All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:23:17
Tamara Lich Bail Re-Hearing CONTINUED - Viva Frei LIVE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sorry, people.
Okay, we're back live.
Let me know.
Totally short notice because they're still pleading.
Defense is now closing arguments in the Tamara Lich.
Let me know if I'm live.
Let me know if you hear me.
Let me know if this is good.
And I'm back listening to the closing arguments.
And I hope everyone has been watching this.
The closing arguments after the day's worth of hearing.
I'm going to link for anybody who wants to watch this, who is not already watching it, while everyone trickles in.
Share the link around if you could, just because I started this 30 seconds ago out of the blue.
This is...
I'm going to pin the link.
Sorry, just give me two seconds to get set up here.
This has been the most frustrating thing to listen to.
It's like listening to...
I tweeted out, it's listening to the death of a nation in real time.
In real time.
All right.
So right now, For those who are not watching this, there was two days for this bail rehearing.
Tamara Lich filed for a bail rehearing, an application to change the terms of her bail.
And it was supposed to last a day and a half.
Cross-examination of Tamara Lich started yesterday by the Crown.
Tamara Lich made a notice or an application for bail rehearing.
The Crown...
Made an application for bail rehearing to seek the pretrial reincarceration of Tamara Litch on the basis that, now we've seen this infamous pendant heard around the world quite literally.
They cross-examined, the prosecutor cross-examined Tamara Litch yesterday, today.
Then cross-examined her sister.
And now they're in closing arguments.
And now...
For those of you who are listening, I'll do the real live.
You can't reproduce the hearing.
You can't show screenshots, screen grabs, clips, audio.
I'm mouth-tweeting the live hearing.
Now I'm listening to what they're saying.
This is Greenspoon right now who's giving closing arguments for Greenspoon.
And Greenspoon is addressing some of the elements that Kremji accused Tamara Lich of being untruthful.
Kremji actually accused Tamara Lich of having been untruthful in that she said that she had no savings when was asked when she had $1,300 in her bank account.
Kremji also cross-examined...
We're happy.
Kremji also cross-examined Tamara Lich's sister.
I'm going to go to my tweets at the time to refresh my memory after this.
It's very easy for...
A backseat driver Monday morning quarterback to say what counsel should have done.
I would have objected a lot more than Tamara's counsel, but maybe that would have been the wrong way to go.
Who knows?
Okay, so now Greenspun in his closing arguments to which Kremji gets to respond.
We'll get here.
We'll get here.
Not just that.
How is $1,300 considered savings?
It's not, especially if it's not in a savings account.
Especially if it's in your current checking account to pay, you know, groceries.
You don't have $400 in savings until you spend it on groceries.
That's not what savings means.
What's disgusting is they are trying to destroy Tamara Lich.
They're trying to imprison, re-imprison Tamara Lich for what everyone agrees is a non-violent mischief crime.
And wait until we get into...
Wait until we get into the elements of this where Krimji, the prosecutor, literally said, she said, hold the line as she was getting arrested.
And now she wants to accept this award.
And that's a change enough that should warrant re-incarceration.
Thank you.
I can't put, if I put both on, if I put both on, I can't even hear myself talk.
And so that makes me very nauseous almost.
I'm hearing what they're saying.
Greenspawn is right now arguing how it's offensive, the idea that she should be re-incarcerated on charges that are non-violent.
This is an attempt to punish Mitch Leach, is what Greenspawn is saying.
There's no question about it.
There's no question that this is an attempt to punish her because the crowd never brought this up.
They didn't arrest her again.
They didn't make a motion to court for her to get re-incarcerated.
They only made this application.
After Tamara filed a notice to change her bail terms.
This is purely, purely punitive.
There's no question about it.
Hold the line.
Greenspawn just said it.
The core of the Crown's case is hold the line.
Viva Ladigi.
Greenspawn?
It's not Greenspawn.
This is not the new studio.
This is a temporary studio.
Stay tuned.
I've got it.
Okay.
So Greenspawn is now saying, he's basically pointing out the absurdity of the Crown's case for reincarceration.
By the way, it's facts that were already known.
The fact that she said hold the line was known at the time she was initially detained for 14 or 15 days or 18 days, sorry, then released.
No, no, I'm not still here.
I stopped for two and a half hours.
Okay, good.
Right now, Greenspawn is citing the conclusion of that judgment that I think we read earlier, that they have the right to protest and participate in a peaceful, lawful protest.
It's green It's Greenspawn.
Not Greenspawn.
Greenspawn.
Alan Greenspawn.
What's that?
I'm going to have to go up and look up.
Forget it.
$1,300 is savings for a 15-year-old, not an adult woman in her 40s.
Delusional standards.
It's disgusting.
I'm sorry.
It's disgusting.
A mother, a grandmother, and this prosecutor, Klimji, wants to claim that she misled when she said, I have no savings, but I've got $1,300 in my bank account.
Disgusting.
It's just disgusting.
How goes the battle, Pete?
That's the question.
It's very frustrating.
This has been very, very frustrating to listen to.
Like the death rattle of a free nation.
Thank you.
Oh, they're saying green span.
Well, that makes a little more sense.
Okay.
Setting of bail conditions must be consistent with the presumption of innocence.
This is what Greenspawn is saying right now.
It's not even rent money.
It was rent money when I was with my wife, single, with no kids.
13 years ago.
It wasn't rent back then.
The argument is that they can't come back with new bail conditions unless there's a really strong reason to do it.
The Crown has come back and asked for new bail conditions.
Reincarceration because Tamara Lich authorized a third-party Facebook page, which now I'm convinced is a thorough scam, to post a picture of her wearing a pendant that they sent her.
She took a picture of it, sent it to the place.
Allegedly a Canadian stuck in Thailand.
I'm convinced it's a scam.
Either a scam or a setup.
And the Crown says that's such a serious change that she should be reincarcerated.
She authorized a third-party Facebook page, which seems to be a scam, to post this picture of her.
And she's indicated that she will accept an award that has been offered to her by the JCCF, Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, in June.
She hasn't accepted the award yet.
She hasn't accepted the award yet, and I don't think she made a public statement indicating she would.
Are there no real criminals to put such effort and taxes toward?
Bully freedom.
Honey badger?
This is the resources.
This is the crown prosecutor.
Two days to go after Tamara Lich because she sent...
I'll get I'll pull up the picture here Yeah, they're saying the risks that need to be curtailed.
Let me see if I can find a reading from their factum.
The conditions limiting someone's freedom have to be imposed with restraint because the effect of these terms of any bail is to criminalize behavior that would otherwise be lawful.
And there's no other way of putting it.
That's what bail conditions are.
Effectively criminalizing behavior that would otherwise be normal.
Leaving your house.
Crossing provincial lines.
Going to Ottawa.
Would otherwise be lawful behavior.
Let me just take this super chat down.
Thank you.
What's this case about?
This is Tamara Lich arrested on mischief charges for allegedly organizing participating in the protest in Ottawa.
Arrested.
Detained in pretrial detention for 18 days.
Finally released, and now the Crown wants to put her back in jail as retribution for her seeking to change the bail conditions to eliminate some that I think should have been invalid for ambiguity.
