Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:56

Alex Jones Trial is SCANDALOUS! Fake-Fact Checkers & MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, you're most welcome to join.
	I'll use you, but feel free to keep the mask on because we'll probably get rid of this.
	Feel free to just...
	Yeah.
	It turns into a spectator sport sometimes.
	Yeah, it doesn't do that.
	All right.
	Feel free to keep the mask on because we'll probably get rid of this.
	I can't...
	That's all, folks.
	I can't understand what she said.
	Got to watch it one more time.
	What did she say, people?
	What did she say?
	Feel free to keep the mask on because it'll probably...
	What?
	What did she say after that?
	It turns into a spectator sport sometimes.
	It turns into a spectator sport sometimes, yeah.
	Kick off.
	Kick off.
	Okay, people.
	Let's go shut that window down.
	What did she say?
	Does anybody know what she said?
	Let me get the angle proper here.
	Another day, another hotel room.
	We're nearing our road trip completion in Texas.
	I have now been...
	That's good enough.
	I'm crouched on a footstool with the camera perched on a chair by the window so I get good lighting with the kids.
	Hopefully, it's far enough away that they don't interrupt again.
	What did she say in the video?
	And for those who don't know who that individual is, I forget what her name is.
	New Zealand.
	It's New Zealand.
	The Premier or Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda.
	You have never heard more tyrannical, fascistic discourse coming out of a person's mouth.
	And maybe that guy, the crazy one in Australia, who was having a bad day when he said, I don't give a damn about your bloody excuses.
	If you don't get vaxxed, you're an anti-vaxxer.
	If you do not support getting vaccinated, you are an anti-vaxxer.
	Jacinda Arden, yeah.
	But what did she say?
	And he bets on if a kid interrupts.
	Okay, so I'm in another hotel room.
	Hopefully the lighting is good enough.
	I should have given the proper shout-out.
	That tweet was tweeted out by Maxime Bernier.
	What did he say about it?
	I forget.
	Doesn't really matter.
	Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, was opposing vaccine mandates, lockdown mandates, COVID tyranny, before it was cool to oppose COVID tyranny.
	So cool of a politician he is, was, and I presume will be that I felt compelled to run for federal office for the People's Party of Canada and did not have a successful run.
	Okay, what are we talking about today, people?
	She said nothing.
	She just used a lot of words.
	It is performative art.
	Politics.
	Is performative art.
	It's performative, unscientific, virtue-signaling art that they need to maintain in order to maintain the fear, the terror, such that they can maintain the docile, subservient nature of the citizenry, to continue to listen to their idiotic policies, which have been wrong, by and large, from day one.
	Not just wrong, by the way.
	Fractal wrongness.
	Pretty much everything that the government has done along the way in the countries that have had the radical hardcore lockdowns have been wrong from day one.
	And people don't like to do the comparison.
	Take Canada versus Florida.
	Take Canada versus Texas when Texas announced no more mask mandates and everyone's like, you all are going to be dead in two weeks.
	Let me just keep watching because I want to see the zombie apocalypse hit Texas.
	Two weeks later, nothing.
	Oh, it must have been the wind.
	People, some of you don't know this.
	When I ran for office and there were some protests in Montreal, it was about a year ago now, there was a massive protest.
	I think they said like 75,000 people protesting COVID measures.
	They referred to it as a super spreader event.
	They said, people aren't wearing masks.
	Just wait two weeks.
	There's going to be a massive outbreak as a result of this protest against COVID measures.
	They tried to cite an example of a bus that came down from the Lainaudière region, which is in Quebec.
	People got COVID.
	They said it was going to be a super spreader event.
	And when it turned out to be not a super spreader event, you actually had doctors getting on the radio, blaming the wind, or at the very least, giving credit to the wind.
	One doctor, I swear to you, came out on the radio and said, well, who knows, the wind might have blown in a direction which could have resulted in it not being a super spreader event.
	I'm going to just change the chair angle here.
	Oh, fractal wrongness.
	And you compare what Canada has done versus what Florida has done, and you put the graphs over each other in terms of when there were spikes in infections, when there were spikes in hospitalization, and the overlay.
	Is virtually identical.
	And yet somehow people are still out there thinking they need to wear a mask.
	And I attribute, I actually, I don't judge them.
	I just feel bad.
	That is two years of incessant fear porn.
	Now you have the stats that we're having.
	Hospitalizations are on the rise, despite in Canada, 90 plus percent double vaccinated.
	And people are going to say.
	Well, of course, the majority of hospitalizations and deaths from COVID now are going to be in the double-vaxxed, boosted, whatever, because everybody is.
	And they don't see the idiocy in that.
	That which you're compelling others to do to prevent a certain outcome is not preventing the outcome.
	And the adverse outcome is to be expected because everybody's doing that which is not preventing that which they're taking it or forcing other people to do it for.
