, I was listening to your point there about counseling to commit a breach of court order.
	So, basically, if you tell someone to honk when there's an injunction on honking, that would be considered, arguably, the Crown could take the position that that is counseling someone to breach a court order.
	I believe that's actually, I believe that is the example that they have.
	I believe it was telling people to hold the line and telling people to protest.
	Right.
	Because despite the fact that there was never any court order declaring the protest illegal, well, Justin Trudeau doesn't need a court order to make up words and to make up facts.
	So the unlawful occupation of Ottawa, it's a lie.
	And just bear in mind, when Justin Trudeau continually repeats that way of describing the protest in Ottawa, Pay attention to the way he continually uses certain words to talk about international affairs.
	And people believe him on one, you know, unquestioningly believe him on one side when they know that he was undoubtedly lying on the other.
	Just, you know, throw that out there.
	No, Dan, now you're either on mute or your mic got pulled out.
	Oh, geez, look at this.
	Oh, there we go.
	I could take, but the audio is worse now, right?
	No, it doesn't matter.
	Leave it out.
	I had to unplug my mic too, Dan.
	We're both having mic issues today.
	Unplugged.
	Unplugged, unscripted.
	Yes, and normally the safeguards that I was hoping for when Trudeau went nuts like that, the safeguards, I think we talked about that, but the safeguards just fell through because you normally expect the other members of parliament to stand up or stand against that kind of rhetoric.
	No.
	Sorry, I'm getting...
	This is going from bad to worse.
	Now my brother's a pulsating avatar.
	Normally the mechanisms of Parliament would have yanked Trudeau for saying some of that stuff.
	They would have stood up against that.
	Some of the things he said against so much of his rhetoric, lumping everyone together in a very hateful way.
	Like, the RCMP's not going to do it, you would have thought the members of Parliament would have stood against him, and they didn't, and that's when I was like, oh man.
	No, not only did they not, they joined forces with him, Jagmeet.
	They joined forces with him.
	Right, right.
	So now, now you can't even get, okay, you can't get the independent review of all their behavior that we were hoping for under the Emergencies Act, right?
	You're supposed to have an independent, we can't even get that now, because it's all controlled by...
	You know, the voices of the dissent are being squashed by this new alliance that nobody voted for.
	Nobody voted for an alliance like that, right?
	Well, I appreciate that argument.
	I'm not sure I'm convincing it because you voted for the discretion of the person you voted for.
	And I told you.
	I told them.
	You're voting for the discretion of Jagmeet Singh.
	You're voting for someone who is just as dishonest and just as corrupt as Justin Trudeau, just did not have as much time and power, or any time and power.
	To act on that.
	But he's doing it right now.
	We'll see what happens.
	Yep.
	All right, man.
	We'll go.
	Let's go.
	We've been for two hours.
	We'll meet back up.
	I think people like hearing what you have to say.
	And you're actively in the thick of practice, so you'll have new experiences to...
	Yeah, and I want to talk about that world next time.
	We'll talk about the World Economic Forum because there's some far-out stuff and there's some just more practical conflict of interest stuff at the pure, like, border-directed level.
	Absolutely, but I'm just shocked at the peoples whose names...
	Are you Google name and WEF and just see who has a page?
	By the way, anybody, if I ever see my face on the WEF website, I'm issuing a letter of demand to have me taken down immediately because I would consider that to be slanderous, defamatory, guilt by association.
	You'll never see my face on the WEF.
	And if you do, it's because I've sold my soul.
	Don't joke.
	Don't joke.
	I've been poor fed.
	No, no, no, no.
	So, for fun, for the fun of it, pick a politician and Google their name, WEF, and just share your results on Twitter.
	The results are mind-blowing.
	Yeah, no, where was it?
	It said, rest in peace, Jack Layton, the last of the principled NDP.
	Yep.
	Yeah, no.
	Okay, well, what I was going to say on the WF side is just that if you look at what Christina Freeland, what she's recently done with budget, yanking the budget on what she promised, it makes me question her, you know, the conflict of interest there.
	Because she was supposed to put more money towards healthcare, towards pandemic issues, and the fact that that was pulled and they funded instead other initiatives like, you know, environmental, everyone's on board with that, I guess, to some extent.
	But, you know...
	They've basically yanked promises that are really pandemic-related.
	I mean, we have to really do some digging about what the conflict is there.
	That's another topic.
	It's loyalty beyond nation.
	And that is not what a politician of a country...
	The first loyalty of a politician is to their citizens and not to international interests.
	It may sound selfish.
