Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:33:27

Bannon Trial Day 4! Live with Journalist John Haughey - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Shelter and hydro in combination should be about 30% of your income and that is...
	Much higher right now, especially in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, where rents are much higher.
	One way that you can mitigate that is by speaking to your employer about getting a raise with inflation the way that it is going.
	It is completely reasonable right now, especially in this tight labour market, to go to your employer and say, I need you to bump my wage because it's becoming impossible for me to still survive in the city that I was hired in.
	And if that doesn't work, looking for...
	For another job, especially if you've got bills that are in demand, will often give you the bump that you need in order to afford that apartment and that rent that goes with it.
	First of all, I've got to get rid of that copy.
	I can hear a whole bunch of people at home going, so my boss will say no.
	Yeah, and that's a fair point.
	First of all, let me just refresh this so I can get rid of that copy address.
	We have to appreciate what this person just said.
	Let's walk through it step by step, shall we?
	The nation should be about 30% of your income, and that is much higher right now, especially in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, where rents are much higher.
	Rents are much higher.
	The value of currency is much lower, also known as inflation.
	One way that you can mitigate that is...
	By the way, she's going to tell you, make more money.
	Ask for more money.
	First of all, that is not a way to mitigate inflation.
	That's a way to cope with inflation.
	Mitigating inflation is what the government is supposed to do through policy, such as by not endlessly printing money, such as, I don't know, by not endlessly financing foreign conflicts, by not endlessly sending out $2,000 to everybody who they've denied the ability to work.
	You're not mitigating inflation.
	By asking for a raise, you're coping with inflation.
	Mitigate.
	Words have meanings.
	But by the way, guys, inflation's up because of government incompetence.
	Go ask your boss for more money.
	Because obviously, if inflation is up for you, it's not also up for your boss.
	It's not as though all of the costs that this individual just referred to for the individual.
	Increased gas, increased groceries, increased wages, by the way.
	What do you think's driving up prices?
	Employers have to pay employees more.
	Where do you think they passed that buck down to?
	Oh my God, what great, wonderful advice coming out of the CBC.
	Don't have enough money?
	Ask your boss for more money.
	Speaking to your employer about getting a raise with inflation the way that it is going, it is completely reasonable right now, especially in this tight labor market, to go to your employer and say, I need you to bump my wage because it's becoming impossible.
	I need you to bump my wages.
	Government screws up.
	I need you.
	By the way, this is a government employee talking right now.
	The CBC fully subsidized to the tune of a billion dollars, taxpayer dollars a year.
	Inflation up because government's screwing with you?
	What do you do?
	Pass the buck onto your employer.
	Go.
	I need more money.
	I need more money.
	Why didn't I think of that?
	Oh my God.
	The cure to inflation.
	Get more money.
	It's possible for me to still survive in the city that I was hired in.
	And if that doesn't work, looking for another job.
	Go get another job.
	Especially if you've got skills that are in demand.
	Learn to code.
	Learn to code, people.
	What's that?
	You don't have enough money to keep up with inflation, massive inflation because of government incompetence?
	Learn to code.
	What?
	I don't want to use the word idiot.
	What idiotic, entitled things to say?
	Cost of living is going up.
	Just go ask your boss for more money.
	She's a reporter at CBC.
	I don't know.
	Honestly, I don't know.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's airing on the CBC.
	One thing I can tell you, this person is not a financial guru.
	I'll get to the standard disclaimers after.
	Speaking of making more money, speaking of massive inflation, you may have noticed this video came with a little promo thing on the bottom left hand as you started watching.
	Speaking of making more money, or at the very least, not losing the money that you have.
	This is not a joke.
	And this is, you know, this is going to segue into my promo for American Hartford Gold.
	How do you not lose money?
	My father always told us growing up, it's easy to make money.
	And it's, sorry, let me screw it up.
	It's hard to make money.
	It's easy to lose it.
	We're living in a time now, appreciate this people, inflation.
	If it's at 8%, that means you're losing 8% of your buying.
	If you had $100,000, that's way too much.
	If you had $10,000 in the bank and you did nothing with it, you just lost 8% of that.
	It's like, instead of buying a stock and losing 8%, you just held cash and lost 8%.
	And if you're anything like me, you might have.
	Dabbed?
	Dipped your toe into the crypto market.
	And if you're anything like me, you dipped your toe into the crypto market during the last dip, which was when it was two and a half times what it is now.
	So this is it.
	This is my sponsored video because it's something I did before the sponsorship.
	I did collect silver coins.
	I did collect coins.
	I'm the idiot.
	Every time you go into the post office or every time I go into the post office, I buy one of those stupid Royal Mint of Canada.
	Looney's or silver dollars or the $50 coin.
	Silver and gold.
	American Heart for Gold.
	They didn't deliver to Canada.
	It's like the biggest gold service provider in America.
	One of, if not the.
	And you've seen the ads.
	I think Bill O 'Reilly does the ads, which, you know, I don't mind being in the company of Bill O 'Reilly.
	And they've got a special promo code, which if I can figure out how to share it.
	If I can figure out how to share it...
	Okay, I'm totally losing my mind now.
	I'm not losing my mind.
	It's because I couldn't see the screen.
	If I figure out how to share it...
	Here, check this out, people.
	They gave me a nice graphic.
	Windows.
	Entire screen.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	One day I'll do this smooth.
	And then we're going to get into our show of the day where I have John Hawhey.
	And it's like one of the names where I don't know how to pronounce it.
	Okay, so I should be able to bring this up.
	Share.
	Share screen.
	Windows.
	There we go.
	Here we go.
	Viva insert.
	I'm going to take my ugly face out.
	Oh, I can't take my face out while I run this.
	And this is the insert.
	American Hartford Gold, they've given me one of these promo codes.
	Up to $1,500 free silver on your first order.
	That is, I think they give you half a percent of your order if you happen to purchase $50,000 worth of gold or silver and you get...
	$500, and I think there's a max.
	866-318-2115.
	Text Viva to 998899.
	American Hartford Gold, people.
	Because at the end of the day, I'll tell you one thing.
	When I went through my silver and coin collection, I've lost less on that than I've lost on my cryptocurrencies.
	I've lost less on my silver coin collection than I have on American, what is it called?
	Namaska Lithium.
	Ford, GM, Nortel.
	I'm just remembering my losers.
	There's inflation.
	At some point, sitting on cash, you're going to lose money regardless.
	It is true.
	You can't eat gold.
	Nor can you eat cryptocurrencies.
	Nor can you eat money, for that matter.
	At the end of the day, you have to have something that can be converted into money that you can use to either buy or borrow their products in hard times.
	So, American Heart for Gold.
	The link is in the description.
	And do I run that one more time?
	Do I run the thing one more time?
	I can't because I shut it down.
	Whatever.
	You got the picture, people.
	And they deliver.
	It's guaranteed when you order it.
	And at the end of the day, there is something also like...
	What's the guy's name?
	Frodo.
	It's like Frodo Ian or the guy from The Ring.
	There's something interesting.
	There's a good feeling in holding a gold coin or a silver coin.
	It feels good.
	That's it.
	It's the...
	The least of the losers that I've ever purchased.
	And I dare even say some of the more solid ones that I've ever purchased.
	Okay.
	That is my promo for American Hartford Gold.
	Now, the guest is in the back room and I see him.
	It's one of the rare times when I don't know how to pronounce a last name.
	It could be anything of like Hai, Hahi, Haffi, Hoy, or I don't know.
	His first question of the night is how do I pronounce his name?
	But this is John Hahi.
	Or Hoy, a reporter of the Epoch Times who's been, I see this, Joe Nierman, boots on the ground, doing amazing work covering the ban in trial.
	Hoy has had, I'll say it, it's the best live Twitter feed of the bunch.
	There was another guy, Politico, who's doing well, but then sort of fell off the cliff.
	And John is on to tell us the latest.
	John, I'm bringing you in.
	Let's see how this works, people.
	I hope you can hear me, can you?
	I can hear you, sir.
	How are you doing?
	Okay, good.
	I'm doing okay.
	Wandering around.
	I'm at the Judiciary Square metro station here in Washington, D.C. It's hoggy.
	It's hoggy?
	You know, that was not...
	Like the French bread, even though I don't know if that's the proper Gaelic.
	Proper Gaelic may be hoy.
	But anyway...
	So, John, for those of us who don't...
	I know more about you than other people, but who are you and what do you do?
	Well, I'm national news writer for the Epoch Times.
	Basically, what I've been doing since I joined the Epoch Times in January is covering the primaries.
	So I've been bouncing around.
	I'm going to be heading out to Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming as soon as we're done here.
	But I've been to about six different states covering the primaries, with the exception of being extracted for, apparently, to go cover trials at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C. The first one was Seussman.
	That was a two-week ordeal.
	And now we've got Bannon, which should end tomorrow, we're all hoping.
	Most of us thought this thing would last two, maybe three days.
	So it's kind of interesting to watch all the fly-in reporters from different places, seeing how they're mixing and matching their wardrobes, you know, having to wear clothes two or three times.
	Oh, look, I saw that shirt on Tuesday.
	Here it is, back on Friday.
	So, you know, that's my rant right now.
	You have some interesting credentials, which I don't think many people know about.
	27-year veteran?
	Well, no, I was...
	I mean, I've been writing.
	I've been a working reporter since 1978, if you count the five years I spent in the Navy as a Navy journalist.