	Idiocy.
	Absolute madness.
	Okay, intro rant over.
	Let me just goo goo.
	Cameron Vessi, please don't ban me.
	I'm not a sex bot.
	I just like to, you know, a lot.
	Cameron, thank you for the super chat.
	And I know that you're not a sex bot because I actually know who you are.
	We have a community here where I actually recognize people's avatars, people's names, and I actually occasionally get to know people within the community, which leads to incredible relationships, friendships, not sex bot relationships.
	Jay, you know who I'm talking about.
	Thank God Sane.
	Someone Sane is here to talk about this trial.
	The law and order comment section is an emotionally led...
	If you could send me...
	I'm going to go pull up the comments.
	In the law and crime?
	It's like we're living in a parody world.
	The comments in the law and crime section of YouTube, of this Alex Jones trial, are...
	It's another world.
	It's another world with a different set of morals and a different set of fact assessment capabilities.
	We're going to get there.
	On the menu.
	What's on the menu here?
	Hold on.
	Let me just go check.
	Let me check my notes.
	On the menus.
	Oh, no.
	That's not the notes.
	On the menu.
	On the menu.
	Okay.
	We're going to talk about Alex Jones.
	As far as I know, as of now, we're still waiting for a verdict on the quantum.
	We're going to talk about January 6th.
	And we're going to talk about fake news in Canada, and then we're going to talk about other stuff as it pops up in the natural discourse of this stream.
	I want to start off by saying one thing.
	Twitter is a disgusting cesspool, black hole of a sass fest, you know, jibe fest, jab fest.
	Twitter is a bad place.
	It's a bad place because even...
	Genuine, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Authentic discourse can be misinterpreted just like that.
	When you have 140 characters for a tweet, I think it's 140 characters, whatever.
	When you have a limited amount of space for a tweet, you got to keep it short, you got to keep it concise, and sometimes you don't have time to elaborate.
	So everything, if it can be misinterpreted to read more negatively than it was intended to be read, it will.
	If it looks like an insult, it will be read as an insult.
	And so people are looking at me and Nate having a back and forth on Twitter, actually thinking it's like a deep battle between two of the lawyers in the LawTube community.
	And I can tell you this, sometimes I read some tweets and I say, ugh, that's sassy and that's snarky.
	But you have to take a step back and say, by and large, It probably was not intended to be sassy or snarky, and you have to read it that way, and you have to absorb it that way, and you have to depersonalize your initial emotional reaction from the tweet, because probably for the most part, unless it's patently obvious, it's not meant to be a jab, an insult, a dig.
	It's just the way Twitter is.
	So Nate and I have been having a back and forth on Twitter as relates to the Jones trial, and we duked it out this morning on his channel.
	I saw he was live with Kurt, sent him a DM, said, hey, dude, I've got like...
	40 minutes before the kids start busting down the room.
	I'll slap on a shirt and we'll talk about this.
	And we did.
	And I think we made progress.
	And I think ultimately, bottom line, me, Nate, Kurt, people who understand what's going on, agree on roughly 90% of the facts and probably 90% of the assessment of those facts with reasonable room for disagreement.
	But you go on to law and crime.
	You go onto some of these Twitter feeds of people who are covering it.
	We're living in a different world of fact, moral values, understanding of law.
	We're going to get there.
	After this.
	They always do that.
	It's like all the predictions of blood in the streets when Iowa adopted constitutional carry.
	Complete silence when it failed to materialize.
	Because they do one of two things.
	They make the doomsday prediction.
	Then they go nitpick through whatever...
	Whatever examples they can find that could be twisted to fit the narrative.
	And when there's not enough of them, move on to another doomsday prediction.
	They do it everywhere.
	And it's pathological, it's disingenuous, and it's the way of MSM and politicians.
	Why does Peter Navarro go to jail but not Hillary?
	I don't think Peter Navarro is not going to jail, is he?
	Hold on.
	I don't think...
	They're trying to, but I don't think Peter Navarro is going to jail yet.
	Peter Navarro, jail.
	No, no.
	Peter Navarro, he's not going to jail.
	He's just being maliciously prosecuted.
	Why?
	Some people make the joke, big D difference.
	They put a capital D in brackets.
	Difference.
	There's a difference.
	Others will just say, politics ruins everything.
	That's not the shirt I'm wearing today.
	We'll get there a little bit on the January 6th stuff because sweet, merciful goodness.
	Viva, I've had relationships that get twisted because of text, because you can't see expression, hear voice, and also sensitivities.
	Also, by the way, your reading of a tweet can get skewed or warped by the responses to that tweet.
	And then you let ego get in the way and you say, oh, you just insulted me.
	It's my honor.
	Anyhow.
	When you're dealing with friends, and Nate is a friend and a respected lawyer, and he might know more than me.