Didn't he earlier say that she could have her sister get phone numbers from friends and social media about another third party posting a picture as bad?
I think when he said that, he was trying to set her up too.
Thank you.
Yeah, they're talking about what would be a mockery of justice?
What would be a mockery of justice?
Locking up a woman accused of...
A woman doesn't make a difference.
Locking up a person accused of non-violent mischief charges, locking her up because to release her would...
What would they say?
Impugn the legal system?
Or would locking up such person for a non-violent mischief charge, pre-trial detention, impugn the system?
Let me see where the picture is.
Someone had posted the picture.
I can get it.
I know I've got it.
I know I've got it.
So they're just talking about legal stuff right now.
Here.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
This is the picture that she posted.
Someone sent her this pendant.
It says Freedom Canada with a truck in it.
That's the picture.
It then went on a third party what appears to be a scam of a Facebook page in that the person was using it to sell their products.
This is it.
Here.
No, that's not it.
That's a legitimate page, it looks like.
I think it's this.
Here we go.
So it went onto this website.
I can't find the actual post.
Maybe the person took the post down.
People were commenting that the post was getting her in trouble and that she should take it down immediately.
Let me see if I can't find that right now.
Any activity.
The terms were any activity related to the Freedom Convoy.
It would be void for ambiguity.
And how it wasn't declared as such at the beginning?
Here we go.
This is the post, people.
And I believe it's a scam.
Or at least it was exploitive to sell the wares of this person.
And this is what the Crown is invoking.
That Tamara...
Despite her bail conditions not to post about anything related to the convoy, authorized this person permission given by Tamara to use her photo.
And they were purporting to give portions of the proceeds donated to the trucker convoy, even though there were no active donation campaigns going at that time.
Mike Harrington, thumbs up, he's putting in the arrows.
I couldn't avoid this.
I was listening to this.
I've got my diary of points that I'm going to go over when they stop pleading.
But right now, Greenspawn is pleading, basically just saying the common sense stuff.
The conditions, you're criminalizing otherwise constitutional free behavior.
You've got to have darn good reason to do it.
And to revise them for the crown, you've got to have a darn better reason than miss posting a picture.
You understand, by the way, we're going to get to it.
The prosecutor, in cross-examining Tamara Litch's sister, who's the certainty that posted $20,000 bond, says, Doesn't it bother you that she risked you losing this by this post of this picture?
To which her sister said, yes.
The prosecutor knows that he's not just destroying Tamara Litch's life through what he's doing.
He's trying to destroy the sister's life.
$20,000.
He says, that's a lot of money for you.
You work two jobs.
You have kids.
That's a lot of money for you.
The prosecution knows what they're doing.
The prosecutor knows what he's doing.
Not just trying to destroy Tamara Litch's life in this.
Her sister.
Who posted bond.
Because if he does actually get Tamara Lich locked up or declared in violation of the bail terms, the Surte loses her bond.
The Surte loses her $20,000 that she put up for her sister.
People were posting comments as of two hours ago that I saw.
You have gotten Tamara in a whole lot of trouble.
She is now in court over this post.
She is explaining this to a judge.
You should not have posted this.
Tamara is being grilled.
Okay, now Greenspon has finished his submissions.
Decent submissions.
Your Honor, if I may, please.
Now we're back to the prosecutor.
And the judge says, please be brief.
He says my friend again.
The first point is that my friend...
So now he's pointing out that apparently Greenspawn might be referring to the old information, the old criminal accusation that had fewer counts than the new one.
Okay, so he's...
You know, it's...
So, setting aside the Trudeau, we'll sell the country to the World Health Committee.
Now they start fear-monger monkeypox to hold...
It's unbelievable, by the way.
Yeah.
Monkeypox.
The week before the WHO-WEF convention in Geneva.
Monkeypox.
I don't think there were new charges, Rob.
I think they just added charges to the original complaint.
Not new as in...
Did they come after her for...
Oh, they might have come after her for perjury charges as well.
Let me see if...
Let me...
My friend.
He keeps referring to his colleague as my friend.
Opposing counsel.
Temer Lich, new charges.
This is new.
Okay, I don't see anything.
More charges.
Okay, this is March 25. Yeah, so they added some charges, but this was a while back already.
More charges for medicine had freedom calls.
Yada, yada, yada.
Tamara Litch charged with mischief, counseling mischief, etc.
She remained in custody for 18 days.
Okay.
Oh, here we go.
Litch was jointly charged on March 24, along with another convoy organizer, Chris Barber.
So right now, the prosecutor is saying one judge of the same court level has never revised another judgment of the same court.
At one point in time, the prosecutor said, let's schedule a separate date for closing arguments.
And the judge is like, no, we were scheduled for one and a half days.
We're at the end of two days.
You're going to put your arguments today.
I think it's abundantly clear the prosecutor was not prepared to do closing arguments today because it's been subpar, in my opinion.
But he did make some good points, and I'll get to them.
He's saying now the balance of proof is, the standard of proof is balance of probabilities Both of them were making pretty bad analogies, say like, it's like this, it's like this, in terms of what the situation that we're dealing with is now.
Greenspawn was saying that the ninth condition cannot discuss anything related to the convoy directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever.
He said it's so broad, so ambiguous that if Tamara were to buy a newspaper that talked about the convoy, it could breach the conditions.
I don't like silly analogies.
Because you don't need to use a bad analogy when you have a perfect example, which is the case at hand.
Thank you.
Well, we saw the text messages of the RCMP during the protest.
Okay, they're arguing some very legalese issues about considering Tertiary grounds or tertiary infractions when deciding whether or not there should be reincarceration of bail hearings.
Well, so Rob A., the judge said he's got a trial next Tuesday.
He's booked all of June.
That's why they're finishing today.
I don't think now that he's going to render a decision on the bench.
It's too late.
It's too late.
So the judge now is cutting off the prosecutor and saying, look, your reply is to reply to things that are new, not to go over stuff that you could have said before.
He says, bear that in mind.
This is not a chance to say what you could have said the first time around.
And by the way, the prosecutor is being so artificially polite today, like nauseatingly so, patronizingly, condescendingly so, and I think it's to make up for his inappropriate behavior yesterday.
Yeah, I don't think the judge is going to render a decision on the bench, but at least Tamara's not in jail while he deliberates.
Video's blurry?
That might be you, not me.
It's in focus here.
And now Pat wants to plead guilty.
What the hell?
I don't know.
I didn't hear about that.
That's the first I'm hearing.
But the thing is this.
You plead guilty, they'll sentence you to less time than you've already been in jail.
That was one of the considerations here.
Begit.
Thank you.
Now the prosecutor is saying that the previous judge had no need to analyze the credibility of Tamara Lich.
So I'm listening to this audio.
I cannot share it, replay it, cut, or whatever, because that would be not permitted.
And nor can any of you out there listening to this.
Do not cut, clip, share.
Don't do it.
You're not allowed.
But you can live tweet.
You can watch it in real time and commentate.
Why they wouldn't allow this to be public is amazing.
Nobody wants to see judges in memes and imagine Amber Heard type memes, but this is public now.
