All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:35:47
Bannon Trial 2; Another Hoax Racist Claim; Twitter v. Musk to Trial! SADS & MORE! Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Parents who don't want to wear a mask indoors in school, are there any other options for them?
For the fall, there are some options.
They can go to our school that's online.
They can opt not to return to the regular school, but to go to the school where they don't have to go to school at all other than...
What about the summer school?
What if they were already enrolled in the summer school and now they get this mask mandate and they're not comfortable with wearing a mask?
They really should wear the mask.
But if they're not comfortable, what should they do?
They should just make it known that they don't feel comfortable and at that point just not return.
Parents who don't want to wear a mask indoors in school.
Listen to the way she says.
They really should wear the mask.
Like, tyranny a la Lewis Carroll.
They do it with the comfort of their own conscience.
Are there any other options for them?
Listen to this.
For the fall, there are some options.
Here are your options.
Compromised education.
Online.
They can opt not to return to the regular school, but to go to a school where they don't have to go to school at all other than via Zoom.
And that's the easiest way for folks who don't want to go to school.
What about the summer school?
What if they were already enrolled in the summer school and now they get this mask mandate and they're not comfortable with wearing a mask?
They really should wear the mask.
Can you imagine the audacity of someone You really should wear the mask.
I'm not adhering to anything that might be considered right-wing conspiracy theory.
Let me just straighten my camera.
I'm not promoting any right-wing conspiracy theories about lack of CO2 intake and all this.
I'm not getting into that.
I'll stick to basic confirmed fact.
In Quebec, my homeland, They recalled tens of thousands of masks because they were potentially toxic.
Potentially toxic masks which contained graphene.
Oh, but they resolved the problem.
They resolved that problem.
So now when they tell you to wear the mask, you really should just wear the mask.
Just shut up and do it because there will never be another problem, potential problem again.
And for anybody who doesn't know this, toxic masks, Quebec.
It's like there's a curse that comes with knowledge.
Or experience, I should say.
Here.
Listen to this, people.
Potentially toxic masks distributed in schools and you really should wear the mask.
Potentially toxic masks.
You really should wear them because I'm a fascist dictator telling you what to put over your face because of my own irrational fears or because it makes me feel virtuous.
Potentially toxic masks distributed in schools and daycares in Quebec.
March 26, 2021, the gray and blue SNN200642 masks should no longer be used, warn Quebec.
How did I come across this story?
Someone who works in the education system.
Stopped me on the street sobbing on my shoulder because this individual had been wearing one of these potentially toxic blue masks for four months and noticed it felt like this person had cat hair in the back of their throat.
And now they were worried about long-term consequences.
The ultimate irony of that relationship is what it devolved into when I took positions criticizing certain things that this individual...
Thought could not be criticized.
So one day an ally, the next day an enemy.
One model of the mask distributed to Quebec schools and daycares may be dangerous for the lungs.
Not dangerous for the human, by the way.
Just don't worry.
You're fine.
Your lungs might just be wrecked.
As they could contain a potentially toxic material, according to a directive sent out by the provincial government Friday.
Let's just see.
How many?
I forgot how many schools.
Here we go.
Back in December.
Quebec government revealed that masks had been distributing for months to more than 15,000 daycares across the province, did not meet safety standards, and daycare staff were ordered to stop using them.
You really should wear the masks.
And that's for those that are potentially toxic.
As if, who could have ever thought that there might be something fundamentally unnatural about putting something over your mouth all day?
For eight hours a day.
And that's when they're just potentially toxic.
Even when they're not potentially toxic, but not necessarily used properly, overused, reused, not used properly.
There are other issues.
Mold developing in them.
If you reuse a wet mask, as most kids do, because kids are idiots.
If anybody who's had a kid knows that kids are idiots, it's part of growing up.
You're born an idiot.
And you grow into an adult.
And the adults that are idiots are typically children who have never grown up.
But that's when they're not used, when they're not potentially toxic, even when they're used properly.
Potential mold, potential other issues, potential just, you know, touching your face.
You really should wear a mask.
You know what I, my response to that, I think she's the director of San Francisco schools or something along those lines.
If you are scared of a child or a student without a mask, you go home.
And you stay there.
Lockdowns don't need to apply to everybody if they work for the person who stays home.
You're scared?
You think you need a lockdown?
Go lockdown and leave everyone else alone.
If you're locked down in your house, it doesn't matter that I'm out on the streets.
Everyone thinks that a certain procedure works.
If it works, you don't need everybody else to do it.
That's not how things work.
That's not how, when things work, how they work.
Just the...
The insidious.
You really should wear.
I know what's best for you.
And if you don't want to, you can stay home.
We'll find separate ways.
We'll find separate.
We'll accommodate you.
But you're not welcome here.
Because I think you need to do something absolutely irrational to satiate my absolutely irrational fears.
Yep.
With freedom like that, who needs tyranny?
People.
Another big day.
So much happens in any given day.
It's impossible to keep up with it.
And everybody out there, you guys watching, everyone has their own sphere of what they find to be relevant or important.
And everyone, things are happening in everyone's sphere of importance to them.
And it's impossible to keep up.
But there's big stuff happening today.
Okay, so Bannon, day two of the trial.
And it was interesting.
We're going to get into it, and then I'm going to do my 20 to 25-minute exclusive analysis for the Postmillennial, so stay tuned for that.
Interesting day.
A day that highlights what litigation and what court is all about.
Hurry up and wait.
Get to court, hurry up and wait, so we can argue over procedural issues that at one point risked delaying the trial, but now it seems that the trial is fully underway and going to end.
Probably sooner than later.
Okay, so banning.
Another case of SADS.
Once upon a time, when otherwise healthy individuals, young, healthy individuals, suddenly drop dead, the authorities would look for an explanation.
And now they're looking to silence anybody looking for an explanation.
A prominent doctor out of Toronto suddenly passes while running.
An individual who...
Healthy, marathon runner, working in medicine in Canada.
And as I found out, you know, had at least certain tweets in the past advocating certain procedures.
Young, healthy, marathon running individual suddenly passes while running.
And you can't ask questions.
You can't ask questions, even if those questions, depending on the answers, could actually save lives.
You can't ask the questions anymore because it's politically incorrect.
When someone passes away and then someone asks the question as to whether or not it might have been related to a certain procedure, everyone's like, that's crude, crass, and how dare you try to weaponize their death?
When someone who is a staunch critic of COVID policies dies of COVID, holy crap, the rules all of a sudden don't apply then.
Let me rephrase.
A new set of rules applies.
Weaponize it.
Shame them.
Use it as a lesson for the public.
This is what's going to happen to you, you extremist right-wing, selfish bastard that doesn't want to submit to certain procedures.
If you die from the Rona, oh, we're going to mock your death until the cows come home.
That's a mixed metaphor.
We're going to get into that because there's actually more to it.
Another alleged...
Racist hate hoax.
Nobody learns from the past, people.
It's like Nick Sandman never occurred.
It's like maybe you chill out for a second before retweeting outrage at...
It's not Rosita.
It is Rosita.
Rosita, the Sesame Street character snubbing two children just because they're black.
That's how institutionalized racism is in America.
Rosita.
A Sesame Street character in a fuzzy costume deliberately snubs two black children because they're black.
And someone posts an eight-second clip on the interwebs with a little caption, and people go nuts and don't stop for three seconds to think, I know there's racist people out there, but that's typically not what...
A racist person would do.
I mean, first of all, a racist person probably would not be dressing up as Rosita in the first place and then going to a parade and snubbing two children because they're black.
We'll get there.
And then there's some other stuff.
But you know what?
No, we're not going to get there.
We're going to start there, people.
Oh, hold up, hold up.
Sorry.
We're going to start there after standard disclaimers.
No legal advice.
No medical advice.
No election fortification advice, people.
We have moved off the fortification.
We've gone from building a fort to penetrating the fort.
It is fornification.
No election fornification advice.
Oh yeah, and then we're going to get into a hit piece.
I don't even know if it's a hit piece.
I made Newsweek.
In a meaningful sense.
An entire article about the ban in trial and a right-wing Canadian YouTuber legal analyst.
And if Newsweek just ran a hit piece on Joe Rogan and Tim Pool, well, my goodness, I'm in good company.
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
If you do not like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
They have Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
So better for the platform, better for the creator.
I will also not be able to bring up all Super Chats.
So if you're going to feel like I have stolen your $5 because I didn't bring up your chat and read it like this.
Viva and Barnes, the only two lawyers I respect.
I'm going to read your typo.
Read out your typo, Chef Nick.
If you're going to be miffed if I don't do that, do not give the super chat.
I do not like people looking at me and saying, he's a grifter, he's a shill, he just wants the super chats and then he doesn't read them.
