Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 7, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:14

Fact Checks, More Bad Takes, Decline of Canada & MORE! Viva Frei Taco Tuesday!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm a recruiter.
	It's a small, small, small industry.
	Smaller than you'd think.
	Same with HR.
	So, if you're looking for a job, or maybe trying to keep a job, maybe, just maybe, Technical problems today, people.
	I'm going to stop that there.
	Because I don't want to see any more of that than is absolutely necessary.
	For those of you who haven't seen it, the video has been making the rounds on social media.
	The ultimate irony...
	Is that this individual who purports to be working for HR, who seems to have been handed the political permission slip to carry out her vengeance, her retribution, her reprisals against her ideological adversaries, is warning people about what they put on social media.
	For those of you who missed it, we'll start again.
	...rights and freedom that would tell you that.
	But since you seem to forget that...
	And you're all loud and proud with your big thoughts and your big ideas and you wanna, whatever, fucking set up hot tubs in Ottawa.
	I'm a recruiter.
	It's a small, small, small industry.
	Smaller than you think.
	Same with HR.
	So, if you're looking for a job, or maybe trying to keep a job, maybe, just maybe, think about what you're putting on social media.
	I've said it before, and I'll say it again, with this, I would say, superiority complex, with this degree of taking yourself too seriously comes a lack of insight.
	Because when you take yourself too seriously, you lose the ability to see the irony or to properly self-assess.
	But I'm not playing this clip any more than that.
	It's going around.
	I'm playing this clip just to highlight something that Robert Barnes and I have talked about over and over and over again.
	I'm not saying this to make fun of her.
	My bottom line, I feel bad for this individual.
	She's clearly mentally unwell.
	Clearly mentally unwell.
	I went to her profile.
	Her profile says, pro-choice and pro-vax.
	I went to, you know...
	When you put stuff on the internet, the aggregate knowledge of the internet finds things out, whatever.
	I'm not doxing anybody, and people should not just leave her alone.
	People should have pity on her, save and accept for the degree to which she wants to carry out her political vengeance on others through getting them fired or not getting them hired.
	Setting aside all of that, she's doing ill onto other humans.
	We will not be better people by doing ill onto her.
	She's clearly mentally unwell.
	Her TikTok feed, it's obvious.
	She was all on Tom McDonald until she realized Tom McDonald was not her ally.
	My issue with this, and it highlights a point, is that we're now living in a world where coming from the top down, from the Justin Trudeaus to the people allegedly working in HR, they have been given a political permission slip to act on their...
	Mental unwellness.
	And this woman, this person, gender makes no difference, sex makes no difference, but this woman feels empowered to come out and publicly say without any shame, without any second thought, ironically enough, after she's warning people to think about what they put on social media, publicly calling for financial retribution against people that she disagrees with ideologically.
	The irony is, From her profile, it seems that she hasn't held a job for more than two and a half years straight, which is an indication as well of someone who's not well.
	The learning element from all of this, this is the example of what Robert Barnes and I have talked about.
	Robert Barnes coined it as the political permission slip to act on their unhealthy, unfair, insidious desires.
	And society as a whole...
	To embrace this because they become, I don't know if the word is the useful idiots or the military branch of the government, the militant branch, the social, political executioners of the government.
	But it's a sign of the times.
	The idea of tolerance from those professing tolerance is no longer there.
	Tolerance if we agree.
	And absolute, you know, promoting systemic destruction of the individuals with whom we disagree.
	So that's that.
	We start off with something that's, you know, not fun to watch, but it's a sign of the times.
	And, I mean, what's the solution?
	The solution is not to dox this woman, harass her, and get her fired.
	In fact, I would leave her alone entirely.
	But it's a sign of the times.
	And I said earlier today on Twitter, you can disagree with someone and you can disagree with someone and still...
	Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you...
	I'm screwing this up.
	You can like someone and disagree with them and you can agree with someone who you dislike.
	And we're going to get into that a little later.
	All right, but starting off, Super Chat.
	Cameron Bessie, in the 70s and 80s, if you were closeted and got outed, you could lose your job.
	It wasn't right then.
	This stuff isn't right now.
	And I agree.
	Just substitute political leanings for gender, race, or religion.
	It's no different.
	And then they're going to say, well, if you're a Yahtzee, then you deserve to get...
	Imagine the same people promoting prison reform.
	You know, like, people get out of jail.
	They should be forgiven.
	They should be allowed to live a second life.
	Want to destroy people because they disagree with their politics.
	And the easiest way to justify your own hatred is just to equate everything to being a Yahtzee.
	Well, if you found out someone was a Yahtzee, well, you'd certainly, you know, promote firing them.
	Oh, the left and the woke seem lousy.
	Okay, no comment.
	There was this one here.
	Mountain Kayaker, if this was in the US, an employee could file a complaint against her with the Equal Employee Opportunity Commission.
	Does EEOC cover political ideologies?
	I know political leanings, political discrimination.
	I'm not sure that it does in most states.
	I know that we were raising that argument about firing or not protecting people in California due to political ideologies.
	Okay, well, whatever.
	That's the intro, people.
	Standard disclaimers.
	As I see the Super Chats come in, it's true.
	Okay, come on.
	You almost got me in trouble, Mark.
	Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you do not like that, and I can understand why some people wouldn't, simultaneously, ouch, streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a Super Chat equivalent called Rumble France, and they take 20%.
	So better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
	And we are currently live.
	Booyah.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	But we're going to discuss some interesting things today.
	Speaking of being able to disagree with someone who you like and agree with someone who you dislike, I'm going to talk about Officer Tatum's take on a video clip that I posted yesterday of a mother in Uvalde describing her experience.
	And I said, people need to get arrested.
	Or people need to answer for the police response in Nuvalde.
	And then people are saying, oh, Tatum did a breakdown of that clip.
	And I'm going to break down Tatum's breakdown of that clip.
	It's going to be like breakdown inception.
	I like Tatum in as much as I know someone who I've never met before.
	He seems like a very decent person.
	He's got some interesting takes.
	I don't agree with all of his takes.
	And I don't agree with his interpretation of this.
	And I think ultimately, where there is uncertainty...
	That's one thing.
	Where there is sufficient certainty on certain timelines and certain delays, we have questions that need to be answered.
	What else?
	Taylor Lorenz, more legal bad takes, more Canadian propaganda.
	What do we start with?
	Chat, let me see.
	I'm going to go to my notes.
	Stop share screen.
	I'm going to go to my notes, and I'll give you the options, and we can see what we start with.
	An update.
	In the two lawyers and the Molotov cocktail situation.
	I didn't put that in the header because I only found...
	I was walking this morning and saying, what do I want to talk about?
	Update in the Molotov cocktail lawyers situation because, surprise, surprise, their situation went from bad to better compared to the interview that I just did with Brandon Strzok from Walk Away, whose situation on a petty misdemeanor has resulted in absolute destruction of his entire life.
	A Canadian poll.
	Using polls to mislead and spread government propaganda.
	More bad takes from people who want to rewrite the narrative on Johnny Depp.
	And we're going to talk about Taylor Lorenz.
	I want to address one issue on Taylor Lorenz.
	Who wants what?
	And we're doing the fact check on the Ukrainian fly because I heard a story.
	I had to go fact check.
	And we're going to talk about it.
	Many disagree with your hair opinion, but still will like you.
	Yes, some people are saying it's a distraction.
	It's getting so massy, it's starting to fall under its own weight.
	I like my hair.
	I'm not cutting it anytime soon.
	All right, you know what?
	We're just going to start with, let's go share.
	We're going to start with the Molotov cocktail throwing lawyers.
	Washington Free Beacon, I appreciate it, might have a little political leaning to it.
	You can identify spin, and we can identify facts.
	It seems that these two individuals, lawyers who were arrested, convicted, or pleaded guilty to throwing a Molotov cocktail or attempting to at a police car, well, while some people are having their charges upgraded, these individuals, after agreeing to a plea deal, There was a superseding indictment that apparently lowered the charges, and they're going to enter into a new plea deal with lesser sentencing than what they had already agreed to.
	But on the cusp of the non-stop, around-the-clock primetime coverage of January 6th Committee, I will be covering that when it goes live on Thursday, a couple of DTs, that's what we're going to call it, DT, are actually getting their day in court, and it's informative to see how Merrick Garland's Justice Department is handling their prosecution.
	Oh my goodness, forget that.
	But listen to this.
	Colin Ferd Mattis and Aruj Rahman were arrested in the, this is, you can tell the political spin, ideological leaning, mostly peaceful protests following Joy Ford's murder.
	And they're calling it murder now, by the way, interestingly enough, because it went through a verdict and it was a murder and not merely a homicide.
	By judicial fact, it was a murder.
	Whether or not people agree with the verdict, that is now...
	A factual statement, a factually accurate statement, as opposed to pulling a Whoopi Goldberg and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer, even though he was acquitted, he committed an act of homicide, but not murder.
	Two legally distinct descriptions of arguably the same incident, one of which would be defamatory if false, and Kyle Rittenhouse is contemplating going after certain people for making those statements, and this would be factually correct given the nature of the verdict against Derek Chauvin.
	The two lawyers handed out Molotov cocktails to the crowd, and Rahman tossed one into a police car before fleeing the scene in Mattis' van.
	I want everyone to appreciate, I want you to compare this story to Brandon Strzok's story.
	Compare these facts to Brandon Strzok.
	I'm only saying this because it's relevant in a sense to him being an apostate.
	A gay man.
	Who considered himself to be a liberal.
	Who got so disgusted by the liberal Democrat Party political entity.
	He walked away.
	Started a movement called Hashtag Walk Away.
	Became, I guess, a vocal supporter of conservatives and Donald Trump.
	Was on the Capitol Hill on January 6th.
	On the steps of Capitol Hill.
	Never breached the entrance.
	Never went through the door.
	Recorded for eight and a half minutes.
	No violence.
	No nothing.
	By all accounts.
	Prosecuted.
	Persecuted, arrested, detained for two and a half days, released, pleaded guilty to a petty misdemeanor, three months house arrest, three years probation.
	I just spat all over my computer.
	Designated a 4S whatever for TSA.
	We went into it.
	Compare that treatment to these individuals who handed out a Molokov cocktail to a crowd, ramen tossed one into a police car before fleeing the scene in Mattis' van.
	They reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors in October 2020 that wiped out six of the seven charges against them.
	They wipe out six of the seven charges by plea deal, whereas in the other cases, they start saying, we're going to throw on more and more to get you to plea to a petty misdemeanor where we're going to impose the maximum sanction in the court.
	These prosecutors nonetheless sought a maximum 10-year sentence and argued that the incident qualified for...
	Enhancement that would turbocharge sentencing, a determination with which the U.S. probation officer concurred.
	Ginning herself up to...
	Here we go.
	Okay, she gave an interview.
	Okay, you can read that while we do this.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mostly peaceful, though.
	Mostly peaceful.
	In mid-May, the same career Department of Justice prosecutor who argued...
	For that 10-year sentence, we're back in court withdrawing their plea and entering a new one that allowed the defendants to cop to a lesser charge of conspiracy.
	It tosses out the Big T enhancement entirely.
	How convenient.
	I mean, it's not that there's corruption.
	It's like, it's not corruption any more than it's hypocrisy.
	It's just hierarchy.
	It's just pecking order based on politics.
	We can find charges.
	When we want them.
	And we can forgive charges when we want to.
	It's over the top.
	I feel like it's over the top.
	Sorry, that's very dramatic.
	Now, I'm just going to...
	Okay.
	But wait.
	There's more.
	I hope everyone gets that.
	But wait.
	There's more.
	I think there's more, actually.
	The new charge carries a five-year maximum sentence, but the prosecutors are urging the judge to go below that, asking for just 18 to 24 months on account of the history and personal characteristics of the defendant.
	You know what?
	History and personal characteristics of the defendants, that's a euphemism for privilege.
	Literally, that is what people mean when they talk about privilege.
	Personal characteristics.
	History and personal, you mean like the absence of priors, a la Brandon Strzok?
	Or the personal characteristics, meaning they're lawyers, they have their whole futures ahead of them?
	That type of privilege?
	If you're a lawyer who throws a Molotov cocktail and then drives off the assailant, you get special treatment because you're a lawyer.
	But if you're a petty criminal, or you are, although none of the Jan 6 even did it, if you're a Jan 6, my goodness, are you going to jail?
	For as long as conceivably possible.
	And the aberrational nature of the defendant's conduct, it was a crime of passion.
	They were so politically impassioned.
	Hashtag political permission slip.
	They were so politically impassioned.
	Let's make sure that my phone is on just in case I get a call.
	Because, you know, Matt, this is where you can see some spin.
	Mattis graduated from Princeton in New York University and was an attorney at the White Shoe Law Firm, Pryor Cashman.
	Oh my goodness, it's a law firm called Prior Cashman?
	That's not possible.
	The Prior Cashman.
	That is one heck of a name for a law firm.
	And Rahman was a public interest lawyer whose best friend Obama, this is according to the article, but Obama administration intelligence officer, guaranteed the $250,000 required to release her on bail.
	It's an unusual step, says James Trusty.
