Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 15, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:38:47

Elon Musk, Jagmeet Singh, Fauci, Trudeau & MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone.
	Bonjour à tous.
	Tonight at sundown, the Jewish community will mark the first night of Passover.
	Family and friends will gather around the Seder table to read from the Haggadah, enjoy symbolic foods like matzah and ror and drink wine.
	And all around the world, Jewish people will remember the story of the Exodus by asking questions and sharing age-old traditions.
	La Pâque juive nous invite à trouver une source d 'espoir et de persévérance et à célébrer le triomphe de la lumière sur les ténèbres.
	Elle nous rappelle que le bien l 'emportera toujours sur le mal et qu 'il est important de défendre nos convictions.
	L 'histoire de la Pâque juive est tirée de la Bible, mais les enjeux de la haine et de la persécution sont encore bien présents de nos jours.
	We've all seen a frightening rise in hate-motivated crimes against the Jewish community, both here in Canada and around the world.
	So I want to be clear.
	Anti-Semitism has no place in our country or anywhere else.
	It's up to each and every one of us to call it out in all its forms.
	Because only together can we build a more inclusive and safer world for everyone.
	J 'aimerais prendre le temps de souligner la culture et le patrimoine riche que les communautés juives apportent à ce pays.
	I'm sorry.
	I can't take it anymore.
	That's actual audible torture is what that is.
	Let me see, by the way.
	Let me just see.
	If the sound of Trudeau's voice is so repulsive that YouTube demonetizes, it's demonetized.
	Oh, let's just go request review.
	The sound of his voice, it's become an icon of, it's become not an icon, but a symbol of nausea for me.
	First of all, before I go even further, how is my audio?
	I unplugged all of the mics, cleaned them off.
	I'm using two different USB connectors to...
	Playing that liar is nauseating.
	I'm going to go back to it and just, we're going to break it down.
	Because when he says that the Jewish people bring a rich heritage to Canada, I find that offensive.
	I find that that plays on stereotypes, Justin Trudeau, and you should be cancelled for promoting ethnic stereotypes.
	This guy...
	Oh, hold on.
	I'm going to bring it back just for one second.
	We've got to do this.
	We've got to walk through this minute and a half of verbal diarrhea.
	Hello, everyone.
	Bonjour à tous.
	Bonjour à tous.
	Tonight at sundown, the Jewish community will mark the first night of Passover.
	Thank you.
	Family and friends will gather around the Seder table to read from the Haggadah.
	By the way, family and...
	Oh, I have to mute my mic again.
	I'm going to remember.
	We're allowed.
	The government has authorized us this year.
	The tyrannical government has authorized us to meet in more than 10 people.
	It's authorized us to meet indoors.
	The government this year has authorized us to celebrate a holiday of, you know, that's thousands of years old.
	The government has allowed us to do it.
	We should be very grateful to Justin Trudeau for letting us do this this year.
	Thank you, Supreme Leader Justin, for allowing us to celebrate our religion freely.
	Let's carry on with this drivel.
	Carry on.
	Enjoy symbolic foods like matzah and maror and drink wine.
	I keep forgetting to turn the audio off.
	Symbolic foods?
	Like symbolic?
	Yeah, the matzah is the unleavened bread because when the Jews were fleeing a tyrannical government that had enslaved them, they didn't have enough time to let the bread leaven.
	I never understood it because it seems like they could have put yeast in the bread anyhow, and it just wouldn't have leavened.
	I don't know how the rule became that you did not put yeast in the bread.
	Whatever.
	But this guy, Justin Trudeau, is talking to us about these symbolic foods that were...
	The Maror, by the way, is horseradish, intended to remind us of how bitter and afflicted the lives were when living under slavery.
	This entire holiday...
	It's about a people escaping slavery and the tyranny of an authoritarian government.
	And this nitwit, as I've indicated in my response, doesn't even understand the irony in what he is doing this year.
	He has allowed us to celebrate indoors.
	Thank goodness.
	But there was more here.
	There was more that I found shocking.
	Hold on.
	And all around the world, Jewish people will remember the story of the Exodus by asking questions and sharing age-old traditions.
	La Pâque juive nous invite à trouver une source d'espoir et de persévérance et à célébrer le triomphe de la lumière sur les ténèbres.
	Oh.
	I think there are a lot of people out there who are waiting for the triumph of goodness over evil.
	He doesn't have the reflection, the insight.
	He doesn't have the sufficient distance to even think.
	Or maybe he does, and he knows it.
	He is the evil of which he speaks.
	He is the government tyranny that is the celebration of what the Jewish people escaped from Egypt thousands of years ago.
	And it's ironic as well, by the way.
	It's ironic because Canada this year is having the most Canadians leave the country.
	Last I checked, the most in the last 20, 25 years.
	The irony, the in-your-face idiocy that this guy is now celebrating.
	Passover, reminding the Jewish people of what this holiday is about for us, for the Jewish people.
	He's reminding us.
	He's telling me what it celebrates.
	At the same time that you have a mass exodus of Canadians from Canada because of a government that has effectively, you know, enslaved might be too hyperbolic of a description, but has at the very least tyrannized a people.
	Lock them in their homes.
	Lock them out of their businesses.
	Shut them down.
	Shut them away from their loved ones.
	Tell them what they can listen to.
	Tell them what they can hear.
	Okay, let's keep going for a few more seconds.
	In case anybody ate too much for lunch, maybe this will be the cure.
	It reminds us that good will always take on evil and that it is important to defend our convictions.
	The history of the Jewish Park is drawn from the Bible, but the issues of hate and persecution are still present in our days.
	We've all seen a frightening rise in hate-motivated crimes against the Jewish community, Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Let's just stop it there.
	Maybe we've seen a frightening increase in hate-motivated crimes.
	I'm sure it has nothing to do with the government locking up pastors, which might...
	Give that political permission slip to people who want to go burn down churches.
	For those of you who may not know, Canada, you know, I'm stopping it.
	I can't listen to him anymore.
	Canada has had something of a spate of church burnings.
	Look at this.
	Church, for anybody who doesn't know, church burnings Canada.
	This is from the Wall Street Journal.
	It has been a difficult summer for Canada's Christians.
	Over five days in June.
	Look at this.
	This is Wall Street Journal, so you know.
	In as much as I don't think much of the WSJ, you know when they run things that are counter to what ought to be the narrative?
	You can give a little more credibility to it.
	Over five days in late June, four Catholic churches and an Anglican church were burnt to the ground, the first churches to be set ablaze or vandalized to begin in a summer of such desecration.
	Suspicious fires then broke out across the country.
	In all, 65 churches have been set aflame or vandalized, according to the True North Center, which is mapping attacks on churches.
	Yes.
	How ironic.
	We have seen an increase in hate crimes.
	I'm sure it has nothing to do with a government that locks up pastors.
	I'm sure that doesn't give the political permission slip to people who want to carry out acts of violence.
	I'm sure it has nothing to do with a prime minister who gets up there loud and clear during an election cycle.
	Thumping on the table like a great dictator, saying, those people are putting us all at risk.
	And who is implicitly encompassed in the those people are putting us all at risk?
	They're putting their kids at risk, and they're putting our kids at risk.
	Who's in those people disproportionately?
	We know who's in those people, based on stats.
	This is coming out of the mouth of the Prime Minister, and now he's wondering, why would there be an increase in hate crimes in social division?
	It was his election campaign.
	It was his platform.
	Oh my goodness.
	And to have him lecture me.
	You know what?
	I was watching that the first time.
	Like you all know, I don't consider myself to be a very religious person in the organized religion sense.
	I do consider myself to be spiritual.
	When I'm listening to him talk about Passover and Matzah and Maror and what the holiday's about, I'm hearing Will Smith saying, keep my wife's name out your mouth, except I'm just hearing, keep Passover out your mouth, Justin Trudeau.
	I don't know, by the way.
	Did he wish a Good Friday to Christians?
	I don't know.
	I wonder.
	Did he?
	But, Trudeau, just stop talking about these things.
	He's creating the division that he's complaining about.
	We've seen an increase in hate-motivated crimes.
	I suspect if we have, Trudeau, it's because of the increase in hate coming out of your mouth.
	Happy Good Friday, everybody.
	God bless each and all of you.
	Point curation, thank you very much.
	Saw another super chat in there.
	Viva!
	Happy Pesach to your family.
	Love and support.
	Thank you very much, Louis Lane.
	Well, I do have one of my brothers in from out of town, and I haven't seen him in a long time, and a nephew whom I haven't seen in three years.
	And so it's nice for that.
	I have my own issues when it comes to organized religion, but I have my own beliefs when it comes to spirituality and a higher force that we must all presume.
	Is watching over us in order to govern our behavior.
	You know, it's like the proverbial, it's the proverbial cosmic camera.
	It captures everything.
	Bonjour, viva!
	Et chat, comment vas-tu?
	How's it going, chat?
	For anyone who doesn't speak French.
	Is my audio good?
	I hope it's good.
	Okay, good.
	Audio's fine.
	Super chat, disclaimers, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like it, we are also simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Let me check.
	That's me.
	I just got confused for a second.
	Let me see if we're on Rumble in live time.
	I didn't give the heads up to the Rumble team that I was going live, but it doesn't matter.
	They'll see it.
	Yeah, we're live on Rumble.
	I love an angry Viva from R.O. Poppy.
	He comes and talks with such lack...
	It's a lack of understanding of history.
	And then talking about an increase in hatred and division and hate crimes.
	It's like, oh my goodness.
	Why are churches all of a sudden burning?
	Of course, he never even acknowledged it.
	Never called...
	Never called it out once, let alone called it for what it was.
	Just spontaneous combustion to Justin Trudeau.
	So that's it.
	That was the intro rant.
	We're going to have a good one today.