	And since then, I've worked all around the country for different daily newspapers, anywhere from California to New York, Wyoming and Florida thrown in, and Indiana and a few other places.
	I've worked for a lot of business magazines like Modern Plastics and Supermarket News.
	And I've worked for Congressional Quarterly, Outdoor Life.
	For Outdoor Life, for 20 years, week by week, I covered legislation and litigation related to firearms.
	That was always a fun thing to cover.
	And Congressional Quarterly, I was the guy who wrote all their annual...
	Episodic legislative roundups, state legislatures.
	Basically, it wasn't necessarily read for the popular media, but it was very important for lobbyists and non-profits and other types of advocates.
	I've bounced around.
	Much of what I've dealt with, though, most of my career are either local news or state legislatures and sports.
	Which is probably why they drafted me to be the Twitter guy here.
	Well, dude, I'll tell you, your Twitter feed is like, it's live in the literal sense.
	It's on point and it catches all the nuances.
	I've been covering this and doing the daily summary for the first three days.
	Yesterday, the prosecution closed its case and that was it.
	The question I had was...
	Were people in the courtroom surprised that the prosecution closed after two mere witnesses?
	No, I think that they had always said that they could close their case within a day.
	And by the way, the second witness, Agent Hart, all his testimony was tossed.
	And it's really irrelevant.
	So really, the prosecution is always maintained.
	It is nothing more than whether Bannon did or did not comply with the conditions of the subpoena.
	Did he show up?
	Did he provide the documents that were requested?
	He did not do so, and they claim he did not have any real legitimate reason not to do so, other than he was being defiant, you know, intransigent and whatever.
	There we go.
	John, let me ask you something.
	That's why I'm not a radioer.
	You just said that the agent Stephan or Stephen Hart's testimony, all of it was tossed?
	Yeah.
	Why and how?
	Well, I guess I'm not quite sure in the exchange.
	It was simply that it really didn't add anything to the case other than I guess the prosecution simply wanted to introduce some of these social media posts on Getter.
	To supplement their timeline saying, like, while on one hand he's saying he cannot comply and he will not, you know, the other hand he's on social media saying, you know, that he will, in other words, not that he, in other words, he's saying he cannot, you know, his attorneys are saying he cannot comply because of the executive privilege claimed by Trump.
	And yet he's on social media saying he will not, you know, do that.
	But actually, I want to belabor this point a bit.
	Did the defense make a motion to strike Hart's testimony?
	And if so, did the judge now advise the jury not to consider Hart's testimony?
	Well, that's what he's going to do tomorrow.
	And that was mentioned.
	And I do believe the defense made the motion and the prosecutors agreed.
	But, I mean, I'm sure the prosecutors did submit that motion.
	The instructions will be, in other words, he is crafting those, Nichols is crafting those instructions, I presume, as we speak.
	And he will send them, email them to the prosecution and the defendant's attorneys tonight or this evening.
	Interesting.
	And that is, he said, and that'll be his final word on it.
	He doesn't want to talk about it anymore, but I think that most likely there'll probably be some discussion about that as before the juries let in again in the morning.
	And then they're both going to make their closing cases, and that should last no more than two hours.
	So really, by noon or so, they could have the case.
	And they could have a conviction by sundown Friday night.
	Who knows?
	My plane ticket's for Saturday morning, so I hope so.
	Okay, so I'm just taking notes as you talk, because that's fascinating that they dismissed Hart's testimony.
	What did Hart testify to that Eimerling did not testify to?
	Well, Hart was, first of all, he was only on the stand for a half hour, 40 minutes at most, including exam, cross-examination, and then redirect.
	So all three phases of every witness.
	You know, it was all over within a half hour.
	And basically, he just said, yes, there was, you know, there were email posts, I mean, getter posts, and that he's talked about how he verified, they verified that that was indeed Bannon's account, and that these were things on it.
	But it was just links to, you know, one was to a Daily Mail story, and another one to a Rolling Stone story.
	And, you know, basically, it was just links to stories.
	Where somebody, either Bannon or maybe somebody who works for Bannon, who handles his Getter account, had just typed, I will not comply, in other words.
	And then he's quoted in the article, in the Rolling Stone article anyway, as saying, I will not comply.
	Nobody really understood the full, what that was really, what the whole...
	The gist of that was.
	I guess you could say it was surprising that there were only two witnesses and that one of them really was kind of spurious.
	A technical question that I'm wondering.
	Did Ammerling admit, or did she testify on the Rolling Stone article as well, or was that just her?
	Ammerling never mentioned anything about any social media posts.
	That was never really part of her discussion.
	She was asked repeatedly after going through the whole cement-chewing process of, you know, what is a subpoena?
	Where does subpoena go?
	You know, the tale of how subpoenas travel from place to place.
	Who signed it?
	At what time?
	It was pretty, you know, that was definitely heads were nodding and, you know, it was really bad.
	It wasn't like Seussman where you actually literally heard snores.
	Oh, God.
	It was pretty, you know, I mean, it was very technical and I guess, you know, you can understand they're trying to make the case in the process.
	So much of what she talked about really was the process of subpoenas and this and that.
	And, you know, her, I think the defense, you know, prosecutors really want to, not the defense, the defense, Bannon's attorneys really want to say that she pretty much acted independently in many ways, that she's the real driver behind this, you know, resolution to cite Bannon for, you know, for content to Congress.
	And she's, you know, kind of, even though, yes, Thompson signed off on it, that she was, that if it wasn't for her, The committee might have been less, how would you say, aggressive in pursuing that.
	I'm going to get to that in a second.
	I'll just also take a mental note that Bannon's team trying to prove that it was her that signed off on the subpoena, not Benny Thompson.
	Therefore, it's invalid, the subpoena.
	But before we get there...
	It seems as if that's what they were trying to do.
	I mean, I don't know exactly what they were trying to do.
	Do you know, insofar as Hart's testimony was tossed, the...
	I think that the articles would be tossed as well.
	I mean, once again, I'm kind of uncertain about that.
	I'm not quite sure.
	And I don't know how much it really matters.
	I mean, I guess, you know.
	Well, why it mattered, or my understanding of why it mattered is that they wanted to show that Bannon outwardly was defiant and not, Unable to comply or thought he was confused.
	He knew what he was doing.
	If Hart was the only witness to adduce those exhibits as evidence, if his testimony gets tossed, normally the ancillary or the related exhibits also get tossed because nobody was there to validly introduce them.
	I don't think so.
	The whole problem is the jury's already heard it.
	Yep.
	Try to scrub their brains.
	There's going to be a lot of discussion to tell the jury, like, remember that thing?
	Now forget it.
	So then ultimately, the prosecution is going to have one witness, and it's going to be, what's her name?
	Amarling.
	So getting back to that issue about who signed the subpoenas, following your Twitter thread and the thread of others, she could not answer who signed the subpoena?
	Well, I think she answered that it's subpoena.
	The defense is trying to say that, you know, they made a statement that she didn't know who, that if he, but you know, he did sign the subpoena.
	It's right there.
	You know, I mean, his signature is on the subpoena.
	It is Benny Thompson's signature.
	Were you able to see the subpoena on the, what is it called, the display of the exhibits?
	I don't know if he showed it.
	You have the subpoena on the, you know, in all the court documents that you can look up online.
	But, you know, the September 23rd, 2002, 2001 subpoena, you know, it's there.
	And it seemed like, but I don't know, maybe it was, was it rubber stamped?
	Or, I mean, does he have a stamp and, you know, somebody can just stamp it?
	Or did he personally sign it?
	You know, I know, you know, that, I mean, like, she doesn't know if he signed it or not.
	In other words, it was signed.
	I was wondering, based on what was being argued, as to whether or not there was something of a bombshell in that one could not determine if it was Benny Thompson's signature, or if she was equivocal or ambiguous in her testimony.
	Well, they said equivocal was a word used in describing her testimony today.
	They said that she was equivocal.
	You know, I think the case is just simply, you know, in other words, the prosecution's trying to winnow it down to, like, just a question.
	Did he or did he not comply with the conditions of the subpoena?
	Whereas, you know, Bannon and his attorneys want to bring in a larger discussion about how, you know, how these decisions were made, who made these decisions, why did they decide to pursue a criminal contempt charge instead of, you know, the options that Costello, Bannon's attorney at the time, had laid out, you know, go to court.
	You know, they either go to court or, you know, go to Trump and ask him to waive his executive privilege in this case.
	And they opted not to do either one of those things and just simply pursue the contempt resolution and pursue a criminal case against Bannon.
	And, you know, they're saying this all shows bias against Bannon.
	I mean, today, Shone went through a list talking about how Jamie Raskin...
	And Adam Schiff have written books so that they have, you know, a financial incentive in keeping this prosecution going.
	They, you know, how, you know, how Thompson had filed a lawsuit against Trump and Trump had filed lawsuits against Thompson and how all that influenced, you know, influence and then Thompson becomes.
	He drops his suit when he becomes the chair, but still says he stands by the allegations.
	So how could this be if it's going to be an investigation?
	How could it be a fair investigation when everybody's already made up their minds, apparently.
	In fact, they have books and they have litigation engaged in this process already.
	So it's not really a legitimate investigation.
	But they weren't allowed to make those arguments, at least with the jury in the room.
	Because the prosecution and the case, what Bannon is charged with is not complying with a very simple case, really.
	But what the jurors, I mean, that's what the prosecution wants to continue to keep the focus on and not allow any of this other stuff to come in, which is what, I guess, Nichols is deliberating on now, pondering, sitting in his, I assume he's home, probably petting his dogs and, yeah.
