Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 2, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:45:49

Hollywood Trials to Canadian Secret Trials; MSM Lies; Ontario Votes & MORE! Viva Frei LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	When are you guys going to admit that you were wrong about inflation?
	No easy questions today, huh?
	The Treasury Secretary says that she was wrong, so why doesn't anybody here at the White House?
	Okay, so look, what the Secretary was pointing out...
	This is talking about yesterday when she was doing her TV hit with CNN, is that there have been shocks to the economy that have exacerbated inflationary pressures, which couldn't have been foreseen 18 months ago.
	I'm trying to answer your question.
	Hold on.
	I was just getting to the why not.
	Including Russia's decision to invade Ukraine, multiple successive variants of COVID and lockdowns in China.
	As she also noted during that interview, there has been historic growth and record job creation, and our goal is now to transition to steady and stable growth as inflation is brought down, as Brian Deese said yesterday to all of you when he was standing behind this podium.
	So the present economic plan as we see it is working.
	Oh my goodness.
	People, first of all, are we live?
	Yeah.
	It's a certifiable ball of sunny hair or hairy sun.
	We have to go through this, and there's a punchline to this, which came after I had set up this stream.
	Come here, Winston.
	Come here.
	Get over here.
	Get over here.
	Okay.
	Oh, he smells so good.
	I gave him a bath, so he's extra fluffy, extra white.
	He's very much into my earlobes.
	What do you say?
	I am your lord, Winston.
	All hail Winston!
	Oh, I'm going down now.
	We're on Rumble.
	We're on Rumble 2, people.
	We're on Rumble.
	I forget her name, the new PressSec of the United States, who had one heck of an intro to her assumption of the role of PressSec.
	Everything about this is wrong, and the punchline is just the kick in the teeth.
	I'm going to put my headphones on so we don't hear echo, so I can real-time, real-time, commentate, pronunciate.
	Listen to this.
	When are you guys going to admit that you were wrong?
	Peter Doocy.
	Giving her a hard time.
	And I may have given Peter Doocy a hard time because of his very, I won't say amorous, but amicable departing picture with press secretary Jen Psaki.
	The end of an era.
	About inflation.
	No easy questions today, huh?
	No easy questions today.
	Can we appreciate...
	The press secretary saying the quiet part out loud.
	Do see, to some extent, Fox News journalist holding her feet to the fire.
	No easy questions today.
	You're the press secretary for the United States of America in arguably one of the greatest times of crisis the nation and possibly the world has ever seen.
	And you want easy questions?
	Who remembers the jerky boys?
	My wife is sick.
	You're talking about coupons?
	The Press Secretary of the United States, she wants to talk about coupons.
	Easy questions.
	Easy questions.
	No easy questions today, huh?
	The Treasury Secretary says that she was wrong, so why doesn't anybody here at the White House?
	Okay, so look, what did I just do?
	Secretary Yellen admitted that she was wrong.
	The Secretary Treasurer, the Treasurer Secretary, Yellen.
	We went over this yesterday.
	She admits that she's wrong.
	We didn't foresee inflation not being transitory when we said it was transitory.
	We didn't foresee.
	This was a month and a half, two months ago.
	We didn't foresee.
	We thought it was transitory.
	This might have been a few months ago.
	Yellen admits that she was wrong.
	Inexcusably wrong.
	Yellen, her job is to know this stuff.
	A few short months later, after everyone was saying this is not transitory, it's a joke to call it transitory, says she's wrong, she should resign.
	Now, Ducey's saying, look, even the Treasury Secretary person admits that she was wrong.
	Why can't you?
	And she gets into this Joe Biden, look, let's just get all casual and chummy-chummy.
	Okay, so look, what the Secretary was pointing out...
	This is talking about yesterday when she was doing her TV hit with CNN.
	There have been shocks to the economy that have exacerbated inflationary pressures which couldn't have been foreseen 18 months ago.
	Bullshit, first of all.
	And second, couldn't have been foreseen 18 months ago.
	People foresaw it 18 months ago.
	They said it was coming.
	And instead of listening, transitory.
	And by the way, Can we just appreciate she's just reading notes?
	This is what happens when you don't have a mastery of what you're supposed to be speaking to the public.
	You end up looking.
	She can read well.
	She can read quickly.
	She's reading notes.
	She doesn't.
	I listen to this.
	I don't think she understands a word of what she's saying.
	Any more than Yellen understands anything.
	Because, you know, a few short months later, I made a mistake.
	It's not transitory.
	But listen to this.
	We couldn't have foreseen it.
	Variance.
	They called variance.
	From the first alpha variant of COVID.
	I'm trying to answer your question.
	Hold on.
	I'm not done reading my bullet points yet.
	Let me read my bullet points because I can't answer anything on my toes.
	I was just getting to the why not, including Russia's decision to invade Ukraine, multiple successive variants of COVID and lockdowns in China.
	As she also noted during that interview, there has been historic growth and record job creation, and our goal is now to transition to steady and stable growth as inflation is brought down.
	She doesn't understand what she's saying.
	We're going to transition to regular growth until inflation is brought down.
	And then let's just go to the kick in the groin.
	The proverbial kick in the groin.
	The Department of Energy has, according to our The Department of Energy has an Energy Information Administration, which is an objective entity that does analysis projecting the prices of gasoline.
	They say that things might stabilize by the end of this year, but that the price of gas is likely to remain above $4 a gallon.
	Inflation is going to go down, but the price of gasoline...
	Is going to stay above $4 a gallon.
	Can people appreciate what that means?
	Inflation is here to stay.
	And my goodness, it went from transitory to permanent, real quick-like.
	That audio is only coming out of here.
	Let me see if that particular recording is...
	That's what makes me male.
	Okay.
	One of those was only recorded in mono, so it sounded a little different in my headphones.
	All right, people.
	So that is your intro.
	Intro rant.
	Get this stuff out of here.
	But it's not going to be only intro rants today.
	Let me take this out of the stream.
	When gas prices go up and stay up, that is a trickle-down increase in price to everything.
	Everything and anything.
	How do you think food gets from the warehouses to the stores?
	How does it get from overseas to the warehouses?
	How do cars get from overseas to America, to Canada?
	When gas is expensive and stays expensive, everything else increases in price as well because people aren't, first of all, the people who control things are not stupid.
	They're not going to eat those costs.
	They're going to pass them down.
	And that's what inflation is.
	But no, don't worry.
	It's from transitory to permanent.
	We couldn't have foreseen variants of COVID and we couldn't have foreseen supply chain crises.
	Except people were saying it.
	And, you know, expect it to stay.
	But we've had record job growth.
	Let me just read from my bullet points.
	We want to transition down from inflation, but expect gas prices to stay expensive for a long time.
	Gas prices should drop with production on the rise.
	It may be expected to drop depending on when the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
	Or, you know what?
	Gas prices drop.
	When production rises.
	You know what you might want to think of doing?
	Instead of cancelling oil leases in America, you might want to think of expanding oil production in America.
	We got a lot of it in Canada.
	We got a lot of it in Newfoundland.
	No notification.
	There's no question I'm on a bad list.
	Everyone who's watching tweeted out, well, in fairness to YouTube, I did just publish a meme vlog before this went live.
	So I effectively was competing with myself, but the meme vlog...
	It's intended to be the homework for tonight's vlog, for tonight's live stream, because we're breaking down Elaine's disastrous post-Johnny Depp post-Johnny Depp verdict interview.
	Disastrous.
	So I put out a video right about 10 minutes before.
	Oh, we literally just went to demonetize as I was talking.
	I think I might have...
	I might have insulted the press secretary.
	Let's go request review, quite obviously, because it has nothing to do with content at this point.
	I had to put out a video breaking down that interview, but it's a meme vlog.
	I'm not in it.
	It's just creatively edited to commentate in the legal sense on the disastrous interview Elaine gave on USA Today.
	We're going to go over it because Nate the Great Brody.
	Is popping on at some point.
	When are you moving to Texas?
	I'm not moving.
	I might visit Texas.
	Look, I'm not moving anywhere just yet.
	We're looking, planning, and things are temporary, short-term, before they become long-term.
	Texas has good fishing, though.
	Now, I see Nate's in the house.
	I'm going to bring Nate in.
	Nate, sir.
	Hold on.
	Let me go back to the screen.
	There we go.
	What's going on, bro?
	Nothing much, nothing much.
	Nate, I'm going to do an unboxing.
	Do you mind bearing with me for an unboxing?
	Of course, yeah.
	Let's do it.
	It is from MurphsKicks on Instagram.
	I unboxed it so I wouldn't accidentally dox anybody.
	MurphsKicks.
	This is from Murphs underscore Kicks on Instagram.
	Hello from Minnesota.
	I wanted to present you with a small token of appreciation for all the great content you provide.
	I won't read any personal information.
	It's a pair of shoes.
	Like, homemade.
	I don't even know the designer.
	They are custom shoes.
	And it came in a box.
	And I've been holding off opening it.
	Come on, you son of a beast.
	Because I wanted to do it live.
	Damn, don't let the box win.
	Don't let the box win.
	Oh, the box smells like real leather.
	The box smells like real leather.
	Can't break the box because it's a good box.
	Okay.
	Alrighty, dude.
	Ooh!
	Vlogged up.
	With a Canadian flag.
	We're going to do this in real time, people.
	This is like Pulp Fiction when Jules and...
	What's his face?
	Open up the briefcase.
	Look at this.
	It is a leather.
	It's a leather cover.
	Look at this.
	I haven't put them on yet.
	I haven't even opened them.
	Look at this.
	Ooh, those look really nice.
	Oh, he has your logo on the other side.
	These are...
	Strictly incredible.
	Nice.
	That's nice.
	That's amazing.
	I like it has your avatar on it, too.
	It's got the avatar on the tongue.
	Okay, that's amazing.
	Murphs Kicks.
	Murphs underscore kicks.
	M-U-R-P-H-S underscore kicks on Instagram.
	Thank you very much.
	Nice merch.
	Nate, what is it?
	So you did a stream this morning.
	Yes.
	Which inspired, I think, your stream.
	It was a banger of a stream.
	Yeah, it was a good stream.
	What were you talking about?
	Well, we just went over the Amber Heard interviews this morning with her attorney, and we looked at how the mainstream media was treating the story.
	And it was just so fascinating how the left and the right are treating the story totally different.
	When it comes to, we found that Fox News and right-wing media...
	Was treating it very factually.
	Like, this is what happened.
	She lost.
	This is the reason why.
	While left-wing media had turned it all the way to either misogyny or racism.
	So it's like, alright, alright.
	But then when you hear Amber's attorney, then you'll see why they're going down that road.
	Oh, we're going to break it down.
	We're going to break it down.
	When you print hundreds of billions over decades, but you cannot predict inflation, you may not understand economics.
	I hate you, but you're so right.
	They're doing it in Canada, too.
	They all have different idiotic and juvenile excuses.
	In the States, it's Putin's gas price hike.
	In Canada, Jagmeet Singh and the NDP are blaming it on CEOs making billions.
	It might just be incompetent in government policy.
	Maybe.
	Possibly.
	I've got to slow the chat down here.
	Give me one second.
	But, Nate, look, we're going to break down this interview, but what are your thoughts on this?
	Are you happy that it's over?
	I'm kind of...
	If I could go back, I would have streamed the trial from day one.
	I would have just streamed the trial from day one.
	I think I got into the game a little late.
	The last week and the last couple of days, it's been really, really good.
	And I think people found me at the end of the trial, which is really good.
	I'm happy it's over for them because I would never want to see anybody actually go through that.
	But as in terms of the entertainment value and just being able to answer all these questions and really do...
	It allowed us, all of us, to...
	Be real communicators of law and legal principles.
	And that's what I'm going to miss.
	I'm going to miss that type of connection.
	Having these intricate arguments about hearsay and whether it was a good objection or a bad objection.
	And what do we predict is going to happen procedurally?
	Those things?
	I'm a nerd.
	I like those things.
	Nate, someone here says, tell Nate I said hello.
	I sent him $100 this morning because he had an awesome show.
	He said so many good things.
	Had to send him $249.99.
	Funny scene twice today.
	Thank you so much.
	We've got to get to some of the bad takes on MSM.
	Oh yeah, that's pretty bad.
	Hold on, let me see if I'm just going to go to Twitter.
	But we're going to get to the Elaine interview.
	We're talking about the same interview, the five minute interview with...
	Well, I saw them both.
	So there's two, because I put both on my channel.
	So I saw them both.
	There's two interviews.
	It's the same talking points as we'll see.
	We can pull them up.
	But it's the same talking points.
	Essentially, what they're turning this into is because she's a woman.
	That's the reason why it was so vitriolic to her.
	And I don't believe that's the case.
	I believe you have more disdain for people when you know they're just lying to you in your face, right?
	If somebody's lying to you and you know they're lying to you, you're going to have disdain for them.
	And I think that's what happened to her.
	Her lies became so obvious that people were just like, you know, come on.
	Like, really?
	Rolling their eyes.
	Rolling their eyes.
	Absurd.
	Listen to this take.
	We're going to get into this and then why people don't trust MSM.
	This is Vice News.
	Blue checkmark.
	This is their framing of the verdict.
	Breaking.
	After a jury heard a string of texts from Johnny Depp saying he wanted to, quote, burn, end quote, Amber Heard, and that he would...
	Fornicate with her burnt corpse to, quote, make sure she is dead, end quote.
	Sounds totally serious, like realistic, and exactly how an abuser talks.
	They decided, after hearing all this, they decided to heard defame Depp and acted with malice.
	Now, you know what?
	Now, this is what I'm talking about with the mainstream media, because this is factually true, but morally incorrect, right?
	It's factually true, but morally incorrect.
	Because I can say, you can say, yes.
	He sent those texts, and the jury did find that.
	But in context, you'd be like, well, don't forget there was a tape of her saying that she know that she abused him, but who's going to believe him?
	Who's going to believe you, Johnny?
	Who the hell's going to believe you?
	The jury?
	A judge?
	Are you crazy?
	And no, I didn't punch you.
	I hit you.
	There's a difference.
	But that can't fit in the headline.
	But that doesn't sell.
	And this is what I think sometimes when it comes to identity politics, is that everything has to fit into those boxes.
	That's why the root article started talking about, what is this about black women?
	All of a sudden, now we're talking about black women.
	How could this rich, ultra-rich white woman who's dating billionaires and millionaires, how can her situation of her lying on the stand relate to a black woman?
	At a point, it was like, this is not even making sense.
	No, and you read, just bringing the vice back up, like you say, technically true, but I would say still intellectually dishonest, not even just morally incorrect.
	When they say, after hearing a string of texts, they don't mention.
	Not that it makes much of a difference, but I think it makes a difference.
	These texts were between him and his friend quite clearly.
	Over the top, idiotic, you know, we want to talk locker room talk.
	Imagine for parents out there, if everyone just at one point in time said, I heard him say he was going to kill his kid.
	Like, the amount of times where you said, you know, jokingly, I'm going to kill you or I'll destroy you.
	But if you take those words, technically they're correct.
	So they say, they don't mention that this was a text between him and his friend, never intended for Amber Heard to see, not published.
	So this has nothing to do with defamation, nothing to do with abuse.
	It was two idiots acting like idiots with stupid texts they never thought I was going to read.
	And then omission.
	I didn't hit you, Johnny.
	Quit being an effing baby.
	Yeah, you left the fight and I start the fight and you left.
	Who's going to believe you?
	Who's going to believe you?
	Just imagine if it was a male in a relationship saying that to the female.
	Would this even be a question?
	It would be.
	If you dared question it, you would be canceled without a question.
	So you get, this is the way Vice is framing it.
	And then, here.
	I'll push you right back.
	You know, you're trying to scroll past it.
	Let's see what you wrote.
	Maybe because they heard evidence and decided a hyperbolic text was not as convincing as the recording of Amber admitting abusing Johnny.
	She said, I effing was hitting me.
	I don't know what the motion of my hand...
	Just read this in a man's voice talking to his wife.
	Now you think of it.
	I don't know what the motion of my hand was, but you're fine.
	I didn't hurt you.
	I did not punch you.
	I was hitting you.
	You're such a baby.
	Grow the F up.
	But then MSM is wondering why nobody trusts them anymore.
	You have NBC coming out saying people are watching YouTubers and live streamers and they...
	Yeah, they don't like us.
	Nate, what do you have to say about the contribution that live-streaming YouTube lawyers who actually pay attention to the evidence, did we or did they add to this or did they detract from this trial?
	See, that's I think the rub, right?
	They want to say that we're in some way poisoning the well, but they can't tell people how we're poisoning the well.