	I was just on Hunley's channel, Laidback News, with Alita, Legal Bites, Rakeda, Rakeda Law, Nate Brody, Nate the lawyer, Joe Neerman, Good Logic, and Kurt was there on Civil Law, Hoag Law was there as well, Richard Hoag, and we had a good discussion.
	It was fun.
	I got to pick their brains of people who I know more about American law than I do.
	So it's going to allow me to have a more insightful discussion about the Elon Musk stuff because that stuff is getting interesting.
	Chrisun says, a very little compensation for the demonetization for me.
	First of all, thank you very much.
	It will get remonetized afterwards.
	They all have been getting remonetized.
	I can't actually think of the last time a stream did not get remonetized.
	On my main channel.
	The only issue is it suppresses the discoverability of the video.
	For example, yesterday's interview with Chris Phillips was demonetized.
	I don't know when it got demonetized, but you see the lack of organic growth because YouTube just doesn't promote it.
	It doesn't pop up in search engines.
	It doesn't come up in recommendations because YouTube has no reason to do that if it's been demonetized.
	But that one got re-monetized and I'm posting the clips on Viva Clips.
	Let me see.
	Oh, Jack Jackerson's here, pulling up a non-super chat.
	Now I'm realizing it was probably a joke.
	When I'm hungry or hangry or cranky, I read, you know, the difference between a troll and a joke is the perception of the person reading it.
	It's my old expression, you know, when you're in a bad mood, everybody on the street seems to be driving like jerks.
	When you're in a good mood, you're forgiving everybody for, you know, inching through a red light or whatever.
	All right, so that's it.
	So what we're going to talk about today, we're going to do a brief recap.
	My summary of the Johnny Depp, Amber.
	Am I not allowed saying her term?
	The AH, which also stands for a good acronym for Amber.
	My overall assessment of week one, we're going to talk about Canadian hypocrisy.
	Jagmeet Singh, the hypocrite, who teamed up with Justin Trudeau, the tyrant.
	To lecture us about inflation and how when prices go up, somebody gets rich.
	Yeah.
	The government who collects more taxes and who still gets raises.
	We'll get there.
	Fauci.
	How do I describe Fauci?
	The alleged, in my humble opinion, unlawful individual.
	Fauci and his recent admission.
	Because not so much the highlight clip, just the responses to it.
	It's interesting.
	And then we're going to do Elon Musk because the big news of the week is the offer, you know, buying into Twitter, the offer to take it over and take it private.
	And now he's got a class action lawsuit that was filed against him on the basis of SEC violations for failing to disclose in time having acquired a 5% ownership in the company while continuing to acquire shares.
	It's interesting.
	Reketa pulled up a copy of the suit.
	I emailed the law firm.
	To see if a lawyer wants to come on and discuss it, because it's interesting.
	Fucci.
	Faucizi.
	How about a Faucizi?
	Like a Fugazi, but a Fuccizi?
	Because he's a big phony.
	A big frickin' phony.
	And that's it.
	That's what we're going to talk about.
	We'll see how long it goes.
	It's a beautiful day.
	And I do plan on either going jogging or biking with my nephew.
	So we'll see how that works out.
	Happy Bunny Day.
	Ever watched Robert Gouveia?
	Of course.
	I've been watching The Watchers.
	I was on with him.
	He was on with me.
	I like him.
	Very good man.
	Quebec has many churches and never had any burned.
	Now they have an increase.
	No, no, well, no, it's not.
	First of all, I don't think it was in Quebec, but I don't believe that that's anywhere near the explanation.
	It was throughout Canada, and it has nothing to do with that, in my view.
	So, this is not a cover my tushy, like, pleasing the YouTube gods.
	I don't think that's what it is.
	I think it's actual, just, you know, more generalized intolerance to the Christian religious community because of what they've seen the government doing to Christian leaders.
	I actually don't think it would be religiously motivated because I think all religions in Canada have been equally, maybe not equally targeted, but have seen the risk of a government saying you can't practice your religion anymore the way you believe it needs to be practiced in order to be practiced authentically to the religion.
	I didn't care for Barnes.
	Hush-hush on Elon.
	Slanderish.
	You could disagree with it.
	Barnes put out a hush-hush on Elon.
	It was not...
	Like he disclaims in the beginning.
	It's not his opinion, although I think he did infuse his opinion into it.
	But if you don't like it, it's an interesting thing.
	I tended to disagree with it as well.
	But I have to pull back and say, do I disagree with it because I have the same sort of celebrity crush on Elon because of everything that he's said, done, what I think he represents.
	So when you react viscerally and emotionally to someone else's position on something to which...
	An emotional or a visceral response is not normal in the sense that you're emotionally detached and you should not respond emotionally to someone criticizing, someone who you don't know but you think you like.
	Then you check yourself and you see, why is it that I'm reacting this way?
	And might I be reacting this way because some of the stuff might be true and might put a little crack in the foundation of the statue that I built to this individual in my psyche.
	So that's it.
	We'll get there.
	We'll get to Elon.
	But yeah, no, look, I saw some of the comments to that.
	Barnes is a big boy.
	He knows what he's saying and he knows why he's saying it.
	And Barnes is not the type to make up facts or to speak without thoroughly weighing his words beforehand.
	So with that said, if you respect Barnes, you're going to respect him even when he says something that causes you to say, I don't feel this way and this upsets me for some reason.
	Dubious Prime says, your hair is becoming more sentient.
	Feed me, Viva.
	It's at the perfect stage now where it's mid-grease.
	Not too greasy to sleep with, but greasy enough that it doesn't look like a cotton ball out of control.
	Not Methuselah.
	What's her name?
	Medusa type thing.
	Dude, love the show.
	Here's money towards the haircut.
	Not happening.
	It's not happening, Corey, but thank you very much.
	Elon wants to chip your brain.
	Davos wants hackable humans.
	Wake up.
	All right.
	Again.
	I bring up chats and comments with which I don't necessarily agree or don't have an opinion on.
	And sometimes I bring chats up that are offensive because I didn't read them before.
	Okay.
	Johnny Depp, summary of week one.
	You are going to accuse me of being biased and you are within your rights to do it.
	I departed from the position that I didn't necessarily think it was a good idea for Johnny Depp to sue for defamation against Amber Heard in the United States.
	I said it's not necessarily something I would recommend, or at the very least, it would come with a lot of caveats.
	It would come with a cover-my-butt disclaimer.
	Mr. Depp, Viva Frye, as your attorney, has warned you of all of the risks and perils.
	You think that this is going to be your day in court.
	You're going to tell your story.
	People are going to rejoice in your victimhood.
	Johnny, you've lived a very wild life.
	Which means that you have some ups and some downs and you have some behavior that will become public that the general public might have certain moral qualms with.
	You might have some very bad behavior in your more difficult times which is going to become public and which may not be received by the public the way you think it's going to be received if you have even appreciated that it is in fact going to become public.
	So that's where I started off with this.
	Depp sued the son.
	In the UK for defamation, because they alluded to the fact that he was a domestic abuser.
	They used a word, which I'm not sure that I want to use, but they...
	Dog's having a...
	The dog is growling under my chair.
	They used a word to describe him as a domestic abuser.
	He sued in the UK and lost.
	And after losing on the defamation case against the Sun in the UK, came back to the States and is suing Amber Heard.
	They've had a wild life.
	They've had drug-induced episodes, which some people might say are immoral, reckless, violent, whatever.
	He's suing Amber Heard for defamation because she made several public statements also suggesting that she was the victim of domestic abuse.
	The necessary implication is at the literal hands of Johnny Depp.
	Johnny Depp lost gigs.
	I think he lost one of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, prequels, whatever.
	Tens of millions of dollars.
	$50 million I think he's suing for.
	She's counterclaiming for $100 million.
	That's the context.
	My overall impression was that I think he might lose the suit, and in losing it, might actually confirm some of the statements or some of the...
	What's the word?
	Not aspirations.
	Aspersions.
	Some of the aspersions that Amber Heard cast on him.
	You know, the good and the bad is going to come out in testimony, and Johnny Depp is going to have to admit to certain things, or it's going to come out that he's done bad things.
	That was my perspective.
	So maybe I'm looking through this trial, the first three days of testimony, with that perspective in mind.
	One of the smart, one of the many smart things my dad has always said is when you're looking for your golf ball in the forest, because that's typically where I used to end up, anything white will catch your eye.
	You're going to be looking for anything white.
	So everything that's a speck of white, you say, oh, my golf ball, my golf ball.
	And in that sense, I'm looking at this trial, possibly looking for indications to confirm my foregone prediction that Johnny Depp should not have filed suit.
	And so anything that's white, I'm looking at like a golf ball.
	So any bad element that comes up is like, look, I told you that was going to come up.
	This is why I don't think you should have sued.
	So that's it.
	Now they've had a few witnesses.
	They've had Amber Heard's personal assistant who came off as, Tremendously against Amber Heard and quite biased towards Johnny Depp.
	Who else did we have?
	The sister.
	I think I missed her testimony.
	The couples therapist.
	I caught that testimony.
	And then there was that other witness who got interrupted mid-testimony because the court somehow determined that she was watching clips of testimony.
	And that's a no-no.
	In court, in trials, witnesses are excluded during testimony.
	So that one witness does not get influenced or craft their testimony around testimony already given by another.
	And so they're excluded.
	They're not supposed to watch the testimony until they're called.
	After they've testified, they can stay in court.
	Typically, you ask for specific exclusion of witnesses, although it's known.
	Apparently, this witness was watching clips online, and the rumor has it that she might have stumbled across Illegal Bites, an Alita clip, and the lawyers found out.
	Called a sidebar, asked the judge.
	The judge asked outright, witness, have you been watching clips of the trial?
	And the witness said, yes.
	And the judge said, gone.
	And your testimony up until now is struck.
	So that's it.
	I don't think that's devastating for Johnny Depp.
	I don't think that's, that's neither here nor there.
	And I don't think the impact is going to be meaningful, but it's just, it's funny to watch in real time.