	A former prosecutor in the Department of Justice Criminal Division broke it down for us this way.
	Swapping, this is the interesting, they've already agreed to the deal.
	Swapping in a softer plea agreement after having gone through the plea hearing is an exceedingly rare event in federal court.
	It can happen, he said, if there is truly some new development or understanding about the defendant that merits a fresh look.
	Yep.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	That's the two-tier legal system.
	Not just in the States, in Canada.
	When they want to have a rehearing on bail conditions for Tamara Lich, the court says, yeah, we want a rehearing.
	We want to put her in jail because she posted a picture of her with a pendant that said freedom, what did it say?
	Freedom convoy?
	Freedom truckers?
	And just, you know, so here you got your homework so that everybody can trust this.
	You can take the article with a degree of skepticism.
	The government respectfully submits this letter to one.
	Notify the court that the parties have reached an alternative resolution of the charges in this case.
	Two, request that the court cancel the scheduled May 18, 2022 hearing on defendant's objections to the probation, yada, yada, yada.
	And three, convert the May 18, 2022 guidelines hearing into a change of plea hearing.
	And four, set a new briefing on the sentencing schedule at the change of plea hearing on May 18. The defendants join in the request for relief in this matter.
	Yeah, no crap.
	Please drop the DT charge because that's kind of a big deal.
	Imagine this had been Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to an actual crime and then withdraws his plea because that's effectively what they're doing right now so that they can plea to a lesser charge.
	I'm reluctant to make the comparison because then people are going to say, well, if I thought it was wrong in the Flynn case, similarly, I have to think it's wrong here.
	Flynn withdrawing his guilty plea.
	To a charge of lying to the FBI, given the nature of that charge and the actual factual basis of that charge, I have no problem with.
	In this case, given the actual charge and the actual evidence that they get to undo their plea to that charge so they can agree to a lesser one because the Department of Justice had a change of heart, I got a problem with that.
	Because the underlying facts are radically different, as is the nature of the charge.
	But that's the latest.
	So these individuals who were facing serious time for serious charges, throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police officer's car.
	That's not quite the same as lying to the FBI when Michael Flynn's lie to the FBI was not an overt lie by even the FBI's account.
	It was an equivocation as to his memory of a fact that the FBI knew because they had that fact in their hands on a transcript.
	He says, I don't recall.
	I don't recall, but you have the transcript.
	You should know.
	And they said, we don't believe you when you said you don't recall lying to the FBI.
	In this case, throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police officer's car.
	I mean...
	Political hypocrisy.
	A two-tiered system.
	And some people, Brendan Strzok, January 6th.
	What's his name?
	Jacob Angeli, QAnon shaman, in jail for five years.
	I think it's between four and seven years, four and six years, in jail.
	Because he entered the Capitol Hill and paraded and picketed with a flag apparently on a spear.
	These individuals are going to do less time than Jacob and Jelly, if they do any.
	Dragonslayer says, Many and I love your hair.
	Fave is a tie-dye viva.
	I'm doing a freedom grow, fine, straight hair.
	Thin, finer.
	To have your hair.
	Shalom, Godspeed.
	It is a conversation piece.
	I ride a Harley.
	My Harley hair is wild.
	I I love watching people ride motorcycles, but I would never ride one myself.
	They are too dangerous for me.
	And Quebec is notorious for bad drivers.
	I don't know what that is, but I'm going to look into it.
	What the Department of Justice did to Straka is terrible.
	Hashtag never plead.
	Yeah, but you know what the problem is?
	Alternatively, hashtag get royally screwed if you don't plead and go stand trial in D.C. where you're not dealing with a jury that's going to look at you and say, oh, all you did was in a moment of passion hand out Molotov cocktails and throw one at a police officer and then ate in a bed and getting away from the scene of a crime.
	No.
	That's what they would view these two individuals as.
	January 6th, insurrectionists wanted to impede democracy.
	Throw the book at them.
	And that's how it's been going down.
	Michael Sussman, acquitted.
	Michael Flynn, destroy him.
	And I do believe that both of their lying to the FBI statements were substantively different.
	And we've been demonetized.
	Let's just go request a manual review.
	Okay.
	So anyways, that's that story.
	That's the latest update.
	Fascinating.
	Phenomenal.
	Let's just see what we've got in the chat here.
	Thank you for your hard work and interesting videos.
	Keep your head up and take care.
	I will tell you, life is endless stress.
	The only problem is, and I say this not in a bad way, like I care about listening to other people's problems, but when it comes to doing your job well and properly, no one wants to hear it.
	And in that sense, everyone, when dealing with other people, has to understand, appreciate, and operate on the basis that everybody's going through something.
	However much you think everyone else is happier, more chill, more relaxed, everybody goes through the same things.
	Everyone has to bear that in mind at all times.
	The manual seven.
	Thank you very much.
	Let me see here.
	Okay, I don't know.
	I'm not doing that.
	D.C. juries are insane considering D.C. went for Biden.
	91% Democrat supporters, Hillary supporters, and you go to trial there, you're going to get the Sussman treatment if you are a political ally, and you're going to get the Jacob Angeli.
	I mean, he didn't go to jury.
	I think he pleaded and then got sentenced, so he didn't go to jury.
	You go to jury, you're going to get the Jan 6 treatment.
	Throwing the book at you.
	I'm a great safe rider.
	That's why I stopped riding my bike on the street pretty much most of the time.
	You could be the best.
	I was walking my dog this morning.
	I saw someone driving.
	They were reading a book while they were driving.
	It was straight out of The Simpsons when that person was like...
	I forget what the clip was exactly.
	Someone was driving in a space suit, swinging a golf club.
	I saw someone reading a book while driving in a residential area.
	Never plead at your last stand for innocence.
	Well, I've been posting the highlights of the interview with Brandon on the second channel, Viva Clips.
	If anybody doesn't know about that channel, check it out.
	Viva Clips.
	It's easy to say in hindsight, only depending on how the plea goes and how badly everything goes after the plea.
	Because you say at some point, how much worse would it have been to go to trial?
	But when they threaten to...
	Really, really destroy you in perpetuity.
	Throw on charges that will carry serious time in jail.
	I mean, that's the MO.
	It's judicial extortion, to some extent.
	So that's the latest in the two-tier legal prosecutorial justice system in the States and in Canada.
	We've seen it here with Tamara Lich.
	Pat King's still in jail.
	His hearing was continued until next week.
	Pat King.
	Mischief charges.
	Three plus months in jail.
	I want to puke every time I hear Biden trash the Constitution.
	As do a great many people out there.
	Alright, moving on to the next story.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Let's go with some bad takes.
	I think this one's going to work its way into fake polls and people who just want to control the narrative.
	In the wake of the Johnny Depp verdict, which found in favor of Johnny Depp in the order of $15 million, $5 million punitive was reduced to $350,000.
	So Johnny grossed a verdict of $10.35 million.
	Amber Heard succeeded on one of her claims for $2 million.
	So Johnny's net...
	Net gain out of the lawsuit financially, forget reputationally, 8.35 million.
	People who were driving the...
	If you support Johnny Depp after having heard the evidence, you are a misogynist, even if you're a woman.
	This has become a case of believe all women, even if women are lying.
	And if you dare disagree with that, you're a misogynist, you're a bigot, you are denying victims their victim status, and you're making it harder.
	Everything that they're accusing people who agree with the verdict or who thought Johnny Depp had proved his case, everything they're accusing others of is exactly true of what they're doing.
	When you say believe all women, even the liars, even the ones who fabricated the hoax, when you say believe all victims of hate crimes, even if it means Jussie Smollett, and if you challenge Jussie Smollett, you are denigrating hate crimes and you are...
	You're denying victims.
	It happens.
	And if you question Jussie Smollett, you're making it harder for other victims.
	That's exactly what they are doing by demonizing people who actually say, I will not believe someone who's lying about it.
	Because in so doing that, it actually makes it harder for victims to come forward.
	In lending credence to what are either clear hoaxes or turn out to be lies, in nonetheless still believing them when everybody knows that they're lying.
	You actually make it harder for real victims to come forward and you re-victimize victims again.
	There are people promoting this narrative and they can't let it go.
	And the fact that the verdict came out the way it did, they can't accept it.
	And the narrative driving MSM machine is now going after those who got it right because they paid attention and trying to demonize them.
	Even if they happen to be women.
	Even if they happen to be the very minorities that these entities go and, you know, pretend to protect day in and day out.
	So, Michelle Dauber.
	Don't know who the person is.
	Blue checkmark.
	Professor Stanford.
	Chair of Recall Persky.
	Author.
	Okay.
	Hobbies.
	Backpacking, skiing, and ranting.
	Tweets are mine alone.
	Well, this individual, after, I don't know what portion of the trial she read.
	In responding to this tweet.
	Yes.
	This is why people who actually understand the law say that this case should never have gone anywhere.
	Those sentences in the op-ed were objectively true.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	This is like a rabbit hole of fake news.
	This is the vortex of fake news.
	Dr. Mary Ann Frank.
	Author.
	The Cult of the Constitution.
	Hmm.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	This person.
	The longer you look at it, the weirder the jury's verdict in the Depp case looks.
	Even if you assume Laird lied constantly.
	The sentences from her op-ed that were an issue were phrased so carefully and vaguely that it's hard to see how a jury found them defamatory.
	Well, idiotic take number one.
	Vague about whom they were does not refer to the defamatory nature of those statements.
	And like everyone who watched the trial has known and has said, and it's a question of law, if the defense, if Amber Heard's defense were those statements were not necessarily of and about Johnny Depp, she might have actually won.
	But that wasn't her defense.
	Her defense was not that...
	The statements were vague about whom they were targeting.
	It could have been talking about someone 20 years earlier.
	That wasn't her defense.
	That wasn't her testimony.
	She testified that it was, in fact, of and about Johnny Depp, as everyone already suspected because it was sufficiently clear in the context who she was talking about, though she could have muddied the waters if she so chose.
	But she didn't, as per the evidence, and owned up to, admitted, proudly, it was about Johnny Depp.
	It was about a certain type of violence.
	And she believed it.
	Not that she believed it, but that she intended to do it.
	That she believed it, of course, but having no reason to believe something that you said, especially when it refers to an event that either did or did not happen to the knowledge of the alleged victim.
	So it wasn't...
	This is confounding two issues here.
	Not defamatory or vague and not necessarily of and about an identifiable person.
	And by the way, the jury, James Sirwichi...
	Who sat there for six weeks, listened to all of the evidence, listened to the testimony, saw the pictures.
	They came to the conclusion, as per Amber's testimony, it was of and about Johnny Depp, it was false, and it was defamatory.
	But what does a jury of seven, not 12 people, seven, including two women, what do they know?
	These people know better than everybody.
	Then we go back to Dr. Marianne Franks, who says, yes.
	This is why people who actually understand the law say that this case should never have gone anywhere.
	Those statements in the op-ed were objectively true.
	These morons, they can't even agree.
	They don't even know what they're agreeing with.
	One said it wasn't defamatory and it was vague.
	Now she's saying, no, it was objectively true.
	So it's clear.
	It's true.
	It's not that it was vaguely about Johnny Depp.
	It's that it was objectively true.
	This person, Dr. Marianne Franks, says that those sentences in the op-ed were objectively true.
	Well, I'm sorry that a jury of seven people, including two women, after six weeks of trial, disagreed with you.
	But this makes you a stubborn, gaslighting, narrative-driving, dishonest tweeter person, Dr. Marianne Franks.
	Now we're going back to Michelle Dauber, who says, Correct!
	And of course, nothing even close to malice was established, not by any stretch, except for the fact that the jury of seven who heard the evidence, who saw Amber's testimony, determined there was malice.
	Malice in the legal sense, Michelle Drauber, not malice in the colloquial sense.
	Malice in the sense that it was either known to be false or made with reckless disregard for its truth.
	Someone getting out there and saying, someone did something to me when the jury says, we don't believe the person did that to you.
	We believe you're lying.
	That is legal malice.
	That is legal malice.
	And it is one after the other of these blatant malice.
	You made up a story.
	You said someone struck you.
	I've listened to you.
	I don't think they struck you.
	I think you're a liar.
	I think you made it up.
	And that is legally malice.
	That is what it is.
	It's malice.
	But this person, nothing even close to malice was established.
	Okay, so you, those seven, you want to undermine the jury now.
	You want to undermine the people who have actually heard the evidence.
	Okay.
	It's like, it's like a, this is what you call a silo of misinformation.
	This is what you call, I don't want to say the circle thingy thing of misinformation.
	This is an ideological silo.
	One after the other.
	You go down.
	You go down this hole.
	Right to the bottom.
	It was vague.
	It was vague.
	It was objectively true.
	It wasn't malice.
	You all have no idea what you're talking about.
	And it's stupid.
	It's just, it's bottom line.
	It's misinformation.
	You are guilty of it.
	And I guarantee you these people, if I were to go and try to look for tweets where they accused Donald Trump of misinformation, I guarantee you I could find tweets to that effect.
	You had a jury of 12 members, which included four women.
	Sorry, it was two women and it was seven jury members.
	I had to correct myself because I don't believe in deleting the mistake because that looks like you're trying to hide it.
