Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:58:02

Elon Musk, WHO, Sussman AND MORE! (but NO JOHNNY DEPP!) - Viva Frei LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I mean, if you look at all the studies, the Republican Party has moved further to the right than Democrats have to the left.
	There's a Pew Research Center analysis that finds that on average, Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than at any time in the past 50 years.
	And that ideological divide breaks down to the Republican Party being an extremist party.
	And the Democratic Party actually, as you just mentioned, Sarah, moving more to the center.
	But isn't the problem with the primaries?
	Because you can't get through these primaries unless you are extreme.
	They are playing to the base.
	I mean, if you look at all the studies, the Republican Party...
	I'm just going to go ahead and not play that again.
	Because that is enough to make you think you're going crazy.
	So you know what?
	Hold on.
	Let's play it.
	Just play it one more time.
	One more time while people trickle in.
	And just listen to what the person says.
	I want to try to pull up that Pew Research to see if the reason for which it came to the conclusion that the parties are further apart than they've ever been is because the conservatives have moved to the right.
	But listen to this again.
	Has moved.
	They are playing to the base.
	I mean, if you look at all the studies, the Republican Party has moved further to the right than Democrats have to the left.
	There's a Pew Research Center analysis that finds that on average, Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than at any time in the past 50 years.
	And that ideological divide breaks down to the Republican Party being an extremist party.
	And the Democratic Party actually, as you just mentioned, Sarah, moving more to the center.
	We're done with that now.
	Put it on pause.
	Who watches The View and actually watches The View for news?
	For insight?
	I mean, I couldn't imagine being of a frame of mind to watch The View and then say, hmm, you make some interesting points.
	I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
	I don't know which host that is.
	It is, as I remarked in my response to that tweet, confession through projection.
	Accusing your enemy of doing what you're doing so as to create confusion.
	And what was the third thing that I said?
	It was another maxim of war.
	Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
	The Republicans are becoming the extremist party.
	I want to see if I can find that Pew study.
	Pew Pew!
	To see if it is in fact Pew study.
	I'll do it afterwards when we have a break.
	People, there will be no Johnny Depp today.
	I think I've done my time covering what I think is going to be the most interesting part of that trial.
	Amber Depp.
	Amber Heard's testimony and cross-examination.
	I was wrong on the breakdown or the extent of the breakdown meltdown that I was anticipating.
	I think there still was one.
	You'll notice I'm sitting far from the camera today because I want to show off.
	Some interesting new merch, which will be available soon.
	The launch is coming soon, and the stuff is beautiful.
	The stuff is beautiful.
	The company that is doing this is magnificent.
	Check this out.
	Oh, yeah.
	Wait, wrong way.
	Here we go.
	It's coming.
	This is a birthday gift from the company that is doing the launch, and it's going to be available.
	Stay tuned.
	There will be awesomeness afoot.
	Yeah, I think I've done my time with the Johnny Depp trial.
	The market seems to be growing for that, but I don't mind sitting around and staring at my computer all day, but I want to feel like I'm improving myself as well and actually improving my overall knowledge and not becoming an expert who knows more and more about less and less because that Johnny Depp trial, I think we've seen enough.
	The only question now is going to be, How's it going to end?
	But we'll get there.
	I might jump back in if there's an interesting witness and for closing arguments.
	But today, I do not...
	You know how I feel about this thing.
	I do not think it's a distraction.
	I think it's meaningful regardless.
	But today, we're going to talk about the other stuff.
	There's a lot of other important news that certainly doesn't have one million people watching it in real time.
	There's nothing wrong with entertainment, people, even if it is entertainment.
	I don't think it's entertainment because...
	I actually, yesterday watching it, did not get entertainment out of the testimony.
	Those recordings are an indication of very unhealthy relationships.
	Okay, I'll stop.
	I don't even want to talk about it.
	Okay, in the other news, the Sussman, the Michael Sussman trial has started.
	It's not being broadcast.
	It's federal court.
	It's not for any conspiracy theories that it's not being broadcast.
	It's federal court, and those are not televised.
	I hate making my glasses dirtier when I try to clean them.
	It's not being broadcast, but reporters are allowed in.
	And Robert Govea, formerly Robert Grueler, changed his last name.
	I forgot to ask why yesterday.
	He popped on yesterday during the lunch break to go over the latest on the Michael Sussman trial.
	His new name, his name now is his mother's last name, Govea.
	So if you're trying to look for him, you'll still find him on YouTube.
	He's covering it.
	At the end of every day, he gets the transcript from the day, reads through it in as exciting a manner as possible, and he's covering it.
	So if you're interested in that and you want to be distracted from the distraction, we're going to talk about that.
	Elon Musk, the who, not the who as in the awesome band, but the who as in the global evil organization that seems to want to usurp all of national rights for some...
	Who World Order.
	Yes, do it.
	Hashtag Who World Order.
	Boom.
	Govea is his last name.
	Govea.
	Govea.
	Robert Govea.
	It used to be Robert Grueler.
	Legally changed.
	New birth certificate.
	I'm not touching them again after this.
	Oh, I just made it even worse.
	Forget it.
	Live with it, Dave.
	You're an idiot.
	You don't learn.
	So we'll talk about those stories.
	Go through the Twitter feed and just talk about the other interesting stuff.
	The truly interesting thing for anybody who's Canadian.
	First off, I did an interview with Alexa Lavoie from Rebel News on a recent thing, on Bill 15, which passed in Quebec, which removes parental supremacy as the...
	Overarching, overriding principle of the Youth Protection Act in Canada.
	Let me just go here and go to my Twitter feed.
	Just to play a little bit of the interview, and then I'll direct all of you to go to Rebel News.
	If you don't follow them, either on YouTube or Rumble, or on their own dedicated platform, they are doing great stuff.
	They also have some decent tweets.
	Young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
	We penetrate the cabinets.
	There is a word for involuntary penetration.
	I don't want to be penetrated by the WEF or Klaus Schwab.
	I don't want my national integrity, my national autonomy being penetrated by anyone.
	But that's not what I wanted to show you.
	I wanted to show you the interview that I did.
	Just a piece of it, just a little peek.
	People have no idea how serious this is.
	I think some people might.
	Jordan Peterson probably appreciates how bad this is.
	When I heard that they were talking about this law a year ago, I said, this is a line in the sand.
	And in the dead of night, right after they banned protesting outside of hospitals, which I think is immoral, but I think laws already covered that in any event.
	More laws, less justice.
	The dead of the night, they passed that law.
	Dead of the Night, they passed this unanimously, but they don't have time to legislate or pass laws relating to...
	So that's a teaser.
	That's as much of a teaser as we're going to get.
	And I'm going to go bring this in to the comments section so that you can go watch it.
	Go check it out when you have a chance.
	Our independence is under attack, basically, from a number of areas.
	Internationally, nationally, provincially.
	We're going to talk about that.
	But first, actually, thank you for the reminder.
	Jesse Bear says, I'm sorry to inform you, reporting from New York, normies are still brainwashed beyond belief.
	They are convinced of every lie CNN has ever told.
	First of all, thank you for the super chat.
	And thank you for reminding me of the disclaimers.
	YouTube takes 30% of super chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has Rumble rants.
	They take 20%.
	Better for the creator.
	Better to support a platform you like.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Best place to support if you want to.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com No election advice, no medical advice, no fortification advice, no legal advice.
	You know all of that.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	We're going to talk about Elon Musk because there's news.
	And it looks like things are going to get very interesting with Elon Musk and the deal that he had to buy Twitter.
	Going to talk about the who and go over that in as much as we can make sense of it.
	It doesn't mean what people think it means, but we're going to read an article on it, and it's going to tie us into some amazing stuff that I think people might not actually know.
	And then we're going to talk at some point about the Sussman trial.
	We're going to go over the indictment, and just everyone should have an understanding of what's going on right now.
	And let's start with time for Rush.
	No, not that.
	I wanted to bring up Elon smashed...
	Come on, what's wrong with me?
	Elon smashed Twitter.
	Too funny.
	Let's start with Elon.
	Let's start with Elon because it's phenomenal.
	All right.
	Elon Musk, people.
	Once upon a time, I think it's Dave Smith who said...
	Elon tweeted, there's a problem with Twitter, free speech, whatever.
	This guy named Dave Smith says, well, why don't you buy it?
	And then Elon says, how much did it cost?
	How much does it cost?
	And, you know, the story spiraled from there.
	Ultimately, Elon acquired at first 5% and then up to 9.1% common shares in the stock prior to making his intention known that he wants to buy the company.
	There were lawsuits filed against Elon Musk for alleged SEC violations because apparently you're supposed to disclose publicly once you've acquired.
	5% shares in a publicly traded company.
	Elon allegedly failed to do that.
	And people who bought the stock in the period from which Elon had, in fact, acquired 5% up until he announced his shareholdings, which was at 9.2%.
	There's a class action lawsuit of the shareholders who sold in that period.
	Not knowing Elon had acquired 5% or more of the shareholding of the company, they're alleging he had an obligation to make those filings under SEC requirements.
	And had they known that someone like Elon owned 5% of Twitter, obviously they wouldn't have sold or they wouldn't have sold at that price, and therefore they were deprived of value.
	They were deprived of value for having sold when...
	Had it been known that Elon owned 5%, the value of the stock would have been more.
	Okay.
	There's been a number of other investigations, lawsuits, etc.
	Elon says, I'm going to buy the company, makes an offer at $54.20 a share to buy it out.
	It was above market.
	It was well above what it was trading at a couple of months ago.
	It says, this is fair.
	$44 billion.
	I buy the company.
	Take it private because that's the only way this company succeeds.
	Since he made that announcement, It's conditional on a bunch of things.
	I don't know the extent of the details on which it is conditional, but it's obviously conditional on financing.
	It's conditional on due diligence, and we're going to get to one of the elements.
	He makes the announcement, and then there become issues as to whether or not the percentage of bots on Twitter are accurate.
	Since 2013, Elon...
	Since 2013, Twitter says their bot accounts represent less than 5% of the accounts.
	Elon is not so convinced.
	He says, look, when you guys prove this, then we can go ahead and do the deal.
	And there's questions about it.
	Now it seems that it might be upwards of 20%.
	And Elon says, look, I'm still committed to buying the company, but you guys got to prove that bot accounts do in fact represent less than 5% of users on Twitter.
	Okay.
	Now it seems the latest developments are that Twitter wants to force the sale.
	Force the purchase at the agreed upon price.
	Okay.
	That's where we're at.
	That's like the 411.
	Now let me get the article that I pulled up on.
	Oh, where did I put it?
	I forget it.
	Gosh darn it.
	I don't do things properly anymore here.
	Too many things going on.
	Okay.
	We're going to go to...
	The article from Axios.
	Here we go.
