Steve Bannon Trial Day1; Pat King "Released"; Ray Epps & MORE! Viva Mondays!
|
Time
Text
Alright, so the other insects that we're noticing a lot of, these millipedes or centipedes, these look like a look at how smoothly it just glides along the floor.
Looks like it's eating something.
That is so, so cool.
Ethan!
Come look at this!
I'm not going to kill it.
I'm going to put it outside.
Look at how cool this thing is.
It's pretty freaking cool.
Now it's going to...
Oh, okay.
Oh, oh, oh.
See, it's like a Roomba, but for like a little...
I don't know.
Maybe it's eating pieces of skin.
A bum.
It's amazing the way the foot movement waves through.
Are there centipedes in the water?
Yeah, look at that.
Okay, dude.
Outside you go.
Let's go.
Can I pick him?
He's pretending to be dead.
Don't judge me for my fingernails, people.
Good morning?
No, no.
Good afternoon to everyone except...
Good afternoon to everyone except Central Time and Pacific Time.
How goes it?
How's my audio?
Is my audio good?
How's my hair?
The hair actually matches the shirt.
Perfectly today.
I did a short photo op with my wife, who took some pictures, which I'm going to use to update some profile pics.
Millipedes are magnificent.
I don't understand why we have quite so many on the floor.
I think there's gaps in the doors, and they're innocuous.
I just don't like stepping on them, which I haven't.
Millipede.
You can't barehand pick up a centipede without pain.
Good to know.
Never tried.
There are a lot of millipedes, I'm noticing.
The dogs like them because the dogs eat them.
The dead ones, not the live ones.
But yeah, they're everywhere.
Beautiful.
I mean, I love animals.
I even don't mind insects that don't bite.
And the ones that don't burrow into your ears and then slowly eat your brain and lay eggs inside your hair better than the audio?
Why, is the audio not good?
So that's it.
That was the adventure.
To be found on vivabarneslaw.locals.com where it's not all law, people.
Every now and again, it's the small, beautiful things in life.
The small distractions.
From the raging political hellhole the world seems to have descended into at an increasing level on a daily basis.
Yeah, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, by the way.
You can be a supporter or you can just be a member.
And there's like, I want to say 70 plus percent of the content on the community is...
Not behind the supporter paywall.
And then a lot of the stuff that is temporarily is made public to the general members.
Ton of content if you want to go there.
One more time, that's vivabarneslaw.locals.com And another shameless plug or just an announcement.
Today's day one of the Steve Bannon contempt of Congress trial, people.
There has not been a conviction.
For contempt of Congress since J. Gordon Libby or G. Gordon Libby, the Libby guy from Watergate.
There has not, as far as I know people, there has not been a conviction for contempt of Congress since J. Gordon Libby or Gordon J. Libby.
I'm just going to call him Libby.
50 years.
There have been people who have been charged with contempt of Congress.
There have been those who have been found to be in contempt of Congress, but never charged.
You know, apparently not adhering to a congressional subpoena to testify on what a radio personality said on the airwaves.
Apparently that's more serious than, I don't know, gun smuggling into Mexico cartels so you can track the guns, but then you lose track of the guns, and then the Mexican cartel actually uses those guns to kill federal agents.
Eric Holder, people, was found to be in contempt of Congress.
The DOJ never...
Never got around to prosecuting Eric Holder.
Which is going to highlight not that this is a show trial or a kangaroo court or a kabuki theater of a trial.
It's not the trial per se that is the political joke in the Steve Bannon persecution.
And I'll say persecution because at some point you have to recognize when you only go after certain people or certain People of a certain political persuasion.
And you go after them repeatedly.
Remember the build the wall.
Now we're after Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress.
When you only go after some and then systematically ignore or acquit the other, it's political persecution.
Pure and simple.
Michael Sussman.
Clinton attorney.
He was indicted on making a false statement to the FBI in the context of an FBI investigation.
His false statement when he went to the FBI in the whole context of that Russiagate scandal, which was actually a Russiagate hoax, but whatever.
The Russiagate hoax that was promoted, perpetuated for over three years, initially initiated by one Michael Sussman.
Undeclared, undisclosed, although known to everyone, Clinton campaign lawyer, meeting with the FBI to hand them this mysterious intelligence, opposition research, a document which allegedly showed alleged collusion, which actually never existed.
It was such a bunk file that this individual submitted to the FBI as a regular citizen.
Showing collusion between Russia banks and the Trump campaign, Trump needed to be investigated, and the FBI asked, Hey, Michael Sussman, we know you're the Clinton campaign lawyer, as you have been for years.
Known to us because you were representing the Clinton campaign during the alleged Russian hack into the DNC servers.
Hey, Sussman, are you here now on your own, or are you here for a client?
Oh, Sussman says, I'm on my own.
When he wasn't.
Because he was actually billing the Clinton campaign and actually billed the Clinton campaign for his meeting with the FBI.
Dead to rights.
I was somewhat not encouraged.
I was somewhat surprised that Sussman was even indicted.
He was indicted.
Went to trial in a case in which he was dead to rights.
In writing...
Build the campaign for meeting with the FBI when he told the FBI, I'm not here representing a client, while he gives the FBI a phony dossier to try to get the FBI to spy on Donald Trump based on fabricated, untenable allegations of collusion with Russian banks.
Acquitted in a DC court.
Acquitted.
I mean, it's flabbergasting.
He was tried by a jury of his peers in the most politically literal sense, D.C. being 92, 95-plus percent Democrat Clinton supporters.
Sussman went to trial, and all the evidence was there, and he was acquitted.
And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, one of the jurors made a public statement to the effect of, there's more serious stuff, more serious charges to pursue, more serious criminals to go after.
Like Steve Bannon for failing to respect a congressional subpoena that was arguably improperly issued by an unlawful committee.
And he arguably benefited from executive privilege, which would have exempted him from any obligation to comply with the subpoena.
So, yeah.
Michael Sussman's acquitted because, according to one juror member, as far as I remember, and I may be wrong, but I don't think I am, the jury felt they had more serious crimes and more serious criminals to pursue, and now they're doing it.
Ban it.
Bannon might also be somewhat dead to rights on the factual basis.
He received a congressional subpoena.
He did not respect it.
Contempt of Congress.
But he had some decent legal arguments, decent legal defenses.
One, the committee is not validly formed.
It is an unlawful committee.
And therefore, they cannot issue any lawfully binding subpoenas.
Little known fact, by the way, people, lawyers can issue subpoenas, and they are orders of the court to appear to testify.
You issue subpoenas when you want a witness to come to a trial.
If you bungle the subpoena, like, hypothetically, you forget to...