People are watching this, and I think the public scrutiny of this absurdity is going to affect the outcome.
This is not going to happen in darkness right now.
Thousands of people are watching this.
Tens of thousands are getting real-time updates like this, through this.
It is public scrutiny.
sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.
Thank you.
He's saying it's in one of the fields where Tamara Leach where she brags about the blockades.
Oh, it says, where Tamara brags that this is inspiring an international movement, we know that this upset the Crown, that this upset the government, because it did.
And this is how they come down on you.
My friend says, this is the lawyer.
His prosecutor says, my friend says, my friend says, My friend says he was allowed peaceful protest.
Prosecutor says, nobody's denying peaceful protest.
We're talking about an occupation.
That's what the prosecutor is saying now.
We're talking about an occupation.
This prosecutor is referring to it as an occupation.
This is the prosecutor.
I mean, it's his job, right?
He's just doing his job.
Encouraging hawking or supporting hawking.
Way past the order of Justice McLean.
I don't think that happened, actually, prosecutor.
I just send a super chat to your use, to your, the use of my friend.
Well, I was going to say, play a drinking game when he says my friend, or what does he say when he's waiting?
Indulgences to the court.
You'll be unconscious in 10. Occupation.
Even the CBC now says there was a protest on a few streets of Ottawa.
This guy's still on the old CBC talking point.
They have no idea what an occupation is.
Such hyperbolic bull squat.
Okay, so the Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips, yeah, they're talking about the other previous orders in this case.
The prosecutor, we'll get to the good points that he got out in his awful cross-examination.
I was thinking, like, I think I could have done an exponentially better job than this prosecutor.
I just wouldn't have, because I have a heart in addition to having a brain.
This guy knows the destruction that he is trying to cause, not just to Tamara Lich, but to her sister who put up a $20,000 bond, and they want to basically...
Forfeit that bond.
Forfeit that certi.
Because Tamara Lich authorized the third party to post a picture of her with a pendant.
This crown stands up and supports freedom of expression.
He just said it.
The exception is to the occupation.
There's not one case, he says.
In the entirety of all jurisprudence.
Not one case.
That has held that blockading even one street.
Forget the whole city of Ottawa, which it wasn't.
Since there's not one case in the history of jurisprudence that says blocking a street constitutes freedom of expression.
Thank you.
Okay, well, he's done.
Elon needs you.
Look at his...
What do you say about Wednesday morning, counsel, the judge says.
So that means they're going to reconvene for Wednesday morning.
The court's indulgence, please.
He said it again.
Judge is saying he's got a trial and he can read the decision.
Thank you.
So he says Wednesday is the earliest he can get to the...
Wednesday the 25th.
Two days after my birthday, by the way.
Yeah, so presumably the judge is going to read his decision.
Wednesday morning.
First thing in the morning.
Josh Lockie.
Sorry, Viva.
A prosecutor's job is to get to the truth, not carrying out political vendettas.
He's not doing his job.
The prosecutor is there to seek justice, not conviction.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
I think this judge got it.
Okay, so the green spawn says Wednesday he's on a flight to Toronto to receive an award.
He says, if you could do it in the morning so I can get to the flight, 9 a.m.
People, get in front of the judge, okay?
And if you have to put someone, it's to read the decision.
It's not to make pleadings.
Okay, it's to reconvene, 9 a.m.
Wednesday.
25th of May, Wednesday, 9 a.m.
Reconvene.
So he didn't specifically say to read the decision.
Oh, did I just hear some audio that...
Okay, I think we're done.
I think we're done.
No, I still hear some audio in the virtual courtroom.
Let me just open it up and close it.
Either Moise Karimji is frozen or he's...
No, that's it.
The meeting has ended by the host.
Okay.
Okay, good.
I can take this out.
Oh, man.
So I wanted to get back to this.
Just to talk about this before.
Where's my screen?
Where's my screen at?
Here we go.
Okay.
So I think May next year will be the best year ever.
It looks like it's starting out to be good.
Oh, it's 19. We're on my screen.
This is 1973.
Live viewers.
Let's see if it actually hits 1979.
Oh, we just hit 1965.
I was born in 1979.
I'm turning 43 on Monday.
43, I gotta like...
Yeah, I'm a Gemini, whoever asked.
Here, Gin Bottle.
I like that name.
I am a Gemini, which makes me...
I don't know.
They say temperamental?
Oh, now it just went to 1980.
Oh, well.
Okay, so let's talk about what just happened.
I'll clarify it.
There's some of the law that I know that I don't understand the nuances of, the tertiary grounds of considerations for bail conditions to be retracted.
I'm not even going to get into it.
I know that I don't know it.
I would ask someone who has that experience to explain it better.
What I can tell you is this also.
It's very easy for...
Monday morning quarterbacks, backseat drivers.
If you ever find a contractor who does not complain about the work done by the previous contractor, you might have found a good contractor.
So it's very easy for everyone to sit on the sidelines and say, I would have done this.
I would have done that.
This is what they should have done.
We're not the strategizers in this.
And setting aside clear-cut examples, there's a lot of discretionary decision-making that it's very difficult for someone who's not involved to say is good or bad.
What was I going to say?
So with that said, I was sitting there listening to Krimji cross-examine Tamara Lich and her sister, and I would have been accused of objecting too much.
I would have been objecting much more because he did get away with asking some questions which are fundamentally confusing, other questions which presupposed disputed facts, and got the witness to answer because the witnesses are not...
This is not sophisticated in that sense, but they might not have as much experience dealing with the slippery tongue of attorneys.
Let me share the screen, because I was taking notes all afternoon, sitting there with my dog in the sun, listening to Canada come undone.
That's good.
Sitting with my dog in the sun, listening to Canada come undone.
Where do I start?
We'll start from...
With Tamara Lich, what were some of the things that I was talking about?
They got Tamara Lich to say a little more than I...
He did a little more than what I would have liked him to say, but I'm not going to remember any of those specific points offhand, so I'm just going to go...
I'll get back to Robbie Mook in a bit.
Get back to Elizabeth Warren.
Oh yeah, he was being so artificially polite.
Prosecutor asking Tamara's sister.
This is what the prosecutor's strategy was all day.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm going to suggest something if it's a wrong suggestion.
No.
No.
If I'm a lawyer, I was like, no, ask a question.
Don't put words in the mouth and expect lay citizenry.
To know that they have to correct the nuances of your statement, and if they don't, then it's like some sort of tacit admission to the accuracy of your statement.
No.
Ask your questions.
Put your facts to the witness.
Don't say, correct me if I'm wrong.
No.
That's not how you proceed with a cross-examination.
You ask a question.
The amount of times Kim Ji did this was egregious.
It was atrocious.
Prosecutor asking Tamara's sister, I'm going to suggest to you...
That by posting a picture of her, Tamara, with the Canadian flag, it didn't matter to you that she broke the law.
This is not a joke.
Can I answer that right now?
This is not a joke.
The judge pulled up a social media post that Tamara Litch's sister posted of her sister with the Canadian flag and said, you posted this after she was alleged to have broken the law.
Something along these lines.
I'm going to suggest that by you posting the picture of her with the Canadian flag, you didn't care.
It didn't matter to you that she broke the law.
