All Episodes
Previous Next
May 7, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:19:28
Viva Fishing & Law Stuffs - Amber Heard, Doug Ford BAD & More!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It was almost perfect.
It almost worked perfectly.
Look at this.
Look at this.
I rolled up my pants.
I was in the water.
And I brought a rubber bag.
I brought a plastic bag.
I went out in the canoe.
All my fishing gear.
My computer.
My iPhone on a tripod.
Dog's barking.
It wasn't going to work, at least not today.
My wife took some funny video of me trying to get out onto the water.
Probably going to share that exclusively on Locals.
It turned out to be a little too windy.
I was getting a little more water in the canoe than I was anticipating.
The bag does nothing, but...
We have to talk about stuff today anyhow, so there's no way.
I wanted to go fishing, but I think it's going to be too windy for fishing.
It's too windy for fishing anyhow.
It would have been beautiful, and I had it all played out in my mind.
I would be canoeing, paddling, everyone would be watching, and it would be beautiful.
I would cast out, I would catch my first pike of the season.
It's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen today, but we're going to do this.
We're going to call it Fish in Law.
And it's going to happen.
We're going to talk law and I'm going to fish and I'm going to catch a fish.
I made it out like 34, 35 feet and then the wind just blew me right around.
I was like, it's not going to happen.
Okay.
What's the good word, people?
We don't have a long time tonight for a live stream.
I'm going to try to sneak a jog in after this before the barbecue dinner because it's Mother's Day weekend and to come down to my mother-in-law's place, see the studio, Over here to my right is my brother-in-law with La Chaufferie as a shirt.
He looks a lot like Vincent van Gogh.
Over here to my other side, that's my mother right there.
My mother-in-law is painting my mother.
There's nothing weird about it.
It's totally, totally normal.
Yeah, so that's it.
I had a dream.
I had a vision that we would have been on the canoe.
Talking exactly what we're going to talk right now.
I'd catch a monster pike.
You would see the joy of fishing.
I would unhook it, release it into nature.
Or if it were mortally wounded, we would have it for dinner.
But just here, just now.
Okay, so speaking of fishing, heart tackle.
I called UPS, or at least I emailed the person from UPS and gave them or asked them if I could give an alternative shipping address.
I want to see those lures.
And thank you very much, by the way.
In advance.
And GB Kingdom says, I can't wait for my kayak to come in and get some peaceful time in the Augusta Canal.
Great stuff, David.
Thank you very much, GB.
The thing is, a kayak would have been better.
It would have been lower profile on the water.
And it wouldn't have been so susceptible to the wind.
But I had my computer and my iPhone.
And a life jacket, everybody.
So I thought the canoe would have been a better base.
For the tripod, for the computer, in a plastic bag, but no.
Not gonna happen.
Okay.
So, another thing.
How is the audio?
How's the video?
It looks good?
Beautiful.
Yeah, no, no.
My mother-in-law is exquisitely talented.
She's exquisitely talented.
Tonight, I'm going live with Nate Brody.
I think it's gonna be at 9 o 'clock.
For those of you who are fed up with the Amber Heard Johnny Depp trial, you might not want to tune in.
For those of you who are not, because Nate has been doing his homework.
And I think this evening, it's going to be a compare, contrast, and react to Amber Heard's testimony under oath in her deposition compared to her testimony under oath at trial over the last two days.
And spoiler alert, it's not exactly consistent.
But that's not what we have on today.
We've actually got...
I'm covering one idiotic...
The dog's in here?
Okay, dog's in the room.
Covering one idiotic, two idiotic Johnny Depp Amber Heard related incidents, one legitimate legal issue coming out of Canada, and whatever else I had on my Twitter feed that I wanted to cover today.
Get over here.
Oh!
Winston might get that haircut everybody's been hankering for because he found his way into the burr patch.
Yeah.
Thank you.
What else do you have to say?
Mm-hmm.
I see.
Mm-hmm.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes.
Okay.
Get out of here.
Oh, he found his way into some burrs, and it's very, very difficult to get them out, so we might have to trim some of the hair.
Okay.
We've talked about it for a while.
You know, trials should be public.
Public trials, you know, typically they are the rule and not the exception, except federal courts in the United States.
They don't televise their trials.
They're public in a sense in that the public can attend.
But they're not televised.
They're not subject to the same scrutiny as we are now seeing televised trials are subject to.
The amazing thing is, it was the Rittenhouse trial that really highlighted to the world the value, the importance of real-time scrutiny of millions of eyes.
The OJ trial was live broadcast, but it wasn't interactive.
I mean, that's the thing.
The live broadcast trials today, given the internet, they're interactive.
And when you get the maximum...
I'm going to get there as the punchline to this.
When they are interactive, you can harness the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs, the aggregate knowledge of the world in real time for an actual useful purpose.
In Rittenhouse, I think we know for a fact that some of the...
Aggregate, what's the word I'm looking for?
Pontifications of the interwebs was making its way down to the legal team.
I think we know that as a matter of fact.
Okay, hold on.
Viva prefers scales of justice more than weighing fish.
Sus, very low, sus law, man.
We saw in real time with Rittenhouse the value of, you know, live televising trials.
Because it's interactive and you tap into, what do they call it?
Crowdsourcing knowledge in real time.
And lots of the public commentary, meaningful commentary, got through in real time in the context of the Rittenhouse trial.
Compare that to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
A trial which was, they had reporters there, so you can't say it wasn't accessible to the public, but it wasn't being live broadcast.
You couldn't video.
You couldn't take pictures from within the courtroom.
All you have are those courtroom watercolor paintings.
And you don't get useful information out of it.
You get the information afterwards.
Half of it was redacted even though it was supposed to be public.
Documents redacted.
Witnesses' names covered up.
There's obviously good reasons for that, but when things are public and subject to scrutiny, the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs really, really find things that on any given day, even the smartest individual on earth would never be able to find.
One of which was remarked in the Amber Heard trial.
I'm going to take credit for noticing one of them, which I'm going to get to in a bit, but I...
I remember this, and I remember saying, oh, she's rolling up her sleeves, and then I think I might have even made a comment like she was getting ready for work.
And I think I did.
I'm going to have to go back to the stream and see, but what am I doing here?
There is now a video, and I'm calling it the sniff heard round the world.
I mean, I've never trended on a hashtag, but hashtag the sniff heard round the world.
The scrutinizing eyes of the internet remarked on something.
Unique, peculiar, and...
Oh, okay, hold on.
I did say that.
Hold on, I'm going to share this.
I'm sure I said something along those lines, because I remember how my brain works, but I don't have actual memories anymore.
She was rolling up her sleeves, and I was like, ah, getting ready to go to work, I think.
Maybe you're wrong.
I was so close, and yet so far away, to quote Jon Bon Jovi.
Check this out, people.
Cernovich.
Says, I have questions.
This video, appreciate this also.
Where's my camera?
Here's the camera.
Appreciate this.
This video has seven and a half million views on Twitter alone.
Cernovich says, I have questions.
As do we all.
And how do I get the audio?
The audio will not be the important thing about this, but I mean, I think we've all seen this, but some of us are not on Twitter.