	So for instance, Emily D. Baker, Nick, myself, all of us who live-streamed the trial, we sit here, And watch it with you, right?
	So we're not filtering anything, right?
	It's like I'm not telling you what to look at.
	Like, here it is.
	Let's watch it together.
	And if there's points of law that you don't understand this, that, this, that, I'll give you my opinion about it and say, oh, I think she's wrong.
	I think she's right.
	But at the end of the day, you see the evidence.
	You see everything.
	And the difference between us and the mainstream media is that the mainstream media, they generally can't do that.
	They've got to filter everything through their box and want to give it to you because they only want to tell you what they think you need to know.
	Example.
	Examples.
	You need examples.
	The Kim Kardashian trial.
	Kim Kardashian, her mom, her sister, they are all bigger stars than Johnny Depp.
	Compared to Johnny Depp, remember, Johnny Depp's still looking for jobs.
	They're billionaires, right?
	While Johnny Depp was fighting his ex-wife in their defamation suit, they had one too.
	In the same type of thing, it was a domestic violence thing, the same thing too.
	But that trial, even though some may have heard of it, went under the rug.
	It was like there was nothing big about it.
	And the reason why is there were no cameras in the courtroom.
	We couldn't see what was going on.
	All the information coming out of that courtroom was filtered by a few people.
	So you couldn't really get the experience of what was going on back there.
	But here with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, you were in the courtroom.
	You saw what we saw.
	There was no filter.
	And I think that's what attached people to come to us than go to the mainstream media.
	Because after Rittenhouse, for instance, and after a lot of these other trials, they were like, yo, the mainstream media has been telling us X, but if you watch the trial, you're coming to Y. And I think...
	This trial is one of those trials where they were saying X for a long time, and then it was like, at the end of the trial, we're all at Y now.
	Even the mainstream media is at Y. But they want to taint it in some way.
	We really shouldn't be here, but we're here.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm going to bring this up.
	This is the only time tonight I'm going to address this comment.
	Klaus Schwab, I'm very happy that he subscribes.
	He doesn't give very many super chats despite his massive wealth.
	I love the Hollywood distractions.
	Makes it easier for me to impoverish and control the population.
	I have responded to this sentiment over and over again, but I'll just do it once a night.
	Just last night, two solid hours with Dinesh D'Souza talking about the election fornification that never was on Rumble exclusively.
	Talked about the WHO treaty.
	We covered Glenn Maxwell.
	People were saying, what about Glenn Maxwell?
	This is a distraction.
	I don't think there's been any developments in Ghislaine Maxwell above and beyond the conviction, the dismissal of her appeal, and the reduction of her sentence by 10 years, which makes no difference to a woman her age.
	There's time in the day to talk about everything.
	And the reason why I think this is actually innate, you touched on it, and you made the point.
	This is the civil version of the Rittenhouse case.
	You have people who didn't pay attention to the trial, Rittenhouse, who didn't follow it, who didn't follow the independent commentary of it, who relied on MSM.
	And come acquittal time, couldn't understand how it could have happened.
	Still thought he shot black men at a BLM protest.
	And this is what's important about it, is that you watch not just biased, it's just dishonest partial coverage, and then people are stunned by the result.
	And then they blame the people who would have otherwise prepped them for this result.
	This, I started off one way and I came to the conclusion he was going to get acquitted.
	Anybody who didn't watch the trial wouldn't understand it.
	Yes, anybody who didn't watch the trial because I was fed the lies too.
	And it's funny because all the stories that not only change our lives but have done well on YouTube are the ones where I am fooled at first.
	U.S. soccer.
	I was fooled at first.
	I thought they were...
	I was like, this is crazy.
	Pay them, women.
	And then I read the lawsuit and said it was a whole bunch of crap.
	Then comes up Rittenhouse.
	Rittenhouse, everybody's saying this is a white supremacist who's doing this.
	Come to find out, it's nothing of the sort.
	If you just watch the tape, you will have seen what happened.
	And I think that's why Nick did so well, because we were sitting there watching what happened.
	And even until today, with that trial, there's so many people who come up and say, it's almost like me watching the trial opened my eyes to the media not giving us the full story.
	Because if you just watch the trial, You saw the difference.
	No, that's it.
	I mean, this is when anyone who did watch the independent coverage and the media coverage understands you're being lied to day in and day out, left, right, and center.
	You know, with Rittenhouse and with Rakata's coverage of it, what was interesting is it really showed the aggregate power of, call it a community for the cliche.
	But bringing on panels, keeping people interested and engaged, even when there was nothing interesting or engaging going on in the trial.
	Legal Bytes really did it this time around.
	But then, totally more independent commentary.
	Emily Baker destroyed it as well because panels are good, but also independent running commentary where you can sort of be more free to address specific issues as they occur also are good.
	But good point about the ones that fool us are the ones that Ultimately get some traction on social media.
	Michael Flynn.
	Covington kids.
	The ones that get traction on social media are when the aggregate masses discover and fully appreciate they have been lied to from day one and the media doesn't like that.
	They want to be able to continue lying from day one without their lies being revealed.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's funny because I still get people to dig.
	Brianna Taylor, one of the first ones that we did.
	People still think they're at the wrong address.
	And we're like, no.
	The warrant was for that address.
	It's so bad.
	But again, when you're pushing a particular narrative, sometimes the facts don't matter.
	Let me see this here.
	Serge Brunet.
	We're going to not rehash Rittenhouse, but I'm going to read this.
	I did watch it and still shocked.
	He had no business there in the first place and was illegal with the firearm and wasn't invited there and so on.
	Oh, you know, this might be sarcasm.
	He just...
	Yeah, he's doing all the things that...
	Sorry.
	I was thinking because Serge Brunet, it's a French Canadian name.
	I was thinking maybe this...
	You're not allowed being outside with a gun.
	Not true in Wisconsin.
	Now we know it.
	It's funny because the firearm was legal.
	That's another big lie, right?
	The judge was like, the firearm was found to be legal.
	He illegally had a gun.
	Serge Brunet was being sarcastic.
	I know, I know, I know.
	But I just think it's always funny when you hear that he has an illegal gun.
	It's like, you know, there was a trial.
	And at the trial, the judge said the gun is legal, right?
	The gun, you know, they dropped that charge.
	The gun was, he had a legal gun.
	The crossing state lines.
	I mean, the lies there.
	I'm trying to think of any outright lie that we had in the Johnny Depp trial, but for Johnny Depp, it wasn't so much lying about facts, because ultimately there were no facts that supported the claim, but it was just the overall narrative.
	Believe all women, despite the evidence, and Rottenborn did the best he could.
	She should be believed one way or the other.
	Either she has the evidence, and you should believe her, or she doesn't have the evidence, and you shouldn't fault her for not having the evidence, and you should believe her.
	He tried to square that circle, but it just didn't happen, though.
	It just didn't happen.
	One of, I think, the key issues of this case is that it didn't come down to a he said, she said, because generally that's what it was.
	But it came down to a she said versus like everyone else.
	And I've been saying that for weeks.
	It was she said she had injuries.
	He had the cops.
	They said they saw nothing.
	He said, you know, then we got a second set of cops.
	Then we got a doorman.
	Then we got doctors.
	We got nurses.
	Everybody's saying, you know, I was there.
	Her nurse even wrote it down.
	No injuries.
	She's fine.
	She said the nurse is lying.
	Everybody is lying.
	And I think Depp's team did a really good job of portraying it.
	Like, look at all these people.
	And then, let's not forget about the photos.
	After she's beaten with sticks and pummeled to death with broomsticks and kicked in the head and dragged across the floor with glass, the next night she's in a backless dress.
	And you see a beautiful face for all to see.
	And Camille Vasquez asks her, is your nose broken in that picture?
	She says, yes.
	That makes people think you think we're stupid.
	You think we're so stupid that we can look at that picture and not see you're 100% okay.
	That's why I think she's getting the backlash she's getting now.
	And by the way, this avatar is Seth Rich.
	And if anybody doesn't know Seth Rich, Google it.
	Mike Carleon says, this is the thing, Nate.
	Typically in the he said, she said, there's no way of...
	Of determining the truth because it's strictly something that cannot be substantiated by evidence, and so you're only left with testimonial who to believe.
	In this case, it was sort of she said, he said, or he said, she said, or more like what she said but couldn't prove.
	And it wasn't like she said she did something, he said she didn't.
	It was she said she suffered grotesque abuse and physical injury.
	And then had pictures to show Johnny Depp sleeping with melted ice cream, but no evidence.
	So it was almost beyond he said, she said.
	It was she said, but had no evidence.
	Yeah, and it's interesting because that was one of the arguments.
	You don't have to have evidence.
	But it's like, listen, at a point, if you're telling us, like you're saying, this grotesque stuff happened to you.
	Right?
	You've been beaten with a cast.
	He's punched you repeatedly, full strength, with a cast on his hand, in the face, breaks your nose, and the next day you're on a James Corden show and you look perfect.
	And, you know, making a facial expression.
	Anyone who's ever had, not necessarily a cold sore, but those little things that you get in the corner of your mouth, like the yeast.
	Dude, the last thing you're doing is making facial expressions like that.
	Camille said, it seems like your nose broke in that picture, right?
	And she's like, yes.
	She's looking at the jury.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Johnny Arbor 007 says, hit the like button.
	Viva, remember three years ago when I would send crazy conspiracy stuff?
	You were so innocent.
	Dude, when I thought COVID, when I thought it was going to be two weeks to flatten the curve, my goodness, fool me once.
	Congress girl Ilan Omar is advocating for gun restrictions.
	Do you think you should have the same conviction?
	This is the irony.
	People who want gun restrictions and who are also simultaneously supporting $40 billion and arming every Ukrainian civilian because Congress is so ineffective at self-defense that you need them to protect yourself.
	A discussion for another day.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm pro-Second Amendment, baby.
	I have grown to learn the value of those arguments.
	First of all, it's not about hunting.
	It's about a well-regulated militia in the States.
	Why do you need a well-regulated militia?
	To prevent from that which happens when you don't have any means of defending yourself from intruders or intrusive government, which is what they enacted that amendment for based on the history of America.
	But Nate, so Vice News comes and says...
	Oh, come on.
	Get out of there.
	Nobody wants that.
	Vice News comes and says, despite texts from Johnny Depp saying he wanted to burn her corpse and violate it to make sure she was dead, they still found her.
	How did it happen?
	Then you get to...
	Where was it?
	Where was it?
	We'll get to the Matt Walsh later.
	It was...
	Look at this.
	This is Time Magazine.
	After a verdict.
	Unanimous.
	Four women, eight men, or five women, seven men, I forget which.
	A unanimous verdict after six weeks of trial, six weeks of evidence, six weeks of testimonial evidence.
	Depp v.
	Heard reminds us that the legal system is still stacked against survivors.
	They're accusing women of misogyny right now.
	And it doesn't end.
	It doesn't end.
	There was another one.
	There was another one.
	The fact that he proved that she was lying means it's misogyny.
	Wow.
	This is from The Wrap.
	Johnny Depp won in court, but his career is still over.
	It was a legal triumph so stunning and unexpected to people who weren't paying attention.
	Cable news commentators across the dial were left gaping in slack-jawed astonishment.
	Nobody saw that coming.
	Only idiots who were in their silo did not see that coming, but they still predict his career is dead.
	To which I say, you know, we predicted a loss, and we're idiots because we don't know anything, but trust us now, his career is dead.
	Johnny Depp's career is dead.
	You know what?
	It's funny.
	If you look at our record for, like, we're, like, really good as a group, right?
	Because we're so in the weeds.
	Like, even with this trial, Johnny Depp...
	When I first read it, I was like, I don't think Johnny Depp has a chance.
	But then after the evidence was shown, I was like, oh yeah, he's definitely going to win.
	For sure the first count.
	That was like an obvious thing.
	But I know all those cable news, they probably aren't in the weeds.
	They probably just get paid to talk.
	If what she said was true, the evidence would have been somewhere.
	She would have not had to do anything to produce it.
	It would have been in the appearances she made in the following days.
	Or it just doesn't make sense.
	That she documents certain things, but not others.
	So if she had documented nothing, it would have been more plausible argument from Rottenborn than I documented him sleeping three times, but not a broken nose after he beat me and pulled my hair.
	Made no sense.
	But there was a thought that I just had about being in the weeds.
	Oh, we've been very good, by the way, Dave.
	Were you right on Chauvin?
	Yes.
	Remember, I had the streak.
	The only one I've missed was Potter.
	I've been right on everything for the past two years now.
	I can pull the dishonest lawyer thing and say, if there's an overturning on appeal, then I can say that I was right.
	I saw the evidence.
	I got swayed of a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they had due.
	I was initially guilty, followed it, and changed my mind and was wrong.
	What were the other big ones?
	Jussie Smollett.
	Smollett was easy, though.
	But I said...
	What's the woman?
	Potter.
	Kim Potter.
	Potter's the one we got wrong.
	But that one, I think she has an awesome appeal.
	But that's the one we got wrong.
	But all of them.
	I know for almost a year.
	I've got to look at the list.
	But The Jogger and...
	Oh, Ahmaud Arbery, yeah.
	Kind of easy.
	That one was easy on the substance, but people didn't understand the law of how the guy filming gets off.
	I hope Amber is paying Elaine well to keep lying so blatantly.
	I don't think she's paying her that well because Elaine said something in that interview, Nate, we're going to get to it, that I don't think a lawyer should ever say about their client in a post, period.
	Or honestly, about a jury.
	Because I think her comments about the jury are problematic.
	But you guys will see what we're talking about.
	Yeah.
	You see, this is it.
	Keith Tarnoski.
	If she had no recordings, no pictures, no nothing, she would have won.
	Yes.
	Oh, well, unless Johnny also had no recordings, no nothing.
	That recording of her cackling like a demonic, possessed being.
	Yeah, that was crazy.
	And Johnny's, I didn't hit you?
	Yeah, I don't know what my hand was like quipping a baby.
	But think about this, though.
	If Johnny had no evidence, right?
	If he didn't have the millions of dollars and always had any security around them, and these people who saw these things, right?
	If he wasn't Johnny Depp, if he was just a regular guy, I think he would be screwed, right?
	Because Johnny Depp, no matter what we can say, he actually showed that today, that for him, he had to go prove his innocence.
	And just imagine, because in court...
	We don't force people to prove they're innocent.
	But that's exactly what he did.
	He had to go in there and sue and prove that he was innocent.
	And actually did it.
	That's how deranged things have gotten because of this.
	And also, we'll get to it in the interview.
	Defamation's a high bar.
	We haven't seen many get to trial.
	But we've seen many defamation cases get dismissed on motions to dismiss pre-trial.
	Johnny Depp's one on a trial.
	And it's shocking, people, because we'll get to the interview.
	This is another take that's absolutely amazing.
	Kat Tenbarge.
	As Adam Waldman testified in this trial, YouTubers and social media played an overwhelming role in the perception of this trial.
	It couldn't have been the actual evidence.
	It has to be something.
	Because this is the confession through projection.
	They want to tell people what to think.
	And so all that they see is through the lens of trying to Impact.
	Perception.
	And it's not that they saw the truth.
	It's that they were swayed because this is how Ken Tanbar, where's she from?
	She's from NBC News, does things.
	Is that Britney Spears?
	That's Britney Spears.
	But you know why?
	Because you know what this is about?
	This is about the competition now.
	And the competition is blowing up.
	Like, you know, she's getting a little something, but the competition is coming after them.
	So they see the threat.
	They see the threat.
	Destroying them.
	When I had that W5 interview in my house, the guy comes in with a crew and these big cameras, and it costs an arm and a leg.
	And they are not, you know, we'll all get more views on a Saturday evening live stream than they get on their show, which costs them however much to do.
	And this is not a question of arrogance.
	It's a question of overhead.
	But listen to this.
	People who consume their news from content creators, specifically news around this case, believe it more trustworthy than mainstream media.
	Because it is.
	It's not...
	Yeah, because we're streaming the actual case.
	Like, think about it.
	These guys, and I don't know how Legal Bytes and Ricada do it, but they sat through the depositions.
	Like, they sat there and watched the recorded depositions.
	The worst thing I've ever seen.
	These guys watched hours of it and live-streamed it.
	12-hour live-streams watching recorded depositions.
	Now, you may say, if we were to say this in any other country, we'd be like, these people are sick.
	But that's what they did.
	And it's that type of knowledge of the case and the facts that allows you to make a reasoned decision based on what you've seen.
	These people are sick.
	She hasn't watched every single second of the trial.
	I know like five people who have.
	I've watched.
	Probably like 95% of the trial.
	And what she doesn't understand is that I think our opinions are more informed than her opinion is.