	When you're dealing with friends, you give friends the benefit of the doubt, and you presume that they were not trying to insult you in front of the Twitterverse.
	And you give them the benefit of the doubt.
	When you're dealing with adversaries, look, when I make a snarky tweet at Potato Head there, Stetler, until he blocked me, yeah, I'm doing it on purpose.
	I'm doing it on purpose.
	Because he deserves it, in my view.
	And it's still fun and it's still good natured.
	When I poke fun at Rob Reiner because he's a buffoon, he's an absolute idiot who doesn't even understand how to read the articles that he's citing, I'm doing it on purpose.
	I am intending to dig at Rob Reiner because he's an idiot.
	He's an idiot purveyor of misinformation.
	When I tweet at Justin Trudeau, when I call him a fascistic tyrant, authoritarian, hypocrite, racist, bigot, jackass, yeah, I mean it.
	Because he is.
	And he's ruining the country that I called home for 43 years.
	In real time.
	That might be our segue.
	First things first, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	And we're going to touch on all three types of subjects.
	He will go to jail, remember, where the trial is.
	See what happens to Bannon.
	See what happens to all of them.
	It's...
	Segue, Justin Trudeau.
	Canada.
	Fake news.
	That's what we're doing.
	All right.
	So now, fake news fact checkers.
	There has been a lot of news from some sources and not a lot of news from other sources on this spate.
	And we're going to call it a spate of doctors suddenly dying in Canada.
	There were five or six.
	From the greater Toronto area in the month of July alone.
	This comes at the time of a renewed push for boosters.
	And don't take my word for it.
	It's in the PolitiFact fact check.
	Five or six doctors, three in one hospital, suddenly die in the month of July alone.
	And what do the fact checkers have to do?
	They've got to come in and run hardcover.
	To demonize anybody who would ask the questions, call them anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and to run hardcover to explain the inexplicable to those who have half a brain left and say, hmm, this is very interesting.
	I don't recall ever in my life hearing, in the absence of some form of an attack or accident, five or six hospitals in the greater Toronto area, three in one hospital.
	Suddenly dying, and young.
	One collapsed while participating in a triathlon.
	Suddenly dying in a month.
	I don't remember ever hearing that in my life.
	I don't remember ever hearing about sads in my life.
	But you've got to have the media come run hardcover when the inexplicable and unexplainable starts to happen.
	You need someone to explain it.
	And who better to explain away uncomfortable...
	Facts or uncomfortable situations than the fact checkers.
	PolitiFact.
	I call them PolitiFake.
	And I've been on PolitiFacts, but for two years...
	Let me just take a second.
	There was once a point in my life when I thought fact checkers checked facts.
	I mean, I remember being ignorant.
	I remember being in the Matrix.
	I'm not saying this to say that I'm Neo and I just...
	I remember being in the system and thinking 60 Minutes was the cornerstone, was the norm, was the standard for journalism, for truth.
	Sunday nights, we used to watch it.
	I used to say, if I saw it on 60 Minutes, I would tend to believe it.
	I remember.
	And I remember the progression because I remember people saying, Viva, you idiot.
	This was before Viva.
	Do you know who owns these fact checks?
	Do you know who finances these?
	Do you know which organizations are behind it when you get Snopes, PolitiFact, Poynter, USA?
	Do you know who's behind it?
	Now I know, by the way.
	Now I have been pulled out of the matrix.
	I will never see the world the way I once saw it before, but I'm fortunate enough to be able to remember seeing it the way I saw it when I saw it with blindness.
	Fact checkers.
	I actually thought they checked facts.
	Listen to this one, people.
	This is the one that's going to quell your concerns about the spate of doctors suddenly dropping dead in the Greater Toronto area.
	The claim from the Gateway Pundit.
	Can't trust them because, well, first of all, the Gateway Pundit has a reputation.
	The claim.
	Three doctors from the same hospital die suddenly in the same week.
	End quote.
	And then this is where PolitiFact splices the claims together.
	But I know people were saying this.
	After the hospital mandated a fourth COVID-19 vaccine for employees.
	Two conjoined statements there.
	Three doctors die.
	That's one part.
	They die suddenly.
	And three doctors die suddenly after the hospital mandated a fourth COVID-19 vaccine.
	And they're still calling it a vaccine here, even though our chief medical officer of Ontario called it a therapeutic.
	Admit it.
	Recognized.
	Publicly stated it was a therapeutic for obvious reasons, but I'm not a doctor, so I won't say.
	So that's the claim that they're checking from the Gateway Pundit.
	The deaths of the three doctors were neither sudden.
	Oh, okay.
	Nor linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	That's the conclusion that PolitiFact is stating as the fact in the subparagraph of the headline.
	The deaths of the three doctors were neither sudden.
	They weren't sudden, which is why it made the news and which is why it shocked even the medical community.