	Let me see something here.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it was seven.
	Five men, two women.
	They unanimously found malice had been established.
	Do you want to just substitute your own bias for that of an actual trial by jury?
	You can be judge, jury, and executioner all in one.
	I'm making the offer that I know they would accept.
	They want to be judge, jury, and executioner and they want to approach it through their preconceived political biases and they want to bypass any democratized version of what the judicial system is supposed to be.
	Just...
	Idiotic.
	And it's one after the other after the other.
	And the delivery system for this misinformation happens to be the Johnny Depp trial right now.
	But this is just what we're seeing left, right, and center on all issues.
	The funny thing is, it's the same people who said stagflation was transitory.
	It's the same people who got it wrong on...
	Rittenhouse.
	It's the same people who got it wrong on inflation.
	It's the same people who got it wrong on Trump.
	They got it wrong on Johnny Depp.
	They got it wrong because they're walking around with political and ideological blinders on, and they don't want to see what they don't want to see, and they don't want to understand once they are proven to be wrong, bad predictors of the future, and purveyors of misinformation.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	I got my bumper sticker.
	At vivafry.com.
	I'm glad you liked the one of the designs I left you.
	Everyone, go get merch.
	Thank you.
	This is both support and a chance for me to promote the merch.
	Vivafry.com.
	All of the merch.
	All of the merchandise conveniently located in one inter-website?
	In a website.
	One website.
	Leftist informational glory.
	There's an acronym there.
	We can do leftist information glory hole.
	Oh, hold on.
	We can call it the light.
	Leftist informational glory hole.
	Team.
	Team.
	There you go.
	Boom.
	The light.
	I've seen the light.
	Viva.
	What is your take on Trudeau's home equity tax?
	This seems like yet another communist move.
	P.S. Bring back paper ballots.
	I've got to see what the home equity tax is.
	I don't know what that is offhand.
	Is that that they're going to want to tax you?
	Home equity tax.
	I'm not even going to...
	I'm going to look it up.
	If it's what I think it is, it's something that I think I might have predicted a little while back.
	A starred super chat.
	When Amber was last on stand, she admitted it was about death.
	Yes!
	Anyone who watched the trial saw it.
	She admitted it was about Depp.
	She admitted that she had a hand in crafting the title.
	Because he's a powerful man.
	Her final testimony.
	That was the nail in the proverbial judicial coffin for Amber Heard.
	But they don't care.
	They don't care because they're liars.
	They're liars.
	I know I'm presupposing intentions.
	They're liars.
	And here would be a question of a lie in that they either know what they're saying is incorrect.
	Or they're making a statement with absolutely no basis to believe it to be true.
	Both of those are lies.
	The moon is made out of cheese.
	Well, I don't know that it's wrong.
	I've never been to the moon.
	You have no reasonable basis to make a statement of fact.
	You're a liar.
	I want to think of a less exaggerating analogy, but...
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, I can't think of one.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, bumper sticker.
	Hold on.
	Let me get this out of here.
	To make a statement of fact, to assert as fact something that you have no reason to believe to be true or no knowledge of the truthfulness, that's a lie.
	In as much as just saying something that you know to be false is a lie.
	So, I can vouch for the sweatshirt quality.
	They are made well.
	They are, by the way.
	It's not made in China.
	Some of them are made in...
	It's made overseas more than I would have liked, but there's only so much you can do in life.
	This is one of the shirts.
	It's beautiful.
	It's been washed many a time already.
	So that's it.
	Everyone should appreciate that.
	There are two types of lies in as much as there's two types of malice.
	A lie is saying something that you know to be false or asserting as fact something that you have no basis, no reason to even think you know.
	Sure, he did it.
	How do you know?
	No idea.
	You're a liar.
	Period.
	All right.
	But there was more.
	But wait.
	There's more.
	That might go on a shirt one day.
	Yeah, we'll get into the fact check after this one.
	So someone fact checked me in a comment on a highlight that I put up yesterday on Viva Clips about Taylor Lorenz.
	I think she has malice in her heart.
	Taylor Lorenz.
	Has made the rounds recently because she's a liar.
	Because she said, we reached out for comments and they didn't get back to us.
	And then went to publication of this piece, which was a minor, contained a hit piece paragraph on Legal Bytes and that umbrella guy.
	They came out and said, whoa, you never reached out to us.
	And then, do I play the video?
	No, I won't.
	But when you tell one lie, it leads to another.
	Then you tell two lies to cover for the other.
	I mean...
	Never forgot that.
	I think it was the Church of Latter-day Saints.
	One of those religious ads from when we were kids on television.
	It was great.
	When you tell one lie, it leads to another.
	And then you tell two lies to cover for the other.
	And then you tell three lies.
	And boy, oh brother, are you into it.
	Taylor Lorenz writes a piece admonishing the YouTube world for, you know, exploiting.
	The Johnny Depp trial by giving online coverage of it.
	She then faults two accounts in particular, Legal Bytes, without mentioning the name of the channel or the fact that Alita is a lawyer.
	And that umbrella guy, they've made tens of thousands of dollars in the last month off this trial.
	Oh, the horror!
	Making money is only a problem to people who are jealous or people who want your wealth.
	I guess those are the same, whatever.
	So she comes out and says, these people are exploiting...
	The trial.
	They're driving the online narrative.
	All sorts of crap.
	We reached out, but they didn't get back to us.
	Run to publication.
	Well, Alita LegalBytes comes out and says, no, you didn't reach out to me.
	And I've checked my emails and I've checked my messages and I don't see anything.
	Then Taylor says, oh, the Washington Post included that.
	I didn't include that.
	It was wrong.
	Then Taylor Lorenz comes out and says, shortly after publication, I reached out to them and nobody got back to me.
	And I'm like, yeah.
	Shortly after publication, you don't reach out after you've published unless you are a liar.
	And then in the piece in my clip yesterday, I went back to that Taylor Lorenz is now found to have been lying in this most recent Washington Post article.
	She allegedly lied in her hit piece against Ariadna Jacobs and influences back in the day for which both she and the New York Times are now being sued.
	She also allegedly lied when she said, I didn't dox.
	The libs of TikTok account when she did.
	But the doxing of the libs of TikTok woman was worse for another reason in that two weeks prior, Taylor Lorenz had done an MSNBC interview where she was sobbing or trying to squeeze that liquid from a stone.
	About the horrors and the ills of doxing.
	How people get information and they use it against you in the worst ways possible.
	It's terrifying.
	She has PTSD.
	Two weeks before doxing, libs of TikTok woman, she's sobbing in an interview as to the horrors of doxing.
	Okay.
	Now we're up to speed here.
	So I get a comment on my video yesterday saying, I'm not trying to dox a person and put them on blast.
	I assume it was of good faith.
	And I responded accordingly.
	I am pretty sure you are wrong about Lorenz and the accusations you make against her collapse because all of it, because of it.
	I am pretty sure that Lorenz doxxed libs of TikTok before she was doxxed and she was doxxed because of what she did to LOTT.
	And then they quote me, which is a challenge of my integrity.
	If I ever wrongly accuse someone of, rephrase, if I retweet a fake screen grab, I will feel terrible, as I will.
	If I have the order of events correctly, kindly apologize to Lorenz, because I do think this constitutes defamation.
	Hmm, wrong, but forget the legal side.
	Even if I think she's still awful for doing it.
	You are incorrect, sir, and your accusations against me therefore collapse.
	Haha, winky face.
	She gave the interview with MSNBC April 8. It was called Journalists Face Online Harassment.
	She then doxxed libs of TikTok on April 19, 2022, in the piece called Meet the Woman Behind the Libs of TikTok.
	No apology needed.
	I will vet my own stuff.
	I will correct my own stuff.
	I will apologize to the individual that might be the object of anything wrong or incorrect that I have done.
	And you can all rest assured of that.
	So I just had to go check my own memory.
	Because even Scatterbrain Viva occasionally forgets and gets things wrong.
	But I usually do my homework beforehand, which will bring us nicely into the next story.
	Fact-checking the pride flag or the new version of the pride flag.
	But before we get there, Hanlon's razor, presumed stupid greater than presumed evil.
	True.
	You know, never attribute to malice that which could be explained by incompetence.
	Okay, maybe.
	Let me see here.
	Perfect and perfect.
	Thank.
	You.
	I will call you in a bit.
	All right.
	True.
	But I think at some point in time, you can see enough evidence that you can start to presume ill intent.
	Ill intentions.
	Rule of acquisition 125.
	A lie isn't a lie until someone else knows the truth.
	Dude, are you making these up?
	These are good.
	These are good.
	But wait, there's more at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Barnes is on vacation.
	I think he's having a good time.
	Yeah, vivabarneslaw.locals.com is probably the best place to support the Viva and the Barnes and get lots of exclusive content, but also a massive community of people who disagree, but I still think respect each other.
	I bought two shirts and one came damaged.
	The company fixed it immediately and the quality is superb.
	The tees are super comfy.
	First of all, I will let the team know about that because that's fantastic.
	Getpressed.ca, people.
	Because quality service needs to be celebrated.
	Not my own, although I give myself credit for teaming up with the right people here.
	Tom McDonald dropping new music this Friday.
	I might do a reaction on another channel.
	Just watch it live.
	Won't lie.
	I'd love to have Tom McDonald come to my kids' birthdays.
	I won't lie.
	And my kids like Tom McDonald.
	The dingoes threaten to eat my baby in the head.
	And the song sounds like John Smith's Hatstones.
	I don't know what that is.
	Okay.
	Viva.
	That is the most polite F you I've seen in a band.
	And I just heard that song.
	A, B, C, D, E, F. I love that song.
	Etienne Degalle says, I'm late and you may have already mentioned it.
	Ben Chu gave will give an interview with Court TV airing tomorrow.
	That's going to be fantastic.
	Hey, that'll be cool.
	Okay.
	So let's get into getting the facts right before you reflexively.
	Hold on.
	This is just carbonated water.
	My mouth is so dry.
	I bit my tongue.
	I won't show you.
	Nobody wants to see wounds.
	I bit my tongue.
	Not on the side like I typically do.
	On the top.
	I bit my tongue.
	And I sliced into my tongue.
	So much.
	It's so painful.
	Like, try to jog with a sore tongue.
	It doesn't feel it.
	And then you've got to struggle to swallow.
	I'm lisping more than usual.
	Viva ain't shutting down anyone.
	Everyone is free to talk.
	I'm not sure what that was in response to, but...
	So I bit my tongue and it hurts a lot.
	So I'm trying to keep it hydrated.
	But my goodness, it's God punishing me for eating too quickly.
	I should slow down.
	I should calm down.
	And I can't.
	And I don't know how many times I have to bite my tongue as a reminder.
	I still can't.
	All right.
	So during the stream with Brandon Strzok, people in the chat said, did you hear, Viva?
	The new pride flag has incorporated the Ukraine flag colors, which goes to show you how...
	You know, I'll say how superficial or preposterous the whole thing is in that it's all about identity, not even about the issues anymore, just trending, you know, the thing of the day.
	And I said, oh, is that true?
	I hadn't heard that.
	And then I had to go look it up.
	Now, this is when admitting one's mistake and actually leaving it up there for people to see while correcting it is almost more important than just deleting it.
	But I went to fact check it.
	And here's the thing, people.
	Here's the deal.
	I don't believe Reuters.
	And this is where my own biases came into play.
	I saw the Reuters fact check that said, and let me just get to it here, fact check colors of the Ukrainian flag not added to official pride flag.
	I'm going to be totally honest.
	I'm always honest.
	I'm just going to tell you my thought process.
	I read this and I said, okay, now I believe that it's true.
	I read this and when I read a fact check that says, No, the flag, the colors were not added to the official pride flag.
	I'm thinking, okay, the colors were there, but they weren't added.
	I'm thinking of a way a dishonest fact checker would hide the fact that the underlying fact is actually true.
	So here, if I'm thinking now, I read the headline and I was like, holy crap, the colors are there.
	They're just going to say the colors were always there.
	Or the colors were originally not in the same location, but they were rearranged because they added different colors to the flag.
	That's what I was expecting by way of fact check.
	But it turns out, and I think based on my own independent assessment now, it was factually incorrect.
	It was originally a satirical post that some big names retweeted thinking it was true.
	Because the bottom line also, we live in a world now where the distinction between satire and reality...
	It's only a question of whether or not it happens to be true.
	And sometimes the distinction between satire and reality is only the mere passage of time.
	A biological man winning in women's sports literally was a Babylon Bee headline, or maybe the Babylon Bee, a short while ago, and then it becomes a headline.
	Then it becomes reality.
	So sometimes the only difference between satire and reality is whether or not the story is true and or the mere passage of time.
	So this is what Reuters said.
	The colors of the Ukrainian flag have not been added to the official pride flag.
	Oh, sorry, another one of the defenses that I was thinking of, if they wanted to hide the fact, is it wasn't added to the official flag, pride flag, but it was added to an unofficial pride flag.
	So when you learn how liars mince words, I read this and I say, okay, they haven't been added.
	The argument might be they were always there, or they haven't been added to the official pride flag, but they were added to an unofficial pride flag.