	Her opinion is just a reaction.
	My opinion is informed by the facts.
	I just have to reply to this particular response right now.
	No, you got the edge.
	Go ahead.
	Scratch it.
	Much confession through projection right here.
	Social media incentivizes bad behavior.
	Listen to this.
	We've known it for a while.
	Social media incentivizes bad behavior.
	It's almost like the hate clicks that media goes after because it fuels engagement.
	It's almost like that's the MO of CNN, MSNBC.
	That's why they're so pissed in a way that Trump is out of office.
	They don't get those rage clicks anymore.
	They don't get that type of bad behavior engagement.
	It also incentivizes conspiracy theories.
	You mean like Russia collusion type stuff?
	Or that white supremacists who shot black people?
	Group thing.
	Cruelty and harassment.
	Like CNN showing up at the house of a woman for whatever, trying to dox the meme guy.
	Oh my goodness.
	This is the media.
	Trust them.
	They're not lying.
	And I just have to say it.
	It's because we are more trustworthy.
	More trustworthy?
	Better predictors of outcome?
	Because we actually look at the evidence, not the narrative.
	Okay.
	But you know what, though?
	I'll even say this.
	It's not even about trust with us.
	Watch!
	We're watching it, right?
	You don't gotta trust us.
	Just watch it with us.
	We're like, here's the trial.
	Watch it with us, right?
	You gotta trust.
	There's no trust here.
	They need you to trust them.
	We need you to watch the stuff with us.
	That's all we need you to do.
	Don't trust us.
	Watch it.
	And if someone says something outrageously stupid of the commentators, there was no...
	Yeah, Nick's got...
	Rakita's got a saucy chat and he makes offensive jokes.
	Whatever.
	If you don't have a sense...
	If you don't like Joe Rogan stand-up comedy, don't buy a ticket to a Joe Rogan show.
	But it doesn't mean that what goes on on the Rakita stream is legally untenable.
	And if anybody makes a legal mistake, they'll get corrected.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Definitely.
	Hold on.
	I think it might be time.
	Hold on a second.
	Is Hurd really appealing the verdict?
	Well, not if she doesn't have money.
	She doesn't have money to satisfy the verdict.
	I doubt she has money to appeal it.
	She might file.
	What do you think?
	Are they going to file a technical appeal and then hope to settle the amount down a little bit?
	Let's listen to the interview because she talks about it a little bit.
	Stop screen.
	Share screen.
	Where did I share this?
	I know I put it on Twitter.
	Yeah, hold on a second.
	I'll go here.
	I know I shared the link.
	Nate, before this stream, I spent 40 minutes just editing a meme vlog of that interview, along with some classic highlights from the trial.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	You know what?
	I want to go to YouTube for this.
	Hold on.
	How do I go to YouTube?
	You got premium, right?
	Nope.
	We still don't have premium.
	Oh my god, man.
	It's three months for free, bro.
	Let's get the first three months.
	It's not a question of being cheap.
	It's a question of being lazy.
	This is the interview.
	Guthrie.
	Guthrie.
	What's her first name?
	Savannah.
	Savannah Guthrie.
	Listen to this interview.
	First of all, look at how uncomfortable Elaine looks right from the get-go.
	Right there.
	Boom.
	I'm going to turn it up a little bit.
	Yeah, hold on a second.
	I'm an idiot.
	Do this.
	So I can't bring it up.
	What I'm going to do is this.
	And yeah, I don't think I can bring the volume up.
	Hold on.
	This is my video.
	This is not what I want to bring up.
	Nate, we still see the same thing, right?
	Yes, yes.
	Okay.
	Get this out of here.
	It was not the meme vlogs.
	It was the one where I said she should not have given the interview.
	Okay, we got that.
	Here we go.
	There we go.
	Okay.
	YouTube.
	Yeah, you're on YouTube, but the screen you're sharing is the Twitter screen, not the YouTube screen.
	Because I'm an idiot.
	We'll get there.
	Hold on.
	Is this the one?
	Do we see it now?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Third time's a charm.
	Okay, let's go through this together, shall we?
	Good morning to you.
	Nate, tell me when you want me to stop and I'll pause it.
	First question, how is Amber doing?
	We saw her hearing that verdict.
	It took a long time to read.
	It was a sweeping verdict for Johnny Depp.
	How did she handle it?
	You know, one of the first things she said is, I am so sorry to all those women out there.
	This is a setback.
	For all women in and outside the courtroom.
	Stop it.
	Nate, do you believe that that was one of the first things she said?
	No, she was like, I got bad attorneys!
	Why am I paying you guys millions of dollars for this horrible job?
	That's what I'd have been saying.
	See, there's a part of me that says it's a total pathological fabrication.
	There's another part of me that says if she's truly a Jussie Smollett...
	She's raising her fist as she leaves the courtroom.
	And maybe she is saying this as the second or third thing right after throwing things at the wall and saying, I don't have $8 million.
	But people who heard the audio, hearing Elaine say this, she feels like she let down all victims.
	Actual victims are really beyond rolling their eyes right now.
	They're enraged.
	They heard what she said.
	She was the victimizer.
	That's the conclusion that 12 members of the jury, including four or five women, came to.
	Okay.
	Sorry, go for it.
	The one thing I do want to say is that it's not about believing a gender.
	It's not setting back women.
	They keep talking about this is about women, but it's not.
	It's about a liar.
	It's about a liar who didn't have the evidence to back up their claims.
	It's about a liar.
	Who the evidence showed that her claims were likely false.
	It's a liar who even lied about the small stuff between donating and pledging, right?
	We all know that was a lie.
	And she said it to the joy so many times, looking at them when she said it.
	Yeah, I pledged it.
	And I think it's the same as if I gave it.
	Like, that is the person who's getting this backlash.
	Not because she's a woman.
	It's because she's a liar.
	I mean, I totally...
	And just to say this again, my view, she just should not be giving interviews, period.
	Unless she's getting paid for this and it goes...
	I don't know that she could be getting paid for this and it goes to the...
	She shouldn't be doing this, period.
	But just get up and lie again.
	People heard the lies for six weeks and they didn't believe them.
	Just say it again.
	She feels the burden of that.
	Knowing the case and knowing the lies, you certainly do.
	Frankly, it favors defendants like Amber Heard.
	Are you stunned that the jury essentially rejected her story?
	I'm on the fence about Savannah Guthrie.
	Is she asking what she knows are devastating questions but looking very nice while she does it?
	Or does she actually believe this?
	Are you stunned as in I'm stunned as well?
	I think Savannah Guthrie actually knows exactly what she's doing and she's phrasing a devastating question but looking sympathetic while she does it.
	It's good.
	You were supposed to win.
	Are you stunned?
	Defamation, it was on your side.
	It was on your side.
	You had just won a trial.
	Well, you know, really what happened here is it's a tale of two trials.
	Johnny Depp brought a suit in the UK for the same case.
	Nate, let's talk about this.
	False.
	False.
	I'm going to bring it up so we can...
	The talking point for dishonest, legally illiterate MSM is that this is double jeopardy.
	In so many words.
	They're basically implying double jeopardy of sorts.
	Johnny Depp sued in the UK.
	He did not sue Amber Heard in the UK.
	Correct.
	I mean, I know the answer, but who did he sue in the UK?
	And just tell us why this is a lying point.
	Well, the reason why the point is a lie is because two things.
	Number one, you have what they call different jurisdictions.
	The UK is a separate sovereign.
	So even if I sue Viva...
	In the UK for defamation, if Viva defamed me here in the United States, I can sue him also here in the United States.
	It's separate sovereigns.
	So that's the first thing.
	The second thing is that there are two different defendants.
	Even though Amber Heard was a witness in the UK case, she wasn't a defendant.
	So Depp suing the UK defendant has no bearing on him suing Amber Heard in this situation.
	So initially what they're saying is Depp should be barred from suing Amber because he sued someone else in another country.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	No, no.
	It makes sense, and I'll add a point to that.
	Should Depp's team respond to Elaine's gibberish?
	No.
	Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
	Or, you know, if you want someone to hand them more rope, whatever.
	No, they should not respond because they have nothing more to say.
	Depp's post-verdict.
	Statement was phenomenal.
	But this is another thing that people don't really appreciate of the nuance.
	Depp sued The Sun in the UK for the statements that The Sun made, calling him a wife-beater, based on the reports from Amber Heard.
	Amber was never a party, so she was a witness to come in and say, this was my experience that I relayed to The Sun, allowing them to write the piece and refer to Johnny Depp as a wife-beater.
	The judge said, okay, I believe your testimony.
	I tweeted out the judge's statement to that.
	There was no trial on that statement.
	There might have been testimonial evidence.
	There was no trial on the truthfulness of the underlying statements of Amber Heard's accusations.
	The trial was on whether or not the son could refer to Johnny Depp as a wife-beater based on their reporting of Amber Heard's statements of what should be alleged to him.
	So it's one step off.
	And the judge came to the conclusion that The Sun reported sufficiently accurately based on what they reported from Amber Heard's allegations.
	There was no real testing of Amber Heard's allegations above and beyond her testimony.
	So there was no trial on the substance of what was at trial this time.
	It was a different party.
	Amber Heard was not a defendant.
	And it's different law in a different jurisdiction.
	True.
	Defamation is harder to prove in the States than in the UK.
	Different parties, and they're testing different statements.
	The one was The Sun reporting on Amber Heard's statements.
	The other was on Amber Heard's statements.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And one thing about Amber Heard is that I think, legally, they could have played this a different way.
	They could have given up the mutual abuse.
	They could have said, you know, we survived each other, right?
	If Amber Heard comes out and says, I was in this toxic relationship.
	I hit him.
	He hit me.
	It's horrible.
	It was horrible stuff.
	But, you know, my God, you know, now he wants to sue me.
	You know, he can't let me go.
	I believe that, right?
	I believe that.
	But I don't believe I'm an angel and I don't do anything.
	And then hear that tape, right?
	So I think...
	To their detriment, they were holding a position that the evidence wouldn't allow people to believe.
	And that's what I think really lost in this case, because I really think if this was argued differently, they had a winnable case.
	Well, not really a winnable case, but in other words, they were paying Johnny Depp.
	Yeah, they would have had a draw.
	It would have been a draw, totally, if she never testifies any of these extravagant, salacious...
	Over-the-top allegations of abuse, it just says, he verbally abused me.
	He was violent and destructive with property.
	I felt intimidated, so when I made those statements, I felt like I was an actual survivor of abuse, verbal, psychological.
	They definitely draw.
	But I think, I mean, you tell me what you think.
	I think that might have been the strategy, but Amber Heard could not stick to it and just kept going further and further into the lie, a la Jussie Smollett.
	And she had to make up the claim, right?
	He sexually assaulted me, right?
	Well, not him, but the statement, right?
	Where did that come from?
	And then now you've got the story on the stand.
	So it's crazy.
	It's really, really insane.
	If this woman really is, if all the stuff, which I believe it is, is made up, just imagine.
	I think most people empathize because most people have had someone say something that wasn't true about them.
	And they know how they feel.
	And those generally are minor things.
	But something like this that devastates your career, that destroys your life, I think people are sympathizing and empathizing with that to a degree in which, like, my God, you know, when will she stop just lying about this guy?
	And that's what this trial is about.
	And that's why I think he's getting all this online sympathy.
	Well, here's a decent, a good question.
	Tara Rayner says, Elaine may want to be careful of what she says about JD.
	He proved his case.
	She's defaming him, and they just went after JD for Waldman's statements.
	Their precedent.
	Very good point.
	It's like, ordinarily, you don't go after the lawyers for statements made in the context of litigation about their clients.
	It's litigation privilege, typically.
	The Osundiro brothers did it against Smollett's attorneys.
	I have to see what happened with that case now, because now that Smollett was convicted.
	And good point about their precedent, because they wanted to go after They went after Waldman, but Johnny Depp vicariously threw Waldman.
	But yeah, very good point.
	And then we got that the internet and YouTube were and still are in a burn-the-witch frenzy.
	I saw and heard a lot of specious analysis that would have genuine victims mocked, disbelieved, and accused using the same logic.
	Agreed.
	Okay, but now getting back to Elaine's disastrous interview.
	Let's see what she says right now.
	And the burden of proof was...
	Easier for him there.
	The son had to actually prove that it was true.
	And the court found there, and we weren't allowed to tell the jury this, but the court found that Mr. Depp had committed at least 12 acts of domestic violence, including sexual violence.
	Even the one where he cuts off his own finger on his dominant hand, the judge believed that.
	That Johnny Depp cut his finger off using his weak hand, his dominant hand index finger.
	No, there was definitely...
	There's a little nuance to what Elaine said there.
	They didn't have to prove that they were true, but substantially true, because that was the conclusion in the UK.
	The issue was wife-beater.
	He says, well, I believe that there was at least an incident of domestic violence such that the term is sufficiently true.
	It didn't prove the truth of the underlying allegations.
	Just that it was sufficiently true, the label, based on the underlying allegations.
	But the judge did believe Amber Heard.
	Why?
	There might be a number of conspiratorial reasons for which the judge believed.
	But I'll tell you two pieces of evidence that the judge had that could have challenged her credibility.
	Number one, that she had pleaded guilty in Australia to making false statements to authorities.
	That would mean that she's okay with making these false statements.
	And when she got caught, she pleaded guilty to it.
	Judge said he considered that, but he wasn't going to give her a credibility thing for that.
	Then also, in Australia, she had people, she supposedly ordered people to make false statements to authorities.
	So now you've got normally her making false statements, which she pleaded guilty for, but telling other people to make false statements.
	And they come forward, hey, listen, you know, she asked me to make false statements.
	But I'm not doing it.
	So even that, even that, he said, we're not going to use that.
	So to me, it seems like the judge was really trying to just figure a way to get a win for the Sun.
	But I think the problem is that in this case, she couldn't hide.
	Right?
	She said he gave me PTSD.
	Okay, so now we're going to get you a medical exam.
	You said this happened on this day.
	Okay, now we're going to get all your text messages and all your pictures of this particular day.
	Okay, you said you got pictures of abuse.
	Let's get those pictures and have our experts look at them.
	And Johnny Depp put it all out.
	Here it is.
	Can they sue Amber for what she's saying now?
	I mean...
	If she defames him again, she can.
	She did, in her post-conviction or post-verdict statement, defamed him again.
	She said the exact same thing.
	But, yeah, I doubt he's going to do it.
	I mean, he's made his point.
	Yeah, so now it would be cruel.
	It's just like...
	Essentially, this jury said that she lied about being sexually assaulted.
	Oh, and she did it maliciously.
	She did it maliciously, too.
	Remind me, I'm going to look up the potential conflict of the judge in the UK.
	There were issues about the judge in the UK, but bottom line, in the UK, the criteria was, is it sufficiently true to justify the statement?
	And they said, yeah, because of the accusations, and the judge believed Amber calling him a wife beater was sufficiently true.
	Not that they proved the statement's true, but sufficiently true.
	Okay, let's bring this back in here.
	Let's see what Elaine has to say.
	Oh boy, apparently she's live on ABC right now.
	And apparently Joe Biden is live on YouTube and has 5,500 people watching him talk about banning firearms.
	YouTube is helping one and suppressing others and somehow the truth still finds a way to, like life, it finds a way.
	Against Amber.
	So what did Depp's team learn from this?
	Demonize Amber and suppress the evidence.
	I'm seeing a lot of...
	That's what Amber's doing.
	From there, now I understand they're suppressing the evidence because there was a lot of metadata on some of the evidence that they would not communicate and demonizing the other party.
	We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case that was in the UK case.
	In the UK case, when it came in, Amber won.
	Mr. Depp lost.
	So, Nate, here's...
	This is the secret evidence.
	The secret evidence.
	We had a whole bunch...
	Usually when people have evidence that's so damning that you win, what they would do is they list them out.
	When they don't have it, they'll just point to, we had all this evidence, right?
	And be like, okay, what evidence, right?
	Usually if somebody will have the evidence, they'll be like, look at this picture we gave to your producer.
	Or, here's it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So she's just saying that just to pretend like there's all this amount of evidence that the judge didn't let in.
	That's what she's throwing shade on.
	She's throwing shade on the judge by saying this.
	And bear in mind also, people, that in this very same interview, she referenced and she actually cited the evidence that allegedly the jury here was not allowed to see, the article and the judgment from the UK.
	So when she had the evidence, she didn't fail to disclose it by virtue of the fact that it was actually dismissed or not allowed in the case.
	She referenced the judgment that was not allowed and mentioned it.
	Here she just says vaguely, We had a ton of evidence that wasn't allowed in, but does not go into the same detail that she did moments earlier in the same interview, which leads me to believe she's lying.