	Jack Posobiec, let me just get to the article, then I'm going to pin it over.
	Here we go.
	Boom, shakalaka.
	Are we seeing the same thing, people?
	Let me see here.
	Okay, there we go.
	We got it.
	Someone says they want Johnny Depp.
	Nah, nah, nah.
	Okay, Twitter turns the tables on Musk will enforce merger.
	Twitter's board...
	It might be, especially if you have been misrepresenting the number of bought accounts in SEC and public filings.
	We believe this agreement is in the best interest of all the shareholders.
	We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement.
	This followed an earlier statement from Twitter that said it was committed to completing the transaction on the agreed-upon price and terms as promptly as practicable.
	Okay, let me see what that statement was.
	Because it seems that it was Elon Musk who said, I'm still committed to it, but prove.
	That your bot accounts represent what you say they represent.
	And it's going to be a big problem.
	There's no question that in the due diligence, Elon is entitled to verify public filings and statements made by the company.
	There's no question about it.
	And whether or not now they're going to say, look, we had a good offer and we understand now that it's in the best interest of the shareholders because if Elon does a little bit of a due diligence deep dive or we have to turn over some documents to verify this specific material element, That he might not agree to buy it.
	It might not be worth $54.20 a share.
	And so now they're basically saying, look, we had a deal.
	We're going to move forward with it right now.
	And we're going to bypass.
	Or we think we've met all the conditions and you're obligated to buy it.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Because what's going to happen is, as I'm predicting, they're going to try to force the close.
	You're not going to force the close if you haven't satisfied due diligence, communication of documents.
	Required for, you know, a small transaction of $44 billion.
	And I have a feeling, gosh, get this out of here, that what's going to end up happening, there might be lawsuits.
	I don't know if this is a troll.
	I don't know what this is.
	But if there's going to be a lawsuit, it's going to be very interesting to watch because there's no way that you're going to force someone to buy the company if they are arguing you haven't provided documentation to make evidence of material conditions of this sale.
	It's going to be fun to watch.
	Looks like Twitter recognizes the purchase price was good as it's going to get.
	Maybe Twitter does indeed know something Elon Musk doesn't know but seems to suspect.
	It's going to be fascinating because you can't just force someone to sell something, force someone to buy something.
	It would be inconceivable that this purchase could be forced in the absence of full disclosure of documentation which would allow Elon Musk to verify what percentage of Twitter users are, in fact, bot users.
	And we're going to see what happens.
	I mean, I can't wait to see what happens, but it's not as easy as saying, yeah, okay, well, we're Twitter.
	We unilaterally have decided, declared, that we've met all our obligations and now you're obligated to buy.
	We'll see where it goes.
	When you have Tom Woods on, ask him about the book Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard.
	He introduced me to Rothbard.
	It's available at Mises.org for free.
	Okay, screenshot.
	Do I want to ask, when are we having Tom Woods on?
	I'm going to have to ask Barnes.
	We are not having a sidebar tonight.
	We are having Larry Sanger on, Wikipedia co-founder, tomorrow night for the sidebar.
	Going to be fantastic.
	Twitter is now at $36.90.
	Well, it's tanking because they seem reluctant to open their books to a potential purchaser.
	To make evidence of perhaps the most material fact, the most material element of this purchase, how many bot accounts?
	If it's 5%, that's great.
	I mean, you know when you're buying $100 worth of ads, okay, so 5% of the people viewing it are going to be bot accounts.
	If you're spending $100 on that ads and you now discover that it's actually 20% of the people viewing it who are fake bot accounts that are not going to buy your product, that brings down the value of your advertising.
	And some might even say, rips you off.
	So we'll see.
	And then the question is this also, by the way, if this explodes and the price tanks now because Twitter seemingly, apparently, purportedly refuses to provide documentation that craters the stock price, there's going to be lawsuits everywhere in this.
	And also, by the way, if they try to force the sale that doesn't go through for whatever, tanks the price, Elon Musk is going to have a lawsuit.
	If they made material misrepresentations on the actual amount, if they changed the definitions or tinkered with words so they could say, accounts that are clearly spam or bought, we're going to change the meaning so that it lowers the number.
	If we see internal machinations, mechanisms to do that, there's going to be losses.
	Everything needs to collapse.
	I don't know about that, but...
	Yeah, exactly.
	Fraud your ad customer.
	I think what you mean is, yeah, if you know that you're reaching 20% of bot accounts, you tinker with the wording, you tinker with how you determine it, how you define bot or spam accounts.
	If you play with those definitions to lower the number to that which is actually not reflected by reality, and apparently Elon gave us, he was giving a talk and asked, The people in the discussion, you know, how many of you think that you're engaging in 5% bot responses on your Twitter feeds and people burst out into laughter?
	So, it's, yeah.
	Well, let's see here.
	The scam that comes out of this is how they were politically motivated, how they were politically motivating our top blue Czech people.
	That would be one thing.
	I mean, there's...
	Like we said before, Elon might be buying evidence, or he might be exposing evidence at this point, because it's not clear that he's going to be buying it.
	But the political censorship, now Project Veritas has some very interesting undercover reporting, exposing what goes on at Twitter, basically saying, we run it.
	We run it like a communist infrastructure where we don't have to worry about bottom line.
	We don't have to worry about costs.
	We don't have to worry about profit because this entity is here to serve another purpose other than profits.
	If we had to worry about bottom line, we'd have to worry about expenses.
	This guy, whoever it was, it was a senior tech or something, basically saying, it's a form of communism.
	We don't care about costs.
	We don't care about expenses.
	We don't care about bottom lines.
	We operate this thing politically.
	Rule of acquisition, 015.
	Acting stupid is often smart.
	That is one of the lessons I learned from one of the sneakiest lawyers who taught me this lesson.
	Always pretended to be a befuddled old man.
	Oh, I forgot.
	I didn't realize I had to bring that.
	Oh, he always looks so nice.
	As he pretended to be confused, always talked about how old he was.
	Oh!
	While he was stabbing me in the back.
	And no, I'm not talking about my father at all because my father doesn't play those games in law.
	But this lawyer, you can never get mad at him because he was always just such a forgetful old man.
	He forgot to communicate documents.
	Oh, he's not sure if the wording was proper.
	Yeah, acted stupid.
	Was the smartest, most devious, dumb person I've ever met.
	Expose the lies.
	Crash the price.
	Cancel the deal.
	Pay billion.
	Cancel fee.
	Buy Twitter at half price.
	Elon always gets what he wants.
	And the thing is this.
	True, he's got, what, $4 billion in stock now?
	9.1%.
	If it tanks because of misrepresentations, he's got a claim.
	And right now, what they're doing is you can't force the sale.
	I'd like to see them try.
	I'd like to see them argue that they've satisfied their end of the disclosures.
	We'll see.
	It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.
	I love that expression.
	I've heard it many times.
	And I love it.
	Anyway, so that's what's going on with Twitter.
	It's fun news.
	It's interesting news.
	We'll see where it goes.
	The lawsuits are going to be numerous and costly.
	How do I send a super chat on Rumble?
	Just wanted to say thanks.
	Viva recently found you on YouTube and I'm glad I did.
	Merchant, thank you very much.
	There should be a little Rumble rant thing.
	It's the same formula.
	Actually, let me just make sure that we are live.
	We are live on the Rumbles.
	1,000 people watching.
	And here we go.
	Good.
	So there's a little money.
	It's actually a money bag.
	Hold on.
	Let me get this out.
	Now do Facebook.
	Make sure there's no private information.
	There's a little money avatar there.
	And then you click on that.
	That's not a poop emoji, people.
	There you go.
	You click on that and it gives you rumble rants on the rumbles.
	Rumble ranting sounds on point for sure.
	My goodness.
	Rumble.
	We might have to talk about that.
	That sounds like good branding.
	Okay.
	So that's the Twitter story.
	It's interesting.
	We'll see where it's going.
	Lawsuits galore.
	Lawsuits galore.
	But I think the bluff took...
	Forced the closing to force the transaction.
	Good freaking luck.
	And by the way, not just good freaking luck, even if Elon, in theory, could be compelled.
	He would have to get financing.
	This sale is conditional on financing.
	If there are seemingly an absence of material disclosures, I don't think any bank is...
	No institution is going to finance this acquisition.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Parag, you're going to have to show us before we finance this to the tune of however many billion dollars.
	I'm curious about this.
	Pavlosky needs to sell his majority stake for us to trust it.
	Why is Blue923 taken?
	Let me push back on that.
	And I say this respectfully because I know you and you've been around a while.
	If he sells his majority stake, you are then fully beholden to...
	Shareholder interests, which might have an interest in suppressing certain speech, which might have a financial interest in suppressing certain content creators.
	You know, it's always the question, would you rather be subject to one type of monetary interest versus another type of interest, which might be, in Pavlovsky's case, principle guidance.
	I think Pavlovsky has proven himself thus far to be honest.
	Have integrity and be up for the fight.
	Would I feel better about Rumble if he sold off his majority share and then it was just left to the aggregate interest of shareholders who form a majority?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	They're answering to different interests and they might be the very same ones that choose to suppress freedom of speech because we don't want to be shareholders in a company that has the likes of Alex Jones and all these people that we don't like.
	I disagree with that.
	I disagree that Pavlovsky is for suppressing free speech.
	I disagree with it.
	But we'll see.
	Concrete examples, and I will definitely have a look.
	Okay, that's Twitter.
	Let's do the who, because the who is making a lot of noise.
	People are, I think, seeing things that are not necessarily in it, and people are seeing things in it that need to be addressed.
	Let me just pull up an article.
	We talked about it Sunday night with Barnes.
	There is something going on.
	It's not quite clear that it is, in fact, usurping the national sovereignty of nation-states to be put under the watchful eye and governance of the WHO.
	But there's a meeting with the WHO, WEF, in Geneva, I think, next week.
	Where's the article that I pulled up?
	On...
	Here we go.
	This is from The Lancet, by the way.
	And we're going to open a parenthesis on The Lancet because I know I've covered it a while back.
	And I guarantee that a lot of people who are new to the channel don't know about The Lancet.
	And they're...
	I don't know who owns The Lancet.
	I don't know who the interests are that determine what gets published and what doesn't.
	I think I have an idea.
	I think the chat probably knows better than me, but this is from The Lancet, which is like allegedly, purportedly one of the most eminent medical publications on earth.
	May 16, 2022, effective post-pandemic governance must focus on shared challenges.
	Let's just see where this is going to go.
	The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted profound weaknesses in the global governance of health.
	You know what, Lancet?
	No.
	It actually highlighted profound weaknesses in the national and provincial governance of health.
	And that is something that needs to be dealt with at the provincial and national level and not at a global level.
	One of the reasons for which there may have been problems at the provincial and national level is because government tends to screw everything up.
	Government tends to do that which the private sector does, but worse.