	It seems both are wrong, but whatever.
	An image showing blue and yellow stripes added to the pride flag was posted satirically by a Twitter user.
	However, some on social media appear to have been duped into believing it is real.
	This is why it's important to double-check things, people, always.
	Sometimes it just seems too good to be true as relates to the narrative that you want to put forward or already believe in or your political leanings, but you have to stop, drop, and...
	Check.
	Or stop, collaborate, and research.
	So here's what it says here.
	Okay, so one Facebook user posted the flag.
	Here, along with the caption, they officially added Ukraine to the flag, followed by clown world.
	A phrase adopted by the alt-right.
	Oh yes, alt-right.
	That opposes progressive values.
	What a pompous, arrogant, condescending way of describing it.
	Alt-right bullcrap.
	How about maybe conservative?
	How about maybe even left-wing people say clown world when something is totally preposterous?
	That opposes progressive values.
	Please, go on.
	Do tell me what these progressive values are that you're talking about here.
	Is it...
	Twerking for kids?
	Are those the progressive values that you're talking about when someone says clown world?
	Because they said clown world in response to those videos that went viral of people at strip clubs twerking and dropping it for children who put money in their pants, pantalones.
	The post has been shared.
	Look at this.
	This is, you know, what's his name?
	Mark Twain.
	Or was it Churchill?
	The lie gets around the world before the truth is putting its pants on.
	The post has been shared 50 times.
	Oh, 50 times.
	Sorry, that's not that many.
	And people respond, appear to believe the changes to the flag are legitimate.
	One user wrote, notice how the original colors are losing more and more every space every time.
	While another one said, what are they going to do when they find out Ukraine is a lot more trad than most?
	So then you got Ian Miles.
	I'm not trying to put anyone on blast.
	I had to make sure that these tweets were legit.
	They were.
	I'm not going to show them, but Ian Miles Chong, Chris Tomlinson, Taylor Greene.
	And this is a problem.
	When you accidentally post something and it turns out to be false, it just allows people to discredit.
	This was the purported new official pride flag.
	And then this is allegedly, in as much as there is an official pride flag, this is the one that's official, not the one here which has...
	So now if we're going down here, we've got white, pink, Blue, brown, black.
	And the black and brown was added to be representative of black and brown peoples, Canadians, Americans.
	And here you have white, pink, blue, brown, black, then the yellow and the blue, which is the satirical post that is so plausible in its believability that it got some big names to believe it and retweet it.
	And so that's the story for that.
	So it turns out it's not the official, if there is an official, and it was allegedly of satirical origins that people believed, and people unfortunately retweeted it thinking it was true, quickly, reflexively, and I don't know how they respond to it and say, oop, they got me.
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	The defense is not...
	Let me remove this.
	The defense is not, oop, they got me, but...
	It's a sign of the times as to how much I could have believed that.
	No.
	If you got duped, just own up to it and be more careful in the future because it's how people allow themselves to get discredited by others.
	Satire and fanatical credulity.
	Credulity.
	It's incredulous.
	Satire and fanatical credulity equals the death of comedy.
	I like that.
	Interesting enough.
	Hold on a second.
	I got to unstar it now.
	And then we got Camille is no longer an associate.
	She is listed as partner now.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	By the way, Camille Vasquez.
	Are they pronouncing it Vasquez because that's how she pronounces her last name?
	Or are they just...
	Everyone in the chat, is it Vasquez or is it Vasquez and they're just pronouncing her name wrong?
	One for Vasquez, two for Vasquez.
	Let me know in the chat.
	Real quick like.
	Real quick like.
	She got promoted to partner, by the way.
	Nate Brody posted the tweet.
	And...
	Hold on one second.
	Viva should know better than what?
	Than what?
	Viva should know better.
	Hold on.
	I'm being shamed here.
	What should I know better than?
	Factually incorrect.
	Imagine that.
	Does anyone know the law of the flags official?
	So...
	Official is of the movement.
	The consensus is that it was a satirical post.
	I don't know who's official for anything.
	There is no office of Pride Month that I know of.
	But hold on.
	What should I know better than?
	Two.
	So it's Vasquez.
	Okay, good.
	Good.
	So Vasquez.
	I think they're doing it to needle her.
	Did you watch the Matt Walsh video?
	Matt Walsh.
	No, not yet.
	What is a woman?
	Not yet.
	I must.
	I must and I will.
	Okay, now what should I have known better than people?
	She's crying at the flag story.
	But what about it?
	That it looks like a satirical post that people believed.
	If someone's going to show me that that actually originated from...
	It doesn't even have to be official.
	I don't know what official means with non-centralized organizations.
	If someone can show me that that actually originated from the entity itself.
	Yeah, no, the fact, well, of course, that's, I think, TS, you saw the part where I'm saying, when I saw the fact check, I assumed it was true, but the independent research, fact checkers, by the way, they can be right sometimes.
	I mean, a broken clock is right twice a day.
	They do, they are occasionally right.
	And when they're wrong, you can find out why they are lying and misleading.
	Needs context.
	This is, this is, this is apparently just people got duped into retweeting what was originally a satirical post.
	It's no more serious than that.
	It depends, but I enunciate the Q. Yeah, but that would be like, por qué?
	Even if it were por qué, it's not por qué.
	In French, it's que.
	It's not que.
	Yeah, so anyways, Camille Vasquez got promoted to partner.
	That's like, in my mind, that sounds like a curse and not a blessing, but that's my own professional...
	What's the opposite of desire?
	If there's no one to make it official and people use it without satire, Arnie, then even with a satirical origin, how is it fake?
	Well, let's go with the okay gesture, which started off as satire and then became real because people used it as such.
	You would mock a person.
	You would politically mock a person.
	And I don't mean mock like make...
	What's another?
	A nicer word for mock.
	You might poke fun at an individual who co-opted unironically what was satire to begin with in the same way that we poke fun at anybody who professes that the okay hand gesture is a sign of white supremacy.
	So the fact that it's so plausible that even people on the satire is so plausible that some people get duped into believing it, we poke fun at them.
	As we did, as the world did with the okay hand gesture.
	And then it can show you how at the base, at the core, a movement can be flimsy.
	Like the ADL.
	It can show you how the ADL as an institution for identifying hate stuff is a joke of an institution if they accidentally and unwittingly co-opt a joke into their lexicon.
	Agreed.
	It might show you the frivolity of the institution that people within it unironically co-opt what was a satire intended to make them look silly in the first place.
	But that cannot justify having been duped by the satire yourself.
	Because there will be somebody who's duped by satire to repeat misinformation as though it's real information and they say, well, someone believed it, therefore it's not...
	It's not promoting misinformation.
	I think that's a cop-out of accepting responsibility for yourself having been duped.
	So that's my response.
	I don't know if that is going to satisfy everyone.
	I have a meeting now, but I'm going to keep this on in the background to see David's ongoing indignation.
	No, no, no.
	I just want to know.
	If I'm an idiot, I want to know why.
	I don't think I am, though.
	Most of the time.
	Some of the time.
	So, yeah, that's it.
	I have no doubt.
	There will be people who will be so naive to, not even to co-opt the flag not even knowing it, but to co-opt that satirical flag and say, yeah, this year to show solidarity for the Ukraine, we've incorporated it into the flag.
	Both sides can get duped by a satire that is so believable.
	You know, people on both sides believe it.
	But once you realize it, instead of doubling down, you just have to, okay, good, you got me.
	My mouth was open on that one.
	Who...
	Who remembers that?
	My mouth was open on that.
	Eddie Murphy, back when he was actually funny.
	Delirious.
	One of the bits.
	I'm your idiot.
	Yep.
	Eddie Murphy's Delirious.
	The funniest stuff on earth.
	Yeah, I was 10 years old when I watched that.
	I turned out fine.
	Okay, now what else do we got?
	What else do we got?
	What do we got?
	No, we already did that, so stop screen share.
	Do we get into the...
	Oh, let's do...
	Let's do something that's not a lighter story.
	Look.
	You want to know how people get lied to?
	Actually, that's what I said.
	This was going to feed into the misinformation.
	This is how people get lied to and duped in real time.
	Look at this.
	This is crap.
	This is...
	I will not go into the tirade yet again.
	Of Justin Trudeau subsidizing the media, buying off Canadian media, Radio Canada, CBC, to the tune of a billion dollars a year.
	Just on time, man.
	Buying off CBC, Radio Canada, so that they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Liberal government.
	They are Canada's Pravda.
	Um...
	They are Canada's Pravda.
	They came from me.
	I want to pretend.
	I want to pretend I did that on purpose because it would have been a perfectly timed joke, but I'm an idiot.
	I'm your idiot, but I just took myself out of my own stream.
	Okay.
	Oh, now I got to bring back up the article.
	That discussion is over.
	You will not be discussing the Pravda division of the Canadian government's arm.
	Majority of Canadians.
	Here we go.
	This exhibit is over.
	The government has bought off the CBC and Radio Canada.
	They operate on government-subsidized monies.
	They're not going to bite the hand that pays them.
	And that was a mixed metaphor on purpose.
	He bought off the rest of the media, Justin Trudeau, with a $600 million bailout.
	He bought off the rest of the media a second time with COVID ads, with government advertising, taxpayer dollars spent on these flailing garbage institutions, keeping them afloat.
	The media...
	Works for the government in Canada.
	It is Canadian Pravda.
	That might make for a good name for a book.
	But, but, but, but...
	Okay.
	Setting that aside, the Globe and Mail has...
	Oh, sorry.
	Let me get this chat out of here.
	The Globe and Mail has come out with a study.
	Majority of Canadians.
	Let me get my golfer's voice on.
	Hold on.
	Majority of Canadians.
	Comfortable.
	Or somewhat comfortable with Liberal NDP power sharing deal poll.
	Let me read that to you five times.
	The majority of Canadians comfortable or somewhat comfortable with Liberal NDP power sharing deal poll.
	Majority, I'm going to do it one more time.
	They are either comfortable, don't know what that means, or somewhat comfortable.
	And I don't even know what that means.
	Comfortable or somewhat comfortable.
	Now, bear in mind, people, before we get into the polling mechanism, the lies, the manipulation, how you're told what to think under the pretext of being led to believe that this is how other people think, if you have 100 people and one of them says, I'm comfortable with something, and 99 say, I'm somewhat comfortable with something, you can legitimately say, if you want to lie through truth, majority.
	Let me rephrase.
	Let me rephrase this.
	Majority.
	Yep, that would be accurate.
	One person says I'm comfortable.
	99 say I'm somewhat comfortable.
	You can say majority of people are comfortable, even though there's only one of them, or somewhat comfortable, even though there were 99 of them.
	It is how you lie in real time through stats and through polling.
	If you had had 75 of the 100 say we're comfortable with the deal, You know damn well, that header would have said, majority of Canadians comfortable with the power-sharing deal.
	So what you can probably deduce from this is that the majority of the people were not comfortable, but were somewhat comfortable with the power-sharing deal, which is the new Democrat Party, through Jagmeet Singh, coalitioning with the Liberal government to form an effective majority government, thus staving off elections until 2025.
	By some accounts, Jagmeet Singh would benefit for that word when you have worked somewhere for long enough, pension.
	But everyone should understand this.
	If it were 51 of the 100 who were comfortable with the power sharing deal, the header would have said majority comfortable.
	So you know that actually more than 50 are actually somewhat comfortable and you don't know if it's 99. It's a lie.
	It's a lie.
	But wait until you even get to the methodology.
	Nearly 60% of Canadians were comfortable or somewhat comfortable.
	Oh, and by the way, do we now really appreciate the degree to which we're being lied to?
	Just remember everything I just said two seconds ago.
	If 100 people said we are comfortable or somewhat comfortable, but 99 said somewhat comfortable, the headline could have said...
	Comfortable or somewhat.
	100 people are comfortable or somewhat comfortable.
	Now we're finding out that of the 100, it was actually only 60 of the 100 who said they were comfortable or somewhat comfortable, which will probably lead you to conclude that it was over 31 of the 60 who were only somewhat comfortable with it.
	So therefore, you can now deduce that 71% of the country are actually somewhat uncomfortable with this power-sharing deal.
	But listen to this.
	Nearly 60% of Canadians were comfortable or somewhat comfortable with a deal that could see the federal NDP prop up the minority liberal government until 2025, survey says.
	Survey says!
	Oh yeah.
	Brings back memories of childhood where I used to fake being sick so I could stay back and watch The Price is Right and Family Feud with my mother.
	The NDB agreed to the arrangement in exchange for parliamentary cooperation and progress on key new democratic policies, such as dental care, pharmacare, housing, climate change, and indigenous reconciliation.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the deal in March, saying it will allow the government to function with predictability and stability.
	Well, we've got predictability of the government.
	We can predict it's going to be corrupt, incompetent, and disastrous for Canadians.
	But listen to this, fellow frysters.
	Frysters sounds too much like shysters, which I don't think I like.
	But we might have to live with it.
	A nanos, by the way, Google nanos, research poll, commissioned by the Globe and Mail.
	So now you have the Globe and Mail, which is funded by the federal government or bailed out by the federal government, commissioning a poll.