	But even if she's not lying, it's a double-edged sword what she's playing with right here because if they had evidence that they didn't get in, it's her job to get it in.
	So she's on the one hand throwing shade at the judge and highlighting her own incompetence or inability to practice.
	If it's bona fide, legitimate evidence and you fail to get it in, you're at fault.
	And now, if Amber Heard wants to be a deceitful, conniving individual, she can take that statement and say, my lawyers came out and publicly admitted they had evidence.
	They didn't get it in.
	Ineffective counsel, malpractice.
	I'm going to go after you.
	But the problem, too, is that here in the United States, the DAC was stacked in Amber's favor as the defendant.
	It was actually, like, in the UK, Johnny Depp has a better shot.
	But in the United States, the deck is actually stacked in Amber's favor.
	So it's easier for Amber to win than it would be for Johnny to win.
	And I think we have to understand that dynamic when Elaine is trying to make this point.
	And now, hold on, I got a Rumble rant on Rumble.
	From Jason B. I'm just looking here.
	It says, do you think self-censorship to stay on YouTube is enabling censorship and submitting to tyranny, or is it better to self-censor in order to reach more people?
	I don't know, Jason B. I'm doing minimal self-censorship, and I think it is better to play by the rules in the big playground to reach people you would have otherwise never reached, and go onto the other platform and support the free speech platforms as well.
	I appreciate some people think it's, you know, hey, say the naughty words, get kicked off YouTube, and you've made a point.
	Good for you.
	You've cut off your nose to spite your face, financially and reach-wise.
	And I'm not compromising what I do or say here.
	I've been posting highlights on the other channel.
	Viva Clips.
	Check it out.
	I don't know.
	Just about that whole question.
	To be honest with you, I don't really feel like I'm saying something that I couldn't really say.
	Because, you know what I'm saying?
	I was a professor at one point, so I wouldn't be up here cursing and all the other stuff because that's just not my style, you know what I mean?
	So it kind of just works with my style.
	Yeah, look, so we say election fornification instead of election five-letter F-word.
	Big freaking deal.
	First of all, I think it highlights the absurdity by doing it that way.
	But I appreciate other people have different views.
	Check out Black Belt Barrister on YouTube.
	He's a UK attorney who followed...
	Okay, amazing.
	I was on the stream with him.
	Fantastic.
	Okay, get back to this disastrous interview.
	She's incriminating her own ability to practice law in this interview.
	Oh, we had so much evidence.
	It was admissible.
	It was bona fide.
	It would have proved our client's innocence or Johnny's guilt.
	We couldn't get it in because it's a damn judge and I must have done something really wrong to not get it in.
	You were able to get some evidence that you say demonstrated abuse.
	You certainly had her testimony.
	There were pictures, documents.
	All kinds of evidence.
	I think Guthrie's a shark, actually.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	She knows what she does how to get there.
	Because she cut right through all the BS.
	She's like, you know, you got a whole bunch of stuff in.
	But now, come on, slam, close the door.
	You argued in your closing arguments that if they found even one instance of abuse, and it did not even have to be physical abuse, that they would have to find for Amber Heard.
	And they didn't.
	And the other part to bear in mind here, just...
	Move on, Elaine.
	Ignore it.
	Just pivot.
	Guthrie, I think she does what she's doing.
	It's great.
	Nothing changed.
	The op-ed didn't even mention Mr. Depp.
	Nate, field this one.
	Field it.
	So this is defamation by implication.
	Essentially, just because you don't say the person's name, but if everyone knows who you're talking about, then Virginia law allows you.
	To hold the defamation claim.
	And the case that actually set this off was a case in which a mother's son had died.
	And he was anaphylactic shock.
	But this is first when they started with the EpiPens.
	So the school had a procedure in place.
	And the mother filed the procedure to the letter.
	Like you had EpiPen at school, this, this, this.
	So she was filing the procedure to a T. And some freak accident happened where he passed away.
	So the school then went on a campaign because they were like, well, we don't want this to happen to somebody else.
	So during their campaign, they were like, you don't, you know, we've had a death here at the school before and that was because someone didn't follow all the rules.
	So that's why you need to follow all the rules.
	You got to follow all the rules because if you don't follow the rules, you're going to be like, you know, you may die like we had before.
	We've had a death here before.
	So even though they never mentioned that kid and his family, Since he was the only one that died there from this particular thing, the state was like, then yeah, obviously you're talking about him.
	So they allowed defamation by implication.
	The fact that it was obvious, the fact that just because you don't say the person's name doesn't mean we all don't know who you're talking about.
	And in this case, we had the ACLU said the first draft of the document had, you know, actually had his name in it.
	They pulled out his name and then like another draft.
	The ACLU wanted to make sure that people could connect the dots.
	And as soon as they put the thing out, like five minutes later, they're getting a phone call.
	I didn't know Johnny Depp beat his wife.
	It was obvious.
	And even on examinations, she said that she was talking about Johnny Depp within the thing, too.
	So it was clearly about him.
	But yes, it's also factual that his name wasn't in it.
	Factual that his name wasn't in it.
	The threshold in law is people within the community, I think is one of the standards.
	If people in the community know who it's about, it's defamation.
	The Kentucky Fried Chicken case was about naming more than one defendant and the threshold at which it becomes too many to be defamatory about.
	Am I right about that one?
	I think it was the bad chicken or something like that?
	Yeah, they were complaining about one of the franchises.
	Oh yeah, but there were so many that they couldn't know which one.
	People are asking me, can the trucker's convoy sue the government or people for defamatory statements?
	Bottom line is no, because there's so many people there.
	Even if you say the convoy is racist, sexist, xenophobic, whatever, like they did, try to pick one person out.
	That's a rule here.
	You can't defame a group.
	You can defame a person.
	Runkle mentioned in Rakata's live stream last night how the Canadian government changed the laws after the Gomeshi trial to make it harder to defend against that type of abuse.
	That's new to me.
	I remember the Gomeshi trial vaguely.
	I might have to go revisit that and maybe talk about it on Sunday.
	Okay, so bottom line, bullshit argument coming from a lawyer after the rejection by the judge and the jury of that argument.
	Didn't even mention Johnny by name.
	Okay, that's way to be a five-year-old kid.
	I didn't say, I said truck off.
	I didn't say, you know, F off.
	So don't get mad at me, mom.
	By name.
	And so what basically they did here is demonize her.
	And they did.
	They were able to suppress the medical records, which were very, very significant because they showed a pattern going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example.
	In my meme vlog, I clipped in there, Amber Heard saying, I never went to see a doctor during the...
	Oh, we had medical advice.
	So she says here, it's actually kind of deceitful.
	It's almost like a lawyer talk.
	Because they showed the medical.
	Basically, they did here is demonize her.
	And they did.
	They were able to suppress the medical records.
	She says suppress the medical records, which would lead anybody listening to this without having seen the trial, that there were meaningful medical records of actual physical injury from abuse.
	but then she subtly Subtly discloses that she's actually talking about psychological, like meeting the psychiatrist here.
	Which were very, very significant because they showed a pattern going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist.
	Therapist medical records.
	No, no, no.
	Stop it right there.
	Yep.
	Now, since I have watched every single second of this trial, like I said 99.5% of this trial.
	She just tried to pull the wool over all of our eyes.
	Now, in both the London and the UK case and in this case, Amber testified that the first time Johnny Depp hit her was in 2013.
	And she said to this point, I remember it was the first time.
	I remember, you know, and she remember it was clear.
	I know it was such a special moment, but it happened in 2013.
	And then it came out online, right, that she had produced a picture, the TMZ.
	And in that picture she produced the TMZ, she had a slit lip.
	TMZ looked at the metadata on that picture.
	It said 2012.
	So Amber was caught in the line.
	So then on the next day in court, the next day after the break, she came on and her and Elaine...
	She then told the jury that, lo and behold, she made a mistake.
	Her first incident wasn't in 2013.
	It was in 2012.
	And what helped her remember why she made this mistake were the notes from this doctor.
	So when she said that it was perfect and she knew and she had the great memory, and that's why If you're a juror and you're watching that, you probably say, uh, that's a problem.
	Because now you're talking about something that happened a year ago after you just finished trying to convince us that you knew this date because it was so traumatic.
	But it was the wrong year.
	Apparently, a lot of people are saying one of the jurors is on TikTok.
	So, I have to go see what this means exactly.
	I'm not on TikTok.
	I'm seeing one of the jurors speak out.
	Alright, so here it is.
	I'm going to share what people are sending.
	This is not...
	I'm not taking...
	I don't know...
	This is a juror from TikTok.
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly, people?
	Amber, her juror speaks out.
	Okay, you're going to share it?
	I was watching Law& Lumber.
	He debunked the TikTok.
	Maybe he did.
	Here it is.
	It is being shared.
	Oh, so, no, no, no.
	Okay, people are saying it's fake.
	Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
	I'm assuming it's fake.
	Oh.
	Okay, forget it.
	We don't need to answer.
	Oh, do I do it?
	Okay.
	Nah.
	Forget about it.
	Look at it.
	Tell me if it's...
	No, forget it.
	No, no, we don't want to get it.
	It's fake.
	It looks fake.
	Okay.
	I'm looking at it.
	By the way, we're not going to pull a CNN and run something fake.
	We'll just go back to Amber Heard.
	I need to know about the cheekbones because she looks radically different now that she did five years ago.
	Those high cheekbones.
	Those high cheekbones.
	And my goodness, people were, you know, if they're going to show medical records, I'd like to see all of them.
	Did she have any facial work done that coincides with any of the alleged injuries?
	Well, listen, if you break your nose, right, generally you go to a doctor.
	I broke my nose, right?
	Yeah.
	But she said she broke her nose twice.
	And not a doctor confirmed it.
	Matter of fact, she broke her nose and went to a doctor that examined her two days after this horrible beating and a broken nose.
	He goes and says she's not injured at all.
	He had a personal nurse who literally wrote it down.
	She has no injuries.
	And that's after the vicious acts that she described.
	Tell me if you hear this click, by the way.
	Did you hear a click?
	Yes, I heard that click.
	Okay, so I banged my nose on the bottom of a pool very mildly about two weeks ago.
	It's swollen.
	It still hurts.
	And now it's clicking whenever I push on the cartilage only from left to right.
	And that was just a mild bump because I was going to the bottom without my glasses trying to get one of those little the sinky toys that the kids use to...
	And my goodness, I'm just thinking like my wife, Marion, got hit in the face with a frisbee.
	Didn't even break her nose.
	Two black eyes like a raccoon.
	It's inconceivable.
	It's just, for anyone who has ever experienced any remotely similar type of injury, inconceivable.
	Inconceivable.
	But, yeah.
	So, medical records, and then she discreetly slips in there that therapist medical records.
	No actual doctor, because Amber...
	In cross-examination to Camille, confirmed she never went to a doctor for any alleged injury she sustained during the relationship.
	Yep.
	You're not sharing the video.
	You hear it, but we don't.
	I'm an idiot.
	My God.
	Hold on.
	You're a rocket dude, too.
	We're very, very significant because they showed a pattern going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example.
	We had a significant amount of text, including from Mr. Depp's assistance, saying, when I told him he kicked you, he cried.
	Objection hearsay.
	I slipped this into my ear.
	When I told you...
	He kicked...
	Play that back?
	How many levels a year say that is?
	I say, my technique is, say what you just heard five times, and if he can't do it, chances are it makes no sense.
	...assistance saying, when I told him, including from Mr. Depp's assistance, saying, when I told him he kicked you, he cried.
	When I told him he kicked you, he cried.
	This is her assistant saying this to Amber.
	That when the assistant told Johnny that Johnny kicked Amber in a text, he cried.
	My goodness.
	That's a lot of hearsay right there.
	So I had to slip in two of the many objections for hearsay in my meme vlog.
	But not just that.
	The context, it's hearsay.
	I'd like to hear, why didn't they call that woman?
	Why didn't they call the assistant?
	And by the way, Elaine, it might be highlighting her own incompetence.
	If they had a witness who could say this, Nate, is there any good reason in your mind that you can think of why this witness would not have been called or refused to come if called?
	Well, the witness can refuse to come, but she didn't have any fact witnesses that really, except her sister, that would verify.
	And even her sister as a fact witness, her story was different than everybody else's story that was there.
	So it was kind of like, you know, it honestly came down to...
	Do you believe her?
	Do you believe her or do you believe the cops?
	The doorman?
	Johnny?
	Even if this witness comes...
	The grocery man.
	What are you going to do?
	But if this witness came and said, yeah, I sent a text to Amber saying that when I told you, Amber, that Johnny kicked you, even the substance of that text would be hearsay because the assistant didn't see it herself.
	Maybe that's what happened.
	The text, including from Mr. Depp's assistance, saying, when I told him he kicked you, he cried.
	He is so sorry.
	So just as a technical matter, that is hearsay, right?
	That is hearsay.
	It's two layers of hearsay, actually, that I told that, especially whenever you say it's an out-of-court statement.
	So they're trying to get that statement in to court.
	And for them, they would need to have her up there, so she would have to come to the stand.
	And then she would have to say what she would actually, she could even say what she told Johnny.
	Like, the only thing she could say was what Johnny actually said to her.
	So she could go and talk about what she observed and what Johnny told her.
	That's what she'd be able to testify to.
	But I'm assuming they didn't get her to come testify.
	That's why.
	I'm thinking, I'm just bringing up some super chats that I missed a while ago, but everyone lied except Amber.
	Even if the assistant had come up and said, yeah, I text that, that would still be technically hearsay, even though the assistant would be saying, yeah, that's my text.
	But the substance of that text is trying to prove as true a statement or something that occurred out of the courtroom.
	I didn't see it.
	But Elaine's saying, we had so much evidence.
	This is like, not third party, this is like inception level hearsay.
	Okay, I'm not going to make the same mistake again.
	Bringing it up, there we go.
	And I did not know Savannah Guthrie was a lawyer, if I'm reading the chats and they're right.
	That didn't come in.
	Is there any other way to interpret this verdict, though?
	That this jury, for whatever reason, and I hear you on some of the evidence that they didn't hear.
	Okay, is that patronizing or is that authentic?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I hear you on...
	Is that a way to get her...
	Yeah.
	But is that a way for Savannah to get...
	Elaine to feel comfortable to go on, like to not be antagonizing.
	Because I wouldn't be able to do what Savannah just did.
	I was like, yeah, they didn't believe it because it's a lie.
	But what is it?
	Chat, what do you think?
	One, Savannah is making her subject feel comfortable.
	Or two, Savannah actually believes the rubbish that Elaine is spewing.
	Let's see.
	No, she doesn't believe it.
	Listening to Amber Heard did not believe a single word.
	You know, and that's because she was demonized here.
	A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed.
	So now, they left out the good stuff and let in the bad stuff.
	So we got a two for that.
	So the court is just going, she just threw the judge totally under the bus.
	They wouldn't allow me to reduce evidence that I was totally insistent was relevant, and they allowed stuff that was not supposed to be allowed.
	It's like, everyone is wrong.
	Now I'm wondering if Elaine is not as much of a...
	BPH histrionic narcissist as is.
	She looks nice.
	Maybe it's my preconceived notion for her accent.
	I don't know.
	And it caused the jury to be confused.
	We weren't allowed to tell them.
	The jury wasn't confused.
	They were unanimous.
	I mean, Elaine, come on.
	Don't make it too easy.
	About the UK judgment.
	So the damages is completely skewed.
	There are no damages.
	Nate, you have to flesh this out for me.
	I watched...
	Not all of it, but a lot of it.
	What's the point here that she's saying there were no damages because they had to stop aggregating damages as of November 2020 or something?
	Yeah, so what they're saying is that there are two things.
	I'm not sure.
	First, for the statement that hurt Johnny Depp's career, they're saying at the time that the UK trial was in, I think, 2020, the UK trial, when that happened, he was found guilty or whatever happened there.
	Then that...
	Going forward, hurt his career more than her op-ed.
	Because that point in time, you had a judgment saying, you're a wife-beater.
	So that's why it doesn't make sense to charge you with all that stuff after that, because at that point in time, it's not the article.
	It's, you know...
	It's that.
	It's not anything Amber said at that point.
	It's what the court in the UK said in Tough Noogies.
	I had sympathy for Elaine at the end of the trial.
	Now, none.
	She is caustic.
	Hold on.
	Hey, Siri, what does caustic mean?
	As an adjective, caustic means...
	Able to corrode or burn tissue.
	Sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way formed by the intersection of reflected and refracted parallel rays from a curved surface.
	Okay, I think it's able to burn or corrode organic tissue by chemical action.