I mean, it's such a loaded and, above all else, offensive question that posting a picture with the Canadian flag, according to this prosecutor, is an indication of some form of guilt, thought crime, some form of knowledge of tacit supporting of unlawful conduct.
He says, correct me if I'm wrong.
Prosecutors said this so many times, this is not how a prosecution is supposed to be conducted.
And now he just accidentally, the prosecutor, I didn't repeat this and nor would I, accidentally, accidentally read seemingly because by his own admission he said, oops, I wasn't supposed to have read that part of your address.
This is the prosecutors.
I mean, I was sort of surprised the judge didn't come down on him a little bit there, but at one point accidentally reads, A portion of her address, which is, I believe, subject to a publication ban.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No.
And then I'm going to suggest to you, I'm going to put a ton of words in your mouth.
And if you say yes to the question, you've acknowledged, ratified, and agreed with what I just said.
And if I were the lawyer, maybe I'm more...
Keys and credit card are driving me nuts.
If I'm a lawyer, I'm objecting left, right, and center.
But that might not be the right strategy.
Maybe...
Her counsel sees that the judge is getting it, and by being aggressive and impeding, it might not work the right way.
Condition number nine.
Listen to this.
Of bail.
Prohibits Tamara from supporting anything related to the convoy in any manner whatsoever.
The prosecutor is loving this ambiguous bail provision.
Like McDonald's loving it, he is.
Because this prosecutor is constantly invoking...
Let me see if I can't get...
Let me see if I can't get the bail terms.
Give me a second.
back and get this.
See if I can get it.
The only two provisions of her release, the bail provisions that were at issue here, were number five, number nine.
I think it was social media posts and anything relating to...
The convoy.
And at one point, the prosecutor referred to it as the concept of the convoy.
As if to say...
So condition number nine prohibits Tamara from supporting anything related to the convoy.
The prosecutor loved it because it's so broad and ambiguous.
It includes virtually anything.
Thank you.
Hold on a second.
See if I can get this.
Okay.
It was so broad, it could include a third party posting a picture with the knowledge of Tamara.
It's so broad, it could include a third party offering an award to Tamara.
I mean, but here's the problem.
It was issued.
It was ordered.
I don't think it was by consent.
It was ordered by the judge.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
What if any?
And then the prosecutor asked this question.
Did you know that the George Jonas Award was in relation to concerning the convoy?
And that's a problem.
I would have objected.
Did you know that the George Jonas Award was in relation to the convoy?
Because it's so broad now that this prosecutor by...
In this question, the way he phrased it, presupposed a disputed fact.
Who says the George Jonas Award was in respect of the convoy, was relating to the convoy?
It was relating to her having been wrongly arrested as a result, or allegedly wrongly detained, for her standing up for constitutional freedoms in general.
So I don't know who agrees with this statement.
It might be true.
But to ask this question, which presupposes a conclusion to a witness of fact, I mean, I would have objected.
And the problem is, the way he formulated the question, he says, do you know that the George Jones Award was in relation to or concerning, I'm paraphrasing this, but, and she says, yeah, I know that.
Okay, well, do you believe that would have been a question?
Do you think that this award was in relation to, would have been, you know, her opinion?
This now, by phrasing the question the way he did, the prosecutor got the witness to agree.
Two, a disputed fact that is a material disputed fact.
And I did not like it.
And I would have objected.
But maybe, who knows?
It's very easy to say what you would have done.
Let's see if I can get...
I want to get the turn so I can read it.
He says...
At one point, the prosecutor is talking to the sister.
About the discussions she had about her decision to potentially accept the George Jonas Award.
You have to bear in mind now that they want to re-imprison Tamara Lich, seize the $20,000 certee posted by her sister because she indicated, I don't believe publicly, that she was going to accept the George Jonas Award, which is an award celebrating freedom and the pursuit of constitutional rights.
Named after an individual who fled communist, was it Hungary?
To come to Canada to fight for freedom.
The irony here couldn't be more palpable if this were a Kafka novel or a George Orwell novel.
But he asked her if she was allowed to accept the George Jonas Award.
You know why they're having this question?
Because none of them are lawyers.
None of them are in a position to even say, yeah, that's against the order.
They're not lawyers.
What did she say?
She said she was going to ask her lawyer.
I mean, it's like, and what are we talking about here?
We're talking about her decision to possibly accept an award that was given to her, I think unsolicited by a third party.
Oh, and then at one point, at one point, the sister asked, answered a question.
Hold on a second.
Asked her a question.
I answered a question before the prosecutor had finished it, and he says, Thank you for being so quick, my friend.
Calling a witness, my friend, it's so patronizing.
It's so...
It's so irritating.
It's beyond words.
Now, let me see here.
I think I might have just gotten the order.
Let me see if I can find the order.
I'm not going to share it because I...
We've got this.
Okay, so I've got now the order.
Let me see if I can find...
I'll just read it.
Items 5 and items 9. Bear with me.
Your indulgence, please.
Your indulgence.
Jeez, the documents...
Hmm.
Okay, I'm gonna have to turn my head to the side.
Item nine.
You are not to verbally, in writing, financially, or by any other means, support anything related to the Freedom Convoy.
What in the name of sweet, merciful goodness is that supposed to mean?
Hold on one second.
I think this was contested and not by consent.
So this is the order of the court.
To come down with something that's so broad and so vague.
You are not to verbally, in writing, financially, or by any other means.
Telepathy?
People believe in telepathy.
Support anything related to the Freedom Convoy.
Is she allowed to pray for the success of the Freedom Convoy?
Not publicly, just in her house.
I mean, that's doing something to support anything related to the Freedom Convoy.
That's item nine.
Item five is you are not to log onto social media or post any messages on social media.
You are to allow your certi reasonable access to your electronic devices to ensure compliance with these terms, inclusive of cell phone, laptop, or other computer or iPad devices.
You are not to allow anyone else to post messages on social media on your behalf or indicate your approval for any future protests so long as this release order is in place.
Let that sink in, people.
Those are the two impugned terms, which are so broad and so vague.
Arguably why they sought...
Clarification, reconsideration, striking down of these provisions, which are so broad, they can mean absolutely anything where the prosecutor can allege and thus argue for the deprivation of your liberty that you've agreed to accept an award that you have not yet accepted or received.
Back to the Twitter.
Back to the Twitter.
Thank you for being so quick, my friend.
I hope the prosecutor actually said this to the witness.
I hope I'm not making you feel old by calling you ma 'am.
I mean, this is like, this is, some would say, it's polite.
It's courtesy.
I consider this to be passive-aggressive.
I consider this to be a needle to try to get any reasonable person with a short temper to say, can you not patronize me like that, sir?
And try to get the person to look bad in front of the judge.
I hope you don't mind me calling you.
I hope I'm not making you feel old by calling you ma 'am.
As a matter of fact, you are, sir.
You're making me feel old, and I don't like it.
Okay.
So the terms were contested.
So it's not like they agreed to these broad and ambiguous terms.
They were issued by the court, which makes it a little bit different in terms of challenging them.
With Ryan Hillier, his problem was that he was...
He subsequently tried to challenge his bail release terms, but they were agreed to by consent of the parties.