	Which is going to prop up the very liberal government that is subsidizing their activities.
	So that's nearly half of Canadians are uncomfortable with the deal.
	Phrasing is everything.
	The majority of Canadians are comfortable or somewhat comfortable.
	Nearly half of Canadians are comfortable.
	Are somewhat or uncomfortable.
	And by the way, when someone says they're somewhat comfortable, it means they're partially uncomfortable as well.
	I'll get to my funny tweet, but hold on.
	Gets even better.
	Chief data scientist Nick Nanos said the poll is indicative of election fatigue.
	Especially as Canadians recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, deal with rising costs of living and interest rates, and fear a potential recession.
	Okay, by the way, skip over all that.
	The Nanos Research Random Survey, conducted between May 26th and May 30th, pulled 1,001 Canadians by phone and online.
	It has a margin error of plus or minus.
	You know what it has a margin error about guaranteed?
	It's so insanely outlandish.
	You poll 1,001 Canadians by phone.
	I don't know anybody who has a phone anymore.
	And then you come out and say that the majority of Canadians are comfortable or somewhat comfortable, when in fact 40%, 41% say they are somewhat uncomfortable or uncomfortable, and that other one...
	Somewhat comfortable.
	I don't know how you even measure that.
	It means that they're partially uncomfortable.
	So the majority of Canadians are somewhat uncomfortable or worse with the deal.
	But no, no.
	But go ahead, Nanos.
	It confirms what you wanted it to say.
	It confirmed.
	People are fatigued.
	They want to avoid another election.
	People are fatigued.
	Tell us what to think, Nanos.
	But I have to get to my joke because my joke is good.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	I have to get to my joke.
	I was somewhat comfortable during my colonoscopy.
	That said, I was mostly greatly uncomfortable and still felt violated.
	With that said, I am sure Justin Trudeau and the Jagmeet Singh are very comfortable with the framing of this bogus poll question.
	And the ratio on that poll, are we seeing this?
	The ratio on that poll.
	Let's just see how far down we have to go to find my response.
	I don't know how this works.
	Should a popular response not be higher up?
	86 retweets on the response, which said...
	Where did it just go?
	I just lost it.
	Whatever.
	86, somewhat comfortable.
	Why don't you use more fluffy, ambiguous terminology for a poll?
	You government-subsidized propagandists.
	It's a joke.
	I mean, it's beyond a joke, actually.
	Because it's so damn destructive.
	They're burning down the country in real time, and they're trying to tell us it's fine.
	Enjoy the heat.
	Get your marshmallows out.
	All right.
	What did I miss in the chat?
	Super sticker.
	Carlos Gaspar.
	Thank you very much for the super sticker.
	I hope you did not.
	I'm glad you were uncomfortable with your exam view.
	You know what I can say?
	Actually, Melissa, I wasn't that uncomfortable.
	It didn't hurt all that much.
	They doped me up, and I still didn't sleep a minute.
	I was watching the screen, making jokes.
	I said it was like playing a video game.
	It was like the Starship Trooper, or what is it called?
	The Starship Enterprise?
	Like flying down the canal of some foreign land, foreign planet.
	It was weird.
	They doped me up with whatever they give you to sedate you for the colonoscopy.
	It did nothing.
	The sedation does nothing.
	But it was all clear for 10 years.
	That was a few years ago, but all clear.
	Dance, your beds are burning.
	No, no.
	Don't worry, guys.
	It's fine.
	Burning the furniture to heat the house.
	Get your marshmallows and let them eat marshmallows.
	Starship pooper.
	Next time.
	For the next one.
	Okay.
	So that's the fake poll coming out of Canada.
	Once you see how it works, go watch the Richard Barris sidebar that Barnes and I did when I was camping in Nova Scotia.
	And you'll see it's...
	I mean, it is institutionalized corruption with the polling.
	1,001 Canadians by phone and online.
	So whoever has a phone and whoever takes the time to answer an online survey, and the question is somewhat comfortable.
	What does that mean?
	What does that possibly...
	Somewhat comfortable.
	Okay.
	Polls are not intended to reflect reality.
	They are intended to shape reality.
	And you have polls that are commissioned by the people who are funded by the government about whom these polls are designed to get people's opinions.
	And shockingly enough, even from what we had read in that article, they come up with the conclusion, the majority of Canadians...
	They're good with it.
	And Nanos, he's such a brilliant statistician.
	He's got such a great explanation.
	Here's the explanation.
	Nobody likes it.
	Nobody likes that coalition.
	Nobody likes Justin Trudeau.
	Nobody likes Jagmeet Singh.
	They are both corrupt, incompetent, terrible leaders who are throwing Canadian citizens under the bus for national interests, international aspirations, both WEF.
	These prodigies, literally, don't take my word for it, just Google it, they are destroying Canada and they're trying to tell us that we should be happy while they do it because they have good intentions.
	You know, maybe we'll go to that one.
	So now, yesterday, I posted the video of a woman, Ms. Gomez, who...
	Gave an interview in which she said that she ran into the school in Nualde when the cops weren't doing anything and was going classroom to classroom to hope to save her kids.
	It's an interview which I think is going to get memory hold.
	It's an interview which I think is going to get memory hold.
	It's an interview which...
	One cannot vouch for the accuracy of the substance of the interview, but you can sort of presume that this woman is speaking from her own memory and her own experience of the most traumatic experience conceivable.
	And she will probably get some facts wrong, some chronological timeline wrong.
	But above and beyond that, people need answers.
	People need to look into this and not, oh, when Biden says I'm going to defer, I defer to the response of the police, I respect them entirely, won't question them, you know, unless I want to defund them because they're systematically targeting minorities, in which case I want to defund them, I want to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but in this case, totally trust them, move on, there's nothing more to see here, and this is the one and only problem out of this entire catastrophe, and don't look anywhere else.
	Tatum had his take on it, where I think his take, Officer Tatum, I think his analysis was, it read or it sounded like one that was arguing from a conclusion, which was his own conclusion, and not towards it.
	And so I went and watched it, and I said, maybe I'm going to real-time respond, or react, not in the exploitive sense, real-time respond to the substance of his critique, which was a real-time...
	analysis of Ms. Gomez recounting They should have asked, are you not outraged by the coalition?
	Are you somewhat clueless to what's really going on and therefore okay with it?
	Probably would have gotten a different answer there.
	Question.
	Mrs. Brown, were you comfortable with the decision to board the Titanic's lifeboat?
	Answer, I was somewhat comfortable.
	It's...
	Yeah.
	Tatum defends cops at all costs, not kids.
	See, that's why I won't get into the outright blanket writing off Tatum.
	He raises legitimate points.
	Timeline doesn't necessarily match.
	She was far away from the incidents.
	But let's do this together in real time.
	I won't go over all of it because I actually would rather hear Tatum's...
	I'll respond to where I think Tatum is looking over or glossing over certain elements.
	Let me just minimize here and let's just see what we got here.
	Ladies and gentlemen, gentlemen and ladies, I want to let this Uvalde thing go, but it's very difficult for me to let this thing go.
	Okay, so he's going to talk about, let's just see where her statement is here.
	And I'm telling you right now, I don't see none of y 'all in there.
	Y 'all are standing with snipers and y 'all are far away.
	If y 'all don't go in there, I'm going in there.
	Now, let me say this before I get too deep in this video.
	I'm not blaming this woman for anything that she says she's doing or did or wanted to do.
	Any parent would have...
	And now I'm going to interrupt Tatum.
	No, this is inception of commentary, but listen to what she says.
	Any parent.
	Now, I don't know if they would have acted the way she acted, but they would have felt the way that she would have felt.
	I would have felt the same way she would have felt.
	So I'm not here to criticize nothing that she did or didn't do.
	I'm here to break down the timeline so we can put things in perspective.
	She says she was arrested.
	Now, U.S. Marshals came out and made an official statement and said they never arrested a single person.
	And so here, she says she was arrested.
	A lot of citizens will confuse arrestation, being arrested, with being detained.
	And we've heard multiple accounts.
	Of parents who were temporarily detained would be the right word.
	We heard stories of parents that were tased who wanted to go in.
	So this is where semantically Tatum is probably right, but on the substance, we know that the cops were detaining people, preventing them from going in, for right or for wrong reasons.
	But it's a semantic debate which I think ignores the actual substance of what Ms. Gomez had...
	I say testified to, had attested to in her interview.
	Didn't put anybody in handcuffs.
	Now, somebody lying, they both can't be right.
	No, they both can be right.
	They could have been detained, or she could have been told to stay somewhere, which she took to be a form of detainment or being arrested.
	I would presume it was not being arrested, but detained, which to a layperson can be, you know, people use those terms synonymously.
	Arrested means stopped.
	Detainment is a non-custodial arrest, literally.
	So, semantics.
	And I think it ignores the bulk of the issue here.
	After Uvalde police officers told marshals to uncuff Gomez, she ran towards the school.
	And by the way, and here Tatum is also going to mix in his distrust with the MSN because this is CBS.
	I don't trust CBS any further than I can throw them.
	And so...
	True.
	But then going back to the Reuters fact check, MSM can still be right sometimes.
	But in this case, they're reporting on testimony from a parent, which in some meaningful extent runs contrary to the narrative of what the politicians want to turn this event into for the political purpose.
	I jumped that first gate fence, and once I jumped it, I went to my son's class, and I knocked on the door, and I remember the teacher saying, So she went into the school, knocked on the door, and had a conversation with a teacher.
	So that should lead you to believe that they're nowhere near the shooting.
	You know, again, these are suppositions.
	There is a, it's a big, it's a big scene.
	There's more than one.
	I mean, there was one area of the, of the incident itself.
	And maybe this woman was not near the actual classroom where the individual barricaded them in and was left for however, however long.
	This is, this would be a fair cross-examination of the story to get out the inaccuracies.
	The substance of what is going on here is that this woman is saying that the cops, I believe she says the cops waited for 75 minutes outside.
	And if anybody wants to raise the argument, they didn't know if this was a hostage situation or whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	Those are the questions you're going to want to ask to determine whether or not the delay was outright negligence or had some plausible justification.
	But I think Tatum is missing the trees in the forest or missing the forest by looking only at the trees.
	They're nowhere near where the action is happening.
	And I'm going to show you a layout of the school so you can have a better visual.
	Okay, well, we can skip that, but let's just go here.
	So she said nobody was in there.
	But yet, when she was going to the classroom to get her other kid, cops were trying to stop her.
	So are they in there?
	Are they not in there?
	This is not a sophistry type analysis.
	The woman is testifying that the cops...
	We're preventing parents from going in.
	We're not going in.
	Left them there for extended periods of time.
	And that's what should be outraging about this.
	The whole class, they could have done something.
	Gone through the window, sniped them through the window.
	Something, but nothing was being done.
	If anything, they were being more aggressive on us parents that were willing to go in there.
	And like I told one of the officers, I don't need you to protect me.
	Get away from me.
	I don't need your protection.
	If anything, I need you to go in there with me to go protect my kids.
	And as people that know about any of these things, she's probably fighting with people on the perimeter.
	U.S. Marshals are on the perimeter.
	And again.
	And again.
	What does it change in the substance of this?
	I want to get to the part where they mentioned that the cops, and I think we now know, as a matter of fact, it was either 45 minutes to 90 minutes, and most people, I think, consensus is 75 minutes.
	75 minutes where they were holding back parents while what was going on was going on the most atrocious, horrendous thing you can possibly imagine.
	You could dissect this woman's story all you want.
	Maybe she was in the wrong building.
	Maybe she was in another building.
	Maybe she was behind the perimeter.
	The reality is, 45 to 90 minutes, the police, we've seen the videos, did not do anything.
	For whatever the reason, they held back the parents.
	They held back parents who came, one came from the barber and borrowed the shotgun of the barber.
	So you could dissect this woman's story.
	Certainly, it might not be...
	She might not have been in the building right next door to the class, but she was there.
	She's saying what the police were doing to the parents, what they weren't doing in terms of intervening in an urgent situation, and not just not intervening for 4 to 7, 10 minutes, 45 minutes to 90 minutes when that is going on.
	I would be not dissecting this woman's account.
	I would be dissecting what the police did not do because...
	People need answers, and if there's liability in the response, people need to be held accountable.
	Cops, as she said, I don't need you to protect me.
	They're out there on the perimeter.
	These are not the officers that are in the action zone.
	They're not.
	If anything, they were being more aggressive on us.
	They were more pertain on keeping us back than getting into that school.
	And now you're seeing a French ad targeted.
	The they that she's talking about are people on the perimeter.
	Okay, we got the perimeter points.
	Let's just go to what this reporter is saying here.
	Here.
	Keeps sharing her story that she might face some kind of violation for obstruction of justice.
	Now, with all of this being said, which I think that that's probably not true.
	Could be.
	Her energy.
	Clearly than where she was.
	But, you know, it's the frustration of the parents trying to get in is something that's understandable.
	And, of course, law enforcement can't just let all the parents go in when there's a shooter inside, clearly.
	But her energy, just her frustration is what's reverberating across this community at this point.