Include in that subpoena the requisite travel costs, which might be a bus ticket or a cab fare.
If you don't give travel costs, someone can say improper subpoena.
You didn't check off all the boxes in what makes a subpoena legally binding.
I'm not in contempt of anything for not adhering to an unlawfully issued subpoena.
That would be in a civil case.
If you have a typo, if you get a wrong address, if you serve it improperly, say you serve the subpoena, Prior to standard hours of service or after standard hours of service, or you just serve it improperly at the wrong door, under the doorstep if you're not allowed to do that in your jurisdiction.
If you issue what is an improperly served or improperly formed subpoena, there's no contempt, civil or criminal, if you don't adhere to it because it was never lawfully issued in the first place.
One of Bannon's legal defenses This committee, let's see if I can pull up an article on it, this congressional committee was never properly formed.
Oh, I was about to quit, and that would have been the wrong tab to click on.
The argument that Bannon, I think, has in law is that this House committee, January 6th House committee, is unlawfully formed.
Because Oh, we're going to get Poitner.
Let's go to the Poitner Institute.
It's unlawfully formed potentially because its core requirements that shall be fulfilled and not may be fulfilled, but shall be as in a requisite to lawful constitution, requires more members that they have, and therefore it's an unlawful committee, cannot therefore issue any lawfully binding subpoenas.
That would have been one of Bannon's legal defenses.
The other would have been professional reliance, reliance on purported executive privilege, as he understood it, to have been attributed, afforded to him.
There's another legal defense.
Oh, relying on an Office of Legal Counsel memo from a while ago that says Bannon had executive privilege for what the committee was asking.
He would have had those lawful defenses, defenses in law, had the judge not precluded Bannon from raising those defenses in the context of this trial.
Judge says, You can't raise those defenses, I presume, on the basis that they are issues of law, not issues of fact, to be tried by the jury.
So you can't plead those in front of the jury and go to trial.
Go to trial effectively with no defenses because those were the defenses that a Judge Trump appointee has deprived Bannon from raising.
So we are now in the...
General geopolitical legal context of Michael Sussman dead to rights being acquitted by a DC jury because they think they're a bigger fish to fry.
And now we're on to the bigger fish to fry, which is Steve Bannon for defying a congressional subpoena of a potentially unlawfully formed congressional committee who has now been deprived of his effective, meaningful legal defenses proceed to trial.
That's where we're at now.
And it's day one.
And it's...
Jury selection time.
Okay, first things first, I didn't give the standard disclaimers.
No election fornification advice.
No legal advice, no medical advice.
I am a Canadian-Quebec attorney, so I have no expertise in American law.
I'm not even purporting to be able to practice.
I'm learning as I go along, but I'm learning from the best.
Barnes, Robert Gouveia, Joe Nierman, GoodLogic, who's...
Boots on the ground in Washington now.
Nate Brody, legal mindset, legal bites, Emily D. Baker, Nick Ricada, uncivil law.
I learn from the best.
I know, I sometimes don't know what I don't know, but I think I know what I don't know.
I know when to ask the questions.
No legal advice.
So we're all just going to make sense of this together in real time, and I'm going to, I can commentate, and I can interpret, and I can dumb down for myself.
Which I hope is also explaining for other people.
Those things.
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
Rumble has a Rumble rant equivalent.
They take 20%.
So if you want to support, the best place is vivabarneslaw.locals.com, Rumble, and then YouTube.
If I don't get to your Superchats and you're going to feel miffed, rook, shield, grifted, whatever, don't give it.
I don't like people feeling bad.
David, Viva.
You see on Rumble, watch the water, docu-movie.
No, but I'm going to go to it after I screenshot that.
From a friend who is American educated at law, it's called sovereign immunity in states via executive consent, affiliation, or authority.
I also do not endorse any comment that I bring up because I can't vet it in real time.
And sometimes I accidentally bring up comments that I don't intend to bring up.
That being said, Ginger Ninja.
You're really going to forget?
No, I said Ricada.
I said Ricada Law.
Oh, I'm not going to forget Ricada.
In fact, Ricada has taught me, Nick Ricada, Ricada Law, for those of you who don't know, he's taught me not only about the law, but about culture.
I now know things that I would rather not have known involving animation and whatnot.
Did you miss Pat King, Christine?
No, you did not.
I haven't even gotten started yet.
On the menu today.
Well, I did get started.
That was the recap of where we are with Steve Bannon trial.
Today's jury selection.
And I'm going to go through some tweets and updates because Joe Nierman, good logic, who's on the ground, couldn't get in, I don't think, for jury selection.
I don't know that they were letting media in for jury selection.
I'm not sure about it.
But we know how jury selection is going to go.
It's going to go fast and it's going to be wildly stacked.
In a manner that represents the overall political environment of Washington.
It's going to be 100% Democrats, Biden, Clinton supporters.
If not 100%, it's going to be whatever one-twelfth, about 8%.
It'll be 92%, guaranteed 92% Democrat-leaning jury members.
If not 100%.
It will be.
And it's going to be statistically representative.
The real question is going to be, I don't know if the jury members are going to be made public.
And the question is going to be, above and beyond it being politically stacked, what levels of political incest are we going to see in this jury?
I mean, in the Sussman trial, you had jury members who were politically active, actively making donations, politically connected to the people involved in the trial.
What level?
Of legal and political incestuous relations are we going to see in the Steve Bannon trial?
It'll be par for the course.
It will be substantial.
Prediction.
We'll see what happens.
Oh, and Nate Brody.
I forgot Nate Brody, but now he's going to get a special highlight.
Nate the Great Brody.
I met Nate when he was at 800 subscribers.
When he called me out in a humorous and well-intentioned sense on the Nicholas Salmon case, I think I ended up being...
More right than wrong in that.
Nate the Great Brody, who is not just an individual from whom I learned, he's become a very, very good friend, a very good personal friend.
And Eric Hundley, Unstructured, America's Untold Stories with Mark Robert.
Eric Hundley is not a lawyer, but he has also become a friend and someone from whom I learned a great deal.
He's recommended so many books to me that I listen to on audio that have made me smarter and better as a human.
Ginger Ninja.
We all try to forget Rakeda, but like Mildew, he keeps coming back no matter what we do.
Laughing my arse off.
Laughing my arse off.
Where's Church Lady?
Well, isn't that special?
Yeah, so that's it.
So that's where we're at.
The band in there probably won't be much news during the day.
I'm going to be doing my 20 to 25 minute exclusive recap analysis for the Postmillennial.
I don't know when that's going to be available from Postmillennial, but I'm going to shoot that at the end of the day.
And then they're going to publish it exclusively on their platforms.
So stay tuned for that.
And as soon as I have any news, I'll tweet it out.