I do my best.
But if you're going to feel regret, if I don't bring up your super chat, don't bring it up.
Don't bring it up.
Don't give it.
Please.
The best way to support the channel for free, share.
Share and word of mouth.
If you want to support us, Rumble, Locals, vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
And one more while we're at it.
I can't ask questions?
Why not?
Ooh, I see what you did there, Pasha Moyer.
It's almost like McLean.
It's like, you always answer a question with a question.
Do I?
Movie?
Who's going to get the movie real quick before I bring it up?
You always answer a question with a question.
Do I?
That's our first movie reference of the day.
Hold on.
Five, four, three, two.
Am I too hyper?
Is it...
It's diehard.
Am I more hyper than normal today?
It can't be the caffeine because I haven't had anything...
I had cold brew this afternoon.
Yeah, I had cold brew instead of Red Bull because I accidentally got the big cans of Red Bull and 160 calories is too much calories.
And then I have to...
Alright, let's go to the racist Rosita.
It's so egregious on its face.
I watch this video and I say there's a lot of things going on in this video but there's a lot of things not going on in this video.
Look at this.
Here we go, people.
Here we go.
Look at this.
First of all, let's just put it on pause.
Put it on pause.
Nine seconds.
Nine seconds to...
You know, it's a character, so I don't think we're doxing anybody or ruining their life, but nine seconds for us to identify how bad racism has gotten in the United States.
Rosita from Sesame Street snubbing two black children.
This is...
Leslie Mack, Baby Paige, and her cute little friends went to Sesame Place this weekend to celebrate Paige's fourth birthday.
And this is how #SesamePlace treated these beautiful black children.
I'm hot.
I think that means, in context, angry.
I think.
Look at this.
Now, I'll tell you one thing.
Those kids are the cutest kids I've ever seen, but tied right up there with...
Kids are...
You can't even say that.
Kids are cute.
Those kids are beautiful.
Beautiful, cute.
And now, in fairness, they do look pretty disappointed.
They do look...
I'm going to turn the volume down a little bit.
Sorry about that.
They do look pretty disappointed, and Rosita seems to snub them.
Waze.
No, no.
And no to you.
No.
And look at...
Okay.
Look, I can see the face of disappointment in a child.
Look right there.
Oh, no, no.
It was right.
If I'm pulling a Simpsons quote, that's the moment where her heart breaks.
She doesn't know why it happened.
And so help me goodness if someone told her it happened because Rosita was snubbing her because she's black.
That's another form of being unfair to a child.
So that's the clip.
That was the caption.
What did I just do here?
What the heck did I just do?
And then you go to the comments.
What the hell?
Let me see here.
Okay, well, let's just see.
They looked so upset, WTF.
They were so sad.
Are you kidding me?
That just broke my heart.
But it gets worse elsewhere.
There was an article.
Because Sesame Street immediately has to come out.
And issue an apology to this accusation, which we're going to see in about five seconds.
Absolutely baseless, borderline fabricated.
And I don't like to argue intentions because it's irrelevant, whether it was done deliberately or not.
To take a nine-second clip and show only that nine seconds and nothing of what's going on in the background in order to portray it as egregious racism to support narratives.
It's negligent at best and malicious at worst.
But hold up.
You just got to read what happens as a result of this.
Sesame Place apologizes for Rosita.
Washington Compost.
Sorry, people.
I had to do it.
This was the Instagram post.
I don't know who the person's Instagram post is.
I'm going to keep posting this.
We're not seeing the same thing.
You know what?
I'll have to read it from here.
I'm going to keep posting this because this made me hot.
So I guess it's the same person given the language being used.
We were on our way out of Sesame Place and the kids wanted to stop to see the characters.
This disgusting person blatantly told our kids no, then proceeded to hug the little white girl next to us.
Then when I went to complain about it, they looking at me like I'm crazy.
I asked the lady who the character was, and I wanted to see a supervisor, and she told me she didn't know.
I will never step foot in a Sesame Place ever again, and please feel free to repost this.
Actually, run me my money back.
Hold on.
Actually, run me my money back.
So mad I stopped the video, but it got me so mad when he blatantly told them no.
Said no to my kids and then went to hug little white kids because that's what's going on here.
And then you got to see what Sesame Street has to say.
Look at this.
Sesame Street, this is one way of answering it.
Sesame Place, Philadelphia.
Our brand, our park, and our employees stand for inclusivity and equality in all forms.
That is what Sesame Place is all about and we do not tolerate...
Any behaviors in our parks that are contrary to that commitment.
We also are and have always been committed to making sure every family and every child has the best place possible.
I don't read too well, everybody.
Best experience at our parks.
And we are incredibly disappointed when that does not happen.
Regarding this incident yesterday, the costumes our performers wear sometimes make it difficult to see at lower levels.
And sometimes our performers miss hug requests from guests.
The character portraying the Rosita character has confirmed that the no hand gesture seen several times in the video was not directed to any specific person.
Rather, it was a response to multiple requests from someone in the crowd who asked Rosita to hold their child for a photo, which is not permitted.
The Rosita performer did not intentionally ignore the girls and is devastated about the misunderstanding.
We spoke to the family and extended our apologies and invited them back for a special meet and greet opportunity with our characters.
This is like the squeaky wheel getting the oil.
We apologize to these guests for not delivering the experience they expected and we commit to do our best to earn.
You know what, by the way?
I hate Sesame Street.
This apology is in and of itself a problem.
You know what their apology could have been?
Then when I went to complain about it, they looked at me like I'm crazy.
My response might have been, you're crazy.
You're crazy and maybe this was a ploy.
To get exactly what you seem to have gotten out of the situation?
You're crazy.
You're crazy because you saw something that wasn't there.
You then weaponized it on social media, seemingly for the purposes of getting Rosita, the racist character playing Rosita, canceled from Sesame Street or Sesame Place, whatever the hell that place is.
And then at the end of the day, you got what you wanted.
So maybe you're not so crazy.
I hate Sesame Street.
I think Sesame Street is actually, at this stage of the world and the history of time, the most disgusting propagandist entity out there using their talking puppets to push medical procedures on children.
I think Sesame Street is not getting what it deserves.
But baseless accusations of the racist Rosita is not what it deserves.
And then the woman, she got what she wanted.
But now why do I say that the woman is objectively, I won't say crazy.
That was her term.
I wouldn't use that term.
I would say malicious fabricator of hoax, racist incidents.
Why do I say that?
Well, David Anber, the Canadian lawyer whom I'm good friends with, he posted the tweet and he said...
Every person on the planet has been snubbed, ignored, otherwise aggrieved in some way by somebody many times in their life.
It may be an accident or due to rudeness, but it happens to everybody.
Taking an isolated example and using it to claim racism is gross, pervasive, but gross.
Oh, but by the way...
Hold on.
Too loud.
That's too loud.
Look at racist Rosita here.
This is same parade.
It looks like moments earlier or moments later.
Just went audio.
Look at that racist Rosita.
So there's your incontrovertible evidence, whoever the OP was.
Rosita might not be the racist, and someone going around fabricating alleged hoax racist incidents to perpetuate whatever.
If you walk around, it's the old expression, if you walk around and by noon you've met one jerk, you met the jerk.
If you walk around and by noon everyone around you is a jerk, you're the jerk.
I'm keeping it child-friendly.
So that is another fabricated story, and one that people on social media...
I take for granted that everybody remembers Nick Sandman, but it's not even clear that many of the users on social media now were even there for Nick Sandman.
Take a nine-second clip and say that derive whatever you want to read into it by not reading what was in it in it.
But alas, that's why there is a voice of reason on the interwebs, and I hope I'm one of them.
Viva, sometime the only answer is, You're more sonic than I should be.
So I lend you fast brain reactor power.
Thank you.
Oh, and by the way, yes, those costumes are generally disgusting.
I wore one at one point.
Disgusting.
First of all, they smell bad because you can't exactly wash those things.
They're heavy.
They're hot.
And you can't see anything in them.
You could see maybe like direct plane.
The whole story is so stupid.
But the amount of people jumping on that bandwagon and the amount of people who are going to say...
Racism is alive and well in America because of that fabricated, dishonest, hoax, out of context, lie of a clip is going to be far too many.
Okay.
So that's one thing.
Now, let's talk about the other issue of the day.
Let's go to this story.
It's tragic.
And I'm going to talk about an interaction that I had with people online.
I don't like talking about these things.
If it's called a...
It's a psychological phenomenon.
It's like, not karma, it's like bad luck superstition, where you don't like talking about things because you fear that they might happen to other people around you.
I have, for anybody who doesn't know, a morbid, irrational, incessant fear of death.
It's like, since...