	And she also told me that, you know, she's on probation for some charges from about a decade ago, and that she received a call from someone in law enforcement telling her that if she keeps talking...
	media or she, you know, keeps sharing her story that she might face some kind of violence We can stop it there.
	So, you know, we know enough of the facts now to go ahead and dissect this woman's story and nitpick where she might have gotten things technically wrong.
	Semantically wrong.
	This is one of those situations where it's not the minutia of the testimony of what she's saying.
	It's the broader situation that she's describing, which seems to be undeniable right now, seems to be recognized and acknowledged.
	And whether or not what this reporter said is true, as to her being on probation for something that happened a decade ago, and...
	And whether or not she's being threatened by law enforcement to stop being so vocal.
	Hey, we just saw a story in real time of how that plays out in real life.
	So whether or not it's true, it deserves to be looked at.
	But as far as her testimony goes, as far as her recounting of the events of that day, what was done to her, it needs to be remembered, it needs to be preserved, and it needs to be looked into.
	The barber shotgun guy was an off-duty Border Patrol officer who ended the shooter's life.
	Police tried to stop him, and he showed his badge, and BTF owed them.
	Get a haircut and get a real job?
	No, and I have one.
	A real job does not mean a job that you don't like.
	So, and I Sorry, hold on.
	Sorry, Viva.
	In this case, you are just mistaken.
	He is laying out details that were not generally known.
	You are claiming facts that give context.
	Do not matter.
	Robert Thompson will agree to disagree on this because she is explaining how the police stood by for an extended period of time and not only did nothing but held the parents back.
	I don't even want to finish the sentence.
	While the most horrific and ungodly thing was being done.
	So, I'm not with all...
	You might say, well, there's a good...
	Tatum is probably right.
	I mean, everyone's talking about you can't let parents go into a building in the scene of an active shooter.
	You can't.
	Now, the question is, how long without police intervention do you have to wait before the parents can do that and assume their own risks?
	You have to wait 10 minutes of an active shooter inside a school?
	20 minutes?
	30 minutes?
	40 minutes?
	50, 60, 70, 80, 90 minutes?
	You have to sit out there for an hour and a half, between 45 minutes and an hour and a half, knowing what's going on in there, and then say, yeah, well, leave it to the professionals?
	Sorry.
	So we'll agree to disagree on that.
	I have no doubt there are facts that I don't know about this story, nor am I purporting to have them.
	This needs...
	I won't say an inquiry, like nothing better than a government investigating its own incompetence at the expense of taxpayers after the loss of life.
	This needs an inquiry.
	Ah, no.
	Really now, first of all, really now, thank you for the super chat, but I don't want to get accused of, you know, AJ type.
	This needs an inquiry.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	And for those saying, yeah, it's an active shooter, obviously you don't let parents in.
	If it's an active shooter, you don't wait outside for 45 to 90 minutes.
	That's not what you do during an active shooter situation.
	Read the book, The FBI Negotiator Guy.
	If Eric Hunley's watching, he'll remind me who it was.
	There's times when you can negotiate when you're dealing with someone who has objectives that don't involve...
	Just doing bad things.
	And this time's when you can't.
	And I don't know how many minutes it takes to realize the nature of the criminal you're dealing with.
	Thank you.
	Robert Rosenthal, thank you.
	I won't read these out loud.
	I don't want anyone thinking that I'm making statements of fact that I would not be in a position to make.
	Bad take...
	Conservatives who uncritically back police are the character of what leftists accuse all centrist right people are.
	I don't know.
	Has Tatum ever taken a position that was critical of the police?
	I'm inclined to be very supportive of people who put their lives at risk for the greater good, but not blindly so.
	And at the end of the day, I'm trying to think of Chauvin.
	I was initially critical.
	The trial attenuated some facts, but at the end of the day, it ended the way it did.
	Not Ahmaud Arbery, I'm sorry.
	Breonna Taylor.
	I was critical of the police from day one.
	Even if you back the police as a general practice, you have to respect the police and people who put their lives on the line to preserve the peace.
	That does not mean that you write them a blank check.
	To break the rules or to, you know, fire blindly into an apartment building.
	So everything is...
	I don't believe people.
	I believe my assessment based on the facts as they become known.
	Let me see what that means.
	Hold on.
	Who in the chat is going to tell me what that means?
	Inter Arma Enem Silent Legus.
	Hold on.
	Hold on, people.
	Going to do it.
	Google.
	Inter...
	Arma?
	Star Trek Deep Space Nine?
	Well, what does it mean?
	Meaning?
	Okay, it seems to be from Star Trek Deep Space Nine.
	It's a Latin phrase that means, for among arms, the laws are silent.
	But as more popularly rendered, in times of war, the law falls silent.
	Ancient Rome?
	The aphorism was likely first written in these words by Cicero in his published oration, Promilone, but Cicero's actual wording was silent and em legis inter arma.
	U.S. President Abraham Lincoln request for an opinion on the suspension of the right to habeas courses during the American Civil War eventually resulted in the decision in ex parte merriment.
	That the president cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it.
	That a military officer has no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to rules and articles of war, except in aid of the judicial authority and subject to its control.
	Okay, interesting.
	We're going to have to mull that one over and understand it.
	Tatum is ex-police and has criticized them in the past.
	Okay, and I'm not...
	This is like...
	One of those situations where, going back to my deep thought tweet of this morning, you can like someone and disagree with them, and you can agree with someone even if you dislike them.
	I have nothing against Tatum.
	I just think in this case, he is looking to write off the broader issue here, which is they were holding parents back from acting on their own, which would make sense for a certain period of time.
	But at some point in time, and I don't know when it is, but it's before 45 minutes when you're dealing with a known active shooter.
	Can we see the fish?
	Hold on one second.
	I think I know what you're talking about.
	Let's go here.
	Let's go here.
	Let's take this.
	I know what you're talking about.
	Hold on.
	Be Viva Frye.
	Look.
	At this fish, people.
	Beautiful.
	I mean, it's so beautiful.
	That pike.
	I don't know how much that pike weighed.
	And now that I caught what I thought was the biggest bass I'd ever seen in my life.
	And the six-pound bass.
	Oh, the six-pound bass in Florida.
	Okay, hold on.
	Now that I caught a six-pound bass, I no longer think this pike weighed 30 pounds.
	Hold on.
	Let's just see how fast I can get.
	I know it was about a week ago.
	Let's just see here.
	We're going to get to it.
	And then we'll do one more story.
	There's an update in the Parkland trial where they're in jury selection and apparently the Parkland shooter is looking to change, wants to have the judge recused or his team wants to have the judge recused.
	We'll read an article.
	It's an interesting update of another sick situation.
	May 31st.
	It was for the live stream with Barnes, where I said I need this picture for the stream.
	Okay, so we came down here.
	We came down.
	No, it was...
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	Look at this, people.
	Look at that.
	Yep.
	That...
	Fish only weighed 6 pounds, 5.8 pounds.
	I think it's 5 pounds, 8 ounces.
	I would have said that fish was 10 pounds if I had seen this picture.
	So now I'm not so sure as to how much that pike weighed.
	Yeah, is that a marlin?
	No, that is a bucket mouth bass, also known as a large mouth bass.
	That bass, its mouth was so big I could have easily, without even touching the teeth, put my fist in its mouth.
	Not that you would do that.
	You have to respect nature and respect animals.
	Even when fishing.
	I put it back.
	It swam off.
	It's going to make many babies.
	That's a super, super spreader of bass babies is what that is.
	So that's the fish.
	Beautiful.
	Nice guns.
	Oh, yeah.
	Got to find time to exercise every day in as much as possible.
	All right.
	So let's just do one.
	We'll do one more story.
	Then maybe we'll get some questions in the chat.
	Parkland Shooter.
	Listen to this.
	Elon Musk.
	Get him out of here.
	Defense team for the school shooter asked judge to withdraw.
	By the way, people, we've talked about this in the past.
	When you ask a judge to withdraw from a case, I'm going to be curious as to what the exact reason is.
	When you ask a judge to withdraw, who do you think adjudicates on whether or not the judge withdraws?
	The judge whom you're asking to withdraw.
	And this is a case in which you're not going to get any sympathy from the judge.
	The individual pleaded guilty to 17 counts.
	And I guess they're impaneling a jury for sentencing.
	I imagine, unless there's some charges that the individual is going to trial on.
	The ongoing trial faced a complicated situation in court on Monday that culminated in the defense team motioning to have the judge disqualified from the case.
	On Monday, lead defense attorney Melissa McNeil mentioned...
	Motion, sorry, to have Broward County Judge Elizabeth Sherr withdraw herself from the case amid a dispute over how the ongoing jury selection process was proceeding.
	I don't want to read it.
	He pleaded guilty to 17 counts.
	Okay.
	The trial has yet to complete its jury selection process.
	I don't actually have an answer as to why there's a jury selection when he pleaded guilty if it's not but for sentencing.
	If anyone in the chat knows...
	Please let me know.
	But what ended up happening is, apparently one of the lawyers was sick.
	Contention in the Fort Lauderdale courtroom.
	Started as a member of the defense team.
	Attorney Casey Secker was out of the courtroom with an unspecified illness.
	His team was, he said he was in quarantine.
	We can presume we know what the illness is.
	It's either monkeypox or COVID.
	The court wanted to proceed with asking potential jurors their views on the death penalty, which could potentially disqualify them from jurying the case.
	But the defense team did not wish to proceed in the process.
	Okay, the judge refused.
	He said, we're not going forward.
	And...
	Defense says, I'm not comfortable going forward without a member of my team.
	You're going to have to, the judge says, in response, per the report, your client has the right to have a competent lawyer.
	Your client does not have the right to have every lawyer.
	But then listen to pleadings that I would not recommend a lawyer ever get into.
	Judge, at this time, the defense would move to withdraw from the case of the state of Florida versus the individual.
	Right now, if I do not comply with the court's order and do not protect my client, I now have to consider whether or not my liberty is going to be at jeopardy or my client's.
	I'm also going to have to consider whether or not my law license can be impacted.
	For obeying a court order, never.
	Which would impact my ability to raise my children, feed my children, and educate my children, McDeal reportedly added.
	Very emotive argument for when the court says do something, I don't think you're ever going to have your law license revoked for abiding by a court order or for respecting a court order.
	I think probably on the contrary.
	You don't respect the court order, you might have a bigger problem than respecting a court order.
	According to the report, the judge respectfully denied the motion and recessed the court.
	Anyways, that's it.
	I don't even want to look at this.
	So I'm going to close that down and see if anyone in the chat knows offhand why they're going to trial where he's pleaded guilty.
	So I can only imagine that it's for sentencing.
	But anyhow.
	Okay.
	The pike was probably 15 pounds based on the weight and dimension of the bass.
	And the thing is, the pike...
	Had a full belly.
	That bass was not emaciated, but it was thinner.
	It did not have a full, fat belly.
	Okay.
	Rakata said he's going to cover this trial after a result of the depth-heard trial.
	Maybe they don't want any law tube coverage.
	We'll see.
	That's in state court, so I don't know if that's going to be...
	That will be allowed to be covered, but I don't believe that there's going to be any live coverage of that.
	The next thing that I'm going to be covering, which there's going to be live footage of, is the January 6th committees.
	Oh, hold on.
	That's what I want to talk about.
	They're going to have their January 6th committee televised.
	It's the day after tomorrow, on Thursday.
	And I think I'm going to do a live stream of that because it's going to be fascinating.
	What the government and the prosecutorial system...
	Can find the time to go after.
	And what they can't is it's disgusting.
	January 6th Committee News.
	Let me just see something here.
	Live.
	Let's say live stream.
	Here we go.
	Live.
	Because I know they're going live on Thursday.
	Yeah, they begin live Thursday.
	How to watch...
	Oh, we're going to watch it, people.
	There's a lot of articles on how to watch it.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is it.
	Sorry, guys.
	It's CNN.
	Forgive me.
	One must even know what the enemy is saying to know how they're going to be looking for this.
	The January 6th committee is about to show its work.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here's what you need to know.
	More than 500 days removed from the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, the committee investigating is now ready to show its work.
	The House Select Committee will hold its first public hearing this week, June 9. Sources told CNN this hearing will be a broad overview of the panel's 10-month investigation and set the stage for subsequent hearings which are expected to cover certain topics and themes.
	Like, how did it happen?
	Why did the police let people in?
	What happened to Ashley Babbitt?
	What happened to Rosie?
	What's her name?
	The other protester who lost their lives seemingly at the hands of police?
	While the setup of the hearings has been a work in progress and evolving, sources note, the presentations will likely feature video clips from January 6th, as well as some of the roughly 1,000 interviews the committee has conducted behind closed doors.
	Will there be new information?
	Yes, at least according to an advisory from the committee released last week.
	The committee will present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, preview additional hearings, and provide the American people a summary of its findings about the coordinated multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transition of power, The panel said.
	Let's see something else here.
	While we're on the subject, Navarro arrested.
	It's amazing what they can...
	Let's go with Fox.
	Navarro...
	They like Elon Musk.
	Navarro responds to Jan 6th committee after FBI...
	No, this is not the new one.
	This is not the new one.
	Hold on.
	Where's this from?
	The January 6th committee has just hired a...
	Okay.