	Where I think the juxtaposition of two testimonial testimonies.
	Confirms my foregone conclusion.
	Listening to Amber Heard's assistant talk about how bad Amber Heard was and how angelic Johnny Depp was.
	Never raised his voice.
	Never violent.
	Never saw anything remotely aggressive, inappropriate, under the influence, whatever.
	Knowing that that's probably factually incorrect, having a witness lay that foundation only for a subsequent witness who's much more professional, reputable.
	I can say it that way.
	To come and contradict it is going to be a problem.
	And so my lips are certainly flapping.
	You came for the flapping.
	The witness saying Johnny Depp is an angel.
	Never saw anything bad from him.
	He entertained my child.
	He dressed up like the guy from Pirates of the Caribbean.
	Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates.
	No, not Captain Jack Sparrow.
	Yeah, Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean.
	He's an angel.
	And then you have the couples therapist come and say, They came to see me because they were having conflict.
	At some point, I saw bruises on Amber Heard, but I didn't know how they got there.
	I didn't have any firsthand evidence of any violence.
	But at one point, in discussing the conflict between the couple, Johnny Depp said, quote, she got as good as she gave.
	And now you have two juxtaposing testimonies that don't make Johnny Depp look good.
	And this is the risk that I saw.
	It's the obvious risk in this trial from the beginning.
	And I think it's only going to get worse, but it's going to get worse for both parties.
	The only problem is it's Johnny Depp's lawsuit to win.
	So if they both look ugly, Johnny Depp doesn't necessarily win in court.
	Whether or not he wins in the court of public opinion, and people realize that this Amber person is a pathological liar, abusive herself, disgusting, despicable person, and she wrongly blamed Johnny for some of the worst stuff?
	Johnny might be rehabilitated on a professional front, even if he loses on the court front.
	So...
	I'm getting facts wrong?
	Okay, maybe.
	I don't think I am, but if I am, please let me know.
	And if the facts are material, let me know.
	So...
	There's a lot of people who are...
	Okay.
	I'm within my rights to be wrong, people.
	It'll happen.
	It will happen, and if you came for...
	If you came for, what's the word when you can never be wrong?
	You came to the wrong place, and I don't know where you're going in this world, but the open-fisted hit means a slap.
	How can he slap?
	Anyway, so that was my impression.
	Whether or not this turns out to be good for the career or rehabilitating for the career, that might be the victory that Johnny Depp wanted, and that might justify the suit, even if it's a suit that I still think is going to be difficult to win, given what's going to come out.
	We'll see.
	That's my impression.
	If you don't like my point of view on this, that is within your rights.
	And if someone else has...
	Infallibility is what I'm looking for.
	If someone else comes up with a more accurate prediction, that might be someone who you might want to rely on more for this type of material.
	It's your show, so be wrong or right.
	Look, I'm open.
	This is what I'm thinking right now.
	I've made mistakes on facts.
	I will happily recognize it and reassess.
	But thus far, I watched the couples therapist talk about what both of them relayed to her in therapy.
	And I think it's going to get worse a little bit in terms of Johnny Depp's things that might have been done in the heat of conflict.
	Does that make what Amber Heard said sufficiently true?
	Or not defamatory.
	It might be one of those situations where the jury is going to judge based on their disdain for Amber, potentially.
	We'll see.
	Okay, so that's my impression of the first week.
	We haven't had the bombshell testimony.
	When Amber Heard gets on the stand, that's going to be the bombshell testimony.
	And here's my prediction, people.
	We'll see if it comes true.
	Amber Heard is going to cry on the stand, undoubtedly.
	That's not the big prediction.
	I do believe she is going to get triggered into anger or rage on the stand.
	Because I foresee that happening.
	I see her demeanor in court.
	I know what I think of Amber Heard.
	And I do think she's definitely going to cry on the stand.
	But that type of volatility swings both ways.
	And I think...
	The tears might be more to garner sympathy, and the outburst of rage, which I anticipate is going to happen, is going to be because she expects to be believed, and she will not take kindly to being questioned, and certainly not having her face rubbed in some of the things that will become revealed she, in fact, did in the context of this trial.
	So that's my prediction.
	Clip it.
	28 minutes in.
	We'll see if it comes to fruition.
	We'll continue watching.
	I'm going to bounce between Alita's Legal Bytes coverage and Rakata's.
	And maybe, during Amber Heard's testimony, live stream it myself.
	We'll see.
	So that's it.
	But I am getting bored of the Johnny Depp story.
	I think it's just a sad story.
	It's just...
	But it's...
	I mean, it's entertainment.
	It's entertainment in the courtroom.
	And if nothing else, people are going to learn about law from this, the same way they learned about law from what I think was the wrongful prosecution.
	Okay.
	I always look for your opinion and the facts that you provide specifically because you acknowledge your wrongs where other people brush it off.
	I don't like being wrong because the problem, if you're wrong, people might think you were wrong deliberately.
	And if you do not correct an accidental wrong, the question is then, does it become deliberate?
	The wrong itself was accidental, but the failure to correct is deliberate.
	To the extent you become aware of the fact that it was factually wrong.
	Like the time Legal Eagle in his video said, Oh, what was his name?
	Rafikian.
	Convicted.
	Michael Flynn's convicted Rafikian business partner.
	Without specifying that the conviction was overturned by the judge.
	This was before it was reinstated by the Court of Appeal, before it was re-suspended and sent back for new trial.
	But, you know, partial facts can be a mistake.
	The failure to correct a material factual inaccuracy, once it's brought to the person's attention, and it's bona fide, not a question of opinion.
	Then, arguably, the failure to correct becomes deliberate.
	CNN, Brian Stelter, I'm looking at you.
	And I saw another super chat, but before that, I see some strawmanning in the argument.
	Viva Frye thinks women are always the victim.
	I think that's quite literally the opposite of what I'm saying, unless that's sarcasm, but I do like your avatar, Sonny Crockett, Miami Vice.
	That was the best television show for a long time.
	Viva is real.
	Aren't we all?
	Gen X has grown up aware of JD's struggles with D, drug abuse, and his immature ability to destroy hotel rooms because he could afford to.
	And JD acknowledges all of it.
	Like him or not, no one deserves to have an AH destroy them with lies.
	I agree.
	And especially, like, not to bring up mutual combat.
	But if it is, you know, the argument was made, it's a compelling argument from the other attorneys on the panel.
	If it's both giving and getting in the context of fights that one might be initiating, aggression that one might be initiating, that's one thing.
	But then to come out and depict it as entirely one way to steal the valor, I mean, to steal the victimhood of bona fide victims.
	That's where it becomes a big problem on both ends of it.
	And the reality is, if Amber Heard turns out to be the pathological liar that many people think she is, it's going to do damage to the movement where other people who are bona fide genuine victims, you know, when someone lies about it, it affects all victims because it makes it harder for victims to come out in the future, and it makes people more reluctant to believe the victimhood in the future.
	You can't fool me.
	It's turtles all the way down.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'll go see what the results of that poll were.
	What were the results of the poll?
	Uh-oh.
	That's me again.
	I don't want to hear that.
	All right.
	It was 77% to 23% who wanted to hear the update on Johnny Depp.
	Done with that.
	Okay.
	The painter dude has been the highlight so far.
	Okay.
	I think I missed something there.
	Let's just get to some other non-super chats before we go to the next subject.
	I am hounding the NDP party where I live.
	I hope you mean politically and not in any malicious or allegedly potentially unlawful manner.
	The NDP deserves political retribution for their backstabbery of Canadian citizens.
	Perfect segue.
	Thank you very much, Sandy MC.
	The backstabbery.
	I like that.
	I like that.
	I like that word.
	Let's just go see what...
	What?
	Our dear friend...
	The Jagmeet Singh.
	And by the way, I realize now I've been pronouncing his name wrong.
	It is Jagmeet Singh.
	And I will probably continue to accidentally mispronounce it or as Barron says, mispronunciated.
	It's not a question of being deliberately antagonistic or disrespectful.
	I grew up with Jagmeet and I only recently realized it was pronounced Jagmeet.
	I actually thought people pronouncing it that way were making fun of his name when I first heard that.
	But setting all that aside, I'm not sharing the window yet.
	That's why nobody can see anything.
	We're going to...
	Oh, no.
	I am sharing the window.
	That's why I see it twice.
	All right.
	Don't pay attention to the response yet.
	We've got to go to Jugmeet's virtue signaling tweet.
	Canadians...
	I hear it.
	I hear the soft violin music that he would put into this if it were in a campaign commercial.
	Sorry, that's not the right one.
	That's not the right one.
	That is the right one.
	Dude, get your stuff.
	Producer!
	Get that producer in here.
	Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.
	This is like when you have those fundraising ads on television.
	Corporate greed is out of control.
	When prices go up, someone is getting rich.
	Remember that.
	When prices go up, someone is getting rich.
	And it isn't workers or your family.
	Thanks for reminding us, Jugmeet.
	Someone's getting rich, and it ain't you.
	It ain't you.
	Because you're not in the club, sir.
	Corporations are making billions while the average household is paying $5,807 more in goods.
	Let me see.
	I did respond directly to this tweet.
	Let me see if I can see how far down I get demoted.
	This is in...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	This is in incognito.
	And I've noticed that I've been getting downgraded in my responses.
	My tweet will be...
	My response will be right up there for the first little while.
	And with Jagmeet and what's-his-face?
	Trudeau.
	There you go.
	How is my tweet, which my response to his tweet, which has 38 retweets, how is it this far down in the thread?
	You tell me that they're not deliberately suppressing certain, or shadow banning, I don't know what the word is.
	How is my response to Jagmeet's tweet, which has 38 retweets?
	This far down the ladder for people to see.
	But let's get there.
	Oh, I said, I hope you enjoyed your $5,000 pay raise on April 1st.
	This is not a joke.
	While Canadians are paying $5,000 more in goods, it's good to be king, Jagmeet.