	And anyone who thinks that there's less corruption or risk of corruption in government than the private sector, I would ask you why you think human nature would be different of those who aspire to be in government than those who aspire to make money in private enterprise.
	In politics, power is the currency, and in private enterprise, power as well, but power is usually determined by money.
	Money is the currency.
	Profit is the currency, the motivating factor, for good and for bad.
	If you provide crappy products, people don't buy them.
	You try to maximize profit without compromising quality so that people don't have a problem paying for the product.
	When you're government, you've got a captive audience.
	So I might argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted profound weaknesses, not in global governance of health, in local, provincial, and federal, and in the state's national governance of health.
	Inadequate preparation?
	No, I don't think so.
	Inadequate coordination?
	Internally, yeah.
	Quebec didn't have the worst numbers in Canada because it wasn't coordinating with the international community.
	It had its worst numbers because it was just failing on its own.
	And accountability have hampered the collective response of nations at each stage.
	You see where they're going with this.
	Changes to the global health architecture are necessary to mitigate the health and socioeconomic damage.
	Of the ongoing pandemic.
	And prepare for the next major global threat.
	Because people are protecting it.
	Against this backdrop, the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, yadda yadda, hosted a meeting on the topic.
	Praying the pandemic piper.
	Paying the pandemic piper.
	Global economic health and security.
	Whatever.
	Okay, let's just see where they're going with the who in this.
	Who?
	Consultation on emergency pandemic preparedness.
	Who is consulting member states on a range of preparedness and response proposals, including a global health emergency council and scaled-up universal health and preparedness reviews?
	G20 and the World Bank Financial Intermediary Fund.
	Oh, yeah.
	So here we go.
	The 75th.
	The 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland on May 22 to May 28. 2022, it's an opportunity to turn these varied proposals into effective action.
	Success will require clear demarcations of responsibility with a parsimonious role for international institutions.
	Although a pandemic treaty or alternative new instrument or process cannot solve all that is wrong with global health, it can deliver.
	Targeted developments, targeted improvements, if supported by effective and clear global governance.
	Such a new governance instrument should focus on responsibilities that are truly transitional in nature, meaning it addresses the global challenges with causes and consequences that transcend national boundaries.
	There you have it.
	So, there you have it.
	Now, this is...
	This is the backdrop.
	It's not, you know, they're talking, what was the word that they're using here, which is very nice.
	It's a nice acronym.
	Not acronym, it's a nice euphemism, I should say.
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Clear global governance.
	You know, that is nothing but a euphemism for a new world order.
	I mean, it's like once upon a time when I was a kid, I remember the idea of a new world order was conspiracy theory.
	But that is, I mean, that's what it means.
	That's what it means.
	These, and by the way, unelected, unelected global institutions now want to have a, you know, because pandemic was a problem because of global lack of coordination.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	It wasn't global lack of coordination or global coordination that locked us Quebecers in our houses for five months.
	It wasn't any...
	Lack of a global response that exacerbated the problem or that caused the overrun of the hospitals.
	What on earth for a global response would have increased provincial hospital capacity?
	What?
	This is what's going on now.
	You have unelected officials discussing the sovereignty of...
	I gotta get back to the article.
	The sovereignty of...
	Independent nations.
	And they're meeting in Geneva.
	They're going to talk about these global treaties.
	Now, hold on.
	I can't believe that I can't find the stupid...
	Here we go.
	Sorry.
	Okay, so importantly, these processes, yada, yada.
	This collective response means the WHO pandemic treaty negotiations should align with G20 and World Bank proposals of a financial intermediary fund and finance and health board.
	Additionally, many countries are striving to increase domestic health spending despite the economic damage from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
	More should be done to align this momentum for increased health spending to make best use of national government resources.
	Okay.
	I'll clip this so you guys can read.
	I'm just going to close this down.
	You get the idea.
	Let me just see if there's anything more on the treaty in here that we want to read.
	Okay, we got...
	Not that.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	That's it.
	I'll put this in here so you can read it if you want to read it.
	It's obvious.
	It's clear.
	It's obvious what's going on.
	Now, the question is this.
	As Barnes and I discussed on Sunday, these treaties would have to be ratified on a national level.
	My biggest concern is that Even in the absence of a ratification of any international WHO treaty, the governments of every province and state and nation can just enact the same inspired legislation or regulations or edicts or diktats or whatever you want to call them, mandates.
	They can just impose them nationally without even having to ratify an international treaty.
	And so this idea that the treaty is a concern, but...
	The reality is, okay, no, until these treaties are ratified at a national level, they won't be binding on independent nations.
	The real reality?
	They don't even need to be.
	The WHO can issue these guidelines, they might not be binding technically from any international law perspective on any individual state, province, or country.
	The country's going to do it anyhow.
	When you have the Justin Trudeau's running Canada and the Francois Legault's running Quebec.
	Francois Legault, by the way, who tweeted out in 2017, having read The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab.
	Great book.
	I just finished reading The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
	You don't need these international treaties to be ratified.
	You just have your local governments enacting edicts, diktats, mandates, which never went through any legislative process to begin with, along the same veins, and then good.
	And they'll cloak it in benevolence.
	We're doing it to align with international...
	International rules, international recommendations.
	So maybe it's even worse than some people think.
	They can meet, they can issue guidelines, they can discuss treaties, which will not be binding until those treaties are ratified at a national level, but they don't ever need to be ratified if the governments are going to...
	They've now discovered they can impose a law without going through the legislative process.
	They can just do it without having to ratify a treaty.
	Just do whatever is in alignment with these international protocols.
	Thank you.
	thud Thank you.
	Panzer, dude.
	What are my thoughts on how YouTube has been screwing with all of YouTube, but you especially, it seems?
	I need to have...
	I know how I feel sometimes, but also, at some point, you can't complain.
	Things are good.
	Things could always be better.
	But at the end of the day, maybe also, you know, whatever.
	I'm not complaining.
	It's the nature of the beast.
	You try to fight the machine.
	And hopefully I'm doing a decent job at that.
	Okay, so that's what's going on.
	Pay attention.
	May 22nd to May 28th.
	All these unelected global officials, all these unelected global entities are meeting in Geneva to discuss the futures of nation states.
	Let's see what happens.
	But the Lancet, that's the parentheses I want to open.
	The first thing I'm going to do, actually, is just go to the Googles.
	No, oh, oh, oh.
	You'll have to take my word that The Lancet is the most reputable publication online.
	I'll pull it up on Wikipedia afterwards.
	One must remember...
	Oh, no, this is not the one I want to share.
	Bring this one down.
	Close your eyes, people.
	Close your eyes.
	Remove.
	The Lancet, once upon a time, in the early days of the pandemic, ran an article that referred to the idea that the Rona may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.
	And may have been tinkered with by man.
	They referred to that as a conspiracy theory that was destructive to the global efforts to manage the crisis.
	Now, remember what we talked about right at the beginning of this stream?
	Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	Repeat the lie until people believe it.
	Or confession through projection.
	The Lancet, in the early stages of this pandemic, said it would...
	It's harming the international community's response to COVID to suggest this conspiracy theory that it might have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, with the tinkering of humankind.
	When, in fact, the exact opposite would have probably been true.
	By deliberately hiding that fact or deliberately veering away from that possibility, that would probably, arguably, in my legal mind, analytical thinking, Cause more damage to the global response.
	Because if you think you're dealing with something that might have been tinkered with, that might have been originating in a lab, you might approach it differently than if you think it occurred naturally in nature from eating a pangolin or whatever the heck they said at the beginning.
	But let me just pull this up.
	This is from The Lancet.
	This is from The Lancet.
	We'll see who that text is from.
	This is from The Lancet and it's from February.
	19, 2020.
	Read this, people.
	This is a statement in support of scientists, public health professionals.
	I just want to make sure we're viewing the same document.
	Here we are.
	Okay, good.
	And I just brought it down.
	It is a statement from The Lancet.
	Statement in support of scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combating COVID-19.
	If you've seen this before, people, because you've been around the channel for long enough, nothing wrong with a little reminder.
	We are public health...
	This is from, sorry, February 2020.
	Remember, the world shut down in March 2020.
	We are public health scientists who have closely followed the emergence of 2019 novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, and are deeply concerned about its impact on global health and well-being.
	We have watched as the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular, have worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak, put in place significant measures to reduce its impact, and share their results transparently with the global community.
	I wonder if China has been transparent with the global community.
	No, they haven't.
	And no, they haven't.
	And we're going to see why.
	We signed this statement in solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak.
	We are all in this together.
	Remind me about we are all in this together afterwards.
	With our Chinese counterparts in the forefront against this new viral threat.
	Oh, listen to this.
	This is it.
	This is the spot.
	The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around its origins.
	Excuse me.
	Can you clarify how that's the case?
	The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around its origins.
	We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
	We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
	Fast forward a year and a half, people.
	The punchline is going to be a kick in the groin.
	The Lancet.
	December 18, 2021.
	To be clear, the lab leak theory was and remains a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry.
	Different authors.
	I will grant you different authors.
	Richard Horton for this one.
	And who is the author for the other one?
	Richard Horton.
	And...
	Charles Kalischer, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B. Corley, Peter Daszak, Christian Drosten, et al.
	Show all of those.
	Who is the author that I just said, actually?
	Who is the author that I just said?
	You know, while the window's up, we stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
	This is the same journal.
	This is the same journal.
	To be clear, the lab leak theory was and remains perfectly legitimate line of inquiry.
	Horton, who does not seem to be an author to the other one.
	Can you imagine that February to December, February to February to December, it's almost two years.
	February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December.
	It's almost two years.
	At first, when nobody knew anything, allegedly, when the world was tossed upside down, totally topsy-turvy because it's a novel coronavirus, by definition, it's new.
	By definition, it's new.
	When it was new and nobody knew anything, they came out and definitively said, we stand together.
	Against these conspiracy theories that are harming people.
	Harming the ability to respond to this.
	I always have this.
	There's different types of lies.
	There are different types of lies.
	Someone can lie.
	Someone can demonetize.
	Someone can lie outright.
	They know specifically that what they're saying is actually incorrect.
	Someone can say it's 2 o 'clock knowing it's 3 o 'clock.
	That's a lie.
	Another type of lie is when you say something that you don't have good reason or you know that you don't have sufficient reason to believe is true.
	Someone says, what time is it?
	I don't know.
	I haven't had a watch all day.
	I'm going to say it's two o 'clock.
	But let's just say that you're in a room with no sun.
	The lie, one type of lie, you know what you're saying is false and you say it nonetheless.
	And another type of lie, you have no reason to believe that what you're saying is true, or you have no evidence to support the fact that it's true, and you say it nonetheless.