Hold on.
Some of you may already know this.
Let me just pull this down.
Story time.
I had my existential crisis when I was between six and eight.
I have four other siblings, three brothers and a sister.
And I'm quite close to all of them, but I'm closer to Dan, who you saw on the channel yesterday?
Was it already yesterday?
And when we were kids, my parents had a bathtub, and it had a door with a mirror on it, which we would...
We used to watch TV while we were taking baths so you could deflect the corner of the mirror and watch the TV.
Everything was in reverse, but you could watch it from the bathtub through the deflection of the mirror to the TV.
And I'm taking a bath with my brother.
We were young enough that this was not inappropriate at the time.
I still take baths with my brother from time to time.
I'm joking.
We were young enough to be not inappropriately taking baths with each other.
And it was a happy experience.
I was happy.
Playing with my brother in the bathtub.
Watching the TV.
And then something happened.
The door sort of swung open a little bit.
So the reflection went from the TV to us in the bathtub.
And for like a split second, I saw us, but didn't recognize that it was us.
And I just saw happiness in the mirror.
And I was like, oh my goodness, one day I'm going to die and all of this is going to be gone.
And like, it was split second.
I was like, oh my goodness, one day I'm going to be dead for an eternity.
And all of this joy and happiness is going to be gone.
And I instantaneously burst into tears.
And my brother had no idea what happened because I was sitting behind him.
He thought I smacked my head on something.
He's like, Dave, what happened?
I was like, I don't want to die.
And I spent the entire night sobbing myself to sleep on the realization that one day I'm going to die and I don't want to die because life out here is kind of good.
Yeah, it got dark real quickly.
Okay.
That was my existential crisis.
So I don't like these stories.
I don't like talking about them.
I don't like when they happen because they're tragedies and they remind you that you could drop dead at any moment.
And let me just get back.
You could drop dead at any moment.
And then all your plans for life and everything you've ever had planned for, for yourself, for your friends, for your family.
That's it.
That was your time on earth.
Toronto doctor dies while out running.
Dr. Paul Hannum.
Chief of Emergency Medicine and Program Director at North York General Hospital passed away on July 17. The running and medical communities of Toronto lost a valued friend and colleague Saturday.
Dr. Paul Hannum, the Chief of Emergency Medicine and Program Director at North York General Hospital died suddenly during a run, CTV News reported.
An accomplished athlete, yada, yada, yada.
So this is...
Politics, you know, all contemporary issues aside, it's an absolute tragedy.
It's an absolute tragedy.
Almost, I'd say, incomprehensible, but once, you know, people spontaneously have heart attacks, especially if heart condition runs in your family and you don't know about it.
And ironically enough, sometimes overexertion, overexercise can be triggers to these things, even in healthy people.
My father says, you know, running six miles is good.
Running 60 miles consistently, not so good.
Being muscular, good.
Being too muscular, not good.
So like the golden rule, the golden mean.
But we're living through an era now where we're seeing a lot of this.
And I'm not saying this to weaponize or politicize natural cause deaths, premature natural cause deaths.
I'm not.
We're seeing a lot of this and more of this so much so now that there's articles being printed warning people about something called SADS.
Sudden adult death syndrome, which now apparently is now such a big problem that the news articles, or the news article in particular, is imploring people to go have their hearts checked because of SADS.
I'm going to pull it up just because you may not believe it.
SADS, heart check, implore.
Let me see.
There was an article that says SADS Hold on, I'll find it.
Young people get heart checked.
I forget where it was.
Oh, here, a doctor's urge from Ladbible.
Doctors urge young people to get heart checked.
I've been alive for a long time.
I've never heard of this before certain things.
Doctors urging young people to get heart checked in bid to tackle unexpected deaths?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
So, by the way, I'm the asshole for questioning why this doctor might have spontaneously dropped dead while running, but the Lad Bible gets to say doctors urge young people to get their hearts checked in bid to tackle unexpected deaths.
This isn't the article that I was thinking of.
It was another one, but this is along the same vein.
A doctor is urging people under 40 to get their hearts checked if they are related to someone who had an unexplained death.
First of all, I'm old enough to have been brought up when I applied for life insurance.
Do you have a history of heart condition in your family?
These are always questions that were asked.
And in our family, I don't know that we might.
My grandfather, one of my grandfathers passed away at 53 from a heart attack and the other one passed away at 72 from a heart attack or 70. Whether or not that qualifies as heart condition, I exercise nonetheless and I try to lead a healthy lifestyle.
When you apply for insurance, they ask these questions, and then maybe they gauge your insurance premium accordingly.
I've been alive long enough to know that this is the first time in my life that I've ever heard of doctors urging people under 40 to get their hearts checked because of, what do they say?
To tackle unexpected deaths.
It is hoped that checks may pick up on a sign that patients may be at risk for sudden adult death syndrome.
SADS is an umbrella term, yeah.
That's used to describe unexpected death in young people.
The term is used when post-mortem cannot determine an obvious cause of death, and accordingly, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, it most commonly occurs in people under the age of 40. And then they talk about the statistics.
Let me see.
There was an issue about whether or not it's on the increase.
But we've seen an increase in unexplained deaths, overall deaths coming out of New Brunswick.
I've been alive long enough to know that this has not always been what the doctors have been telling the public.
Urging people under 40 to get their hearts checked to tackle unexpected deaths.
So this doctor passes away and people have questions.
Obvious questions.
And I'll just pull up one of them, which I believe came from my brother.
It did.
Here, my brother.
Lion Advocacy.
The public may be assuaged with an autopsy.
My brother is so much more polite than I have become now.
The public may be assuaged with an autopsy or a coroner's inquest.
Do you know if that is being undertaken?
We are all mourning this terrible loss.
First of all, we are.
And it's an uncomfortable situation to be in.
When you're trying to determine a cause of death where, you know, broader issues might be at play.
My brother says, the public may be assuaged with an autopsy or a coroner's inquest.
Do you know if that is being undertaken?
We are all mourning this terrible loss, to which he says, this other doctor who made the announcement, he was not a public figure.
His family deserves some privacy and respect.
To which I said, and I feel like a bit of an asshole sometimes, I'll tell you.
I'll be honest.
I'm always honest, but I'll be blunt with myself.
I feel bad.
I feel like a jerk because someone has to ask this question and someone has to raise these issues.
Excuse me, Howard Ovens.
Dr. Hannum used his Twitter account and public profile as a doctor to tell other people to get vaccinated.
The public now deserves answers.
And this is a tweet.
Hannum retweeting.
People telling people what to do.
Broad swaths of medical advice via social media.
And it's not...
Everyone is going to say, look, I'm very, very self-reflective.
When you're looking for a golf ball, as my father always says, when you're looking for a golf ball, anything that's white, you will confuse as a golf ball.
I mangled that.
And I blame the headphones, by the way.
When you're looking for a golf ball in the woods, which is where my balls typically end up.
My golf balls end up.
Okay.
And you're automatically attracted to anything that looks white.
I appreciate we're living through an era where any unexpected death, people are going to reflexively, almost like the Hillary Clinton meme, like pull up the tweet, this person had dirt on Hillary Clinton that was going to get her arrested and then, you know, when they die.
I appreciate that.
That being said, we are now living through an era where there has been this massive This massive campaign and this massive three years.
And articles talking about an increase in unexpected deaths to the point where they are urging people under 40 to get their hearts checked.
This doctor, otherwise healthy, seemingly promoting policy, it's conceivable.
Now that we know from Dr. Kieran Moore from Ontario, one in 5,000 will suffer an issue.
It's conceivable.
And can you imagine that people are saying, you can't ask this question.
Imagine for one second that by asking these questions, and if the doctors and the medical community tackles the question and the issue appropriately, you could actually save lives.
Imagine that.
But because we're too shy and we're too politically correct and you can't question anything anymore because it's mean and it's uncouth, people will actually also, other people will suffer.
A fate that could potentially be avoided if we can actually identify a cause.
Imagine that.
Imagine that coming from the medical community.
And he's a public figure.
The family deserves to mourn as every family does.
And I'm not going to say that because they weaponize the vocal anti-COVID people's deaths to say, look, they should have just shut up and taken the vax, which they do.
There are tactful ways of actually addressing this in a meaningful sense when, quite literally, people's lives and health are on the line.
So, simultaneously, the news is saying, urging people under 40, get your hearts checked because of sudden adult death syndrome, but don't ask questions when an adult dies suddenly.
And someone in response to that tweet said, real classy, Viva, digging up a tweet that's a year old.
To make a political point.
I said, first of all, don't mistake in tragic with classy and someone else rightly pointed out and totally accurate.
These are not irrelevant issues.