	With a drink and pondering through So the better part of these debates today did not take place in front of the jury, correct?
	No jury.
	The jury was in some room someplace staring at walls all day and finally brought him in just to say, go home.
	Go home and forget everything.
	Now let me ask you this.
	The prosecution rested yesterday.
	When did the debate on disregarding Hart's testimony occur?
	That was today?
	You know, it really, you know, it was just, I don't remember there being a whole lot of debate.
	I mean, I just remember, you know, I just recall Nichols saying, you know, we will disregard, you know, Agent Hart's testimony.
	So I guess that was in some, you know, there's a lot of back and forth sometimes that isn't necessarily, I mean, you know, the judge said he was communicating last night with both parties, and that might have been part of that discussion, because I don't remember any big, you know, to-do.
	I mean, Sean went on for a long time this afternoon, bouncing around, you know, he introduced one component of their disagreements and then reintroduced it later and bounced it off to something else.
	I mean, the...
	It's kind of funny.
	He's kind of a fiery guy.
	It's kind of funny.
	He gets excited.
	So it's kind of an interesting...
	I think between him and Cochran is very, you know, magisterial and procedural, very, very, you know, monotone sort of thing, you know, very...
	So, John, my understanding, today they made a motion to dismiss.
	Yes.
	And then they spent the better part of the day arguing that motion to dismiss.
	So, again, everybody who's watching, not in front of the jury.
	It's a procedural motion to dismiss in that they basically argue prosecution has not satisfied its burden to even allow a jury.
	To come to a conclusion of guilt.
	How long did they debate that?
	There were two motions.
	There were two motions.
	One was the motion to acquit.
	And that's the one that Corcoran made in the morning about that, yes, they had not met their procedural requirements for showing.
	They had not met their burden of proof.
	And he went through a list.
	And some of them were the same ones this afternoon.
	Schoen went through the motion to dismiss, which was a Rule 29 request, which basically, it's similar, and that's the one that Schoen made.
	They did go through some of the same things.
	I mean, in other words, Corcoran was talking about no reasonable person is going to convict Bannon based on, and they went through the evidence, this and that.
	In other words, how can you prove this?
	How can you prove what was in somebody's mind?
	In other words, they weren't even allowed to talk about that because part of it is intent.
	And how can you prove any intent here?
	When he was listening to, you know, he had advice from counsel to do this.
	And there were lawsuits that were expected to produce a ruling on this issue.
	And so, of course, you want to wait for the lawsuits to be resolved.
	That's what they said.
	So, Nichols dismissed the motion to...
	He dismissed the motion to dismiss.
	And now what he's deliberating is the motion to...
	Excuse me.
	He dismissed the motion to acquit.
	He is deliberating the motion to dismiss.
	That is one thing.
	Okay, so...
	Deliberating on jury instructions, which will be, I think, a discussion in the morning, you can sense he's probably not going to do that because, after all, if he grants the motion to dismiss, why would you worry about jury instructions?
	Obviously, I think he's not going to grant the motion to dismiss.
	But the points in there he might include in jury instructions.
	So there were two motions.
	One was a motion to acquit, which is different than a motion to dismiss.
	The other is the Rule 29 motion to dismiss, which they argued, and the judge ultimately said, I don't want to taint the jury one way or the other.
	So if I acquit, I don't want to taint it towards innocence.
	But if I'm going to reject or dismiss that motion to dismiss...
	I don't want to taint the jury towards culpability, so I'm going to wait for the jury verdict and then issue my verdict on that.
	That's, yeah, okay, but I was just thinking that.
	I was coming in my head.
	So, wait a minute, he's not going to issue, he's going to wait for the jury verdict.
	That was before he issues a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
	He's going to wait for this.
	So, obviously, that's why he's got to work on the jury instructions.
	A lot of information, and sometimes, you know, you don't...
	It just bounces around.
	What was 10 minutes ago now doesn't exist because of this or because of that.
	Sometimes it can be...
	For anybody who has not been in court, this is highly technical stuff.
	It's boring for attorneys.
	I don't know what your professional training is, but then you've got to siphon it down for other people to be able to digest.
	Right.
	I don't know.
	I had one more question.
	No, I had many more questions.
	Okay, so they had the two motions.
	Motion to acquit was dismissed.
	Motion to dismiss pending jury verdict.
	Exactly.
	You get an idea as to where the judge is going to go because the rationale would be he doesn't want to influence the jury by dismissing it where the jury is going to say he must be guilty then.
	Let's convict.
	Obviously, he's not going to acquit unless he's going to pull what we saw in BN Rafikian.
	Where a jury's going to come in and convict and then the judge is going to say, sorry guys, nothing was there.
	Well, he did spend a lot of time also today talking about the fact that Corcoran had mentioned before they concluded yesterday that, oh, by the way, we're going to file a motion to acquit.
	And he thought that that might influence the jury if the proceedings continued because the jury's in some room someplace not knowing what's going on.
	They would know that once they were called back in, that whatever that motion was, the judge had rejected it, and that could bias, I mean, actually he was saying that could bias Mr. Bannon, because whatever complaint or what other arguments his attorneys made would be, you know, in other words, in the back of their heads, they'd say, well, they must have rejected that.
	So that could potentially be biased to Mr. Bannon.
	That's what Nichols was saying.
	He spent more time talking about that than either parties did.
	They seem to be like, don't worry about it.
	We're not worried about that.
	Has the judge been warning the jury not to check social media, not to watch the news, not to talk to people?
	Yes.
	Well, that's a standard instruction to juries.
	There was a discussion today to remind to make sure the jury knew not to watch tonight's...
	Can you imagine?
	They're holding the Bannon trial while they're holding the January 6th committee hearings, live primetime, in which they're talking about Bannon, you know.
	Well, I mean, you know, that's one of the reasons why they wanted to delay the trial.
	But, you know, they've been asking for delays all along about everything.
	Yes, he did.
	You know, he did remind them briefly.
	I mean, there was no big discussion about it, you know, to, you know, stay off.
	Don't, you know, don't watch.
	So I don't know if he actually specifically mentioned the hearings tonight when he reminded them.
	He gave, you know, said, you know, the only time the jury was in the room was just there to be told, like, you can go home now.
	And you're seeing the jury, you're seeing their faces, correct?
	Well, I was in the room Monday when the jury was all the jury selection.
	But down in the media room, which is where most people are to cover it, because we get a feed and you can't bring electronics into the courtroom.
	So generally speaking, that's where we have like a there's a anyway.
	No, I can't see the jury.
	That's one of the reasons why we try collectively between the group to have a.
	A couple of pool people up there so they can come down and tell everybody, like, you know, what their impressions are about what's physically going on in the courtroom, especially with the jury.
	And, I mean, I've never really used any of that, but they're always asking for volunteers.
	I said, I can't do it.
	Well, so setting aside, like, the reaction of the jury from, you know, minute to minute, demographically, have you seen the composition?
	I understood it was nine males and five females.
	Yes.
	Racial, age-wise, are you able to break down that group into different demographics?
	You know, from that day, not really, no.
	One of the reasons why is the first day, very few people were allowed into the courtroom.
	Because there was no room.
	There were so many prospective jurors that three-fourths of the seating in this large ceremonial courtroom was taken up by potential jurors.
	So they had only one little section that seated about 25, 30 people.
	And I don't know how they got there before I did.
	So most of the reporters were out in the hall.
	So we really didn't see.
	Now, a couple of people did.
	In other words, I haven't really had the opportunity to...
	I guess I could go up.
	At some point, but I mean, I'm live tweeting, so I can't really stray too far from things.
	I can't see the jury.
	I know it's nine men, five women.
	And I knew that there was a couple of African Americans, some Hispanics, but mostly looked like white people.
	So I don't know.
	I don't know what...
	Okay, interesting.
	And, I mean, what's your biggest, I say biggest takeaway, and what's your biggest surprise, or the most shocking moment that you've seen thus far in this trial?
	Well, I guess the takeaway is, without Bannon testifying, it's kind of like the circus came to town without an elephant.
	And the other thing, you know, there's no elephant in the circus.
	And the most shocking thing is, I guess, I don't know if it's shocking, but just, you know, the reaffirmation that politics is everything.
	And in this environment that we now have, I mean, it's so partisan and so bitter.
	You know, you kind of wonder, like, is there any time when people are just going to, like, you know, let's build some roads or something and get together.
	In other words, get off all this, you know, this divisiveness and, you know, and get back to work together.
	I don't really, you know, I mean, it's sad.
	So it's just a continuing sadness, I guess.
	I think the average American, a lot of people think this is just a bunch of baloney.
	I really want to see government.
	I mean, we do have the midterms coming up, the 2024 elections coming up, and hitting all these primaries and going around and talking to people.
	There is an undercurrent of anger, and it has nothing to do with what you're hearing reported in the news.
	It has to do with the news, because people are tired of just being news.
	They want news that says, you know, we're building roads, and we're doing this, and we're doing that.
	They're tired of, you know, who said what about who, and they're fed up with it.
	And I think this is just another sad perpetuation of the whole thing.
	I don't know if it's shocking.
	I just think that that's kind of just this nothingness to the whole thing, except for partisan anger at each other.
	I had someone suggest that Bannon wanted to testify but was prevented from doing so.
	Was there any indication if Bannon wanted to in as much as you could see anything?
	Or was he prevented by anybody from testifying?