	I'll get you to the article in a second.
	But just remember what he said and how insult.
	When prices go up, someone's getting rich.
	They got their pay raise, and when prices go up, you pay more in taxes just because 15%.
	Which is what we pay in Quebec.
	That includes provincial and federal sales tax.
	When prices go up, taxes go up, and someone is getting rich, and it's the government, among others.
	Someone's getting rich, and it ain't your family, but I'll take my $5,000 pay raise to the bank while you guys have been under two and a half years of lockdown and government suppression, crippling government measures.
	And then I linked to that article.
	Where is the article?
	Someone's getting rich and it ain't you.
	And they're like, there's no shame.
	They have no shame about it.
	Let me just go pull up the article because their defense is, it's an automatic pay raise.
	We can't do anything about it.
	Where's the roughly one-third of cabinet ministers?
	Is this the article?
	Yeah, I think this is the article.
	Their defense, it's an automatic pay raise.
	There's nothing they can do about it.
	Don't want to give them ads.
	It says roughly one-third of Liberal cabinet ministers...
	Oh, sorry.
	No, that's not the right one.
	That's just what they're doing with their wealth.
	Hold on one second.
	Sorry, that was the wrong article.
	Stop screen.
	That wasn't the article about the pay raise.
	That was an article about what they're doing with their pay raise.
	Where is the article?
	I believe this is it.
	Okay.
	Just everybody should know.
	This is from Taxpayers.
	I don't know what the website is.
	I couldn't find any other website that was...
	I'm not sure how big a story this was for the other people who are getting rich, despite everything the media with their $600 million bailout.
	I'm not sure how much they're going to focus on this rather embarrassing story for our MPs.
	Taxpayers Federation slams April 1 MP pay hike.
	And this is from...
	Oh, this is the last year.
	Whatever.
	It's the same.
	It's the same raise this year.
	It was $5,000 January, February, March of last year.
	I'll get the one from this year.
	And they got a pay raise on April 1st.
	And it was like almost the joke as to how much it was.
	But anyway, this is from last year.
	So last year they got $5,000, give or take.
	I should get the article from this here.
	Anyhow.
	Okay.
	But it's an automatic pay raise, so there's nothing they can do.
	They can't stop it.
	They can't put it on pause.
	I mean, they can shut your business down.
	They can make you live off a government stipend, but they can't stop their own massive pay raise.
	But let's just see what the roughly one-third of Liberal cabinet ministers do with their money.
	It seems they own rental and investment real estate records.
	Roughly one-third...
	No, thanks.
	Roughly one-third of ministers sitting around the Liberal Cabinet table own rental or investment real estate assets, according to their filings with the Federal Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
	While fully legal, real estate experts say the holdings reflect the degree to which Canadians increasingly view real estate as a financial asset rather than a place to live.
	By the way, this is the same government that's talking about why housing is so expensive in Canada.
	Can you imagine these?
	Flagrant hypocrites.
	They own rentals and they own investment properties at the same time that they're, you know, running around on a campaign platform that housing costs too much in Canada.
	We've got to find a solution to it.
	It also comes as recent data from Canadian financial institutions has demonstrated the growing role of investors in fueling price growth.
	A trend, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Christopher Phelan billed this week as an issue of Intergenerational injustice.
	Quote, one of the many things that I am most concerned about as someone who, it shocks me to say this, is 53 years old, is the intergenerational injustice, Freeland told the board.
	Oh my goodness.
	We had a better shot at buying a home and starting a family young than young people today.
	And we cannot have a Canada where the rising generation is shut out of the dream of homeownership.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Do I continue reading this?
	No, let's forget about it.
	Here, I'll put it in the chat.
	It's the ultimate slap in your face.
	It's good to be king.
	It's good to be king.
	And when prices go up, someone's getting rich.
	And by the way, I know you can't afford property, but that's exactly what those wealthy MPs who just got their pay raise are investing in.
	While running on a platform of lowering housing costs because they're so concerned with intergenerational injustice that they continue to give themselves raises, they continue to invest in rental properties, thus driving up the price, and people still vote for them.
	People still vote for them, and they still get re-elected.
	Do they seriously act like us young gents can't buy a house?
	You can just work for it.
	Yeah, true.
	If you can continue to work.
	If they don't shut your business down.
	If they don't make it so darn impossible to actually run a business because of these COVID protocols.
	I still have had a few clients.
	One of which worked in the restaurant business.
	A very, very fancy restaurant.
	I know what they...
	Pull up plexiglass.
	Invest tens of thousands of dollars so that we can let you open your business.
	We're shutting you down December 31st, New Year's Day.
	Yeah, no, no.
	Opportunity to work needs to be there in order for people to be able to work for homeownership.
	But when they literally tell you you can't work or they make it so darn impossible to work, we're the only people who can actually succeed in this market, big tech or people with government connections.
	Ah, yeah.
	So that's it.
	That was my Jagmeet Singh coming out.
	When prices go up, someone's getting rich and it ain't you.
	And let me just go cash my pay raise.
	Let me just go invest in some real estate.
	Let me just go refresh my profile on the WEF website.
	Yeah.
	And let me just go collect more taxes.
	That people are paying as property value goes up, as inflation goes up.
	When inflation goes up, so do taxes.
	That you pay on those goods that go straight to the government that they then use to give themselves raises.
	Shocking, depressing, insulting, and par for the course when it comes to liberal politics.
	My wife says she just saw my tweet now, not my tweet, my message, and was unable to procure me a Red Bull.
	Yesterday when I did the stream, I made a cup of coffee and it was so bad, it made me angry.
	I took one sip of it and all I had as a taste in my mouth was bad coffee for two hours and I didn't drink the coffee and I didn't get the energy boost that I thought I needed in the afternoon.
	And then I had an amazing interview with Chris Phillips and then my brother.
	It was amazing.
	Some of us do not have credit, so we cannot buy a house and our wages are way too low.
	We are the average worker.
	Salaries are under $2,000 a month.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	When I was in Florida for the 72 hours and I was talking to someone who mentioned they were looking to buy a home, but the homes are just too damn expensive in Florida as well.
	And I think that's for a different reason than in Canada.
	I think it's probably for a healthier reason than in Canada.
	But the person told me they're paying rent now.
	And their rent, and this is shocking.
	I mean, it's shocking.
	For me, as a Canadian, their rent was $2,700 US a month.
	And there's no getting that money back at the end of the day.
	At least if you're paying $2,700 on a mortgage after you've paid the interest, in theory, you get the capital back if the house increases in value, if you take good care of it and you sell it.
	Rental burnt.
	$2,700 a month.
	That's more than a quarter of a person's salary, an average salary.
	And you're expected to be able to buy a house when they're increasing.
	I forget what the requirements are now for a down payment for a deposit on the house.
	And then the interest rates are going up.
	How are people going to afford houses?
	And you know what?
	It's not going to drive the prices down.
	My prediction is increased interest rates are just going to make it harder for the people who already don't have the means to buy a house to buy a house.
	It's not going to make it harder for the people who have the means to buy, to buy up, and then to rent out.
	To the suckers who are going to pay $3,000 a month in rent and never own a damn thing.
	Thank you, Sharon.
	Thank you.
	Have you seen the NIH discourse about IV?
	Now I understand what you meant by that.
	Sorry.
	I'm so dense sometimes.
	I have not seen it.
	I'm going to look into it.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	Rent is too damn high.
	No, but it's what happens when money loses value.
	Just keep printing money, keep printing money, keep giving out, you know, keep printing out money, and then it stops having value.
	And then, you know, when it stops having value, everything has to go up.
	But, you know, the government can keep paying you $2,000 a month on which you have to pay tax people.
	Bear that in mind.
	And so, okay, so good.
	20% down payment or you could pay a regulatory fee.
	20%.
	20%.
	Just assume a modest condo, $300,000.
	It's $60,000.
	Who's got $60,000?
	Not everybody has $60,000 cash lying around.
	That you have to put down as a deposit so that you can afford the mortgage on the $240,000.
	And the mortgage on the $240,000 is now going to be...
	Interest rates, when we were locked in, was like 1.5%, 1.4%.
	Now it's 2.5%.
	In the States, it's 3.5%, maybe 4.5%, depending on your credit.
	You're going to pay 4.5% annually on $240,000 after you've put down a down payment of $60,000 on a $300,000 condo.
	That's assuming you can even find a condo for $300,000, which you can't.
	Yep, but when prices go up, somebody's making a lot of money.
	Anyhow, it is 100,000 for 20% in Ottawa.
	Okay, I'm not sure what that means.
	I didn't know you have to pay tax on a no-fault insurance claim.
	I don't know that that's the truth.
	I don't know if that's true in all jurisdictions.
	No legal advice.
	Anyhow, so that's what's going on with that article with Jagmeet Singh.
	The virtue signaling, it's enough to make you want to puke.
	If anybody knows what movie that's from.
	Oh, God.
	Let's see who gets it first.
	I'm going to buy you a ring so big it's going to make you puke.
	Who's going to get it?
	Hold on.
	Who's going to get this?
	It's from a movie.
	It's from a movie that I consider to be a perfect movie.
	Okay, let's just see if anyone gets it.
	Someone says Jack Russell.
	The smartest dog on earth can actually type.
	The Jerk.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Dan Plemek.
	And I know what that name means.
	It is from The Jerk.
	It is Steve Martin.
	No, I see it's not from Rocky, although I can appreciate how someone might have thought it was Sylvester Stallone the way I said it.
	Not dumb and dumber.
	Definitely not good, fellas.
	Not my cousin Vinny.
	Anyways, it's from The Jerk.
	It's when Steve Martin is talking about his wife and then she says, I don't want to puke.
	I just want...
	The Jerk is a perfect movie.
	It is, in my mind, the best movie ever made.
	It's controversial to say that.
	It was happy.
	It was a movie that unified people.
	It was hilarious.
	It has stood the test of time.