First of all, someone who's not a public figure or not using social media platforms to tell other people what to do, different story.
Someone goes around telling people not to get...
A certain medical procedure and then something...
You know it's coming.
It's just a question of whether or not the story is going to be dealt with in a tactful manner.
But this individual is in the medical community promoting a medical procedure at an era now when we are seeing these articles.
New Brunswick showing an excess death rate substantially higher than the year before.
Lab Bibles saying everyone under 40 urging them to get their hearts checked to tackle unexpected deaths.
This now...
Something so...
It might have existed for 20 years.
I don't care that SADS might have existed for 20 years.
The fact that it's more...
It's such a pressing issue now.
There's articles being run up.
But don't ask questions, Viva.
Don't be unclassy.
So...
I have anecdotal evidence, anecdotal stories of people on the inside, which I don't share because you can't vet them.
I would never put anyone on the spot to have to come out and confirm that or talk about it.
We're all seeing it.
So this doctor drops dead while running, working in the medical field so we know that he presumably had to have done many things, openly promoting this medical procedure.
And we can't ask questions even if answering those questions could actually save lives.
This is science.
This is medicine in 2022.
All right.
Well, that's that.
SADS has been around for a long time.
In 2011, there were more than 60,000 people under 40 who died from SADS in the UK.
I don't know about that stat from 2011.
I'm not denying it or calling you any inaccurate.
I know SADS has been around for a long time.
I would like to see statistics on SADS over time.
Because I'll tell you this, Robin.
I'm a neurotic hypochondriac.
I've heard of SIDS.
I know about heart conditions.
I know about...
I had never heard of SADS as a concept until now.
And I'll bet you dollars to donuts it hasn't been in the news as much in the past as it is now.
I'll bet you.
I may not pay off if I lose, but I'm joking.
Let's just see what is going on on the Rumbles.
Oh, and then we'll get into the hit piece on the Viva.
It's not really a hit piece, but it'll be the segue into the Bandon update of the day because...
Oh, are we not live?
Wait, no, we are live.
Okay.
Okay, I got thrown off by the thumbnail.
I'll tell you, I...
I'm a hypochondriac and I look into everything.
I mean, I've heard of encephalitis.
I've heard of things that you might not, you shouldn't know about.
I'm a registered nurse, retired.
I never heard of SADS before now.
The only SADS was seasonal.
By the way, I should correct myself.
I've heard of seasonal affected depression disorder, but that's SADS with two Ds.
That's something that we get up north.
When you don't have enough sun, you don't get enough vitamin D. It's seasonal affected depressive disorders.
SADD.
Anyhow.
Can't ask questions because it's mean.
It can actually affect other people's lives, but can't discuss it.
This is how issues fester to the point of infection as opposed to giving it sunlight, which is the greatest disinfectant.
Okay, so that's that.
Now, interesting fun stuff here.
Hold on, I'm just going to close this.
No, we're not going to close that one down.
Okay.
What else, people?
I made it into Newsweek.
I don't know what's going on.
I didn't even get the notification in my Google notification.
Newsweek, people.
Steve Bannon guest predicts how court hearing will play out by Julia Carbonaro July 19th.
Today.
Canadian right-wing legal analyst and YouTuber David Freiheit, who goes by the pseudonym.
Viva Frye recently claimed that Steve Bannon's trial on charges of contempt of commerce will be wrapped up quickly because of, unquote, anti-Bannon jury selection process.
So much wrong with this one paragraph already.
The first of which is, look up pseudonym, by the way.
A fictitious name, especially one used by an author.
I thought it had to be an incognito name.
Yeah, I think pseudonym.
Is when it's incognito and not just an alternative.
It doesn't matter.
Right wing.
Words don't mean anything anymore, people.
Only labels.
And by the way, if you haven't listened to Tom McDonald's most recent drop, names, it's fantastic.
Right wing.
I just changed my Twitter bio for the first time in ever, I think.
I don't consider myself to be right-wing, but I take it as a compliment when someone calls me right-wing.
Canadian right-wing legal analyst and YouTuber David Frye, who goes by the name, the pseudonym Viva Frye, recently claimed, I didn't claim, I predicted that Steve Bannon's trial on charges is not a claim because it's not an assertion of fact.
It's a prediction because it's a guess as to what will happen.
It'll be wrapped up quickly because of anti-Bannon jury selection process.
And it's not anti-Bannon.
It's just a D.C. jury selection process.
We all know this.
Bannon faces federal criminal charges for refusing to comply with the subpoena, yada, yada, yada.
Bannon has argued that he could not comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege claimed by former President Donald Trump.
Earlier this month, Bannon did agree to testify before the committee after Trump released a letter waiving the executive privilege he had claimed blocked Bannon from testifying.
Freiheit, who last year unsuccessfully ran For Parliament, with the People's Party of Canada, a right-wing party which opposed COVID-19 lockdowns and compulsory vaccinations, was a guest on Bannon's podcast, War Room.
So first of all, this person...
I shouldn't read too much into it.
All of this is factually correct, except for the qualification of the People's Party of Canada being right-wing.
I think...
They'd be actually more libertarian than conservative or right-wing, but I don't even know what the difference...
Are libertarians right-wing?
Sincere question.
I don't know the answer.
Are libertarians considered right-wing under the current nomenclature?
I ran.
I unsuccessfully ran.
It makes it sound like it was a failed run.
It was a kamikaze run for office.
I'm stupid because I thought maybe there was a snowball's chance in hell that I would actually make it.
I had no chance.
My writing has gone liberal.
The Westmount NDG writing, my former writing, has gone liberal for the last 31 years with one exception.
It's gone liberal at 50 plus percent of the vote every election.
I had no chance.
It sounds like I'm a failed politician.
I'm not a failed politician, by the way.
I'm not a failed political candidate.
I think I'm actually mildly successful as a political candidate because, like I explained in my...
Video explaining that I was running for office.
I wasn't necessarily running to win, but I don't do anything to lose.
I was running to normalize the People's Party of Canada because people out there like Julia Carbonaro still call it a right-wing party as a derogatory term.
They're libertarian at worst, and they're constitutionalists.
More accurately.
Maybe that makes him right-wing.
Who knows?
But I'm opposed to COVID lockdowns and compulsory vaccinations as though that's what makes me right-wing?
Like I said on Twitter, you got your horse in front of the carriage, your carriage in front of the horse.
I'm not conservative because I'm against lockdowns and forced vaccinations.
If you're for forced vaccinations and lockdowns, you're a fascist.
You are a fascist tyrant and a threat to free society.
During his appearance on War Room, Freiheit said he intended to discuss Bannon's trial on his YouTube channel, and the 43-year-old lawyer said a daily recap analysis of the hearing would hardly fill the 25-minute T4Cs for the episodes.
What's going to go on with Bannon's trial?
Jury selection in federal court goes exceedingly quickly.
They've impaneled the jury already.
14 jury members, two alternates, nine men, five women.
Stay tuned.
Lord knows what due diligence anybody is going to be able to do, meaningful due diligence of the jury, which wouldn't change much because it's going to be 95, if not 100%, Democrat, anti-Trump, and anti-Steve Bannon to be expected, Freyhead said.
Does this make me right-wing or does this just make me right?
I mean, and this is not, this is not like fears hiding wishes.
This is not, this is just reality.
And then what's left of Bannon's defenses?
What's left to prove from the prosecution?
Did you receive the subpoena?
Did you respect the subpoena?
Yes, no, case closed.
And there's an ugly picture of me.
Okay.
Freiheit, freedom.
I love it.
You know what?
And no joke, I consider this story to be actually very flattering.
When a judge precludes you from pleading your defenses, what's left, wrote Freiheit on Twitter after the interview, sharing a story by RawStory.
With the headline, "Case closed, Steve Bannon's podcast declares him guilty as he sits in trial for contempt." So anyways, I made Newsweek.
That's fun.
I've been in Newsweek before, so it's not all that new.
I think just more people are noticing it now because more people are tuning into the channel.
But I was in Newsweek as a tweet during the Rittenhouse trial, where that clip from Raketa Law's panel.
Of Gage Grosskreutz admitting that he only shot...
Sorry, he was only shot by Rittenhouse after he pointed a loaded firearm at Rittenhouse with the intention to shoot him.
So much crap.
It's not even reporting.
It's narrative crafting.
It's propaganda.
Yeah, Tim Pool's right wing.
Tim Pool, it's so stupid.
I'm sorry.
It's so stupid.
What makes someone right wing?
I believe in gay marriage.
I believe in gay marriage despite the fact that I know people to the right of me object to using the term marriage for gay union.
I understand their arguments.
And I say if the argument is one of semantics over the term marriage, then we can agree to disagree on the important...