Some of the YouTubers are not on Twitter.
Check this out.
See if you have the same questions that Cernovich has after watching this.
Is my audio not on here?
Okay, the audio is minimal.
looks down I mean, I want to say, it feels like we're in a movie.
I've never done certain things that this might be.
I've never done it.
I don't know what it looks like.
I just know that this looks bizarre.
This is...
Someone else did an amazing breakdown of this, which we're going to get to in a bit, but this is Amber Heard after she rolled up her sleeves and someone put two and two together.
I mean, I put it to the chat.
What in the name of the green earth does this look like?
Put your finger up.
I mean, the thing is this.
The obvious...
My suspicion of what this might be is so over the top.
Again, this is not to make fun of addiction.
This is not to make fun of people's problems.
No, but.
The sheer audacity, the sheer brazenness.
Don't you get brazen with me, Amber Heard, to actually, if you did do what it looks like you did do on the stand, and for whatever the reason, for whatever the compulsion, you in fact did this.
And didn't think anyone would notice.
That's brazen.
That's brazen.
But for the aggregate knowledge of the internet and the eyes that are watching this trial scrutinizing it, you think a reporter would have known this?
Or noticed this if this weren't being broadcast?
And even if they didn't, they couldn't record it.
Do you think anyone would believe this?
It literally can't get more suspicious than what we're seeing here in this video.
Looks to one side.
Looks down.
Focusing on something quite intently.
Puts it up.
Takes a sniff.
It's like straight out of the movies.
The sniff heard around the world.
Maybe you're going to get people seeing things.
Maybe scrutinizing eyes are not always good because people can see things that aren't there.
But what does everyone watching this think is going on there?
Someone else I had noticed had an amazing breakdown of what they thought was going on.
Where is it?
Oh, I hope I...
You know what?
Hold on.
I'm going to have to go find this because someone else had a great theory as to what might have happened here.
Let me just go.
Eric Hunley.
It's not his.
That's not how you spell Hunley in any event.
So that's what we saw.
What is it?
I mean, it could be one of two things.
Okay, one of three things.
Nothing, she's just, that's how she picks her nose.
It could be what we think it is, or it could be, you know, something to make her tear up and cry, which is also possible.
I'm sure Eric Hunley had this person who did a TikTok breakdown of it.
Oh, son of a gun.
Well, someone had a TikTok breakdown of this, and it wasn't outlandish in that it looked like they said she didn't take the tissue from the tissue box because the tissue box hadn't changed.
And when she came up to her testimony, oh, I wish I could find it.
When she came up to testify, She rolled up her sleeve very, very intently.
And it looked like she put something up her sleeve because she didn't roll up the other sleeve in the same way.
And, oh, son of a gun, I can't find it.
It doesn't matter.
But it's ridiculous.
And we're seeing it.
But for the aggregate knowledge of the internet, that might have just gone by the wayside.
Someone had posted a good TikTok analysis that didn't take a Kleenex out of the box, really rolled it up in her sleeve intently, and then that behavior occurred.
I mean, you make what you make of it, and let me just go see what the chat is making of it.
Is it nothing?
Who knows?
Move on.
Okay, fine.
Okay, no.
Peruvian marching power.
I don't know what that is, but I think that might be what I think it is.
No, if you are to cry, you would cry.
Anything else makes you sneeze.
It's really bizarre.
It's really peculiar.
It's really quite intriguing.
But that's the superficial stuff.
Whether or not she's actually doing illicit substances while on the stand, it makes for gossip.
What I noticed, and then I had to go back and analyze it myself, is what she did.
At one point during the testimony yesterday, which I got to tell you, now that I think I know what it was, it looks like dirty tactics on the stand.
You recall they broke for lunch at one point, or they broke for a break.
And then I'm talking with Barnes.
We were analyzing testimony in real time.
And I thought I saw something.
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, what happened there?
It looked like I thought Johnny Depp during break went up.
To confront Amber as they, you know, were both breaking to leave the room.
And I saw Amber react, which I guess in my mind led me to believe that Johnny Depp had gone up and said something to her.
And now I'm going to play this because this is interesting.
And this is relevant in terms of like litigation tactics, creating perception.
I would say fabricating perception.
Look at this.
This is a...
If anyone hadn't seen the stream with Barnes and I, it's kind of funny.
Watch what happens here.
And you see Amber Heard.
This is in front of the jury for the full jury to see.
Watch this once and only watch Amber.
Thank you.
Oh, what just happened there?
You see the way Amber, like, she gets up and she goes, and then she, like, steps back like she saw something scary, which, you know, even if Johnny did nothing might be the case, but you'll come to your own conclusions.
Watch it again and only watch Johnny if you can with Amber in the backdrop.
This is when I, like, you know, being hyper-perceptive could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing because jury was gone for this.
Is that the case?
It wasn't in front of the jury.
Well, there goes my theory.
Are we sure about that?
Thank you.
Hmm.
Well, there will go my entire theory if that's the case, but let's watch it one more time.
Now, if you watch Johnny, and then he'll...
Okay, well, you know what?
I might have to reassess my opinion because if the jury were in fact gone...
And then she did that for either the media or nobody.
The stubborn part of me would say if she were doing it for the media impression, it could still have the same motivation.
But the rational, critical part of me would say if she did that, reacted like that, and there were in fact no jury there to impress on the substance of this, then I would have to reconsider my assessment.
Let me go to the chat.
Let me go to the chat and see who says...
Do we know definitively?
Who cares?
Dude, look, we're allowed to talk about other stuff every now and again.
He's a bully.
The jury leaves before they stand up here.
Hmm.
Well, damn it.
Then I'm going to have to go reassess my entire assessment of that.
Facts change opinions.
Okay.
The TV is still watching true, but look.
Part of my initial formulation was that if this were in fact not a natural reaction, it would have been to sway.
If the jury was gone, then I have to reassess because that was one of the facts on which that opinion was predicated.
Dude, the security guards tell them to stay apart.
It is obvious.
Well, no, there's no question they tell them that.
The media is the jury.
That's fine.
But I'm going to go ahead and reassess my own opinion now.
Okay, now on to the actual...
Let's call it more important things or less superficial.
I still think there's something to be learned from the Amber Heard Johnny Depp trial.
But, hold on.
Clout chasing viva fry respect lost puppet.
Okay.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Now, to the case that might be a little bit more interesting.
Yeah, I'm going to go fishing after I do this.
I'm not going to be able to squeeze it in right now.
Or I might just...
Go for a jog instead of...
I don't think I'm going to catch a fish because it's a little too windy right now.
The jury always says, okay, that's interesting.
We need better quality video to gauge it.
Yeah, that was a screen grab of the live stream.
Jury being gone isn't that important in a room full of people.
True.
I still think it was interesting.
We're seeing a lot of stuff here.
We're seeing a lot of interesting stuff.
And then the only question is, what do you make of it?
All right, now...
I see a dog.
The dog is actually throwing up.
Okay, I'm going to have to go clean that up afterwards.
More meaningful, important stuff.
I'm going to play this because this is also important.
Let's do the Canadian stuff first.