	And even the music, even the music in that 70s issue, I think it's maybe early 80s, the music has not gotten tacky old.
	The next perfect movie is Princess Bride.
	Goodfellas is amazing, but I still find it scary to watch these days.
	Goodfellas is like a horror movie of humanity.
	It's what people do that make you fear other humans.
	He doesn't like the cans.
	Stay away from these cans.
	Okay, so that's that article.
	Let's see what else we got.
	Oh, we got to get to the Elon Musk.
	And we're going to end this stream probably around 1.30, an hour and a half, 3.30, so I can go biking or jogging.
	Lila, can you close that door?
	The studio has been infiltrated.
	Don't worry.
	The studio has been infiltrated, people.
	Let's just go to this.
	Let me just go to this.
	Yeah, let's go to Fauci.
	What's it called?
	The food that you eat that cleanses the palate in between meals?
	That's why they give you sorbet and stuff.
	Except it's the exact opposite.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me just bring this out and bring this up here.
	There's only...
	Okay, fine.
	I thought it was going to go to violence and then I was going to take it down.
	There's only one way out of this.
	Decrease taxes and stop printing money.
	When a system is corrupted, you need to starve what the corruption thrives on.
	I agree with that.
	The variation would be you've got to downsize government.
	You've got to not deregulate certain things that need regulation.
	You've got to get the government out of the private lives of business, small business, and...
	Everyday citizens.
	The government machine is a fat, bloated pig.
	It is a fat, bloated pig, and it is a fat, bloated system.
	And it needs to be downsized, but how?
	The only problem is, and this is how the government keeps its claws in, the bigger the system, the more politically, not controversial, but the more politically unpopular it is.
	For unions, for government employees to say, you guys got to quit sucking off the teat of the citizens and go get private sector jobs which are based on merit and productivity, not off administrative bureaucracy.
	And you don't get their vote for doing that.
	There's a reason why Maxime Bernier lost his riding in Quebec.
	When you talk about revamping the equalization payment system, it's not going to be very popular in Quebec, which...
	Sucks at the proverbial teat of the equalization system a lot more than the other provinces.
	So, yeah, I tend to agree.
	Anyways, add to stream.
	The Fauci.
	The Fauci gazey.
	Let's see what he has to say.
	How concerning is the outbreak in China?
	We see the lockdown in Shanghai and the State Department now ordering families out, all non-essential workers, out of Shanghai.
	Well, China has a number of problems, two of which are that their complete lockdown, which was their approach, a strictest lockdown that you'd never be able to implement in the United States, although that prevents the spread of infection.
	And remember, early on, they were saying, and I think accurately, that they were doing better than almost anybody else.
	But lockdown has its consequences.
	You use lockdowns.
	To get people vaccinated so that when you open up, you won't have a surge of infections because you're dealing with an immunologically naive population to the virus because they've not really been exposed because of the lockdown.
	The problem is that the vaccines that they've been using are not nearly as effective as the vaccines that are used in the United States, the UK, EU and other places.
	To get people vaccinated so that they were doing better than almost anybody else.
	But lockdown has its consequences.
	You use lockdowns to get people vaccinated.
	You use lockdowns to get people vaccinated.
	And by the way, I'll get to whether or not he misspoke.
	It's not the first time this carrot and stick had been floated.
	I forget which doctor it was earlier that said, if you open up, there's going to be no incentive for people to get vaccinated.
	This was the doctor.
	She was the doctor on CNN.
	If you open up, if you let people go back to work, where is the coercion to compel them to get vaccinated?
	So anybody, and I'll get to people who think that Fauci misspoke.
	He didn't.
	He did not misspeak.
	But lockdown has its consequences.
	You use lockdowns to get people vaccinated so that when you open up, you won't have a surge of infections.
	So I just said, in my mind, in my view, in my humble opinion, this is not a legal opinion, it's mine.
	What Fauci, and I didn't actually type his name, I didn't make the typo on purpose, but it actually, it kind of looks good because it...
	It's a fitting typo.
	What Fauci just admitted as policy is criminal extortion.
	Can you imagine this saying, we're going to lock you in your home until you submit to a medical procedure?
	It is criminal extortion.
	It's arguably battery.
	And it is what they're doing.
	It was not a typo.
	It was not a misspeak.
	But I just want to bring...
	There was one response that I remember what it said.
	I might not be able to find it, but show more replies.
	It was one person who said, it accused me of a disingenuous take.
	Hmm.
	This may come as a shock to you, but no, it's not criminal extortion.
	Hmm.
	You know what?
	I can't find the actual.
	Let's just go here.
	Criminal Extortion Canada.
	Let's go to Criminal Extortion Canada.
	Criminal code.
	Here we go.
	Extortion.
	Everyone commits extortion.
	Listen to this.
	We'll agree to disagree for anyone who thinks that this might not be.
	And it's intended to be slightly hyperbolic until you actually know what the definition of extortion is.
	Everyone commits extortion who, without reasonable justification, Now, I don't think it would pass in a court of law.
	That might be for other reasons, but let's just read that again.
	Extortion.
	Everyone commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces, or violence, induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused, or menaced, or to whom violence is shown to do anything or cause anything to be done.
	I think the definition fits quite clearly.
	You're going into lockdown unless you do something to your body.
	I think without reasonable justification.
	I don't think there's a reasonable justification for a curfew or for locking people in their homes or for shutting them out of their businesses.
	And it is without justification or excuse and with the intent to obtain anything.
	Hold on.
	Let's just go do something else.
	Let's do another poll.
	How do we do this?
	I go create a poll.
	Does it qualify as extortion?
	Yes.
	And turtles?
	Furtlers?
	No.
	And turtlers.
	I'm doing the typo.
	Ask your community.
	Let's see.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	It may surprise me.
	It's a pretty close call based on that definition of criminal extortion.
	Okay.
	That was Fauci.
	Would it be possible treason if the PM signed a treaty that took away or limited our Bill of Rights?
	Treason?
	I don't think so.
	Treason, I think you have to be in a time of war, declared war.
	That word gets thrown around more often than it should.
	Do you believe that the story of Exodus is actually true?
	Looking into it, it never happened.
	We have thousands of years of Egyptian history thoughts.
	I don't know.
	I'm not a person to say.
	I went to Egypt once upon a time, saw the pyramids.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what to believe anymore.
	You don't even know what happened last week, let alone 3,000 years ago before documentation.
	But I had never thought to question the occurrence, but maybe perhaps the accuracy or the hyperbole of what happens to stories as they get passed from one generation to the next.
	Hold on, I'm going to cough.
	Let the jokes begin.
	I did flag one comment that I want to bring up.
	Can we see this?
	Yeah.
	Wow, naive to think you advance in private sector due to merit and productivity.
	LMAO must never have worked for a corporation.
	So JustJC, again, I don't know if this is a troll or not, but I'll assume that this is a legit, like a sincere question.
	I didn't say that individuals succeed in the private sector due to merit.
	What I said is that the private sector as a product Thrives on merit.
	So an individual within a company might not make its way to the top based on the merit of that individual, but the company, if it's a crap company, will probably go BK sooner than later.
	I meant the company succeeds on merit.
	Not necessarily every individual gets what they deserve within that company.
	And to the other question, must never have worked for a corporation.
	I, as a matter of fact, worked for Borden Ladner Gervais for six years.
	Biggest law firm in Canada.
	I worked for Martin Swiss Cycles, where I sold bikes and did maintenance.
	I worked for Sports Expert, where I sold shoes.
	These are all summer jobs.
	I worked for Black's Camping, for anybody who remembers that blast from the past in Montreal.
	I worked for another bike shop, La Cordée.
	I worked as a rock climbing instructor at a program that I developed at the Y Country Camp.
	I worked for Lester's Smoked Meat one summer.
	Packing smoked meat.
	I worked for a fabric company one summer, Rolling Fabric.
	I had the 3 to 11 o 'clock shift and occasionally had the 11 to 7 shift.
	So yeah, I've worked for big corporations and I've also started my own small law firm, which we worked up to five or six lawyers and a paralegal.
	And so I know what goes into starting a small business and the pain in the neck that comes along with all of the red tape for operating a business within Quebec and Canada.
	So yeah.
	Just JC, I hope that answers your question.
	Okay, I saw that already.
	So, one more here.
	No, I got that one too.
	When you are being called a criminal by a criminal, what do you do?
	But the bigger question is this.
	When one criminal says another individual is a criminal, what do you do then?
	When one authoritarian dictator calls another authoritarian dictator an authoritarian dictator, which authoritarian dictator do you believe?
	Okay.
	Working against your country's interests is treason.
	Anyhow, I stay away from that particular accusation, but I understand the sentiment.
	Okay, let me just go down here.
	What did I get?
	Truth is true, regardless.
	I agree.
	I'm not reading your avatar name.
	My goodness, this is...
	Children watch this show.
	Okay, let's get to Elon Musk and then we'll do some questions afterwards.
	Stop screen share unless...
	So the story of the week, and it's taking twists and turns.
	Elon Musk acquires a 9.1, 9.2% shareholding interest, common voting shares, in Twitter.
	Price rockets.
	This will be a material fact coming to a lawsuit that has since been initiated.
	Or at least filed a waiting class certification.
	The other story that became the big story.
	Elon Musk was offered a position on the board of directors by Parag.
	I don't know his last name.
	No disrespect intended.
	Big shocking stuff.
	Elon's going to be on the board of directors.
	I did some 30,000 foot overviews of shareholding, what that means, being a director, what that means.
	It's only to understand.
	It's not to say you have a law degree.
	Those are the big stories.
	Then Elon declines the offer to be a director of the company.
	And through SEC filings, it becomes known that Elon has made an offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the company and take it private.
	Big news.
	He's going to buy all the shares.
	I think it was, whatever, for $61 billion or $43 billion.
	Tens of billions of dollars.
	And take it private because he says in the filing, which I went over, was it yesterday already or the day before?