So that's where it's at with Bannon.
And we'll come back to it as I...
Oh, you know what I could probably do?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let's do this.
I think I can do this.
No, Poitner.
We're going to do this first before we end it.
People, if you find it hard to follow me sometimes, welcome to my world.
The legitimacy of the January 6th committee explained.
You know what's amazing?
Let me just make sure that this is the right article.
Okay.
You know what's amazing?
When the headline begs the question.
No, I'm sorry.
The legitimacy of the January 6th committee explained.
No, the legitimacy of the January 6th committee is in question.
But the headline shuts you up from the get-go.
The legitimacy is there.
Let's just explain it.
Okay.
Let's see how well.
Pointer.
And yes, I know what the Pointer.
Pointer?
Pointer?
Pointer.
It's the Pointer Institute founded by Brian Stetler.
The Pointer Institute.
I know what it is.
It's politically motivated.
Critics.
I'm surprised they said critics and not conspiracy theorists.
Argue that the House Committee investigating Jan 6 is illegitimate.
But it has withstood legal challenges against it.
Hey, you want to read between the lines here, people?
This is where you have to have a neurotic, I won't say paranoid, but critical mind.
Critics argue that the House Committee investigating Jan 6 is illegitimate, but it has withstood legal challenges against it.
Did those legal challenges, we'll find out, question the legitimacy of the committee, or did it adjudicate on issues brought before the committee?
I don't know the answer yet, but that's a question people need to have in their minds.
It has withstood challenges against it.
Those don't necessarily mean challenges questioning its legitimacy.
Those could mean challenges such as, do they have the right or is this subpoena legitimate?
Which raises interesting questions.
But let's just see.
Let's just see what the article has to say.
Critics argue that the House committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021 is illegitimate, amounting to a political hit job by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans, rather than a sober-minded quest to prevent disorder.
anybody Anybody who has watched the first four, five, I don't know how many days we're up to of the January 6th committee hearings, anybody who has watched any portion of that would know that we are not in.
The realm of a sober-minded quest to prevent disorder.
We are in an alcohol-fueled state of inebriation, intoxication, political intoxication, not to prevent disorder, to prevent Trump from ever being able to run again.
It's not sober-minded.
It is politically intoxicated, frat party-level madness.
But yeah, thanks for telling us.
By the way, people, just so you know, it's a sober-minded quest to prevent disorder.
And if you think otherwise, if you think it's a political witch hunt, you're dumb.
You should read Pointer and understand the error in your ways.
Anybody who watched that committee knows that it is...
I was going to say something really bad.
Kabuki.
Oh, my goodness.
Another thing that I might have learned...
I knew of that word from a long time ago.
Kabuki theater.
Kabuki, which can easily be inverted and mean something much, much worse.
Despite the criticism, the committee has withstood legal challenges against it.
We'll see what those challenges were.
And expect, expect, and experts expect the committee will complete its work.
Nice.
What is the legal justification for the committee of this sort?
Okay, so...
Let's just read what they have to say.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention congressional investigations or oversight, but the courts have consistently upheld Congress's right to undertake such activities.
Let's just see if it specifies that it should be strictly limited to legislative purposes.
Let's just see.
Stemming from the text that says Congress possesses all legislative powers.
Is this committee pertaining to legislative powers?
One of the framers of the Constitution, George Mason, said during its drafting that members of Congress are not only legislators, but they possess inquisitorial powers for legislative purposes.
Is what is going on with January 6th legislative or absolutely beyond legislative?
Political and arguably even inquisitory?
Oh, yada, yada, yada.
Okay, so how is the January 6th investigation different from previous ones?
My answer is really isn't.
Oh, that's nice.
Okay.
A lawyer said, okay.
How did it come to be?
Let's just see where the criticism is.
We don't want to go through all of this.
Here, on June 30th, 2021, the House approved creation of the select committee to investigate the Jan 6th attack on the United States Capitol.
Anybody who's read the resolution, were they referred to it?
Multiple times as an act of domestic terrorism, despite all evidence to the contrary and despite the FBI itself confirming scant evidence of any insurrection, the gratuitous and excessive use of the term domestic act of terrorism in the House Resolution Committee could lead you to believe it has nothing to do with legislative purposes and is not sober by any means.
The resolution passed 222, yada, yada, yada.
Under the resolution, the Speaker shall appoint 13 members to the select committee, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
Mm-hmm.
But this is where matters get even more convoluted.
Oh, convoluted or problematic?
This is where matters get even more convoluted.
McCarthy presented Pelosi with a slate of five nominees to the panel.
Pelosi responded that she had no quarrel with three of them.
Oh, the committee...
Pelosi accepts what you shall propose, but it doesn't like the other two.
But this is, you know, legit.
Pelosi responded that she had no quarrel with three of them.
Okay, yada, yada, yada, yada.
But she drew a line at two of McCarthy's picks.
Oh, she drew a line at the bipartisan nature of this committee.
Indiana rep Jim Banks, who was tapped for the panel's ranking member slot, and Ohio rep Jim Jordan.
Why?
These are two decent people.
Politically speaking, Pelosi maintained that Banks and Jordan were too closely tied to Trump to help carry out a credible investigation.
If they're tied to Trump, such that they're excluded, should not others be excluded because they're tied to anti-Trump?
I mean, no, no.
So she's picking the ones that she thinks are going to do the job that she wants them to do on this bipartisan committee.
Okay.
After she rejected the two of them, McCarthy retracted all five of his nominations, including the three Pelosi said she'd accept.
Okay.
Speaker Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party's picks.
Did anybody know about this?
By the way, I'll say good for Pointer for actually bringing this up.
I knew this.
I don't think a lot of people knew the degree to which this is a political sham of a committee.
So arguably, it doesn't even respect its own criteria.
But most people don't know the extent of the politics behind it.
It's actually kind of fascinating.
Oh, but Pelosi had one last move.
She proceeded to name the two Republicans who had voted to establish the committee, Cheney and Kinzinger.
Anybody who's seen their testimony knows.
I know what rhino means in theory, Republicans in name only.
Cheney.
Enough said.
As members, joining seven Democrats.
So, by the way, this produced a committee that was bipartisan.
Can you appreciate the lies?
This produced a committee that was bipartisan.
The speaker, the leader there, Pelosi, appoints the opposition, the bipartisan aspects, doesn't meet the required threshold for a number of committee members, and then Poynter says it's a bipartisan committee.
It's a bipartisan committee wherein one side of the political aspect of it...
Appointed their opposition.
We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
We have appointed our own opposition and now claim to be a bipartisan committee.
But excluded lawmakers who Democrats believed could be tempted to use the panel as a platform to justify the actions of Trump and his allies rather than investigate them.