People say marriage.
It's a biblical term between a man and a wife.
If gay couples want to get married, call it civil union.
I can understand and I, in fact, agree.
Gay couples say, no, we want the term marriage.
At the end of the day, equality.
And call it what it is, if you want to agree to disagree on the term, I believe in that.
I believe in reasonable gun laws.
I might believe that reasonable gun laws already exist.
And what is needed is not more laws, but rather just enforcement of existing laws.
Does that make me right-wing?
I believe in...
As much freedom of speech as possible.
I believe in awful but lawful.
But I do not believe in unlawful.
What does that make me?
These labels are idiotic.
They're done to demonize.
They're done to slander.
They're done to delegitimize.
They are not done.
They are not issued.
They're not spoken, drafted, crafted, and published for accuracy.
And by the way, Newsweek, if you're watching, wait until you see my predictions come to fruition and...
Not because they're mine.
Because they're the aggregate compilation of the insights that I have picked up from people who I think are smarter than me that I agree with or disagree with and just come to my own conclusions.
Marty, they found me.
I don't know how.
I should just lock the door.
What's up?
Yeah, you can use my plug.
If I need it back, I need it back.
You can take it out of the room.
But if I need it back, I need it back.
Go, go, go.
Get out of here.
She's taking my plug.
So I will be able to last another hour for the stream.
Jericho Green did a live stream today featuring the Sesame Street brouhaha.
Two, some libertarians lean right, but others lean left.
Three, I'm right wing.
You're centrist.
Four, lightning will kill you.
Why did you say the last one?
Why did you make me say the last one out loud?
It's an interesting behavioral therapy thing where people ask you to write down your worst, Thought.
On paper.
And some people will simply not do it.
Not because they're religious.
Not because they're superstitious.
Because they can't physically do it.
Lightning.
I was out yesterday.
Lightning struck easily within 500 meters of me.
Yeah, the kids...
Oh, that wasn't my wife.
That was my kid.
Happy kid, happy life.
Yeah, stupid iPads.
And now my plug has become the default plug for the iPad.
Anyhow, so that was the story in Newsweek.
Save yourselves.
It's not too late to denounce Fry.
That's the article in Newsweek.
It's fantastic.
I like it.
Any publicity is good publicity, except for really bad publicity.
I don't even consider that bad publicity.
I think that article...
By and large, it's very flattering.
I think it makes me look pretty accurate.
And I don't mind having unsuccessfully run for office.
Failures are not failures if you learn from them and capitalize on them in an experiential sense.
And if you take pride in your experiences.
Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
He who hoped for nothing.
Sorry.
He who...
What's the expression?
Jeez, my Ms. Gross from elementary school.
He who dares nothing need hope for nothing.
And I am a firm Kurt Vonnegut supporter of the idea of jumping off cliffs and growing wings on the way down.
That's it, folks.
Newsweek throwing around names.
That was a Tom McDonald reference.
So it's indisputable fact.
I am a right-wing legal analyst.
Seems if you oppose lockdowns and mandatory vaccination, you are right-wing.
Regardless, I actually found the article quite flattering.
God, every time I shut down the screen, I fear that news.
Well, as the joke goes, it wouldn't do anything to the hair.
Okay, so that's it.
Oh, and singing with Jesse Walsh, if you meant to put a chat in there, first of all, thank you for the chat, but if you did mean to put a comment in it, put one down in the chat without another super chat, and I'll try to get to it.
Viva, how are you liking Florida afternoon storms?
Here's another thing.
I love it here.
I'm reluctant to share the anecdotes about how much I love it here because I don't want anyone thinking, misinterpreting it as a victory lap or as rubbing my good fortune in the faces of those who are not able to leave Canada.
With that said, I love walking in the rain.
I mean, this, being in Florida, has renewed my love for barefoot walking in the rain.
In Montreal and Canada, when it rains, you know, typically it's spring or fall.
It's cold.
It's dreary.
The ground is warm.
It's pouring rain, maybe for five or ten minutes, setting aside the lightning.
It's just beautiful.
And then typically you see steam start to come off the pavement.
The water's clean because the streets get cleaned every time it rains, so it's not like you're wading through poo-poo water.
And it's warm, and you get soaking wet, and you're not uncomfortable.
So it is beautiful.
It's hot as hell.
Never thought I'd seek refuge during the day to avoid the heat, but that's what it is.
I just mean to say, get indoors when the lightning walks.
There's no edit button.
When I hear lightning, actually, I'm going to share the video on locals.
We were at the park down the street.
I see a magnificent bolt of lightning in the distance.
And then when I heard it come within five kilometers, we hit the car and gone out of there.
Did you move to Florida?
Our home base is West Palm Beach.
We are Canadian.
E1 Visa.
Love your stuff.
I'm here for a while, a short while, and we'll see.
Visas can be renewed.
Okay, so that was the...
Let's see who the bot...
Oh, yeah, here we go.
Yeah, you got me.
You got me.
I support Justin Trudeau.
I support Justin Trudeau for removal from office.
Politically and peacefully.
And a life.
May he live forever.
May he have a long life of shame where he cannot walk the streets with his brethren because of the destruction that he has brought on our people.
May he live forever, to quote 300.
Okay, so Bannon.
What happened today, people?
Do I have the Twitter?
I'm just going to go to my Twitter feed because this is just...
I'm going to bring it up and then I'm going to go back and forth.
So what happened today?
It's interesting.
There's actual legit interesting stuff.
Yesterday they left off without having completed the jury impanelment or they got down to like 22 prospective jury members and they whittled them down today.
This morning was mild drama.
They're called motions in limine.
It's a term I have never heard of because we don't have it in Quebec.
But I think they mean pretrial motions.
And so basically, the jury had been selected or whittled down to 22, if not the...
It's either 14 or 22, I don't know.
The jury had been whittled down.
But they have arguments, motions in limine, pre-limine?
Whatever.
Motions in limine to determine procedural issues, evidentiary issues.
And they have the debate of these motions not in front of the jury.
Because oftentimes it relates to admissibility of evidence.
And obviously you can't have debates on the admissibility of evidence in front of the jury because by virtue of simply debating the admissibility of the evidence, the jury is going to hear and see the evidence or the debated evidence.
And so if it's struck, not allowed to be introduced as evidence, too bad, so sad, the jury's already heard about it.
Disregard that evidence.
Okay, I'll disregard it, but it's in my brain.
And oftentimes, by the slight parentheses, when you ask a question and there's an objection, but the witness has already answered and the judge grants the objection and says, strike that response.
Well, too late.
The judge or the jury has already heard the answer.
So strike the answer.
Tell them not to consider it.
If it's a wickedly prejudicial answer, try to scrub that information from the brain of the jury.
So they have their in limine.
Motions in limine this morning.
And then the debate quickly begins to revolve around one specific piece of evidence, which were a series of letters between the Congressional Committee and Steve Bannon's lawyers on the...
I haven't seen the letters that actually...
Motion in limine.
Thank you.
Motion in limine.
I'm going to say in limine is Latin for of the beginning.
I'm actually going to have to go look that up right now.
That's what it has to be.
Enlimine.
And then you have enlimine, and then you have infine, which would be at the end.
And then you have infinite, which is forever.
I'm making all this up as I go along, so I don't even know if any of that's true.
So your motion enlimine revolved this morning around the admissibility of a series of back-and-forth letters between the committee and Bannon's lawyers.
Particularly on accommodating Bannon for deposition in light of alleged or invoked executive privilege and whether or not the committee recognizes Bannon's executive privilege.
So apparently the back and forth basically said, committee understands you're invoking executive privilege.
We do not recognize that you benefit from executive privilege.
So you must come and testify, failing which.
You'll be in contempt of Congress.
And there might have been some back and forth, an attempt to accommodate, maybe find ways where he could meet to be deposed on a certain day.
I don't know those details, won't pretend to, but there were some accommodation issues in the back and forth correspondence.
But most importantly, there was invocation, invoking executive privilege by Bannon through his counsel to the committee.
And the committee saying, we don't recognize your executive privilege.
Okay.
Why would there be a debate about the admissibility of these letters?
You will recall that this Judge Nichols has precluded Bannon from invoking the defense of professional reliance, executive privilege, and among other things, the committee not being properly formed.
All of which I suspect, but certainly the executive privilege issue, It's the prosecution that wants to have these letters admitted as evidence, despite the fact that the judge has already ruled that Bannon can't invoke the defense of executive privilege or professional reliance.
And so it makes for this interesting dynamic where the prosecution wants to admit as evidence These letters, which normally would be beneficial to Bannon, simultaneously or contemporaneously with the fact that Bannon is precluded from raising executive privilege as a defense.