	You know, I'm not going to be able to affect the change I thought I was going to be able to affect as a shareholder.
	I don't think it can be done with the current administration.
	I believe that to affect the change I wanted to affect as a shareholder, which I think now I won't be able to do, I need to acquire the company.
	Thus, as required by law, I am stating my intention to acquire the company through, I think it was an all-cash acquisition, subject to terms.
	The Saudi prince, who owns a substantial portion as well of the shares of the company, said, not enough money.
	And that was the big story of the week.
	Then the bigger story was that, well, I think it's the bigger story, is that Elon Musk is getting sued.
	Apparently, he failed, neglected, as the lawsuit alleges, willingly did not disclose, as required by the SEC, to publicly disclose once he had acquired 5% shareholding of the company.
	And you may remember this threshold.
	This is not...
	I don't know where this is from, but it's just basic corporate law stuffs.
	I briefly explained that...
	Securities and Exchange Commission, it imposes certain disclosure obligations depending on your shareholding portion.
	Once you reach 5%, you have to file certain filings.
	Once you reach 10%, you're deemed, I think, not to be an insider, but you have to file additional filings.
	There's additional restrictions on the type of transactions you can engage in.
	And so that's why I said Elon stayed deliberately under the 10%, but he exceeded the 5%.
	One of the filings, it seems that he failed to file.
	Which was the disclosure of having acquired 5% or more common shares in the company.
	This is from Investment Fund Law Blog.
	Take it for what it's worth, and I know nothing about it.
	Acquiring more than 5% of a publicly traded company, Section 13D of the 1934 Act and Regulation 13D, they're under require beneficial owners of more than 5% of a class of equity securities of a publicly traded company to file a report with the SEC.
	For purposes of calculating the percentage of the shares held, A fund manager will generally be deemed the beneficial owner of the shares held by its clients, as well as any shares held by its proprietary account.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	So we don't need to get into it because it's boring.
	It's boring garbage.
	But there were thresholds to meet.
	Apparently, he didn't meet the threshold.
	Why might this be important?
	Well, if Elon Musk had disclosed that he had acquired 5% of the shares of the company, what do you think it would have done to the price of the shares?
	What do you think it would have done for faith in the company for people who currently held shares?
	Hypothetically, if you were to own shares in Twitter and you find out that Elon Musk owns 5% of the company, would you feel better or worse about your investment?
	Do you think that your investment would go up or down based on that information?
	I mean, it's an obvious answer because of the whole reason why it was shocking, encouraging, you know, if you were on the left side of the aisle, terrifying.
	That an individual billionaire acquired such a large portion of a public company.
	It was big news precisely because of the amount of the shareholding that Elon Musk acquired.
	So shocking between 9.1%, the more, the more important.
	So the more the shareholding, the more important the news because of the more of the influence it gives the shareholder.
	So what's true at 9.2%, let's just say it's half as true, but nonetheless true at 5%.
	So if you were holding the shares, When Elon Musk, as a matter of fact, in fact, held 5% but didn't disclose it, but you didn't know that and you sold it, would you have sold it had you known that?
	Probably not.
	You might have actually bought more.
	So there's a class action lawsuit that's been filed on the basis that...
	I know I have it.
	I'll just pull up an article from Reuters first so we can get the 10,000-foot overview, and then we'll skim through the lawsuit itself.
	Let me just see if there's anything relevant in the chat that's going to help.
	43. Okay.
	So the article is, Elon Musk is sued by shareholders over delay in disclosing Twitter stake.
	And by the way, I'm not faulting.
	I'm not saying this is malicious or whatever.
	I actually think there's probably going to be a lot of robust defenses because presumably Elon Musk is buying this through brokers, through institutions, through professionals who are supposed to be keeping track of these things.
	And therefore, you know, there might be some reliance, professional reliance defenses that Elon Musk will be able to avail himself to.
	This is from Reuters.
	Elon Musk was sued on Tuesday by former Twitter Inc.
	shareholders, a former because they sold their shares, who claimed they missed out on the recent run-up in its stock price because he waited too long to disclose his 9.2% stake interest in the company.
	In the proposed class action, Filed in Manhattan federal court.
	I wonder if it's the...
	Is Manhattan the southern district?
	We'll see.
	The shareholder said Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, made, quote, materially false and misleading statements and omissions by failing to reveal he had invested in Twitter by March 24 as required under federal law.
	So this is the damages, you know, the price went up.
	What happened?
	Twitter shares rose.
	20% on April 4, when he publicly announced it.
	2.49 from 39, after Musk disclosed his stake, which investors viewed as a vote of confidence from the world's richest person.
	Okay, the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
	I actually reached out to the law firm.
	I found their, what's the word, public statement, or their publication.
	What's it called when you publish the thing that notifies the people?
	Press release.
	They're press release.
	Let's just briefly skim through the lawsuit.
	There it is.
	Someone told me how to do this yesterday.
	Click on that to get rid of it.
	Good.
	Good.
	I'm going to make it big.
	That's not big.
	Oh, that's too big.
	Okay, here we go.
	United States...
	Oh, so this is Southern District of New York.
	United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
	Mark Bain Resella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff versus Elon R. Musk.
	Plaintiff Mark, I won't highlight it.
	Plaintiff Mark Resella, by and through his attorneys, alleges upon personal knowledge as to his own acts and upon information and belief as to all other matters, based upon the investigation conducted by and through his attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of documents filed by defendant Elon Musk.
	with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
	News reports and other public...
	Okay, fine, whatever.
	Let's just get to some important stuff.
	So the same pursuant to the rules, what he was required to do, Musk was required to file a Schedule 13 with SEC within 10 days of passing 5%.
	So here's the interesting thing.
	It's going to be within 10 days of passing 5%.
	In law, or for anyone who's done this, there is a clearing period where you own the shares, but you can't...
	Where you buy the shares and then the transaction itself has to close.
	So is the 10 days starting from the close of the purchase or from the date of the purchase?
	I don't know.
	Questions I would ask.
	But I presume that this law firm is not filing a lawsuit that can be defeated quite so easily on technicalities.
	So let's just take for granted.
	He failed to file within the time frame.
	I don't know if there's a grace period because...
	He had to file it, apparently, by March 24, and he didn't declare it until April 4. So that's, what, two weeks, give or take.
	A little other two weeks, 10 days.
	When Musk finally filed the required Schedule 13, thereby revealing his ownership stake in Twitter, the company's shares rose from a closing price of $39 on April 1 to $49 per share on April 4, an increase of approximately 27%.
	So that's it.
	Jurisdiction and venue.
	Parties, it doesn't matter.
	Substantive allegations.
	Let's just get to...
	Oh, well, it's interesting.
	Why he might have delayed notifying.
	This is where it could get a little sketchy for Musk.
	Because in as much as it would be predictable that once he declares that he owns 5% of the company, the price goes up.
	Well, if he wants to acquire up to 9.1% after that, his price to do so goes up.
	Whether or not that would be the determinant factor for Elon, who's worth however many billions of dollars, what would have been the net?
	Difference on his purchase.
	I think it ends up being $150 million by the lawsuit.
	Investors who sold their shares of Twitter stock between March 24 when Musk should have disclosed his Twitter ownership and before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure missed the resulting share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's purchases and were damaged thereby.
	Musk was motivated to delay his Schedule 13 filing.
	By failing to disclose his ownership in the stake, Musk was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the class period.
	That's a very legitimate point.
	He was able to acquire the 5% to 9.1% of the shares without it taking the predictable bounce that it took when he announced that he had acquired 9%, which presumably would have happened at 5%.
	So he was able to buy those additional as many shares as he already had at what was an artificially...
	Reduced price because it hadn't factored into the market price knowledge that Elon Musk was a shareholder of 5% or more.
	It's interesting.
	So that's it.
	Class allegations.
	Hasn't been certified yet, but the class, you know, you have to define a class.
	They have to be similarly situated.
	Same cause of action.
	Same cause, you know, same basic form of compensation.
	Same facts.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	What do we have here?
	Fraud on the market.
	Sounds like a good song.
	Fraud on the market.
	Plaintiff will rely on the presumption of reliance established by the fraud on the market doctrine that among other things, I have no idea what this means, people, defendant made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts during the class period.
	The omissions and misrepresentations were material.
	Twitter's securities traded in efficient markets.
	The misrepresentations alleged herein would tend to induce a reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the Twitter's securities.
	And plaintiff and other members of the class sold Twitter securities between the time defendant misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts and the time that the true facts were disclosed without knowledge of the misrepresented or omitted facts.
	And that's it.
	So it's interesting.
	Oh, scienter allegations.
	Another thing that I don't know what it means because I've never heard this concept in law.
	But as alleged herein, defendant acted with scienter or scyenter or scienter since defendant Musk knew or recklessly disregarded that he had an obligation to file a Schedule 13 GD to disclose his ownership stakes in Twitter.
	Furthermore, defendants saved approximately $143 million on his Twitter purchase by delaying the filing of the required shareholder GD and purchasing additional shares at deflated prices.
	So I don't know what scientific allegations means, but I guess that's it, that he knew or acted recklessly.
	And therefore...
	It's interesting.
	It's an interesting lawsuit.
	And I have nothing against Elon.
	I actually am inclined to have something for Elon.
	Because I like...
	In as much as Robert, in his hush-hush, rightly noted certain...
	Call them outlandish projects that did not come to fruition.
	He offered a submarine to go in the cave in Thailand to rescue the kids.
	My understanding now, it was a totally...
	What's the word?
	Not unattainable.
	It was a totally impossible concept, given the nature of that cave that the kids went into.
	You couldn't fit a rigid piece of metal very far into it.
	It needed...
	You can fault him for not being able to accomplish the goal, but not for the intent to do it unless you just see it as exploiting of tragedy for marketing purposes.
	And those are two very legitimate ways of viewing a lot of Elon's behavior.