	Well, I think in the very brief statement that Schoen made, he did say that Bannon was always willing to testify, always comply, go forward.
	He wanted to, you know, the real facts in the case and this and that.
	But because, you know, because...
	Because the circumstances that he was restricted or limited to, I guess he chose not to, and I'm quite sure he did so under the interest of counsel once again.
	Of course, Mr. Bannon has been holding court outside the courthouse, and some of those comments will definitely, you know, some of those comments came up yesterday when...
	Prosecution was saying he's trying to turn it into a political circus.
	So, yeah, I'm quite sure Bannon wanted to testify.
	He'd still be testifying.
	Okay, so that's it.
	So your impression is he wanted to testify during this trial.
	He wanted to testify.
	He was willing to testify.
	But because of the limitations and what he can...
	He really doesn't have a defense because his defense has been dismissed.
	In other words, basically, he was restricted to a point where he was better off not saying anything.
	Now, whether that was his decision or whether he relented to his attorney's advice, that wasn't really...
	Deliberating.
	But Schoen did say that.
	And I guess they were both.
	Schoen was outside the courthouse today as well as Bannon.
	So I'm sure there's plenty of footage and video on what they said when they left the courthouse.
	I wasn't out there because I was live tweeting.
	But, you know.
	Alright, and one more question.
	Was there any discussion about whether or not Benny Thompson was ever subpoenaed and that subpoena quashed?
	Did that ever come up?
	Yes, that was a big discussion.
	I mean, the quashing of the subpoena.
	That was, I mean, that they had wanted to get Thompson.
	There was a discussion about, well, why Thompson and why not everybody on the committee?
	And Schoen said, well, we would, you know, quite frankly, we do want everybody on the committee to testify.
	But, you know, since Thompson is the chair, the leader, you know, he'll suffice.
	And yeah, there was plenty of discussion about that.
	That is part of the motion to dismiss that Nichols is pondering this very moment at his house, I guess, or in the office up there.
	And it was Judge Nichols who quashed Benny Thompson's subpoena?
	That's my understanding that it was also, yes, in other words, but the committee itself quashed the subpoena.
	In other words, saying you can't subpoena.
	You can't subpoena us.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	But I think it was the judge who did that on Tuesday, the 19th, I think.
	Or at least there was a mention of that.
	I don't know when that is.
	You know, there's a lot of, like, I didn't realize that there was a subpoena.
	That's what I didn't realize.
	I hadn't heard that.
	I couldn't find anything.
	I knew that yesterday, but I didn't know that.
	Before that.
	So I don't know if that was issued on Tuesday or what.
	Okay.
	No, that's interesting.
	So Benny Thompson was subpoenaed.
	It was quashed.
	If it was quashed, it had to have been a court that quashed it, not the committee, I guess.
	But I'll see if I can find that.
	Yes, there was a subpoena for Thompson to testify it was quashed.
	I guess that would have to be by the judge, Nichols, who would have had to do that.
	Okay.
	And what time does it reconvene tomorrow?
	9 a.m., allegedly.
	Okay.
	John, have I missed anything of the important developments in this trial?
	Oh, something will come back later, but I don't know.
	Right now, it seems you've touched all the buttons.
	There's always something that's loose out there that you forget about.
	It all comes together.
	Now, where can people find you?
	I'm going to put your links in this afterwards, but on the Twitterverse, what's your handle?
	It's jfhoggy, which is J-F-H-A-U-G-H-E-Y-5-8.
	5-8.
	Were there 57 other JF Hoggies, John?
	That's just the year I was born.
	I'm an old man.
	I'm an old man learning, you know, old sports writer learning how to use a new technology.
	You're doing amazing.
	It's fantastic.
	So thank you for everything.
	And if we can talk again after this.
	And first of all, everyone out there, I'll say it unabashedly.
	I like the Epoch Times.
	It's good news.
	It covers stuff that does not get covered by others.
	And I don't care what the rumors are of the slander.
	It's good.
	It's good news.
	And now, John, is it Epoch or Epic Times?
	Well, you know.
	I like to say Epoch Times, but I think Epoch might actually be the correct pronunciation.
	I like to say Epoch.
	A lot of times people say, oh, you mean the Epoch Times?
	And I say, no, it's pretty epic for some time.
	It's an interesting operation.
	I mean, I just joined it in January with a whole slew of other reporters.
	Many are veteran state legislature reporters.
	So they're definitely trying to step up the professionalism in their coverage.
	You know, we have nothing to do with the editorial policy.
	And, you know, we're just doing our jobs.
	And, you know, there's a lot of us, we're hitting the campaign trails and we're hitting all the primaries.
	We'll be at a lot of conventions.
	And so, you know, it's a whole different realm of coverage, I think, from years past.
	And, you know, trying to be as fair as we can, which is, you know, pissing off some people.
	We're going to continue to piss off people.
	You're doing great work, John.
	So let's stay in touch.
	If you can come back, if it doesn't end tomorrow, come back next week if you can, if you want.
	I hope to be home, you know, petting my puppy for a few days, at least before I have to head to, you know, Kansas.
	Well, I have to ask now, what kind of dog do you have?
	Oh, I don't know.
	It's a Jack Chee.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it wasn't my idea.
	Jack Russells are annoying dogs to begin with, and if it's a Chi is in a Chihuahua?
	Yeah, it's double annoying.
	It's like aggressive, you know, just yappy.
	But, you know, what are we going to do?
	I've had him for a year, you know, kind of like I said, it wasn't my decision.
	Just kind of showed up some one day.
	You know what, but dogs, you love them, good or bad, you love dogs.
	Yes.
	Anyway, all right.
	John, thank you very, very much.
	Have a great evening.
	Keep up the good work, and I'll be following.
	You too.
	Thank you so much.
	Bye-bye.
	My pleasure.
	Talk to you soon.
	All right, people.
	That was good.
	That was good.
	And we're going to have a bit of a surprise.
	You may know him from our most recent Twitter war.
	On the Twitters, Nate the Great Brody is popping in.
	Unexpected.
	Add to stream.
	Hey!
	Hello!
	I want people to understand that we like each other.
	And even if I think I destroyed you in our exchange on Twitter.
	I still like you.
	Yeah, I think you got the best of it.
	That last one, I think you got the best of it.
	I was like, I think you might have the best of this one.
	Which was good.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Nate and I, we've been going back and forth on Twitter today.
	It started with...
	It started with me...
	I don't even know if we can have this discussion on YouTube.
	It might be a little...
	It started about efficacy of...
	The rock scene.
	And then Nate's last criticism of me was that I shared Dr. Kieran Moore's most recent statements, referring to something as a therapeutic, referring to certain stats.
	And Nate says, well, you don't trust the doctors when you don't like what they say, but you do trust them when you do like what they say.
	To which I just said, self...
	Party admissions that run against the interests of the party are necessarily more reliable.
	I don't trust them.
	And by the way, I think they're all idiots to begin with.
	When they say something publicly that runs radically counter to their narrative, you know there's a little bit of truth to it.
	Nate, what's been going on with you lately?
	Nothing, nothing.
	I told you my kid broke her leg.
	No, you didn't.
	How did she break her leg?
	Tripling Park.
	Well, shit.
	See, now my wife's going to think that I can't take...
	At the trampoline park, so she landed on that metal bar divider between the two trampoline thingies?
	No, she landed, but the knee hyperextended, and the bones in the knee, you know how they took crap, and that's how the fracture happened.
	But it's all right, though.
	No, no, no.
	She's got the immobilizer for two weeks, and then we've got to do physical therapies for a couple of weeks.
	So it's not that bad.
	It's not that bad.
	It's just that it's tough because...
	Now, taking them out of your way, you've got crutches and wheelchairs, so that's the only issue.
	Nate, are you following the Bannon trial?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I've just started following it.
	I think it's crazy.
	But I think Bannon is in a no-lose situation now.
	I think he can't lose.
	But I think he can lose the trial.
	I think he's going to get convicted.
	He's definitely going to get convicted.
	But I'm saying politically, I think he's made it in such a way.
	This prosecution now looks dumb.
	That's what I think Bannon has got to the point.
	Because if he gets convicted, he's a martyr, and he stood up for what he believed in, and you're talking about what?
	He's not going to get any jail time.
	There's a minimum one month sentence per charge.
	So in theory, he could get, if they run it consecutive and not concurrent, which would be shocking on its own.
	He could get two months in jail and up to two years in theory.
	Minimum one month, maximum one year.
	But what about the time served, though?
	Because he's going to get time served for being on trial and all this other stuff.
	So all this time is going to count against him, too.
	The arrest time and all that stuff.
	Does trial time count for jail time?
	Sometimes trial.
	It all depends on where you're at, though.
	Sometimes trial time does count.
	Because you're compelled to be there every day.
	So they'll be like, if you had to come here for a month, we're going to take that month off your time.
	No, that's interesting.
	Okay, my question is this.
	Is this putting Bannon in a position to run for president?
	Is he politically toxic after this, or is he actually garnering support for a run for...
	Could he run for president?
	No.
	I don't think he can.
	I just don't think he can.
	I think he's not Trump.
	Trump can run again because Trump is...
	Trump is good.
	He speaks.
	Trump is just such a gravitating figure.
	It's funny because I'm not a Trump supporter.
	I voted for the other guy.
	But shit, I feel like that was a bad decision.
	I didn't say that out loud, but yeah, I feel like I would have now, if I know what I know now, I don't think I would have voted for anybody.