	This is it.
	June 6th.
	Former Trump advisor Peter Navarro responded Monday to his recent arrest for defying a subpoena.
	They arrested him for defying a subpoena.
	From Missouri Congressman Benny Thompson and the House January 6th Committee telling Fox News he made numerous overtures to the Justice Department in hopes of avoiding a spectacle.
	In his remarks last week, Navarro said he was arrested Hey, He noted he lives within feet of the FBI in Penn quarter, DC, adding he even gave agents his attorneys contact beforehand.
	where have we seen this before, peeps?
	On Wednesday night, I sent an email to Patricia, the deputy attorney, and said, look, I'm seeking a modus vivendi here.
	I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
	Let's see what we can do.
	Prior to his arrest, Navarro also reached out to an FBI agent he named as Walter Giordano, who said he had been banging on my door a week before in hopes of seeking a detente while his civil suit against Thompson's committee made its way through the legal process.
	They chose a different route.
	I wonder why.
	If you believe it.
	Grain of salt.
	But they arrested him.
	They didn't call my attorney.
	Instead, they went with this shock and awe terror strategy.
	Where have we seen this?
	Recall Brandon Strzok's interview.
	Raided him at six o 'clock in the morning at his apartment, hauled him off, detained him for two and a half days.
	They let me go to an airport and then take me...
	Sorry.
	They let me go to the airport and then take me with five agents like I'm an...
	He said according...
	He was...
	Allegedly unconstitutionally deprived of food, water, and counsel during his time in custody.
	Navarro had accused the government of preemptively filing criminal charges against him before his civil suit against the Thompson-Cheney committee is heard.
	They subpoenaed me illegally in that it is allegedly not a legitimate committee under the standing rules of the House.
	And we've talked about this with Barnes.
	We've talked about this, that the committees exist for legislative purposes.
	This is, I don't want to say banana republic level stuff, but we're having it in Canada with the Ottawa protest.
	We are seeing the political weaponization of every aspect of every level of government.
	The DOJ and committee went into this fanciful and absurd notion that Biden, a sitting incumbent president, could strip his immediate predecessor of executive privilege in me, a staff member...
	To the president of what the Justice Department itself, as you pointed out, has absolute testimonial immunity.
	He's alleging the same privilege that Steve Bannon is alleging.
	They don't care.
	Arrest now, contemplate later, after you've made life a living hell for the people that you are politically persecuting.
	The January 6th committee is also discussing further issues, including abolishing the Electoral College, which Axios reported has been argued for by outspoken member Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
	So, it's what a waste of taxpayers' money.
	They're not even looking into the right question.
	You know, in Canada, when Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, after the Emergencies Act is rescinded or after it's come to an end, they are required, they shall.
	Appoint a committee to look into the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	But it's not supposed to be a second investigation into the incident that was at the root of the invoking of the Emergencies Act.
	It's supposed to be a transparent look, a transparent analysis into the decision of the government to invoke the Emergencies Act.
	But our government weaponizing everything politically is...
	Creating that committee, which is intended to look into the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and instead of scrutinizing the government because that's what it's for, did the government do it?
	Did they need to do it?
	Did they issue proper rules and guidelines and directives?
	Did they abuse of the power?
	Instead of doing that, our government is weaponizing it yet again to go further investigate the alleged illegal protests.
	So they call the commission to look into the circumstances surrounding...
	The invocation of the Emergencies Act, that being the illegal protest.
	So they're weaponizing, yet again, another level of government, which was intended to enforce transparency of the government when exercising the nuclear weapon of legislative powers.
	But no.
	And here, what are they doing?
	They've created this committee to look into what I know people called it an insurrection.
	Robert was there on day one in Washington.
	We have been talking about this, covering it.
	Yes, it was a protest, and it got violent in some respects.
	There were pockets of violence.
	I mean, you can't say it didn't get violent.
	Someone got shot by the police.
	Whether or not that's police violence or protester violence, we can agree there were acts of protester violence.
	We can agree.
	I think most people will agree right now, even the FBI confirmed it.
	It wasn't an insurrection.
	We can also agree, if you're trying to stop the government from doing what the government is supposed to do, and you're trying to overthrow the government, quite odd to show up with flags and nothing else.
	They are now, they formed this committee, and instead of looking into the real questions, why was the Capitol building so insecure?
	Why did the police open up the doors?
	Why did the police move the barricades away?
	Why did Nancy Pelosi allegedly?
	Decline to have further security.
	Why was it so vulnerable that an unarmed, uncoordinated group of protesters were allowed to walk in through doors that the police opened for them?
	Instead of looking into that, they're looking into sparing no expense through the FBI to go after...
	Each and every person who had anything to do with it to press charges to the fullest extent of the law and unlawfully so, beyond the law, in my view, in some cases.
	But, you know, those two lawyers there who threw a Molotov cocktail, they can score a sweetheart deal.
	Investigate an illegal protest that wasn't illegal.
	Investigate it.
	How on earth did the police let people in?
	How did they open up doors?
	Why were they so vulnerable?
	Why was it so understaffed that an uncoordinated group of unarmed protesters managed to breach the Capitol to go in?
	How did that happen?
	Don't look into that because that might shed some responsibility on the decision makers and the policy makers and the police force.
	No.
	Just go in and say, how are we going to punish and weaponize this for political gain?
	Abolish the Electoral College.
	My goodness.
	They found a way to invoke an emergency to bypass any legislative, constitutional...
	Uh, public discussion.
	It's amazing how they do that.
	I went, had breakfast, took a shower, got dressed, came back, and you still talking, just kidding, love you.
	Cameron, I could talk all day.
	I mean, the limitation to my talking is subject matter, familiarity with the subject matter, and my bladder.
	So, oh, yeah, and, and, uh, that, that dude, what, where is that dude?
	Can you imagine?
	The guy, there's video footage, revolver.
	Did an amazing piece on this.
	There's a video footage of a man with a bullhorn telling people to go, telling people to advance, telling people to move in, whipping up the crowd into a state of unlawful activity.
	But they go after Brandon Strzok because he recorded with minimal, because he recorded what was otherwise a newsworthy event from the outside without ever penetrating.
	Let me see if I can.
	I'm going to go to www.walkawaycampaign.
	I'm not going to watch the video on the YouTube, which is not on his channel.
	Walk away.
	Let's see if we can do this here.
	Share.
	Share screen.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Walk away.
	Okay, here we go.
	Get your tickets today.
	Do we see this?
	Now, let me see.
	About.
	Get involved.
	Testimonials.
	Education.
	Press.
	Where was the video that Brendan said was on?
	It's a nice website.
	Okay.
	Let me see if we can see get involved about PAC.
	No.
	Donate.
	State groups.
	No.
	Testimonials.
	Education.
	The hard truth articles.
	Press.
	What if I do this?
	Okay.
	Okay, hold on.
	Now I'm going to go to his YouTube channel and see if the video's here.
	Okay.
	Once upon a time, I was a liberal.
	Okay, I'm not playing it because I don't want the music to get copy-striked.
	Anyways, you can find the original video if you go to YouTube and just put in Brendan Strzok.
	Someone reposted the video thinking it made Brendan Strzok look guilty.
	Someone posted that video and said, we're going to preserve this because this is the evidence of Brendan Strzok Committing such a heinous, felonious act that we need to preserve this in perpetuity.
	And I watched that video, and I think it makes them look more innocent.
	Hold on, let me do it.
	Okay, look.
	I'm going to do it.
	I'll play just a short piece.
	If we go Bren...
	No, it's Brandon, not Brandon.
	Brandon Straka.
	Boom.
	And it's not going to be his.
	It's going to be on someone else's channel, and I believe...
	No.
	Brandon Strock, let's say Capital...
	Oh, sorry.
	You know what?
	Here.
	Original video.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	No, that's the same one that we just saw two seconds ago.
	It's an eight-minute video.
	Eight minutes and 30-some-odd seconds.
	Come on.
	Whenever you want to find it, you can't find it.
	Original.
	Let's just see if we can do this.
	Sorry, people.
	Capital.
	And I think it's with capital.
	All right, forget it.
	You know what?
	We're just going to go with this one.
	Brandon Strzok built himself a large fall.
	Oh, I'm gay.
	Let me check the deed.
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	Oh, echo.
	by a family relative or in the FBI of this video.
	What Strzok shot, posted on Twitter, and then later deleted.
	It can now be found on YouTube in which Strzok screams, we're going in.
	And at one point, yells to the rioters to take the shield of a Capitol Hill police officer.
	Take the shield!
	Take it!
	This video shows a man that looks like Strzok in similar attire that he was in.
	That, by the way, was...
	As close as Brandon got to the building.
	That portion of the video was as bad as the video got in that that's as close as Brandon got to penetrating the open doors.
	And what was I about to say?
	Oh, the take the shield and we're going in?
	Arguable, I'm not trying to defend him.
	I don't know who said it because it didn't really sound exactly like him, but who knows?
	And when people are saying we're going in, it is not as though...
	They just broke down the door and they breached the castle and they're going in to attack.
	The door was open.
	To me, when I heard someone saying, we're going in, we're going in?
	It was a question.
	Some people were saying, come on in.
	But people preserve that video.
	They think it's incriminating or more so for Brandon Strzok.
	And you go read the comments on it and it's one screen, two films.
	He didn't say let's go in.
	He said he didn't say let's go in.
	He said grab the shield.
	I mean, grab the shield?
	Even if he were to have said that, grab the shield, move it to the side.
	It's like the shield was on top of it.
	Who needs that?
	All I'd say, that was as bad as the video got.
	And it was eight minutes.
	And that was the extent of it.
	Now, I forget the reason for which I was talking about that.
	It had to do with...
	Oh, no.
	This committee.
	For what?
	500 days.
	500 days.
	They've been investigating this.
	And...
	Okay.
	Hold on a second.
	Sorry, people.
	Let me just do three things at one time here.
	Okay.
	That's fine.
	And let me see one other thing.
	Okay.
	Okay, what time is it now?
	Two o 'clock.
	Who's got questions that are not super chat questions?
	Let's just take some non-super chat questions, although I would not say no to super chat questions nonetheless.
	Canada is taking a page from this January 6th committee.
	Just weaponize.
	It was a protest.
	There were pockets of violence in it.
	You compare that to what happened.
	In the summer of love.
	You compare that to what happened in Kenosha.
	Everyone is fixated on the Rittenhouse incident.
	Are not focusing on what actually happened in the days before and after.
	Burning.
	Looting.
	Arson.
	But no, there was six...
	They obstructed so much Congress doing his business that Congress did his business by that evening.
	It's...
	There is no...
	There is no way to know.
	When is my next live video?
	I'm going to see what we do for a sidebar tomorrow night.
	Knowing Barnes is not around, I'll see who I can get on that would be interesting.
	I've seen the picture.
	Why does Justin Trudeau look like Fidel Castro?
	There are some amazing memes out there.
	I'm always reluctant to share them because you don't know how much has been photoshopped to sort of morph certain features to make him look even more like Fidel Castro.
	But there are some out there which are quite interesting, to say the least.
	I was going to go to Rumble to see if there were any Rumble rants that I may have missed, but I don't think there are.
	Okay.
	Not to mention the blockades protesting pipelines and no one got arrested.
	There were blockades on the railways in Canada.
	There was an injunction to take them down.
	The police didn't enforce the injunction.
	It's the weaponizing of everything.
	Am I wearing the shirt?
	No, I'm wearing my face.
	Politics ruins everything.
	It's hypocrisy.
	It's a two-tiered system.
	In one case, it's summer of love.
	Let them express themselves.
	Let the politicians come out, the AOCs, the Maxine Waters.
	Let them come out and say, fight, fight, fight, in the literal sense.
	Those two individuals who threw the Molotov cocktail and the other one who was the getaway, the police only understand one thing, violence.
	It's not even a question of punishing them.
	Hard, as hard or harder.
	Punish everyone equally with the blindfolds of politics on the little lady balance of justice.
	You know, Brandon, in our interview, said something interesting, insightful.
	He said, even if the other people were guilty of what they're accused of doing, I wouldn't want them treated the way I was treated.
	Viva, have you seen the coastal pipeline news?
	No arrests and no coverage by the mainstream media.
	I haven't seen it.
	I'm going to go look.
	Oh, come on, Viva.
	Nurse, Freedom Convoy, documentary, music producer.
	Oh, wait.
	What a shot in the dark, LOL.
	We'll have to see.
	We'll have to see.
	I've got my notes, a list of people to whom I have reached out.
	He looks identical to Castro.
	If he isn't his son, it's the biggest coincidence in the history.
	And his mother, there's stories.
	But anyhow, it doesn't matter.
	What else?
	Oh, hold on a second.
	What's this?
	But largemouth bass are big old balloons.
	They have a big, big flexible nose.
	Viva, watch the new Gateway Pundit January 6th video.
	Okay, will do.
	The hearings on Thursday, Friday will be a disaster for Democrats.
	By putting it on primetime, everyone will see their hypocrisy.
	Janet?
	I don't think so.
	My prediction, unfortunately, is that this committee is a bipartisan committee, and I appreciate that Cheney...
	Oh, hold on, my arm hurts.