	Some people say it as the dreamer thinking outside the box and others will look at it as an opportunistic bullshitter who's exploiting a tragedy to gain prominence in the public eye for material benefit for existing projects.
	How you choose to see it is up to you, but those are the two ways of viewing it and any variation in between.
	I'll get back to that after the subject.
	I'm flagging it.
	I'm not flagging it.
	I'm starring it.
	So that's it.
	It's a legitimate lawsuit.
	Barnes and I will talk about it on Sunday.
	You will accuse Barnes.
	You know where he's coming from, so you might accuse Barnes of bias in the way he views it, but he will explain to us what the scienter theory is.
	He will explain to us if the reliance defense is going to be legitimate in this case and other nuances.
	You have to disclose within 10% of reaching 5%.
	Does that include any grace period?
	Does that include, uh, what's the word when the transaction becomes formalized?
	You know, you sell shares in a company.
	You can't just take that money out of your account.
	You got to wait.
	Clearance.
	Does that include any clearance delays?
	So if you've acquired the shares on a day, but they only clear formally three or four days later, does the delay run from the clearance or from the acquisition?
	We'll see.
	I don't know.
	Just those are the questions I would ask offhand.
	And there might be questions that I don't even know to ask, like one of the four children of Passover, because I have so little knowledge or professional experience in this domain that I don't even know that there are certain questions that someone who has more knowledge would know to ask.
	Oh, a scienter is a person acting with mens rea.
	Okay, fine.
	So mens rea is the intent to have committed the act.
	Actus reus is the illegal act itself.
	So in criminal law, you have to commit the unlawful act or the act, which is illegal.
	And you have to have had the intent, the mens rea.
	To not commit an unlawful act, but to commit the act which is unlawful.
	So you don't have to have had the mens rea to break the law.
	You just had to have had the mens rea to commit the act which is illegal.
	So scienter is another way of saying it.
	Good.
	Thank you very much, STFU FFS.
	And for those of you who don't know what that means, cannot be said right now.
	We have children in the room next to us.
	Elon Musk is smarter than these trying to sue him.
	There's no question he's smart.
	There's no question, Doug Murray.
	And I think he's delivered on some things which he's entitled to take a great deal of credit for.
	And one thing I can tell you about business, about entrepreneurs, they will fail more often than they won't.
	There's a reason why entrepreneurs have lawyers.
	And let me rephrase it.
	There's a reason why entrepreneurs are the clients to lawyers.
	There's a reason why they are the ones with...
	Sufficient money to hire lawyers because they take their risks.
	They take their chances.
	They go bankrupt nine times before they strike gold on the 10th.
	To the extent they do it legit and don't defraud investors based on false promises with which they use to line their own pockets with executive salaries and whatever.
	If they operate legit and they make legit efforts but nonetheless fail, that's what makes a successful entrepreneur successful is failing to the point of succeeding.
	Which waters was Wil Wheaton winding when we were wearing watches?
	Was weird.
	Which watch was Wil Wheaton winding when we were wearing watches?
	Was weird.
	I got it.
	Thank you, Ponton.
	And thank you, Ron Jay.
	I like being told I ask good questions.
	I don't know which one it was, but I know there were a couple of good ones in there.
	Big love, Viva.
	Just having a fun Friday.
	Have a great weekend.
	You too.
	I don't know if you say happy Easter, but have a meaningful Easter because it is not supposed to be a happy time.
	I think it's supposed to be reflective time.
	Meaningful Easter to everyone celebrating it.
	Good Friday.
	Have a meaningful good Friday.
	Viva Friday.
	The key is to waste other people's money to get personal favors and political influence.
	That, unfortunately, is a reality all too often.
	And, you know, not being responsible with the money that you've raised from shareholder and investors.
	Stupid prosecutors love destroying smart people.
	Well, it's what they get paid to do.
	I mean, the SEC, hey, they will fight to your last taxpayer dollar to go after the Elon Musk, but not necessarily the really bad players in the industries.
	What was it?
	The Clinton campaign got fined $8,000?
	Yeah.
	So that's the Elon Musk lawsuit to be discussed.
	Let me actually just get one thing.
	What was our poll doing?
	How do I see the poll here?
	A lot of typos.
	Does Iz qualify as extortion?
	Yes and Turtlers.
	No and Turtlers.
	82% to 18% say yes.
	I wanted to see the news about the Prince Walid.
	The Prince Walid, let him say no.
	Let him be the director that shuts this down.
	He'll open himself up to a class action lawsuit because if they don't accept the offer to go private at $54 a share.
	And then the shares go down after Elon sells his shares.
	All part of the game, as far as I'm concerned.
	Prince Walid.
	Is it Prince Walid?
	I think it was.
	Twitter.
	Oh, Walid.
	Reuters.
	In as much as we can trust it, let's see what they say.
	If the directors refuse the offer, and Elon does what he said he was going to do in his...
	In his SEC filing.
	It's not a threat.
	Just might have to sell all my 9% shares.
	Yeah, sure.
	Good luck going out.
	He saved $150 million by buying them without disclosing that he had attained the 5% threshold.
	He'll lose a ton when he sells his 9.1%.
	And maybe wash his hands of those accusations.
	But he'll stand to lose money if he dumps his shares because they refuse this offer, as will all the other shareholders.
	Did I just shut down my own stream?
	Wow.
	Sorry.
	I had a mild panic attack because I thought I shut down the stream.
	Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal rejects Elon Musk's Twitter takeover.
	First of all, who's he to reject it?
	Saudi Arabian investor Prince Al-Walid bin Talal said on Thursday that as one of the major shareholders in Twitter, he rejects...
	So, by the way, he can't reject it on his own.
	He says maybe he personally does not agree with it.
	He would have to abide by any decision unless he wants to take it over.
	Make a better offer, Prince Al-Walid.
	He rejected the takeover bid by billionaire entrepreneur Musk.
	I don't believe that the proposed offer by Musk comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter, given its growth prospects, the Prince said in the Twitter post.
	And by the way, that's the argument.
	For them to refuse the offer, say no, it's worth...
	This company in five years is worth more than $54 a share.
	So that's the shareholder value.
	Hold on to it.
	Because in five years, if you think this company survives five years, the intrinsic value.
	All right.
	That's one way of looking at it.
	How about the current value?
	Current value is less than the offered value.
	So you've got the current value, the offered value, the intrinsic potential value, which is necessarily undetermined.
	Musk took aim with a $43 billion takeover, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	That's the extent of the article.
	So let's summarize it.
	One of the shareholders doesn't want it because he wants more money for his shares.
	Okay.
	It's not anywhere near worth the...
	What is the intrinsic value, Prince Salah?
	What do you think the intrinsic value of Twitter is?
	I think it's zero.
	I think the intrinsic value of this company, the way it's currently being run, is zero.
	I don't care that...
	Elon bought 10%.
	I believe this company is worth nothing.
	And I would not invest in it even when it was cheap.
	Of course, I said the same thing about Facebook.
	Look at this.
	This is the first of the greasy curls.
	Look at this, guys.
	That's the one curl that has just attained a level of grease like a balloon with helium that's just starting to sag.
	So yeah, that's it.
	It's one shareholder who owns, I think he owns 12%.
	He says, I don't think it's enough.
	Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.
	Directors are going to vote.
	And if the directors turn down an offer and the stock tanks, like I argued the day before yesterday, Elon has structured this in a way, having acquired a material shareholding.
	Material enough to affect the price.
	If they say no and he sells, well, not only do they not get their $54.20 for the shares, he will trigger some stop losses and he will cause that price to go down even more.
	So you're going from a $54 to maybe even a pre-Elon purchase low.
	If Elon sells his 10%, his 9.1%, it'll go...
	Lower than what it was before Elon started buying it up at 39. Because now people have no faith.
	They have no hope in the future of the company.
	Check your PO box.
	Lures and shirts arriving Monday.
	Booyah!
	I'm going to go to the...
	Oh, maybe it's not open today.
	I'm going to go.
	By the way, there's an expression, the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
	The way to Viva's heart is through fishing lures.
	And if they work...
	Even more.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm definitely going.
	I guess now, heart tackle, I presume I can do an unboxing video with your stuff.
	Everybody who sends me letters, you know, like thank you notes or encouragement, I get them.
	I read them.
	I can't respond to all of them.
	I would love to do unboxings, but I am so neurotic for the protection of people who support my channel and people who write me that they may want to only quietly and...
	You know, so as not to have any risk of identification support me.
	So I don't do the unboxing unless I know that I 1000% can because I don't want to accidentally dox anybody or any company.
	I once wanted to share a nice gift that I got from a company.
	I was like, man, you do that in Canada, they might get some blowback.
	And so I double-checked at the company and there was this...
	They was like, we don't mind, but some of our employees might not want that heat.
	And I understand it.
	I respect it.
	And just so nobody thinks I don't do the unboxings because I don't have gratitude for everything that I get in that PO box.
	I do.
	I don't do the unboxings because I don't want to inadvertently dox someone who doesn't want to be doxed.
	Elon will probably argue that his broker failed to do the job.
	And isn't there a defense like when you rely on the advice of a lawyer so it's not intent at that point?
	I think, undoubtedly, I'll defer to Barnes on that.
	Because even if Barnes doesn't think kindly of Elon, I still think he will assess this lawsuit accurately.
	To assume the lawsuit is legit is also to assume the richest man alive's attorneys missed a deadline either by ignorance or to save $140 million.
	Yeah, so which one would it be?
	Like, I don't think they're doing it to save $140 million.
	I do think it's...
	Lawyers are humans, and I don't want to...
	Lawyers are humans.
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh, what do we got here?
	Hold on.
	You...
	Are going to the block group.
	Sorry.
	Russian sex bot?
	It's Good Friday.
	We don't need to see that.
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	Lawyers make mistakes all the time.
	All the time.
	And big mistakes.
	Missing deadlines.
	Having to go to court to get permission to be relieved of default.