And the judge, you know, unfortunately rightly said, you're trying to review terms of bail release that you agreed to.
Isn't that a little counterintuitive?
And then, you know, David Anber, who's representing him, had the right answer, which is the situation's changed and what we agreed to then is no longer appropriate to agree to now because of a material change in the circumstances to which the judge said no.
In this case, the item five and item nine, these overly broad, in my humble opinion, ambiguous terms that allow for prosecutorial abuse were not agreed to by the parties.
They were issued by the court and therefore susceptible of subsequent review, subsequent challenge.
Oh my God.
And then at one point, when challenging the sister on how Tamara Lich dared post this obvious support for the Freedom Convoy.
He asked his sister, did you know that the pendant says the word freedom on top?
Yes.
Did you know that the pendant said the word Canada on the bottom?
Yes, I did.
And did you know that it had a picture of a truck on it?
Yes, I did.
And this is evidence of criminal conduct to warrant deprivation of someone's physical liberty, according to this prosecutor.
People rightly pointing out the prosecutor's just doing his job.
The job of the prosecutor is not to seek convictions.
It's to seek justice.
It's to ensure that justice is done.
This prosecutor, when he was cross-examining Tamara Litch's sister, saying $20,000 is a lot for you, right?
$20,000 is a lot for anybody.
Maybe not Elon Musk, but $20,000 is a lot for anybody.
But it's especially a lot for people who don't have the money.
And the prosecutor knows this.
And he wants to rely on Tamara Litch having taken a picture of herself wearing a pendant.
And said, sure, if you want, you can post it on social media.
Or when asked, can I post it on social media?
Says yes.
Wants to use that as an excuse to lock Tamara up in jail.
In pretrial detention for mischief charges.
And potentially seize $20,000 that her sister put up.
This is not justice.
This is beyond not justice.
And then I just had my revelation.
Justin Trudeau has turned Canada into a Kafkaesque nightmare.
We now officially live in Kafka Canada.
That can trend.
It can trend.
I've never trended before.
I don't really care.
I had to get that.
I think that's the first time anyone's ever said that.
Hold on.
Let me see.
I think it was an original thought.
If someone else had thought of it, I did not know that they did.
Oh, there you go.
There is nothing new under the sun, people.
There's nothing new under the sun.
I like to think I would have thought of, I would have come up with a theory of relativity had I just been born before Einstein.
Let me just go to the chat here.
I'm going to close this, then I'll come back to my...
Oh, there's some great stuff in here.
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Yeah, so he yells, you pledged $20,000.
Does it upset you that Tamara didn't share this with you?
The fact that she was going to post the picture or authorize someone to post the picture.
Yes, the sister says.
And I had my answer.
At one point, this is why, you know, I think I would make the best witness ever.
Because I think I weigh my words.
They cycle around my head before they come out.
And I think I'd like to think that I could think this fast on my feet, but it's always easier to like sit back and say, oh yeah, that's totally what I would have said like three days later.
Why did you think it was a dangerous path to go down for your sister to be allowed to post it?
She says, yeah, I think it was a dangerous path to go down.
That's why I would have told her to stay off social media.
And the judge, you know, not listening, not learning the Robert Duvall lesson from a civil action, the John Travolta mistake, never ask.
Unless you are absolutely certain that you know the answer, never, never ask a witness why.
Why did you think it was a dangerous path to go down, allowing your sister or that your sister should be allowed to post on social media?
And then the witness says, well, because, you know, she can get involved.
She can get too deep into social media.
Wrong answer.
Bad answer.
Prejudicial answer.
The answer the prosecutor wanted.
That was it.
Because she can lose it on social media.
Because she can get a little too emotional on social media.
That's why she needed to be kept off social media in the first place.
Bad answer.
You know what the right answer would have been?
Why do you think it was a dangerous path to go down to keep your sister off social media?
Because of politically motivated malicious prosecutors who would go twist anything that she does post on social media to claim that it violates either...
Item 5 or item 9 of her bail terms to then use it as an excuse to throw her back in jail, to seize my $20,000.
Don't walk that line.
That's why I would have said it was a dangerous path.
Not because she's not allowed to do it, she has bad judgment.
No, because it would have been weaponized by a politicized prosecutor, by a politicized government, by an ideologically driven government to twist anything she said on social media as an excuse to go after her, to lock her up, to steal my money.
That's what the answer should have been.
And it's like, it's what I said with Randy Hillier.
He's still allowed to make certain statements on Parliament Hill, in Parliament, or sorry, in government.
He's still allowed to be on social media.
He's just not allowed posting anything about mandates, opposition to vaccines, etc.
And I'm like, if I were him, I wouldn't post anything on social media.
Because if he literally posts honk honk...
Recounting a story of a noise a duck made, or a goose, or he heard someone honking on the street, they'll say that's protest.
You violated your bail terms.
If he posts something of...
How about not hold the line?
How about tow the line?
And like, oh, that related to opposition to vaccine mandates.
You're done.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some people were allowed the rope so that the government can come back later and say, you violated the terms with what we now interpret as being...
A social media post that violates the restrictions that we imposed on you.
So, darn it.
It's just...
Darn it.
That would have been my answer.
Why was it a dangerous path to go down?
Because people like you would be scouring it for an excuse to lock her back up in jail, make an example out of her, steal my bond, seize my bond money, my $20,000 that...
Hold on.
I need to see something.
Crown prosecutor...
Federal salary.
How much does the Crown Prosecutor make?
According to government statistics, the starting salary for Crown Prosecutor is $42,000 in Quebec, compared to the national average of $58,000.
The maximum salary is slightly more than $100,000 after 15 years of service, compared to $140,000.
So let's just presume.
You make more money in private practice, just to be totally crass, but that's not as much as I thought it was going to be.
But let's just say $20,000 to someone working two jobs means a whole heck of a lot more than $20,000 to someone with a guaranteed salary who's making $120,000, $140,000.
Let me go to the chat just for a second here.
Pure distraction.
Remove.
This is what happens when you have hate speech laws.
Have we not learned you can't give government an inch, they'll take a mile.
And when they sell you on the hate speech laws, they say, you know, like...
We're only going to go after the outright racial slurs.
Use of the N-word has no reason to be used.
Let's make it illegal.
Oh, sure.
People are fine with that.
Use of the six-letter F-word?
Sure.
Nobody should be allowed to go online and say, you know, the four-letter K-word for members of certain Jewish faith?
There's no reason to.
That's hate speech.
And they're like, okay, fine.
You know, I don't use that language.
I don't approve of it.
I don't mind that it's illegal.
Then it comes into Hong Kong being an alliteration for Yahtzee phraseology.
That's hate speech.
Then it comes into misgendering someone.
Hate speech.
Then it comes into not calling someone by their preferred pronouns.
Hate speech.
Then it comes into having certain discussions about certain historical atrocities.
Say certain things.
Hate speech.
And then people realize like...
Holy crap.
And then one day, calling a political leader a fascist, dictator, pathological liar, psychopath, hate speech.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy.
It's a strategy.
And people need to appreciate that.
Give him an inch and he thinks he's a ruler.
Not bad.