Let me get the article.
Doug Ford is getting sued.
Doug Ford and the Ontario government is getting sued because someone who donated $100 to the convoy, you'll all remember the Ottawa convoy, the protest in Ottawa that was deemed to be unlawful, illegal, arbitrarily by the politicians and then by the media in the absence of any actual court order declaring it illegal.
The politicians called this protest illegal.
Justin Trudeau, in my mind, abusively and unconstitutionally invoked the Emergencies Act.
And I say unlawfully because it was never warranted in the first place.
Before they invoked the Emergencies Act, you will recall that the media had already dubbed this protest unlawful, illegal, an occupation, overthrowing the government.
So did Justin Trudeau.
So did all of the members of the government.
They put so much pressure on GoFundMe.
That GoFundMe ultimately said, we're freezing this fundraiser, and we're giving the money away to another charity because the government says it's illegal.
We can't support illegal protests.
Public backlash against GoFundMe.
They then said, okay, we're going to reimburse it to those who request a reimbursement.
Any leftovers, we're going to donate to a charity of our choice.
More outrage, and GoFundMe ultimately said, we're going to reimburse everybody, period.
They do that.
And then Give, Send, Go comes in to set up a campaign so they can continue to raise funds for this not-for-profit, which is a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
And then the government starts putting pressure on GoFundMe.
The government goes to court, for those of you who don't recall this, and gets an ex parte freezing seizure type.
It's called a seizure of offense-related property.
They get the government to say, Anybody who raises money for this, if it goes into their accounts, they can't disperse these funds for the purpose of supporting this protest because they argued that the protest was committing mischief and that therefore the funds were offense-related property, the funds being monies, being property used to commit the offense of mischief, and they got a court order basically declaring that none of the funds could be dispersed.
For the purposes of this protest.
Give, send, go, who had $10 million in their accounts for the purposes of this fundraiser in the United States, said, well, we're going to keep it in the States.
We're not subject to your jurisdiction.
We can't disperse this because the second we do, it becomes seizable in the bank accounts of whomever we give it to.
By this time, also, the government had seized a million four that was in a TD account that had already been transferred and a ton in crypto.
Before the government invoked the Emergencies Act, people were donating either, well, not to GoFundMe anymore, but to give, send, go.
Then there was the leak.
There was that alleged activist hacker who allegedly hacked and then leaked, I think it was 80,000 donor names, amounts, postal codes, no credit card numbers, but they hacked and leaked the identities.
Identifiable information on 80-some-odd thousand donors.
Well, one person who was hacked and who had their identity leaked had donated anonymously before the government invoked the Emergencies Act, donated $100.
This woman worked for the Ford campaign, donated anonymously under an acronym MR, from what I recall.
And then...
Once her identity became known because her address was among those leaked in the...
It's an illegal hack.
I mean, we have to appreciate that the names were obtained via an unlawful illegal hack.
And then whether or not the government can even use these poison fruits or the fruits of the poison tree or whatever the expression is, whether or not the government can even use this for any purposes whatsoever, using the fruits of ill-gotten gains to do whatever they did.
This woman gets fired.
By the Ford campaign for donating $100 anonymously to the campaign.
And now she's suing.
And she should sue.
And my goodness, she should win.
But let me get to that in a second.
Just taking a moment to appreciate Viva and all the turtle polls.
Christopher, thank you very much.
She's suing.
And I hope she wins.
But let's just...
I'm going to pull up the article.
The jury will see in the media even if they aren't supposed to.
That was one thing I said about the...
The sniff heard around the world as well.
The jury is und...
Don't read the news?
My goodness.
Yeah, right.
Like in Rittenhouse, they were not sequestered.
But they obviously heard when witnesses were waking up with severed pig heads at their former residence.
Anyway, so this woman is suing now.
I'm going to get the article.
I tweeted it earlier today.
Where is it?
I mean, it's just amazing.
The allegations.
None of it's been tested in court.
None of it has been tested in court.
And hopefully it will be tested one of these days.
Here we go.
Maxime Bernier, leader of the PPC.
Everyone should be following.
He tweeted the National Post article, which I'm going to cut and paste.
We're going to walk through it now because it's important.
Slightly more important, I think, from a national perspective than Johnny Depp.
Even though I still think there's stuff to be learned from that trial.
Okay, here we go.
Check this out.
Check this out.
I mean, you won't believe it.
All allegations, nothing has been proven.
I don't have a copy of the lawsuit yet, but...
When I get a copy, you get into more details of the allegations, but check this out.
Okay, here we go.
Former staffer fired after convoy donation...
Former staffer fired after convoy donation sues Ford government.
Media.
The civil servant claims she was wrongfully asked for Ontario Premier Doug Ford's personal political gain.
What would be the personal political gain to fire and...
By the way, just so everyone appreciates, Doug Ford is supposed to be conservative.
I don't know what it means anymore.
Doug Ford...
I'll take these.
A battery pack.
This is what I had for the fishing.
For the fishing dream.
Didn't work.
And...
A bag for the battery pack.
Doug Ford is...
What do they call them?
Progressive Conservatives?
Conservative Progressives.
They're either called Progressive Conservatives or Conservative Progressives.
I don't know what it means anymore.
These labels mean nothing.
Doug Ford locked people down in Ontario.
They had among the worst lockdown measures behind Quebec, but very bad nonetheless.
Doug Ford wanted to put everyone on house arrest and ensure that everyone...
Doug Ford himself, who broke the rules himself to go have an intimate dinner, intimate meeting with his daughter, while the regular rabble of society were prevented from doing so.
That Doug Ford.
So a former senior Ontario government spokeswoman said she was fired from her job within minutes of being outed as a convoy protest donor, even though she was a loyal soldier for the government.
Loyal soldiers don't donate money to support measures that criticize government men.
Don't you know that?
You're not a loyal soldier unless you unquestionably and blindly adhere to everything the government says and don't have any ill thoughts.
And I want people to appreciate this.
Outing someone.
Sorry, let me rephrase.
Firing someone because of what was intended to be an anonymous donation, it is in fact nothing short of punishing thought.
It's thought crime.
Because when someone donates anonymously, they're not taking a public stand, they're not making a public statement, and they are doing it thinking that they can anonymously have certain actions, that they can anonymously do things, basically silently do things, silently think to themselves or support things in a manner that...
Is not intended to be public.
Much in the same way, having thoughts of support is not intended to be public.
But if someone found out you thought it, I mean, they fire you just as much as they find out that you donated anonymously.
One element would be which email address she used in this, potentially.
But punishing someone for unlawful leaks from unlawful hacks of donations that were made anonymously, in my mind, is tantamount to thought crime.
It's a punishing thought crime.
Marion?
I didn't know that.
Marion Isabeau-Ringetz claims she was wrongfully axed as Director of Communications for Ontario's Solicitor General for Premier Doug Ford's personal political game, allowing him to show public opposition to the convoy because that may...
I mean, it's all politics.
In a lawsuit against Ford, his chief of staff, the Ontario government, Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, and two journalists.
I can tell you who I think she has virtually no chance of succeeding against.
Probably the Ontario government.