	But I think when it comes to becoming president, you have to have a je ne sais quoi about it.
	Have you heard the new rumor that's out now, though?
	No.
	Oh, you haven't heard the big thing?
	Sebastian Gorka.
	Okay.
	Sebastian Gorka, he said he has an in in the White House, and he has a source, and his source is saying that Biden is announcing COVID and cancer.
	Well, he said this before the announcement.
	He said that Biden is going to have two serious health announcements, and they're planning, and the plan supposedly is to, he's going to drop out because of health reasons, and Kamala's going to come in for the midterms.
	I was going to make a meme.
	Tweet joke about Kamala right now and she's like this or hoping for death.
	I didn't make the tweet because I think it's bad juju to put out in the universe.
	But man, it's kind of easier than the 25th is just have him resign for health reasons.
	Nate, hold on a second.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	This is evidence as to how I know I destroyed you in the argument.
	This is the support that you get, Nate.
	Nate knows his facts.
	Viva can't compete with reason.
	Scared of a needle.
	LOL.
	I don't know if this is sarcasm.
	But you know what, by the way?
	I'm not scared of needles.
	I do know my facts, but I don't know about you being scared of a needle, though.
	I've given blood at the very least 30...
	I mean, I only have not been giving blood since COVID.
	But I'm not scared of a needle.
	I might be scared of arsenic that might be in a little needle.
	It's like, you know, there was a guy who got...
	He got killed because they put poison on the tip of an umbrella and just poked him with a little needle.
	I don't know if that was supposed to be sarcasm.
	I think the problem is...
	It may have been, but thank you for the compliment.
	I think people don't realize you can disagree on something and still be cool.
	I'm a Dolphins fan and I got Jets fans.
	I disagree with them all the time.
	It just is what it is, right?
	The feature of Twitter where someone says, you know, Nate is balanced and then becomes, you know, false dichotomies on Twitter.
	Twitter...
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It actually...
	The difficulty in Twitter is using it in a manner to have nuanced discussions because it forces oversimplification to the point...
	He's losing a blurry thing?
	Okay.
	Apparently the dog might be regaining vision.
	Oh, that's good.
	People are asking me in chat, Nate, Biden, really?
	Yes.
	Again, if you look at my voting record, I voted for Giuliani.
	I voted for Republicans here in New York City.
	As a matter of fact, we had four Republican mayors.
	I voted for all four of them.
	I don't vote party.
	I vote progress and what I feel is happening.
	It just is what it is.
	This time...
	I'm not voting for the Democrat.
	Going into the midterms, I'm not voting for the Democrats.
	The Democrats don't know what the hell they're talking about.
	They don't know what the hell they're doing.
	I gave them their shot, and now two years later, I'm looking for them.
	I'm voting for the other people.
	So if you guys are just, you know, people for some reason think you can only vote one way, that's just not me.
	I vote for black.
	I vote for the blue.
	I vote for the red.
	I just vote for the best candidates right now.
	Florida Dad says, Aviva is scared of needles.
	He picked the wrong state.
	Our doctors have needles.
	Our fish have needles.
	Our trees have needles.
	Our caterpillars have needles.
	Today, by the way, we pulled out some insect from the car.
	I don't know what it was, but it was like a little insect.
	It looked almost like a tick, but more like a spider carrying some fluffy bag on its back.
	Oh, wow.
	Kids were freaked out.
	So I just got some technical questions about the ban in trial.
	Cool.
	The motion to acquit versus the motion to dismiss.
	The rule of 29. Can you flesh out the – are you familiar with the distinction or the difference, and can you explain?
	I'm not familiar – well, I know there's a – all right, so they're at the – all right, so were they at the halfway point?
	No, they're done.
	So there's one – there's generally – there's two motions.
	All right, so after the prosecution puts on its case, where I'm assuming they did here, after the prosecution – there's generally a motion, and that motion to dismiss is based on, well, if everything the prosecution is saying is true – They haven't presented enough evidence where a reasonable jury can find them to be guilty, right?
	They haven't rung all the bells.
	They haven't spoke to one of the elements.
	And those are rarely granted.
	And then after, if that's denied, then you go to the second half after whatever happens at the end of the trial, and then after the fence rests, they can then bring a motion.
	They can bring this couple.
	There's a motion.
	We saw it in the...
	You could bring a motion.
	I forgot it's called judgment, notwithstanding a verdict.
	You can do another motion to dismiss and so forth to say that, hey, now it's even because sometimes the defense can put on a witness that can show that everything is blown up.
	So then they'll say, now, don't even let it go to the jury.
	Let's just end this right now.
	So I'm not sure if the Rule 29 is for the one that's after the...
	Case in chief with the prosecution or if it's at the end of trial.
	I don't do federal court.
	I'm usually in state court.
	Apparently, so there were two motions.
	One was either called a motion to acquit, which the judge dismissed.
	The other one was a motion to dismiss under a Rule 29. Yeah, so I think the Rule 29 might be the middle one and the motion to acquit may be the one at the end.
	That was the one for, what's his name?
	Shoot.
	Remember the trial?
	What's the general?
	General Flint.
	Remember when his friend was...
	At the end of the trial, the judge acquitted him and was like, this is all BS?
	That's the same thing.
	But here, I think Bannon's issue is the one thing about this case that I'm always shocked about is how nuanced legally it is.
	It's a BS.
	Listen, 99% of the time, nobody's going to the trial for this.
	This is ridiculous.
	It's obviously political.
	I know it.
	You know it.
	We all know it.
	It just is.
	The legal nuances in this case, I think, is tremendous.
	One of them is, I've heard a lot of people say that the committee is not legitimate.
	Have you heard that?
	Oh, yeah.
	No, I was reading a bunch of articles.
	An article from Pointer says it is legitimate because back, I think it was the Hurricane Katrina committee or something, they did not meet the requirement of the quorum of the shall-be 13 members.
	I've read both arguments.
	I'm inclined to think the committee is not legally or is not validly formed.
	If it says they shall be...
	Correct.
	I agree.
	It says it shall consist of 13 members, five of which are appointed by the minority, that being the GOP.
	And they submitted their five.
	Pelosi says, I'll take two of them but not three.
	And they say, well, screw you.
	We'll take all five back.
	Then Pelosi says, well, I'm going to appoint my own two Republicans.
	It's going to be Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
	And now we have nine of 13 and it's valid?
	I mean, that to me is a compelling argument.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, I agree that the committee...
	It was not formed based on the rules.
	I agree with that a thousand percent.
	That's 100% correct.
	But that doesn't mean the committee is illegal.
	And the reason why is, and this is where I talk about the nuance in the law.
	So the committee, let's say everything that you've said is true.
	What gives any of the committees in Congress the authority to issue subpoenas?
	The Constitution.
	Gives the power of Congress to do that which is necessary to investigate for legislative purposes.
	Yes, but now Congress can delegate, right?
	The House of Representatives can delegate authority to a committee to issue subpoenas, right?
	And they have their own internal rules, and I agree with you.
	They violated those rules.
	But then the House of Representatives, as a body, voted and said, we're going to vote this committee.
	The legal authority to issue subpoenas on our behalf.
	And when that process happened, I agree you're right.
	It wasn't constituted in the way the House rules say it should be constituted, but that act of them voting the authority to that committee trumps all that, and that's why the judge said the committee is valid, even though your argument that it wasn't constituted correctly...
	That may be valid.
	But the fact that the entire House voted, then the courts can't look at that and say, well, you know, because the House can delegate the authority.
	They can delegate it to me if they wanted to.
	And said, Nate, you can do subpoenas for this very limited purpose.
	And if the whole House votes on it and gives me that, then we go.
	Then we're good.
	I mean, that I understand because it's the same rule of the courts not getting involved in the matters of Congress, even if the committee didn't follow the rules.
	Congress, as a political body, ratified it of sorts.
	That's what makes it legal.
	But again, you're right.
	And I think this is the disconnect.
	Both are true.
	It wasn't constituted under the rules correctly, obviously.
	It wasn't.
	But as soon as they say, as soon as the full body, as soon as the House of Representatives together, which is obviously on party lines, said that, hey, we're going to give this committee authority damn whatever rules that they didn't follow.
	Well, I guess it's the same argument as to what happens if they don't follow the dog.
	Don't chew on that!
	If they don't follow the rules for impeachment, if the president says, I was not properly impeached, do the courts intervene?
	All right.
	Yes, that's happened twice.
	There was a case called Nixon, United States v.
	Nixon, not President Nixon, but Judge Nixon.
	And that was the issue.
	Now, generally, whenever Congress does anything internally, how many committees they're going to have, whatever, that's what's known as being non-justiciable.
	Non-justiciable means the courts have no legal authority to review that issue.
	But when it comes to impeachment, impeachment is defined specifically, the process is defined within the Constitution.
	You have to do X, Y, and Z. So the court's role, only role in impeachment, is to make sure that Congress followed that procedure.
	So in Judge Nixon's case, Congress, the Senate, had a vote.
	You know how there has to be a trial and so forth?
	In the Nixon case, there wasn't really a trial.
	There was a committee that they had looked at it.
	The committee said, okay, he did wrong.
	And then the committee sent the report to the full Senate, and the Senate convicted him.
	So he was like, no, I need a trial in the Senate.
	The rules said they should have a trial.
	And the court said, we can't look at it because the only thing they owed you was the vote by the Senate.
	And the way they got there...
	We can't look at it.
	So even if they didn't have a trial, in that case, they didn't even have a trial.