That's good.
I know you didn't make that up.
That's beautiful.
Debbie Clark, welcome to the channel.
Thank you for joining as a member.
I was told to come.
Oh, Resistance Cats!
What's up?
Yes, Resistance Cats.
Good work.
Not just good work.
Phenomenal work.
Your ability to live tweet almost as quickly as I can live tweet with my mouth is fantastic.
And you're doing great, great work.
So keep it up, man.
Thank you very much.
And I hope...
Everybody watching, if you're on the Twitterverse and you enjoy that toxic cesspool of a hellhole, go follow Resistance Cats.
Resistance Cats, I don't know what your content was before this, but you're doing amazing stuff live-tweeting this.
Yurilicious?
Yurilicious.
I am amenable to flattery.
Thank you very much, Yurilicious.
Cat energy.
And I'm not even a cat person, but I like Resistance Cats.
Hate speech.
That would be supporting the...
If that's supporting the...
I'm lucky I'm not subject to any bail provisions.
It's atrocious.
It's just atrocious.
Let's get back to the live tweeting that I was doing in the real times of the interwebs.
Oh, here we go.
Let's see.
Here we go.
Some of the things that came out of this judge...
That came out of this prosecutor.
Hold on.
Judge says he's booked.
Oh, this is when they finished the cross-examination.
The prosecutor says, let's come back.
Let's come back later.
Because, you know, I'm getting paid for it.
I'm not paying for it.
It's no skin off my back.
I'm gambling with other people's money here.
I get paid regardless of how long this takes.
As relates to Tamara Lich, well, she pays for as long as this takes.
Her lawyers are not working for free.
There's no way she has the means to pay them.
Go to jccf.ca, by the way, if you want to make donations to the company.
It's amazing.
To the company.
To the firm.
To the charity.
They are doing...
Back in the day when I was like, why is nobody filing lawsuits?
They, along with Rebel News, now Brian Peckford, now Maxime Bernier, and a few others, are the ones doing the constitutional lord's work and the constitutional legwork.
So, you know, prosecutors are like, oh, okay, I've taken a half a day too long.
Let's just, let's come back another day.
The judge's like, no, I've got other, I'm booked solid with trials and this.
We're finishing today.
You said a day and a half.
We're now at the end of two days.
Finish.
And I don't think the prosecutor was prepared for it, which would explain, in my view, the quality of his closing arguments.
The amount of times he said, your indulgence, your honor, because he couldn't keep it.
It wasn't prepared.
And he couldn't ad lib it.
He couldn't improvise.
At one point, the prosecutor literally said, Your Honor, when Tamara Lich said, hold the line, what did she mean?
He said, she said, hold the line as Chris Barber was getting arrested, and she said, hold the line as she was getting arrested.
What did she mean?
She was encouraging people to commit mischief, Your Honor.
Literally.
I was sort of...
Uncertain as to whether or not it was this absurd.
She is literally being prosecuted and persecuted because when she was arrested, she said, hold the line.
And that's what they took to mean advising, counseling others to commit mischief.
This is Canada.
It's Kath Canada.
I mean, I couldn't believe it.
It was worse than what I thought it was.
When she said, hold the line, what's up?
Can you go to his house?
Is mom upstairs?
No, you can't.
We're having a good dinner.
You can't do it.
But we'll talk about it afterwards.
Go watch something.
I'll be up there in a minute.
Now I've got an unhappy kid.
I saw two super chats come in here.
Oh, did she say you could go with her?
Hold on one second.
Let me just make sure that...
You can take him over if you want, dot, dot, dot.
But if not, comma, just leave him here and I will go biking with him in 30 minutes.
Okay.
Here is an example of the slippery slope.
Remember when the Patriot Act was passed, they said it was only intended to be against very, very bad people.
Well, now we have the concept of domestic bad people making its way through the U.S. legislature.
There's no question.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy.
it is a strategy.
I mean, when they...
The Patriot Act, I mean, nobody had any idea as to how...
How grossly abused that law would have been at the time.
I think some people did.
I think some of their initials are AJ and they were called CTs.
C theorists?
Conspiracy Ts?
Thank you very much, Sir Ripoff the Maple.
And there was one more here.
This one.
I missed everything because of a call with the hospital.
Did the rehearing end well?
I think it ended well.
I think it ended with the judge getting it.
And I think the judge was apparently livid.
I've been asked this question before.
I don't know what is meant by natural law, so I can't answer it.
What are my thoughts on natural law?
I think it ended well.
I think it ended with the judge understanding what's going on.
The judge...
I mean, it's either a question of bias or I've hit my limits.
If I were a judge, I would have...
People would have accused me of having prejudged the decision.
It would be...
It would be detrimental to assessing my order.
It's impossible that this can be acceptable in a free society.
what's going on.
Okay.
When she said, hold the line, what did she mean?
She was actively encouraging other people to commit mischief.
She was actively encouraging other people to continue protesting at a protest that had not been declared unlawful by anybody.
And specifically, the judge ordered, and this is what Greenspan said in his closing, if it stays lawful, you're entitled to do it.
If you respect this order, you are entitled to protest lawfully and peacefully.
What did she mean when she said, hold the line?
That's the counseling mischief.
And then at one point, though...
The prosecutor, and I don't understand why he's bringing Peckford into this, but I think I understand in my own mind now.
He said, when Brian Peckford said that civil disobedience is a part of democratic society, the prosecutor brought this up as presumably what he thinks is incriminatory allegations, incriminatory facts.
He says, Brian Peckford, in the presence of Tamara Lich, said that civil disobedience is a part of a democratic society.
And I'm sitting there saying, why would the prosecutor say this?
Why is the prosecutor bringing up extraneous facts, statements by third parties?
I'll tell you one thing.
I now think the prosecutor is looking to go after Brian Peckford.
Because if Tamara Lich, in saying hold the line, was inciting others to commit mischief, well, the prosecutor might have just let the cat out of the bag with this.
If that was inducing...
What is it?
What's the word?
Advising.
Oh, what's the word I'm looking for?
What's the word I'm looking for?
Counseling others to commit mischief.
If hold the line is a criminal act in that it constitutes counseling others to commit mischief, well, Brian Pickford getting up and saying civil disobedience is a part of democratic society is as well.
And now I have the sneaking suspicion that they're going after Pickford and that that's just a matter of time.
And I want to be wrong.
I'd rather be called a theorist than proven right.
But there was no other reason for that prosecutor to bring that up.
And I think that's, you know, next step.
The prosecutor says every Canadian has the right to disagree, even vehemently, with mask mandates and government overreach.
Not alleged.
He acknowledged it.
That's tongue-in-cheek.
It's, you know, one of those...
Saying the quiet part out loud.
But I love it.
The prosecutor says, you have the right to protest.
Just in the way that we say, for as long as we say, where we say, and if you dare cross a line that we said exists, we're going to go after you and ruin your life, ruin the life of your friends, ruin the life of your family, and effectively ruin the life of all Canadians.
Because if you deny rights to some Canadians, you're denying rights to all Canadians.
They just don't know it yet because it hasn't affected them yet.
Mischief.
I still don't even know what mischief is.