Diplomatic immunity.
Who's going to get the movie first?
Diplomatic immunity.
It's just been revoked.
Hold on.
Going to the chat to see who gets that movie.
Oh, no.
It was Doug Ford's brother, Rob Ford, who had the drug problem.
Let me see here.
There we go.
Lethal Weapon.
Yes, of course.
One of the greatest action movies ever made.
So, yep.
We'll see what happens with her luck.
But in her statement of claim, which is the lawsuit in Canada, Ringette says she was promoted to her job in February 2020.
Or whatever.
She was good.
The lawsuit alleges she succeeded.
But this is it.
She said she followed government directives, including canceling traveling plans to visit family in Texas for the 2021 Christmas holidays, in keeping with Ford's policy against travel during COVID-19 restrictions.
Imagine this.
Assuming her allegations are true, she sacrificed her own family connections.
She sacrificed her own family relations for the good of the party when Doug Ford himself made exceptions for himself.
Listen to this.
On February 5, Ringet donated $100 to the protest called the Freedom Convoy after a group of truckers and others opposed to vaccine mandates and other grievances rolled into Ottawa the week before.
The protest became increasingly controversial.
This is how the news makes its own news.
The protest wasn't controversial.
Ever.
But the protest was controversial from day one.
The protest was never controversial.
Because on the one hand, leading up to it, the media denied its existence from the get-go.
I mean, for anybody who was following me during my awakening to that protest, half of Canada didn't even know that it was coming.
And then the other half was being told it's nothing.
CBC was out there saying it's a nothing protest.
It's a couple hundred trucks and they're protesting road conditions.
Oh, and then they had to admit, no, they're not protesting road conditions.
That's a separate protest.
That's a separate convoy in British Columbia.
This is a bigger thing.
It was never controversial because the media denied its existence up until day one, and it was never controversial except the media made it controversial from day one by picking two conveniently timed photographs of someone carrying a Yahtzee flag and someone carrying a Confederate flag at a protest in Canada opposing vaccine mandates.
Go figure.
And then the media made it controversial.
The media made it controversial so they can then say afterwards it was a controversial protest.
It's the wrap-up smear that Nancy Pelosi describes.
The media creates the story, runs with the story, repeats the story, and then says that the story that they created is a story.
Her lawsuit says her donation was made when there was no government policy against the protests because it's an important thing.
Up until the Emergencies Act, all that anybody was doing...
I'm sorry, up until the Emergency Act invocation, all that anybody who donated to that campaign was doing was donating to a federally incorporated not-for-profit that had not broken any laws or that had any court orders
She donated when there was no government policy against the protest and a day before the city of Ottawa declared a state of emergency.
Because you'll recall also...
I think Ottawa declared a state of emergency before Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act.
So you have two timelines here.
This woman donated $100 before any of it to a federally incorporated not-for-profit that was not prohibited from doing what it was doing by any court order.
The injunction that the city got and the injunction that plaintiff got was against horn honking and other specific activity.
But not against the convoy itself, and not against donating to the convoy, and it didn't do anything to outlaw the protests at large.
The province didn't take a position on the convoy protest until February 10, making her private donation legal and not against government policy according to her claim.
Interesting argument.
And this is where we get interesting.
Ms. Ringuette had every expectation that her donation would be private and confidential, her suit says.
I think most people would agree to that.
Give Send Go began hosting the protest fundraiser after it was banned.
In fact, Give Send Go began hosting the protest fundraising after it was banned from the more mainstream site GoFundMe.
It wasn't banned.
I mean, they shut down the account and decided to reimburse it, but it wasn't banned.
But whatever.
Give Send Go site was hacked on February 13th.
The hack was only openly declared when an activist...
The hack was openly declared as an activist attack and the database of information entered by donors was made publicly available.
Was made publicly available.
I got a number of emails, people, you know, asking me if...
I might have been on that list, but I also publicly declared my donation.
The day GoFundMe was shut down, so I wasn't worried about being doxxed.
I don't work for the government.
But, yeah, it was...
It's an illegal hack published to the world.
This woman made an anonymous donation, and then she gets fired within minutes by...
By a government to which she had been so loyal, she made more sacrifices than Doug Ford himself.
The data unveiled the names behind the donations, some of whom were prominent or had jobs making their support publicly awkward.
Rehenged was one of them.
Her donation was made under the initials MR, but the leaked data included a personal email address containing her name.
See, this is where I think...
This specific detail in law is a very material detail because we've dealt with lawsuits where city employees were fired.
I think it was in the Rittenhouse case for making donations, but using their work email address.
And then the question is, you know, if you're making an anonymous donation, but you're using your work email address, maybe you thought it would be anonymous, but maybe you're making a mistake in law that could justify such sanctions, assuming that the allegations are true and that MR...
Used her personal email address, and the only reason she was identified was because her name or identification was leaked in the unlawful hack and leak, and she didn't actually even go through her work account for that anonymous donation.
In law, if there's any ethics or any morality or any justice, she should win.
A journalist made the connection to Ringetz.
Do you remember, by the way, people?
Do you remember during...
During the protest...
Oh my gosh, Lethal Weapon's been up there for the entire time.
Sorry, guys.
Yeah, I mean, I talked about that.
I posted a highlight on the Viva Clips, which is all of the highlights.
I went over that article.
Yeah.
During the protest, I was getting a lot of emails from people saying, can you believe...
I got this email from someone from CT...
It might have been CTV, CBC, it doesn't matter who.
It's all the same.
Emails...
From reporters saying, Dear so-and-so, we noticed that you made a contribution that you donated to the Give, Send, Go campaign.
We'd like to ask you a few questions.
One of them, and this is an actual email that was confirmed legit.
The journalist said, We note that you, I believe it was law enforcement or you work, it was basically, we note that you work for the government.
We'd like to ask you some questions.
And just so everybody understands what that is.
That's basically intimidation.
That's basically extortion.
That's basically threatening to say, we have your name.
We have your number.
We have your email address.
Maybe not the number.
We know you work for the government.
We just want to talk.
And by the way, if you don't, talk to us.
We'll get you fired.
I had multiple people email me saying that this effective tactic was being used against them as well.
And I reached out to one of the journalists.
Who reached out to somebody with such email?
CBC.
And I said, I donated to the convoy.
Would you like to come and ask me some questions?
I mean, I don't have an employer.
Don't have sponsors.
Not that I think any sponsor I might ever have would care.
I think they might be proud of someone who stands up for what he believes in.
I don't have an employer.
I certainly don't work for the government.
Talk to me.
I'll give you eloquent, well-thought-out answers as to why I think...
It was okay to donate to this particular platform.
Why I think, you know, what they're standing up for is something that concerns all Canadians, not just the ones who protested.
I emailed the very CBC journalist, I think it was, who emailed someone else who forwarded me that email.
Never heard back.
Go figure.
But this woman, by the allegations of the lawsuit, apparently used her own personal email address.
Under an acronym, kept it anonymous, a hundred bucks, and she got fired.
Within minutes, oh, oh, oh, look at these sons of beastings.