	Okay, I like that word.
	Caustic.
	I'm going to have to go and see how it's used in a sentence.
	Okay, can they sue AH?
	Okay, I got to that.
	Okay, so getting back to this interview now.
	Bringing it up.
	Yeah, so that's the...
	Okay, underappreciated on the date after which Amber could no longer be legally responsible for Johnny Depp's damages.
	It stopped at November 2, 2020, which is when the judgment came down in the UK.
	Let me ask you about social media in this case.
	Unlike any celebrity case, certainly I've ever covered or ever seen, social media was a part of this.
	And it was incredibly lopsided and vitriolic against Amber Heard.
	Do you think that had an effect on the case?
	Absolutely.
	Do you think jurors were aware of it?
	They weren't supposed to be.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Nate.
	I take offense to, again, if Guthrie is just making her subject feel comfortable, I don't think it was one-sided and vitriolic.
	I mean, it was vitriolic to some extent against both sides.
	There were a few people in my chat who clearly didn't like Johnny Depp, you know, calling him an abuser, a drug addict, a degenerate, whatever.
	But was it vitriolic or was it just people reacting to what they think was clear-cut absence of evidence and evidence of lying?
	People were reacting to, I think, the clear evidence of lying.
	Because, again, like I keep saying, if you know someone's lying to you, it makes it all, it just makes them seem even more disgusting.
	And I think that's essentially what happened with this woman, Amber Heard.
	I think it got to the point where it was obvious that she was just lying to us.
	And at a point, it's almost like she's questioning our intelligence.
	Like, are we not going to really, you know, are we going to believe the donating?
	Versus pledging.
	Are you that stupid to really believe that she treats them synonymously?
	Nobody's that dumb.
	Do you believe that she's going to break her nose, never see a doctor, and say that she covered it up?
	It just got to the point where to believe her is really to not believe in reality.
	And then let's not forget all the other people on the other side saying all this stuff happened when she said it happened.
	I pledged it.
	It was as good as donated to them while I continued to live off of it for many, many years.
	Nate, this I like.
	Yeah, the jury didn't hear something very important.
	The accusation of DV, domestic something, of Amber Heard against a former partner.
	Do you know why that didn't come up?
	Yes.
	Because...
	And generally arrests are done with propensity.
	They're propensity items.
	So in other words, if you're arrested for something like...
	An arrest is actually proof of nothing, right?
	It's not like a conviction.
	So judges are generally not going to allow arrest in.
	Sorry, my daughter's screaming.
	Judges are not going to allow arrest in because it would be too prejudicial to the jury.
	If they were to know that she was arrested for DV.
	So what they did, they were able to manage to fix that because if you look at the federal rules of evidence or even the rules of evidence in this case, the way they do it is that if your conviction or arrest, but really if your conviction is more than 10 years old, they won't use it anyway because it's called a stale conviction.
	So this thing happened in 2009.
	So it's more than 10 years old, and it's just an arrest.
	So the judge said it would just be too prejudicial to bring it in, and it's not really worth anything now because it's more than 10 years old.
	But what the judge did allow is that they could bring in a witness, who they did, Ms. Beverly Howell, to describe the incident.
	And that was actually the officer who arrested Amber Heard.
	But under the restrictions that she couldn't tell the jury that she was an officer, she couldn't tell the jury that Amber was arrested, She could just describe the events that led up to her getting in between them.
	But none of the stuff that happened in her official capacity as an officer, because then the next natural question went, was she arrested, right?
	So that's why if you watch the Beverly Howell, not Beverly Howell, the Beverly Leonard deposition, which was the last deposition for the Depp's team, she mentions, she talks about the incident, but never mentions that she's an officer.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Sorry, I know that was long, but that was why that happened.
	It's a good point.
	An arrest proves absolutely nothing.
	People get detained, wrongly arrested, or even arrested as a precaution.
	I want to bring this one up.
	Betlow87, Viva, have you heard the theory that they might have hired the wrong Dr. Spiegel?
	They didn't hire the wrong Dr. Spiegel.
	The rumor started because apparently there is another Dr. Spiegel who started getting online hate or, you know, jokes.
	And he said, I'm not that Dr. Spiegel.
	Dr. Spiegel is a relatively common name of Germanic origin, which I believe means to play.
	That guy was crazy, boy.
	That guy was crazy.
	He confirms my theory that people who operate in psychiatry...
	The professionals, more often than not, are batshit crazy themselves.
	I mean, I've known a few, not from personal consultation.
	They are type A people in general, and sometimes more, to put it mildly.
	So my understanding of the rumor is that there was another doctor who started getting social media hate or social media harassment.
	He's like, I'm not that Dr. Spiegel, leave me alone.
	Okay.
	Good.
	We're going to make one hour out of a five minute interview, Nate.
	Don't look at it.
	Do you think they did see it?
	How can you not?
	They went home every night.
	They have families.
	By the way, this means Amber Heard was watching social media every night and she was seeing the TikTok remixes.
	My dog stepped on a bee.
	Okay, sorry.
	The families are on social media.
	What were you going to say?
	No, I was going to say This part bothers me a little bit, because essentially she's saying the jury violated their oath, right?
	She's saying that the jury's corrupt, essentially, right?
	They were told, don't do this, don't do this, no outside influences, you only need to know what we're going to tell you.
	And she said, well, they went and did it anyway.
	She's essentially saying the jury violated the court's orders.
	And did this.
	And this is what I have a problem with, because generally attorneys don't say that, right?
	You usually accept the jury's verdict and say, hey, I think they got it wrong.
	We're going to appeal.
	And, you know, you make your argument to appeal.
	But she's not saying that.
	She's saying that the jury, that the jury is somehow ethically compromised.
	Are you, are you, someone said, you know, she's getting close to, close to an ethics violations.
	Is a lawyer allowed after the trial getting up and impugning the integrity of the jury?
	Generally, no.
	Generally, no.
	Impugning the integrity of the jury, impugning the judge.
	She's gone all three right now.
	Spiegel means glass?
	No.
	Spiegel.
	Spiegel means to play, I think.
	Okay, doesn't matter.
	I'll get to that in a second.
	And another thing, by the way, Nate, why could Elaine not have requested the sequestration of the jury or would six weeks be just unfathomable?
	They could request it, but it all depends if the judge allows it or not, so I'm not sure if they request it.
	But even though, six weeks is kind of ridiculous to have somebody receive it.
	And, you know, I believe if people raise their arm up and take a pledge not to listen to the trial or anything, I'm assuming they're going to do it.
	And if you do listen to something or hear something, you're supposed to report it to the court.
	So, you know, unless you have a good faith basis to make those allegations.
	You're not supposed to be saying stuff like this because you're going to make people feel that the system is rigged when it's really not.
	She doesn't know anything she's talking about.
	And the way she's coming to that conclusion is just they went home for 10 days.
	Really?
	Or they were going home every night.
	So they had to look at it.
	I think they've got to hear something.
	If I'm them, it could be a very good excuse to stay off social media.
	I mean, everybody could use a purge for a little bit.
	For me, this just means that they spent their time scouring social media.
	Not Elaine, but Amber sitting there watching the TikTok memes and going nuts and getting enraged.
	Their direct testimony after the break was essentially answering all the online stuff.
	I was shocked.
	I was like, they're wasting time answering things about online stuff.
	Why?
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	They were following, no doubt.
	I like to think Johnny Depp's team was as well.
	Okay, so she's going to impugn the jury a little more.
	A 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference.
	There's no way they couldn't have been influenced by it.
	And it was horrible.
	It really...
	By the way, there's no way they couldn't have been influenced?
	Why could they not have been influenced?
	No, but why could they not have been influenced?
	Towards her innocence.
	Like, it's like, oh, they were obviously influenced towards her guilt, and the reason for that must have been nefarious.
	It's like, they could have just as easily been swayed for her innocence if they're reading Vogue, that idiot.
	Nate, who's the guy that you responded to?
	Raven, whatever, right?
	Raven Smith.
	Raven Smith.
	The Vogue, saying, you know, forget it.
	I can't play middle fence at both.
	It's Believe All Women.
	They could have been reading Vogue.
	Why do you assume they're watching LawTube?
	Really was lopsided.
	I appreciate your saying that.
	It's like the Roman Colosseum.
	I appreciate you saying that.
	Now I'm thinking Guthrie is, in fact, You know, how they viewed this whole case.
	I was against cameras in the courtroom, and I went on record with that and had argued against it because of the sensitive nature of this.
	But it made it a zoo.
	Does your client want to appeal?
	Oh, absolutely.
	And she has some excellent grounds for it.
	We even had tried to get the UK judgment in to dismiss his case because he already had his shot.
	Nate, what's the rule on bringing in foreign judgments as precedent or even in the States?
	No?
	It makes no sense what she's saying.
	All right, to a lawyer, sometimes it's difficult to relay these legal concepts to people who are just not lawyers.
	There's a thing known as jurisdiction.
	So if I'm in New York and you do something in New York, I can sue you within New York because New York has jurisdiction over the claims.
	But now, if something happens in the UK, that's a whole different country.
	A whole different country.
	So if I sue you for stuff you did in the UK and I win or lose, That doesn't stop me from suing you for the stuff, for the issues that we got here in New York.
	And in this case, she's going as far as to say Johnny Depp suing someone else in the UK should stop him from being able to sue Amber Heard in Virginia.
	That makes no sense.
	That's not even an argument.
	It's a joke.
	And by the way, it was spiel.
	That meant to play, not Spiegel.
	So, Sid Loy, thank you very much.
	And not just a different jurisdiction.
	In Canada, the UK is a parliamentary system.
	I don't think it's the same in the States.
	It's sort of similar in Canada, except for Quebec, which is a civil law system.
	In that sense, where you have jurisdictions that are born out of one from the other, follow similar rules, similar legal precedent, they can carry...
	A precedent won't be binding, but it could be sort of influential on the court.
	We're talking about like two entirely different systems of law, so much so that Elaine highlighted it, and now it's like, bring in, I'm not making fun of India, there's no but, bring in a precedent from India on defamation.
	It's totally different legal systems with no connection, at the very least.
	When arguing, you know, can a precedent in the UK be binding in Canada?
	We have parliamentary systems.
	There's some similarity where they could be influential but not binding nonetheless.
	This is just like, oh, the system, she highlighted the differences in the systems and now wants to bring in one.
	A lower court decision, I don't think it got appealed in the UK, to be binding in the United States of America, which has very different laws.
	But she's talking about essentially collateral estoppel, right?
	Where if I'm in New York and I sue you for defamation and I win, then I'm not allowed to sue you again.
	That's what she's talking about.
	But that only works if it's the same set of facts and we're in the same jurisdiction.
	That doesn't work because if I can sue you here, Then I can sue you somewhere else if that's where the claims arose.
	So in this case, the claims arose in Virginia.
	So Johnny Depp was able to sue her in Virginia.
	In the UK, those claims arose in the UK.
	So he sued the son in the UK.
	That's the way it works.
	And didn't sue Amber.
	And I think this is a joke here.
	RefreshTheDemon96 says, Florida judge set the precedent on masks.
	That's why Quebec had to stop enforcing it.
	Which is a joke.
	Because masks are still being required on planes here and buses.
	Whatever.
	Okay, bring it back.
	Bring on the Elaine.
	And that's one of the issues, but also a number of the evidentiary issues.
	There was so much evidence that did not come in.
	Is she able to pay a $10.4 million judgment?
	Oh, no.
	Absolutely not.
	Oh, no.
	Absolutely not.
	That's her saying she ain't got all her money.
	You're like, oh, no.
	Hell, no.
	Absolutely not.
	Nate, I'm not looking for ethics violations on other lawyers.
	And there's no but.
	Is that not possibly something, unless she had specific authorization from Elaine to disclose her lack of liquidity, is that not something that can get a lawyer in trouble?
	She basically said her client is insolvent.
	Unless she had authorization to say that, that's disclosing confidential solicitor client information, in my view.
	Do you disagree?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Play it back again.
	Let me see exactly what she said.
	That's a big one now.
	You're talking about she's breaking privilege.
	She's confirming her client is insolvent of the issues, but also a number of the evidentiary issues.
	There was so much evidence that did not come in.
	Is she able to pay a $10.4 million judgment?
	Oh, no.
	Absolutely not.
	Maybe it's common knowledge, but maybe not.
	Let me...
	Walk it back a bit.
	Not being able to pay 10.5 million doesn't mean she's insolvent.
	It just means she doesn't have 10.5 million.
	But to so reflexively say she can't possibly satisfy this judgment...
	No, you know what?
	I wish I was a body language expert.
	But that seemed like the truest thing she said all night.
	There's no question.
	Let's do it again.
	Of course.
	Absolutely.
	No question.
	Yes.
	Of the issues, but also a number of the...
	No hesitation.
	There was so much evidence that did not come in.
	Is she able to pay a $10.4 million judgment?
	Oh, no.
	Absolutely not.
	Straight to the point.
	No follow-up.
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	It's the no follow-up.
	Absolutely not.
	We had so much more evidence.
	You know what?
	You know what that lets me know?
	That lets me know she worried about getting paid.
	Absolutely not.
	Well, they know the issue.
	Let the jokes reign in.
	Their legal fees have been pledged.
	In closing arguments, Amber's team argued that this would send a message.
	That it would send a message that no matter what you do as an abuse victim, you always have to do more.
	You need to be perfect in order for people to believe you.
	If she did not get a favorable verdict.
	What message do you think this sends?
	It's a horrible message.
	It's, as I said, a setback.
	It's a significant setback because that's exactly what it means.
	Unless you pull out your phone and you video your...
	Which she did.
	Unless you pull out your phone and you video.
	Which she did, but just magically didn't catch any of the bad stuff.
	No, but the thing is that she's pretending to...
	It's not just the evidence to corroborate.
	It's the evidence that also disproves your claims, right?
	So if you're saying, I'm beat up day one in this vicious beating that would scar anyone, you know, where you're getting pounded in your face for hours, and then the next day you're on the red carpet and we look at you and you have not a bruise to be, you know, he's cutting your back up with glass and then you wear a backless dress the next night with no scars.
	Unless this woman is Wolverine.
	You know, it just didn't make sense.
	So what they're saying is that we had evidence to corroborate our side, which was lacking in and of itself.
	But they also, she's also not going to say there was a lot of evidence that showed that what she was saying was just BS.
	Are you going to cover the Elaine versus Amber trial?
	Oh, I get it.
	Sorry, I thought that said talk or trial.
	The Elaine versus Amber.
	That is to say, I presume when Amber sues Elaine or when Elaine sues Amber for unpaid legal fees...
	Hold on a second.
	I didn't put it back in here.
	Effectively, you won't be believed.
	Elaine Charlson-Bretterhoff, thank you very much for your time this morning.
	Thank you.
	She was on Good Morning America 2. Was it Good Morning America?
	No, no.
	CBS.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I like Savannah Guthrie because she had that other interview.
	Oh, no, she had the interview with Jussie Smollett's lawyers where I'm like, man, did she just ask those questions in a good way or because she believes the nonsense?
	No, she asked, remember, she asked US Soccer.
	She was like, would you give up the guaranteed money?
	She asked good questions.
	Savannah Guthrie asked good questions.
	Okay, I like Savannah Guthrie.
	And she asked that one twice.
	She asked it twice, too.
	She was like, you know, you forgot to answer the thing about the guaranteed money.
	Oh, follow up, too.
	Here we go, guys.
	We've swayed one more person.
	I disagreed with you before, Viva, but now I'm bored.
	Let her run her mouth and dig her own professional grave.
	If she files for bankruptcy, does she have to pay her lawyers?
	That, Nate, I'd say clearly no.
	Her lawyers would be ordinary creditors, but apparently she cannot discharge herself of this defamation judgment?
	Oh, yeah.
	I don't think you can because it's an intentional tort, but don't.
	Don't quote me on that because I'm not sure.
	And by the way, I think you're right because Barnes, Robert, we discussed it.
	At first he thought defamation could be discharged in bankruptcy, but I think ultimately he tweeted out today, you can't for the same reason, intentional tort, as in you did something wrong, you punched someone in the face, oh, I'm bankrupt, but legal fees are just ordinary debt.
	They could be discharged in bankruptcy and good luck, Elaine, line up with the other creditors.
	Now, who would get preference in a bankruptcy if Amber owes $10 million or $8.35 million to Johnny?
	It can't be discharged, so she's going to owe that anyway.
	Oh, I see.
	It's the other creditors that got to worry.
	She's still going to owe that money.
	The punitive damage is for sure.
	She can't discharge.
	They're there.
	In some instances, let's say I'm for a slip and fall accident or something like that, where it's just negligence.