	I'm one degree separated from one of the most recent deaths in the Greater Toronto Area Hospitals.
	One immediate connection away, people are devastated.
	Even people within the medical community are devastated, shocked, and nobody wants to talk about it.
	But don't worry, people.
	The deaths were neither sudden.
	And they weren't linked to the COVID-19 vaccines.
	By the way, when was this published?
	Oh, July 29th.
	The deaths occurred in July.
	They've done it.
	They've done everything.
	In one case, they didn't even do an autopsy.
	I think it was for religious reasons.
	They didn't even do an autopsy.
	So, don't worry.
	PolitiFact just told you.
	They told you right now.
	Don't worry about it.
	Don't look up.
	If your time is short, like Viva, two of the doctors who died had previously Been diagnosed with cancer.
	Oh, okay, okay.
	According to an obituary and media reports.
	Oh, so they're relying on the media, state-sponsored, government-funded media in Canada, and the obituaries, which are written by the families of the deceased.
	Two of the doctors had previously been diagnosed with cancer.
	You better tell me when they were diagnosed with cancer.
	What the stage of that cancer was in terms of potential remission.
	And then you're going to have to answer me the hard question, PolitiFact.
	Did you ask whether or not, as some doctors have suggested, that the immunological response triggered by a third and fourth booster, what impact that might have on people who had in the past been diagnosed with cancer?
	Do you ask that question?
	I'm going to read the article and see if they ask that question and answer it.
	The third doctor had been seriously ill.
	Oh, okay.
	For how long?
	Seriously ill for a week?
	Doesn't answer a damn thing.
	Seriously ill have been out of the hospital for months?
	That might be relevant.
	They have been seriously ill, though his diagnosis was not disclosed.
	CTV News.
	CTV News.
	Where do we know CTV News from?
	Where do we know?
	We just saw them recently.
	No thanks.
	Kieran, where do we see CTV News, peeps?
	Kieran Moore, one in 5,000.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, that's not the one.
	CTV News.
	Sorry, it's one in 5,000.
	Where do we see it?
	CTV News, peep.
	Oh, that's right.
	Here it is.
	City News, not CTV.
	Ah, damn it.
	Hold on one second.
	Pretty sure CTV ran the article as well.
	Thank you.
	Ah, forget it.
	City News and CTV News, they're no different.
	It is state-sponsored, state-funded, $600 million bailout government news.
	Cover your butts.
	The hospitals where the doctors work said their deaths were not related to COVID vaccine.
	So just bear in mind, by the way, What you have right here is nothing short of the fact checkers relying on statements from the interested, affected, and grieving parties with no independent verification.
	A renewed push, and by the way, and this is their fact check, by the way.
	They confirm, PolitiFact confirms, a renewed push for COVID-19 booster shots has also ushered in a new wave of misinformation.
	With social media posts suggesting that the vaccine booster was linked to sudden deaths of doctors at one hospital in Canada.
	Three doctors from the same hospitals died.
	We saw this.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	The caption also said, the hospital claimed that social media rumor of their deaths were related to COVID-19 vaccine is simply not true.
	Oh, I thought you just said that the statement made by the Gateway Pundit was false and inaccurate when they have made the same qualification of the statement, the same qualifier that you just made, PolitiFact.
	The post was flagged as part of Facebook's effort to combat false news and misinformation on its newsfeed.
	They quoted it, the hospital, as saying it's simply not true.
	And Facebook still flags the article.
	What the Instagram post does not mention is that two of the doctors who died had previously been diagnosed with cancer.
	Oh.
	And the third doctor had been seriously ill.
	We know nothing, PolitiFact.
	You have done nothing.
	Of a fact check.
	Because if it actually turns out that they had been previously diagnosed with cancer, were in remission, were not in a bad state, and then something triggered something within a month, within two doctors who had previously been diagnosed with cancer, triggered a serious illness in a third, you haven't fact checked anything.
	In fact, all that you've done is come to a conclusion without having gotten to that conclusion.
	You started at the conclusion and you never got there.
	Trillium Health Partners, which operates the hospital where the doctors work, said in a July 27 tweet that the deaths were not linked to the COVID vaccine.
	Oh, okay, let's just see this.
	It is with deep sadness that THP mourns the loss of three of our physicians who recently passed away.
	How many times in the history of this hospital have they ever had a tweet like this?
	Jacob Sawicki, Stephen McKenzie, and Dr. Lauren Siegel, three, were respected.
	Who dedicated their lives to caring for their patients and community.
	It is an immeasurable tragedy.
	And I would argue that it is aggravated by the unwillingness to even address questions.
	And just to...
	Sorry, hold on.
	Just to knee-jerk pretend that there's no problem.
	Knee-jerk pretend that anybody asking the questions is an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist.
	Now, let's get to the part where they actually allegedly debunk it in their response.