On February 15, Charles Pinkerton, interim editor of QP Briefing, a publication focusing on Ontario politics, owned by the Toronto Star.
Called Ringet on her cell phone.
Her claims allegations have to be proven, but these are not facts that someone's going to lie about because these are verifiable phone records.
She didn't answer.
He then texted her, but she ignored the text.
He then emailed both her work and personal email address, asking her to confirm her job with the government and her donation to the convoy, her claim says.
I have no trouble believing any of this.
Because I've seen them do it with my own two eyes from emails forwarded to me, from other people.
A similar email was sent to the Premier's office.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, set aside her claim against the government.
This is tortious interference with third-party contracts.
This is tortious interference with third-party contracts.
The Toronto Star.
Was it the Toronto Star?
I guarantee you they receive bailout funds.
I guarantee you they receive bailout money from the federal government.
I guarantee you they receive ad money from the federal and provincial government.
This is a federal Ontario subsidized media company now calling up the people who fund them, subsidize them, or pay them, the government, and saying, you got...
You got some wrong thing going on within your enterprise.
Do you guys know about this?
You got an employee who donated 100 bucks from her personal email.
Her name is, you know, Marion Ringette.
It's pretty unique.
Ringette is not the most popular name in French.
I mean, it's not like Roy or Paquette, Tangay, or like these names which are, you know, the Smiths of French Canada.
Ringette, but I mean...
It's not an unheard of last name.
So it's not like David Freiheit.
I'm the only one in Canada.
Last I checked.
There's a David Freiheit, I think, in the States.
I don't want to dox anybody.
I know there's a David Freiheit in the States.
Because I sometimes get email that is supposed to be for them.
She donated $100 anonymously through her personal account.
Her name is Ringette.
The Toronto Star who gets...
Or the sub...
City area of the Toronto Star gets the fruits of an illegal hack and then goes to her employer.
Within minutes, she was called in by her immediate supervisor, David Garland, who asked if she had donated to the convoy.
She said she had.
How about...
I was going to give a middle finger to the interwebs.
I'm not going to do that.
The premier's office wanted to fire her, she was told.
Okay, that's an allegation of opinion.
It doesn't really matter.
The facts here are...
The journalist, if this is true, emailed her, called, texted, emailed her at her personal and business account, thinking it was her work account, asking her if it was her, and emailed her employer.
That's over the top.
The Premier wanted to fire her.
According to her claim, Garland said he would try to intervene, but called back several minutes later and said she had been fired.
Because they wanted to be seen as acting quickly, the claim says.
I have no trouble believing it, but I'd like to see the evidence nonetheless.
Someone from Ford's office came onto the line and confirmed that she was fired with 16 weeks of severance, she claims.
16 weeks she'd been there.
Oh, she was promoted in 2020, so she'd been there maybe for a longer period of time.
The government then replied to Pinkerton's email saying Ringet was no longer working for the government, her claim says.
Just appreciate the level of corruption here.
You know, I've talked about corruption.
And it doesn't always come in the form of a briefcase of $50,000.
And someone comes in and says, you know what?
Would you go out and do something to somebody?
Or would you go out and revoke someone's permit?
Would you go and not renew someone's permit?
Here's $50,000.
That's not how it works.
Here you have the federal government subsidizing certain media.
Radio Canada, CBC, a billion bucks a year.
Bailing out, taking taxpayer dollars and handing it to flailing media enterprises so they can continue to survive.
$600 million.
Toronto Star is a recipient.
Unless I'm mistaken, someone in the chat correct me.
Toronto Star is a recipient.
That's $600 million.
Then you got your federal and provincial COVID advertising.
Government advertising on these flailing, dying, legacy media outlets.
You got the government paying them.
They get illegal hack information.
They then go to the government that's paying them and saying, you've got someone who's engaging in wrong think in your enterprise.
What are you going to do about it?
And then the government fires her and then responds to the media that they subsidize directly and indirectly through COVID ads and government ads.
And then says, thank you for letting us know we took care of that.
That rabble rouser.
That's corruption.
Pure and simple.
That is legal corruption.
But it is corruption.
It's corruption that's more insidious than showing up with a briefcase full of cash.
Because we all know that's not how you have to do it.
And that's not how it's done.
It's a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Thanks for letting us know.
We took care of that.
Now run with the story, by the way.
And let her be a lesson for everyone else.
That's what you get.
It's beyond harassment.
Viva, you don't even try to brush your hair.
Be pretty for your wife.
She woke up this morning and she took a picture of me.
She said, you have to cut it.
And I said, I can't.
I cannot cut it.
We have a relationship, my hair and I. Ringgett's lawsuit says the government response confirmed her identity.
What's going on here?
Close this.
Confirmed her identity as a donor, allowing public disclosure of her personal information.
Because bear in mind, I'm just going to go.
We'll do this afterwards.
Pinkerton and Andrew Takagi, a reporter at QB Briefing, shared the byline on February 15th's story on qbbriefing.com with the headline, Senior Staffer of Solicitor General Out of Job After Donating to Freedom Convoy.
They also co-authored a story repeating the information on iPolitics.ca.
Ringet's suit against the two journalists and their employer claims they acted in callous disservice.
Callous disregard is an understatement.
For her privacy and the damage the politically controversial information would have on her career.
Let's see.
She's suing $450,000.
She'd better get paid.
She better get paid by somebody.
Ringgit seeks $450,000 from the government and its officials for wrongful dismissal, in addition to a joint claim against all defendants for $1.5 million.
And this is where, like, public disclosure of a private fact is sort of like akin to defamation when the information is true.
Like, they only told true information.
So...
It's not defamation because in Ontario and the rest of Canada, with the exception of Quebec, truth is the ultimate defense of defamation.
This is information which is true, which was specifically publicly disclosed when it was intended to be private, obviously, for the sole purpose of damaging and injuring someone, for no legitimate news interest.
Well, let's see.
they respond quickly to the Toronto Star by confirming that she's been fired, but they don't respond quite as quickly to National Post.
National Post contacted the Premier's office.
I don't know how much time they gave, but they clearly replied to the Toronto Star subsidiary, notifying them that they've taken care of the problem.
Some news stories on the donors treated the data in aggregate or anonymous forms.
Other revealed the names that they could confirm the identity or if the donor acknowledged they made it.
This included the National Post and some other post media.
Okay, whatever.
After the names became public through news stories on social media, several people lost or left their jobs.
At least one person was publicly misidentified, an Alberta judge who shares a name with a donor.
Which is one thing.
I just want to see this here, people.
We're going to see, like, Ringet.
Ringet, come back.
Like, Ringet.
Let's just see.
How did we do this?
How do we find Ms. Ringet?
And you can see how many there are.
Well, there's quite clearly more than one ringette in Quebec.
So, I mean, that's the latest story of Canada.
It's atrocious.
It's atrocious and the courts have to at some point step in and say this is never tolerable.
What is that avatar?
That looks like a dog.
Oh, yeah, it is a dog.
I see it now.
Yeah.
So that's a meaningful law story.
Let me see here.
Let's get to the chat.
Oh, there was a two-starred superchats.
You did say that.
Okay, I got to that one at one point.
And we talked about this before.