	Sometimes those companies go bankrupt, and that's just what it is.
	But intentional torts, though, like this one, where you did it intentionally with malice, with actual malice, generally you can't discharge those.
	Adam Warlock, these are 60 shekels, by the way, which I think that's the...
	Symbol for Shekel.
	Viva.
	Not if she is acting as her agent.
	And I'm not sure if that is...
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	That's if Elaine is acting as Amber's agent and what she's disposing is if you're allowed to.
	But, hey, maybe Amber wants people to think she's worth $100 million.
	I can settle that.
	If she can't afford $10.5 million, it sort of also sets the groundwork that she doesn't really have that much money for an appeal, which is going to cost an arm.
	Check out this one in the private chat.
	This is the other show she was on.
	Go on.
	Let me see this here.
	Okay, hold on.
	Oh, video unavailable.
	The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
	Gosh darn.
	Oh, it's CBS this morning.
	Yep.
	We got to get a VPN, man.
	I'll do better than that.
	Fleet Lord Avatar on Rumble Rants says, Why doesn't Viva have a Locals live stream open yet?
	And I expected them to be chattering about the Amber abuser trial jury TikTok Q&A.
	There's two reasons.
	I could do a live stream on Locals, but I can't bring this chat up, but it's on Rumble.
	But I can't share a screen with someone on Rumble easily.
	I know Nate and Eric do it on their Locals thing, but...
	I'm a little more compromised when it comes to technology.
	And I did that on purpose.
	Technology.
	Let me just go.
	No, I want to do this.
	Hold on a second.
	Okay, bring this over here.
	So that was the interview.
	More of the takes.
	Nate has ducked up for one second.
	Now, forget this.
	Oh, let me just...
	And we are joined now by Amber Hurd.
	Here, let's just do this for one second.
	I Committing to the planet.
	It will take a dedicated force of plant-based ambassadors.
	Stop it.
	There's so much noise.
	I can't do this anymore.
	Let's skip the ad.
	I just want to show you the style of memery.
	Meme vloggery.
	Here we go.
	I'm not going to show the whole thing, just to show a little bit.
	Fred O 'Hoff, good morning to you.
	It's good to see you.
	Mr. Oakland.
	Yeah, but I'm going to just, this is my interjecting of humor.
	Amber, do it.
	You saw her hearing that verdict.
	It took a long time to read.
	It was a sweeping verdict for Johnny Depp.
	How did she handle it?
	You know, one of the first things she said is, I am so sorry to all those women out there.
	I'm sorry that I didn't hit you.
	Across the face in a proper slap.
	Oh, this is good.
	He's not punching you.
	Babe, you're not punched.
	This is a setback for all women in and outside the courtroom.
	And she feels the burden of that.
	You didn't get punched.
	You got hit.
	I'm sorry I hit you like this.
	But I did not punch you.
	Okay, so it goes on.
	That's good, though.
	People want to treat us like we're idiots.
	I'll do nothing more than just no commentary.
	Total fair use, by the way.
	Okay, so let's see what we've got.
	I had that chat before.
	Nate, you're in avatar mode.
	Oh, here we go.
	I think Law& Lumber talked about it and said there is a carve-out that excludes her legal fees from bankruptcy as well, so she would have to pay them.
	Interesting.
	In Canada, as far as I know, unless they secured something against real property, I don't think legal fees, lawyers...
	I know lawyers would just be regular creditors along with everyone else, but maybe it's different elsewhere.
	Always appreciate you guys and the content you produce.
	The other interview is worth going through, too.
	Do we do it?
	They push her around.
	Hold on.
	You know what?
	I'll share it.
	Okay, let's see if I can get it.
	I'll do better than that.
	When do the movers come?
	Oh, by the way, at 9.15, give or take, Nate, it's totally Canadian politics.
	There's an election in Ontario going on, and I had the leader of this political party, a brand new party, come on.
	Oh, I see it, actually.
	We're going to get this.
	I had the leader, come on, Jim Carahalios, new blue party, and they're going to come on at 9.15, give or take, to let us know what happens in the election, because they should have some results in by then.
	Okay.
	How long is this interview?
	Go for it.
	Six minutes.
	If we let it play.
	Let it play and stop.
	The verdict came after six weeks of very dramatic testimony from both sides.
	She claimed that he abused her while he said she was the abuser.
	In his reaction, Depp wrote, the goal of bringing the case was to reveal the truth and that truth never perishes.
	Elaine Charlson-Bretterhoff is the attorney for Amber Heard and is with us now.
	And we should mention, we did also reach out to Johnny Depp's team, but they declined to be interviewed this morning.
	Elaine, thank you.
	We're so very glad to be here.
	We heard Amber's reaction to the verdict yesterday.
	This seems to be a huge victory for Johnny Depp this morning.
	A major setback for women.
	For women inside the courtroom.
	He's got the talking points.
	Lane, it's a huge victory for Johnny Depp.
	Period.
	It's not a setback for anybody else who was not one of the two parties to that lawsuit.
	Setback for, what's her face?
	Amber.
	But not a setback for women.
	Outside the courtroom.
	Because?
	Because basically what this said, you know, Amber had...
	An enormous amount of evidence, although a lot of it was suppressed in this case as opposed to the UK.
	But look at all the women who have no evidence.
	She's got very consistent talking points.
	But it's going even more like now it's suppressed evidence, which really, that's putting, you say, shade on a judge.
	That's like the judge had a willful motive to hide the truth.
	All these women who suffer from domestic violence, domestic abuse, they don't have evidence.
	And basically what this jury said is unless you pull out your cell phone and you tape record your spouse beating you, you're out of luck.
	That's not what this jury's saying.
	She's being so disingenuous with that.
	The jury say it because she's acting like there wasn't evidence that that...
	Yeah, the fact that she was being deceptive and there was evidence of deception here.
	That's what she's trying to ignore.
	I think it was bigger than that because you had the evidence, as you say, but they did not believe her.
	Why do you think they did not believe her?
	Because she was lying.
	Sorry, because she's alive.
	I think that a lot of that was that it was Johnny Depp.
	I think the celebrity status, but she's a celebrity too.
	They're not buying her crap!
	I like it.
	I thought she was buying it for a second.
	It's not just that she's a celebrity too.
	If we want to go by what would typically allure men, she's super hot.
	There's no question.
	She's super attractive.
	If she were a likable personality, everyone would be on her side.
	Oh yeah.
	But she's a celebrity too.
	But you have to remember, it's a tale of two trials.
	All the evidence came in.
	Pivot now.
	Pivot to the tale of two trials.
	In the UK.
	Mr. Depp brought that one.
	The burden of proof was on the sun in the UK because they had called him a wife beater and talked about the domestic violence.
	Talk about the UK.
	He had this opportunity to tell the truth then.
	And a three-week trial.
	He lost.
	The judge found 12 acts of domestic violence.
	So now she's talking about a whole other trial, a whole different time, the one he lost.
	We're talking about the one that happened yesterday.
	We're not talking about the one that happened two years ago.
	It is amazing, though.
	It's just find a way to get away from what they are saying, regardless of what they're saying, to get to what you want to say.
	It's very Hillary Clinton-esque, but it's not Hillary Clinton.
	It's just lawyer-y.
	It's politician.
	It's garbage.
	It's dishonest.
	Violence, including sexual violence.
	And that came out November 2, 2020.
	We weren't allowed to tell the jury that.
	Well, it's a different system, and the judge, it wasn't a jury judge.
	The judge said it was substantially true.
	They push it back a little bit.
	By the way, I like it because I didn't know that this guy said the substantially true distinction, which makes me feel a little bit smarter right now.
	That is significant and I think surprised a lot of legal analysts.
	But, you know, in this case, the jury not only didn't believe Amber Heard, but in ruling that she acted with actual malice, that means she had the intent to cause harm, right?
	That's a pretty high standard to have proven.
	And it's pretty amazing since the op-ed never even mentioned Mr. Depp.
	You have to remember that.
	What they learned from the UK case is to demonize Amber, which is what they did.
	See, talking points are the same.
	It's pathological.
	They got their pilgrimage points out.
	We should write them all down.
	More evidence in the UK, not an evidence.
	So here we had a group of depth fans that were there.
	He's not black.
	I don't know who that guy is.
	Blame the depth fans.
	Tremendous social media that was very, very, very much against Amber.
	Very pointed out that that was the first time that a victim of sexual abuse had to testify on live television.
	And I fought hard and lost that battle.
	Put on pause there.
	First time the victim of sexual abuse had to testify live on camera.
	Yeah, I guess Johnny never alleged being a victim of sexual abuse, but he just alleged being a victim of abuse, testified live on camera.
	Okay, fine.
	But again, no, no.
	I'm going to tell you why that's wrong, because a jury found that she was lying about it.
	So this is not the first time.
	This is when somebody who made the accusation and was found to be not being truthful, that those statements were false.
	A jury found that those statements were false.
	I am a former NFL player.
	And after a hard loss, it's easy to wake up and point to the other side.
	Oftentimes, I realize the better thing to do was to look in the mirror.
	What mistakes did I make as a player?
	What mistakes did our coaching staff make?
	And then how can we improve from there?
	Do you feel like you guys made any mistakes along the way?
	Do you feel like Amber made a mistake while she was on the stand?
	Because you're saying it's a celebrity, it's Johnny, it's the people who support him.
	What about you and your team?
	That's a good question.
	That's a damn good question.
	Look at her face box.
	She's like, motherfucker, what did you just ask me?
	You're blaming Johnny's fans.
	You're blaming all these other people.
	What the hell about you?
	She's like, this motherfucker.
	How dare you?
	I thought we were friends.
	Gotta be the black guy, my God.
	And that's an excellent question.
	To say, Amber even said on the stand, I am not perfect.
	I am a human being.
	These people were giving her death threats.
	She's looking around the room.
	She's trying to microwave her baby.
	Give me some eye contact, somebody.
	This is the kind of social media she was getting.
	Not buying it.
	So are any of us perfect?
	No.
	Is there something else we feel we should have done?
	Hold on pause for one second.
	Even in the accusation.
	Is there anything I did wrong?
	Sure, there's something wrong, but she was being threatened online.
	They wanted to immediately pivot to being a victim.
	It's hard.
	It's a hard pivot, too.
	It was a hard pivot.
	They're microwaving babies now.
	That's what we're talking about.
	I hadn't heard that part, but now I think I get the reference.
	Oy, oy, oy.
	Absolutely.
	I always, I redo my closings a hundred times afterwards, whether I win or lose.
	That's part of being a good lawyer, a good trial lawyer, is there's always something.
	But I think that there were a lot of influences here that were beyond our control.
	And I think the social media, it was like a Roman Colosseum, is the best way to describe...
	Put on pause there for a second.
	In the Roman Colosseum, it was only...
	River, Joaquin Phoenix, who said thumbs up.
	It wasn't the Coliseum that decided it?
	Was it put to public vote in the Coliseum?
	I thought they...
	It was like the straw vote way.
	If everybody's cheering, yay, let him live!
	He lets him live.
	If everybody's booing, he'll kill the person.
	That type of thing.
	Haven't seen Gladiator in a while.
	I'm going to maybe watch that again.
	And I have to believe that the jury, even though they're told not to go and look at anything, they have weekends, they have families.
	He's not like it either.
	But you see, but we're back to the next talking point.
	Jury is corrupt.
	And the 10-day period we had, how could they not have been influenced?
	But Elaine, for most people watching this trial, and a lot of people, as you know, have got huge views.
	It just seemed to be so messy and salacious and so tawdry on both sides.
	And I think a lot of people from the outside looking in thought both of them were not telling the truth and that they mutually abused each other.
	Do you not believe that that was the case?
	No, and that's one of the main...
	It's a good question.
	I still, by the way, don't believe that Johnny Depp lied.
	I think he told the truth.
	There would have been a strong argument of mutual verbal abuse.
	Oh, they win that argument.
	Yep.
	So it's a good question.
	And now whoever she, I don't know her name, and I don't mean like that, but I don't know who any of these people are, is sort of lawyering the lawyer.
	Hey, maybe you picked the wrong argument.
	Like my buddy over here just asked me, what would you have done differently?
	Maybe I would have tried to get my client under control and argued mutual verbal abuse and not the most egregious, grotesque other type of abuse.
	But she's saying no.
	No, no misnomers.
	The way that Depp's team approached this was based on ignorance of domestic violence.
	It completely ignored the cycle of violence and just said, oh, she wouldn't have done this if he had been hitting her.
	That was their approach.
	So you thought that they weren't fighting fair?
	Correct.
	I don't think they were fighting fair.
	She doesn't think they were fighting fair in a court of law.
	What does that sound like, Viva?
	Sounds like Amber Heard.
	If you say your opponent is not fighting fair...
	It's the pathology.
	So I have an expression or a belief that lawyers end up with clients that reflect their values and clients end up with lawyers who reflect their values.
	What we have here, not a failure to communicate.
	We have a lawyer who seems to be as...
	Pathological, it's our client.
	Blame everyone else.
	Blame the system.
	Blame the jury.
	Blame the television.
	Blame social media.
	It was stacked against us.
	We're innocent.
	Not a shred of blame.
	Everyone was out to get us.
	You think Amber Heard is, in fact, a survivor of domestic violence?
	Yes, I absolutely believe that.
	And there's a tremendous amount of evidence, much of which did not come into this trial, did come into the UK trial.
	We even had more evidence.
	We had medical records.
	We had mental health records that went back to 2012.
	We had tech.
	She did the exact same twist.
	We had medical records.
	We had mental health records.
	Again, the same confounding, because I guarantee you.
	The only medical records that she's talking about were not physical trauma.
	We're therapy.
	Yep.
	Again...
	But it's obvious what she's trying to do.
	Messages from Mr. Depp's assistant saying, when I told him that he had kicked you, he cried.
	So how is she today?
	Elaine, how is she today?
	What is her next move?
	Well, her next move is appeal.
	There were a number.
	But she's heartbroken.
	She is heartbroken.
	And one of the first things that she said when she came back from the verdict, when we went...
	What do you think she said?
	Let down women.
	Let down survivors.
	Let's see it.
	Into the conference room was, I am so sorry to all these women.
	Yeah, no, but she should be sorry to all those women, especially the bona fide survivors of actual bona fide violence, because what she did is made it harder for everyone else to believe people who come forward and say, I was a victim of some form of domestic violence.
	She should feel sorry.
	And she should apologize.
	She said that.
	Yes.
	She felt like she had let down all of these women.
	Because she had more evidence than...
	Oh, too late.
	I was just focusing on his socks.
	But we'll get there.
	We'll get back there.
	People do.
	And yet they still didn't believe her.
	Elaine Charleston, Bretta Hoff, thank you so much for joining us.
	Look at those.
	First of all, I like those shoes.
	Are those Pepe the Frog socks?
	I'm joking.
	I don't want to get anybody in trouble.
	Pathological.
	It's pathological.
	Yeah?
	You think she's pathological?
	Yeah.
	I think Elaine's pathological now because you couldn't...
	If I lose and my client's a liar, I'm done.
	We did our best.
	You got up on stand and you lied.
	I knew you lied.
	I'm not running the rounds for you to carry your water.
	Elaine now is doing the bidding for a liar.
	I don't care how much you want to get paid for that.
	That's terrible.
	Consistent talking points, though.
	Yeah.
	She hit them.
	Britt Cormier says, let's go via the Wayback Machine and look at the social media that JD received when Amber Heard first wrote the article and see what he put up with AH2.
	Does she not go over her closing win or lose 100 times?
	Because she is not a good lawyer.
	I love the fact that she was trying to give herself a pat on the back and say, you know, like, what good lawyers do?
	Well, Elaine, good lawyers can get a question out without being objected to a thousand times.
	Not misleading, I'm sorry.
	Oh, Nate.
	Hearsay or suggestive.
	But that's probably because her client just couldn't get the truth out.
	That's true.
	Get out.
	Nate, I...
	I gotta put the kids to bed.
	But I will be seeing you hopefully soon.
	I'll be watching.
	Thank you very much for being here.
	I'm going to cover...
	We've gone from the most public trial ever.
	I'm going to go to a very secret trial that no one's ever heard of.
	Nate, thank you very much.
	Best to the family.
	Take care.
	See you later, chat.
	Talk to you soon.
	People, we're going to go...
	What time is it now?
	9.02.
	Oh, I can take this out.
	Oh, my ears.
	My ears, they get so hot.
	And those are more comfortable than the...
	Those headphones are more comfortable than these headphones.
	If anybody knew what this room looked like immediately to my right, I think people would lose all respect for me.
	Got a ticket right here.