And how about if the other people are just using this platform to politically weaponize it instead of to investigate how such a thing occurred?
Unbelievable.
Okay.
In a lawsuit, the Republican National Committee argued that there were several problems with the formation of the committee.
First, rather than 13 members, as said on the resolution, the panel ended with only nine.
Second, the panel had no ranking member, as has been called for in the resolution.
And third, Republicans on the committee were not ones recommended by the Republican leader, McCarthy.
On May 1st, U.S. District Court ruled that none of these concerns were enough to stop the committee's work.
As far as I understand, it didn't declare the committee lawful.
And I believe, and I hope I'm not wrong, that that question is still in the air, if not on appeal, at least on final adjudication, I think.
Because being told you can continue with the committee's work does not validate the committee itself.
Let me just see if we go on with this.
And if anybody in the chat knows, let me know.
The ruling was made by Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee.
Kelly wrote that concern over the numerical divergence was not an unreasonable position, but he added that the court must give great weight to the House's own actions, including two occasions in which House Republicans failed to challenge the committee's underlying legitimacy before casting votes related to the committee.
The House has also argued that there's precedent for a committee with incomplete membership.
Okay.
As for the question of the ranking member, that's less of interest to me.
This ruling says they can continue with their work.
I don't believe it confirmed the validity of the committee itself.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Okay, well, whatever.
Let's see here.
Another broad complaint of the lawsuit is that the committee's actions are not advancing a valid legislative purpose.
Okay.
Sometimes I know things that I don't even know that I know.
But yeah.
This argument didn't fly with Kelly either, who noted the committee's purpose was to investigate if legislation is necessary to avert a future agenda.
Can you appreciate what this means?
Trump appointee or not, can you appreciate what this means?
The committee can now be justified to determine if future legislation might be necessary to do something.
There will never be any committee ever formed in the absence of any current legislative purpose for which this argument cannot be made and cannot plausibly be made and argued.
We need to investigate to see if there's anything legislative that comes about this.
That basically applies to anything and everything government could ever be involved in.
Kelly's decision was in line with an earlier decision of the circuit.
Okay, yada, yada, yada.
In December, a three-judge panel ruled against Trump's attempt to block National Archives.
Yada, yada, yada.
Hold on.
Is this the appeals?
Okay, so it was in line with an earlier decision.
Has this one been appealed?
This is in the previous case.
We don't care about that.
Further bolstering the House's case, the Supreme Court denied a motion by Trump to overturn the appeals court decision.
So is there an appeal currently pending of Judge Kelly's decision?
The collective result of these court decisions, Robinald said, is to show that the committee was properly authorized and that Congress has the power to investigate for valid legislative purposes.
Wow.
Way to whitewash.
What we all knew.
We all knew that already.
Let me just see.
Timothy J. Kelly.
Let's just see something here.
I just want to see if this decision is under appeal.
Timothy J. Kelly, Appeal Jan 6 Committee.
chat probably has already answered the question.
May 23rd.
Let's see this.
Select committee effort to obtain...
Okay, so this is a different...
I don't know.
I'll ask someone else who knows.
I won't be able to find that out in real time.
So that's the pointer.
Pointer suggesting that this committee is totally fine despite the fact that it does not meet the shall number because at one point in the past something else similar happened.
It's valid because although it doesn't address a current legislative issue, it's prospective.
It might...
Need to be done in order to determine if in the future some legislation is necessary.
You know, like, what legislation could be necessary in the future that doesn't already exist when 500 people have been charged with crimes?
Existing legislation.
It's preposterous.
So, that's that.
I mean, it has been authorized to continue its investigative work.
And we'll see if, at the end of the day, this committee is held to be lawfully created and legally compliant.
Let me just read some chats to see.
This is not my opinion.
As a lawyer, I am bound to respect the court's decisions.
The judge is a corrupt stooge and really issued a legally asinine opinion.
Well, we all know the question of valid legislative purpose.
It might be necessary in the future.
That will always be true of everything and anything the government can purport to want to do.
Required for future potential legislative purposes, it seems there's enough laws currently existing under current legislation that is currently being massively used against all those accused.
There's enough legislation out there such that 500 people have been in jail or sentenced.
Some spent time in solitary confinement.
But who knows?
They might need more laws.
More laws.
$20 rumble rent.
AOC should demand to know who opened the doors from the inside.
AOC came out in a tweet and said, the cops were opening the doors.
Yeah, people have been saying that from the beginning.
AOC's one-dimensional chess analysis is that the cops inside supported Trump and they were trying to facilitate.
The insurrection by opening the doors to protesters.
Checkers.
That's 1D checkers.
Yep.
People have been saying from the beginning, because there's been video evidence to show it, one defendant was acquitted on this basis.
The cops opened the doors in large part.
Let's say in part.
I won't qualify it.
The cops clearly opened some doors.
And people also clearly broke windows and forced the way in elsewhere.
We know that.
AOC's analysis is that the cops that opened the doors to let the Trump supporters in were part of the insurrection.
They were pro-Trump police officers working at the Capitol who wanted Trump to succeed in the insurrection.
And not potentially.
Maybe.
Let's just take it to like 2D checkers.
Maybe wanted this to happen so they could weaponize all of this against Trump and Trump supporters.
Like, did they think?
In AOC's 1D Checkers game here, did those police officers risk everything and anything of their professional lives thinking this insurrection would succeed and they would be handsomely remunerated and congratulated by the new leader, Trump, who has taken over power because of the loyalty of the cops inside the Capitol Hill, opening the doors to the insurrectionists?
Did they really think that?
Or maybe, just maybe, you know, Pelosi, others decline reinforcement, decline the National Guard, have half as many police officers and security working because of COVID, knowing what's happening because it was all over the media, protesters had gotten their permits.
Oh yeah, no, that's what it is, AOC.
They opened the doors because they thought that would result in an insurrection that would...
Return Trump to the throne and all of those brave, loyal Capitol Police officers who bravely opened the doors, they would be given seats in the Trump regime.
There was something else I wanted to say on that.
Now we'll get to that later.
So let's actually, no, that is what I want to do.
We're going to go and look at Joe Nierman's Twitter feed.
And we're going to see if there's been any interesting news before we move into Pat King, people.
Pat King released.
Pat King has his freedom after five months in jail, denied bail repeatedly for mischief-related charges.
Meanwhile, a convicted predator released from jail after conviction pending his appeal in Canada.
Nothing to see here, folks.
It's just totally par for the course.
Twitter.
I got some notifications.
Let me see here.
Oh, yeah.
Okay, we got that one.
Let's just go to...
How do I do this?
Home.
Search.