Hunter Biden's laptop was squashed at first because it was hacked and real.
Donation lists are fine because hacked and real.
Can you not see the difference?
It is so clear.
I get the sarcasm.
I get the sarcasm primarily because I know who you are.
I know the tone of your prior...
I don't know who you are, but the tone of your prior...
What the heck?
Yeah.
No, no.
It's not double standards.
It's hierarchy.
On one side of the political spectrum, hacks are unlawful and deliberately squashed by the media.
On the other side...
Hacks are totally lawful, and they're newsworthy.
And if you disagree with that, you must be one of them.
My name is not very common, but I found three of me with the same date of birth.
Dude, you might have three identities.
Corruption is the name of my channel.
The Corruption SAR Network.
CCN.
For a second, I thought it was CNN.
I hear a kid crying for some reason.
Yeah, but it's over the top.
We'll see what happens.
Salty Army stopping in.
The salt must flow.
Salty and the Army, welcome to the channel.
You might like this one, Salty.
Oh, by the way, I found Salty Army will like this.
Anna Kasparian.
Oh, son of a beast thing.
I closed down the thing here.
Hold on.
I found the video of Anna Kasparian, according to Schenk Unger, being passionate.
We'll see.
There's a difference between panic.
There's a difference between passion and manic.
Passion and hysterical.
And not hysterical in any gender sense.
Hysterics.
You've got to see this.
This is Anna Kasparian freaking out about not the leak of the SCOTUS decision, but about the substance of the leak of the SCOTUS decision.
Two thousand meals, by the way.
I haven't seen it because I think it was a live viewing today at noon.
Oh, jeez, where was it?
Yeah, Dinesh D'Souza has got his documentary that apparently is not exactly welcome on all platforms.
It's on Rumble.
I'm definitely going to watch it.
I was going to do a live watching, but it didn't work out.
Anna Kasparian.
Where?
We're going to get to that in a second as well.
Here we go.
What do you want them to do with their kids when they want to go to work?
What do you want them to do?
What do you want them to do?
I want them to answer that freaking question.
Answer the question.
Answer the question.
Journalists, ask them the question.
Ask them.
Ask them.
Ask them the goddamn question.
God.
Isn't it amazing that not one Democrat has shown 1% of the passion that Anna has today?
They don't care.
They don't care.
They're fine.
They don't care.
They don't have to worry about it affecting them.
And if they're young enough where it would affect them, they'll get their abortion.
They're gonna fly to parents.
They're trading individual stocks, enriching themselves.
They're good.
They're good.
They don't care about you.
Make sure you understand that.
You feel it in your bones.
They don't care about you at all.
All of that fundraising.
All of that canvassing, all of that hard work on the ground, they can't even get a voting rights bill passed!
They're losers!
Trisha Briggs writes in, thank you, Anna, for communicating this momentous injustice and the rage we're all feeling today.
Yeah, I don't know that that counts as communicating.
I mean, this is as unhinged, unbredded as, what's the name, Keith Obermann?
At one point, Keith Olbermann, because I don't want anyone mischaracterizing this as being anything based in any form of gender, and there's no confession through projection or me doth think he protests too much.
Keith Olbermann went on a similar hysterical tirade.
It was so unhinged, and it was so detached.
I forget what it was about.
Chat, what was it about?
Keith Olbermann.
Bat, bat poop, bat poop mad.
It was...
It was batshit crazy, Obermann.
So this is, and just shrieking.
I mean, Obermann was just shrieking at the top of his lungs as though decibel level correlates to rightness.
I think we can agree on one thing.
They are losers.
Politicians are losers.
They say what they need to say when they need to say it to get elected.
And then by and large, yeah, they go ahead and do whatever's politically convenient.
While enriching themselves and while purporting to do it for the good of the most vulnerable.
And yet, I'm sure Anna Kasparian is still going to vote for the same people that she just was spending the last minute half lambasting.
But passion.
Losing it is not passion.
Losing it is becoming unhinged.
And that was nothing shy of unhinged.
That was nothing shy of...
And by the way, in my humble opinion, totally disingenuous.
There was not one ounce of legitimate emotion.
There was not one ounce of authentic emotion in that entire bit.
And Cenk Uyghur, Cenk Uyghur, what's his name?
Cenk Uyghur.
You know what I'm talking about.
I'm sorry, Cenk.
I'm not trying to be funny or glib or make fun of names.
I just can't pronounce it.
Cenk.
His own praising the passion of...
You want to talk about, as much as politicians will just say whatever they need to get elected, these two, Anna and Schenk, put on a show.
They feign emotions.
I mean, everyone is, I guess, in a way appealing to their base.
In a way.
Except for me, because I know my base does not like it when I talk Johnny Depp, but I'm still going to do it every now and again.
But that is just, it's curated outrage.
Curated faux outrage.
But also, it's just...
I mean, whatever.
But I found it.
That was Salty Army, who sent me the link.
And thank you for the original source of Salty, because, yeah, that's...
But no, on the subject of...
God, I can't look at Samantha Power.
This is back to Canadian.
Just back to Canadian.
Am I in trouble?
What'd you say?
Grandma is not here.
I have no idea where grandma is.
Someone threw grandma from the train?
Oh, don't throw mama from the train.
Not don't throw grandma from the train.
I'm going to be in trouble when she gets in here.
This is out of Canada.
And this is from the conservative leadership debate.
And I like this.
You want to talk about faux hysteria versus actual passion?
I like this.
You were not one of the loudest voices, Mr. Pauli.
You were not one of the loudest voices.
In fact, you did not speak up until it was...
You did not hold the trucker protest.
You actually went and you took a picture in your neighborhood at a local stop.
You did not speak up for the truckers and you did not speak up the loudest, Mr. Pauli.
First of all, I did go to the trucker protest, both on Parliament Hill and in my community.
You took a picture of the guys.
I was there at the trucker protest.
By the way, I've heard enough of Paul Yevah to know when he's a little frazzled.
Listen to, I think it's some nervous gulps in there.
I was on the street.
I was in them and supporting those who were fighting for their freedoms.
I was on the street.
I was there at the trucker protest.
I was on the street.
I was supporting those who were fighting for their freedoms.
And I did.
In fact, I did it.
If I could.
If I could.
In fact, I opposed the vaccine mandates as soon as Pierre.
So, Lesley Lewis, by the way.
I like her.
I happen to like...
I mean, I don't dislike Pierre Poilievre either.
And there's a little bit of truth to what both of them are saying.
It was my criticism of Poilievre, you know, for a little while.
He was vocal on certain things, but not vocal on others in due time.
And I, you know, I guess you can't really go against the leader of the party.
What's up with you?
But, oh, that's right.
He was, he just barfed.
And yeah, Poliev was vocal.
He was, he was better than some, not as good as he could have been.
And he, yeah, I think, you know, it's a lot, a lot of politicians are now coming out of the woodwork saying, I now support the thing.
Paul Lievre was a little bit ahead of some.
Not as early as he could have been.
Roman Baber, MPP who was also running for the leadership.
He was early.
He was defending things that were not popular at the time he was defending them.