	But that's why we hired a leader and that's why we live in Canada and not in some international community that will sacrifice our interests as Canadians for the greater international good, which typically just means the oligarchs and the privileged politicians.
	That's the conversation we have to force.
	That's a conversation we have to have.
	Lisa, heal yourself, says, talk about Elon's $41 billion offer.
	I did.
	That was the first.
	It might have been the second 15 minutes of this episode.
	I went through his SEC filings.
	He's playing some very interesting hardball.
	It's more games, right?
	So now other big corporates taking over, right?
	It's still the same problem.
	No, but I mean just like the actual game of him buying close to 10%.
	Then saying, at first I bought it just to impact the company by shareholding.
	I don't think I can do that.
	I need to buy the company.
	Issues that filing.
	Buy it cash, take it private.
	If you don't accept this, I might have to reconsider my shareholdings, knowing that if he dumps 9%, it's going to tank the stock.
	Shareholders are going to have a claim against the company directors for not accepting an offer, which is $10 over today's value.
	That is some fun, hostile takeovering right there.
	It's fun stuff.
	I mean, I wouldn't have the stomach to be on either end of that, but Elon is a different composition for good and for bad.
	So, we'll see.
	Dan?
	Awesome.
	Good seeing you.
	We'll talk soon.
	I might be in Toronto one of these days.
	Oh, we'll talk.
	There's a march to the war monument in Ottawa on the 29th.
	I'll send you the info to document.
	You may want to go and make sure nobody gets into trouble.
	You'll be there as potential counsel.
	Counsel on duty.
	Awesome.
	I'll call you afterwards.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Thanks.
	Keep up the good work, bro.
	Keep up the good work.
	You're doing God's work.
	You too, Dan.
	See you soon.
	Bye.
	Bye.
	And that is my brother.
	The 420 people, I don't believe because...
	Ah, come on.
	To believe the 420, you have to dissociate the 420 from the 5420.
	I don't...
	Okay.
	What's the 420?
	What's the joke?
	Okay.
	No, the numbers thing, I don't typically make, I don't play the game of connecting numbers.
	Unless, you know, unless you said, I'll buy it for $6.66.
	Like, there, you know, you don't make that number by accident.
	$54.20.
	Let me see if I, now, you planted the seed in my head now.
	It's kind of an arbitrary, arbitrary centi, centi, a cent amount.
	Could have been $55.
	Okay.
	I'm not going to...
	$69,420 was too much.
	Yeah.
	And $4.20 was too little.
	Anyhow, people, so that's it.
	Tomorrow, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
	Oh, I'm going to be on with Eric Hunley tomorrow at noon.
	And I do believe Eric Hunley might actually be live right now.
	So check out Eric Hunley.
	I'm not sure.
	I may do a live stream of the Johnny Depp trial.
	I've been following it.
	Legal Bytes is streaming it.
	Rakey is streaming it.
	I might not have anything new to add, so I won't be redundant for the sake of it, but I will be talking about it because I'm following it.
	And it's interesting.
	It's highlighting the warnings that I said in the beginning as reasons for which I might, if I were Johnny Depp or his attorney, might have advised him not to take the lawsuit.
	We're seeing it in real time now.
	The latest twist was that one of his witnesses got kicked off the bench and had her testimony struck because...
	It was discovered.
	I'm going to try to find out how they discovered this.
	She was watching clips of other people's testimony.
	Very, very dramatic stuff that occurred right before we went live here.
	So everybody in the chat, thank you as always.
	Thank you for being here.
	That was amazing.
	If you want to snip Twitter bites of the interview with Chris, go ahead and do it.
	Blast it out on Twitter.
	I want the part where I asked him about whether or not he would go on with Stelter.
	Oh, yeah, Stelter.
	Stelter blocked me, so.
	I might need the team to tweet that out.
	But I'm not even...
	You know, I do believe that CNN is so dishonest.
	It might be...
	I would probably still accept it and go on and then live with the consequences because I would rather have that be my fate than have CNN say, we invited him, but he declined.
	Because that's what they would do.
	It would be a dirty play one way or the other.
	Thank you all.
	It was a great show.
	And I'm not saying that because of me.
	I'm saying that because of the guest, Chris Phillips.
	Impressively impressive, if I may be redundantly repetitive.
	Everybody, I'll see you tomorrow and Sunday.
	You know, all this stuff, Twitter, yada yada, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I put up two podcasts today, Hanania and yesterday's podcast, Clips, Viva Clips.
	I'm posting the clips there, so go ahead and check it out.
	Enjoy the evening.

▲