Joe Rogan.
Joe Nierman.
Heck my problem, people.
Okay, here we go.
I am following Joe.
And let's see the latest.
Joe says, I'm covering the trial.
And hold on.
Let's just see this.
Ah, Joe.
Hello, Joe!
Who's going to get it?
Who's going to get the reference?
Hello, Joe!
I can never hear Joe without immediately in my mind's eye hearing.
Seeing Ned Flanders shaking mother or grandmother.
Hello, Joe!
Okay, Joe Nierman says, I am covering the ban in trial.
For me, it started with a bang.
Had a fender bender while looking for the parking lot.
Nothing serious, just a minor delay.
Updates.
Okay, and I got a text message from Joe basically saying he couldn't get in for jury selection.
I'm not sure if media could get in, but it's jury selection, so there probably won't be much more of an update than that.
Today, we'll see who's selected on the jury, what is allowed to be disclosed of the jury members, and we'll take it from there.
Oh, Tamara Lich still in jail because, you know, posted a picture.
Roe survived many challenges until Dobbs.
Still a BS ruling.
I may be wrong when I say this, and I don't think I am.
I'm pretty sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg also said Roe v.
Wade was bad judicial logic, or I guess absence of logic.
It was good judicial absence.
It was a bad ruling.
Even Ginsburg recognized that.
Faud, thank you very much.
Kaina X122.
So what's the opinion on the Trump staff members that are now testifying against him?
Legit testimony or backstabbing?
Some of it's just fantastical fabrications.
I mean, the woman there who depicted Trump as this frothing at the mouth, raging, diabolical beast reaching for the wheel.
Of what I presume is an armored vehicle with a barrier between Trump and the driver, reaching for the wheel because he was so angry with his yes-men that they weren't taking him to the Capitol.
I mean, it was like the episode of The Simpsons where Rock Bottom did the investigative piece on Homer Simpson about the gummy de Milo, and they stitched together this whole fabricated version of the interview.
Trump was enraged.
He reached through the window of his armored...
Protective vehicle.
Grabbed the wheel and said, take me to the Capitol.
And his yes-men, who were his yes-men, said no.
Mm-hmm.
I am a...
This is Kendrick Leist, or Leist.
I'll say Leist.
I am a small government constitutionalist.
Seeing the makeup of Republican RNC leadership, I realized I'm the rhino.
I don't know if I understand that politically.
And then we got, every time I hear a specific ad on SiriusXM, I think of you.
Promo code on the ad is...
Duty.
Diarrhea.
Hey, Lois!
Hey, Winston.
Winston's sleeping down there.
Viva Fry supports Justin Trudeau.
I'm not blocking this because I don't like the message.
It's just stupid.
These are spam bots.
And I don't know how they work.
Yesterday, there was a new one for Barnes.
And I've seen the one for Uncivil and the other one for Joe Nierman.
And I don't understand the purpose.
Anyway, here we go.
You see, look at this.
You're spamming.
You're out of here.
I think I've already blocked.
And it's multiple accounts that use my beautiful faces on the avatar.
How dare you use my face to support Justin Trudeau?
Like, who are you going to convince?
In a corruption-free government, this wouldn't be happening.
We spend all this time playing symptom management games, chasing our tails.
They stall us so we can't work on the solutions that'll remove their powers at the source.
Power at the source.
Winning reality.
Can't disagree with that.
But you know what?
Actually, and just to reinforce it, let me just bring one up.
You can't make this S-H-I-T up.
You could, but no one would believe you.
It was a tweet from Herr Trudeau earlier today.
Okay, no, that was earlier.
Here we go.
Here we go.
This is Justin Trudeau lamenting the injustice of political prisoners.
Nelson Mandela was a voice for justice that never faltered.
And his lifelong commitment to peace, equality, and inclusion has inspired people all over the world.
To honor his legacy, I have jailed Tamara Lich, an indigenous Metis woman.
Oh, I'm sorry.
No, he didn't say that.
To honor his legacy, let's continue to carry that work forward and build a better future for everyone.
Hashtag Mandela Day.
This coming from the guy.
Where's my response?
I know I responded.
Why would my response not be right up there on my own Twitter feed?
I know I responded.
We're going, people.
We're going.
This is what happens when someone loses legitimacy to rule because of their own corruption and their own lack of ethics.
Where is my response, people?
How far down are we going to go?
We're going.
We're going.
We're going downtown, people.
We're going downtown.
We're going to do this.
Did I skip it, people?
Sorry, this has now become my stubborn project, whether or not you all want to wade through this.
Okay, I can't see my response.
You son of a gun.
All right, let me just go back.
Let me just go to my profile because I know that I responded.
I know that I responded.
I'm going to get to my response.
Here we go.
There you go.
I responded.
Can't find it.
I'm sure there's no downranking or shadowbanning or whatever.
Whatever would account for the fact that I responded.
My response has 89 retweets, and it's not visible when you go and actually...
Oh, now it's up there.
What the fudge?
Doesn't matter.
And yeah, that's what Justin Trudeau is tweeting today, because he's a man of the people.
He's totally, totally not racist, despite all evidence to the contrary.
He's totally, totally not a misogynist, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Jailing Tamara Lich, a Metis woman, firing...
Jody Wilson-Raybould as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who's an Indigenous woman because she wouldn't follow his corrupt demands, groping a reporter way back in the day and apologizing for it.
He's obviously not a misogynist.
He obviously trusts the science, which is why he compels quarantine of children due to their vaccination status.
He's celebrating the memory of...
Nelson Mandela while imprisoning political prisoners in Canada.
And don't believe me.
Don't believe me.
Here is the story, people.
Pat King.
By the way, Tamara Lich is still in jail.
Apparently her new hearing date is going to be July 23rd from what I've read, but I don't know.
But she's still in jail.
Jailed for two and a half weeks upon her arrest on February 18th.
Finally granted bail with such onerous conditions that it's actually just more like controlled imprisonment.
And then was brought back on a second attempt by the Crown to re-jail her on an alleged non-com.
That wasn't granted.
Brought back a third time for alleged non-com, non-compliance.
Jailed.
Back in jail.
Right to jail.
Undercooked the fish.
Straight to jail.
Right to jail.
Overcooked the chicken.
It's the over-under.
Tamara Lich back in jail because she took a picture with someone that she wasn't supposed to take a picture with.
Pat King's been in jail for five months on mischief-related charges.
People are going to say, there's perjury in there too.
He was in jail on mischief-related charges, non-violent criminal accusations, legally innocent because he hasn't been found guilty yet, unlike the sexual assaulter who was convicted and released from jail pending appeal, unlike that guy.
And again, don't trust me.
Hold on.
Trust but verify people.