	The rumors circulating on social media is simply not true.
	Their passings were not related to the COVID-19 vaccine.
	We ask to please respect their family's privacy during this difficult time.
	Well, here's a guy who's repeating the...
	Two of them had cancer.
	Oh, yeah.
	That...
	Even if they had cancer, if something potentially triggers an adverse response in someone who is already immunologically compromised, it's a question to ask.
	And it's a terrible thing, because what they are doing is they're basically shaming people into not asking the question by saying, to ask the question, you're going to be not showing respect for the families who are greedy.
	It's amazing.
	Okay, we got this.
	We did that part.
	Trillion Partners says it has three main sites, Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga Hospital, and Queensway Health Center.
	It is unclear from media reports whether all three doctors practiced at the same hospital sites.
	The deaths appeared to occur in a short time frame.
	Oh, it appeared.
	One died on July 17th.
	One died on July 18th.
	And the other one is unclear.
	It appears that they occurred within four days.
	It appears.
	By the facts.
	They occurred within a short time frame, within four days.
	It appears.
	What else happened that month?
	Does the article get into it?
	The Instagram says they died suddenly.
	Sawicki's wife said her husband's diagnosis of stage 4 gastric cancer, Cygnet ring cell, one of the most aggressive forms of cancer, came as a shock last August.
	That's a year ago.
	McKenzie's office said he had been seriously ill leading up to his death and his office was permanently closed.
	The nature of his illness was not disclosed.
	Siegel's obituary said he died after a ridiculously unfair and hard-fought year-long battle with lung cancer.
	Our ruling.
	An Instagram post says three doctors from the same hospital die suddenly in the same week after the hospital mandated...
	What part of that is false?
	The deaths were not sudden.
	Two of the...
	Semantics.
	These gosh darn fact checks always resort to...
	Disingenuous, dishonest semantics.
	Their deaths were not sudden.
	I'm sorry.
	It seems from this fact check all three were relatively quick, which makes them relatively sudden.
	Two of the doctors have been previously diagnosed with cancer.
	Irrelevant.
	If the deaths were sudden and coincided with what this article recognizes, as was a renewed push for the booster.
	Did they get it?
	Does this article not ask the question?
	Did they, in fact, get a booster?
	If they hadn't gotten the booster, or they hadn't gotten the fourth booster, the second booster, the fourth shot, would they not have said it in this article?
	Because that would debunk or at least quell a lot of concerns.
	People might still have questions.
	If they hadn't gotten the booster, would this article not have mentioned it?
	Did this fact check ask that one simple question?
	The hospital.
	Of course, because the hospital, who just mandated this for everybody, presumably, is going to come out and say, hmm, it might have had something to do with that.
	The hospital might say that.
	It's egregious.
	It's egregious, disingenuous wordsmithing to weasel out, not of answering the hard questions, but of even asking the hard questions.
	And it's enraging.
	It should enrage everybody and people should start being vocal about it.
	And if only one of these doctors would come and discuss with me, even off the record where I would never mention anything about the name or identifiable factors, identifiable elements of any of the doctors who would come and talk to me, I want to know what's going on in these hospitals, what the consensus is.
	I know that I've spoken to people on the street who work in the industry.
	I can't vet what they say independently.
	I know what I am told behind closed doors.
	I know what I am told.
	Ooh, Viva.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	So let me see.
	Apparently, Joan's verdict is in.
	I'm not going to share the screen.
	Travis.
	Hold on, people.
	I'm going to go see if the word is that the verdict is in.
	That's me lying.
	That's not the verdict.
	Travis County, 459th District.
	Let's see if they're live, people.
	I do not see anything live on the Travis County website, so I don't know if this is true.
	That ends the fact check.
	They're liars.
	They're liars through omission because they are not even asking the questions that need to be asked.
	And then they purport to be fact-checks by, as their fact-check, citing the interested party's statements without further verification, without even asking the hard questions, and without providing answers to the hard questions.
	And anyhow.
	Now we know, by the way, anybody who trusts a fact-checker is either me five years ago or a willfully blind buffoon.
	Who chooses to think that they're chewing on a delicious steak even though they know?
	It's just the computer telling them what the steak tastes like.
	Okay, people, did the verdict come in?
	Why are they having a booster if they're at...
	But the thing is, the article didn't even ask.
	It didn't even ask if they, in fact, had the booster.
	I suspect they did because if they didn't...
	That would have been the easiest thing for the hospital to say.
	It's not related to the third booster or the fourth booster because they didn't have it.
	They weren't even working in the hospital.
	Welcome to the club, Torchwood gal.
	Okay, that was that.
	That was that.
	Let me see what...
	Let me see what they just said here.
	I need to go...
	Okay, give me one second.
	If the verdict is in, I've obviously got to see this.
	Thank you.