	$317 and 9 demerit points for allegedly passing.
	A school bus.
	Oh, I can get to some super chats before...
	Two things we're going to do before this evening is over.
	Number one.
	A secret trial in Quebec.
	Secret as in secret.
	We go from the most public trial ever to a secret trial.
	We don't know who the defendant is.
	We don't know who the judge is, I think.
	We don't know who the prosecutors are.
	We don't know what the defendant is being prosecuted for.
	We don't know the defendant's name.
	Identity.
	We just know apparently it's a police informant who's now being criminally prosecuted or standing trial.
	Total secrecy to the point where apparently the court authorized the prosecuting attorneys to wear face masks so they can't be seen.
	I'm going to translate a French article real quick like.
	Real quick like.
	Everyone says goodnight, Nate.
	Take care, Nate.
	Yeah, I heard Nate's kids making some noise in the back.
	I hope I didn't get him into trouble.
	Sean W. Elaine attacking the institution that is an impartial jury is an insurrection.
	Alert Nancy Pelosi.
	Touche.
	Some might say it's undermining the system itself.
	By the way, a female judge, a female prosecutor, four or five female members of the jury.
	Yeah, no, no, it was totally, totally not believing women victims.
	David, please watch ABC.
	She gets worse.
	Shaking my freaking head.
	Please have Dr. Curry up.
	Chat.
	Tweet out Dr. Curry.
	If we can get Dr. Curry a thousand percent without a question.
	We need group therapy.
	I am disgusted and Elaine should be ashamed of herself.
	Strong words.
	9.15, give or take people.
	Ontario new blue party is going to be coming on hopefully with damn good news.
	We'll see.
	The internet and YouTube were and still are a burn witch frenzy.
	I think I saw this.
	I saw a lot and heard a lot of analysis of genuine mockery.
	Okay, agreed.
	We saw that chat before.
	Nate, can the judge still order sanctions from motion not turning over evidence?
	I'll field this.
	I don't think so.
	The trial is over.
	Evidence is closed.
	Judgment is going to be registered.
	No sanctions.
	I don't think there can be sanctions except for violating a court order.
	The experts should have been allowed to expose that during testimony.
	Dr. Gary Linkov in YouTube does analysis on multiple plastic surgeries Amber has had.
	Dr. Gary Linkov.
	No medical advice?
	No election fortification advice?
	Elaine is the Al Sharpton of the Me Too lefties lols.
	Okay, so...
	Oh, polls were postponed in Ontario, so we might not get results.
	Should we push it back to 945?
	I'm live now, comma.
	I'll see how long I can continue being live for, period.
	But maybe come on beforehand anyhow, period.
	We'll see if we can do this.
	I don't want people to lose faith in the system.
	I had Jim Carahalios on.
	New Blue Party from Ontario for Ontario provincial elections who confirmed that in Ontario they are in fact using Dominion electronic voting machines.
	I say that with no judgment to know nothing.
	We still have a better system in Canada than elsewhere, but just the name.
	Just the name is enough to raise suspicion.
	I thought that the verdict UK trial just meant that Johnny couldn't prove that the son should have known Amber What it proved was that the son was not defamatory, was not guilty of defamation in referring to Johnny as a wife-beater based on their reporting of the testimony or of the statement given to them by Amber Heard.
	So the judge went a little bit further to say, yeah, I'll bring up that tweet, actually.
	Because the judge basically said, yeah, I believe Amber Heard.
	It must have been terrifying.
	But there was no trial on the substance of the claims.
	What the trial was, was did the son defame Johnny by calling him a wife-beater by their reporting of what Amber Heard told them she experienced?
	And they said no, because based on what she told them, it was substantially true.
	The judge did say that he believed Amber Heard's testimony.
	But it's a very, very nuanced distinction, but a legally material distinction.
	Legally material distinction is what I meant to say.
	Yes.
	Have you heard the theory that they might have hired the wrong...
	Okay, so I got to that one.
	And the judge was a woman.
	Camille Vasquez is a woman.
	Elaine is a woman.
	Miss Moss is a woman.
	Kate Moss, his ex-girlfriend.
	There were female jury members, but it's a bad day for women in and out of the court.
	So what's the problem?
	Not enough women.
	No, it's that the women that were there are sex traitors.
	They are traitors.
	They were not allies.
	They were actually critical assessors of evidence.
	I don't know about getting Dr. Curry on the stream.
	The chat would embarrass you beyond belief.
	My chat is responsible.
	This is not a recada chat, people.
	Come on.
	We behave ourselves here.
	My apologies to Mr. Karahalios, but I couldn't stomach voting for any of the local candidates, so I officially declined my vote.
	I don't endorse anybody anyhow.
	You're entitled to vote the way you want, and you don't have to apologize for anything.
	I didn't even ask my parents if they voted for me.
	It's none of my business.
	Mom and Dad?
	Better voters for me.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	Okay, so then I got some of the chats that I already got to.
	So hold on.
	Let me bring up this...
	Let me bring up two things here.
	I'm going to go to share.
	See how long I can do this.
	If we're not going to get any results anytime soon...
	Okay, what time?
	Whenever you can, period.
	Live now, period.
	The world is listening to me dictate a text to you, smiley face.
	Chrome tab.
	Oh, I need to go back and open up something here.
	Hold on, peeps.
	Give me a second.
	Okay, so I see.
	I see I'm in Twitter.
	Why am I not in?
	Am I not in incognito?
	Learned my lesson once.
	Not to mess around with incognito.
	Okay, boom shakalaka.
	Oh, this sucks.
	Hold on.
	It was about Johnny Depp.
	It was about the judge.
	So hold on a second here.
	Chrome tab.
	Share.
	Boom.
	Shakalaka.
	No, that's what I'm looking at.
	Where was it that I tweeted what the judge said?
	Let's go slow.
	Oh, Rittenhouse is apparently...
	He's got McMurdy, who was representing some of the Covington kids, apparently looking at suing for defamation.
	It was not seven hours ago.
	That's a discussion we don't want to have tonight.
	That's what we've already looked through.
	Salmon lawyer.
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	So the judge, I'm not going to be able to find it, but the judge in the UK basically said, yeah, you know, I believe these incidents occurred.
	It must have been terrifying for you, Amber.
	But this is what we want to see.
	Secret.
	Trial Quebec criminal.
	Let's see if we can get this.
	March 31st.
	Here we go.
	Montreal Gazette.
	We go from the most publicized trial on earth and people complain about it as in it's a distraction to what is arguably...
	Oh, sorry.
	Hold on.
	I got to get that super chat out of here.
	Voting extended.
	Sounds like a lot of repeat of previous...
	Yeah, you never want to...
	Here, extending voting.
	Okay, no comment, people.
	There's no election, schmortifish nation.
	Keep your election schmeckles in your pants.
	Quebec secret trial.
	Listen to this.
	Quebec secret trial.
	Federal Crown prosecutors deny wrongdoing.
	There's a federal trial in the province of Quebec.
	I'll piece this together in a second.
	The Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued a statement saying it wished to respond to the media coverage of the trial.
	This is from the Montreal Gazette.
	Federal prosecutors on Thursday, this is from March 31st, so it's a couple months ago.
	They did nothing wrong in connection with a secret criminal trial that took place in Quebec and that was described by the province's Court of Appeal as contrary to the fundamental principles of justice.
	What could be more contrary to the fundamental principles of justice than not knowing a trial is going on?
	Even Otto Warmbier in North Korea had a public trial of sorts.
	So, it's the appeals of this trial.
	So, this is the older story.
	There's an appeal of it because, allegedly, it violated fundamental rules of justice.
	Understandably so.
	Listen to this, though.
	Without explicitly stating that federal Crown lawyers took part in the case, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued a statement saying it wishes to respond to the media coverage of the secret trial.
	The service, it said, does not initiate prosecutions in secret and does not conduct secret trials even in matters involving an informer.
	Certain proceedings within a trial are required, based on the applicable legal rules, to be confidential, including those that required informer privilege to be I can understand the rationale of preserving identities.
	What they've gone through in this trial in terms of the extent to preserve the anonymity of everyone involved, no docket number, no court number, so you can't find out anything.
	They didn't just redact the names, A, B versus C, D, as they do in family law.
	Or when they want to preserve the identity of a witness of a sexual crime, they give them abbreviated names.
	Everything.
	Everything is redacted.
	This court file does not have a docket number, from what I understand.
	The statement came after the Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin Barrette said this week that the province's Crown Prosecutor's Office did not take part in the secret trial.
	The trial's existence only became public because the police informant accused in the case appealed his or her conviction, because we don't know.
	And the appeals court issued a heavily redacted ruling critical of the lower court proceeding.
	The initial court had no official docket number.
	That's nuts.
	You don't exist.
	Imagine being a human with no face and no social insurance number, a social security number.
	You don't exist.
	The nature of the alleged crime and the location where it occurred were kept secret, as was the police force involved.
	The names of the lawyers and the judge who participated in the case were also not disclosed.
	Totally nothing suspicious, nothing to worry about here, people.
	No docket number.
	It never existed.
	This guy, for all anybody knows, could have been locked away for the rest of his life.
	No one would have even had a docket number to know.
	The case involves a police informant who was convicted of participating in a crime that he or she had initially revealed to the police.
	The informant claimed he or she was victim of an abusive process, but the lower court judge disagreed.
	The appeal court, however, why can't I highlight this?
	Sided with the informant and stayed the conviction and legal proceedings, noting in its ruling the initial trial was contrary to the fundamental principles that govern our justice system.
	Good for the Court of Appeal.
	In its ruling, stop that, noted that witnesses in the case were questioned outside the courtroom and that no trace of the trial exists other than in the minds of the individuals implicated.
	Un-freaking-believable.
	Canada's Prosecution Service says it was unable to comment.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Federal Justice Minister David Lamedi.
	Federal.
	This man is a part of Justin Trudeau's team.
	So let that sink in.
	Said reports about the Quebec trial were deeply concerning.
	In an email statement on...
	It's deeply concerning.
	That of which I was largely aware is deeply concerning.
	Lamedi said the principles of an open court are a bedrock...
	Lamedi.
	Hold on one second.
	I just want to do one thing after this.
	David Lamedi said the principles of an open court are bedrock principle of Canadian justice system.
	Justice must be seen to be done.
	We're going to get to the Ottawa protest in a second.
	He added he was relieved the Court of Appeal was able to shed light on this case, noting independent judiciary is critical to a healthy democracy.
	Lamedi said he could not comment further, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	Jolin Barrette told the legislature on Thursday that he had discussions with leadership of the Quebec Court and Quebec Superior Court and there was an agreement.
	Cases should not take place under such secrecy.
	Oh, that's nice.
	That's nice.
	They've discovered a problem of their own administration and their own administration is going to resolve it.
	Jolin Barrette said he had asked the prosecutor to file a motion with the Court of Appeal to request that information in the case be made public, such as the identity.
	He said the court would refrain from commenting further.
	By the way, spoiler alert, nothing is any more public now than it was then.
	In fact, not only that, The prosecutors in the case have been authorized to wear face masks to conceal their identity because they're afraid that the identity of the informant could be revealed.
	If their faces are revealed, they can find the cases they're working on and somehow disclose the identity of this individual.
	So nothing's been resolved.
	It's only gotten worse.
	Let me see if I missed some super chats.
	I believe some voting districts had power outages, so extending voting hours in those districts.
	By the way, Kal-El, you're right.
	I talked about this the other day.
	People are still out of power in Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
	Two weeks now?
	Two weeks people are out of power because of a storm.
	Some people, if one were to conspiracy theorize, would have thought, you know, hey, power outages will certainly not hurt the powers that be.
	It'll only hurt the new coming parties.
	But they're extending it now.
	How is it that in a developed nation, a rich nation, with lots of power everywhere, Two weeks out of a storm?
	No, it's about a week and a half now.
	They're still out of power.
	How is it that in this national crisis for which existing laws are unable to resolve the energy problem, people are still out of power and the government hasn't invoked the Emergencies Act?
	Well, because quite clearly, dumb bum, they're not trying to suppress a peaceful protest.
	They're trying to restore power to people who have been out of power now for weeks.
	And clearly, they don't have the means to do it because people are still out of power as a result of a storm nearly two weeks later.
	David Lamedi.
	This is who I want to see right now.
	We're going to go do some real-time...
	Some real-time...
	Are we seeing this?
	No, we're not because I'm not sharing the screen.
	And I'm not sure...
	We'll see if we can get to some results, but maybe we won't.
	Google.
	Google it.
	David Lamedi.
	You know what?
	Before we even do that, let's just do this.
	David Lamedi, WEF.
	Okay.
	Doesn't look like he's part of the WEF.
	Why does it come up here?
	Okay.
	He made it in.
	Justice Minister David Lamedi said the government will drop its appeals.
	So this is an article that made it into the WEF.
	I guess maybe they couldn't get Lamedi.
	Maybe they couldn't get Lamedi.
	And they're talking about the largest settlement in Canadian history to compensate the Indigenous Canadians for the atrocities committed by previous governments, including Justin Trudeau's father's government.
	So he's not in the WEF.
	At least he's not on the website.
	But who is David Lamedi?
	And let's just go see that.
	Justice Minister, it looks like.
	Let's just go with Ottawa protest video.
	I guarantee you there's going to be...
	Okay, so this isn't a protest.
	This is trying to bring down...
	This is trying to bring a government down.
	David Lamedi.
	That's your boy right there, people.
	He's not interested in...
	Justice and secrecy is injustice.
	Justice needs sunlight.
	Unless it's...
	Persecuting people who partook in a totally peaceful protest.
	Freeze their bank accounts.
	Persecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
	Lots of components are made in China.
	China's locked down.
	No more parts, maybe.
	All right, I see where you're going with that.
	No, you're a hooker.
	Says, Viva, the entire WF conspiratorial list is not public knowledge.
	All we know for certain is Klaus has penetrated more than half of the cabinet of Canada.
	Yuck.
	Yeah, talked about that a couple times as well.
	I got your t-shirt today.
	Booyah, Cindy MC.
	First of all, member.
	Member of the club, thank you very much for the support.
	Lamedi is a useless.
	That's one more polite way of putting it.
	So let's see.
	920.
	Nothing in yet, question mark?
	Let's go for another few minutes.
	People are going to get impatient.
	And also, I think a lot of people who are not interested in what's going to happen in Ontario are probably not going to care.
	Oh, there were rumble rants, now that I remind myself.
	Jason B. Well said, Viva wasn't trying to imply that you're self-censoring in any significant way.
	Just think it's an interesting quandary.
	There's definitely validity in both positions, and this is whether or not one should self-censor to reach a larger pool.
	And then I got that one okay.
	And then my dog stepped on a bee.
	Oh, here he is.
	Jim's in the house.
	Okay.
	People, let me bring this out.
	Take this out.
	Jim, I'm coming in.
	You ready?
	Jim Karajalios, leader, founder, New Blue Party of Ontario.
	Jim, I'm going to zoom in a little bit.
	How nervous are you?
	Don't tell me you're not nervous.
	Oh.
	Are we going to see things in real time?
	Oh, you might have muted yourself.
	Can you hear me?
	I can hear you.
	Whatever you do, don't do anything embarrassing because we can hear and see you, but it's pixelated.
	Now you look like you're moving smoother.
	So what's the good word?
	Sorry about that.
	Well, the returns are coming in quickly.
	We're going to go off to our after party just down the street where all our volunteers have been doing the get-out-the-vote effort.
	Looks like Doug Ford's heading to another majority government, as the pollsters predicted.
	We've got thousands of people voting New Blue in every single riding across the province.
	And today is really step one in laying the foundation for the New Blue Party of Ontario, because in every single poll across this province, people saw New Blue Party of Ontario.
	And, you know, we were just trending on Twitter.
	The visits to our website spiked today.
	It seemed like when people were coming out of the polling booth, they saw New Blue and they were looking it up.
	And so it's a very good step one for the New Blue Party of Ontario because this is a long-term solution.
	Dice is saying there was never any hope.
	Well, here's the reality of the situation.
	The PCs and the Liberals have been around for over 100 years.
	People habitually vote for these parties and they have an inherent trust in the institutions.
	The Ontario public is not going to hand over the keys to government to a party that was formed a year and a half ago with 10 million people.
	You're freezing up a little bit.
	First of all, it's too early to know whether or not you have won.
	At least one seat, correct?
	It's looking like that that's not in the cards in this election.
	We've got good showing in some writings, but I don't think it's going to be enough to pull out a seat.
	Okay.
	I mean, now, you know, I don't even want to get into the human side of this.
	Let's get into the technical side before we get into the human side.
	How do you get your results in?
	Like, what's happening right now?