Now, ordinarily, you would think the defense would want to allow this in so they could then use this as a door to raise the defense of executive privilege.
My understanding strategically, someone in the chat, correct me if I'm wrong, is that...
The defense wants to retain the executive privilege issue totally separate, does not want it submitted to the jury because they want it strictly for grounds of appeal.
From what I understand also, it's easier to appeal questions of law that were not submitted to a jury.
Easier.
The process is different and arguably somewhat easier in terms of the threshold that's required to appeal questions of law versus assessment of jury or jury assessment of fact.
And so the defense says, no, no, we don't want that.
Being submitted to the jury because we want to preserve that for appeals as a pure question of law.
And then they're talking about blacking out, redacting the sections, talking about executive privilege, which might look a little fishy to the jury if there's correspondence and redacted portions of the correspondence.
So then ultimately what ends up happening, I have to double check to see where it ultimately ended.
Bannon's team says, look, if we're going to admit these documents as evidence, this is going to be new to us.
This is not something we thought was going to be admitted as evidence because of the previous orders of the judge.
We want to suspend the trial.
Suspend it, I think they said, for a while.
Like, just put it off and we're going to regroup and reassess.
And then I think they asked for a postponement until Monday.
The judge says, no, we'll postpone until 1 and then maybe until tomorrow.
We'll see.
They came back and I'm fairly certain they've admitted these letters or portions thereof and they started with opening arguments.
And let's just go now to the Twitter feeds of the people I've been following.
Actually, hold on before I do that.
Denouncing a boot.
Anti-Canadian.
Let me see in the chat if anybody has any more knowledge.
Is Barnes part of the team?
No, Barnes is not part of the team.
Okay, I think the word redacted should be stricken from all court records and never done unless for privacy reasons.
Okay, no question about that.
Okay, let's see this here.
I'm just going to see if anyone in the chat is...
Okay, well, forget it.
You know what?
I'm just going to go here.
Yeah, I got you.
I got a fishing license, people!
Oh, you should get a law license.
Sorry, I thought that said a fishing license.
I have thoughts.
Okay, regardless, I'm going to go to the good feeds, and we're just going to go over the latest in the Twitter feeds.
Joe Nierman is down there, boots on the ground, in the courtroom.
And there's a few other people that I've been following who are just phenomenal.
John Hawley, US Navy veteran, University of Wyoming graduate, a working journalist since 1978, national affairs reporter.
Okay.
Bannon could not argue in front of the court.
So this is how it's working now.
People are in there.
It's a non-televised trial because it's federal.
And there are people in the courtroom.
In certain rooms, you can have your phone and be live tweeting all day long.
In another room, more closer to the action, I think there is no phones.
It's pen and paper.
But you get closer.
You get to see faces.
You get to see the judge.
Yada, yada.
You're not in media rooms.
Geez, the question is how far back?
They're in opening arguments right now.
And, I mean, let's just pick random ones.
Eimerling will lay out the exchanges between January 6th committee and Bannon's attorney.
Robert Costello beginning with the September 23th subpoena.
Dry stuff, but the excitement could come under cross-examination.
So they're having their first witnesses now.
Defense attorney David Schoen said when prosecutors were allowed to enter on October 8, were allowed to enter on October 8, a letter to Bannon informing him he was in noncompliance in its entirety.
The sections dismissing his executive privilege claims could be fair game.
So what basically happened is Bannon raised executive privilege and then the committee says, no, and you're not in compliance.
Because we've dismissed your executive privilege claims.
It's fantastic.
And now it seems that this piece of evidence is in evidence.
And it's going to open the door to Bannon raising that as a defense.
His justification for not complying was legitimate.
He was not a guy who just decided he was above the law, Schoen said.
This is going to be arguments, but let's just see here.
Proceedings in Bannon trial have concluded for the day with Eimerling back on the stand Wednesday morning.
We'll testify before prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
Much of the discussion was civics 101.
So they got started with it, and the questions are going to be, what's a committee?
But Bannon has been precluded from challenging the legitimacy of the committee.
Although if it comes up now, I don't know how they're going to deal with that.
So is this going to open a can of worms?
To the defenses that Bannon was seemingly prevented from raising early on by this judge.
To be determined.
Where are we now?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
So we're going back.
Amling is testifying now, but there was a 25-minute back and forth between the parties and Nichols about how the introduction of the October 8 letter and the October 19 letter contempt referral opened the door to Bannon calling Thompson.
As a witness.
You see, this is where I need to get John Hai on for a stream so we can talk about this.
Because this is the type of...
You have to live through a trial to truly understand it.
It's amazing being able to get this information in real time, but being there and seeing it in person.
Shone wants House Jan 6 Committee Chair Rep Benny Thompson to be called, not Amarling.
But she was not the one who made any of the decisions in what the committee did and did not do.
Benny Thompson, for those of you who may not know, is the chair.
He's the one who's been hosting those committee hearings before the world.
Oh yeah, then we had...
So this is...
I don't know what failed to shop up means.
Regardless of how it all shakes up, this is the discussion about the admissibility of the letters.
Maybe by Wednesday, the whole spiel is basically preparation for an appeal.
Should the jury find him guilty of, quote, being a guy who failed to shop up?
So that's, I mean, I don't, it's, well, let's just see.
Let's just, let's, oh, no, no, bring it back.
The other people who are good to follow, there are so many.
There's Nierman, Joe Nierman, Robert Govea.
Okay, here we go.
The people that I have been following to get, The play-by-play.
Let's go back to...
Here we go.
Josh Gerstein.
Josh Gerstein people, yes, he works for Politico.
Doesn't mean he can't...
He's getting good real-time tweets in there.
So let's see where he's at.
Update.
Bannon defense claims politics at core of criminal contempt of Congress case for defying House January subpoena.
Prosecutors say Bannon had no valid excuse to refuse.
Okay.
We're done for the day at the Bannon with House Committee's Chief Counsel set to come back to witness stand.
So the person that we just heard is the House Committee's Chief Counsel coming back tomorrow.
She gave bare bones that he didn't show up or send the docs.
Also talked a bit about brutality of January 6th.
Oh my goodness.
There was an interesting thing, by the way, talking about, you know, it's all politics.
The vote to proceed by way of...
Contempt of Congress against Bannon.
Surprisingly close.
Contempt, Congress, Bannon, vote.
It's like 222, 202, I think.
Hold on, let's bring it back here.
I think it was this one.
Roll call.
Where was it?
There we go.
Close that.
So this was the decision to proceed by contempt of Congress had to go through a vote.
Whether or not it's political, I mean, take a guess.
I'd like to know what the split was on the decision to proceed by way of contempt of Congress or to declare Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.
Maybe we'll find that out in a second.
To think it's not politics.
The House holds Steve Bannon in contempt.
Several Republicans voted in favor.
Pence abstains.
The House on Thursday, this is from October 21, right after he did not comply.
The House on Thursday voted 229 to 202 to hold former White House advisor Stephen Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the subpoena.
Okay, interesting.
Let's see this.
Eric Holder, contempt vote.
This one, a little less.
I saw the number already.
Spoiler alert.
The House has voted to hold Attorney General...
Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.
The first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting cabinet official.
The vote was 255 to 67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republican leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder.
This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and justice officials, as well as pressure from party leaders to support Holder.
It's interesting.
So, whether or not politics...
Are we looking at the same thing?
Oh, tell me we're not...
We're not looking at the screen, people.
Sorry.
Well, I missed it.
Here we go.
The vote was 255 to 67. My apologies.
I did not know that I was not sharing the screen.
Oh, there we go.
In real time.
So Eric Holder was far less partisan than...
We're backing up.
Back up.
Just back it up.
Google.
This was a Stephen Bannon contempt vote, which was...
Just to show you the homework, people.
202 to 229.
So yeah, many people might...
Rightly feel that this is somewhat political.
So they've had the chief counsel come.
Bare bones.
Going to get to some more meaty stuff tomorrow.
And we'll see if this opens the door to the defenses that Bannon was precluded by the judge.
It's funny that the judge was almost berating both parties because the prosecution is the one that wants to bring in these letters that this correspondence that discusses executive privilege that the judge has already ruled.
Bannon can't raise it as a defense, and it's the prosecution that wants to bring it in.
And so they spend the better part of the day debating admissibility of evidence and finally getting to opening statements and the first witness, who I guess is going to come back tomorrow.
Okay, let's just see if there's anything else that's good here that's worth getting back to.
Very slow-going testimony at moment about January 6th committee's founding resolution.
Might be slow-going, but I'd love to see how that House resolution that gave the committee the power to do everything and anything came to be.
Rockstar Murray.
Oh, Rockstar.
I get it.
I missed.
What Bannon did wrong?