	Anna Merlin has been covering it.
	She will undoubtedly...
	Oh, so some of the damage is announced, but the jury has to come back tomorrow.
	Verdict is in, awaiting announcement.
	Okay, we'll come back to that in a second.
	Okay, we'll see.
	Sorry, I'm getting distracted by the...
	So the damage is 4 million.
	Tim Pool just reported it.
	Okay, we'll get there in a bit.
	Let's let that news trickle in because I obviously missed the live stream of whatever occurred and now you can't see it.
	On Travis County, but maybe Law and Crime Jones.
	Let's see if they have it.
	One day ago.
	Law and Crime.
	Videos.
	Okay, so I see nothing on Law and Crime yet either.
	Okay, we'll come back to it.
	Second topic of the day, people.
	Four million, by the way, is exorbitant, but that would be, you know, America's a litigious society, throwing around outrageous awards, you know, for things in general.
	Four million for intentional infliction of emotional distress, I mean, I think it would still be unheard of.
	But that, you know, in a highly litigious society where people get sued for slip and falls and collect millions, that, look!
	As a Canadian, I could understand that coming down as a verdict.
	We'll see.
	Slow the chat.
	I will.
	Get ready for the slow chats, people.
	And then we're going to go on to our second subject.
	January 6th.
	Your channel.
	Live.
	Pause.
	Edit video.
	Customization.
	I'm going into slow mode, people, so you're going to lose your comments if you don't hit send right now.
	Three, two, one, slow mode on.
	Okay.
	So y 'all heard also the news of the day, January 6th.
	Look at this video, people.
	14,000 hours of video footage that has not been made public.
	From what I understand, the January 6th committee has seen it.
	But it hasn't been made public yet.
	And this is what's...
	I don't believe that this is new footage.
	I think this has probably already been out there.
	But this might give you an indication, at least...
	It might give you some insight into what could in theory be found in the 14,000 hours of video footage that has not been made public.
	You know, that footage might include stuff on Scaffold Man, on Ray Epps, on the police response, on the alleged police brutality, on some of the protesters.
	Look at this!
	And I can tell you one thing, people.
	I don't know what protocol is for riot police.
	But if this is protocol, they should have no problem releasing the 14,000 other hours of video, which might show more of this from the police.
	Look at this.
	There you go.
	Look at the police lobbing flashbangs into the crowd.
	Why?
	I can't believe this.
	Why?
	Is this how you get a crowd to disperse?
	It's this protocol to get a crowd to disperse.
	I appreciate.
	This is a rowdy manifestation.
	Manifestation.
	Protest.
	I don't know if this is actually Scaffolding Man regardless.
	I don't know if this is actually So I will leave it to the aggregate knowledge.
	I'll leave it to the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	Is that standard protocol for a police response?
	We know that there's 14,000 hours of footage out there that has not been made public.
	So that, you know, the peeps on 4chan, the peeps on the internet, the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs could dissect that 14,000 hours and maybe find some interesting stuff.
	Hasn't been made public.
	January 6th committee has seen it, from what I understand, but the public hasn't.
	Is this protocol, is this standard protocol for cops in a protest?
	To randomly lob flash grenades into the crowd.
	And you know, let me just see if the chat has...
	I know what I know and I know what I don't know.
	Violence is SOP means standard operating procedure.
	I know that much for police.
	People say no.
	Unbelievable.
	I can tell you, when I was at the Ottawa protests, not participating, documenting, and I was just out there streaming, and there was a crowd doing absolutely nothing.
	They were probably doing less than that crowd, but even that crowd wasn't doing all that much that could possibly warrant randomly lobbing stun grenades into the crowd of crowded people.
	Where's my phone?
	But the police, it was RCMP, I don't know who it was.
	They detonated concussive grenades within five or ten feet of me.
	I saw the thing, and it exploded where you feel air pressure change in your body and your torso, and I had no idea what it was, and I'm a nervous ninny in general.
	I say, did someone just get shot, and am I running?
	If they're lobbing flash grenades into a crowd, Are they actually trying to trigger some form of a stampede or panic response from this crowd that could exacerbate what is already a tense situation?
	And the question that I had asked myself also, when the media was talking about, oh, there were six medical emergencies from deaths, deaths from medical emergencies.
	It's a known fact that after a certain point of decibel level, it can prove to be fatal.
	I think the lethal level of decibel, let me just see if I can find this, lethal decibel level, I think it's 170 decibels, is that what it is?
	170, good.
	God, I know stupid things.
	The lethal decibel level is anywhere from 170 decibels to 200 decibels.
	Don't trust me though.
	Here.
	Can sound waves kill you?
	Decibel Pro.
	Sounds above 150 decibels have the potential of causing life-threatening issues.
	Sounds between 170 and 200 decibels are so intense that they can cause lethal issues like pulmonary embolisms, pulmonary contusions, or even burst lungs.