Things that have now become a little bit more popular.
Lesley Lewis, I have to see.
I was not as familiar with her prior to this as I was.
Now, funny thing is, Lesley, if you're watching, I follow you on Twitter.
I've never once gotten a recommendation for any of your tweets.
I've followed you for a while now.
And I...
Somehow never get a notification for any of your tweets.
Never see them on my timeline.
We'll see if that increases now that I'm going to try to engage with you on the Twitterverse.
But, Leslie, if you want to do an interview, like Roman Baber, anytime.
So that's what's coming out of Canada.
But there's one more video, peeps, before my wife comes in here and says it's time for the barbecue.
Oh, this.
This.
Okay, well, you know what?
I'll do this one because...
Wait until you hear this, people.
There was a time.
I'm not even going to repeat what Bill Gates said.
There was a time when saying what Bill Gates says in this clip would have gotten you into trouble.
And just listen to what Bill Gates has to say.
It wasn't until early February when I was in a meeting that experts at the foundation said, there's no way.
There's been too much.
Travel without diagnosis for us to contain this.
And then at that point, we didn't really understand the fatality rate.
You know, we didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different than that.
So that was a pretty scary period where the world didn't go on alert, including the United States.
Nearly as fast as it needed to.
It wasn't until early February.
I have two thoughts to that.
I have three thoughts.
Hold on.
What was my first backup?
The man belongs in jail.
It's hyperbolic, people.
It's hyperbolic, but even maybe not.
Because what he's admitting to right now...
Could arguably, if he's saying that we knew certain things, if he's saying that he knew his experts, the experts of the foundation, why does this foundation even have the clout that it has?
I don't think there's any inherent value above and beyond learning how to think to graduate from university.
So when I say that he didn't even graduate from university, it's not to say that it makes him any less of a human.
It is to suggest that it makes him less of an authority on...
A subject which apparently even being a doctor is not good enough for unless you're the specific type of doctor that the world recognizes and you agree with the narrative.
You know, they always say like, okay, Dr. Malone, he's not an epidemiologist.
He's not a virologist.
I'm not exactly sure what type of doctor he is.
But, you know, forget the fact that he's done research, developed the technology at issue here, at least in part, if not pioneered it.
He's not a virologist or an endocrine.
Epidemiologist.
So his opinion is not important.
Oh, you are an epidemiologist and you don't agree with it?
Well, then you're a quack.
Oh, you're a pediatrician and you happen to think differently?
Well, you're not a specialist.
This man, Bill Gates, who is not a doctor, not a scientist, not a physician, not a postdoc, doesn't have a master's degree in this.
He's not an epidemiologist.
He didn't even graduate university.
And I say that not to poke a jab.
He's not an authority.
In any way, shape, or form, how did he become the individual with so much influence and pressure to determine public, national, and global policy?
How did this happen?
I know there's an answer.
Oh, he hires the best experts.
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
He hires the best experts?
Well, then defer to the experts.
How did this guy get the airtime that he got in the media?
Political influence.
How did he get it?
I'll go back to the insidious type of corruption where it's not briefcases under tables.
It's a different type of wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You know.
Magical Moderna facility being built in Montreal.
It's going to be able to produce 100.
Here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm here.
They didn't get me, people.
Drone strike.
No.
You never know.
And, of course, you can't ask Justin Trudeau if he has military craft flying in the sky.
Can you see me?
Can you hear me now?
I'm just going to flag some super chats before I lose them.
Can you hear me and see me again?
My camera's going down.
Viva.
Always look at the chat when starting a video.
Echo, echo, echo.
Didn't hear it.
Damn it!
We'll do it live.
I apologize.
It wasn't until early February when I was in a meeting that experts at the foundation said, there's no way.
There's been too much...
Travel without diagnosis for us to contain this.
And then at that point, we didn't really understand the fatality rate.
You know, we didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different than that.
So that was a pretty scary period where the world didn't go on alert, including the United States, nearly as fast as it needed to.
It wasn't until early February when I was in a meeting that experts at the foundation...
From the mouth of Bill Gates.
Kind of like something, only a little different.
Someone just texted me and said the stream just froze.
I think it's back now.
Kind of like something, but a little different.
But it's Bill Gates, so he gets to say it.
And why does he get to say it?
Why does he get to say it?
Because he's an expert, a man with no degree in this, no meaningful experience in this.
I mean, other than the fact that, you know, what he's been doing in developing nations for years, which might not be the best type of experience that you want to have with this.
Smug.
When did they know the demographics who were the most vulnerable?
When did they know that it was kind of like something else?
Which, if anyone else had said that, they might have been deplatformed, but they would have been ostracized.
I mean, there were some celebrities who got cancelled for saying things like that.
It affects old people, and they got cancelled.
But who on earth appointed this man as any form of an expert, and how on earth does he maintain that clout?
I mean, the answer can't be good.
And yeah, you know, some of the people, hold on, let me just see here.
There were some funny responses, one of which had to do with certain islands that this individual may have visited, in a more meaningful sense than others.
So anyways, that's what he had to say.
I mean, it's just outlandish, like we're living in a bizarre universe where some people get to have opinions.
And some people can say what others have been saying for two years, but when they say it, it's totally legit and totally justified.
But when others said it, it's theorizing.
Let me just remove this for one second, bring this up.
There's another one.
Stream goes down, Viva replaced by robot.
They didn't get me, I promise.
Haha, by the way, this Gates guy sure is talking a lot of sense.
I wholeheartedly endorse what Bill Gates has said.
Let me go here.
Boom.
When Anna gets passionate, there is a 99.347852% chance she is on the wrong side of the story.
She might be, well, she's probably on the wrong side of the story on the substance, but on the right side of the story in terms of her assessment of politicians, and especially the politicians she's criticizing.
Did you hear about Joe Biden?
Oh, I just took down one of this.
Did you hear about Joe Biden allegedly pressuring the former president of Ukraine to close down a Ukrainian bank?
It seems suspicious.
I haven't heard that.
But I did hear about that time he pressured a prosecutor to, you know, get hard on corruption.
If that prosecutor doesn't get hard on corruption, we're going to fire that prosecutor.
Viva, why does the foundation even have the clout it has?
I give you three choices.
Well, you know what?
You better combine all those and put $6 signs under item D. No question.
$50 super sticker.
Thank you very much.
Lizy Von Zammet.
I hope you didn't mean to put in a comment.
With that super chat.
Thank you very much.
And what do we got here?
Also, same comment.
I hope you guys...
Beautiful horse.
Beautiful.
Okay, I think...
So that's it.
That was what we got there.
When you have enough money to buy the necessary heads of state, then it is easy opportunity to achieve one's goals.
Greed for green.
The Green New Deal.
It does redefine the Green New Deal.
Bambooga!
Pay no attention to that man in the Canadian attic, for I am the great and powerful Gates.
It was convenient timing for the outage, but I don't think it had anything to do with subject matter.
I think my phone, after one hour, detaches from tethering from the computer.
So let's see what we've got here.
And by the way, I never noticed his accent is almost Canadian.
At the time we had Fargonian.
Where's Bill Gates from?
Okay, look.