	Or another type of lie, you know that you don't have enough information, and that asserting anything as a definitive fact, when you don't have enough information, it's a type of lie nonetheless.
	And so, this is in February 2020, for scientists to invoke solidarity.
	As though solidarity has any place in science to begin with.
	Science is not about solidarity.
	In fact, it's specifically about challenging.
	You know what is about solidarity?
	Tribal politics and, to some extent, respectfully submitted religion is about solidarity to ideas, to group members, and to faith.
	Science is not about faith.
	To talk about solidarity in science, it's basically to unionize science.
	In Quebec, there's an expression, so, so, so, solidarité.
	It's like the chant.
	There is no such thing as solidarity in science because solidarity effectively is the antithesis or the antithesis, the antithesis to science.
	But they come together in solidarity to issue a statement for which there could not have been enough information at the time to make such a definitive statement.
	And then...
	A year and a half later, two years later, they come out and say, we've always said it was plausible.
	We always said it's a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry.
	That makes you a liar in the first place and dishonest and disingenuous to try to cover up the lie and pretend that you never said the lie.
	And if you thought we said the lie, you're the idiot.
	You're the crazy person.
	We've always said it's a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry, except when we said it's a conspiracy theory that we strongly condemn.
	Viva Frye.
	I claim it's a conspiracy theory that the government and their news apparatus actually care about their citizens.
	Smash that like.
	Feed that algorithm.
	Robert Kingsman, what a glorious beard you have.
	Is that real?
	My goodness.
	Glorious, sir.
	Gaslight.
	It's gaslighting.
	This is the same journalist.
	Someone's reading it in 2021.
	And they're like, oh, they've always said it.
	Good for them.
	I guess they're not.
	Some people were saying things about a few of the authors, which I don't know.
	Lancet also wrote the anti-HCQ and Big Eye after Trump advocated.
	Oh, and they had to retract that.
	Scandals out of this place, the Lancet.
	Scandals.
	But scandals that are not just based in error.
	Scandals which are based in inexcusable error, which is a form of lying as far as I'm concerned, and then coupled with trying to conceal that error through discrete retractions and gaslighting revisionist history.
	Let me just see here.
	Let me pull this up here.
	Lancet Journal.
	Lancet, the best science for better lives.
	And then let's just go, if we can go to a stab first issued, are we seeing the same thing here?
	1823.
	Was it always like this?
	Was it like this in 1823?
	Was the Lancet as effectively compromised in 1823 as it is quite clearly today?
	The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.
	It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals.
	Well, at least they don't say reputable anymore.
	I don't know if it ever did, actually.
	It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wackley, an English surgeon who named it after the surgical instrument called a Lancet.
	Okay, now let's just see this here.
	Lancet retraction.
	Oh yeah, there we go.
	Boom.
	That's not, that's quite clearly not the right one.
	Lancet retraction.
	Let's just see here.
	The Lancet retraction.
	Let's just see.
	We're learning in real time, people.
	Retraction.
	Okay.
	Retraction.
	HCQ or chlorine.
	Whatever, the CQ.
	With or without a macrolide for treatment of a multinational registry...
	Okay, fine.
	This is my learning curve, people.
	I haven't read this yet.
	After publication of our Lancet article, several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data and analyses conducted by Surgisphere Corporation and its founder and our co-author, Sapan Desai, in our publication.
	We launched an independent third-party peer review of Surgisphere with the consent of Sapan Tessai to evaluate the origination of the database elements to confirm the completeness of the database and to replicate the analysis.
	...and to replicate the analyses presented in the papers.
	Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset.
	Client contracts or the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidential agreements.
	As such, our reviewers were not able to conduct an independent and private peer review and therefore notified us of their withdrawal from the peer review process.
	Is this the story?
	How did it get published in the first place if that had not already been conducted?
	I thought that's what a peer review does.
	Now, let me just run to the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs here to see if that's what I'm looking at.
	Was that the right thing?
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So I'm not sure what the wow is in response of, but yeah, that's amazing.
	That's amazing.
	So that's The Lancet.
	And that's The Lancet now, covering what's going on in Geneva, talking about the necessity, the same oldest medical journal that tried to pull the wool over your eyes of their egregious misstatements, is not the right word, factually unsupported statements that they made, as a matter of fact, early on, for whatever the reason.
	So The Lancet, I don't know how it can ever be trusted again, how it can ever be...
	Any form of a reputable journal, given these scandals, but alas, you know...
	Oh, the Dow is plummeting.
	Alas, the New York Times is still real news, despite...
	My goodness, everybody, you have to read The Grey Lady Winks to get over all of the...
	They're not bungled stories.
	It's fake news.
	Misinformation.
	Journalists.
	It starts with the Holodomor.
	It goes to World War II.
	It goes to Soviet Russia covering up for Soviet communist crimes.
	Covering up for Yahtzee Germany crimes.
	Covering up for U.S. crimes in dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
	It goes to covering up...
	The fake news story that the New York Times ran with the incident in Israel in which a 12-year-old kid was killed and the stories they ran which led to years of violence.
	The New York Times has always done it and yet somehow, for some reason, is still considered legitimate news that is trustworthy and an authority.
	Dazak is one of the leads working in Wuhan lab.
	And by the way, for anybody who doesn't know the full story of the nukes in Hiroshima, after they dropped them, as if that wasn't enough of a, call it a crime against humanity, it was what occurred at the time.
	They wanted to downplay or ignore the facts that it was, even after it killed, what was it, like 40,000 people instantly?
	How many people instantly?
	That it was killing tens of thousands of people over time through radiation poisoning.
	And nobody wanted to reveal how How inhumane the deaths were, and how devastating the fallout was.
	They just wanted to blame it on the devastating impact of the bomb itself with no lingering effects.
	Outright covered it up, killed the stories, went there, and effectively served to mislead the general public for the benefit of the U.S. military apparatus and to cover up what would have been the shocking, what would have been shocking, if known, aftermath of the bomb.
	So that's it.
	I mean, The Lancet is still going to remain a reputable journal, I presume, in as much as The New York Times has remained the old grey lady.
	The old grey lady, she ain't what she used to be.
	Let's see here.
	I'm sick of the word misinformation.
	Once, we would have called it out a lie.
	Our leaders and MSM are liars.
	Heron Song, you're 100% correct.
	You're 1000% correct.
	So anyways, that's what's going on with The Who.
	But like, highlighted by the fact that it just draws attention to the...
	It's corruption.
	The corruption, the lies, the concealment everywhere.
	And why?
	I suspect all of these interests are somehow interconnected somewhere down the line, but it would be up for you to connect the dots.
	Just know, The Lancet should be a discredited medical journal that no one should rely on because not only did they...
	Issue statements for which they had no basis in science to issue them.
	They turned out to be factually incorrect, and instead of a specific correction and apology, they went into gaslighting.
	We've always been saying this from the beginning.
	They published an article that clearly had not been peer-reviewed.
	They published a study which clearly had not been peer-reviewed.
	And then when they actually did the peer-review, because people started calling them out, lo and behold, they didn't want to cooperate with their peer-reviews, and they had to pull it.
	What did they publish in the first place?
	What's the protocol in the first place?
	How does the New York Times publish factually incorrect stories that have devastating consequences?
	How does it get past the process?
	How did it get past the process at the Lancet multiple times?
	Viva Fry.
	Misinformation is not inherently false information.
	It's information that goes counter to the organization that currently has power and authority.
	We're watching Trudeau weaponize that word misinformation right now, and they're going to use it.
	They are going to use it.
	They're going to call others misinformation, and the people that they are calling misinformation, by and large, have been more accurate on their information than the government itself.
	Speaking of which, while we're touching on the Canadian stuff, I got a...
	Let me just flag this.
	Hold on a second.
	It seems we have someone back in the chat.
	Ingsoc by another name.
	They also covered up the effects it could have on the U.S. medics providing medical care post-surrender in Japan.
	True, this is getting back to the New York Times covering up the effects of the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima.
	They also covered up the fact that when they were doing studies, tests on islands elsewhere, using other people as guinea pigs, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it had these secondary devastating...
	Impact's been known.
	Rule of acquisition, 181.
	Dude, I think we've overlapped on some of the rules.
	I'm joking.
	I love it.
	Even dishonesty can't tarnish the glow of latinum, gold.
	Even dishonesty can't tarnish the glow of gold.
	That's beautiful, actually.
	That's beautiful.
	Let me screenshot and remember that one.
	All right.
	So let's just go back to Canadian stuff.
	I'm just going to go to the hydroxy retraction.
	Pat King apparently had his hearing yesterday.
	We are now having secret trials because there is no news.
	There's so no news that I'm even incapable of knowing if the message that I'm getting that the next hearing has been pushed to May 24 is even true.
	I've got...
	Let me make sure that nobody's seeing my phone right now.
	So bloody neurotic I am.
	I've got on good information, let me just pull this down, that I can't share, just people who are closer to the action than me, that the next court date is May 24th.
	I was told and received a call-in number for a court date that was supposed to be yesterday.
	This is Pat King.
	Three months and a week he'll have been in jail by the time the next hearing is.
	And I don't even know what the next hearing is about.
	It's so far out of the collective memory that this individual accused of mischief, perjury, and whatever has now been locked up for three plus months.
	It's so far out of collective memory that the news doesn't even feel the need to report on it to promote their own anti-convoy agenda.
	Bubbly water.
	You know, the media covers it.
	The media covers the arrest and detainment of Tamara Lich.
	I always forget the name of the other guy, and it's not to be disrespectful.
	And Pat King.
	They cover it when they can weaponize it for anti-convoy, anti-protest sentiment.
	If they cover it now, what would be highlighted is the fact that an individual has now been sitting in jail for three months on mischief perjury obstruction charges where violent criminals don't get held in pretrial detention for this long.
	So now it's become politically a political liability to cover this with any degree of public scrutiny because people are going to get wise to the fact that Pat King is still in jail on mischief-related charges and perjury because apparently he lied now in one of his bail hearings.
	Pat King bail hearing.
	I can't even find information on it.
	When I specifically look for it.
	Can't find it.
	It's preposterous.
	Okay.
	But he's still sitting in jail.
	And, you know, he may be an unsavory character.
	That doesn't matter.
	I think it was Mahatma Gandhi who said, you know, you can judge a society by how they treat their animals, and I'm not equating prisoners to animals, but I'm also going to say that you can judge a society by how they treat their prisoners.
	Chet Chisholm says, all you need to do to prove The Lancet was lying was read the drug and profiles and mechanism of action of the drugs and how they treat certain symptoms.
	Chet Chisholm, you sound smarter than me.
	Because I know that I'm not going to appreciate that, but I think my wife would.
	My wife was a postdoc PhD.
	I remember hearing at the time, I wasn't paying attention to that story, that it was patently apparent from the article itself.
	It was bunk.