	As for exploding heads, you could expect that from sounds above 240 decibels.
	I don't know how good this website is, but the whole point is it's a pretty well-known fact that decibel levels can be fatal.
	They can trigger a number of things.
	And so now I'm looking back, seeing this now, looking back at the reports of five, six, seven people dying of medical emergencies, and what were some of those medical emergencies?
	I have questions.
	I do wonder now if...
	Some of these medical emergencies were in fact caused by some of these absolutely outrageous reactions, actions by the police that we're now seeing in this one video on its own.
	You have a lot of elderly people in the crowd detonate a stun grenade within the vicinity of their head.
	You have no idea where the hell that thing's landing when it's going off.
	What frail individual might be three inches from that when it goes off?
	I can imagine how some of these...
	Medical emergencies actually being potentially police-induced medical emergencies or protester-induced medical emergencies.
	If any of them were detonating, you know, flash grenades or pepper spray, I can appreciate that.
	But I now have questions as to whether or not some of these medical emergencies of the protesters, which they've chalked up to show how violent the protest was, We're not potentially induced by what we just saw as one example of police reaction that, for the life of me, I don't know how it could be justified.
	And so that's, you know, I'd love to see the 14,000 hours of footage to let the internet go crazy over it and dissect it and, you know, determine, find names of people who have not been indicted and whether or not there's any good reason for which some people have had the full force of the law thrown at them.
	And others, Ray Epps, scaffold man, never even charged.
	Which brings us to the second question, the second item of the January 6th committee.
	Someone says it's been deleted.
	Something has been deleted.
	Something has been deleted.
	Text messages between Secret Service and security from that day.
	And people are making hay of it.
	Without realizing that it doesn't necessarily prove the point that they think it's proving.
	One such example coming from none other than the great buffoon of our time, Rob Reiner.
	So for those of you who don't know, it has come to be known now that Secret Service was doing a data migration on cell phones in the weeks after January 6th.
	As a result of which, allegedly, text messages on cell phones and messages were deleted.
	The left, because they can't necessarily piece together timelines in a manner that contradicts the narrative that they want to promote, and I'm saying the left is in the political left.
	You know, they see messages from January 6th deleted, and they don't appreciate...
	When the messages from January 5 and January 6 were in fact deleted.
	And here you got Rob Reiner.
	I didn't realize it's meathead.
	It's meathead.
	If I didn't have absolute trust in Donald Trump's integrity, I'd think that the deletion of text messages on January 6 by the Secret Service, Homeland Security, and now key officials at the Defense Department, now key officials, they haven't been fired yet, was some kind of cover-up.
	For the greatest crime in presidential history.
	Indict.
	This is sarcasm, people.
	This is intended to be sarcasm.
	But the irony about this is if you fill in the blank for the greatest crime in presidential history with something else other than January 6th and, you know, contested elections, you might actually have a coherent thought here.
	But this is sarcasm.
	Because the suggestion here is that Donald Trump...
	Committed the greatest crime in the history of American presidency by inciting the erection and trying to overthrow democracy itself.
	If I didn't have absolute trust in Donald Trump's integrity, I'd think that the deletion of text messages on January 6th by the Secret Service, Homeland Security, and now key officials of the Defense Department was some kind of cover-up for the greatest crime in presidential history.
	Indict.
	Moron.
	Moron because if you're going to take a hard position on something, Make sure you get your timeline straight, Rob Reiner.
	Don't trust me either.
	The deletion, this is my tweet, the deletion occurred three weeks after January 6th, which is even after Joe Biden took office with his Department of Defense or whatever it is, Secret Service, with an individual who, yes, was appointed by Donald Trump, but is still serving.
	So obviously, if this were a cover-up, and the guy who is guilty of the cover-up is still holding his position, that doesn't make a lick of sense.
	And this was done after Joe Biden took office, after he was in control.
	There's a cover-up here, possibly.
	It's not the cover-up that Rob Reiner thinks it is.
	The deletion occurred three weeks after January 6, after Biden took office, Rob Reiner.
	We would all like to see those messages.
	And the fact that the January 6 committee has done nothing to attempt to retrieve them is a good indication of something.
	The link to the article is here.
	This is from the article.
	The Secret Service has said that its texts were lost as a result of a previously scheduled data migration of its agent's cell phones that began on January 27. January 6 was the certification.
	January 20th or 21 was the inauguration, the transfer of power.
	This happened a week into Biden's presidency under his secret service, under his authority.
	Homeland Security Inspector Joseph Kufari first learned those texts were missing as early as May 2021.
	Joseph Kufari, by the way, Joseph Kufari, who is still currently, The Office of Inspector General, Homeland Security.
	He still holds his position.