	This is election night.
	Where do you get your results trickling in from?
	Is it mainstream media, or do you have a back channel with the rest of the other politicians?
	I'm looking at Elections Ontario's website, to be honest with you, because that comes straight from the source, and it's a lot better than waiting for the news channels.
	And we're doing really well in a couple of ridings, but it's not going to be enough to get through and claim a seat.
	Makes me angry a little bit.
	Let me rephrase.
	I'm not angry.
	I'm disappointed.
	Ontario election results.
	I'll just see what I can pull up here.
	Do I want to bring up?
	Live election.
	Ottawa.
	What did you say you're looking at, Jim?
	Elections.on.ca.
	Okay.
	Elections.on.ca.
	And Maxime Bernier.
	He has the same optimism that you do, which is realism in a sense.
	You're a brand new political party.
	It takes time to get brand awareness.
	Coca-Cola didn't develop its brand recognition overnight.
	It took 100 years.
	But people are saying it makes me angry in the chat as well.
	Meanwhile, you come out and you put out ideas which resonate with me.
	And Doug Ford, the...
	Dictatorial fascist, I just won't mince words, is going to get re-elected.
	And that's what people want.
	I see there's some people in chat.
	Yay, that's what people want.
	If that's what people want, enjoy your future.
	You're going to inherit it.
	Well, okay, so there's three things, right?
	I hope you can still hear me because the internet is cutting.
	It's a little wonky and I'm trying to get the landline rushed over here so it doesn't cut out.
	There are people on this chat and people that have been following what's been going on with lockdowns and mandates that are voting for Doug Ford again despite all that they know.
	Right?
	Number one.
	Number two, there are people that are voting for the PCs right now in Cambridge where Belinda is running in Kitchener Conestoga that believe that they are voting New Blue.
	They still believe that Belinda is part of the PC party in their own riding.
	Number three, They are voting for the very values and principles that the New Blue Party has put on the agenda in this election.
	But the establishment parties are able to broadcast the values and principles they're copying from us because they are given the podium.
	The PCs have been taking some of our rhetoric and running ads against the NDP.
	The NDP are attacking the PCs about lobbyists running their government.
	Like, they're lifting the rhetoric right out of the New Blue Party.
	So, yes, you can say in the short term, I want a seat, and if I don't get a seat, it's disappointing, and, you know, all hope is lost.
	But the political discourse changes with every idea we put out, with every lawn sign that goes out, in every single riding across Ontario, and the thousands of votes that are coming in today.
	One thing is clear of what's going on today.
	We made history, as Hill Slayer is saying.
	The Blue Party will grow over time.
	There have only been two times in Ontario's history at the provincial level that someone other than the big three and the Green Party was the last one to do it last election and it took them I believe 38 years to get a seat and I don't believe any party in over 70 years in Ontario provincial politics has Done as well in their first election campaign as
	we're about to do right now.
	And we'll still see the results come in.
	So we are farther ahead than any new quote-unquote new party in Ontario's history.
	And it's going to take more time and more people to have a one-on-one conversation with 10 million people across Ontario.
	And we're not going to be the party that says it's Ontarians' fault that we didn't get the result we want.
	We have to earn the trust.
	To hand over the government, not the government, but seats in the government to new blue candidates.
	We have to earn that trust.
	It's not going to take us 38 years because you can see what we've done in just a few months from the fall.
	And this is our first campaign.
	And well, there you go.
	Someone just informed us.
	New blue at 3.1%.
	If we get 3.1% in this election.
	That is more than the PPC did in their first election federally, right?
	It was 1.8%, I think, right?
	It's going to be double what they did in Ontario, maybe triple.
	And Max had a tough go.
	He had 12 months to get that going, and he had a national campaign, but he was strengthened by the West and weakened in other parts of the province.
	And it doesn't go well with StreamYard, and I just realized I should have used Chrome.
	So if you want me to jump off and back on it.
	I don't think the browser is going to make a difference.
	So let's put this in perspective, right?
	We are farther.
	I don't think if we're at 3.1% and this holds or goes up all night, there has never been another party in Ontario provincial politics in their first campaign has got 124 names on ballots and could get past 3%.
	The PCs try desperately to keep us under 3%.
	Okay.
	And Big Pete's saying there's no time, we're all hanging by a string.
	I agree.
	Big Pete's American, but he's got other...
	Okay, but people in Ontario are desperate for change, and we will have time to dissect the victories that we had in the last two years, including when Belinda led the charge against the lockdown bill that others followed to change the discourse.
	And we are now in an election campaign, Dave, where we are not talking about another lockdown.
	And I think a lot of that has to do with the people that support the New Blue Party and told the establishment parties, we're done with these mandates, we're done with lockdowns, we're done and we've got to move on from that.
	And the establishment parties quickly skated through this election campaign so that as few people in Ontario as possible knew that there was an alternative in the New Blue Party.
	And they threw everything at us, other figures saying they're going to start parties and the establishment media comparing us to paper parties.
	To slow us down.
	And if we're able to maintain it at 3.5% or wherever we're at, that'll be an unprecedented first step.
	The legislature, even if Belinda's not there.
	You froze up a little there, but I think we caught enough based on the beginning of the end.
	And I was just looking at the avatar because I didn't think that was a squid, but that looks like a squid.
	It says...
	The squid too big.
	But New Blue is the only party that has not let me down.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate it.
	What kind of dog did I just hear barking in the background?
	It's not actually mine.
	It's one of the visitors.
	And I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what the dog is.
	And I know you're a dog guy and I'm so embarrassed.
	I could guess based on the bark.
	So what do you do?
	I mean, I don't want to be the black pill.
	I know...
	How I would be feeling.
	And I know you have to have the optimism.
	And I know that you also have to be, you're a human and you had hopes and aspirations, which might still come to fruition.
	We'll see.
	And hopefully, you know, you get one seat in there.
	But what are you going to do for the rest of the night?
	I got to, we're going to go over to thank our volunteers because we had over 100 people locally.
	And Belinda's riding in Kitchener, Conestoga, getting an incredible get-out-the-vote effort.
	And we're going to go and we're going to celebrate because just as Splenda Forest just said, the New Blue Party is now a party that is approaching 200,000 people in size.
	We are officially the fifth biggest party in Ontario provincial politics.
	And we have people in every single riding across Ontario.
	And this is step one of...
	Continuing to challenge the left, balance the narrative, and change the course.
	And we did it.
	Really, Dave, we really did it in less than eight months because I was out of commission for most of 2021, and we were not operating at full steam.
	And Belinda is a brand-new politician who got elected for the first time in 2018, and it looks like she's going to beat the Green Party in her own riding, and thousands more and thousands of others are going to vote for me and other candidates across Ontario.
	And the establishment media has tried to ignore this whole campaign.
	And they cannot hold down the truth any longer.
	They cannot shut the light out of the dark room for very much longer.
	And now we're on the map.
	And we're going to keep building going forward.
	And there are 200,000 voters that voted New Blue in this election, in our first election.
	And there are hundreds of thousands of others who agree with everything we have to say.
	But for whatever reason, they talk themselves into voting for Doug Ford or skipping the vote.
	And we're going to keep holding their feet to the fire going forward from outside the legislature.
	And we are going to keep making them respond.
	And we're going to keep building and keep growing because the...
	Darn, he froze right there.
	The best is yet to come, Dave.
	Don't give up on me yet, Dave.
	That's what I said.
	Okay, good.
	And I'm going to tell you this.
	I won't give up.
	I don't tell anybody who to vote for.
	I obviously like you, Jim.
	And I like your message.
	I respect your message.
	And above all else, I don't have the...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The stamina to do what you're doing.
	I don't think I have the optimism to do what you're doing.
	But if I can give...
	I would be honored if I have a big enough voice to...
	You know, to amplify your voice in as much as possible because I won't tell people who to vote for, but you could probably understand who I would have voted for in Ontario.
	And I would not have abstained because I've given up on the system.
	I would vote for the only voice that is actually opposing the system.
	And not opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
	Opposing it based on principles and values that I believe in.
	And ultimately...
	If people in Ontario, you know, you want lockdowns, you want shutdowns, you want curfews, you want a police state, you want unconstitutional vaccine passports, hey, you'll inherit it.
	And one day they're going to do something that you won't like, and then you're like, what about my rights, like in Quebec?
	So I don't want to put you down.
	Not put you down, get you down.
	I think I would be devastated, discouraged, but I like the fact that you're not.
	Maybe it's a little contagious.
	You know, you've done...
	This is a great victory today.
	200,000 people are casting their ballots and breaking habit.
	A habit that they had passed on from generation to generation, or they've gotten up to vote again.
	200,000 people in Ontario are saying, we're with that party that just popped up eight months ago.
	And many of them just heard about the new blue a month ago.
	It's not like buying a soda.
	They're saying, I'm voting for that party.
	And you're doing your part, Dave, by broadcasting your message on YouTube.
	And we all have our own role to play.
	And I'm fortunate enough, I'm in the position where people have pushed me forward to be the voice of a political party.
	And everyone has to, we all have to play our part and push together.
	And it's not a quick fix.
	You're totally right.
	It's not a quick fix because these institutions have been molded for a very long time.
	But it's going to be a quicker fix than it took them to take over the institutions.
	Well, Jim, from your mouth to God's ears, and as much as the God does in fact exist, or the cosmos ears, I'll still keep following.
	I'll have the hopest of hopes, and I'll keep checking in.
	My brother's in Ontario, so I'll get some live feedback from him there.
	Well, let's do it again with all the numbers come in, and we can dissect it a bit.
	A thousand percent.
	I'm probably going to go live tomorrow at some point.
	I'll send you the link just in case you can pop in.
	We can do, what's the word?
	Okay, great.
	Jim, go enjoy the night.
	Thank you.
	Keep doing what you're doing, man.
	I have that feeling in my stomach that I did the night of my election, and I don't deal with loss very well, which is why it's very frustrating.
	It doesn't matter what it is.
	Once you put your heart into something, it doesn't matter if it's...
	A three-kilometer race or an election.
	Once you put your heart into it and you run around and you meet people, and now I'm strictly speaking my own experience.
	You make the decision to run.
	You go door to door for 12 to 15 hours to get the names.
	You get volunteers.
	You print up billboards.
	You spend days hanging up the billboards, talking to people, doing debates, posting social media.
	Once you put your heart into something that you want to win because you believe in it and you care about it.
	Whether it's a three-kilometer race, a marathon, or an election, and then you do not get the, not necessarily the result that you deserve, but the result that you were hoping for.
	Jim is right.
	He's right.
	Imagine starting a new political party.
	It is, in a way, it's no different than starting a new YouTube channel in a market that, you know...
	Try to come in and compete with PewDiePie and Dude Perfect and That's Ridiculous.
	And say, I got a good idea and I'm trying to do it.
	It takes time.
	It takes time.
	And then you just hope that over time, a quality message will resonate.
	Lord, I voted for New Blue.
	Did Ontario's not have enough?
	Doug Ford will go right back to lockdown.
	He took us off because of the election.
	I heard the New Blue Party when Viva had Jim Kay on.
	Help.
	That's it.
	My family left the U.S. in 1789 post-revolution and went to New Brunswick.
	One generation later, my ancestor left because of all the Tories who wanted rules.
	Passion.
	Passion.
	Okay, well, that's it.
	So we'll see what happens, people.
	I'm shocked that I have not been summoned upstairs or at least had kids come downstairs to interrupt.
	Let me see.
	I'm going to go check with my wife.
	Disappointing.
	I'm disappointed.
	Everything okay up there?
	But Jim is realistic.
	I mean, I'm disappointed because I don't know the, not the rules of the game.
	I don't know the, I don't know if it's 19% turnout.
	I'm disappointed because I have unrealistic expectations because I don't know the nature of the beast.
	I thought I could win Westbound NDG, a riding that has gone liberal for 30, the last 30 years.
	I thought, I get disappointed.
	People oftentimes get disappointed when they have unrealistic expectations because they don't understand the nature of the game.
	Jim understands it.
	Start a new party from scratch.
	Jim just survived cancer.
	Multiple surgeries on his femur to remove the cancer.
	Survival in the physical sense.
	And now he's pushing for survival in the political sense.
	Have a nice boy.
	A nice, naive, ignorant boy.
	He survived and is pushing for political change.
	And then you just hope that people realize that they need it.
	You can never convince a person that they're prisoners if they believe that they deserve or need the chains.
	Someone who's afraid of gouging their eyes out will welcome having their hands tied behind their back.
	Someone who is fearful of biting off their tongue will welcome having their teeth removed.
	Okay, I made both of those up, but the second one was inspired by Lonely Island.
	The second was from the Lonely Island.
	YOLO!
	Say holo!
	Okay.
	I have not received a text back from my wife.
	Hmm.
	It's interesting.
	Naive is okay.
	Ignorance is deadly.
	This is true.
	What did they do to his wife during the pandemic?
	What they did to his wife during the pandemic is enough to give my vote to them forever.
	What they did to Belinda was atrocious.
	I saw a chat with which I agreed.
	David Langford, you're a very nice person, David, not a politician.
	Nor a lawyer, for that matter.
	But I'll tell you what.
	I'm not going to get blackpilled.
	I'm going to go listen to a Sigur Rowe's song.
	I want to remember the song in particular.
	Viva, go help your wife.
	I haven't gotten the text saying that the children are not going to bed, but I'll call it.
	We had like two hours and 42 minutes of streaming.
	Two hours, 42 minutes, and we were at 2,400 viewers.
	Did I miss anything on the rumble rants?
	No, we're good.
	Okay, people, so again, this was an election evening that did not go the way I was hoping for.
	Who knows?
	One damn seat.
	I can hold out for a little bit of irrational hope.
	One damn seat.
	It can happen.
	There's going to be some close writing, so I'm not much of a prayer in that sense, but I will close my eyes and go pray.
	The song that I listened to by Sigur Rose earlier today...
	Hold on, people.
	I need to give it to you before I Google.
	It's a six-letter song.
	Sigur Rose.
	It starts with H. Hath Sol.
	Hafsol.
	It is Hafsol.
	Okay.
	I'm going to end the evening with this.
	It's a song that will make you cry.
	Hafsol Sigur Rós.
	Do I need the...
	This is the official live performance.
	No, I don't want the live performance.
	I don't know if it's going to be good.
	Here we go.
	Let me just see after this ad.
	I'm not even going to play it because I don't want to get copystruck, but I want everyone to be aware of the existence of Sigur Rós.
	Jeez.
	Icelandic band.
	Let me just see if this is a song.
	It's a song.
	It'll make you cry.
	It will make you live experiences in your mind that will transcend time and space, people.
	I may be overselling it.
	Let me...
	This is me here.
	This is me.
	Now I hear myself.
	Here.
	And I'm going to pin it.
	Because you all must go listen to the song, close your eyes, and watch your life replay before your very eyes listening to this song.
	Sigur Rows is, they were in the movie Eurovision with Will Ferrell and I forget the name of the actress.
	Thumbs up before you leave.
	Sigur Rows, amazing.
	Go listen to it.
	I'm going to go upstairs, eat some dinner.
	See what my wife is doing.
	Number one wife in Montreal.
	Thank you all.
	Nate, thank Nate for coming in.
	It was fantastic.
	Sunday night, by the way, I should have probably said this earlier.
	Brandon Strzok, I think, is coming on.
	He was on TimCast two days ago.
	I listened.
	I knew a bit of his story.
	I didn't know the detail that I heard on TimCast.
	He's coming on Sunday night.
	I think it's confirmed.
	I'm not trying to put him on.
	I think it's confirmed.
	7 o 'clock Sunday night.
	Barnes is on vacation.
	He said I could cheat with him, but I'm going to do it with someone who's not a lawyer.
	So, all right.
	What is the sex bots, man?
	How is this happening?
	Get out of our stream.
	Block the sex bot.
	I feel like Terry Crews in the Under Arm, this Old Spice commercial is like, Ninja Block, I'm blocking sex bots.
	Okay, go.
	I'm going to go do it.
	I'm going to go.
	Enjoy the evening.
	Probably go live tomorrow.
	Why not?
	It's the thing to do.
	It will not be Johnny Depp.
	There's other stuff.
	I have the Marilyn Manson lawsuit that I want to cover.
	I want to cover the Netflix lawsuit.
	I have the proceedings, so maybe we'll just do a live walkthrough of the readings.
	I think we're done with Johnny Depp.
	But go check out my meme vlog because it's the bomb in the awesome sense.
	Okay, go.
	Enjoy the evening, people.
	Thank you.
	Keep following the elections.
	Have faith.
	Hope for the best.
	Prepare for the worst.

▲