	Might be more Democrat than some Democrats, but this is a bipartisan committee.
	Both sides want to exploit and weaponize the events of January 6th as much as the other.
	I think they're going to come out and they're going to make it even worse.
	I mean, they're going to parade out police officers who are going to be crying.
	They're going to pull out the convictions of some of the people, the sentences.
	I don't think it's going to be a disaster.
	I think it's going to be an absolute...
	Banana Republic gong show for anybody who really knows what's going on.
	Yes, I agree.
	There will be major storytelling on both sides.
	No, there's no question.
	The Republicans on that bipartisan committee hate Trump as much as the Democrats.
	They want to exploit that tragedy as much as the Democrats.
	I'm sorry, that incident.
	They want to turn that into a tragedy so they can politically weaponize it for their own nefarious political purposes.
	And the bottom line...
	Some believe is to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 if he decides to run again.
	It's to go after anybody who might run successfully.
	Again, it might be to go after the Marjorie Taylor Greene's, to go after anybody who supported anything incidentally or tangentially related to January 6th, the events of that day.
	Anyone who spoke at Stop the S-T-E-E-L.
	That's a joke.
	Anyone who organized, spoke, go after everyone.
	You have all the resources in the world.
	It's not your money.
	So anyways, I will watch it and I will live comment because I think I have enough of an understanding of the factual background to actually shed some insight into it.
	David, why do Liberal Party members have a look of horror on their faces when US reporters ask them to say a few words and flee from US cameras and microphones?
	I don't know of which incident you're speaking exactly, but they don't know how to deal with a press that's not bought and paid for.
	There's a reason why they refuse to sit down with Rebel News, any Rebel News journalist.
	There's a reason why Justin Trudeau, in his arrogant pomposity, the man of the women, the true feminist, refuses to even address questions from a female reporter from Rebel News.
	Alexa Lavoie.
	There's a reason why he has his goons manhandle another female minority, if it changes anything.
	Oh, jeez.
	I'm going to get her name in a second.
	I forgot her name.
	The reporter that got manhandled by Justin Trudeau's RCMP.
	Chat's going to get it faster than me, but Humphrey.
	Humphrey.
	Trudeau manhandles.
	Rebel.
	I know the chat has already gotten it, but I'm stubborn.
	Freya Humphrey.
	That was her name.
	You know, there's a reason.
	They ignore assault, but...
	Viva, how easy is it for a neuroscientist and a lawyer to get visas to the States anyhow?
	I'll write a book of the...
	I won't write a book.
	I'll write a how-to manual.
	When Republicans win back the House, fireworks.
	We'll see.
	It has to be politically popular to do so.
	It has to be politically popular to make it politically unpopular, to desecrate, to gut the constitution of its meaning, of its rights.
	You know, in Canada, people are still cool with the fact that some people's constitutional rights are being violated because they think they deserve it.
	Lock up Pat King, lock up...
	Tamara Lich.
	Lock her away.
	Throw away the key.
	Worst stuff on earth.
	But then come after my language rights in Quebec.
	The horror.
	horror.
	All right.
	Well, that's it.
	Now, okay, so what I'm going to do.
	See if I've missed anything here.
	Viva Frye.
	Saw you on Somebody Feed Phil show in Montreal.
	That was great.
	That was before COVID.
	BC.
	On Somebody Feed Phil, it was fun.
	Yeah, RCMP roughed up David Menzies pretty good.
	They roughed up Menzies.
	The RCMP accidentally discharged a tear gun canister point blank at Alexa Lavoie's leg.
	The RCMP or his private security roughed up Drea Humphrey, manhandled her, just picked her up and put her away.
	Won't take questions from them, but we'll take every, you know, but we'll take questions from Globe and Mail.
	Oy, oy, oy.
	Okay.
	Pastors jailed.
	Yep.
	Who do we got?
	We've got Arthur Pawlowski, James Coates.
	I'm going to forget the other.
	There are two or three more.
	Hold on.
	This isn't funny.
	Viva, no need to flee to the US.
	They're as plucked up as Canada is.
	The whole world is.
	The only question is, where is there going to be...
	The slightest hope of people who are going to politically stand up to what's going on.
	Canada?
	I am...
	That will happen, actually.
	But I think that has to happen with Barnes.
	I cannot have McCullough without Barnes.
	And Barnes is going to be unavailable until his vacation is over.
	Vacation to which he is thoroughly, thoroughly entitled.
	And I hope he's having a good one.
	Only take questions from media on their payroll.
	Where did I just see that?
	Where did I just see that?
	Because that was...
	Here we go.
	Yep.
	Only take questions from media on their payroll.
	You know you're going to get softball questions.
	That's where you'll see controlled opposition hard questions.
	Money changes everything.
	The second money changes hands through overt subsidies from the law, the Canada Broadcasting Act, through bailouts, through COVID advertising, Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
	And the media, no different than the analogous dog that bites the hand that feeds you.
	You do it once, you don't get fed again.
	And you know.
	You know, for a flailing industry, who you have to keep happy to keep those subsidies going.
	And it's legalized corruption, is what it is.
	This is Bill C11 that this is about.
	Mr. Sunshine Baby, content creators in Canada must stand up.
	YouTube sent an email encouraging creators to stand up to Bill C11.
	Even Google thinks Trudeau is nuts.
	Hold on.
	Now that you mentioned it, actually, I got an email from Google telling me how the new Bill C11 can impact my ability to earn money.
	Let's see here.
	Here we go.
	I won't share it because I don't want to accidentally share an email address.
	This is from my channel manager.
	As part of the YouTube creator community, I wanted to reach out to share some news on updates happening in Canada that could impact you, Viva Frye.
	Here's the top three things you need to know.
	New legislation called the Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11, is currently under review in Canada and could affect your experience and earning potential as a creator on YouTube.
	On our site at YouTube, we're sharing our concerns with policymakers to future-proof the vibrant creator ecosystem you're a part of.
	Thank you very much.
	We think there's real value in policymakers hearing from you, and you can get involved by contacting your MP or posting your thoughts on social media here.
	Oh, I've posted my thoughts.
	I would invite you to go check out the Viva Clips on Viva Clips.
	Where I described this Bill C-11 online streaming act as nothing more than another form of legalized corruption, of a beautiful another way of giving a handout to the CBC, Radio Canada, Canadian legacy media that is failing on its own incompetence, failing on its own lack of quality.
	And how is it doing that?
	Well, the Bill C-11...
	Would impose the same criteria on social media platforms, YouTube channels, Twitter handles, and the like, that it imposes on radio and television.
	The Canada Broadcasting Act, or the C...
	Canada Broadcasting Act?
	Yeah, the Canada Broadcasting Act governs the CBC, Radio Canada, and requires a certain amount of Canadian content.
	Canadian content of the content that is produced.
	There's penalties if you don't abide by it, financial fines and whatever.
	Bill C-11 wants to prioritize Canadian content online the same way it does on radio and television.
	What do you think that would look like?
	That would result in suppression of Canadian content that's deemed to be not Canadian enough and promotion of...
	Canadian content that's deemed to be Canadian even if people don't want to see it or choose not to see it because it sucks.
	What might I be talking about?
	The CBC online.
	Radio Canada online.
	CTV.
	Global News.
	It would...
	The intended purpose, the unstated intended purpose is to prop up CBC, CTV, Radio Canada, state-sponsored media on...
	The internet to the detriment of the independent voices that have succeeded on the quality of their content, such as Rebel News, True North, J.J. McCullough.
	Well, J.J. McCullough might be Canadian enough and he might still be in the good books of the government, which maybe not after his hearing, but suppress the independent voices, which are highly critical of the government, to put that CBC back on the same pedestal that it gets through its billion-dollar-a-year funding and prioritizing on radio and television.
	That's all that this is designed to do.
	There's not a question about it.
	It's a money grab.
	It's a power grab.
	It's a narrative controlling grab.
	And it is a way of propping up flailing legacy media that is failing on television, failing on radio, and failing online because it's crap propaganda, misinformation that no one wants to watch.
	How do you fix it?
	YouTube, you're required to promote Canadian content.
	Viva Fry, he talks about too much American stuff.
	Suppress it.
	CBC, they're Canadian.
	Promote it.
	That's what it is.
	It's yet another gift to a flailing media that will then be further indebted, further beholden to the government that finances them, that subsidizes them through COVID ads, and that props them up artificially through legislation that suppresses their competitors and props up these awful, crappy news agencies.
	Period.
	That's what I think about it, YouTube, if you want to snip and clip and share on social media.
	Then they write, there's a whole big long thing about it.
	Let's see here.
	We're writing to you about the online, oh, I think this is, this is, they describe it.
	How Bill C11 could affect creators and YouTube.
	Without this clarification, it could have serious impact on how your channel runs and performs on our platform and the experience for Canadian viewers.
	The CRTC could.
	Bullet number one.
	Dictate how and when your content appears on the platform, including the YouTube homepage and watch next section.
	Oh, by the way, Kim Jong-un is taking notes, Justin.
	It could apply CanCon rules.
	CanCon rules are...
	Oh, Canadian content rules.
	I'm sorry, that's Canadian content rules.
	Did I just kick myself up?
	That could require you to prove that each individual video that you upload meets complex legal definitions of Canadian content.
	This gives an advantage to large Canadian media companies who have been following these rules for decades.
	I'm sure it's a coincidence.
	Require artificial promotion of some content creators over others.
	You know what?
	I'm going to screen grab this and share it on Twitter afterwards.
	When this happens...
	Viewers may be pushed to watch your content when they aren't interested, resulting in negative viewer feedback, which could impact how your content is exported to global audiences and hurt viewership and revenue.
	First of all, nobody would be pushed to watch my content and not be interested.
	I think it's going to be the other way.
	They're going to suppress it so that people don't even know I exist.
	It could regulate the length and type of advertising on your channel, limiting your ability to earn advertising revenue.
	If you want to fix the bill, there are ways you can make an impact.
	Click here, yada, yada, yada.
	That's what's going on with Bill C-11.
	That's what's going on in Canada.
	Trudeau's Canada is a lot like Kim Jong-un's North Korea.
	just you know there's so much more polite when they do it I Content creators will have to upload 50% French content.
	J 'allais parler en français avec mon accent anglophone.
	Ça, c 'est quelque chose que je pourrais faire.
	Moi, je suis certain que je serais assez populaire en français.
	Si j 'avais une chaîne dédiée à la langue française ou contenu en français, je serais l 'anglophone le plus populaire au Canada.
	I just said, I think I would be very good at that.
	I can actually have a French channel.
	Of an Anglophone doing French content.
	And I think I'd be tremendously popular.
	Viva on the dark web.
	No, it's just going to be...
	I don't know how VPNs would take care of anything of this, but...
	I told you, brother!
	It's North Korea 2.0.
	It's so polite.
	And, you know, they let us go on planes and trains, but only if we've submitted to certain procedures that they...
	Okay.
	Viva, do you think in French or do you even know?
	Serious question.
	I once had a dream in French, and that's when I knew that I was sufficiently bilingual.
	Quand je parle en français, je pense en français.
	Je réfléchis en français.
	Il n 'y a pas de traduction directe dans mon cerveau.
	When I speak in French, I think in French.
	There's no, like, instantaneous translation from French to English in my brain, although I'm not sure if that's true.
	I'm going to have to consult with my neurophysiologist, postdoc, PhD, doctor of a wife.
	Not an MD, just a...
	Yeah, you know.
	That's a joke, anyhow.
	Oh, Viva.
	You're exposed.
	You can't suppress the...
	What about our freedom?
	What about our freedom?
	Okay, well...
	Oh, sorry, people.
	That was the finger-cracking.
	Okay, so with that said, people, it is 2.20.
	I'm going to go tend to some personal, professional matters.
	I'm going to go get the kids.
	Going to think about what to do tomorrow, either for a sidebar tomorrow night or a daytime stream tomorrow.
	Thursday, my wife might not like it because it's going to start relatively early.
	Splendiferous Pilaptipus.
	Soon they will put together a committee to develop the required daily exercise and morning song in praise of our magnificent leader.
	Not far off, man.
	You know, when they were doing the outdoor exercises during COVID.
	Social distance exercises on the block to keep people healthy while they lock them in their homes.
	They already did it.
	Don't pop your knuckles.
	It will cause problems later in life.
	That's an old wives' tale, Fred.
	My grandmother used to say that.
	I like the daytime stream.
	Thank you.
	Oh, I'm going to continue doing it.
	I love the daytime streams.
	First of all, kids are not home.
	It's quiet.
	Second of all, it gives me a chance to go over the stuff that I'd otherwise be reading about.
	Third of all...
	It allows me to cut clips to put to the second channel, Viva Clips.
	Or to edit videos for Viva Family.
	So I'll figure it out for tomorrow.
	Stay tuned.
	Definitely streaming the committee hearings Thursday, possibly Friday if I don't get too nauseated by what we see.
	And there will be a stream tomorrow.
	And we will have a guest tomorrow night.
	See who I can find.
	Okay.
	Go!
	Get exercise.
	Get sunlight.
	Talk to people in real life.
	You know what to do.
	Peace out, peeps.

▲