	Political prisoners is the correct term in my mind.
	And the fact that they have kept this individual who's...
	Accused, not convicted.
	Accused of what are...
	You can try to twist it into a violent crime.
	You know, the honking was violence on people and people were scared.
	He's being accused of protest, mischief-related charges.
	Non-violent.
	Locked in jail.
	No bail.
	No bail.
	And each hearing seems to get postponed for whatever the reason.
	It's nonsense.
	Okay.
	And speaking of politicized system...
	No, we can take that away.
	Speaking of a politicized system, why am I getting these spammers?
	I don't understand it.
	Like, why?
	What is the purpose?
	You can judge the government by how Fauci treats his dogs.
	You know, I've always said that to experiment on higher order animals, you have to have the most compelling need-to-do-it reason.
	Chris Skye.
	No, it wasn't Chris Skye who was arrested.
	It was...
	Someone in the chat is going to know who the other one was.
	With this new merch, I hope one day Viva will start his brake truck business selling fries called Viva Fries.
	Oh, I can do that.
	I can have my own poutine.
	Viva Fries.
	I like it.
	The question is, had I worn this one, would it have fit in the screen and would it have looked good?
	It goes like this.
	This is a good one.
	Oh, it's beautiful.
	Anyways, stay tuned, people.
	That was the teaser.
	Oh, yeah, and little Viva Barnes.
	Look at that.
	It's going to be beautiful.
	All right.
	So speaking of...
	Oh, yeah, Chris Barber.
	Thank you.
	Chris Barber is his name.
	He was let out as well.
	Pat King's the only one who's still in jail.
	Unfortunately for him, he's the least savory character of the bunch.
	At least Tamara Lich is a Métis woman.
	And I don't play this identity politics crap, period.
	But you cannot ignore...
	What's the word?
	Optics when it comes to things like this.
	Locking up a Métis woman is different than locking up Pat King.
	He's got a reputation.
	He's got a persona.
	Said certain things publicly which are far more abrasive than any things that Tamara Lich has said.
	It's like the QAnon shaman.
	He's an easy person to make an example out of.
	Oh, a Métis.
	Métis is indigenous and European intermingled from the procreation perspective.
	Do I still practice law?
	I have one trial left next year.
	And that is it.
	I take no new files.
	I never want to see the inside of a courtroom again.
	Although I might have to to contest a ticket that I got today.
	Okay, so what was I saying?
	Speaking of corrupt, politicized, weaponized system, Michael Sussman trial has started.
	This is one of the more fun, important stories.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I get the joke now.
	Maybe it was a joke that...
	Who am I to say if Tamara Lich is a woman?
	I am not a biologist.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Where was it?
	I don't believe...
	You see what happens even from the outside.
	Can't stand it.
	I'm watching the Johnny Depp trial.
	Other than the...
	You can derive some interest from it.
	I hate everything about it.
	I could have...
	I believe thoroughly I could have...
	Destroyed Amber Heard on cross-examination on the stand.
	I think I could have elicited the breakdown that I thought was coming.
	But I can't even stand crushing people who deserve to be crushed.
	So call me whatever name.
	I cannot stand destroying people even if they deserve to be destroyed.
	So it makes for a very difficult, conflicted life as a lawyer.
	All right.
	Michael Sussman.
	I'd like to think I'd have an easier time destroying Michael Sussman.
	Michael Sussman, for anybody who doesn't know, his trial has started.
	Federal court, Washington, D.C., which is going to bring its own problems on its own.
	We're going to get to.
	Sussman was the lawyer for Hillary Clinton, a number of other Clinton entities, who is now facing one charge of lying to the FBI.
	Well, okay, we're going to get to the details in the article, but bottom line, Sussman is the individual who brought one of the white paper PP, the PP dossier, the Steele dossier, to the FBI, said, I think I've uncovered evidence that Trump is colluding with the Russians.
	You guys need to investigate.
	They asked Sussman, are you here on behalf of a client?
	Sussman said, no.
	But it seems, based on his billing records over many months, that Sussman was there on behalf of a client, and that client, or at least one of them, was Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was running for president.
	Okay, that's the overview.
	So his trial started.
	One charge of lying to the FBI.
	Clinton lawyer lied to manipulate FBI over Trump.
	BBC News.
	Arguments in the trial of Michael Sussman have begun with prosecutors saying he hoped to create an October surprise in the race's final weeks.
	Sussman's pleaded not guilty.
	He is the first of the defendants to go on trial in an investigation into the FBI's original probe to find if Donald Trump was conspiring with Rawlings.
	Appreciate this, people.
	We lived through it in real time.
	This was my political awakening.
	Three and a half years, we were told that Trump was colluding.
	With the Russians to interfere with the U.S. elections to help him get elected.
	We're right back to square one on this live stream.
	Repeat the lie often enough and people will believe it.
	Accuse your adversaries of doing what you're doing to create confusion and confession through projection.
	We were told by the media, by the political elite, by Hillary Clinton, that Trump was colluding with the Russians' foreign interests to interfere with the 20...
	What ended up being the case?
	Lo and behold, it seems that it was the Clinton campaign who was conspiring with foreign interests to interfere with the 2016 elections so that they could win.
	Literally.
	What they accused Trump of having done is literally what they did.
	And this is what's going to come out, at the very least, as allegations in the trial, probably much to the shock, dismay, and...
	Outrage of the jury members who are predominantly Democrat or Clinton supporters.
	But we'll get there as well.
	The charges arise from a meeting between Mr. Sussman, Mr. Sussman, a cybersecurity lawyer, and an FBI agent in 2016.
	Sussman presented what he claimed was evidence of a suspicious internet traffic connecting the Trump organization to Russia's Alphabank.
	The FBI looked into the allegations and found nothing suspicious.
	Hold on, I'm going to cough.
	I'll just put it on mute.
	It's not going to happen.
	I'm going to cough too soon.
	Can I hold off the cough?
	Hold off the...
	Oh, God.
	This is exactly what happened to me in my first interview with the law firm at which I worked.
	I got that tickle in my throat where my eyes started watering and I couldn't talk for like two and a half minutes during the interview.
	It's coughing.
	I need water.
	She's talking like this.
	And I was sure I lost the job or lost the opportunity, but I got the job.
	Lucky me.
	Beginning of the rest of my life.
	Okay, back to the article.
	And then we're going to get to the jury selection.
	Sussman, the Michael Sussman.
	All right.
	Prosecutors say Mr. Sussman lied by not disclosing in the meeting that he was working for the Democrats' campaign.
	The indictment charges that he claimed not to be representing any particular client and that he presented himself as a purely concerned citizen.
	Everyone in this is corrupt.
	Everyone in this is corrupt.
	Maybe with the exception of Durham, who did the inquiry that led to this arrest and that of Clinesmith.
	Clinesmith was the FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to falsifying evidence, then submitting it to a FISA court.
	For the purposes of obtaining a renewal of the FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, the renewal of it, so they could then, what do they call it, the two steps of separation?
	Then they could get to the Trump campaign.
	Got to open that parentheses for anybody who doesn't know.
	Client Smith, a young lawyer at the FBI, falsified evidence that was submitted to the FISA court to remove what was specifically indicated as Carter Page having been an asset of the CIA which would have explained his interactions with Russian entities.
	Kline Smith removed that from an email that was drafted by somebody else and then submitted it to the FISA court as evidence such that warranted and represented to the FISA courts is that Carter Page was not an asset and therefore it was highly suspicious that he was interacting with Russian entities.
	Such that they could then get a renewal of their, what was obviously otherwise an unlawful FISA spy warrant.
	Clinesmith pleaded guilty.
	From what I understand, he got one year probation, was disbarred and subsequently readmitted.
	Didn't serve any time.
	But he pleaded.
	This is number two arrest, the first trial, out of that same Durham probe.
	And Sussman did not plead, for whatever the reason.
	So Sussman's going to trial.
	But I believe the FBI is thoroughly corrupt in all of this because the FBI, the CIA, and everyone knew.
	Everyone knew Sussman was Clinton's lawyer.
	Everybody knew who Sussman was.
	Sussman was involved with the FBI during the alleged hack, Russian hack of the DNC servers.
	Sussman is a known entity.
	That he comes in to a meeting with the FBI to say, here's a white paper file, a PP dossier showing Trump interacting with Russian entities.
	For him to say to the FBI, and he is a known entity to the FBI, they know who he is.
	For him to say, I'm just a concerned citizen, FBI.
	I'm not working for anybody.
	And then the FBI to run with it.
	That's willful blindness to the point of actual corruption.
	He goes in and says, I'm just a concerned citizen.
	Everybody knew who Sussman was.
	Sussman's not, he's not a concerned citizen.
	He's a Hillary Clinton, Democrat lawyer, cybersecurity specialist, had worked with the FBI and the CIA in the context of the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers.
	He comes in and says, here's a report that shows Trump is working with...
	The Russians, you guys had better investigate.
	I'm just here as a concerned private citizen.
	Anybody who believes that is stupid, corrupt, or dishonest, or a fine combination of all three.
	So he's going to trial now because he has been indicted on...
	Oh, and by the way, in this meeting that he had with the FBI where he disclosed this report, on which he had been working and for which he had been billing.
	Hillary Clinton.
	We'll get there.
	He had been working on this file.
	He had been billing for this file.
	He even billed for the meeting with the FBI.
	We're going to get to that when we look over the indictment.
	Did I just forget the literal end of that sentence?
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	The FBI didn't take any notes.
	No notes of this meeting.
	And apparently from the opening arguments of prosecution and defense...
	The defense is saying the fact that the FBI didn't take any notes during this meeting is an indication as to how not seriously they took this disclosure.
	I take the FBI meeting with a known entity, a lawyer for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, and not taking notes and believing that he was just there as a concerned citizen.
	Corruption upon corruption upon corruption.
	It's like turtles, people.
	Except instead of it being turtles all the way down, it's corruption.
	all the way down.
	Okay, sorry, I'm just reading a comment which...
	It's not clear spam, therefore it stays.
	But clear spam, we seem to be getting a lot of it.
	Good afternoon, Harrington.
	So the trial has started.
	And add to stream.
	That's the article.
	This is the overview of the trial.
	And we're going to get to the indictment.
	The indictment is all allegations.
	Hasn't been proven yet.
	They've had jury impaneling in one day, on Monday.
	The trial started on Tuesday.
	You had opening arguments from prosecution and defense.
	And I'm not sure where they're at right now.
	That's as far as I got in my covering it.
	But like I say, Robert Gouveia.
	G-O-U-V-E-I-A.
	Watching the Watchers, Locals.
	He's on watchingthewatchers.locals.com.
	He's covering it by reading through the transcripts that he gets the day of, for the day of, at night.
	This will be the more condensed breakdown.
	So this is the article.