Bannon didn't comply with the subpoena.
It's not...
Oh, gosh.
Hold on.
My ear's itchy.
It's not...
Rocket law.
It's not legal science.
Bannon got a subpoena and didn't comply with it, which, you know, really, if anybody receives a subpoena as a witness, if you don't comply with it, you could face issues.
You have to have a good reason for not complying with a subpoena, or in this case, a congressional subpoena.
One of his reasons, he thought he had executive privilege.
The committee said, no, you don't.
Now the question, it seems to me a question of law.
Legally speaking, does Bannon or did Bannon actually benefit from executive privilege such that he could not be held in contempt of a congressional subpoena because he was not legally obligated to abide by it?
Two, is the subpoena lawful?
And there could be any number of reasons why a subpoena is not lawful.
It's not legally compelling.
Clerical mistakes.
Technical...
Drafting mistakes.
Or the individual who issued it did not have the lawful authority to issue it.
Not everybody can just go willy-nilly issue subpoenas.
There's a procedure depending on your jurisdiction.
Was it a lawfully issued subpoena?
Did the authority that issued the subpoena have the authority to issue the subpoena?
And that's another question.
Is this January 6th committee even lawfully formed?
Shall have 13 members.
Five of whom are appointed by the minority party, by the minority, the GOP.
In this case, the GOP withdrew their five when Nancy Pelosi refused to accept three of them.
And then Nancy Pelosi proceeds to appoint two GOP members to this hearing.
And instead of having 13 people, it has nine.
So it doesn't meet the required quorum threshold to be a validly formed committee because the committee shall consist of 13 members, not may consist of 13 members.
Those are defenses in law that the judge precludes.
They'll go up to appeal, I presume.
And that's it.
If the subpoena was lawfully issued by a legal committee and there was no lawful reason to not comply with it, yes, it's cut and dry.
Contempt.
How much is that contempt worth?
Would they even go after most people but for their political leanings?
That's up to you to answer.
I know what I think my answer is.
Why was Eric Holder never prosecuted or indicted by the DOJ?
I suspect politics is at play.
If it were a binding subpoena that was not respected for no lawful excuse, contempt.
Do I think Bannon is in fact in contempt?
I'm amenable to the arguments that the committee's not a validly formed committee, that the subpoena therefore is not a binding subpoena, and that Bannon might have actually benefited from executive privilege.
To the extent that the judge has precluded Bannon from all of those defenses, it's a cut and dry case.
Because what the judge is basically saying, answering for by not allowing the questioning of, committee was valid, subpoena was valid, and you didn't have executive privilege.
Therefore, Bannon, legally speaking, would be dead to rights.
Viva makes me think so much my feet get cold from lack of blood flow.
Well, I hope I'm doing a good enough job.
I mean, the thing is, you can never be as thorough as the people on the ground.
And so you do your best trying to piece it together from a distance.
If the prosecution opens the door to things, the judge banned the defense from using.
Does this open door override the judge's ruling against the defense?
Michelle, that's an interesting question.
I think yes, because it was presumably, I don't know how it worked exactly, but I suspect it was presumably at the prosecution's request because the judge would not sue a sponte or of his own volition.
Say, Bannon, you're precluded from raising these defenses.
I presume it was the prosecution who said he can't raise these defenses.
Judge, preclude him from doing so.
And therefore, it's the prosecution that presumably asked for this.
The judge ruled on it, not in favor of Bannon.
And Bannon was precluded from raising it.
It had to have been at the request of the prosecution or initiated by the prosecution.
Now, if the prosecution comes in and says, we want to admit these letters.
In their entirety, or we want to admit these letters, but defense is going to say, well, you can't redact them because that'll deform any meaning in them.
If the prosecution wants to do that, they're opening the door.
They're basically opening a line of questioning to which Bannon can cross-examine and then testify on himself.
I think so.
But I don't know.
I'm a Canadian, Quebec...
Civil lawyer, and so I'm only doing my best to piece together the knowledge of others.
That judge was wrong in that decision.
You know what?
Let's just do this for the sake of it.
Hold on one second, people.
We're going to do this.
I mean, it's not hard.
Executive privilege.
Explained.
Let's go.
Well, Wikipedia, no.
We'll try to get something better than that.
We'll go to Cornell Law.
Executive privilege is the power of the president and other officials in the executive branch to withhold certain forms of confidential communication from the courts and the legislative branch.
When executive privilege is invoked in litigation, the court should weigh its applicability by balancing competing interests.
I mean, this is 101.
And at some point, the court is going to have to look at it and say, Nothing's confidential about this, so you can't invoke executive privilege.
At some point, the court has to see it to adjudicate on it.
This was...
Oh, jeez.
I don't want to mix stories here.
I believe this might have been the basis of Legal Eagle's FOIA request, where he said, I need to see what's in there to determine if it's protected by executive privilege.
And I say, well, we don't disclose it to the public.
That's not how it works.
So you can see it for yourself to assess.
If executive privilege applies, at some point, a decision maker has to see whether executive privilege is being lawfully or appropriately exercised.
The Constitution is silent on the executive power to withhold information from the courts or Congress.
The privilege is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine that divides the power of the United States government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Of which it would seem the POTUS doesn't care.
The judicial branch is out of control, and we have to make sure that they don't take away people's rights.
Also known as the Watergate scandal, has established that even a president has a legal duty to provide evidence of one's communications with his aides when the information is relevant to a criminal case.
By requiring the president to turn over recordings of private conversations that he had with his aides, the court's decision has helped frame how to define executive privilege in judicial setting.
Even before the Nixon decision, however, some courts have required the executive branch to provide governmental records and documents prepared for the president.
Now, this is the big distinction, by the way, and people need to appreciate this.
Even before the Nixon decision, however, some courts have required the executive branch to provide...
You know, let's just finish this.
In civil actions, federal decisions have recognized the executive privilege over the official's internal communications and advice based on the law of evidence.
However, the courts have held that the applicability of the privilege should be decided on a case-by-case basis by weighing the need for the administration of justice against the need to protect confidentiality.
Courts have generally held that statements of fact are exempt from privilege while subjective opinions, recommendations, and advice are protected.
Okay.
So with that said, The word courts is the important thing there.
The courts weigh in on whether or not executive privilege is being properly invoked.
And then, I would presume, compulsion applies.
What we have here is not a failure to communicate.
What we have here is banning.
Is effectively the judge ruling that Bannon doesn't have the defense without weighing in on the merits of the invocation itself?
If a court were to have looked at what Bannon is claiming executive privilege over and saying, no, it doesn't actually apply, you therefore have to testify on and submit documentation, and then he fails to do it?
Well, then he's in contempt.
Or at the very least, then I would understand an indictment on contempt, and I would understand a conviction on contempt.
But what we have here is somewhat premature in that I don't think there's ever been any judicial ruling declaring that Bannon was improperly invoking executive privilege.
All that you have is the committee saying, we disagree with you, but the committee's not a court.
And so the committee's opinion is the committee's opinion.
I don't think that that satisfies as the criteria as it would have been had a court said, no, we've looked it over, you've got to communicate it.
And if you don't, then you're in contempt.
So Trump-appointed judge, yep.
That could be relevant to the assessment, but could Bannon have appeared before the committee and then just claimed his Fifth Amendment right without consequences?
Matthew Patton, again, take it for what it's worth.
I'm a Canadian lawyer.
I just picked the brains of people smarter than me.
My understanding is that had he gotten up there and said, under advice of counsel, I've been advised to plead the Fifth, he would have...
He would have satisfied the testimony, and I believe he would have protected himself.
But then the optics are that it looks like he's got something to hide, hence protecting himself from self-incrimination, which the committee would have weaponized as well.
A week and a half till the fishing trip for peacock, bass, and cichlids.
Haven't caught a peacock yet.
I've seen the cichlids.
Or they're called Mayan cichlids, I think.
I don't really want to catch them.
They have sharp teeth and I don't want to have to have a problem removing a hook.
So that's my understanding.
He could have got up there and pleaded the fifth.
He already agreed to sit down and testify anyhow because Trump wrote a letter revoking or waiving any executive privilege that Bannon could have otherwise had.
But Bannon was never...
Declared to be improperly invoking executive privilege by a court.
So all of this seems to be premature fortification, if I do say so myself.
But what do I know?
Greg Packard, welcome to the channel.
So that's it.
Viva, I have a great idea.
TDM, tweet me.
I don't know what that means, but don't be mad at me if I don't do it.
Let's see here.
Okay, so Aaron Howell says, that would have been proper procedure if Bannon appeared and called the Fifth Amendment because straight denial could be misconstrued for perjury.
Okay, I mean, that's my understanding as well.
I believe this is a witch hunt.