	So the vote in the Senate allowed them—so he had a vote, he lost the vote, and he was removed.
	So even in that process, it just shows you where it says trial, trial is whatever they say trial is, which is, again, you know, it's just—it's why they call it non-justiciable.
	But they had to have a vote.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	Viva Frye, citizens look at famous people like Bannon who get rope-a-doped in the ring.
	Of course.
	This serves evil well to keep citizens in fear of chasing after legal retorts to injustice.
	I know what you mean.
	They make the example of the big fish.
	It's like, you know, you could make an example of the small fish, but not as many people are going to notice.
	That's true.
	Or at the very least, make big fish examples of the little fish, like some might say is going on in Canada with Tamara Lich, Pat King, people who nobody had ever heard of.
	Until they were blown out of proportion and turned into public examples of, we will crush you.
	We will crush you.
	Yeah, their main example of Bannon.
	The funny thing is...
	Of course.
	That's all this is.
	That's all this is.
	I was wondering if they ever got mentioned Ray Epps during the trial.
	I don't think they did.
	I'm telling you, I see the way Bannon speaks.
	Other than maybe some refining of the image, although I'm definitely not one to talk about that, I could see him being...
	He's 67, so if it's not 2024, he's going to be 70. Well, Trump was 70 when he became president.
	Yeah, but this would be 73 if it would be 24. And look at Biden.
	Biden's like 75. I am going to say this too, which frustrates me so much.
	When Trump was running for president, I was like, oh, I can't vote for that idiot before the first time.
	And then the Democrats to show how hypocritical I am.
	Put up this idiot that can barely speak.
	And me like an idiot goes out there and casts my vote for the guy, for the idiot that can barely speak.
	And I'm complaining about this other one that can speak.
	But you know what this showed me?
	It showed me that even me who tries not to be caught in the politics.
	I got caught in it.
	And it got me good.
	But again, that will never happen to me again.
	And Joe Rogan was the one that said, I can't vote for somebody who can barely speak.
	And I was like, you know what?
	He's effing right.
	I did like an idiot.
	Cancer and COVID so they can remove...
	By the way, just in case anybody doesn't...
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I'll bring this one up.
	I think this is where it started, actually.
	Hey, folks.
	Guess you heard.
	This morning I tested positive COVID.
	But I've been double vaccinated, double boosted.
	Symptoms are mild.
	But I'm doing well.
	I'm getting a lot of work done.
	I'm going to continue to get it done.
	And in the meantime, thanks for your concern.
	And keep your faith.
	It's going to be okay.
	You know what?
	Think about this, though.
	This is, again, conspiracy theory.
	I'm on your channel so I can talk like this.
	Listen.
	Go on.
	Wouldn't this be the best weapon ever?
	The best biological weapon ever.
	COVID.
	It's affected two presidents.
	If the Chinese meant for this to be a weapon, how good is this as a weapon?
	Nate, you're two years behind on that theory.
	My goodness.
	It's actually Eric Conley, so I don't want to give him credit.
	But I was like, this is great.
	When Boris Johnson got it and he was sick, I was like, this could lead, in theory, this could lead to a serious massive conflict.
	Who knew they didn't need a major political leader dying of a virus that might have originated in a man-made lab?
	Oh!
	They used Russia-Ukraine to get into World War III.
	You know what?
	That's so crazy, too.
	Again, I hate being self-reflective here, but that's so crazy, too, because I was one of those idiots out there.
	But it shows you, people, anyone can be fooled.
	Don't let them fool you, because I was fooled.
	When they said it was not a lab leak, there's no evidence of it, who's saying this misinformation?
	I'm sitting and tweeting out misinformation!
	Then come to find out it's possible.
	And now we've got evidence.
	I'm like, oh my god.
	So yeah, you've got to be careful.
	You've got to be careful.
	I say as a general rule...
	That which was labeled conspiracy theory, at the very least, the 10 on 10 for the last two years have turned out to be, if not totally true, at the very least, more true than that which is said.
	I mean, it's just, so now you know that at least conspiracy theorists, or what are generally regarded as conspiracy theorists, they're people, when you play chess, you could look for straightforward moves, or you could look for creative moves.
	Is it worth sacrificing a queen now?
	And so a conspiracy theorist just has a frame of mind where they're looking for alternative narratives, alternative explanations, to run counter to what they now know is confirmed lies coming from the media.
	So when the media now says, fact check, true or false, I know it's probably more the other way than the way they're saying.
	And I'm thinking about Justin Trudeau.
	Not being the son of Castro, as one of them.
	Oh, well, let's not forget about Justin Trudeau, his blackface.
	But, you know, it's double standards all the time.
	Also, I got the motion to dismiss for the guy, for the...
	What's the guy?
	The Alba, the self-defense guy.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It reads...
	I'm going to share it with you.
	I'm going to share it with you.
	They dropped the charges against him, finally.
	So the motion to dismiss...
	But I want you to read the motion to dismiss.
	But I want to say two things for the people in the chat.
	Viva's going to read through it.
	Read just one part of it.
	But you've got to pretend like you do not know the political leaning of this person.
	So you don't know if they're Republican.
	We're going to read it just for the law.
	And I bet you you're going to agree with it.
	Well, and the thing is this.
	I'm going to guess that the person...
	Statistics being what they are, is Democrat.
	Coming out of New York.
	Actually, don't even guess it.
	Don't even guess it.
	That's my bias.
	Don't even guess it.
	Don't guess it.
	Could be a Republican for all we know.
	When you pull it up, go to the part that says...
	Go to page...
	I'll tell you what page you go to.
	You are going to page to avoid any demonetization or anything like that.
	Go to page 11. Okay, are you sharing screen or are you sending this to me?
	I sent this to you in the private chat.
	It's right there in the link.
	Dude, private chat?
	There's a private chat here?
	Okay, boom shakalaka.
	Okay, and I'm going to which page?
	11. Oh, the pictures are blurred out.
	Page 11. Oh, no, you probably haven't loaded.
	Okay, and then the defense of justification.
	Now, this is...
	It's funny because I did an analysis.
	And this is exactly what I said, but it's fascinating to see the district attorney in New York County make this argument.
	It's almost like he's a Republican.
	But again, blow it up and make it a little bigger so people can see it.
	How do I do that?
	Close this.
	No, you can put the plus up top, which is near 100%.
	The defense of justification.
	The investigation has shown that the people would not be able to prove homicide charges against Alba beyond a reasonable doubt of trial.
	Critical to this conclusion is an analysis of the facts in this case as applied to New York's law of justification.
	The defense of justification, found in Article 35 of the Penal Law, sets out that the law for the very limited circumstances in which one person may lawfully use deadly physical force against another.
	under the statute conduct which would otherwise be a crime such as a homicide is justifiable and not criminal under certain narrowly defined circumstances set out in the statute under new york law when a defendant has properly raised the defense of justification the defendant is not required to prove at trial that he was justified just the opposite the people are required to Now, that's a very, very important distinction here, is that when raised...
	Like, I was, it was self-defense, right?
	It was self-defense.
	When raised, you now, the people, have to now prove you weren't, you were acting unlawfully, not in self-defense.
	In order to prosecute, now I'm just thinking about Rittenhouse, who presumably said, obviously self-defense, and now you have to prove that it was not justified.
	Correct.
	The district attorney's investigation explored two different possible justification defenses under Article 35. The first was that Alba reasonably believed that Simon was about to use deadly physical force against him.
	So the first one is...
	I'm afraid that the guy is going to use deadly physical force against me.
	I can use deadly physical force against them.
	Go ahead.
	Here's a good one.
	The second was that Alba reasonably believed that Simon had unlawfully trespassed behind the Blue Moon counter with the intent to commit a crime here to physically restrain Alba or put him in fear of physical injury.
	Okay.
	Now that in New York is technically a burglary.
	So let's say if you're going to a restaurant or a store.
	If you're going to a store, there's a counter.
	The store is open to the public.
	So you can go in the store, walk around, do whatever.
	But if you go behind the counter, that's a restricted area within the store.
	So that trespass behind the counter, and if you're trying to steal something, counts in New York as a burglary if it's inside a building.
	Go ahead.
	So it's not breaking and entering into the building.
	It's breaking and entering into unauthorized spaces within a building.
	Or the building itself could just be an unauthorized space, like your apartment.
	Okay.
	One potential defense is that Alba reasonably believed that Simon was about to use deadly physical force.
	The law provides that a person may use deadly physical force to defend oneself if the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly physical force.
	Deadly physical force is a quote, physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.
	Someone points a gun at you, someone has a knife, that type of stuff.
	Under New York law, however, one cannot use deadly physical force to defend against only physical force.
	That makes sense, right?
	That's interesting.
	I mean, it's also, what type of force is deadly physical force?
	Deadly physical force is if I have a knife, if I have a gun, if I'm about to throw you down and throw you down the stairs, that's deadly physical force.
	But how about if I punch the person in the face and I didn't intend to use deadly physical force, but it kills them?
	Again, if someone comes to you with fists, You can't pull out a gun.
	Because me doing this with fists is not enough for you to pull out a gun or a knife.
	Right?
	That's kind of where they're going with that.
	But again, that's not in all situations, right?
	Because if Mike Tyson or something like that, it's different.
	So it's not in all situations.
	But generally, fists, you can't bring gun or knife for fists.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, so here we go.
	Here, Alba said that Simon displayed no weapon, never hit him, but wanted him to go outside to fight.
	Arguably evidence of imminence of physical force rather than deadly physical force.
	Although Simon had a box cutter in his front pocket, there is no evidence that Alba knew that.
	Okay.
	So they're saying that Alba, so they're saying, now this part I think is important.
	They're saying that at the time Alba, this guy had a box cutter on him too.
	He had a knife on him.
	But this, but what they're saying is Alba didn't know they had the box cutter.
	So if Alba knew he had the box cutter.
	You were good.
	Deadly physical force.
	He has a box cutter.
	He knew it.
	But since he didn't know it, that's where they're saying, okay, well, he didn't know he had a box cutter.
	So now we're just talking about physical force.
	But go on.
	They're going to explain to you how it rolls to the level of devil physical force.
	On the other hand, there is an age differential.
	Alba is 61. Simon is 35. Remember when I told you about the Mike Tyson earlier?
	Mike Tyson at his prom versus a 90-year-old man.
	That matters.
	Go ahead.
	And Simon's conduct in entering the store's small private area, throwing Abba against the wall to a place he could not escape, and grabbing him by the collar could inspire deep fear in an older and shorter man as to what might be in store next.
	No pun intended.
	This was also in the context of the girlfriend saying five minutes earlier that her boyfriend was going to, quote, come down here right now and blank you up.
	So I think that gives you, and so the DA is saying, that gives you deadly physical force, right?
	Girlfriend's saying, my boyfriend's going to come down here and beat you up.
	You got this six-foot man with a five, no, five, six, five, seven guy, elderly, behind the counter.
	So would a reasonable person think that this could be deadly physical force and the person's not trying to remove you from one place to the other?
	Yes.
	I'm thinking it right now reading this.
	Motion to dismiss right here.
	This is the last part.
	As to the second possible justification of defense, if Alba reasonably believed that Simon was committing or attempted to commit a burglary of an occupied building, then Alba was permitted to use deadly physical force upon Simon if Alba reasonably believed it'd be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of the burglary.
	That's interesting.
	That you can kill someone for burglary?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So this is, again, this is the law in New York that a lot of people may be shocked by this.
	But the law here is that if someone is committing what's known as an inherently dangerous felony, Which burglary is one.
	And you're trying to stop that person from committing that felony?
	Then you can kill them if the circumstances are allowed.
	So in this case, if someone, they're saying, in this case, if this person comes and is trying to commit a burglary, then the law allows me to use deadly physical force to stop the commission of that burglary.
	And here, that's what they're going to go over.
	Do we have a burglary?
	Do we have a felony?
	Do we have an inherently dangerous felony?
	If we do, then Alba has this double justification.
	Not only did he fear for his life, but second, this person was in commission of a burglary, and the law allows you to use deadly physical force in this situation.
	Go ahead.
	Continue to read.
	I'm sorry.
	No, I'm just going to skip to this one right now.
	As to the second element of burglary, intent to commit a crime, it is a crime in New York to use physical force to intentionally restrict the person's movement by moving him from one place to another or by confining him, of course.
	There it is.
	Do I want to read everything in the parentheses?
	No, don't read anything in the parentheses.
	A person who restrains another person is guilty of a crime of unlawful imprisonment.
	Everybody knows that.
	As to whether Alba reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary to terminate the commission of the burglary involving his restraint, Alba would contend, based on the video evidence, that until the moment Alba employed his knife, Simon seemed quite capable of controlling where Alba would be taken, whether within or outside the story.
	No question about that.
	Take it.
	Go.
	And so then, as relates to a potential burglary justification, there's additional crime that Alba could contend that he reasonably understood the time it was intended to commit.
	Bottom line.
	So in other words, they're saying, because this guy could have committed a burglary, right?
	Well, he was committing a burglary, essentially, because he was committing this felony of a burglary, and because of this reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death, there's no way that they could prove.
	They can disprove self-defense.
	So now that's why they had to let him go.
	I'll tell you something.
	First, I'm going to block a lot of the sex bots that I've been missing.
	I'm going to bring up two super chats that I missed.
	Winning Reality says, Bingo, Nate.
	We are all open to suggestions at all times.
	What separates the mind controlled from the mind freed is awareness and practice researching and putting the truth above ego.
	Watch Share Viva Fry's Permianification.
	Thank you.
	It was a great video.
	I'm going to tell you who wrote this motion, Nate.
	A Democrat who was compelled to draft this because of social and political pressure.
	Who drafted it?
	This is from Alvin Bragg's office.
	Progressive DA here in New York.
	But it reads right, though.
	I don't even see why this guy should have been arrested.
	It reads right.
	It reads like someone twisted your arm and said, do it, do it, because we can't go through this now.
	It's become too politically unpopular to pursue this guy, to prosecute this guy, and do it.
	Because, by the way, even reading that, I could easily, playing devil's advocate, draft the opposite opinion.
	Of course.
	The guy had no weapon on him.
	He didn't know that he had a box cutter.
	What was he doing?
	He was running.
	So all of a sudden now you get just a stabby stabby when someone tries to pick a fight with you?
	No, but my question might...
	Oh, go ahead.
	I was going to ask.
	Oh, no, no.
	I think you should be allowed to use whatever you want for self-defense from a gun to the fist.
	Are you hot?
	Okay, get out of here.
	Then it starts fisking.
	That's for sure.
	And then there was one more.
	Well, it all depends.
	See, that's the thing with self-defense.
	It all depends, right?
	If it's a five-year-old kid punching you, can you just...
	It's all contextual.
	It's almost like it's unlawful confinement.
	It's almost like kidnapping.
	That's essentially kidnapping.
	Burglary is fun to read on because it's interesting to see how the courts define a building.
	In some cases, a desk can count as a building for the purposes of burglary.
	Yeah, people think breaking and entering doesn't involve breaking.
	Sometimes it arguably involves...
	Yeah, no, you're exactly right.
	I think a lot of people, like, there are some of the lawyers online who keep saying, well, he didn't commit a burglary because he didn't break in.
	But the problem is that burglary is a statute that's state-specific.
	So some states, like New York, because we have so many buildings, and some of the buildings open to the public and some is not, then it's just what makes sense that the person has to break in to commit a burglary.
	So, for instance, a little smash and grab.
	You ever see those smash and grabs where a whole bunch of people run in and smash and grab stuff?
	Those are burglaries in New York.
	Because you're going aside with the intent to commit a crime.
	My kids say I'm sweating.
	All I do is sweat here.
	I sweat all day long and I sweat a lot.
	I gotta drink a lot of water.
	Has Nate read USA vs.
	Hoover motion to dismiss the most cogent dismantling of the legality of the NFA?
	I gotta read that.
	I'm gonna write that down and read that now.
	I missed Nate's joke.
	Darn it.
	Okay.
	Nate?
	Let me see what else we got here.
	Oh, that was the last one.
	Nate, I'm going to bring you out just so I can do three more things before the missus comes in here.
	Let me get out of here.
	No, no, it's more than fine.
	Kurt's got his 100k stream, so I'm going to stop over there.
	I'll tell you, Robert Gouveia is going live at 7, so I want to get off air so that everybody wants to live.
	Robert Gouveia.
	There's too many, Nate.
	Gouveia is going live at 7. Joe Nierman, GoodLogic, is going live later tonight.
	He's at 9. Yeah, I think we're trying not to overlap in as much as possible.
	We're not really trying, but we're trying to be respectful of everybody's time.
	Nate, thank you.
	I've just been dodging the kid for as long as I could.
	Before I go, I did want to ask you and hopefully everybody in the chat one more question.
	The girlfriend, because you just read that motion.
	The girlfriend who was with him, who stabbed...
	The clerk, when he was fighting for his life?
	Not charged yet.
	Should she be charged with felony murder?
	Because the DA's just made the argument that this was a burglary.
	And if this is a burglary and this guy got killed with her assisting him in the commission of that felony, that's felony murder.
	I would be inclined to even say she shouldn't be charged with anything because in her mind, she was protecting...
	Her boyfriend, when she didn't think the boyfriend deserved to get stabbed.
	But the bottom line, they both went back to F him up, and they brought weapons with them.
	I mean, it's...
	But I'm going to disagree with you, Viva.
	The reason why I'm thinking she should be locked up is because, alright, you can make that argument when they first were there, but when she leaves...
	And comes back.
	And comes back and says, I'm leaving to pick up my boyfriend to come beat your ass, and they come back with weapons.
	Now you can, let's turn it from burly to robbery.
	No, you're right.
	You're right.
	I take everything I said back.
	She set up a situation where someone got killed.
	And felony murder, even if someone else kills your partner.
	You get charged with the murder.
	So I think, I honestly think she should be charged with felony murder of her, but I think, you know, the DA is, she's black, we gotta, you know, because the DA is not happening, so.
	How about we just take assault with a weapon?
	I mean, that would be the most reasonable charge.
	Yeah, she stabbed him.
	Isn't that crazy?
	And she's not charged with anything.
	Anything.
	No, but what's nuts is that...
	It's over a fucking bag of chips.
	She leaves and says, I'm going to get my boyfriend to come back and fuck you up.
	And then she gets her boyfriend and they both come back.
	He's got a box cutter, a young, healthy, strong man.
	She's got a knife in her purse.
	For a clerk working a job just trying to make a buck so that he can pay his rent, people have gone mad.
	You know what?
	You've made a compelling argument for felony murder, but for the fact that she just says, I'm going to go home and go to sleep, and tomorrow's another day.
	She set up a situation and a sequence of events that led to her boyfriend getting murdered.
	She went to the bank with him.
	But she went to the bank with him, and then when they were fighting, she stabbed the clerk to stop him from defending himself.
	So I don't see how you don't have felony murder here, but we'll see.
	We'll see.
	All right, man.
	Nate, it's very good to see you.
	And we'll go back to Twitter and we'll make love and make amends.
	Later, brother.
	Have a good night.
	Make love.
	That's one hell of a Freudian slip.
	Okay.
	All right.
	There was an orange chat.
	Love you both.
	God bless.
	But where did it go?
	I just want to bring up a few videos before I end this and then go to do my exclusive post-millennial video summary of the day.
	Now that I've picked the brains of the man on the ground, John Hoggy, and Nate the lawyer, who is...
	Oh, it's on point.
	Let's just read.
	Donald Trump.
	This letter was admitted as evidence in the Bannon trial.
	I know we've all read it, but maybe we haven't.
	This is Taylor.
	Who's Taylor Budwich?
	Director of Communications for Save America and Donald Trump.
	Okay, good.
	He provided a copy of Donald Trump.
	July 9th, 2022.
	I love the seal.
	Dear Steve.
	I write about the subpoena that you received in September 2021 from the illegally constituted Unselect Committee, the same group of people who created the Russia, Russia, Russia scam, impeachment hoax, number one, impeachment hoax, number two, the Mueller witch hunt, which ended in no, quote, collusion, and other fake and never-ending yarns and tails.
	This is fantastic.
	You could love Trump or you could hate Trump, but this is hilarious.
	First of all, someone had to come up with this.
	And someone to say, this is how I'm going to relieve Bannon of any executive privilege I might have given him, by lambasting and rubbing the nose of the media, of the politicians, in their lie after lie.
	Because it is, by the way, love Trump or hate Trump.
	He's right.
	Russiagate was a hoax.
	This committee, questionable, questionable constitution, questionable objectives.
	Schiff wrote a book.
	Raskin wrote a book.
	This makes Russia look, I won't say better, look on par.
	This puts American politicians, at the very least these American politicians, in a position where they can never criticize another authoritarian regime.
	Okay, I digress.
	When you first received the subpoena to testify and provide documents, I invoked executive privilege.
	Of course, this could be very self-serving.
	This could be...
	Almost, you know, disregardable self-serving.
	If I'm a juror and I'm a Democrat, I'm like, oh, okay, good for you.
	Now you're saying I invoked it and whatever, while you lambaste my very political idols.
	However, I watched how unfairly you and others have been treated, having to spend vast amounts of money on legal fees and all of the trauma you must be going through for the love of your country and out of respect for the office of the president.
	Therefore, if you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, Also self-serving because it's sort of indirectly ratifying or confirming the idea that the only reason Bannon didn't testify was because they had not reached an agreement on time and place.
	This is not 4D level chess.
	This is just advanced chess.
	This is a self-serving statement right here.
	Whether you like it or not, you have to recognize it.
	If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, implies that the reason for which he has not yet testified was because they had not reached an agreement.
	On the time and place, when they issue a subpoena, it's their time and it's their place and it's their date.
	Whatever.
	I will waive.
	If you agree on this, 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 hacks who have allowed no due process, no cross-examination, and no real Republican member.
	No real Republican member.
	Suck on that.
	Kinzinger and Cheney.
	It is a partisan kangaroo court.
	Why should these evil, sinister, and unpatriotic people be allowed to hurt and destroy the lives of so many and cause such great harm to our country?
	It has been from time to...
	It has been from the time I came down the escalator at Trump Tower, a political hit job against the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the concept and policy of making America great again and putting America first.
	Good luck in all your future endeavors.
	That...
	Did I just shut myself down?
	Did I just shut myself down?
	No, I didn't.
	That, ladies and gentlemen, it's a thing of beauty.
	You could hate Trump.
	And I guarantee you the reason for which you hate Trump is because that letter is a thing of beauty.
	And you only wish the members of the unselect committee could draft something equally flashy, flamboyant, alluring, catchy, and on point.
	You only wish you're stuck with Benny Thompson and Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney.
	I'm still here.
	I'm still here, right?
	Yeah, I am.
	Okay, good.
	And that was one of the last things.
	Then there was one other thing that I had on my notes.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here we go.
	Speaking of...
	Speaking of...
	Listen to this.
	Yes, sir.
	I think we have to go now.
	One more.
	One more.
	Yes, sir.
	Over the course of your career.
	What are you saying?
	Over the course of your career, has your husband ever made a purchase based on stock information he's received from you?
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	Of course not.
	I'm not an idiot.
	I don't give him the advice.
	Our broker does.
	I don't tell him what to do.
	The people who advise me give him the information.
	No.
	No.
	And by the way, reading a little into body language because I think I'm good at reading people.
	No.
	No.
	What an idiotic question.
	You have to be stupid to think that.
	Trying to shame the individual.
	No.
	What a ridiculous question.
	Not a ridiculous question.
	And by the way, Nancy Pelosi, you're probably not lying.
	Because of course it's not going to be you that gives him the advice.
	If I were asking that question, I would have phrased it.
	Did your husband over the course of your career make any decision in purchasing or selling stocks from information he acquired?
	From you or anyone directly or indirectly related to you in the course of your business as a politician.
	No.
	First of all, we all know you do it.
	We all know you all do it.
	So...
	Okay, I'm going to the Rumbles to see if there's any Rumble rants, which there are not.
	Let's just go see if we get...
	Insider trading by a member of Congress is a $200 fine, so it's worth it.
	I'm not sure.
	I can't vet that information.
	Can't vet that information.
	She is quite nauseating.
	I tend to agree with that.
	And you know what?
	Even though I don't have to do it, I'm going to do it anyhow.
	Let me see if I can get back to this.
	The Viva insert.
	Let's go back here.
	People, you can't eat gold.
	But you can certainly buy things with the proceeds of the sale of it when it does not depreciate.
	I can't figure out how to do this.
	There we go.
	And now, not the spiders.
	We don't want to do the Viva.
	Here we go.
	People, American Hartford Gold.
	One thing you can be sure of when you buy gold is that even if it goes down, it's not going to go down as much as crypto.
	It's not going to go down as much as goddamn GM, Nortel, Namask of Lithium.
	Stock market trading is legalized gambling.
	Up to $1,500 free silver on your first order.
	It's a half a percent of an order up to a maximum of $1,500.
	866-318-2115 or text VIVA to 99889999.
	And the link is in the description and I'll put it in the pinned comment.
	Okay, people, we're going to go live tomorrow.
	As always.
	Oh yeah, because we got closing arguments tomorrow.
	Closing arguments are going to be very straightforward.
	Very straightforward.
	They served Bannon.
	He had no lawful reason for not complying.
	He knew that he had to comply.
	He didn't comply.
	Contempt of Congress.
	The defense, they're going to try to muddy the waters.
	They've got that wonderfully drafted letter from Donald J. Trump in evidence.
	They'll try to say he thought.
	They thought he didn't have to.
	They thought they were arranging times and modalities.
	If the social media posts from the investigator are tossed along with his testimony, they may not have the public getter social media post defiance.
	Good luck.
	Prediction.
	Bannon's getting convicted.
	He's going to serve one month in jail.
	And he's going to get a $100,000 fine.
	They're going to go easy on the...
	Was it $1,000 max or $100,000?
	I forget what the max is.
	He's going to get the minimum jail time and he's going to get the maximum financial fine.
	What's the star chamber?
	I'm going to look it up because I know what the reference means, but I don't actually know the history.
	Good night.
	God bless.
	Have a trumpetastic evening.
	We will.
	I'm going to go see what the wife is doing and I'm going to go shoot my post-millennial exclusive summary in a bit.
	People, it is a pleasure as always to spend time with you.
	I thank you for tuning in.
	I do apologize that my schedule is not quite a schedule just yet.
	Viva hoards gold and American dollars.
	I can tell you one thing.
	Life is just endless expenses.
	Kids, dogs, windows.
	Oh my goodness, they shut down our water.
	We were 24 hours without water.
	We got the water back.
	Deposit here.
	Well, okay.
	On that note, pissed off, Dragon.
	You're going to make it back in again.
	Have a great time, Viva Brothers.
	I like that.
	Viva Brothers.
	Viva Brothers and Sisters.
	I'm going to check my DMs, Big Pete, but no promises.
	I haven't checked my DMs in a long time.
	Big love for the V. That means the Viva, not the other V. $1,000 fine.
	Okay, so it's a 1,000 max.
	Then, I don't know.
	He might do two months in jail.
	Anyhow, he's getting convicted.
	He's going to do at least a month, and he's going to get a $2,000 fine.
	One for each contempt max fine.
	Viva, love you.
	Say hi to the fam.
	I will.
	Very nice avatar.
	I like the fact that your eye color matches the scarf color.
	And I hear a dog whining for food.
	Viva for Viva.
	Corn pop!
	You're annoying, but I'm not banning you, man.
	Plus, you bring humor.
	And humor goes a long way.
	Viva, viva.
	Okay, go.
	Enjoy the evening, people.
	I'll see you tomorrow without fail.
	Rumble, thank you very much.
	Postmillennial, stay tuned.
	American Hartford Gold.
	There's something beautiful about holding a silver coin or a gold coin, depending on your budget.
	Crypto.
	Crypto.
	Okay.
	Go.
	Enjoy the evening.
	See you tomorrow.

▲