	Prosecutors say Sussman lied by not disclosing in the meeting that he was working for the Democrats' campaign.
	Why would he disclose it?
	They knew it.
	I mean, that might be part of the defense.
	Why would he disclose the fact that everyone knew?
	The FBI didn't know who Sussman was?
	Bullcrap.
	They knew damn well who he was.
	For them to think he wasn't there on behalf of the campaign or that for them to believe that he was there as a concerned private citizen, bull crap of the highest politically corrupt order.
	The indictment charges that he claimed not to be representing any particular client and that he presented himself purely as a concerned citizen.
	Lawyers for Susten denounced the trial as an injustice.
	At Tuesday's hearing in a Washington, D.C. federal courthouse.
	How much more do we have in this article?
	Well, yeah, let's just go through this real quick.
	He's being charged by the U.S. Department of Justice, Special Counsel John Durham, who was picked by the Attorney General under President Trump 2019 to investigate the FBI misconduct in the original Trump-Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
	Mueller came to the conclusion that although he could not exonerate, he could not incriminate.
	As though the role of any prosecutor is to conclude that you cannot exonerate.
	Only in a communist guilty until proven innocent culture does a prosecutor say, I'm unable to exonerate the person I'm investigating.
	The Mueller inquiry concluded in 2019 that it could find no evidence of any criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, though it did not, though it did determine Russia had sought to help Mr. Trump win.
	Yeah.
	Trump say yada yada yada.
	Okay, fine.
	Also on Tuesday, prosecutors revealed what led to the FBI to conclude.
	The evidence provided by Mr. Sussman did not prove any Russian collusion.
	The server at the Trump organization uncovered by Mr. Sussman was merely a spam email server used for sending out marketing emails, Ms. Shaw told the jury.
	Hold on, who's Shaw?
	Got to get clear on the names of the prosecutor.
	Okay.
	So the argument is going to be, and these are what I understand they've raised in opening arguments.
	Sussman knew what he was relying on was bogus.
	That he couldn't possibly prove what he thought it proved and he should have known that what he was submitting was bunk.
	The defense is going to argue that Sussman's not...
	He's not able to determine that and he genuinely believed that it might have had ties to Russia.
	And from what I understand, the defense has also argued that Sussman didn't try to hide anything.
	He didn't try to hide anything.
	He even billed for it.
	Why would someone trying to hide it From the FBI that he's there on behalf of a client.
	Why would he bill for that?
	And I got two answers to that.
	First of all, the fact that he billed for it, billing is confidential, so it's not like he thought anyone was ever going to find the billing.
	That he actually billed for the prep work for these white papers that they refer to them as, and that he billed for the actual meeting with the FBI.
	I highly doubt he ever thought the FBI would discover that because billing is privileged information between lawyer and client.
	So the fact that he billed privately in what was supposed to be solicitor-client-privileged communications is hardly evidence of the transparency that the defense is arguing that it is.
	I think maybe the reason why he...
	I'm surprised he didn't just say it was a joke.
	They knew damn well who I was.
	When I said I was a private concerned citizen, they knew it was a joke.
	They knew damn well who I was there for.
	Oh, okay.
	Two other people have been charged with crimes as part of Durham's probe.
	One pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering evidence.
	That was Klein Smith.
	In the other case, a Russian analyst has been charged with lying to the FBI about his sources.
	And I think that is...
	Oh, I forget the name now.
	Though there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton herself directed the alleged Sussman smear, political opponents have poured scorn.
	On her remarks this month, warning about the dangers of disinformation and conspiracy theories.
	There's no evidence that Mrs. Clinton herself directed the alleged suspense fear.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Let's just close this down for one second.
	Go to the chat.
	No evidence.
	That depends on who you ask and what is going to be adduced by evidence.
	Oh, I see Hart Tackle is in the house.
	Viva, would you destroy Trudeau on the stand?
	Depends what the charges were.
	Only if there's a fair judge.
	If there is no sanction for evasive answers and avoiding answering and lying, if there's no sanction for perjury, then no, you can't destroy anybody unless there's the system that...
	I'm not the punisher.
	I could bring out the lies.
	I could elicit embarrassingly circular evasive answers.
	But if there's no judge to sanction the behavior, it'll never happen.
	You watch Trudeau in Parliament act like a total jack-in-nanny, not answer questions.
	Like, literally, they will ask him a question, A, and he'll say, thank you very much for allowing me to elaborate on the good we did.
	And it's literally a non-answer.
	It's a joke.
	It's a joke, and it goes unsanctioned because there is no sanction.
	It's supposed to be a political sanction.
	In court, there would have to be a judge to...
	You know, issue the sanctions and I could, you know, I would.
	I'd have to know the facts and know the story and have the receipts, but I would.
	Hey, Viva, so much spam in here today.
	Going to have to get a couple of slices of bread and make fried spam spammy.
	Heart Tackle, have a great day.
	Thank you very much.
	Heart Tackle, a fishing company made in the USA and it's awesome.
	That was not an ad.
	I was just reading a super chat.
	I used his lures and I caught fish.
	Therefore, they're good.
	The oppression of the liberals, the oppression of the liberals will never return.
	You have lost Trudeau.
	I don't know what that means.
	Viva would drop a turd, a turtle in his pants.
	Okay, so the article says, you know, there's no evidence that Hillary asked or participated in this.
	Okay, let's go to the indictment, by the way.
	The indictment is just allegations, not proven fact, but it's very interesting nonetheless to read.
	The indictment of Michael Sussman.
	Totally suss, man.
	I just want to show one thing.
	We've gone over it.
	It's long.
	It's detailed.
	In or about late October 2016...
	Let me just make sure we're looking at the same thing.
	Yeah, there we go.
	Okay, we're good.
	Just the...
	Whether or not Hillary or the campaign knew.
	Because, you know, that was one thing I would say, like, okay, you know, the fact that they bill, the fact that the lawyer billed for it doesn't mean he was authorized to bill for it.
	You could even go one step further and say, look, the fact that we even paid it is not evidence that we authorized it because, you know, one-liners here and there on a bill, a lot of people just pay the bills without looking through the itemized entries.
	But wait until you see these itemized entries.
	In or about late October 2016, approximately one week before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, multiple media outlets reported that U.S. government authorities had received and were investigating allegations concerning a purported secret channel of communications between the Trump organization owned by Donald J. Trump and a particular Russian bank.
	According to one of these articles published in a major newspaper, Yahoo, intelligence officials possessed information concerning what cyber experts said The FBI
	took this.
	The FBI relied on the article that Yahoo posted, which was based on this bunk...
	What was the name again?
	The PP dossier.
	Oh, the Steele dossier.
	It's laundered misinformation.
	It was leaked to the paper, maybe by Sussman, who knows?
	Maybe by the FBI, who knows?
	This fake Steele dossier.
	Bunk.
	False.
	Fake.
	Fabricated.
	Which involved these salacious allegations of urinating on beds in Russian hotels.
	It was fake.
	It was a detailed fake document leaked to the media somehow, somewhere, by someone.
	Intelligence then uses this news article to justify its FISA warrants, gets them, investigates Trump, spies on the campaign.
	And it was all based on misinformation that was leaked to the media, weaponized by the FBI, taken to secret courts, and all of this happened in darkness where democracy goes to die.
	Sussman was the one who gave it to the FBI.
	We don't know if Sussman is the one who leaked it.
	And now he's going to trial on the charge.
	We don't need to read through the whole thing.
	I just want to go to the word bill.
	Which comes up...
	49 times in this document.
	Bill.
	Let's just do build.
	It'll be easier.
	Build comes up 23 times in this indictment.
	So when people say there's no evidence that Clinton directed Sussman to do this, to work with the campaign, to prepare this PP dossier, these white papers, opposition research, misinformation, which was then used to investigate a political adversary to drop the October surprise in an election season.
	No evidence.
	These are allegations.
	From in or about late July through in or about mid-August 2016, Sussman, Tech Executive 1, Campaign Lawyer 1, coordinated and communicated with the Russian bank allegations during telephone calls and meetings which Sussman billed to the Clinton campaign.
	Thank you.
	Let's go to the next one.
	For example, on or about July 29, 2016.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Sussman billed his time in this meeting to the Clinton campaign under the category general political advice with the billing description meeting with campaign lawyer others regarding confidential project.
	That's interesting.
	Let's go to the next one.
	More billing.
	Billed his time under the category general political advice on or about July 31st.
	Server issue.
	Billed.
	Billed.
	We want to get closer to October.
	He began billing for his work.
	For example, we're at paragraph A here.
	On or about September 5th, 2016, Sussman began billing work for the drafting of the aforementioned white paper.
	Sussman billed this work to the Clinton campaign with a billing description that read, in part, working on white paper, follow-up telephone conferences and email.
	No evidence that Clinton...
	Or the campaign directed, Sussman, to prepare this white paper to then leak it to the FBI as a concerned citizen.
	But wait!
	There's more!
	Oh, that's a lot.
	Okay, whatever.
	We can skip through that.
	I think you get it.
	You know, I'll actually put the...
	Oh, son of a gun.
	I'll put that in here so that people can read this on their own time if they want.
	But let's just get to the FBI meeting, which I think was in October.
	More billing on the confidential project.
	Billed work regarding confidential project.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Sussman billed all of the aforementioned work on September 17. Okay, fine.
	They don't mention that they paid for this, but here we go.
	Look at this.
	Paragraph 29. Sussman billed his meeting with the FBI general counsel to the Clinton campaign with the billing description, work and communications regarding confidential project.
	And let's just see if the word paid is in here.
	Paid advocates.
	Paid advocates.
	There's only three paid.
	I'm going to go reread it.
	I'm not sure that it alleges the Clinton campaign paid for it.
	But can you believe it?
	Can you believe this?
	And why?
	Greed?
	Or just, that's what they were doing.
	That was his mandate.
	No one's supposed to see your actual billing.
	No one is supposed to see a lawyer's billing to their client.
	And by the way, practical tip for any lawyers out there.
	There's a risk of claiming legal fees because then you have to evidence your legal fees, which might mean that you might have to disclose your billing.
	You can oftentimes get away with redacted billing because they don't need to know what was discussed during meetings, but they want to see when you met with your client in the context of a file for which you are now claiming reimbursement of legal fees.
	So, most lawyers do not think that their billing is going to ever be seen.
	Some lawyers deliberately do not do itemized billing or have much more general, vague billing descriptions.
	Sussman, who may have thought he'd never get caught, probably because he thought Clinton was going to win.
	Yeah, I met with the...
	Meeting with the FBI to give them the...
	File that I've just been billing you for to prepare for months.
	But yeah, no, no.
	The Ministry of Truth has been suspended.
	I did not know that.
	This guy probably thought Clinton was going to win and no one was ever going to find out about this.
	And by the way, appreciate this.
	Had Clinton won, none of this would have ever been known.
	The deepest levels of corruption at the highest levels of government would never have been known.
	He billed for it.
	And now what is he possibly going to say?
	I didn't know.
	His defense team is raising it.
	I didn't know what was in that.
	I didn't know that the report was bunk when I provided it to the FBI.
	I'm just a cyber...
	I'm just a cyber attorney specialist.
	I didn't know what I was viewing.
	That's why I was giving it to cyber specialists.
	Okay.
	I didn't lie to the FBI because no one in their right mind...
	I don't even think they're raising this argument.
	No one in their right mind would have believed I was there as a concerned private citizen because everybody knew who I was there.
	And then the flip side, the other argument...
	I was, you know, maybe this billing.
	I didn't bill for that.
	I billed for something else.
	Or I was not authorized to do it.
	And therefore, I'm just going to, you know, I'll be thrown on the spear by the Clinton campaign.
	I had no idea you were doing this, Sussman.
	How dare you?
	We didn't want to cheat in the election.
	We didn't want to go fabricate opposition research and then leak it to the media and the typical wrap-up smear and then use it against the campaign to spy on.
	We didn't want to do that.
	How dare you, Sussman?
	I trusted you.
	So anyways, that's...
	Can you imagine the 2016...
	We would still believe that Trump tried to collude with the Russians to get elected.
	And we were saved.
	I take the compliment.
	You are one of the real rare people, Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	I will take that compliment because it makes me feel good.
	How dare you, Sussman!
	I can picture, like, you know, taking off a glove.
	The tarnished you have caused on the reputation of the Democrat National Committee, convention, whatever, you know what I'm talking about.
	The Hillary Rodham campaign for president.
	We may never get over it.
	And Hillary Clinton comes out and tweets about disinformation and misinformation.
	Back to the beginning.
	Confession through projection.
	Accuse your adversaries of doing what you're doing so as to create confusion.
	Repeat the lie long enough.
	Some people are going to believe it.
	Clinton's motive for manufacturing the Trump-Russia hoax was to distract from her real issue with the classified email security violations.
	Yeah, we're still left to believe that their email server was hacked.
	I don't believe it.
	Or let me rephrase, if it was hacked, it was a facilitated hack that came from within and not from without.
	That's my own personal belief.
	And you can call me whatever name you want.
	That is my own personal belief.
	Because one other thing, by the way, the 33,000 missing emails, which they, you know, smashed phones with hammers, wiped with a cloth, beach blit.
	Oh yeah, that's exactly what you do.
	That's exactly what you do.
	Beach bit.
	Blit.
	Bleach.
	Bleach bit, not beach blit.
	We'll never know.
	Maybe one day we'll know.
	So that's what we have ever known, but for the way things turned out and what we know now.
	The question is, what's going to happen in 2024?
	And what's going to happen in 2022?
	It's going to be interesting.
	So the suspect trial will continue.
	Scheduled for a couple of weeks, I think.
	And I'll be doing the, you know, I'll follow it.
	It's interesting.
	Robert and I will be talking about it.
	Let's see what I didn't get to in my list.
	Oh, that's right.
	The jury.
	You know, you're supposed to have a jury of your peers, and technically your peers are supposed to be reflecting society at large.
	And so, you know, if society at large is 90% pro-Clinton, pro-Democrat, you would not expect your jury pool to not reflect that.
	You would expect your jury pool to reflect that reality.
	I agree about Clinton's motives.
	All that seems to indicate...
	That this mess would indeed have come to light because it needed to.
	Yeah.
	Well, so, and now, you expect the jury to reflect your peers, and so it should be, you know, statistically likely, statistically comparable to whatever demographic.
	So you're having a trial in Washington, D.C., where I think it, from what I read recently, 90-plus percent voted Democrat, 90-plus supported Hillary.
	So you should expect that 90% of the jury pool We'll be pro-Clinton, pro-Democrat.
	If you pull a random sample from DC, that's what you should get.
	So you should expect to see.
	This is just the news.
	I don't know how reliable this source is, but I know that these facts are actually confirmed.
	I can pull up another article if need be.
	So knowing the demographics of DC, you know what you're going to get by way of demographic of the jury pool.
	And it's going to be...
	Heavily democratic and heavily pro-Hillary, to put it mildly.
	Jury, juror donations, judges, family ties at Sussman trial spotlight DC's liberal leanings.
	Some would argue that it's what's supposed to happen.
	A jury of your peers, if 90% of society is a certain way, you would not expect 50% of the jury to not be that way.
	The presiding judge's wife represents former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
	She was one who had the love affair with Peter Stroke, texting about a whole bunch of inappropriate things, whose texts critical of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump led to her departure.
	Her and Stroke having an affair, which, you know, keep your schmeckle in your pants, you'll be much happier than if you don't, texting integral members of the FBI, texting anti-Trump messages to one another while they're, you know, while the FBI...
	Is running with a PP dossier submitted to them by a concerned private citizen who they know works for Hillary Clinton.
	This stuff, it would be a comedy if it were a movie, and it would be an implausible comedy at that.
	So we've got, yes, with as many as three jurors having donated to the Clinton campaign.
	Bottom line, they have 12, I think they have 16 jurors with four alternates.
	Just in case because of COVID.
	But the reality is, if 90% of D.C. supports Clinton and supports the Democrats, you assume, let's just say, a majority of them have donated, you would expect that number from a random sample pool of D.C. A fourth juror on the 12th panel, member panel, supported New York Democrat Rep.
	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post.
	In addition, presiding federal judge Christopher Cooper I didn't know this.
	This is a new fact.
	In addition, presiding federal judge Christopher Cooper says he and Sussman were, quote, professional acquaintance Again, this is like, the legal world is a small, incestuous community.
	You can't avoid these types of connections.
	And who knows?
	Maybe they didn't like each other.
	Who knows?
	Although you would not want a prejudicial bias any more than a favorable bias from a judge.
	You just want no bias and the appearance of no bias.
	Whether or not this is an appearance of bias, I'd like to know what that acquaintance was.
	And the judge's wife represents former FBI lawyer, Lisa Page.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, here we go.
	So in D.C., voters favored Clinton over Trump 90.9% to 4.1%.
	That's statistically shocking.
	I don't even care.
	That is not a normal demographic anywhere.
	It's not normal that there should be such ideological uniformity.
	Let me take that back.
	That is normal that there should be ideological uniformity of people who migrate or congregate because of politics.
	Where I think it makes much less sense is within racial or religious communities where you see these outrageously high statistics, not quite as high as this, where there should not be ideological uniformity among identities that are not defined by identity.
	Let me rephrase it, that are not defined by politics.
	It's weird within certain races and religions that so many might tend to vote Democrat or Liberal.
	It's weird.
	And I'm always curious as to why it is.
	That D.C. Which attracts DC types, political types, and Democrat political types to work in that cesspool of an institution.
	It might make more sense.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	We don't need to go through that article because the rest of it seems to be about the stuff that we've already covered today.
	But some very serious, I'd say concerning connections.
	I mean, the fact that the judge knows Sussman, but the judge is only there as the gatekeeper of law.
	And the jury is going to be the gatekeeper of facts type thing?
	You can make some predictions as to where it's going to go.
	That is the definition of a swamp.
	Can't disagree with that.
	I mean, that is a statistical anomaly, but it's an ideological meeting point, I guess.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Let's just go back to Twitter, see what other fun stuff is for the day there.
	E-Viva Frey.
	I just got an email from an interesting thing.
	All right, let's close this.
	Oh, let's go see.
	Let's go see this.
	Let's go listen to Klaus Schwab.
	Proud of now the young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau.
	It's too soft and it's too long.
	Investigative journalists to cover every inch of that place.
	Oh, this is great.
	Rebel News.
	Rebel News is sending journalists to Geneva, so it's going to be beautiful.
	Half of this cabinet, or even more half of this cabinet.
	Someone said that that's how you get a slipped disc, and now I'm nervous every time I do it.
	The World Economic Forum meets in Davos, Switzerland next week.
	I have huge news.
	We are sending five...
	Investigative journalists to cover every inch of that place to shine a light of public scrutiny on those oligarchs.
	And we've set up a special website where all of our WEF reports will be published throughout the week.
	It's at wefreports.com.
	Hold on.
	Let me just go put this here.
	That's amazing.
	wefreports.com.
	And follow...
	I'll be following it.
	Maybe I'll try to get Ezra back on or one of the journalists.
	Thanks for covering a little bit of everything.
	Off topic, do you ever find your fruity Red Bull?
	I haven't found the fruity Red Bull yet.
	I've settled for sugar-free buble.
	And I don't like...
	Well, no, I actually...
	I love it because I mix it with vitamin C. Dude, these are sponsors.
	I need sponsors that I love, that I use.
	Emergency, buble, buble.
	Let's do this.
	Yeah, I'm going to go.
	I'm finding it after this stream.
	I've got a little bit of time in between picking up the kids to tear this house a new one to find me.
	To find me Red Bull.
	If, in fact, these jurors do support Hillary, there are no amount of facts that will change their minds to go against her or him.
	Not to mention DC and liberal judges.
	I'm sure he'll get off.
	Well, that's the funny thing.
	And, you know, Gouveia, Robert Gouveia, you know, mentioned it as well.
	Can you imagine that these jury members who have been living...
	In a political and ideological silo, in a factual misinformation silo, are going to hear things that they're not going to believe.
	I mean, I do wonder, will they be red-pilled or will they pull into their shell and say, impossible.
	It's not possible that we've been lied to.
	The PP dossier was fake?
	Oh my goodness.
	I mean, they're going to learn Earthshell.
	The problem is, a lot of this evidence might be very, very tailored to the trial, so they might not hear about the Clinesmith plea.
	They might not even know about it.
	But...
	I thought that said he was Ben Shapiro sponsored by Coke.
	That's much different.
	That's slanderous defamation, I say.
	Yeah, that's some...
	No, but there are members of that jury who are going to have their minds blown by what they're going to see, and they're going to question everything that they've ever thought they knew in this world, I hope.
	And otherwise, they're just going to, yep, recoil and say, no, I believe he said he was there as a concerned citizen, and the FBI had no reason to doubt that, and what he said he believed in.
	What he handed over he believed was right at the time.
	Okay, I said no, Johnny Depp, and we're not doing it.
	Okay, we covered Elon Musk.
	Mm-hmm.
	I said none of that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Rumble had asked, who has the potential to be as influential and as important as Joe Rogan if they went all in on a podcast live stream?
	Now, I avoided the obvious joke.
	Me?
	Because that's an obvious joke and people make it and whatever.
	And I was seriously thinking about this.
	To be as influential as Joe Rogan, on the one hand, and I know Rumble is probably looking for an acquisition.
	So you can't acquire someone who's already done it.