A once incidentally naughty act now branded seditious.
And the prosecutor in his closing argument said that the maximum sentence for mischief is the same as the maximum sentence for assault with a weapon.
I'm going to have to check that out right after I bring this super chat because I don't know if he misspoke or if he meant the maximum sentence for mischief, which is 10 years, is similar for...
A sentence for assault with a weapon.
If the maximum sentence for assault with a weapon is 10 years, we've got more problems.
Gandhi had it right.
Hunger strike for illegal incarceration.
I don't know about that.
I say Gandhi had it right because you're not going to win a fight with the government.
Not going to win an escalation of conflict with the government.
The problem is, now they're showing you you're not even going to win.
Passive-aggressive civil disobedience.
You're not even going to win peaceful protest with the government because they're going to turn peaceful protest into a violent act, as they're doing right now.
Canada.
Assault with weapon.
Okay, here we go.
Here we go.
This is the assault with a weapon.
Everyone commits an offense who, in committing assault referred to in Section 270, carries or uses a weapon.
Okay, yada, yada, yada.
Everyone.
Punishment.
Wow.
It's an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
Wow.
Can you believe that?
Assault with a weapon carries the same penalty as mischief.
Forget the figure.
You know what I'm trying to say here.
Criminal code.
It carries punishment.
Is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years?
Hold on.
Public mischief?
Anyone who commits public mischief who with the intent to mislead?
Okay.
For a term not exceeding five years?
I thought it was ten years.
I might be under the wrong section.
Criminal Code of Canada.
Thank you.
Thank you.
10 years.
Section 430.
Is that the section that we were just at?
Okay, so no, that's the wrong thing.
That's what we were just looking at there.
Mischief.
Hold on.
Let's just do this right.
Mischief 430.
Criminal code.
Yeah, I was certain it was 10 years.
Mischief defense.
Mischief criminal code.
Everyone who commits mischief.
Here we go.
Yada, yada, yada.
Punishable.
Punishment.
Here we go.
Okay.
Sorry, people.
We're learning together.
Indictable offense.
Yeah.
Not exceeding 10 years.
So what was the difference between that?
I guess this is a standalone mischief.
That was a different type of mischief.
10 years.
Well, we got some problems with our criminal law, in my humble view.
People in the chat, what do you think?
Mischief?
I mean, I don't even know what qualifies as mischief.
I've never dealt with criminal law to that extent.
But mischief...
You know, I don't know if anyone has ever gotten 10 years for mischief.
I suspect people have gotten 10 years for assault with a weapon.
Viva.
Natural law is the idea that rights are inherent coming from the nature of God.
Well, if it's John Locke, I've read John Locke.
But, yeah, I mean, I think it's obvious that rights are inherent to being human.
And they're obviously not granted by government institutions.
In fact, that's why I prefer, I like the American Constitution.
The government, if it's not specified, it's a right of the people.
It's not because it's not specified that the government says, well, then you don't have it.
On the contrary, the only way the government can govern anything is specifically if they're authorized to do so.
Ten years for those that have...
Tenure.
The guy's controlled opposition.
He isn't with us.
I don't know who this guy is.
Me?
Okay.
Hold on.
It doesn't matter.
Okay.
Let's go back.
Controlled?
No, hold on.
Now I'm kind of curious.
I'm kind of curious.
If I may ask Mo F, were you referring to me?
Okay.
I'm just going to follow the chat just to see.
I want clarification.
All right.
Let's just finish up the...
Nice pike.
It's a...
Oh, come on.
Don't cover up that pike.
Biggest pike I ever caught.
Beautiful.
Off a kayak, by the way.
And not like a fishing kayak.
Natural law dates back to Aristotle, but was perfectly...
Perfected by Aquinas in the 13th century.
That's interesting.
I mean, look, I studied philosophy.
I remember I just have to refresh my memory a little bit.
Was he talking about me?
What does this say?
What is that?
Oh, beers.
Okay, good.
I thought those were...
I thought those were something else.
Okay, let me see here.
Ergo had an excellent comment, and now I kind of want to see what it looks like.
Ergo.
Ergo, excellent comment.
Hold on.
Ergo.
Viva.
Rights are what government fears taking away from people.
If the government doesn't fear the people, you will lose them.
There's the old expression, you know, when the government fears the people, you have democracy.
When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
In fact, I believe the prosecutor actually cited that as well as some of the statements being made to show guilty intent.
Okay, whatever.
So there was that.
Allegations are that she actively encouraged civil disobedience.
Yeah, the prosecutor said the allegations are that Tamara Lich actively encouraged civil disobedience.
They're trying to lock her up.
I mean, imagine the guy who ran his car into four people.
The allegations that he ran his vehicle into four people.
He's out on the street.
This was another statement that he made.
The most egregious thing.
Is she sent the photo of her wearing the Freedom Convoy pendant to the woman?
I'm paraphrasing in the quotes because he just said, the most egregious thing, she sent the picture to this woman behind the Facebook page and said yes when the woman asked that she could post on social media.
She's making a mockery of our judicial system.
I think more people now saw that post because of the prosecution than they ever would have because of that seemingly scam of a Facebook page used.
Using that to sell the wares while promising to give a certain amount to the convoy, which no longer existed and had no fundraising.
Yeah, yeah, it's agreed.
The prosecutor said to not lock her up would bring disrepute to the judicial system.
It is a world gone backwards.
Okay, well then there's this.
She said, hold the line when she was getting arrested.
Okay, I got that part.
And now I'm back live.
Okay, and I think we can pull that out.
That's the extent of it.
I think the judge got it.
Okay.
Oh, and you got knuckle cracking in there.
Okay, well, thank you for the super chat.
I mean, unless we consider the PPC control, I mean, whatever.
Okay.
You're entitled to the opinion.
He disagrees as it's our liberal government making a mockery of the judicial system.
You imagine that they're actually unironically raising the argument that to not lock up Tamara Lich in pretrial detention for mischief-related charges would bring the legal system into disrepute.
I mean, it is literally freedom.
What is it?
What is it?
Oh, gosh, I'm going to screw it up.
Ignorance is strength.
What was it from 1984?
Now I've forgotten it.
Who knows?
Everyone who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.
I don't know where that is.
Malarkey!
Anyhow, so you're saying that a rugby game is inciting violence.
Do I have that right?
So I'm saying that a rugby game...
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Slavery is freedom.
Was that it?
Strength is weakness.
War is peace.
What were the three?
Here we go.
I just got it right here.
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Freedom is slavery.
I mean, that's where we're at.
To not lock up Tamar Litch will bring the system into disrepute.
And they believe it.
Good morning from Australia.
Oh man, it isn't.
What time is it there?
It's got to be like six in the morning, seven in the morning.
Election day.
So time to go vote and get my democracy sausage.
White pill for the day.
When given even half a chance, community and kindness will always form on its own.
That is beautiful.
I love your avatar, Longreach Jones.
But is it?
You guys are a day ahead, so you guys vote on Saturday?
Is that possible?
Anyhow, go.
I like it.
When given even half a chance, community and kindness will always form on its own.
Up is down.
Down is up.
Tail is wagging the dog.
Yep.
Now we've got a lot of people.