Let's do a couple more things before the missus comes and gets me.
These are the top ten movies that I just messaged somebody to watch.
And the reason why Pulp Fiction's not on there is because they had already seen it at my insistence.
Oh, there's that guy.
What else was there?
Oh, you know what?
Sorry, hold on.
Take this off now that I see it.
You know, soft bigotry of low expectations.
I don't understand how even Democrat politicians get away with this.
This is talking about the fact that, understand this, abortion bans fall hardest on low-income people, on people of color, on survivors of rape and incest, which is serious.
That's a legitimate point of contention that I think people have with the...
Heartbeat bill.
And on those working two jobs for less.
Abortion bans fall hardest on people of color.
I mean, this to me, I'm not trying to strawman anything here.
Low-income people of color.
I mean, imagine Elizabeth Warren just came out and said it a different way.
I want to make it easier for people of color.
I am the champion for going after people of color to engage in the act.
I mean, if another politician said that, I know how that would be interpreted.
And I won't even dare say misinterpreted.
I know how that would be rightly interpreted.
Barbecue time?
Eat food time?
I'm going to go for a jog.
Maybe I'm not.
I don't understand how politicians can make these egregiously offensive.
And I'm going to say these are discriminatory statements.
These are you want to talk about people engaging in soft bigotry of low expectation.
This is what it is.
It's just bigotry.
I mean, I talked about it when Joe Biden wants to ban menthol cigarettes because they're primarily abused or used by members of minority communities.
Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren know what's best.
One wants to ban what you like because they know what's better for you than you do for yourself, and the other wants to help you end the lives.
Engage in an act to target unborn, the unborn, people of color's unborn.
My goodness.
It's an upside-down world.
And I'd say, you're not going to win this through humor, but you're certainly going to open eyes through astute, Poignant, well-timed mockery of the madness so that people get awakened.
And they say, I'm sorry, Elizabeth Warren, you might be the institutionalized racism that you are warning people about.
No, no, no.
I need to make the barbecue.
The barbecue that we have here was a Mother's Day gift that I got from my mother-in-law like five years ago, and it still works.
Had I known I would have had to put it together, I might not have gotten it.
Let's just enjoy the absurdity that is Eric Swalwell.
Would anyone be shocked if Republicans went after women's right to vote next?
I wouldn't.
That's because you're an idiot.
That's because you are incapable of understanding history.
And you're incapable of understanding the present to accurately...
Represent what is going on, even if this leaked decision gets ratified by final decision.
You're unable to understand the present.
How on earth are you going to be able to predict the future?
You're worse than a broken clock.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Eric Swalwell is the clock that gets one second off with every day.
Someone in the chat, when's the math?
When's the next time that clock that goes off more like one second off a day?
When's the next time that clock going to be accurate?
Swalwell would be more accurate if he were a broken clock.
He's worse than a broken clock.
All right, all right, all right.
We got Canada now coming to the savior.
Canada's promising to provide...
Canada's promising, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, promising to provide the act to Americans who may think, fear that they might be precluded from getting the act in the States.
I do wonder if Justin Trudeau, in honoring his commitment to women's rights, their body, their choice, they get to make their decisions on medical choices affecting their body.
I do wonder if Justin Trudeau is going to insist that they be vaccinated before coming to Canada to get the procedure.
I wonder.
You cannot stitch together this level of stupid.
That's what this is.
Respect women's rights.
Their choice, their body, their choice.
He respects a woman's decision.
To make her own medical decisions.
He respects it so much, he's inviting all women who might be precluded from the act in the States to come to Canada to get it.
I wonder, is he going to offer it to them if they haven't been vaccinated?
Justin, would you field that one for us?
Okay, bring this out here.
JD forward slash poopoo is important.
JD, Juris, Johnny Depp shit is important.
Okay, sorry.
I thought it was Juris Doctorates.
I agree with you.
CCC, I agree with you.
And not just because it's a super chat.
I agree with you.
I also think just from a mere legal lesson perspective, it's interesting.
It's interesting.
The gossip side of it...
I mean, what makes this so interesting from a public perspective is that it's like the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
We get to now look and see how miserable multimillionaires, $100 million people, they have expensive problems.
And it's like, it's voyeurism to some extent.
Absolutely.
But I agree with you 1000% for that.
And I also agree with you that Jussie Smollett's biggest crime, above and beyond faking the crime, is that...
He makes real victims in the future harder to believe.
Or he at least is going to...
He's planted that seed that everyone's going to say, is this real?
Eric Swallow is right as often as an unplugged digital clock with an axe sticking out of it at the bottom of a well.
Concur.
I concur.
You're competing with the time slot of the premium...
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not.
I'm closing now.
Oh, with Nate Brody.
Go watch 2,000 Meals.
I'm going to watch it in as much as I can.
Okay, now I will go because I have to go make a barbecue, people.
Nine o 'clock tonight, I'll be going live with Nate the Great Brody.
And it's going to be Amber Heard, Johnny Depp stuff.
So if you're not into it and you don't like it, don't watch it.
It's going to be on Nate's channel.
So we will be there.
Truth is like a line.
It does not need to be defended.
Let it loose and it shall defend itself.
I forget who said that now, but I love it.
I love it.
Go enjoy time with the family.
Thanks for this, Viva.
I would have loved to have done this on the water, but no, it's still...
The water is...
The current is so strong, it's moving like a river.
Thank you very much.
Did I leave any?
Okay, I got all that.
Children are here.
They found me, Marty.
I don't know how about they found me.
Kids are supposed to go Montreal.
Kids are supposed to go in Montreal in July.
Any talk of Canada removing the vaccination rule for 12 to 7-year-old by then?
Oh, I started saying your kids are supposed to go to Montreal in July.
No, they haven't mentioned anything.
Hi.
I'm sure lovely antibodies.
Hi.
There is exemptions or arguable exemptions.
in the law.
But no, they have not made any mention of when they're going to remove that absurd, unconstitutional...
And I took the shoes off because I was in the water and it didn't work.
Abusive.
And it's purely punitive.
To force only unvaccinated children.
They can have a negative test.
They could have recovered from COVID three months ago.
Only unvaccinated children.
12 and up to quarantine for at least 14 days.
It's a prison.
It's a punitive measure.
It's shameful.
It's malicious.
But it's the law.
It's like, it's the law.
So, somehow it's...
Okay.
Okay.
People, I'm going to go now.
Bye-bye!
Bye-bye.
Okay, guys.
Everyone have a good night.
Thank you for everything.
Fishy!
This is a lure that is too big to actually catch fish.
Bye-bye.
Fishy!
Fishy!
Let's see what it is.
I was going to use this, but we might just...
Wait, sit up.
Get up.
Okay.
I'm sitting down.
Okay.
Alright.
Oh, God.
No, I'm sitting down.
This stream has been taken over.
Hi.
Hello.
Bye-bye.
Okay.
Whoa, no, no.
Hold on.
I've got to close it properly.
End podcast.
Okay.
End podcast.
Everyone have a good night.
End the podcast.
Bye-bye.
Come to my fish.
Okay.
See you later.
▲
Export Selection