Trust but verify people.
Thank you.
Hold on.
Might not have been the best term here.
I think if I throw that word in there, I'll get it.
Here we go.
Swim swam.
Chat, not yet, sir.
Chat, well, I don't care what the guy's name is.
A formerly successful swimmer in the USA who represented candidate Yada Yada has been granted bail pending appeal of a 54-month prison sentence for that.
Convicted after a trial, he's granted bail pending his appeal.
Tamara Lich, in jail.
Pat King, just got out of jail.
But wait until you hear the terms on which he was released from prison.
This guy.
was convicted of among the most heinous crimes known to people.
Tamara Lich is in jail now for allegedly violating her bail terms, which consisted of a photograph with an individual and whispering something in his ear at a gala where she had just won an award.
Pat King denied bail for five months.
Oh, let's just see what the terms of his bail are, actually.
This is why we're here.
Fine.
Term.
A risk to the public safety if the applicant is granted interim release pending the determination of his appeal is low.
Oh, my.
The Crown concedes this point, she wrote.
That's the judge.
He is currently in a stable, committed, long-term relationship.
Oh, unlike Tamara Lich, who's a freaking grandmother.
With a daughter, with a job, with non-violent mischief charges.
We see the two-tiered system.
Okay.
It's just...
It's...
Someone responded to a tweet of mine.
You seem angry at someone sipping tea.
Like anybody thinks.
I mean, I don't even know who that appealed to.
I thought it was a joke until I looked at the profile of the person.
Let's not confuse anger.
With well-justified political outrage.
Yeah, I'm outraged.
I am politically outraged and proud of it.
Oh my goodness.
Oh, that's going on a shirt.
Politically outraged and proud.
Now I need, if my merch dude is listening, pressed.
Let's do this.
Politically outraged and proud.
All right, let's talk about it.
Pat King has been in jail for five months for mischief-related charges.
Denied bail.
Yeah, he went through lawyers.
He went through lawyers, for anybody who's using that as an excuse, probably because lawyers are being targeted now for harassment, ethics complaints, and cancellation for representing some of these people.
Keith Wilson?
The lawyer for Tamar Litch has magically seen ethics complaint filed against him by other lawyers out of Ottawa.
No coincidence.
I see my brother in the backdrop, so I'm going to bring him in in a few seconds right after I finish ranting.
So Pat King's been in jail for a long time, and he's been going through lawyers.
I might suggest he might be a difficult client.
I don't know him personally at all.
He might be a difficult client.
It also might be a difficult environment for lawyers to operate in.
People might just not want to take these cases because they know what might happen in terms of harassment, cancellation, brigading, baseless ethics complaints, because it's happening.
Pat King, an organizer for the Freedom Convert that paralyzed downtown Ottawa for three weeks, paralyzed people.
Go watch my streams.
It paralyzed maybe...
The length of Wellington and four streets down, which is, and by the way, paralyzed, but nonetheless had lanes open for any emergency vehicle that wanted to blast through at 70 kilometers an hour, as you saw live when I was down there.
Wait until you see this.
The decision was delivered in an Ottawa courtroom Monday by Superior Court.
I don't want to look like I'm naming judges.
The proceedings were covered by a publication ban.
King nodded as the judge's reasons were handed down, wearing a plaid shirt and his hair in a long braid.
By the way, the reasons of the judgment also publication ban.
In the courtroom, supporters wearing t-shirts that said Free Pat King brought tissues to their eyes as the judge delivered her decision.
London Weinstein said King will have to leave Ottawa in 24 hours to return to Alberta, where he will be required to live with a surity.
He has been freed.
So he can be put under house arrest, basically.
Conditions of King's bail include a ban on social media and to refrain from taking part in activities related to the convoy.
The ban on social media I disagree with.
This part I can understand.
King is forbidden from contacting other convoy organizers, including Chris Barr, whatever, names, names, names, unless in the presence of counsel.
But even then, as Tamara Lich has learned, even then, right to jail.
The day after...
Okay, so...
The day after the April, hearing the Crown announced it was charging King with three counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.
The latest...
So that is...
Here we go.
And the previous charges included mischief, intimidation, obstructing police, and disobeying a court order.
That...
Five months in jail, right to jail, sexually assault a woman in an apartment building, get convicted and sentenced.
He's in a long-term relationship.
He'll be fine.
He's totally trustworthy.
So, Pat King's out.
And boy, howdy.
How?
All right, let me bring my brother in, people.
I said my brother was coming.
Have we got...
Okay, I'm not blocking it yet until I see that this is actual spam.
And now I see it's actual spam.
All right, here you go.
Congratulations.
Get my boost.
I love it.
Is this supposed to be spam to help Trudeau or to make him look like the tyrant that he is?
What did I just do?
New comments.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
It's spam.
Okay.
Oh, please, slow-mo.
Did I not put on slow-mo?
Going into slow-mo, people.
Put your thingy things on hold.
You're going to lose your message in five, four, three.
We have entered slow mode.
We have entered the slow modes.
The modes of the slows.
I'm being interviewed on Friday regarding what's happening in EMS.
The night...
Okay.
I'll share with you and Dan when it is posted online.
Check, please.
Thank you.
And why don't you have...
I don't...
This is a non-jud...
That's John Candy from...
I don't remember.
Who's Harry Crum?
I don't know who they are, so I'll look.
I don't mean that in any way.
I don't know.
I'm not familiar with their content.
Fenderbender.
Tell Joe he should have left his wife.
Nope.
I do not interfere with other people's marriages.
Why can't Bannon use the argument that the committee is unlawful because they ignored the minority leaders' members?
Fouad, we addressed it.
It seems that a judge says it's compelling enough.
They can continue with their work.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
This.
Last one.
Viva Fauci says he will retire.
Saw that.
Poudy.
Poudy.
Poudy can get a pardon.
He'll never be able to walk the streets again.
There can be no greater curse than not being able to walk among your brethren.
Speaking of brethren.
Dan.
Speaking of brethren.
There you are.
How's it going?
Good.
Now, chat.
Tell me if my brother's audio is much louder than mine and if it is.
Mic check one second.
Okay.
Yeah.
Sorry about that.
Can you hear me?
How's the mic?
Okay, good.
People in the chat, let me know.
Should I take out one earbud?
Is that better?
No, no, that's good.
It was just a question of the audio.
That avatar was not from Uncle Buck.
I can tell you that.
That avatar of John Candy, he's dressed up like a policeman with glasses.
I know everything of Uncle Buck.
Dan, so what's going on?
Well, you know, every time I hear you, you know, it's like...
Every case you bring that's coming out of Canada, I'm like, that's the most important issue we've got to fight now.