I believe that...
I mean, I don't think it's denied.
That Trump claimed executive privilege for Bannon.
I don't think that's denied as a matter of fact.
I know that some outlets say Bannon alleges he had executive privilege.
Others claim that he was given...
Trump invoked executive privilege and therefore Bannon claimed it to not comply.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
The only question is whether or not he properly benefited from executive privilege.
I thought that would have had to have been adjudicated by a court before an indictment on contempt.
Or at the very least, that would be the defense at issue in the contempt.
You're not in contempt of Congress if you properly benefited from executive privilege.
And I don't know that that question has ever been adjudicated on.
Question, why did Trump write letter of executive privilege revocation?
Well, okay, so he did write that, David Langford.
And just so everybody knows, Langford does not write in caps because he's angry.
He writes in caps because it's easier for some people to...
See their text when they do that.
I think they thought that might have ended this.
In normal worlds, it should have.
Although criminal contempt, you can't undo.
Trump revokes executive privilege.
So he definitely revoked it.
He revoked it, which means he invoked it.
Share screen.
Let's go look at what the fake news bees have to say.
Trump says he'll waive executive privilege claim ahead of Steve Bannon trial.
In a letter, former White House strategist Steve Bannon says he's willing to testify before the January 6th committee.
Okay, we got that.
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon has said he's willing to testify.
We know this.
After he received a letter from former President Donald Trump saying he would waive his claim of executive privilege according to two letters obtained So, Trump invoked it.
Bannon thought he...
Trump claimed it.
Bannon invoked it.
Trump revoked it.
Bannon said he'll testify.
But that's it.
I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and acts who have allowed no due process, no cross-examination, and no Republican member or witnesses to be present or interviewed.
It is a partisan kangaroo court.
You gotta love Trump.
I'll allow you to testify before the liars, thieves, and scoundrels that they are.
And if they accept Bannon's testimony, they basically have to tacitly accept this.
That's hilarious, by the way.
In a separate letter to the committee, Robert Costello, a lawyer for Bannon, wrote that Trump has decided that it would be in the best interests of the American people to waive executive privilege.
Yada, yada, yada.
Doesn't matter.
Too bad.
You're screwed, Bannon.
They want a pound of blood nearest to the heart and your heart.
It's the only one they're interested in right now.
Okay.
Because Trump knows...
The question is, why wouldn't Bannon have just testified from the beginning?
Bannon wasn't there.
What the heck is Bannon?
The only issue is that, as we've seen it with Roger Stone, as we've seen it with Michael Flynn...
They'll get you on the answers.
So Bannon will show up.
He'll testify truthfully.
And then they'll say, oh, you said this.
They'll get him on purported perjury for innocuous details that are irrelevant to anything.
Because if they don't get you on the substance, they're going to get you on the procedure.
Trump wanted to demonstrate how garbage the committee is.
Well, the committee is doing that for themselves.
POTUS is so brutally eloquent.
So that is it.
That's where we're at.
Let me just see if we've got anything on...
Let's see if we've got anything on the rumbles.
So I'm going to go bone up on a little bit more information before I go shoot the exclusive post-millennial day two summary and analysis.
But before I do that, I had a guy in a Cookie Monster outfit steal my potato chips when I was four back in 1986.
I was not happy.
Dude, I was accosted.
By people in costumes at Times Square, accosted.
But that was not Sesame Street.
Thoughts on the fake arrest and handcuffs of AOC and the Klan.
Well, I assure you, Francis Chartrand, I'm going to formulate those thoughts when I go and see this.
I haven't seen this yet.
I've been following the news all day.
I saw people talking about it.
I haven't seen it yet.
A week and a half till the fishing trip.
Okay, we got that one.
Salt and pepper, man.
Good.
Yeah, look at that.
I got my stress streak right there.
That's the stress streak right there.
And then I've got what else?
Yeah.
Oh, Winning Reality.
Everyone should go watch Winning Reality's funny video.
I do not confirm any accuracy of it or veracity of it.
It's the amount of work that went into making that video.
It's called...
Let's see if I can get it here.
Hold on, I'm just going to share it right now so everybody can go and watch this because it's hilarious.
Viva Frye, permanent vacation.
I'm not on vacation.
It's not vacation.
I'm going to share it because it's fantastic.
Here, boom shakalaka.
Oh my goodness, I forgot to put up the pinned comments of Nierman and Gouveia's social media accounts on yesterday's stream.
Damn it.
Okay, hold on one second.
Wouldn't Trump's releasing Bannon from executive privilege prove he had a reasonable idea he was protected?
Okay, Aliana Rene, very, very interesting 4D chess analysis.
To say it now, if anyone's going to say Trump is playing dirty, we're going to say CNN is playing dirty because they run a hit piece on Bannon the night before jury impanelment.
If anyone's going to say Trump plays dirty...
To the extent that he knows the jury's probably going to be hearing about this trial as it goes on and probably going to hear about Trump's gracious offer to waive executive privilege, that might plant the seed in the jury's head or taint the jury pool that he actually did, in fact, have or thought he had executive privilege.
It's a good move, if it is, optically, and bringing those issues to the discussion.
It's a very good move.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But I don't think there's any discussion.
There's no debate that Bannon either was offered it or thought he had it.
Viva, does your wife's family like your longer hair or they think you look like a teenager?
I think they like it.
They've grown to like it now.
Oh, here we go.
Big Pete asks, Viva, did you see an 86-year-old man detained in Toronto for two hours because he didn't download that health app?
Not only was he detained, he didn't download the health app.
Because he doesn't have a cell phone.
I believe he got issued a $5,000 fine to be double-checked, but I believe he got a several thousand dollar fine because his son refused to put his father on his own app on his phone because he said I don't have to.
Yeah, this is Canada, people.
An 86-year-old man without a cell phone did not download the Arrive Can app upon his arrival to Canada.
His son refused to put his father on his Arrive Can app.
I don't think he had to.
And then the father got a $5,000 fine, if I'm not mistaken.
So that's it.
What if he dropped his phone?
You can't ask for logic from tyranny.
You can only ask for compliance.
Sorry.
You can only expect that compliance be demanded.
Yeah.
Okay.
People.
Let's call it here.
I'm going to go now, bone up on some more materials.
Winston is scratching my legs because he wants to go for a walk.
I have excessive amounts of feces in my bum that need to be put on the front lawn.
Yes.
That was a very long, a very long, a very long yawn.
So that's it.
I'm going to go bone up, prepare for my...
Exclusive analysis for the post-millennial.
I just got a message that says the...
Winston, stop scratching yourself.
That says we're in the top Apple podcast download under news, which is very...
It's good stuff for the post-millennial and the outlets that are actually doing the work and doing the good work.
But those people tweeting, live tweeting the trial are doing...
Incredible work.
And it's fantastic just to see them just sitting there.
I would have a big problem because I'd have to dictate all my tweets to actually type them with my hands.
That would be tough.
I'm going to go live tomorrow during the day without fail.
Tomorrow night, people.
Julie Kelly on the sidebar.
Julie Kelly covering the January 6th political persecution.
And if that makes me right-wing, by the way, calling what is being done to the January 6th defendants.
Persecution.
Words have no meaning.
I would not have done this.
I would not have tolerated similar treatment of my ideological adversaries for similar conduct.
If having principles and a sense of justice makes me right-wing, like I say, I don't consider myself right-wing, but I appreciate and take that accusation as a compliment.
So stay tuned.
Live tomorrow, live tomorrow night, live Thursday.
Maybe some interesting stuff for next week because Alex Jones trial coming up in Texas.
So stay tuned for some potentially very interesting news.
Hold on a second.
Could Bannon have agreed to testify on the condition that there would be no cameras and therefore no bad optics?
No.
I think Bannon's issue is that he wanted it to be public.
He didn't want any testimony behind closed doors.
He wanted everyone to see his testimony.
Yeah.
Yeah, I've been labeled.
Grazie viva.
So people, stay tuned.
Lots of good stuff coming up.
And I'm going to go check out the AOC video.
A stage video?
Getting handcuffed?
AOC?
Not being honest?
Inconceivable!
See you on Govea.
Great show.
Oh yeah, I was on Govea last night at 7 o 'clock.
There's just not enough time in the day.
So I'm going to go walk the dogs, do some more homework.
Shoot another, not episode, segment, and it'll be published by the Postmillennial tonight.
And that's it.
People, Viva Fry, YouTube Rumble, The Viva Fry on Twitter, vivabarneslaw.locals.com on Locals.
Snip, clip, share around, spread the word.
Above all else, talk to people in real life.
Be kind and forgiving on others, but also on yourself.
Get sunlight, get exercise, and get out there.
People.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection