Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:43

Viva Frei-Day! Alex Jones Trial Update & MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	To lead off the inning, we'll get a pinch runner down there, the fist bump.
	We'll get an eye on who the pinch runner is going to be.
	Looks like it's going to be Jeffries.
	And she will come off to a nice ovation.
	Not much reaction from the...
	Well, when she comes back around the ball to lead off the inning, we'll get a pinch runner down there, the fist bump.
	In case you missed it, she flipped him the bird.
	I'll show you when it happens.
	She will come off to a nice ovation.
	Right there.
	Right there.
	That is the moment when class takes over.
	Now, there were jokes.
	There were many variations of edgy comments, jokes, observations.
	There was the obvious Matt Gaetz reference.
	For those of you who don't know, Matt Gates has recently been in the news for making certain statements about people being ugly inside and out.
	That's the obvious joke.
	I don't like those jokes.
	I don't think it's nice to make fun of people for the way they look.
	I do think, however, calling someone ugly inside and out when it's...
	Not a situation where you're making fun of things that are beyond the control of somebody, and specifically more so when you're talking about someone who conventionally is physically attractive, but because of the loathsome person that they are, they exude ugliness despite what would otherwise be superficial beauty.
	I avoided that joke.
	Don't think it's nice to make fun of people for that.
	Stay classy, San Diego.
	It's an Anchorman reference where one minute and 50 seconds in and we've got our first reference to a movie.
	Stay classy.
	Member of government.
	Role model.
	Remember when Trump was a bad role model for children because of his mean tweets and he used nasty language and he called people names.
	Flipping the bird.
	We'll get a pinch runner down there.
	The fist bump.
	A role model to children everywhere.
	Let's just see it one more time.
	And she will come off to a nice ovation.
	Be respectful as adults.
	Handle the feet well.
	And lift the bird.
	It's just so funny.
	It's so funny for the announcers.
	It's par for the course.
	Imagine if Trump had given someone the bird.
	Imagine if a Republican had done it.
	I'm sure they'd be laughing and just another day of politics.
	But I wasn't only showing that to show that it's possible to make the insightful I agree with your message to
	Representative Linda.
	What was her name again?
	Linda Sanchez.
	And you were picked up in Fox.
	2022 congressional baseball game, where politics is supposed to be set aside, even though it's one side of the aisle playing the other in a, well, I won't say stupid game because it's baseball, in a sports game.
	Set politics aside, this is the unification of politics.
	No, flipping the bird, animosity, because politics ruins everything, even the annual baseball game.
	Representative Linda Satchez flips off Republican lawmakers.
	By the way, just so everybody's...
	Also clear, like, I'm so neurotic.
	I had to double-check multiple times that it was the proper Linda Sanchez before tagging her because, oh, if you improperly tag someone or inaccurately accuse someone of flipping the bird when it's someone else, that can be very embarrassing and compromising to one's integrity of trying to be accurate, especially when making statements about someone else.
	I say it of people all the time.
	If you're gonna insult someone and you're gonna talk trash, make sure that you're right and make sure you know what you're talking about.
	But let's just briefly get to that article.
	It's just, it's so beautiful.
	It was all for charity!
	But tensions were still high during Thursday night's annual congressional baseball game.
	May I ask a question?
	How the hell can tensions be high during an annual congressional baseball game, the goal of which is to raise money for Cherry?
	How can tensions be high unless you're juvenile, petty babies, Linda Sanchez?
	Oh, she displayed poor sportsmanship.
	If it were Trump, they would impeach him.
	During the 87th game when she was seen flipping off the Republican dugout during the sixth inning with the Democrats trailing by five runs.
	They lost by 10. 10-0.
	After a lead walk-off, Sanchez was pulled for a pinch runner.
	I know people's comedic senses are going off here, but while making her way back to the dugout, she looked back at her fellow lawmakers on the opposing side of the aisle before making the offensive gesture.
	And then we got Twitter, yada, yada, yada.
	It is unknown what provoked the emotion from Sanchez, but social media erupted.
	And, oh, let's go, let's go.
	Linda, the T doesn't stand for T-ball.
	Sanchez gives Republican bench.
	Yeah, oh, oh, look at that.
	Beautiful.
	I made Fox in this, people.
	You know, watching this and reading the article, it's unclear what sparked it.
	I was telling my kid as we're driving.
	I can't think, and it's not because I'm high and mighty.
	I have a very neurotic reason for which I have never flipped anyone the bird.
	I've never sincerely flipped anyone the bird.
	When we were kids with my brother and sister, we used to make mocking jokes about how you flip the bird.
	I'll do it with my index finger, but everyone knows the balloon, and you blow it up.
	Or the typewriter, you go...
	What was the other one?
	Oh, the jack-in-the-box.
	When we were kids, we would do that for fun.
	Never in my life have I sincerely, out of frustration, in order to show my anger, flipped anyone the bird.
	And why?
	I always take for granted that someone is going to punch me in the face, or worse, if I do that.
	Is it flipping the bird?
	Is it worth instigating?
	A potentially serious escalation of conflict so you could show someone your finger to display your anger?
	Never.
	Now, I'm thinking, what could they have said to her from the dugout that could have warranted that reaction?
	Nothing.
	They could have insulted her in the way Matt Gaetz did.
	Still wouldn't warrant that.
	Do you remember back in the day, there was a famous World Cup soccer game.
	Zidane headbutted someone in the chest and they fell down.
	And I'm sure it hurt, but I'm sure they exaggerated a little bit.
	Zidane headbutted the person in the chest.
	It was his retirement game.
	He was ejected from the game.
	He was sobbing in tears because that's how his career ended.
	And someone said, oh, the guy said to Zidane, your sister's a W word, a five-letter W word.
	I'm like, okay, that could be offensive.
	That could be insulting.
	I don't know why it would be insulting if it's not true.
	It's just stupid.
	But that doesn't explain the reaction.
	It doesn't excuse the reaction.
	Someone saying something stupid that hurts your feelings is not a justification to flip the bird, to headbutt, to physically assault, period.
	Oddly enough, this intro is going to segue perfectly into the Alex Jones week one summary.
	I was listening to it.
	It's still going on right now.
	It'll segue perfectly into that when we get there.
	But...
	Why is the middle finger emoji banned from the chat?
	You suck, YouTube.
	I can tell you one thing.
	I didn't ban it.
	I don't care about the middle finger.
	I care very little about insults in general.
	Never have I given the finger to somebody.
	And in as much as there's anything that could explain why she did it, there's nothing that can justify why she did it.
	Explaining why people cave into their basic desires is an explanation, not a justification.
	Anyhow, Made it into Fox News.
	Nice.
	I think it's the perk of the blue checkmark is that something witty and insightful from a blue checkmark, you know, I think it's on the radar.
	Whereas even if it were 10 times more witty, more intelligent, more insightful from an unverified Twitter account, I think the way these things work is they go through verified accounts to pull for Twitter.
	Anyhow, still always happy to have my wit and my insight.
	Be picked up by the news.
	Okay.
	In other words, flipping some on the bird might cause them to tweak your beak.
	You know, I take for granted people are stronger than me.
	People are angrier than me.
	And why start a fight that you might lose for no damn good reason?
	You start a fight, you better have a damn good reason to do it.
	And you better make sure it's the last resort.
	And you better make sure that you're pretty certain you're going to win that fight.
	Fighting over parking spots, not worth getting assaulted for.
	Flipping the bird is reserved for lane changes.
	No!
	Because people drive with guns.
	And there's a thing called road rage, where even if they don't have a gun, they ram your car.
	They pull you out of your car.
	It's never, never, never.
	Period.
	Although maybe that was meant as a joke.
	Thomas Caldwell.
	Expecting sportsmanship from the left is like expecting table manners from a coyote.
	Coyotes are very smart.
	They're canine animals.
	I'm convinced they could be domesticated.
	Or at the very least, they could be conditioned to have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with humans.
	I don't know if that was a typo.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Okay, by the way, standard intro.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	YouTube takes 30% of super chats.
	If you don't like that...
	We are simultaneously streaming on The Rumbles.
	They have an equivalent called Crumble Prance, where they only take 20%, but you can feel better, supporting a creator better, and supporting a platform that supports free speech.
	We are on The Rumbles, and someone here, G.S. Clark, says, middle finger emoji to me, I kid.
	I thought that actually said I gave the middle finger as a kid, but nothing embarrassing on my phone.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	The Rumble discussion.
	Okay, people.
	So we're starting with the funny stuff, and then we're going to quickly, quickly move into the unfunny stuff.
	When was the last haircut?
	I'm up to 13 months.
	It's been a long time since I got a haircut.
	I can put on a full-fledged ponytail now.
	Or as I like to call it, a horse tail.
	What's a more manly way of describing a ponytail?
	All right.
	We've got a lot of interesting stuff and some of it's not happy.
	All right.
	We'll just get into it.
	You know, more doctors spontaneously dropping dead.
	Young, otherwise healthy doctors.
	Canadian doctors.
	It's the fifth doctor in the greater Toronto area to drop dead in the last month.
	In July.
	Nobody can ask questions.
	Nobody can expect transparency.
	We can be expected to have the media find other reasons.
	If they don't use them as overt reasons, because that might be construed as medical information or medical advice, if they provide a definitive explanation, what we're going to see is that they provide very discrete, distractionary sort of potentials, hypotheticals.
	Without connecting the dots, they just put them right next to each other.
	And highly suggest that you connect the dots.
	We're going to do the Alex Jones Week 1 summary.
	We're not going to go into tremendous detail, but we're going to go into more detail than not.
	Oh, you know, before we get into the actual story, I drove with my daughter from Austin, Texas, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and back.
	We left Tuesday morning, drove to Roswell, which was eight and a half, nine hours from Austin, so that we could stay in Roswell.
	The next day, do the day trip, which was three hours there, three hours back, to Albuquerque, so that we could do all of the important stops of the Breaking Bad show.
	It was glorious.
	It was fantastic.
	And then we drove back from Roswell yesterday.
	And I could have gone live, but I would have felt too bad having my daughter.
	Who, like, gleefully, but also amazingly, spent nine and a half hours in a car with me, listening to the Alex Jones trial in as much as we got reception.
	We could have gone live last night, but I had to, you know, play with, entertain her and do something with her because it was a long drive and couldn't get back on the computer.
	But today, whenever I come out West...
	I find the fossil shops, the rock, mineral, and fossil shops of the area.
	Arizona had the best one ever.
	I made a video about it.
	Texas has a great one.
	It's called Nature's...
	This is not an ad, by the way.
	It's not a disguised ad or anything.
	Nature's Treasures.
	It was fantastic.
	It was fantastic.
	Where is it located?
	It's located somewhere on the highway.
	I forget where.
	It was fantastic.
	And I got something at Nature's Treasures.
	We got a bunch of stuff.
	Look at this.
	It's a pyrite block that has been shaped into an egg.
	But it's got like a section.
	Let me get this in focus here.
	Okay, get it in focus.
	It's not going to get in focus.
	Here we go.
	Look at that.
	It's beautiful.
	And at the fossil shop, I met...
	Someone there who makes art, who works at the shop and makes her art.
	And it's called Paintings by Sylvia.
	And I just, first of all, I love the fossil shops.
	I love meeting people from the area and just discussing with everybody.
	But this is it.
	Paintings by Sylvia.
	Nature's, what was it called?
	I forget the name of the fossil shop already.
	But it was beautiful.
	Got some good stuff, which I'll be able to take home with me.
	This I actually got from my youngest kid because it's amazing.
	And he won't be able to break it.
	He might break something by dropping it, but he won't break it by dropping it.
	Okay, good news is over.
	There was no dino poop there, but I got some more dino poop coming back from Las Vegas.
	A nice big log of coprolite, people.
	And save your money and quit buying Judas.
	It's actually surprisingly affordable.
	They don't break, and it's easy to please children with that type of...
	Plus, you get to teach them a little bit about life.
	That's right.
	Pyrite, P-Y-R-I-T-E, is also known as fool's gold because people found pyrite, I think it was in California, thought they struck gold, but lo and behold, it's radically different than any form of a metal.
	It doesn't bend or it's not malleable like metal.
	It's like crystal almost.
	It breaks and snaps.
	Okay.
	Let's just look at this, people.
	There is no schadenfreude here.
	This is tragic.
	And at some point, people need to start getting enraged at the fact that we're being led to believe that this is normal.
	And nobody is not speaking out because speaking out presumes knowing the problem, which I'm sure many people think they know, but I don't go that far.
	Sometimes I'll ask the questions.
	People need to start vocally and shamelessly asking the questions.
	Because when you keep hearing stories about this, Warmington, triathlete, 27, becomes fifth GTA, that stands for Greater Toronto Area, doctor to die in July.
	A young, professional, woman, person in the prime of their life collapsed while swimming in a triathlon and died four days later on Thursday, July 28. People need to start getting enraged.
	That this is happening at seemingly an increased rate, because it is, and we'll get to an article later, and that we can't ask the questions.
	And we're going to be shamed into silence.
	Don't ask the questions.
	Don't politicize their deaths.
	Nobody is taking any schadenfreude pleasure in the suffering of others here, period.
	People should start getting enraged that this is happening too often and that people are not speaking out about it and that we are being shamed and silenced, shamed into silence.
	A young, otherwise healthy 27-year-old doctor dies while competing in triathlon.
	Nothing to see here.
	If you dare ask, you're a conspiracy theorist.
	Just another case of SADS people.
	Sudden adult death syndrome, which is normal now.
	It's normal.
	It's always been like this.
	And if you haven't noticed reporting on this in the decade of 2010 to 2020, you just weren't paying attention.
	Don't look up.
	And it's funny.
	That Netflix or HBO movie is taking on increased meaning for me now.
	Because we are basically being told to not look up when it's obvious there's something above our heads.
	This is from the article, people.
	The fifth GTA doctor to die in July, quote, radiated positivity, end quote, and lived a vibrant and active life.
	And by the way, This is the Toronto Sun.
	This is Canadian government-subsidized media to some extent.
	They are the ones highlighting that this is the fifth greater Toronto area doctor to die this month alone.
	Is that normal?
	I mean, is that possibly, conceivably, rationally normal?
	Oh, there's a lot of doctors.
	No, they're just reporting on it.
	No, it's not conceivably normal.
	It's not rationally justifiable.
	And so much so...
	That this article starts off, is predicated, is prefaced by the idea that this is the fifth GTA doctor to die this month alone.
	It's a tragic loss.
	It's beyond a tragic loss.
	But don't ask questions and don't expect answers from that very medical community.
	27-year-old who is a resident doctor at McMaster Children's Hospital in Hamilton collapsed while swimming as she competed in a triathlon on Sunday.
	She subsequently died on Thursday.
	It's just beyond tragedy.
	A triathlete, Dr. Neyman, routinely commented on social media about her love of training and racing.
	There are no words.
	There are no words.
	And at some point, there have to be answers.
	She died in a triathlon.
	Fifth GTA doctor this month.
	What's the other aspect of government-subsidized media saying about it, telling you about it, suggesting that you start drawing by way of conclusions?
	It's almost a joke, but it's not funny.
	The meme now is climate change.
	The meme now on Twitter, for those who...
	Have those type of, I'll say, edgy responses.
	Climate change.
	Must have been climate change.
	And I don't like making those jokes because that pokes...
	I understand the purpose of the commentary.
	But in my mind, that sort of...
	It makes light of the death.
	But that's the meme.
	And then, oh, go to the fully subsidized Canadian Pravda.
	CBC.
	Go to the fully subsidized state propaganda, the propaganda wing of the government of Canada.
	Oh, look at this.
	Where's this from?
	July 2nd.
	No, it's 2021.
	Let's get the one from this year.
	Hold on.
	There was another one this year.
	I'll get the more recent one.
	Although the same logic applies mutandis, mutandis.
	I mean, it's just Let's get the one from CBC if I can find it.
	Let's get the one from CBC.
	Now let's do it like this.
	May not be able to get it.
	But I mean...
	Hundreds died because they couldn't escape BC's extreme heat.
	Alerts wouldn't have saved them, advocates say.
	Just go through the headlines.
	That might have been from the last years anyhow.
	Just go to the headlines.
	It's become a meme because it's become the meme.
	Because they are literally telling you heatwave.
	When there was a marathon in...
	Where was it?
	I forget where it was.
	The CNN headline.
	23 injured.
	After Marathon.
	Injured after Marathon.
	I thought another vehicle had gone through.
	I thought it was another act a la the Boston Marathon.
	No.
	They collapsed.
	That's it.
	It's nothing.
	They're not saying it's causally related.
	It's heat.
	It's humidity.
	It's temperature.
	And it actually makes the memes.
	Indistinguishable from parody.
	Big Pete says, did you see Tucker did a little segment on Tamara Lich last night?
	Well, Tucker's segments typically are too damn short to begin with.
	I did hear that.
	In fact, I've seen people saying now they're going to have to start watching Fox News.
	Climate change is the meme.
	Someone dies, a young person spontaneously drops dead, climate change.
	And it would be a satirical, sick joke.
	Except that's what the media is actually trying to get people to connect to the dots.
	Nothing else.
	Climate change.
	Viva, climate change talk isn't to make light of innocent people who die.
	It's an F you to the people in charge.
	No, I'm not judging the people who make the joke.
	I understand why it's even necessary to have people who don't have qualms to make that type of obvious.
	Satirical response.
	It baffles me to this day how media and government pigeonhole the last two years from memory and what governments perpetrated.
	I'm not saying it to be judgmental of the people who make the joke.
	You need the people who are going to poke and needle and rub the insanity in the face of the collective.
	You need people to do it.
	I don't have the stomach to do it that way.
	I'm not going to look at rep Linda Sanchez and make a Matt Gaetz joke or even a Matt Gaetz reference.
	I'll stick with a Ron Burgundy.
	Let's get that out of there.
	But it's absolutely atrocious.
	It's shocking.
	I mean, and it's upsetting.
	And it has to start changing.
	It's not normal what's going on.
	You don't have to come to any definitive conclusions, nor...
	For certain reasons, should you?
	I'm not a doctor.
	I have interviewed doctors.
	I have listened to what they have to say.
	We had what I think is one of the best sidebars we've ever had this Wednesday with Dr. Francis Christian and his lawyer, whose name I forgot now.
	I'm sorry.
	Tabernush.
	Andre Mamari.
	Sorry.
	Andre Mamari.
	It was one of the best sidebars I think we've ever had.
	I listen to doctors, and I'll listen to doctors who say diverging things.
	I'm not a doctor, but I'm not stupid.
	I'm not blind.
	I'm not a child, and I wasn't born yesterday.
	And I've got to tell you something.
	Even the children know something.
	Even the children can sense that there's something a little out of the ordinary happening.
	And they'll blame everything.
	And it was whatever.
	Go listen to the Francis Christian sidebar, one of our best ever.
	But look at this.
	They literally changed the definition of recession now.
	Because they can't admit that they were wrong.
	They can't admit that they're failing.
	Or, and or, and probably more the and.
	They might not be able to admit to the people who believed their lies that they were lying.
	Because you're either incompetent, stupid, or a liar, or all three.
	When Secretary Yellen gets up there and says, it's transitory.
	And then a month, transitory inflation.
	And then a month later, gets up there and says, it's not transitory, but we couldn't have seen it becoming permanent or long-term.
	When people a month ago were making fun of Secretary Yellen for referring to it as transitory inflation, then it becomes permanent inflation.
	Then you have a quarter negative GDP growth.
	Then you have a second quarter.
	And then you change what had hitherto been the longstanding 40 plus year definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
	Change the definition.
	Change the definition to meet.
	Your lies, your incompetence, or your stupidity.
	And I'm talking about the government, not you people who are watching.
	They redefined vaccine.
	They redefined recession.
	They have redefined their own corruption and incompetence as competence and success.
	And people choose to believe a lie because their ego can't admit that they've been bamboozled by those they chose to trust.
	And it's beyond the fact that people have been bamboozled by those they chose to trust.
	They might actually...
	Have been harmed economically, physically, spiritually for sure.
	But let's just say they have probably been economically and physically harmed by the trust they have placed in people who they, but for their ego, they know in their heart of hearts are either stupid, liar, incompetent, or liars, or a combination of all three.
	Recession.
	Definition.
	22. Oh no, it was the Wikipedia.
	Wikipedia.
	Because I believe Wikipedia changed the definition.
	White House.
	I don't know what unheard.com is.
	But I believe it's an accepted fact now that Wikipedia edited the page that defined recession and then locked it.
	James Billet, don't make a fool of me because I hope I've never seen this.
	I've never come across this particular article on this issue.
	I've seen it elsewhere.
	Wikipedia takes cue from the White House and redefines recession.
	Wikipedia has changed the definition of recession and locked the page from further edits.
	These changes were made during the week that the White House proposed a redefinition.
	Of recession to mean something other than two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
	Until July 11, the world's largest online encyclopedia included in its definition of a recession as, quote, two negative consecutive quarters of growth with users free to make alterations.
	Do you know why they used that definition?
	Because it had existed since some economists of 1970s.
	Defined it as such.
	Bill Clinton, former president of the United States of America, reiterated that.
	And now, because Joe Biden can't admit the L, can't admit that they've been wrong pretty much with everything that they've been doing since day one of taking office, shutting down the Keystone pipeline, and now gas prices are...
	They're down 30% over the last month when they're up 200, whatever, 150% over the last year.
	Whatever.
	They can't admit loss.
	They can't admit error.
	And they can't admit dishonesty for obvious reasons.
	So what do you do?
	Change language.
	Wikipedia, and by the way, who is playing a role in this outright fascism?
	The marriage of government and corporate interests or the marriage of government?
	The incestuous relationship of government?
	Corporate interests and the media.
	Wikipedia, which I believe also modified the definition of 86 during the Gretchen Whitmer alleged kidnapping plot, which gave birth to the hua of the Viva Fry Channel.
	They redefined 86 to remove...
	80 miles out, six feet under, or something along those lines.
	86 meant to nix something from a menu and to kill.
	That's what it meant.
	Up until Gretchen Whitmer, while giving a national broadcast on, I think it was Sunday morning, whatever that show is, had a little 86-45 in the bottom right-hand side of her screen, which people thought stupidly, because they're idiots, they trusted their eyes, was a suggestion.
	To 86-45.
	86 being to terminate, end the life of, kill, put 80 miles out, 6 feet under, 45 being the 45th president of the United States.
	One thing is for certain, it's psychotic and delusional and maliciously morbid for a politician to even suggest nixing a president in a national broadcast.
	It's beyond the pale, over the top.
	Dirt.
	But people came to the defense of Whitmer and said, no, 86 doesn't mean to kill.
	I mean, when the mob had been using it for years and when it, you know, when Urban Dictionary defined it that way for over a decade, they didn't know what they were talking about.
	She just meant to cancel 45 from the menu.
	And it seems that Wikipedia went along with it.
	They've done it again now.
	They've done it again, people.
	From Newsweek, take it for what it's worth because I don't know what NewsGuard rating of Newsweek is and I don't really care.
	Where is...
	I can't get it.
	Hold on a second.
	Stop screen.
	Share screen.
	One day I'll figure out how the interwebs work.
	Wikipedia.
	Wikipedia suspends editing of recession page as Biden rejects claims.
	A furious editing war broke out on the Wikipedia's page for recession.
	By the way, this is the same Wikipedia that called me far right.
	Because you typically have editing wars when the purpose is to state the facts and not craft the narrative.
	There was an edit war on my page as well between someone who wants to call me far right because I ran for the People's Party of Canada and W5 ran a bit on me and others who just want to accurately reflect the world.
	They played down figures showing the United States had entered an unofficial recession.
	It's unofficial.
	I'm sorry.
	Has there ever been an official recession?
	Do you like go to Congress and sign a...
	Formally, like when you enter war, you have a declaration of war.
	Has there ever been a declaration of recession?
	I asked the question, maybe there actually has been, and I'm a total idiot for thinking I'm making a point now.
	I don't think the governments officially enter a recession or officially formalize the entering into of a recession.
	The page is currently locked, so only established registered users can make changes with anyone else having...
	With anyone else having to suggest edits for approval.
	May I ask who the established registered users are?
	I'm curious about that.
	On Thursday, figures from the Commerce Department revealed U.S. gross domestic product GDP fell by an annualized rate of 0.9% during the second quarter of 2022.
	This follows negative growth in the first quarter with an annualized rate of 1.6%.
	Negative growth typically means death or contraction.
	Negative growth seems like an oxymoron.
	Two consecutive quarters of decreasing GDP, which measures all the goods and services a country produces, is traditionally defined as a recession.
	However, key figures within the Biden administration avoided using the word recession both before and after the latest figures came out.
	Of course, of course they would.
	Whatever, then you get more licenses.
	Coming off of last year's historic economic growth, that historic economic growth came off a shutdown in 2020, you pathological liars.
	Oh, it's nice to have historic economic growth after you shut the world down.
	It's tough to actually not grow from zero.
	It's tough to actually not grow from shutting down the economy.
	But take credit for historic growth, you buffoon liar idiots.
	I'm sorry, I should not use words like that.
	You pathological gaslighting liars.
	That's better.
	Yeah.
	Historic growth compared to the year before when we shut down the world.
	And regain...
	The statement in...
	Okay, sorry.
	And regaining all private sector jobs lost during the pandemic crisis.
	It's no surprise that the economy is slowing down as the Federal Reserve acts to bring down inflation.
	Hmm.
	Why is there inflation?
	I thought you said three months ago it was transitory.
	Now you've got to...
	I don't even understand what they're talking about.
	The Federal Reserve is acting to counter a problem that you said didn't exist three months ago, which you now recognize as a problem.
	But don't call it a recession now because it's not.
	Because the Federal Reserve is acting...
	To remedy a problem that you said didn't exist was transitory three months ago.
	How many times do you have to lie to people before people just say, you're liars.
	We have no faith in you whatsoever.
	What do we do now?
	The statement infuriated House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy addressing Biden from the House.
	He commented, you would rather redefine a recession than restore a healthy economy.
	Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
	Denied the US was about to enter a recession during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
	This is the same woman who also denied that there was inflation and referred to it as transitory only a month or two later to say it's not transitory.
	Trust her now.
	She's not lying now.
	She's not stupid now.
	She's not incompetent now.
	Now she is competent, truthful, and honest.
	Can't go on.
	Can't go on.
	This is the world.
	This is the world in which we are living.
	Are there sexbots in here?
	Let's go see where the sexbots are.
	It's going to have to go.
	86, 86 the Russian sexbots.
	Can you, I mean, how, how can she do, how can anybody live with themselves?
	Secretary Yellen is now getting up on the same broadcast maybe as she was on the last time when she said it's transitory.
	A month later.
	We didn't know.
	We didn't have enough information to know that it wasn't transitory.
	And now she's saying, we're not entering a recession.
	Three months from now, we're in a recession.
	We're in, I don't know, what happens after two quarters, after three quarters?
	Is it a depression?
	We didn't know.
	It wasn't a recession.
	It was a depression.
	We were not lying when we said it's not a recession.
	All right, let me get to some chats.
	This is why our school district doesn't allow the use of Wikipedia on the network.
	Most teachers will give a zero if a student uses it.
	Once upon a time, it was not good to use because it was too new.
	Then it became sufficiently credible that people were using it with semi-credibility.
	You could check the footnotes.
	You could do a little...
	You have to every time.
	Additional research.
	Now it's a gosh darn joke.
	Greetings from Argentina, Viva.
	ZoloArg.
	ZoloArg.
	Oh, ZoloArgentina.
	Thank you.
	You know, I hear Argentina and all I think about is awesome beef.
	Please say, Thank you.
	And we got Chet Chisholm says, My interview pertaining to an injury should be up soon.
	What's the West Bay to let you know when it's up?
	I'll be on with Adam Krieger next week too.
	Chet.
	By the way, everybody, my David at Viva Fry email account hasn't been working for a long time, and it's basically over, so I have to figure out a new way to set up a new account.
	Chet, I would say, I don't want to say Super Chat next show.
	Tag me on Twitter, and I will try to look through notifications.
	They have to think we're just, they have to think we're stupid.
	Ignorant or willfully blind.
	And I think too many people are, in fact, willfully blind.
	Because I know smart people who voted for Joe Biden.
	Whether or not he got 81 million votes, he got a lot.
	Because I know smart, educated.
	What do they call them?
	The 1% who voted for Joe Biden.
	They can't dare admit that they've caused themselves financial, economic, and probably other harm.
	And they might be able to live with that.
	Oh, I don't mind paying $6 a gallon for gas.
	That's the price to pay to be patriotic.
	They're hurting other people.
	And they cannot accept the fact that their decision and their successful, apparently successful, election of a president is now hurting people who can't afford to be hurt the way they might be able to afford to be hurt.
	They can't live with that.
	Keep living the lie.
	It's not a recession.
	It's transitory, okay?
	It's permanent, but it's not a big deal.
	It's to be expected.
	There's no recession.
	It's two quarters of negative growth.
	I know if it were a Republican, we would be looking for their impeachment for destroying America, but come on.
	Come on.
	What is it called when you change definitions of words to suit your needs?
	The United States government.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to get you something to that afterwards.
	Viva, I'm too Canadian to flip the word.
	Also, Viva, actual coyotes might be more worthwhile.
	I just said coyotes.
	I'm less afraid of coyotes than I am of politically motivated people.
	I think I could actually talk sense into a coyote, and I think I could actually befriend a coyote.
	But, Little Rock.
	What's it called when you change definitions of words to suit your needs?
	The United States government?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	It also is something else.
	Hold on.
	Hold on, people.
	Twitter.
	Is this going to be my incognito or not?
	Oh, hold on.
	I want to get to this one afterwards as well.
	Hold on.
	When I use words, Humpty Dumpty.
	Lewis Carroll or Lewis Carroll?
	It's great.
	It's great.
	I mean, this is why I should probably read more fiction because there's still a lot of meaningful stuff in fiction.
	When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone.
	It means just what I choose it to mean.
	Nothing more, neither more nor less.
	The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
	The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master.
	That's all.
	How beautiful is that?
	I wish I read more fiction.
	I wish I read more.
	But how beautiful is that?
	The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master?
	That is all.
	That's all.
	It is a question of control, control language, and you can control thought.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	How is everybody else doing?
	I don't...
	Google, Google, it's messed up, man.
	Corn pop, sometimes you speak the truth.
	Ellen Hutchinson, thank you very much.
	Oh, Ellen, I hope you're not trying to get a comment in and you keep super chatting without getting the comment in.
	If that's what you're trying to do, Ellen, stop super chatting.
	I'm going to look for a comment from you.
	Wonderland for the wind.
	We are through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.
	Brian Nadd.
	Stop using Google.
	What am I going to lose?
	I'm going to use DuckDuckGo.
	We know that they're compromised as well.
	I will use what I think is good to get the results that I'm looking for, and I will use it with the requisite degree of scrutiny and distrust that I do everything.
	I still use Wikipedia.
	I just know that when they refer to people as right-wing extremists or alt-right, at this point, I know that the person is probably more reasonable than the editors of Wikipedia.
	We're going to get to that on the Alex Jones business.
	We'll get to the Alex Jones stuff.
	All right, you know what?
	Well, hold on.
	We'll do one more thing.
	We'll do...
	You have a disabled dog and a blind dog.
	The kind who would like to meet you too.
	I would put my money on Pudge, man.
	Pudge has a bite.
	It's a voracious bite.
	Yeah.
	Okay, well, I'm just going to bring this up.
	Just this one right now.
	Because it's...
	Do you all remember when the government...
	Made that rather serious damning admission when Dr. Moore, Dr. Kieran Moore, the chief medical officer, the chief medical health officer of Ontario, CMO, the chief medical officer of Ontario, he's the health guy, the chief medical health officer of Ontario.
	He came out and said in a presser, I'm quoting him, there's a risk to getting any therapeutic.
	Red flag.
	If you're a young, healthy individual, your chances of being hospitalized with Lurona, not that great.
	There is a very, very small chance of developing myocarditis.
	One in 5,000, very small.
	People went crazy, and rightly so.
	Because first of all, one in 5,000, even assuming the number is that high, as in the risk is that low, low of one in 5,000.
	That is incredibly high.
	That is incredibly high, especially when compared to the risk of anything for that age demographic from the Rona itself.
	One in 5,000 is exceedingly high.
	And one in 5,000, as people rightly pointed out in response to my tweets on this, per dose.
	And people are expected to get one after the other, after the other, after the other.
	One in 5,000 for young, healthy people.
	What do you risk with myocarditis?
	For Arona itself, which has statistically insignificant risk for children, people in that age demographic.
	Well, when he said this, the internet, at least those who are paying attention and not willingly deceiving themselves into these government lies, went nuts, as did I. Because it's preposterous, it's ridiculous, it's outlandish that one can minimize the risk of one in 5,000.
	Especially in that context.
	Well, don't worry about it.
	City News people, more government subsidized propaganda, the propaganda arm, the spin arm of the Canadian government.
	They came out and corrected it, July 15. It's actually much lower.
	They're not saying it, by the way.
	City News is not saying it.
	They're just citing other doctors.
	This is actually going to segue perfectly into the Alex Jones trial summary.
	City News isn't saying it.
	They're just quoting other doctors, other doctors who are taking issue with the chief medical officer of Ontario.
	Did they vet these other doctors?
	Did they check the credentials of these other doctors?
	In as much as did Alex Jones check the credentials or vet out thoroughly anybody that he had on his show who might have gone on to say something and in fact did say things that were factually incorrect?
	But now, by the way, City News...
	Is going to throw Dr. Kieran Moore under the bus because he's made a prejudicial admission that compromises the government's position on requiring dose after dose after dose after dose.
	Much lower than one in 5,000.
	Doctors take issue with Dr. Moore's myocarditis claim.
	They are now contradicting the chief medical officer of Ontario's public statement.
	Do they get booted from social media for contradicting?
	The official doctor?
	Who's lying?
	Who's lying here?
	Is the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario wrong or lying?
	Are these other doctors wrong or lying, but CTV can run the lie without fact-checking or vetting it because they're only quoting other doctors who are contradicting the chief doctor?
	This is the absolute destabilization of all of the core pillars of a functional, civil...
	Free and democratic society.
	Compromising medicine, compromising government, compromising media.
	And people are left saying, I've got the chief medical officer telling me something.
	Then I've got government subsidized media clearly trying to promote a certain narrative or protect a policy being implemented by this government that would be radically contradicted by the statements of a chief medical officer himself.
	So what do they do?
	We're going to cite other doctors.
	We're not making this statement ourselves.
	We are citing other doctors which are contradicting the chief doctor to protect the government and the government policy currently being implemented.
	It's over the top and it's enraging for those who are paying attention.
	It almost makes me want to lobotomize myself to some extent.
	It makes me want to go back to the day where I...
	I don't know that I didn't care.
	I didn't even know enough to know that I ought to care.
	I'd like to go back to that stage of my life.
	But there is no going back.
	I think once you're through the looking glass, there is no going back.
	I can't go back to pretending that I don't know better when I know better.
	And I also, I'm stubborn.
	I'm not proselytizing.
	But I can't go back to being silent about it.
	I think I would pull my hair out even more if I just gave up.
	Trying to sensitize other people to things.
	I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.
	And I'm certainly not trying to proselytize anybody with my political ideologies.
	I don't actually...
	Oh, sexbot!
	Sexbot, here we go.
	Sorry.
	You go block now.
	I'm not trying to convince anybody that what I'm saying is right.
	Because I don't think I'm actually trying to convince.
	I'm just highlighting the facts.
	And highlighting the points.
	The thing about the Sandy Hook thing, I understand there's people out there who believe things that I do not believe.
	I'm not trying to proselytize.
	I'm not trying to tell anybody what to believe about Sandy Hook.
	I know what I believe.
	I know what I think is factually incorrect.
	I know what I think is insensitive, but I don't think necessarily insensitive speech should be criminal.
	I know what I believe.
	I'm not trying to proselytize anybody.
	And you're free to believe what you want to believe.
	In however offensive other people, including myself, might find it to believe that.
	That being said, I can't go back to being silent about it because I think it needs more people speaking up and speaking out.
	And five doctors in one limited area?
	Dying in the month of July alone, it's time the doctors start asking questions and speaking up.
	I know a number of doctors have, including Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Khoury.
	I'm going to forget a bunch of other ones.
	You know the doctors who have been speaking out from the beginning.
	It's time for people to start asking questions en masse and to stop deluding themselves and to stop having to convince themselves that what they have given up and what they've sacrificed That they can't go back to recognizing that they might have given up and sacrificed a little more than they ought to have.
	There's that sunk cost fallacy.
	There's the gambler's loss fallacy.
	Like, I've lost so much.
	What's a little more?
	Nothing gets better until you make a change.
	The first day is the hardest.
	But nothing gets better until you get past the first day.
	It's time to get past the first day.
	Okay.
	Let me see something here.
	Oh, and you know what?
	Hold on a second.
	I might have a mild emergency.
	I'm live now, is this an emergency question mark?
	Nothing serious.
	Nothing serious.
	Let me just make sure here.
	Sorry, I just got a text.
	Okay, let me just see.
	It's from my wife.
	It's nothing serious.
	It's just another question as to whether or not I have to respond to this right now.
	Sorry.
	I'm also going to send Barnes the link so that he can come in and discuss as well here.
	I'm shitting like a pig, by the way.
	This is how frustrated I'm getting.
	When I get frustrated, every now and again, I cry.
	I cry during...
	Some songs, Sigur Rowe's songs, I cry during movies, and I cry when I get frustrated.
	It just got so damn frustrating, you just have to cry.
	There's nothing else.
	You could punch a hole in the wall, but that'll only hurt yourself.
	Sigur Rowe's, by the way, will rewire your brain, at least temporarily.
	Okay, let's do it.
	What happened to Alex Jones?
	I'm going to go...
	I haven't heard the entire week.
	I went to court on Monday for jury selection.
	And I was with my kid.
	I said, I'm not going to go back and sit in the courtroom with my kid for the whole week.
	I've been listening to it live in as much as I have a cell reception.
	And when we were driving from Austin, oh my God, through Texas, through New Mexico, what a glorious drive it is.
	Remind me, people, to...
	To describe the drive.
	Reception was in and out, so it was very frustrating.
	But I caught a lot of this trial.
	Monday was jury selection.
	And in the jury selection, it was a pretty diverse crowd.
	Men, women, all races, all ages.
	I would say under 10% wearing face masks.
	From the jury, from what I've seen, I don't think there's anyone wearing a face mask on the jury.
	And I'm saying that not to make fun of people.
	I'm saying that because that typically tends to be something of a political ideological marker.
	Agree or disagree, it's true.
	Like it or don't like it, it's true.
	It tends to be.
	It's not a hard and fast rule, but it tends to be.
	The plaintiff's attorney on the jury selection day was asking people how they felt about, you know, what sort of proof would you require to award punitive damages or intentional infliction of emotional stress damages of 100 to 200 million dollars?
	Nobody knew at the time that the plaintiffs were going to be asking for $75 million each.
	The rationale, from what I understand, is allegedly, apparently, plaintiffs argue that 75 million Americans believe that Sandy Hook didn't happen.
	Not that it didn't happen the way that...
	It might have said it happened.
	Not that it happened, but is being weaponized for political purposes.
	From what I understand, plaintiff's argument is that allegedly 75 million Americans, which would be roughly one in five, do not believe it happened.
	I believe that that is an absolutely untenable statistic, but setting that aside, they want a dollar a person for damages.
	Nominal damages, a dollar a person for every person who allegedly now believes.
	Allegedly because of Alex Jones, that Sandy Hook didn't happen.
	Okay, so when I was there on Monday, and I hear the plaintiff's attorney asking the question, how do you feel about damages of $100 to $200 million?
	I'm like, holy crap.
	He's trying to filter out the people who are going to say, they better show some damn hard damages, some concrete damages to ask for that amount.
	It has been filtering down the jury to allow them to get...
	The damages award that they want after having gotten their verdict by default.
	So jury selection goes through.
	There's some dispute as to whether or not the jury is sympathetic to Alex, whether or not they're not.
	A few people on the jury seem to listen to Joe Rogan.
	You may or may not be able to draw any conclusions from that.
	So they got their jury.
	I don't know what the breakdown of the jury was.
	Doesn't matter.
	We'll move on.
	The judge.
	Let's talk about the judge.
	Barnes has had some choice words for the judge during our streams.
	If anybody has been listening to this, and if you want to listen to the trial, you can.
	You cannot rebroadcast clips, audio, screen grabs, anything.
	The judge airs the live streams during the day.
	You can't rewind.
	And deletes the stream at the end of the day.
	All you have to do is go to...
	I may have to deal with one thing right now.
	You just have to go to Travis County, 459th District Court, and you can get the live stream.
	Now, give me one second.
	This is not a big deal.
	I just need to get...
	The urgency is that apparently someone needs...
	My wife needs our dog's proof of vaccination.
	so give me one second while i find this Hold on, people.
	Sorry.
	You're seeing me respond to my wife.
	She needs a proof of vaccination.
	Pudge.
	Pudge.
	Vet Express.
	Pudge.
	Vaccination.
	Okay, here we go, people.
	Sending this to my wife.
	The anti-vaxxer, Viva, got his dogs vaccinated.
	Okay.
	Marion.
	My wife!
	By the way, there's anybody who doesn't know a guy named Daniel Thrasher who does some amazing comedy.
	Daniel Thrasher, he's got this series on his show, on his YouTube channel.
	He's got a series on his channel.
	He plays piano, makes some really great, great comedy.
	One of the best series he's ever done on his channel is called When the Piano Plays You, Part 1 and 2. Go watch it.
	You have to.
	No.
	We just needed it.
	Okay.
	Sorry about that, people.
	The dogs need to go to a kennel, okay?
	So that's it.
	Sorry about that.
	You could go watch this trial live, and everyone should.
	It's fascinating, and you'll understand what's going on.
	This is a trial.
	Only on the damages aspect.
	And a two-week trial only to determine the quantum of the damages for the defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Why might you be asking that question?
	How do you proceed to a trial only on damages?
	Well, the judge pointed this out.
	At one point during the trial, it was Jones's attorneys who said, well, you have to appreciate.
	Your Honor, this is a claim for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	And the judge stops and goes, no, no, no, no, no.
	This is not a claim for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	This is a verdict.
	There's been a verdict.
	Because there was a verdict by default.
	Because Jones was precluded, he was foreclosed from pleading and from defending.
	And he got a verdict by default.
	The basis of the verdict by default, the reason for which Jones, Infowars, Free Speech Systems, whatever it is, had a judgment rendered against them by default because they were foreclosed from pleading, was allegedly because they failed to comply with deposition examination requirements.
	They failed to submit adequately because they submitted.
	And by the way, it even came up in the trial.
	Hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence.
	Communicated in deposition.
	Millions of emails communicated in deposition, many of which were never even opened.
	But the judge concluded that Alex didn't turn over certain documents and foreclosed them from pleading, from defending.
	So there was never any trial on the merits.
	It was a judgment on the merits by default.
	Now, people also have to understand something.
	It can happen in law.
	Destruction of evidence.
	Like, absolute outrageous willful disregard for court orders, it can lead to a judgment by default.
	It can.
	Except it is widely recognized, and I will be flabbergasted if this is not also the standard in U.S., under U.S. law.
	I'm a Quebec attorney, not a U.S. attorney.
	I would be flabbergasted if the standard is not that precluding someone from defending judgments by default are the final resort.
	Nuclear weapon of judicial lawfare.
	I'll be flabbergasted if that's not the same standard.
	You can do it, but only in the case of the most egregious, the most over-the-top, the most consistent, persistent failure to respect the authority of the court.
	My authority!
	Failure to respect the authority of the court.
	It could be done.
	If there's concrete evidence of willful destruction of evidence, if an individual absconds, simply says, F you, court.
	Flip the bird to the court.
	I'm leaving.
	I'm going to be out of country for the trial.
	Well, you can hold a trial in their absence, and it's effectively a judgment by default.
	But even then, by the way, even then, you still have to adduce the evidence.
	You still have to present the evidence.
	Because even in certain cases where a defendant absconds, defaults, says, screw you, I'm not even entertaining this process, you still have to go to court and present the evidence to the court.
	So, I mean, I don't even know in this case if the judge looked at the evidence and said, okay, I'm satisfied.
	There's no defendant because I've shut them up.
	I've gagged them.
	There's no defendant and I'm satisfied by the evidence.
	I don't even know if they got there.
	Just an analogy to oversimplify it.
	Someone says, I own that house.
	I have a deed of sale.
	I bought it from them.
	They signed off on it.
	I own it.
	The defendant of scones never shows up to trial.
	You still have to proceed to trial, even in the absence of the defendant, and show the evidence to the court.
	Show the evidence.
	Here's the deed of sale.
	Provide testimony.
	I don't even, I mean, I don't think I'm wrong.
	I don't even think that that was done in the Alex Jones case.
	They just said, defaulted?
	You're defaulted.
	We're rendering a judgment by default.
	So that is something people have to say.
	Well, people are saying rightly so, but without the requisite clarification.
	He's already been found guilty.
	By default, because he's been foreclosed from pleading on the basis of violation of court orders as relates to depositions.
	So he's already been found guilty.
	They are proceeding to a two-week trial on damages alone, and they're asking for $75 million per plaintiff on the basis that 75 million Americans believe that Sandy Hook didn't happen, and the reason for which they believe it didn't happen is because of Alex Jones.
	Okay.
	For anybody who's watching.
	For anybody who's watching.
	For anybody...
	I sent the wrong.
	Now I've got to send the other.
	Sorry, guys.
	I sent the proof of vaccination of rabies, but not the one for the other ones.
	Bordetella?
	What are the other ones here?
	Bordetella and DPAP or something.
	Okay, hold on.
	Okay, Marion.
	Okay, let's see.
	Scent.
	I love it when Siri autocorrects, it turns sent into debt.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	Okay, so that's it.
	That's the procedural context.
	Jury selection, fine.
	Do we get to the witnesses?
	Not just yet.
	Anybody who has been watching this trial, you might notice the judge seems a little, and by a little I mean a lot of little, Performative.
	It is performative and biased.
	I'm not saying the judge hates Alex Jones.
	There is no question about it.
	It's clear as is the stars at night, the sun in the morning.
	She loathes Alex Jones.
	She's already foreclosed him from pleading.
	She's already declared him to be in violation of every court order ever.
	It's not just...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Palatable detest for Alex Jones.
	Every objection raised by Jones' team is dismissed.
	Jones has asked for a mistrial a number of times, and the judge actually said during one of them, is it dismissed again?
	Every time.
	Every time it's going to be dismissed.
	Every objection raised by the plaintiff's team virtually sustained.
	Every objection by Jones dismissed.
	You're looking at this and you're seeing evidence being curated.
	Now, bearing in mind, by the way, so the judge seems very performative, talking as though she's talking not to the courtroom, but for others to hear.
	And I didn't fully understand why until yesterday.
	There's cameras in the courtroom, but there's not just the courtroom cameras.
	From what I understand, there is a documentary filmmaker camera in there filming the entire courtroom, including all of the jury members, authorized by the court.
	Filming the jury members, and I think by the camera angle it's head on because the camera court, the court camera is from the front door when you walk in on the left facing the judge and counsel and the parties and catches a little bit of the jury to the left.
	And then there's a court audiographer, whatever they call that, right to the right of the door as you walk in capturing the audio.
	From what I understand, the documentary filmmakers who have permission, authorization to record, are on the other side getting all the jury.
	But this also explains why the judge is being, I would say, maybe a little over-the-top performative in the judging.
	Because she knows there's cameras rolling.
	And I suspect, I don't know what's going to happen with this footage.
	I suspect one knows that this footage at some point in the future is going to be made public.
	Performative.
	Let me see.
	I'm just going to pick up some highlights of the week.
	There was an employee of Infowars who testified.
	I forget her name.
	Anybody in the chat knows the name of the woman.
	She testified for basically two days, I think.
	Employee of Infowars.
	And what they're trying to bring out of all of this is that Alex Jones and Infowars promoted a false theory of Sandy Hook.
	Which I think people rightly find offensive.
	They gave a platform to this guy who, whether or not he genuinely believed in it, can't get into people's intentions, but quite vocal about it, and gave this guy a voice.
	That's the theory of the case.
	And but for Alex Jones and but for Infowars and but for Owen Schwerer's coverage, the individual promoting these theories would have never had such a platform, would have never convinced so many people, 75 million people, yadda yadda.
	The theory of the case is that Alex Jones, InfoWars, did this maliciously, knowing it was false so they could make money, sell supplements, whatever.
	And so they have this employee.
	I'm going to see if anyone in the chat got it.
	Korpova, thank you.
	Korpova.
	They have the employee on the stand for a good bit, talking about how it works, what InfoWars is, whether or not Alex Jones believed what he said he believed.
	But what's absolutely shocking in this is that There's so much, I don't even know where to start.
	They're playing videos of episodes of Infowars.
	And at the beginning of the trial, the parties, plaintiffs' attorneys and the defendants' attorneys, presumably agreed on the evidence that would be submitted, that would be adjuiced during the trial.
	And they agreed on it.
	Like, defendants admitted episodes of Alex Jones' shows that the plaintiffs wanted to get in.
	And apparently...
	The plaintiff's attorney and the defendant's attorney agreed on an exhibit.
	It was a list of various videos and episodes of Alex Jones.
	Apparently, they agreed on this list, which described the videos, various videos.
	And then when it came time for the defense to try to get those videos into evidence, as seemingly agreed to between the parties, plaintiff's attorney said, no, I only agreed to the exhibit.
	itself, which is a list of the videos.
	I didn't agree to admit the videos themselves, but I think it's based on the rule of completeness that they're not going to put in the videos themselves, which require all of the videos in their entirety to be adduced as evidence.
	And that the judge believed the plaintiff's attorney when He said, I only agreed to the list of exhibits, not for the videos themselves to be admitted.
	That, to me, seems like a totally disingenuous argument.
	Jones's attorneys called it dishonest, and I think they referred to the lawyer as a personal injury lawyer in a derogatory way.
	And at that point, plaintiff's attorneys referred to the Code of Ethics of Texas practice, and the judge reprimanded.
	The lawyer saying, you're getting very close to an ethics violation by calling a lawyer in my courtroom dishonest.
	And if you're going to do that, you're going to have to damn well bring the receipts.
	And as if the list of the receipts was not, I agreed to the list of the videos as evidence, but not the videos themselves.
	What in the name of sweet, merciful goodness does that possibly mean?
	And then there was a question of...
	The hearsay aspect of the videos themselves.
	And the judge asked the lawyer, Jones' attorney, to go look through all of the hours of video, identify the portions that would be purported hearsay of those videos so that they could then determine whether or not those videos would be permissible despite hearsay evidence.
	And the lawyer's like, that's an impossible task to ask of me now.
	There's hours and hours of footage.
	We're in the trial on the damages now.
	And I was under the mistaken belief that when plaintiff's attorney said, this list of videos, description of videos is admitted, it included the videos and didn't just refer to a piece of paper.
	So, chicanery.
	I can't stomach these games.
	I can't stomach these games of lawfare.
	But setting all of that aside, even by the plaintiff's Exhibits.
	Which it should be noted.
	All of the evidence that's been adduced right now has to do with Alex Jones, Infowars, whether or not they're misinformation.
	Today they had an expert on journalism and an expert on misinformation up there.
	Whether or not they knew it was a lie.
	Whether or not they should have given a platform to this guy who was promoting his theories.
	All of that seemingly relates to evidence on the merits.
	And has nothing to do with damages, which is all that this two-week trial is about.
	The question is, why would the judge, when we're not on a hearing on the merits as to whether or not there was defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, why all of the evidence, or virtually all of it, would be about whether or not the statements were lies, whether or not they're misinformation, whether or not they violated journalistic practices, and very little, if any, to actually quantify the damages.
	There's a number of theories.
	Now that people know that there's cameras in the courtroom, it might be to tell a one-sided story.
	Because bear in mind, there's been a verdict.
	So it's not even as though you can contradict the misinformation allegations or the defamation allegations.
	You can't contradict it because there's a verdict on it already.
	So basically you have a plaintiff's side.
	Being able to tell a one-sided story, a one-sided narrative with a defense precluded from responding to it because we're not trying that stuff.
	There's already been a verdict on it.
	Now it's just damages.
	And you have cameras there, documentary film cameras there, presumably to capture this one-sided, uncontradicted, because it cannot be contradicted because of the stage of the proceedings, version of the story.
	Okay.
	Um...
	So that's where the evidence has been going.
	And you have the plaintiff's attorneys playing episodes of Alex Jones, playing the Megyn Kelly interview.
	And I'm sitting there, listening to plaintiff's own evidence, saying to myself that if this were at the evidentiary stage of the initial aspect of the claim, by the plaintiff's own evidence, I think a jury might say, okay, Alex Jones may have made certain statements.
	Which were wrong and offensive.
	And I'm saying wrong and offensive because I think they were.
	The question is, you know, do you get to sue for $150 million for that?
	He may have made some statements about crisis actors and hoax in whichever way he meant hoax.
	But even by the plaintiff's own evidence, they played an episode where Alex Jones was talking about these angel children who were...
	And the horror that happened to them, where he acknowledged it, recognized it.
	And it was not a question of denying it.
	It was recognizing it happened, but lamenting the fact that politicians were going to weaponize this for political purposes by the plaintiff's own evidence.
	And I'm sitting there saying, if I'm a jury member listening to this on the damages, I might still be asking myself, well, how did they even get to the damages?
	Because by plaintiff's own voluminous evidence, There's ample evidence of Alex Jones acknowledging that it happened, the atrocity that it was, and hypothesizing or lamenting the fact that politicians were now Piers Morgan, Obama was now going to weaponize this tragedy, which he acknowledged in fact happened, for the purposes of attacking Second Amendment rights.
	But there's no discussion on this now, because it's a foregone conclusion, because as the judge specified, this is not a claim.
	For defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, it's a verdict.
	My verdict.
	So setting that aside, I mean, that's just something to bear in mind.
	Karpova gave great testimony.
	She was a great witness.
	I think they acknowledged the mistakes that they made, but they defend what InfoWars is.
	Some people may not like it.
	InfoWars may be hyperbolic.
	It may...
	Take calls from people that other people don't think should be allowed to speak on the radio.
	Maybe.
	But she did good.
	Her testimony was pretty compelling.
	And you're watching them adjuice evidence that has nothing to do with the damages that they're claiming.
	I don't know her name.
	Yes, I don't know.
	She's a dem or a rhino or whatever.
	Yeah.
	So, hold on a second.
	See, I'm going to bring up a chat.
	I have no way of vetting this.
	I'm going to get to another aspect of the claim.
	No way of vetting this.
	Viva Frye.
	A female juror has just made the judge aware that she is afraid of being on the jury.
	Just now on 459th Travis Court Feed Live.
	I should be listening to it at the same time, but that would be a little too much multitasking.
	Well, she's afraid.
	Now she's got a documentary filmmaker's camera capturing her face, you know, 10 hours a day.
	I'm not telling you what to judge, I'm just saying.
	So what was I saying?
	The vetting of the callers.
	The bulk of the plaintiff's evidence being adduced.
	Remember, on the damages aspect of this claim, because it's already a verdict, there's no debating this anymore, was that Jones had a character on that apparently, by all accounts, was unwell, even by Karpova's own testimony.
	Unwell.
	They didn't do enough to vet this person.
	They gave this person a platform, and this person made inaccurate, false, and hurtful statements on air.
	And that's the essence of this.
	Karpova said, look, Infowars is about challenging narratives.
	It's about entertaining, engaging in discourse of alternative theories.
	But what is becoming exceedingly clear about all of this?
	And today was the most telling day because you had two experts, one on journalistic ethics and the other one on misinformation.
	Okay, we're all good.
	My wife just texted me.
	You have experts on journalistic ethics or journalistic standards and misinformation.
	And they literally were using the term official narratives or government narratives today.
	And what is becoming clear is that in as much as Alex Jones...
	Did in fact make statements whether or not they were of and about because there is, had this gone to the merits, there would have been a legal question as to whether or not Alex Jones made statements of and about anyone who was identifiable.
	Because I believe part of Karpova's testimony was that Alex Jones never actually used anybody's name specifically.
	And one of the arguments is, but for the lawsuit, nobody would have even known this particular plaintiff's name because nobody even knew exactly who Alex Jones was talking about when he made the statements.
	That's done.
	We don't have to have that.
	We don't have to have that legal debate as to whether or not this was defamation by being of and about an identifiable person, even if they were not named, because we already got that verdict.
	um um Even by Karpova's own testimony, they never mentioned the individuals by name.
	But, you know, Infowars is what it is.
	It's there to entertain.
	Engage in discussion about alternative narratives for reasons which we'll get into in a bit.
	There might be reasons sometimes to question what the government's telling you.
	Sometimes.
	But today they were literally using the word government narrative or official narrative because the misinformation expert who comes in, oh my goodness, if anybody had seen, you won't get to see the voir dire anymore because you won't be able to rewind and the stream's going to be deleted at the end of the day.
	It wasn't the voir dire.
	She's already recognized as an expert, but they were going through her credentials.
	It was the most nauseating circle pat on the back you've ever seen.
	Where'd you go to school?
	I don't know.
	It was Stanford or whatever.
	Oxford.
	It was, you know, prestigious schools.
	I don't mean to get you to toot your own horn, but those are good schools, right?
	I'm embarrassed to say, but yeah, they're eminent schools on misinformation.
	Oh, and you have, are you popular on Twitter?
	I don't know how you say popular.
	Do you have thousands of followers on Twitter?
	Yeah, I have thousands.
	Anyways, this misinformation specialist is there, and she was testifying on Infowars challenging government narratives.
	Not Infowars specifying misinformation specifically as relates to Sandy Hook, that they are the It's hard to look up misinformation online and not come across Infowars and Alex Jones because they're the leading purveyors of misinformation as relates to contradicting government narratives.
	And I forget if the word was government narrative or official narrative.
	I think it was government narrative because I remember immediately taking to Twitter just to say the following.
	This is beyond the damages to the plaintiffs in this case.
	Here we go.
	I found it good.
	The longer the Alex Jones trial continues, the more apparent it's becoming that the trial isn't only about punishing Alex and Infowars for false statements they made about Sandy Hook.
	It is a writ large attempt to criminalize and deter questioning.
	Any official government narrative.
	Because they use the word government narrative.
	I think that's my mental note.
	Today they had the misinformation specialists testifying on the fact that Infowars was involved in the truther movement.
	Because apparently, you know, it's wrong to question the 9-11 official narrative.
	They were involved in the Obama birther movement.
	So it's...
	Impermissible.
	It should be criminalized to question Obama's birth status.
	You may think it's wrong.
	You may think it's stupid.
	You may even think it's racially motivated.
	It's legitimate discourse in politics.
	Questioning the official narrative of 9-11 is legit to varying degrees.
	It'd all be legitimate discourse.
	It just might be legitimate, untenable discourse.
	There's some aspects which are less tenable than others.
	The hologram theory about 9-11, I'll say that you have the freedom to entertain those thoughts, but they're less credible compared to other theories, which, you know, until you understand what actually goes on in the real world, you might think are outlandish, but then you'll look into things like Operation Northwoods, and then you'll say, my goodness.
	The highest levels of government had previously talked about certain types of things which you are now claiming are so outlandish that it's conspiratorial and cancel-worthy.
	Misinformation label-worthy.
	To say, hmm, well, there was this thing called Operation Northwoods.
	It's not inconceivable that I should view the world present and future through the lens of the past.
	Who is so young that they don't?
	Operation North.
	That they don't know about this.
	We're going to get it from Wikipedia just because it's going to be the easiest one, but let's just...
	Oh, people.
	If you're not familiar with this, it'll blow your mind, and if you are, it's always worthwhile to refresh, rafraîchir la mémoire, comme on dit en français.
	Operation Northwoods was a proposed.
	It wasn't a purported.
	Proposed.
	It was a proposed false flag operation against American citizens that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense of the United States government in 1962.
	Not a rumor.
	Not a possibility.
	It was in fact a proposed false flag.
	Proposed by whom?
	The Department of Defense.
	The proposal called for CIA operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of the big T against American military and civilian targets, blaming them on the Cuban government and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
	Hey, everybody, just fill in the blanks, mutatis mutandis.
	By the way, I'm not saying that I believe this.
	Period.
	You just replace certain words mutatis mutatis.
	You view the present and the future through the lens of the past, because if you don't, you're never going to understand the present or be able to sufficiently assess the future.
	The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down, Blowing up a U.S. ship and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
	The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
	But for JFK, had he ratified this, it would have been not just a proposal, it would have been implemented.
	And lo and behold, what happened to JFK about a year and a half later?
	When was JFK assassinated?
	November 22nd, 1963.
	The next year.
	That's Operation Northwoods.
	In the chat, I'm curious to know, actually, who had never heard about Operation Northwoods?
	One, you had never heard about it.
	No, never heard about it.
	One or no.
	Two, yes, knew about it, heard about it.
	Let's see this.
	So that happened.
	That happened in history, and I doubt people knew it was happening at the time.
	And so this misinformation expert testifying before court as to what a whack job Alex Jones is for participating or starting in the truther movement, questioning the official government narrative of 9-11.
	Look at that.
	I love seeing ones in the chat.
	There are a sufficient number of ones thus far, people.
	It looks like it's 50-50.
	And if you go tell, uh, what's the word?
	If you go tell this to somebody, they'll think you're crazy.
	If you tell this to somebody who doesn't know, they'll think you're crazy.
	They will, and then they'll go and they'll read about it.
	And they'll say something like, well, JFK said no.
	So what's the big deal?
	They just proposed it.
	They didn't do it.
	Look at that.
	Okay, you know what?
	There's more ones.
	There's more ones than two.
	You will all go to sleep tonight a little more learned and arguably unwilling.
	What's the word?
	Unfortunately so.
	You will tell this to people who don't know.
	They will first call you a liar.
	They'll call you crazy.
	They'll call you a conspiracy theorist.
	And then when they go read it on Wikipedia, they will then say, well, what's the big deal?
	It was just a proposal from a bunch of crazy people within the Department of Justice.
	And, you know, the president shut it down.
	But if you had a president like Satan, I don't know, George W. Bush, who might not have shut it down, or you had a subsequent president who said, hmm.
	The last president who said no got assassinated a year later.
	The last president who shut down our Department of Defense theory proposal got assassinated.
	It's like that peanut butter story from the FBI.
	Oh, here's a proposal from the Department of Defense, GWB.
	You wouldn't want to get JFK'd.
	So that's Northwoods.
	This trial is being curated to have achieved the foregone result of a judgment by default on the merits, curated a jury pool to get a quantum on the trial on the damages through what some people might arguably think is jury intimidation by having documentary film cameras filming you head on for the duration of this trial.
	And then the evidence that's being induced now, which can barely be refuted, it can barely be contradicted because of the restrictions on what the defense can raise, because it's already a verdict, is a narrative that Alex Jones is a whacked-out conspiracy theorist who was doing nothing for four years but promoting misinformation about Sandy Hook when...
	By plaintiff's own evidence, the majority of the audio recordings that we have heard, Alex Jones recognizes that it happened, apologizes for certain statements he made, laments the absolute horror of the tragedy.
	But that's it.
	That's it.
	That's what the evidence is right now.
	But the narrative that is going to be crafted from the evidence being presented now, which has very little, if anything, to do with the damages being sought.
	You got cameras in there filming a one-sided curation of the evidence, curation of the presentation of the evidence to a curated jury from a judge who is literally curating the questions that can be asked to the witnesses for the jury to hear.
	So much so that it's happened now on two occasions, but when it happened with Karpova, it was particularly...
	It was particularly over the top.
	Questions get objected to.
	They ask the jury to leave.
	And then counsel, in the absence of the jury, argues the...
	What's what I'm looking for?
	The questions.
	The admissibility of the questions to the judge.
	The judge is going through these questions.
	And she's like...
	Well, this one's not even a question.
	This can't be a question.
	These were the defense questions that she was going through.
	This isn't even a question.
	And she reads it out loud in a mocking tone and says, there's no question here.
	I can't adjudicate this.
	Dismissed.
	And then she says, okay, these are the questions we agree on.
	Then she goes to ask Karpova the questions.
	And the questions are not clear.
	They're not yes or no answers.
	And the judge is, I don't know why the judge is asking the question.
	Typically, in my experience, it would have been the party who asked the question to ask it after the judge allows it.
	The judge is asking the question.
	She says, Ms. Karpova, this is the question.
	And Karpova, I hope I'm not mispronouncing her name.
	She says, I can't answer that question.
	No, it's a yes or no question.
	Answer yes or no, please.
	And she repeats the question.
	And then Karpova's like, I can't really answer.
	Third time, last try.
	The judge is cross-examining one of the witnesses in a more energetic manner than the plaintiff's own counsel was.
	Last, third chance, last try.
	Third try, last chance.
	In a sassy, over-the-top, performative manner, which all makes sense now that apparently there's, you know, more cameras in there.
	There's one more camera in there than there should be.
	So, there's that.
	What were some of the highlights?
	The journalistic...
	You know, they've scored some points because I don't have a double standard in this case.
	I think Alex Jones made certain false statements, and I think he made certain statements which could reasonably be anticipated to cause grieving parents emotional distress.
	I appreciate there's people out there who think different things about Sandy Hook.
	That's fine.
	You're entitled to your belief.
	I'm not going to proselytize you.
	Don't try to proselytize me.
	That's what I believe.
	So I'm not saying that Alex Jones should be able to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and not get sued, but CNN, who defames Nick Salmon, should get sued into bankruptcy.
	I believe that people who make false and defamatory statements, which cause actual harm, should be held to account before a court of law after a jury on all the evidence, and the punishment should be proportionate to the actual damages sustained.
	If hypothetically CNN said we had good reason to believe what we said and that's it, and Nick Sam and the other Covington kids didn't suffer any damages, I might begrudgingly accept the outcome of that trial.
	But I think if they did make false and defamatory statements that actually harmed people, CNN should be sued in as much as Alex Jones should be sued.
	When it's only a one-way street, when Elizabeth Warren, who still has yet to delete, retract, and apologize for her demonstrably false tweet about Nick Sam and Deborah Holland, still as well, up there.
	Never apologized, never retracted, never corrected.
	CNN, I don't think they ever made a formal retraction.
	They're off the hook.
	Alex Jones, who, even from plaintiff's own evidence, made certain hyperbolic, factually incorrect statements that could easily be emotionally disturbing for grieving parents.
	But by the bulk of the evidence even presented by the plaintiff, acknowledged it happened, acknowledged the tragedy, apologized for certain statements that he made.
	No, $150 million bankrupt him, foreclosed him from pleading, foreclosed him from contesting, curate a jury, curate the evidence to get to the judgment that you want, to bankrupt Alex Jones, and to send a message to anybody else out there who would dare be a, quote, Purveyor of misinformation as determined by this misinformation specialist because apparently contradicting the official narrative on 9-11.
	Imagine that that evidence came into testimony today in this trial at this stage.
	So that is why I say that the longer this goes on, the more it becomes apparently clear that this is not about properly remedying, compensating people.
	For damages that they actually suffered, it is about bankrupting Alex Jones to send a message to anybody else that once we identify you, once we have experts come in and identify you as misinformation, we will deplatform you, we will unperson you, and we will silence you to the point where you will get a $150 million judgment, just one trial of many against Alex Jones, by default.
	You will not even be able to defend yourself.
	I'm just going to see if Barnes is available.
	I want to pop on.
	And it doesn't look good.
	I mean, it doesn't look like it's going...
	I watch this, and I watch it as a lawyer.
	And I say to myself, you know, to be deprived of your defense, you have to have thumbed...
	You have to have not thumbed your nose at the court.
	You have to have inserted your middle finger into the court.
	I don't think Jones ever got there.
	I think he might have...
	In all normal run of things...
	He might have been ordered to pay some damages for some statements, but there was an apology, many apologies over years.
	There would have also been the argument that the plaintiffs, in this case, were public figures, and they would therefore have to have shown actual malice.
	One of the questions that came up in Cross had to do with the fact that the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in this case, they were doing the rounds.
	Interviews, political activism, in the wake.
	I'm not even calling it a tragedy.
	It's beyond tragedy.
	It's horror.
	In the wake of that, they made themselves public figures.
	And some of the statements that Alex Jones made were several years later when these individuals, in as much as a horrendous, immeasurable tragedy that they suffered, they made themselves public figures by getting political active about it and making the rounds on the media and in the political sphere.
	And therefore, not only would the statements have had to have been false, but they would have had to have been made with actual malice when Alex Jones made them.
	And so that's it.
	People are out there saying, well, Alex Jones is a crazy nutcase.
	He deserves everything he gets.
	And in as much as Alex Jones, the deplatforming and the unpersoning of Alex Jones on social media was the test run to see if they could get away with it with Alex Jones to take it all the way up to the sitting president of the United States.
	This trial, if it is allowed to stand, if it goes the way it looks like it's going to go and is not remedied by the higher levels of the court system, This is going to be the new system to silencing people for saying things, for saying false things that cause people emotional distress when in their minds they might have thought there was legitimate reason to discuss things which might cause people emotional distress.
	If this actually is allowed to stand, this test run of a trial.
	Inasmuch as the test trial of depersoning Alex Jones worked, this is going to be the new method of suppressing, at first, the Alex Joneses, and then they're going to say, well, let's do it to Fox News as well, because Tucker Carlson said something that caused him an emotional distress.
	When he said that those two women were guilty of extortion for trying to extort a settlement out of Trump, he caused them emotional distress.
	$150 million.
	Will they do it to CNN?
	Unlikely.
	Will they do it to MSNBC?
	Unlikely.
	Okay, let me get to some Super Chats, which I've been holding for a while.
	I'm not reading this.
	I know a bit of both.
	All that I know is I...
	There's more than five, I'm afraid.
	News hasn't broken yet.
	Oh, okay, this is back to the Greater Toronto Area Doctors.
	Text from wife.
	Can you stand in the window of the big red X?
	Bambuca always with the jokes.
	Okay.
	EpicTV.com has a January 6th movie for viewing free today.
	I Cry 2. Hugs.
	American Dreamer.
	Thank you.
	I'm actually going to screen grab that and see.
	Okay.
	Let me just do one more thing here.
	Let's see what my kid is doing.
	Viva, look for a law and crime clip today of judge berating Alex's attorney.
	How did they get a clip?
	They're not allowed snipping and clipping.
	Or are they authorized?
	And they're authorized only to snip and clip that which is going to make the judge look good in the eye of the public that she's trying to appeal to and make Alex look bad in the eye of the public that this judge is trying to demonize Alex Jones in front of.
	Yesterday...
	She berated Jones' counsel.
	Operation Mockingbird is another one that's well known.
	This is using the New York Times as intelligence infiltrating the media to get the media to run the stories that the intelligence wants them to run.
	It's the intelligence infiltrating the media.
	It's the history of the New York Times.
	The judge berated.
	Plaintiff's counsel yesterday because Schroyer, when he was testifying, and by the way, they got nothing of any substance out of Schroyer's testimony except perhaps for the fact that they don't do any meaningful vetting of any, I'll call it, deep due diligence of any person they have on the show.
	As if now that's the new criteria.
	Alex Jones didn't vet someone he had come on his show who said something that was false.
	Let's do MSNBC for the last three years of Russiagate.
	Let's do CNN for Nick Sandman.
	Did they vet Nathan Phillips?
	When Nathan Phillips was running around giving the interviews about how these white preppy kids accosted him, did they vet Nathan Phillips?
	Because Lord knows Nathan Phillips said a lot of things that weren't true.
	Nathan Phillips might not have been a war vet.
	Jussie Smollett.
	Now, if failing to adequately vet a guest on your show is the threshold, is the required degree now to surpass in order to bankrupt a company for saying something that turns out to be false, that causes someone some form of emotional distress, it's a bad new standard.
	and one thing's for sure, it's not going to be a two-way street.
	Thank you.
	Mockingbird, they simply understand how we, the people, learn and have used what we used to call common sense.
	Mockingbird, intelligence infiltrating and weaponizing media directly to promote government narratives, government lies.
	New York Times, when they were covering the fallout, no pun intended, of Hiroshima.
	They had gotten special permission from intelligence to get access to the fallout.
	And they were then parroting.
	What is it called?
	Not lapdogging.
	They were just repeating the government narrative, which was that there's no nuclear fallout.
	There's no bad effects from the radiation.
	This is all just an aftermath of the concussive effects of the explosion.
	They were repeating government lies.
	So that the public would not know of the horror of the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
	They were lying for the government because they were granted special access by the government pretty much on the condition that they continue to propagate government lies.
	And so that also when the government would continue testing nuclear weapons on the islands of I forget where, destroying the islands, destroying the people.
	The citizens would not be aware of the horrors of the fallout from Japan, and so they wouldn't have any moral objections to continue testing because it's innocuous.
	There's no lasting problems for it because the New York Times said there wasn't.
	Charles Argo Enotuzar.
	I don't know what that is.
	What if it was Michael Moore for his 9-11 documentary?
	It will not be the Michael Moore types.
	And by the way, I wouldn't be okay with this happening to Michael Moore.
	He's a detestable human being.
	He's a liar.
	He is someone who will weaponize tragedy for political purposes and personal gain.
	He still has the right to a defense.
	He still has the right to a trial by jury of his peers.
	He still has the right to contradict evidence, to make a plaintiff or a prosecutor prove its case.
	He has the right to the constitutional rights that are afforded to everyone.
	And that I should be deprived of no one under the most egregious of circumstances.
	Look up Operation Freakout.
	As a lawyer, you'd have a better understanding than most as to how damaging the actions of the COS were to an author.
	Is that a real operation or is that a joke about me having a freakout?
	Can Alex Jones take this to the Supreme Court for appeal, showing he had evidence supporting his innocence?
	Okay, I'm only going to...
	I've heard what smarter lawyers than me have to say.
	It's a state claim.
	It can go up to the appeals level of Texas, which is majority Democrat judges, so they probably wouldn't do anything.
	And it could go up to the Supreme Court of Texas, which I believe is majority Republican, who might have an interest in taking this up and setting things straight.
	So we'll see.
	That's my understanding of the appeals process.
	Barnes and I will talk about it much more on Sunday.
	Yesterday, plaintiff attorney pointed out...
	Okay, by the way, so this is classic.
	I'm driving.
	I'm not watching it, I'm just listening to it.
	And my kid is playing on the phone, but listening to it and absorbing knowledge through osmosis.
	Even though she doesn't want to absorb the knowledge, she's learning about law and life.
	Yesterday, plaintiff's attorney pointed out Barnes in the gallery because he was mad about something Barnes said.
	What the F does that have to do with anything?
	R. Funnier than that, it's not a hot mic because it's just constantly recording, even when court's not in session.
	Barnes walks into the courtroom, and I hear someone almost manically like, Barnesy!
	Barnesy's in the house!
	Social media star's in the house!
	And I'm like, holy cow, who is that?
	I said, it wouldn't be Jones's attorneys.
	I mean, they know Barnes, and I don't think they're going to react like that.
	Plaintiff's attorney, when Barnes showed up just to sit in the courtroom as an observer.
	Before Court even reconvened, Barnes is in the house, the social media star.
	And then during testimony, I forget what Schroyer was talking about, says, oh, is this, I think it was because Barnes might have been on hosting, either he might have been on the show at some point this week.
	Either way, he says something, oh, is that when you were on with Barnes, who's in the gallery, right over there in the back, you can't really see him, pointing out.
	A citizen, because at the end of the day, Barnes is a lawyer.
	He's not a party.
	He's not a counsel in the suit.
	He's a citizen in the courtroom.
	This attorney pointed out Barnes in the courtroom to the jury, to the judge, and I don't know what he thought he was proving, but it was borderline deranged.
	Yeah, I know who Sean Atwood is.
	I forget why I flagged that.
	I know who Sean Atwood is, but I forget what the discussion about Sean Atwood was.
	Bought doctors and judges.
	Bought doctors and judges.
	Oh, no, I just...
	Okay, I'm not reading that.
	I don't want to get in trouble here, people.
	Anyway, so that's the latest on the Joneses trial.
	You can have your reasons to dislike Jones.
	I think he said some things that are false.
	I think he said some things that are injurious.
	Whether or not, you know, how much it's worth is a separate question.
	That being said, he's been right on a lot of things.
	And when you live in a world where you actually know what the government has actually done, if you look at Ruby Ridge, you look at Waco, you look at the Oklahoma bombings, you look at what the government has actually done, and some of which we only became aware of or was confirmed recently, PATCON, Patriotic Conservative, Operation PATCON.
	When you understand...
	What has in fact happened in the history of the world and more specifically of American government?
	Some of the questions you will reflexively ask will look conspiratorial and delusional to people who do not know what has actually happened in American history.
	Twitter has imposed a blockade on all content from the Epoch Times, the Epoch Times without explanation, raising more concerns about freedom of speech on the platform.
	There's no concerns.
	There's no freedom of speech on the platform.
	You have to exercise it with parsimony, with political awareness, and with Operation Freakout.
	Real Bambunga.
	Church of Scientology tried to frame an author for bombing one of their own centers.
	It was discovered by accident when two Scientologists were caught breaking into a courthouse.
	I'm going to look it up.
	Freakout!
	Okay, there was another super chat here that I don't want to miss.
	And then the other problem is, once you know what has actually happened in the history of humankind, and then you begin to ask questions of everything, in as much as litigation creates what I like to call litigation trauma, once you've been chewed up and spit out of the judicial system, you went in a beautiful slab of meat and you come out a hot dog or a sausage, you then look at everyone and everything with what I call litigation trauma.
	Everybody's lying to you.
	Everybody's trying to get you.
	Everybody is out to screw you.
	You can't trust anybody.
	And it creates a trauma where you then end up not trusting people who are in fact trustworthy, questioning things which are in fact true.
	And the same applies to the view of the world.
	Once you know what has actually happened, and as horrific and unbelievable as it is, you then start to apply that to everything, even things to which it does not necessarily apply, which makes people start to deny things.
	Which ought not be denied.
	And, you know, one of the questions they asked Karpova, it was very interesting.
	And I don't even know why they would do it because it doesn't serve the plaintiff's interests.
	They were asking the distinction between false flags, hoaxes, patsies.
	What's the one they refer to as people taking psychotropic medications?
	Xanax kids?
	Someone in the chat is going to know.
	And Karpova was explaining.
	Something can be a hoax and actually happened in that some people tend to use the words inaccurately.
	Weaponizing an actual event for political purposes afterwards, people sometimes call that a false flag.
	It actually happened.
	It might have been an unsolicited or unprovoked incident that then gets weaponized.
	People use words improperly.
	But once you know about things like MKUltra.
	Which has a very strong Montreal-McGill University tie.
	People in the chat, who knows what MKUltra is?
	Let's do it.
	Another one, when I first heard of it, I could not believe that MKUltra was in fact a thing.
	Not suspicion, not hypothetical, not potential.
	MKUltra.
	Let's see.
	One, never knew about it.
	No.
	Two, yes, knew about it.
	I think a lot of people are going to be more familiar with MKUltra.
	It became popularized by, I want to say it was in a Ron Johnson book, at least referenced here.
	Project MKUltra was the code name for a quasi-legal, quasi-legal, that sounds like illegal, human experimentation program.
	Designed and undertaken by the U.S. CIA.
	The experiments were intended to develop procedures and identify drugs such as LSD that could be used in interrogations to weaken individuals and force conventions through brainwashing and psychological torture.
	MK-Ultra used numerous methods to manipulate its subjects' mental states and brain functions, such as covert administration of high doses of LSD and other chemicals, electroshocks, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, abuse, etc., etc., in addition to other forms of torture.
	MK-Ultra was preceded by two drug-related experiments, Project Bluebird and Project Artichoke.
	It began in 1953.
	MKUltra was first brought to the public attention, oh, 20-some-odd years later, by the Church Committee of the United States.
	Investigative efforts were hampered by the CIA director.
	Where was McGill?
	Where was McGill in all this?
	Experiments on Canadians.
	The CIA exported experiments to Canada when they recruited British psychiatrists.
	Donald Ewan Cameron, creator of the psychic driving concept, which the CIA found interesting.
	Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and re-corporate programming in the psychic.
	Fine.
	He commuted from Albany, New York, to Montreal every week to work at the Allen Memorial.
	That was the Psychiatric Institute of Montreal.
	Allen Memorial.
	It's page 69. Yada yada.
	Who cares about that?
	Okay.
	Carried on experiments.
	The research funds were sent to Cameron.
	Okay.
	In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at 30 to 40 times the normal power.
	His driving experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced comas for weeks at a time while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements.
	His experiments were often carried out on patients who entered the Institute for common problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanent effects from his actions.
	I also believe they...
	I don't want to make a mistake on this homeless.
	I believe they kidnapped...
	Okay, we're not going to get that.
	Anyhow, it's worse beyond words.
	I'll have to take this in a bit.
	It's worse beyond words.
	And if you had said this to anybody in 1953, there's a doctor at McGill who's experimenting on people who show up to the Allen Memorial for regular stuff.
	People would have said, you're crazy.
	You're a conspiracy theorist.
	You're challenging the official government narrative.
	You need to be censored, deplatformed, and silenced.
	What a difference 20 years makes.
	What a difference.
	Anyhow, okay.
	What else?
	Go watch Eric Conley, Mark Robert, America's Untold Stories, or an episode of Barnes' Hush Hush.
	I'm sure they have more information on that.
	Okay, WTF.
	Why would you experiment on someone with postpartum depression that pretty much always have families who are going to come around asking for questions?
	It depends.
	It's interesting.
	I do recollect that they actually experimented on the most vulnerable of society.
	Homeless people, mentally unwell people, and they had their pick.
	Okay, let me see something on the rumbles.
	And then I'll take some more discussion in the chat.
	What's going on here?
	Boom shakalaka.
	Okay, there is no Rumble France.
	And I just got an email.
	Oh, we're going to get some breaking news here, people.
	While we're live, there's an order coming out in United States District Court, Northern District of California.
	Rumble Inc.
	versus Google.
	Order denying motion to dismiss and to strike.
	Hold on, people.
	Breaking news!
	Breaking news coming from Viva Frye.
	Let's see here.
	So, by the way, all that to segue out of...
	That's the latest from the Alex Jones.
	There's more going on here that people have to appreciate.
	Nothing sinister.
	At one point, the judge asked Karpova, do you believe that this trial is a staged event?
	Do you believe that this trial is a staged event?
	I don't even know what that question is.
	I don't know how one is supposed to answer that question.
	But Karpova ended up answering yes to some degree.
	A judge who's performing for the cameras, quite literally performing for the cameras, asking Karpova.
	The representative of Infowars, if she thinks this is a staged event.
	Here, hold on a second, people.
	I'll figure out how to do it.
	One of these days.
	One of these days, Lois.
	All right, people, here we go.
	Look at this.
	This is hauled off the presses, I think.
	Let me just see what date this is from.
	July 29th.
	Straight up hauled off the press.
	All right.
	I'm going to remember to clip this portion of it right now.
	This is going to be a live first time reading through this order.
	For those of you who don't know, I covered it a while back.
	Rumble is suing Google, alleging that there's artificial suppression, among other things, artificial suppression in search results, which benefit Google and actually harm others.
	Well, you know, they'll explain it here.
	Order denying motion to dismiss and to strike.
	So Google makes a motion, dismiss the suit, failure to say the claim, whatever the basis, section two, I don't know if they invoked section 230 immunity, and to strike certain allegations, and apparently Google's motion has been denied.
	Background.
	Since 2013, Rumble has operated an online video platform.
	Plaintiff Rumble alleges that Rumble is one of the most respected, independent, and privately owned companies in the online video platform industry and market, and its business model is premised upon helping the little guy gal video content creators monetize their videos.
	According to Plaintiff, Rumble currently has more than 2 million amateur and professional video content creators and now contribute to more than 100 million streams per month.
	Rumble alleges that Google willfully and unlawfully created and maintained a monopoly in the online video platform market by pursuing at least two anti-competitive and exclusionary practices.
	Manipulating algorithms.
	What's the second one?
	You know what?
	I'll share this on Locals after when I figure out how to save a document.
	Okay.
	Plaintiff alleges that defendant uses various agreements with Android-based mobile smart device manufacturers and distributors to ensure its monopoly.
	Of the video platform market.
	We've seen this in other Google antitrust lawsuits where certain apps become pre-programmed on devices and are undeletable on devices.
	So even if you want to use Rumble or you don't want to use Google search to search, you can't uninstall that app from phones because they come tied to it.
	According to plaintiff, defendant requires Android device managers that want to pre-install certain of Google's proprietary apps to sign an anti-forking agreement.
	Well, they're forking somebody.
	Okay, we can skip over some of that.
	Plaintiff alleges that defendant uses the agreements to ensure that its entire suite of search-related products, including YouTube, is given premium placement on Android GMS devices.
	Okay, it's a tying issue here.
	Okay, fine.
	According to plaintiff, defendants monopolist stronghold on search obtained and maintained through anti-competitive conduct, including tying agreements in violation of antitrust laws, has allowed Google to unfairly and wrongly direct massive video search traffic to its wholly owned YouTube platform and therefore secure monopoly profits from YouTube generated ad revenue.
	What Rumble had shown was that even when Rumble has a video on Rumble that is...
	Oh, I forget exactly how it works.
	But the bottom line, you would go search for a video, and even if you searched for the Rumble video, Google would automatically direct you and priority-wise direct you to YouTube.
	I think it was even unrelated YouTube videos, but they would direct you to YouTube, which Google owns through Alphabet, and not direct you to Rumble, even though Rumble was the first to post and had the only link.
	Okay, accordingly plaintiffs alleges that yada, yada, yada.
	Federal Civil Rule Procedure 8A requires a complaint to contain a shortened plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
	A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
	Rule 12B.
	We've seen this everywhere.
	We've seen it everywhere.
	And by and large, we've seen the courts granted pretty much reflexively by and large.
	In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
	Motion to dismiss.
	Plaintiff pleads a single cause of action alleging defendant violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
	That's the Antitrust Act.
	Without real dispute, plaintiff has adequately alleged a Section 2 claim.
	First, it alleges that defendant obtained...
	And maintains monopoly power in the online video platform market, asserting that YouTube controls 73% of global online video activity.
	Second, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendant with no valid business purpose or benefit to users designs its search engine algorithms to show users YouTube links instead of its competitors.
	Oh boy.
	According to plaintiff, rumbling consumers are disadvantaged and competition is harmed in the defined market because Google provides self-preferencing search advantages to its wholly owned YouTube platform as part of its scheme to maintain You have to appreciate also, by the way, it's not just monopolistic in terms of the way it controls and guides information.
	They reap financial benefit from doing it.
	You go to YouTube, you watch videos on YouTube, YouTube collects ad revenue, From ad placement, it artificially, what's the word?
	I won't say fraudulently, but I'll think it.
	It artificially manipulates the results such that YouTube videos, even unrelated to the search, will come up before the actual original platform on which the video is linked, Rumble, denying Rumble of the profits,
	because Rumble runs ads also, providing, procuring unwarranted profits to YouTube, owned by Alphabet, which owns both Google and YouTube, and unfairly using its monopoly with pre-installed, unseedable apps from mobile, which account for, I think it's over 80% of Internet traffic these days.
	This is really cool, actually.
	Instead defendant's motion is based on the somewhat counterintuitive premise that plaintiff has pled too much.
	Yeah, okay.
	Go on.
	I'm not saying this sounds stupid.
	I'm saying I'm listening.
	Defendant argues that plaintiff's amended complaint should be broken into distinct theories of liability based on one, self-preferencing, two, tying of the YouTube app to other Google apps, and three, unlawfully dominating the search market with agreements involving distribution of defendant's search product.
	Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff has adequately pled a Section 2 claim based on its theory of liability self-prefacing, but argues that the second and third theories, tying and unlawful domination of the search market, should be dismissed.
	Separate for the sake of filing two separate suits?
	No.
	That's interesting.
	It doesn't say that they don't have claims.
	It says that they are distinct and should be then severed.
	The only authority defendant cites for the premise that a court can disaggregate a single Section 2 cause of action into two sub-theories, then scrutinize and potentially dismiss some sub-theories without dismissing the entire cause of actions, comes with two unpublished district court cases.
	Unpublished typically means they don't carry precedential value.
	Oh, let me see.
	I just have to make sure Barnes is not in the house.
	He's not.
	Okay.
	They don't carry precedential value.
	And is in there were never intended to be published for the purposes of citation.
	And by the way, the court is picking up on the absurd idea here.
	Break up the claims so that you can then assess the separate claims to determine whether part of the disaggregated claim should be dismissed, as opposed to just leaving it as one and allowing it to proceed.
	And if the claim doesn't succeed on its entirety, certain aspects get dismissed while others get granted.
	Courts don't typically like multiplying procedures uselessly.
	Which seems to be exactly what Google is asking for here.
	Defendant does not cite and the court has been unable to find any Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority ratifying this approach.
	And this sort of parsing urged by defendants is at least arguably in tension with the Supreme Court's direction that Sherman Act plaintiffs, quote, should be given the full benefit of their proof without compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each.
	That's pretty obvious.
	Okay.
	Defendant's motion to dismiss is accordingly is denied.
	Motion to strike.
	Strike paragraphs 34th.
	I don't know what these paragraphs are going to be.
	This might be a little more detailed than we can go into right now.
	These paragraphs generally concern plaintiffs.
	Motion to strike means remove them from the lawsuit but retain the rest of the lawsuit intact.
	These paragraphs generally concern plaintiff's allegations that Google has unlawfully achieved and continues to maintain a monopoly in the online video platform market by conditioning access to its mobility operating systems, mobile operating system, and defendant's other popular services.
	Plaintiff argues that the allegations defendant seeks to strike relate to the forms of exclusionary conduct that are properly considered in adjudicating Let's see here, what's interesting here.
	For the same reason underlying the court's denial of the motion to dismiss, defendant has not shown that the allegations are so redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous the criteria required.
	There are four different criteria to Scandalous typically means...
	There to offend, there to shock, but not of substantive relevance to the suit.
	Impertant, irrelevant, immaterial, and impertinent.
	There's probably a distinction there.
	Impertant, not relevant, immaterial, useless.
	I don't know why that would be different.
	And then redundant would just be saying the same thing five different ways, of which I've been accused of doing from time to time.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	So it's denying.
	Defendant's motion to dismiss and to strike is denied.
	The court sets a telephonic case management conference on August 30th.
	Ooh, let's see if that's going to be broadcast.
	Parties shall submit an updated joint case management statement by August 23. All counsel shall use the...
	Okay.
	This is a published case, so...
	Done.
	Okay.
	So that's going to proceed to discovery.
	That is going to be very interesting.
	Okay.
	Hey, we end with what was an unplanned white pill of sorts.
	There's going to be discovery and it's going to be one heck of an interesting case.
	Several of the other antitrust lawsuits have not gone forward.
	This one's going forward.
	And I tell you, it couldn't have happened to a better company.
	I like Rumble.
	Go Rumble is right.
	Booyakasha.
	So that's cool.
	We'll see what happens.
	Maybe we'll have Pavlovsky on the channel again for a sidebar one of these days.
	All right, people.
	Happy Vivo.
	Go!
	It's Friday night.
	I'm going to watch another movie with my kid tonight.
	We'll see which one.
	I'm thinking.
	I'm thinking.
	I want to watch happy comedy movies right now.
	I don't want to see bad, dark movies anymore.
	What was the last one I watched?
	No, it was John Ronson's book, Them, Meeting with Extremists.
	Viva, you don't report the news.
	You just document the day.
	It's true.
	These are the things that I've read today.
	Anyhow, I've been listening to Ron Johnson's Them, The Extremist book, or Making of the Extremists.
	The chapter dealing with Ruby Ridge and Weaver and his son and his wife.
	It hurts my soul to hear it.
	And it's not because I'm partial to certain tragedy and indifferent to others.
	Hearing tragedy, I don't know if I'm getting old, if I'm getting sensitive, if I'm getting traumatized.
	It hurts my soul.
	I feel it.
	I think I feel it in as much as the experience itself.
	And I can't do it anymore.
	I've seen it all.
	I've seen enough.
	I don't think I get anything more now out of watching any more of it, out of learning any more.
	So I think tonight we're going to watch 21 Jump Street.
	Because I remember that being funny.
	We watched...
	People are going to judge me for the movies.
	We watched another movie.
	Some movies are getting increasingly inappropriate as they age.
	They shouldn't be cancelled.
	But my goodness.
	Check out Fantastic Mr. Fox or Isle of Dogs.
	Screenshot.
	So with that, people, big trouble, little China.
	Government killed God.
	It's not like they've ever had a good history.
	And I thought he said the government killed the dog because that's in Ruby Ridge.
	The Weavers shot the dog.
	Go read Ruby Ridge and everybody out there who has not seen the Waco series, watch the Waco series.
	Ah.
	Yes, I might not.
	I'm drinking.
	Yeah, let's see.
	I'm going to go exercise.
	Hey, Vivant, left you a post in Locals about this, but the shirt story is I noticed evidence used in the Owens Direct was fraudulent.
	I researched and gathered data and proof mistrial.
	Can we talk?
	I can show you what I found.
	Don't contact me.
	We'll see.
	I'll have a look in Locals.
	Let me just screen grab.
	But, you know, I'm an observer.
	I'm not a player.
	That's my general comment to that.
	Because you get a lot of queers.
	I'm not a player.
	I'm an observer.
	I'm an analyst.
	And it's a very fine line to watch.
	Yeah, okay, maybe I'll do that.
	Okay, so with that said, people, Sunday night, there will be a stream.
	Tomorrow?
	Saturday?
	There'll be time.
	There will be time and there will be news.
	Everybody, thank you for, as always, tuning in for the support.
	I'm trying to think about that.
	Check out Dr. Francis Christian's substack.
	I tweeted out the link to it.
	I forget what it is.
	It's on Twitter.
	It's in our locals.
	Thank you all on Rumbles.
	Damn good news from Rumble Man.
	Can you...
	That is...
	That is damn good news.
	It's damn good news.
	Win or lose, there will be discovery.
	And we will see.
	We will see.
	Unless there's a gag order or, you know, a non-publication order or a publication ban.
	The chicanery that has been going on with the monopoly that controls 80% of online video.
	A monopoly of search engine controls access to the monopoly of video online.
	80% of it.
	Who needs Dominion voting machines when you have Google and YouTube determining what you have access to?
	Okay, with that said, people, go enjoy the evening.
	Enjoy the weekend.
	I will see you no later than Sunday, but probably tomorrow.

▲