But it just keeps going on and on.
So Tamara Leach, when I hear she's still in jail, I'm like, that's what we all got to line up and defend.
And then I hear kids still can't go to Western without a double vax.
I'm like, that's a triple vax.
That's what we've got to fight for.
Then I hear the law society is now blocking lawyers from going to the law library without a vaccine.
I'm like, that's what I've got to fight for.
And Dan, what's Dad saying to both of us?
Don't fall in love with the merchandise, he says.
That's right.
Don't get too engrossed in what you think is the most important thing on earth.
Dad, too late.
Thanks, Paul.
So we have Pat King, Tamara Lich.
What is this?
Yeah, well, the word on the street, and I posted this on my, I'm doing, I see it has my lion advocacy.
I can handle now automatically because I have my advocacy Twitter channel, so that's kind of cool.
Follow me on Twitter if you guys are interested.
But the Tamara Leach thing was concerning because it's really, I think you addressed it, it's totally unprecedented, right?
I'm not a criminal expert, but when I talk to criminal lawyers on both sides of the bench, like Crown lawyers and criminal lawyers, they all admit that this is very unusual.
And when I hear that coming from experts, okay, that's when I'm like, the alarm bells are going off.
Like, what's, so why aren't you speaking up about this?
If it's very unusual, and I'm talking like senior guys on, you know, senior lawyers.
I'm like, why can't we just, we're all on the same page here where there's no conflict of interest.
We all want democracy.
Trudeau wants democracy.
We all want democracy.
Keeping someone in jail, bro, without a hearing.
Did you just say Trudeau wants democracy?
That was a quote from his Twitter account, or one of his accounts.
We all want the same thing.
So the question is, is keeping someone in jail, is that normal?
Like, regardless of what she did.
And every, there's not, well, I shouldn't say every lawyer.
Almost every lawyer is like, it's not, something's a bit off.
It's unprecedented is what they say.
I think we've, we don't, we are, this is just anecdotal, but yes, I think we've spoken to the same people and then our own people who have been doing bail hearings for violent criminals.
For decades.
And they say they've never seen it before.
The obvious response is going to be, it's unprecedented.
That's why it's unprecedented.
Well, that's right.
And it goes back to what happened in Ottawa.
Like, was that a terrorist revolution that they managed to keep everyone safe from?
And that's kind of the jury is still out on that.
Right now we're hearing in Ottawa, we're hearing these reports from people on the streets.
Everyone's saying they felt unsafe.
It was very dangerous.
I didn't see that many criminal charges from actual, you know, protesters, but there were some, but like the actual acts of violence against Ottawa residents, I haven't seen that so much, but maybe more is going to come up.
We'll wait and see.
But that's the underlying narrative is that there has been this, they'll be kept in jail now without a hearing, without a full hearing, because it was such a dangerous situation that that's why we're keeping everyone safe.
And it's like I say.
All you have to do, don't make a judgment.
Speak to lawyers.
Speak to as many lawyers as you can about this that have experience and say, are they concerned?
And hear what they say.
Just listen.
That's all I ask people to do.
People need to appreciate it.
It's not a question of finding one source and relying on it.
It's a question of getting as many sources as you can, aggregating them, and then coming to your own conclusion.
When you speak to 10, 12 lawyers and all but one, or they all say it, you might say they're all biased.
They're all a bunch of...
Extremist truckers supporting whatever.
Or you might say something unprecedented is in fact going on here.
And what that is, is massive prosecutorial overreach for political purposes.
And I think what people aren't aware of is there's a bit of an economic side.
Well, the economic side, it's nice people do know about it.
But the cost of each of these individuals defending themselves from these charges, it starts to add up, okay?
And unlike the government, a lot of these folks, they don't have printing press.
They can't just print money like the government can.
So you're seeing now money that's being allocated by the government, the federal government, provincial government sometimes, but mostly on these federal charges, criminal code charges.
A lot of these funds, the army that they're throwing against these folks, some of them will maybe plead guilty to very small charges or they'll have the charges dropped.
The whole process is designed to take a financial hit on these folks.
And you're seeing the financial hit across the board.
You see the financial hit, not just on the protesters, but even people who are, call them vaccine or vaccine therapy hesitant.
They're being whacked with financial repercussions unprecedented, right?
So someone coming across the border who doesn't do their iVCAN app, as you've seen, like, you know, they're just putting the full force of whatever they can, see what sticks.
And ultimately, probably not much of it will, but the whole process is stressful.
People have to spend money to defend sometimes.
So it's a huge thing.
And the lawyers, you know, we've got to kind of come together.
And there's no unanimity.
There's always going to be a diversity of voices on these things.
But it's important that people come together and discuss these things without the name calling.
Like, I'm not anti-vax.
I'm not pro-vax.
I'm not, you know, I'm just my doctor guy.
Dan, it's an interesting thing seeing people transition.
You might be where I might have been six months ago where I was thinking at the time, we just have to have an honest discussion as though Trudeau.
Or Trudeau supporters want to have an honest discussion.
I don't draw the line at left versus right.
I've noticed some people who support other, even conservative leaders, the second you criticize them, they don't want to have the discussion.
They resort to the same type of tactics.
But the problem is this is a struggle to retain power and there's too much at stake for the current political parties who are at power to play fair or to play honest.
And the only thing I can say is sensitize, inform, wake up, to use the cliche, as many people as you can, and then it has to come from the bottom up, then the top down.
But what are you working on these days?
Well, I'll stick to just the advocacy side.
The advocacy side of things, there's a lot of, what do you call it?
Gosh, you name it.
So the latest was the Law Society.
Which has banned unvaccinated lawyers from the law library.
I'm sorry, stop.
Which law society in which province?
Law Society of Ontario.
Have banned unvaccinated lawyers from entering the law library.
Look, and again, I'm not, you know, if there's an Ebola, at the height of some pandemics, it might make sense to have a short-term limit on who could, you know.
I don't question the legitimacy of having general restrictions at some points based on certain agreed upon, you know, have a discussion about it.
But this restriction now, we're in July, and I've spoken to top public health officials about this, doctors, physicians, everybody who will talk to me without calling me a name.
Like I say, I'm just willing to listen to anybody.
Everyone who I've spoken to, they're like, yeah, a mandate or excluding access to anything at this point makes no sense.
I'm like, so travel restrictions?
They're like, yeah, no senior member of NACI ever.
Was on board with the vaccine.
Dan, not that I don't trust my own brother.
Dan, is this it?
Law Society of Ontario?
Yeah, scroll down.
Because it says...
September 13, anyone entering Law Society...
No, read the full corporate statement.
There you go.
But it said it right there.
No, it was at the top.
Yeah, they're updated on May 24th.