	I don't care that he's the richest man on earth.
	His lawyers are still humans.
	I bank with one of the biggest banks in Canada.
	They still make clerical mistakes that have material impact.
	When I opened up the trust account for our law firm, the trust account cannot accrue interest on the monies that you're holding in trust for your clients.
	It can't.
	And this bank, I'm not trying to put any bank on blast, just couldn't figure out how to set up the trust account so that it did not accrue interest in the trust account because it becomes impossible to account for.
	They can't take charges out of the trust account, so you print up a check.
	Or you print up a receipt.
	It has to come out of your checking account, not out of the trust account.
	But this bank, you know, couldn't set it up by default.
	So you'd print up a check or you'd view a check online and you'd see $1.50 come out of your trust account, which can't happen.
	Then you have to return it from your current.
	So, you know, big institutions, big lawyers.
	Mistakes happen all the time.
	Left, right, and center.
	Men's Rea.
	Have you seen Hear No Evil, See No Evil?
	That is Richard Pryor and Gene...
	Not Gene Hackman.
	Gene Wilder?
	I think so.
	Hold on.
	I see another super chat from the Tackle Company.
	No, I don't.
	Do I?
	Oh, it says, unbox OA.
	They will work well for you.
	Thanks for all you do.
	I'm going to get to that in a second.
	Saudi got info about Khashoggi from Twitter.
	Maybe my theory of a nexus between...
	Okay, I'm not going to...
	It's interesting.
	It's interesting.
	At the risk, I don't want to be accused of...
	Being a theorist individual.
	But that's a dot out there that people can connect or people can choose to not connect.
	Where is it?
	Oh, here we go.
	Unbox away.
	They will work well for you.
	Thanks for all you do and love your channel.
	Thank you very much, Heart Tackle.
	What is that avatar, sir?
	Come on.
	Yeah, and now people are going to call me a pervert for seeing phallus in that, right?
	Those are pretzels.
	I know pretzels when I see them.
	It's a penis pretzel.
	I saw what you did there.
	Well played.
	Well played.
	Now, I want to...
	Where did that go?
	I want to make guesses as to the individual behind that avatar.
	Because I'm picturing someone like me.
	That's what I'm picturing behind that avatar because that's a darn good avatar.
	But one who has a fear of getting publicly identified could never make that type of joke.
	They have to be mature adults.
	Okay, I lost the avatar.
	It's gone.
	So that's the Twitter suit.
	And we're almost...
	Viva, fun fact.
	Richard Pryor was absolutely blind during Hear No Evil, See No Evil.
	Was he?
	No.
	Huh.
	Let's see if the penis pretzel avatar comes back up.
	From Penn Island.
	Oh, that's good.
	It's from Penisland.
	Not bad.
	Not bad.
	We have a whitty chat.
	Don't look at my avatar.
	Well, I see something in your avatar, but I'm just going to go with a Dr. Seuss character thingy thing.
	Okay, so that is it.
	We're going to go back to Twitter just for one second, just to see if I didn't miss anything on the Twitter diary.
	Oh, I got something.
	Ow.
	Microsoft, what is this?
	Musk Twitter, that's the lawsuit, that's the complaint.
	That's YouTube.
	That's the criminal code.
	Let's just go to Twitter and end off with anything that I forgot from my running Twitter diary.
	Before I bid everyone an adieu, a good Friday, a good Passover Seder if you're doing that.
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm posting clips from yesterday's interview on Viva Clips.
	Yesterday's interview with Phillips was great.
	It was great.
	Okay.
	It was...
	It was fun.
	You know, I had not fears of the interview going, not going the way it went.
	The interview was amazing.
	This kid is smarter than, he's smarter than he came up, smarter, more informed, but above all else, more open-minded than anyone could ever have thought based on that video clip alone, which went viral.
	It was fantastic.
	Check it out.
	Check it out.
	That was Eric Hunley's.
	All right, that's my getting mad at the government.
	Thank goodness I remembered.
	Guys, people, get your gag reflexes ready.
	I'm going to put it on mute.
	Get your gag reflexes ready.
	I spent my life discovering beautiful corners of this country.
	I want to make sure that my kids and grandkids have the same opportunities that I had and that so many of us had.
	That's why we're stepping up in our fight against climate change and our protection of nature and in real and concrete actions to build a better future for everyone.
	I spent my life...
	It's repulsive.
	It's just, first of all, it's nice that he had the chance to travel all across the country.
	I mean...
	I'm actually borrowing this insight from some of the responses.
	It's nice.
	I had an extremely fortunate life.
	I had an extremely fortunate upbringing.
	I still worked every single summer of my life.
	I worked every single summer so that I could go on that two-week road trip with my wife, girlfriend at the time, so we could go visit the country.
	But it's like, first of all, it's good fortune that not everyone has.
	But when you're, you know, when you're able to become prime minister with no meaningful life experience, no meaningful business experience, solely because of your last name, with your only professional experience being a teacher, and, you know, with certain rumored issues at that.
	Yeah, it's nice.
	What did he say?
	I've had governor in beautiful corners of this country.
	And I want to make sure that my kids and grandkids have the same opportunities that I had.
	It's nice that he's been able to travel the country.
	Growing up the way he did, it's very nice.
	But I've got to say, every now and again, I make myself laugh.
	And I said, Alone in the Woods is the only place Justin Trudeau can make a video without getting heckled and jeered by Canadians who have suffered under his incompetent, unethical, and tyrannical regime.
	And I'm not exaggerating.
	There's literally, he cannot go, he cannot walk the streets in Canada without getting heckled, even at events that he's setting up.
	And I mean, and again, people out there, without exception, without qualification, peaceful heckling.
	I may not agree with swearing, I may not agree with the F. Trudeau signs just as a form of expression, but everyone is within their rights to peacefully express themselves.
	Don't throw gravel at the Prime Minister.
	Don't smash eggs on his head any more than smashing eggs on Maxime Bernier's head.
	Peaceful expression of discontent.
	This man cannot walk the streets in Canada without getting heckled by his own citizens.
	The only place he can make a video, in quiet, is in the middle of the woods with no one around or on his own private government jet in his own political complexes because he is simply detested by the people he is supposed to serve.
	I haven't met anybody who likes Trudeau, even people who voted for him.
	So I'm glad I remembered that one before we headed off for the weekend.
	That's an article.
	I'm reaching out to Eric Duhem.
	If anybody wants to tweet out to Eric Duhem, if he wants to come on for a sidebar for an interview, I would love to have him.
	He's the leader of the Quebec Conservative Party.
	Love to have him on.
	And then we have Miscusi from one of the more underrated comedies of all time, Eurotrip.
	Surprisingly funny.
	Not for everybody.
	I appreciate some people do not find that humor funny.
	But the robot scene in that movie is one of the best scenes of all time.
	I get the impression Trudeau has pretty good gag reflex mastery.
	Couldn't listen to himself otherwise.
	And I want to make sure that you can see the country by impoverishing each and every one of you, by indebting the country to a point of crippling debt.
	I want to make sure that everybody can see the country, except for those filthy unvaxxed who can't get on a train or a plane.
	So good luck seeing the country.
	You awful, awful person.
	He's an awful person.
	He's a very, very bad man, to quote Seinfeld.
	He's a very, very bad man.
	I want to ensure that everybody can see the country, except those dirty, unvaxxed people who are putting us all at risk.
	Those 12-year-old kids whose parents have made a decision.
	That the parents think is in the best interest of their children as they're within their rights to do their God-given rights as parents.
	You can't get on a plane.
	You can't get on a train.
	But I want to make sure that you can go see the British Columbia forests.
	I want to make sure you can go see the beaches of Tofino.
	I want to make sure you skip the first day of the indigenous holiday by playing hooky on a beach with your family.
	I want to make sure that you can do that.
	Good luck getting there.
	You're very bad, man.
	Viva, I sent an Insta DM for Murph's Kicks.
	I got you, bro.
	What are Murph's kicks?
	Go ahead and see what this is.
	Although I don't think this is of interest to everyone.
	Let me just go see my DM.
	Let me cancel that.
	I don't get...
	I didn't get a DM.
	Okay, anyhow.
	At the risk...
	No, I won't say...
	Okay.
	Anthony, I'll look for it.
	Anthony Murphy.
	Screenshot.
	So that's it.
	That's what I have to get off my chest today.
	I wanted to do a standalone vlog in the car, but it's getting a little sunny.
	And I would only have been able to do the Elon Musk and not get everything else off my chest.
	So with that said, everybody.
	Oh my God, you watched that.
	Oh, Justin PM to 20. Oh, yep.
	Let's see.
	Again, what a world.
	I know, hallelujah.
	Based on common history, I know that this is probably...
	No, this is...
	I don't know.
	When you cannot decipher between troll or satire and sincerity.
	We've gone through the looking glass, people.
	I want to see if I missed anything on Rumble.
	Other than...
	Oh, no, we're doing good on Rumble.
	There's 1,700 people there.
	Okay, well, that's it.
	That's it.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Thank you, guys.
	So go.
	It's Good Friday.
	If you are religious in the organized sense, enjoy Easter.
	Spend time with family.
	Get out there.
	Get out there and get some exercise, fresh air, vitamin C, vitamin D. For all the people celebrating Passover, have a good Seder tonight.
	You know, I find drinking four glasses of wine, even though we're religiously required to do so, still doesn't make me feel good.
	So I'm just going to compress those four glasses of wine into one big martini.
	And what else?
	Enjoy the weekend.
	Get out there.
	Sunday night, we're going to have a stream.
	God bless everyone.
	I'm going to use God in the cosmic spiritual sense and not in the specific religious organized religion sense.
	But I do love hearing it.
	So God bless everybody.
	Enjoy it.
	Have a good Easter.
	Have a meaningful Easter.
	I might see tomorrow.
	We'll see if I see tomorrow.
	See you Sunday for sure, though.

▲