	You can't acquire someone who's already established.
	You can't acquire someone who's so unknown that they would not garner that momentum that Joe Rogan has garnered.
	You have to get someone who doesn't give a crap anymore.
	Someone who does not feel the political pressure or ideological pressure to...
	Temper their discourse to climb any form of ladder.
	You have to get someone who's smart, who's got a good voice, who's got a good presentation, who has a little bit of acting experience.
	And I think James Woods would fit that bill.
	I like James Woods.
	He's got a sassy sense of humor.
	He's got a great voice, good composure, knows how to conduct an interview.
	He is at a point in his life where he is only looking out for what he genuinely believes to be the better of the nation that he was born and raised in and loves.
	I think he would fit the bill.
	And I would watch and listen to a James Wood podcast if it were similar to Joe Rogan.
	I'd also listen to me, but that's another.
	Yeah, whatever.
	All right.
	Oh, my gosh.
	Thank goodness I remembered this one.
	Listen.
	I now know who Eric Swalwell is, the man whose fart was heard round the world.
	Did I just miss a super chat?
	Hold on.
	Before we get into it, let's do it.
	This isn't legal justice.
	This is ideological anti-justice.
	Party factions and division give politicians a free pass when tried in tribal districts.
	That's very well put, Greg Davis, and you're 100% correct.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see.
	Maybe, you know, maybe they'll get it right.
	The problem is, you know, I say maybe they'll get it right like Rittenhouse, but then some people are going to say they're the acquittal of Rittenhouse.
	Was because it was party factions.
	I disagree because I think it was substantiated by the evidence.
	But even this perspective itself is going to be ideologically driven.
	Thank you, nature lover.
	Even this is going to be ideologically driven.
	What people perceive as justice.
	People think Rittenhouse was let off because Trump-loving jury.
	People think...
	Who, you know, people think Roger Stone was convicted because of an anti-Trump jury.
	I happen to think one is definitely more substantiated by evidence than the other, you know, like actual jury members posting actual anti-Trump messages on social media and not disclosing it.
	I think some are more substantiated than others, but the perspective of reality itself is ideologically driven.
	Yes, Fartswell, the man who fought it, and I defended him when he farted.
	I said, Who hasn't let one rip?
	I said, first of all, it didn't sound like a fart.
	But who hasn't?
	But you know what?
	Remind me about Swalwell's threat to use nuclear weapons against American citizens.
	Okay.
	First of all, what really sickens me about this story is these politicians using their kids, or forget if they use their kids, these politicians politically exploiting the most horrendous Of horrendous incidents.
	We know what happened in Buffalo this week.
	It's the most upsetting stuff out there.
	People out and about living their lives.
	They work hard to support their families.
	They work hard to support their communities.
	All they want to do is live in peace.
	They want to have a happy life.
	They want to have their community.
	And then some...
	I don't...
	Some person...
	Decides to take everything away from them.
	There's nothing that can attenuate.
	Some awful person just decides to do this.
	And everything you've ever had planned for your life, gone in an instant.
	And nothing but tragedy for everyone involved.
	Family, friends, community as a whole.
	These are the worst incidents out there.
	And every time that they happen...
	They get immediately politically weaponized in the most shameless manner possible.
	And Rep Swalwell doesn't miss out on the opportunity.
	My four-year-old just FaceTimed to ask what I'm doing to, quote, help the people in Buffalo, end quote, end quote, why did the bad man do this, end quote.
	Absolutely gutting.
	This cannot be his normal.
	It's time to...
	Ban assault weapons.
	And then this is what he shows by the tweet.
	I love the quote, no four-year-old would ask this takes.
	You're in absolute denial if you think our kids aren't watching the horrors we are allowing.
	And that appears to be a picture of his kid watching CNN.
	I'm sorry.
	This is just awful.
	And I love it.
	He's got to show photographic evidence to counter the no four-year-old would ask this.
	Congratulations.
	I would like to see the...
	That's a live photo.
	I'd like to see the three seconds of that photo to see...
	Kid, look at the television so I can take a picture.
	No four-year-old would ask this?
	Let's put that aside.
	No four-year-old...
	No four-year-old should be watching CNN.
	And you should not be putting your kid in front of CNN to watch CNN.
	Even in the absence of disgusting stories, that would be outrageous.
	Does a four-year-old know how to operate?
	Does a four-year-old watch CNN?
	And I gotta tell you something.
	It's not to hide the world from your kids, but to everything there is a season.
	Dump your kid in front of CNN so that he can see this?
	Of course he should.
	Of course it's going to traumatize him.
	No kid should be exposed.
	This should not be discussion you should have with the kids.
	They shouldn't be watching CNN or Fox News for that matter.
	So people ask me, and by the way, this is in my mind, knowing people, a little bit of me thinks he doth protest too much.
	Me thinks maybe he got caught.
	In something of a fib.
	And then he's got to go out and go show a picture?
	Who is so defensive that they would feel the need to show photographic evidence of their kid watching CNN to respond to the arguments?
	Very defensive.
	And I questioned the story at the beginning.
	I questioned it even more now.
	But this is Swallow, by the way.
	And then it's like people should remember what Swallow tweeted a while back.
	It was the most Ridiculous thing you can possibly imagine.
	Another, I'll take things that didn't happen for 800, Alex.
	This is from Eric Swalwell, December 30th.
	I remember doing a vlog on this one.
	A man DM'd, I should be shot.
	For my family's safety, I asked Twitter for help IDing him.
	When Twitter fell short, thanks for trying, I asked the guy his name, stringing him a bit, and why he threatened me.
	Meet?
	I'm not, I'm not, I don't know.
	The name is generic enough.
	A man who told me he was radicalized by Tucker Carlson.
	All righty.
	Let's go read that thread, shall we?
	This is allegedly a DM that Swalwell got.
	Traitor, hopefully you get hung one day.
	Traitor, you should be shot.
	Hi, I'm Eric.
	What's your name?
	And this is actually the congressman or his assistant.
	This is the congressman.
	Hi, what's your name?
	Jeremy, by the way.
	Oh, cool.
	I'm from California.
	What about you?
	Because as if he doesn't know where you're from, Swalwell.
	If this story actually occurred.
	As if he doesn't know that you're from California.
	Canada.
	Here we go.
	Put on the map again.
	I love Canada.
	Which part?
	Van.
	That's short for Vancouver.
	You're a lot more personable than you come across.
	Van is the best.
	You're lucky to live there.
	Will, I want to be responsive.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Obviously, I'm pretty choked at these accusations.
	Like a lot of people with regards to this Asian spy, why don't you address it?
	I think I missed something.
	So totally by accident, you feel you were targeted.
	This is from Swallow.
	I did nothing wrong, as FBI said.
	Nothing else to say.
	And yes, I was targeted.
	Next time I'm in Van, we should grab a coffee and discuss.
	Or when you're in America.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I didn't see the article.
	I'm obviously right-leaning, even up here in Canada.
	This is a minority report orgy of evidence which never happens.
	If you were targeted, then I would be in the wrong from articles I read.
	There was evidence you did know or should have known.
	Yeah, I didn't.
	Well, I'll look into it.
	I'll look you up.
	Nice to meet you.
	And then, even if we believe Swalwell's story, he goes on to dox this individual publicly on Twitter.
	I mean, this is the level of...
	I mean, it's preposterous.
	It's idiocracy-level incentive.
	Bro, that's AI.
	Oh my goodness.
	I'm from Canada, from Van.
	I've been radicalized by Tucker Carlson.
	Tucker has become the voice of sanity in America and the world.
	This is totally 100% legit and in a 100% sarcastic way.
	Time's at 3 o 'clock?
	Okay.
	Well, it's so outlandishly idiotic.
	And now he comes out and says, my four-year-old who, for whatever the reason, someone is letting watch CNN.
	Oh my gosh.
	Anyhow, I'm glad I remembered that.
	Just a diary of the madness of what we're living through.
	This is what politicians think.
	Are we on the...
	No, that's not the right Twitter feed.
	Okay, let's see if there's anything else before we wind up for the day, people.
	Thank you for being here.
	Thank you for coming.
	And I might listen to some Johnny Depp stuff this afternoon, but...
	If I cover it, there's going to have to be a good reason for it because I think we got all of the lessons that we got out of the last.
	Here we go.
	Okay, we got that.
	All righty.
	This guy is the best.
	Consider making an alumni donation today.
	I'm still paying the initial fee.
	What happened to the $60,000 I just gave you?
	Colleges are...
	Scott-size, people.
	If you want a good laugh, he's fantastic.
	I don't know if he wants an endorsement from me.
	Oh, yeah, people.
	Check out and check it out.
	If you were on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you would have already seen it, people.
	Check this out, and we'll end it on a little happy note.
	The merch is going to be awesome.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	Okay, I actually do have to go immediately.
	Look at this.
	It's awesome, and it's great.
	It's beautiful designs.
	That's the Viva Barnes insignia.
	But look right there.
	Look right there.
	No, how do I get out of here?
	How do I?
	Oh, there we go.
	I want the food.
	Give it to me.
	Give it to me.
	Okay.
	People, go.
	It's a beautiful day where we are.
	It's a beautiful day.
	Stay tuned, peeps.
	The announcement will be big and it will be loud.
	Stay tuned.
	Go outside.
	Exercise.
	Fresh air.
	Talk to people in real life.
	Get some sunlight.
	What else is good for your health?
	Exercise.
	I think that's it.
	Tomorrow night, Larry Sanger, 7 o 'clock sidebar.
	It's going to be awesome.
	I'm going to go live, I think, at some point during the day.
	Let me just make sure I didn't forget anything on the rumbles.
	And then I have to tend to some other stuff.
	And then one day, more announcements.
	Laughter is healing.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And turtles.
	Okay, go.
	Go now.
	Everybody, thank you for everything.
	As always, clip snip.
	I'll post some clips to the Highlights channel.
	I still have to post the clips from Sunday, the stream from Sunday.
	Oh, hold on.
	Okay, thank God you didn't say Rogan, Viva.
	You heard show with Mike Baker.
	Rogan says, we'd be effed if we didn't have the deep state.
	I didn't hear the show.
	Maybe he was being sarcastic.
	I don't think anybody can believe that.
	Watching Viva is good for you.
	I, again, will accept compliments that make me feel happy.
	Yeah, the amount of that meat, you have no idea.
	It's preposterous.
	Again, thank you for being a piece of sanity.
	David Langford, thank you for being here.
	Thank you very much, nature lover.
	Okay, go.
	That is it.
	Enjoy.
	I'm going to go.
	I'm finding my Red Bull.
	And when I find it, I might post.
	Oh gosh, should I forget?
	No, I didn't.
	I'm going to post my Joie de Viva daily post on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Everyone, enjoy the rest of the day.
	See you tomorrow.

▲