Anyhow, look.
I don't mean to criticize my Law Society.
Great.
They're the custodians of justice and fairness and reasonableness, and I fully trust that they will do the right thing once they are apprised of all the information that is available out there to review.
On the subject of vaccine safety and efficacy, I'm not here to contradict any public health official.
This is my disclaimer.
You won't criticize them.
I will.
The Law Society's vaccine policy remains in place.
anyone entering Law Society premises at 130 Queen Street West or 393 or 375 University Avenue, including those attending the Great Library, scheduled visitors and third-party service providers are required to follow the Law Society's vaccine policy and show their Canadian vaccine receipt, proving that they have received a full series of COVID-19 vaccine By the way, Dan, I'm going to lose it for 30 seconds.
But of the lawyers who need to use the library, it's going to be smaller firms.
It's going to be...
Sole practitioners.
It's going to be, as far as the practice of law goes, it's not going to affect the big firms who have their own libraries, who have access to CanLaw and all these things.
It's going to affect the small lawyer, the independent, the sole practitioner, the one who might be most likely to represent the likes of a Pat King.
So in response to that, a lot of material are available online, and you can still access.
They do accommodate.
So they will accommodate if you call in and just need some info.
There's even the Toronto...
Lawyers Association has resources.
You do have to pay $110 a year.
But there are ways to get into the library virtually.
But there's nothing like a physical presence.
Once you go into that building, you appreciate the law, the history.
You see the physical, the books.
I've looked at books from, golly, what was it, 18?
Ontario Reports going back decades, hundreds of years.
So it's just beautiful to see that.
And then to deprive...
You know, and for me to be part of this system now that is depriving people of that, you know, that really a right for all Ontarians and Canadians, and maybe a privilege to the lawyers.
But to be part of it, like, I cannot, like, when I saw that, it was like my Darth Vader moment, you know, like Luke Skywalker, like, my own law society?
No!
And let me just take it back to what I've been saying for months now also, statistically in Canada.
Who's least likely to be vaccinated?
Latino Canadians, Black Canadians, Indigenous Canadians?
What the Law Society of Ontario is basically also saying, Black Canadians, Black Canadian lawyers, Latina Canadian lawyers, Indigenous Canadian lawyers, sorry.
Statistically speaking, you're not welcome here.
Interesting on that point was that there was a publication, I put on my Twitter handle, if you scroll through it, there was a publication by the federal government talking about how to sell the vaccine to those hesitant communities.
And I would have been more skeptical had there not been a federal publication on this very topic, where they specifically address the issue of hesitancy within certain communities.
They talk about the indigenous community, the black community.
That was a federal publication talking about which communities are most likely to be hesitant or not vaccinated.
I'm like...
I don't know if that still holds today, like where people are holding in their vaccine status.
I don't know.
I haven't seen data on which communities are most reluctant to get vaccinated at this point.
But this is important to discuss this.
Right now, it's just left to the benches.
I don't know what's going on in there.
It's totally not.
I say put it out to the 50s.
Let's have the lawyers have a say.
A lot of the lawyers are like me, like, I don't want to deal with, I want to just keep focused on what I'm, you know?
But we have to now get a bit more involved with the lawyers and say, well, okay, so that's why I'm going to be bringing a motion at the next annual general meeting, you know, a motion to have these things discussed in the open.
You know, it's important that we all flesh this out.
I don't think a supermajority, a majority, or a squeeze-out majority would approve of excluding unvaccinated.
Individuals at this point in the pandemic.
I just don't see it with the information that's available.
I would be...
Look, in my mind, anybody who says I would exclude an unvaccinated person from anything is a bigot, in my mind.
It's not that they're not entitled to their opinion.
I would almost say it doesn't even matter if you say, we don't want those members in our club.
But I would not disregard the opinion.
And by the way, if the majority of the lawyers in Ontario said, yeah, we want to exclude the unvaccinated.
I would find another province to work in.
At that point, so this is where it comes to majority, supermajority, or squeeze-up majority.
So are we dealing with 51%, 66%, or 90%?
If it was 90%, if really 90% were okay with it, I'd have, you know, I'd probably find somewhere else to live, to be honest.
I couldn't be part of it with the available information out there today.
So to the point, when it came down for me personally to deciding whether to accept unvaccinated during the height.
of the pandemic, whether to accept unvaccinated clients in my physical presence, okay?
What I did was I asked a senior infectious disease expert at Toronto Public Health, one on one.
I said, if I'm vaccinated, if I'm fully vaccinated, I think one or two at the time, wearing a mask, KN95 or N95 or a good mask, not a piece of cloth, do I have to be worried about catching COVID from someone who's asymptomatic?
Sitting six feet, three feet, whatever, away from me in a well-ventilated space.
Do I have to be worried about it in a, I don't know, half an hour consult?
Simple answer, no.
And I'm like, okay, so why am I making somebody who has whatever chance it is of injury?
There is an injury rate from the vaccine.
I don't want to talk about it because I don't want to demonetize you.
There is, and I'm getting information on that, more stories, and it's, you know.
Hold on, stop.
What we can do is just, quote, Dr. Kieran Moore from Ontario.
One in 5,000.
A small risk of myocarditis.
One in 5,000 of young, healthy people.
So we don't need to go into the rest, but there's a small risk.
One in 5,000.
Just slightly under your chances of winning Powerball.
The reality is I don't know what risk I'm okay with imposing on others because something's not working 100% for myself.
You know what I mean?
What risk is acceptable to impose on the public?
Because this is the simple quantum metrics that I don't have seen enough discussion or research on.
But anyhow, so the point is, at this point in the pandemic, to exclude people from the Great Library, which is such a valuable resource, for me it was like, literally being in there, it's a spiritual experience because it's more than just books.
It's the whole window into how this country was constituted, how the democracy works.
I can't even.
I'm done.
I can't.
I was going to say, let me see here.
There was a chat from Britt Cormier, which I can't find.
Where is it?
It's an orange chat.
And Britt, I can't see it.
Britt Cormier says, someone feeling unsafe should not be criminal for others.
We have no obligation to make people feel safe.
Quote.
However, the media that frames things as dangerous or unsafe for clicks and views should be criminal.
Well, again, all this rhetoric about criminalizing, I mean, that's where we're at.
Like, what...
At the end of the day, all this talk about, you know, the criminality of things.
If the Crimes Against Humanity Act is the legislation, the federal legislation, like people are so gung-ho on using these legal terms.
You know, at the end of the day, I don't know.
I think that's more of a, it depends what people know, what data comes out, who's been affected by these.
What's becoming really oppressive economic injuries to Canadian, to many Canadians, like the depriving of people of employment insurance.