When it is given half a chance.
And there you have the...
Now you have the red pill or the black pill.
Yep.
Good white pill, me like.
What else was there?
There was some fun news.
I mean, while we're here, what time is it?
I think I might still be able to get my jog in today.
Yeah, let's just go to one thing here that I had tweeted.
We're going to talk about it more on Sunday because the Sussman trial just got very interesting.
What's the guy's name?
Mook?
Robbie Mook.
Dunn said more than he's supposed to say.
Robbie Mook just confirmed something that I don't think Hillary Clinton would have wanted him to confirm.
You will know.
Wow, it's amazing to see the news.
Robbie Mook.
The Sussman trial is going on right now.
Sussman is the lawyer for the Clinton campaign accused of making a false statement to the FBI in that when Sussman disclosed to the FBI the now debunked steel dossier that the FBI used to open an investigation into Trump and...
He lied about not being there on behalf of a client and being there solely in his capacity as a concerned citizen.
Turns out he was billing Hillary Clinton's campaign and Hillary Clinton directly for preparing the file, for meeting with the FBI.
Well, so apparently one of the witnesses, Robbie Mook, who was also a lawyer, confirmed that Hillary Clinton personally okayed, personally okayed communicating.
Hold on, let me not screw up the fact here.
Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton personally authorized her campaign to share since-debunked computer data linking Donald Trump with a Russian bank, according to the bombshell testimony from her 2016 campaign manager Friday, Robbie Mook, testifying as a witness in defense of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman.
Witness in defense told jurors that he discussed the matter with the Democratic nominee shortly before that year's presidential election.
Mook described his end of the conversation with Clinton as telling him, telling her, with Clinton as him telling her, hey, we have this and we want to share it with a reporter.
She agreed to that, he said.
The stunning disclosures are the first evidence showing Clinton was aware of the allegations of allegations of a purported secret back channel between Trump and the.
The stunning disclosures are the first evidence showing Clinton was aware of allegations of a purported secret back channel between a Trump organization server and Russia's Alpha Bank before the theory emerged publicly eight days before the election.
Oh, by the way, it was all based on a bunk.
White paper that Sussman is alleged to have prepared and disclosed to the FBI as a concerned citizen while billing the Hillary Clinton campaign or Hillary Clinton directly for preparing those white papers dossier, for meeting with the FBI to disclose them, and then they became leaked information that served as the basis for three and a half years of a Russia-Trump collusion hoax.
We're going to talk about this Sunday with Robert Barnes.
And then what else was there?
There was another...
Oh, the Elon Musk.
Let me see what someone said in the chat.
Well, some of us knew.
Some of us said we knew.
Others thought.
And that's it.
And then Elon Musk.
It always happens the way it happens.
And it seems that my child is now with someone else.
Okay.
Mook, there's lots of jokes going on about Robbie Mook, but one thing is clear.
Yeah.
All right, people.
So that's it.
Wednesday morning.
I think if it's going to be broadcast again, I'll be live mouth-tweeting what hopefully is a favorable judgment.
Where will I be Wednesday?
I'll be here.
Okay, I can do it.
Let's see if we have anything else in the chat.
Although it is argued there's...
Okay, no, no, no.
Let's go down to the bottom.
Did I miss anything here?
Are you tickled by Musk's call?
I don't know what he said.
Hold on.
By Musk's call to...
I don't want to read that out loud.
I'd be surprised if Elon's making those types of tweets.
What I did see is that the name for the scandal, ElonGate, is kind of funny.
Okay, I'm going to go exercise first.
You've got to get the energy out before I can do that.
Notice how the article twists things around.
It wasn't Clinton's fault.
It was alleged wrongdoing on Trump's part.
It's quite amazing.
And that's the New York Post.
And also, you know, we have this information.
Apparently, the allegations from Sussman's indictment is that they knew that these The backchannel story was bunk.
They knew or ought to have known that it was a spam server with nothing on it and that there was no actual connection.
But it was in the opposition research white papers that the Clinton campaign funded, that Sussman prepared, that he then leaked to the FBI in a meeting purporting to be there as a concerned citizen.
Speak of the devil.
Hold on one second.
Seems that...
I just got the notification for Robert Gouveia, who's going live in 30 minutes.
So here are people.
Gouveia is going live on Sussman, and he's going to be covering it in detail.
But no, it's just amazing.
This is an actual conspiracy.
I guess it's no longer a theory.
It's conspiracy reality.
The Clinton campaign paid Sussman to prepare these white papers, three of them.
One of which was, well, I think they were all bunk, but one of which was the bunk steel dossier.
That he then took to the FBI to disclose to the FBI to say, I think you better look into the Trump campaign.
There's some bad stuff going on there.
When they asked, who are you here for, for a client or on your own, even though the FBI knew that he was a Clinton campaign lawyer because he had been there for years from the DNC, the alleged Russia hack into the DNC servers where the FBI and the CIA were involved, they knew who he was.
So there was a little willful blindness if they even believed that he was there as a concerned citizen.
It's institutionalized corruption.
It's institutionalized corruption for one side, good politics for the other.
Okay, peeps.
Go watch Robert Gouveia, Watching the Watchers.
He's going to talk about it tonight.
I just put the comment in there.
Let me at least put the comment in here and pin it.
Oh my god, I'm behind on the chat and now the chat's going...
Hold on, let me just get this here.
I want to just pin the...
I want to pin.
Give me 30 seconds to let the chat get to the bottom here.
Did I not put the chat on slow-mo?
I don't think I did.
No, I did not.
Here we go.
Pin.
Oh.
Ah, forget it.
Oh, wait.
No, here.
Replace pinned message.
Okay, I think I just replaced.
Oh, yeah.
There you go.
It's now the...
Go check out Gouveia.
He'll talk about it tonight.
Deep state, toxic, entrenched middle management.
Okay.
Sunday night with Barnes.
The eve of my birthday.
Monday is my birthday.
I'm going to see what I can do.
Maybe a lot.
Let me be like an all-day live stream fishing.
Just nothing but chirping birds, catching fish.
Gypsy Lil, thank you very much.
It was painful to listen to today because it was painful.
It's funny.
It's like a joke.
What's going on?
It's human lives, and it's the very fabric of Canadian society.
The one question I forgot to ask Brian Peckford when I interviewed him, because I knew the story already, is that when he heard his reaction, when he heard that Justin Trudeau was going to invoke the Emergencies Act, he just said, oh my God, or dear God, one or the other.
And Kian Bextie...
Tweeted, I have a feeling Trudeau is going to do something that's going to destroy the very fabric of Canadian society.
And I think he knew it was what he was about to declare.
And now we're literally watching the most weaponized political prosecutorial system trying to destroy ideological adversaries in such an egregious, over-the-top manner.
It would be scary in a movie.
And it's tragic because it's actually what Canada has become.
Yeah.
Okay.
Go for it.
Get out.
Go.
Evening.
Enjoy it.
I may go live tomorrow.
We'll see what there is.
But definitely Sunday.
7 o 'clock.
Enjoy the weekend.
Talk to humans.
Get exercise.
Fresh air.
And see you all soon, peeps.
▲
Export Selection