	Rob Reiner is accusing the current sitting Inspector General of covering up for Trump while he still holds his position for a cover-up deletion that occurred under Joe Biden when Joe Biden was in office a week after he took office.
	There might be a cover-up here, Rob Reiner.
	It might not be the cover-up that you think it is.
	It might not be the cover-up that you think it is.
	It's actually, I mean, it is just unbelievable.
	They don't understand it.
	There probably was a cover-up in the deletion of those texts.
	Why wasn't the National Guard called up?
	Why wasn't reinforcement brought in?
	What were the instructions or correspondence with or involving Nancy Pelosi?
	What were the instructions or correspondence with Capitol Police?
	Deleting those text messages doesn't protect Donald Trump.
	Deleting those text messages might actually be the cover-up of what I strongly suspect was in fact the case.
	When we talk about, you know, in Sandy Hook, we're talking in the Alex Jones trial, they're throwing around terms like false flag.
	Staged event hoax.
	And people just choose to believe that a hoax, false flag, staged event means it never happened.
	It's like holograms of the World Trade Center.
	It never happened.
	They never went up.
	People take it to mean that absurd extreme, as opposed to allowing an event to happen, knowing that the event was going to happen, and doing little to prevent it.
	Or just weaponizing an event that occurred after the event occurred.
	All of which would be easily verifiable or the negligence demonstrable through those text messages that were deleted.
	The deletion of those text messages do not protect Donald Trump whatsoever.
	They probably would only protect the administration, Capitol Police, Nancy Pelosi, people who said, we don't need the National Guard.
	We don't need backup.
	We're half-staffed because of COVID.
	The Capitol building during a heated election certification, we don't need more cops.
	Oh, what's that?
	Donald Trump asked to bring in the National Guard and you said no?
	No, we don't need it.
	We'll be fine, El Presidente.
	But Rob Reiner, misinformation propagandist, says the deletion occurred on January 6th.
	Because the deletion pertains to messages of January 6th.
	That is a very, very salient mistake.
	Either accidental, which just makes Rob Reiner not careful, or deliberate, which makes him a pathological purveyor of misinformation propaganda.
	And then you go to the Alex Jones referring to Sandy Hook as a hoax.
	The question is...
	And this was a question that came up at trial.
	What sense was he using the term hoax in?
	Having entertained the idea that it never happened, although never believing it, and repeatedly stating it did happen, and the lives of innocent angel children were brutally taken, referring to it as a hoax in that it's being weaponized and politicized by politicians, by those who would come after Second Amendment rights,
	referring to it as potentially a false flag or a hoax in that It was either weaponized after the fact or, you know, authority might have known or ought to have had good reason to know that something might go down because maybe they were in contact with or had knowledge of the killer.
	Whether or not, as you look at Uvalde, as something's happening, January 6th similarly, you know, hypothetically, if they wanted to weaponize it after the fact, Exacerbate it so that it's worse, so that it can be used as an even stronger tool in the war on the Second Amendment or the stronger tool in the war on January 6 ideological adversaries.
	There are a lot of ways in which something can be a hoax, false flag staged event where it can be a totally legit event that in fact occurred that is either weaponized after the fact, was failed to be prevented for whatever the reason, or...
	It was allowed to happen simply through negligence.
	How many times are we seeing now that the FBI has had advanced knowledge, if not direct interactions with individuals who later go on to do these horrible things?
	Pulse?
	Nightclub?
	Uvalde, I believe?
	I believe Sandy Hook?
	I might be mistaken.
	And then let's not get into Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma.
	Other areas where they certainly had advanced knowledge, advanced warning.
	That draw the cartoon event where the FBI was there knowing that an individual was down there, armed, planning to do something bad.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	Gretchen Whitmer.
	Gretchen Whitmer.
	This was not even a case of the FBI.
	Allowing something to happen?
	This was a case of the FBI planning, organizing, training, orchestrating, carrying out the details and getting rubes to get involved in this scheme but for their involvement no one would have ever gotten involved with so that they can then use it for political purposes to show how right-wing extremism is the greatest threat to America.
	Did someone just own me?
	Hold on.
	Sea Goody owns Viva Drop.
	Hold on.
	What does that mean?
	Sea Goody.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, so I just drove through Waco and went to the site of the siege.
	Or as, you know, it can only be qualified as a massacre.
	There's a monument with all of the names and birthdates.
	Of the people who died on April, I forget the date now, April 19th, 1993.
	And the bottom row, the bottom row is children.
	Let's see, I'm going to go try to get the video.
	It was, you go there and you realize, you know, again, people are going to say, what are you defending the kook David Koresh for?
	I mean, he's a bad man.
	People don't understand that it's not because even if someone is a bad man that you can just torture for two months and then escalate to the point where a hundred and some odd people, including children, perish.
	Look at this here.
	Hold on.
	I'll get this up here.
	Look at this.
	Thank you.
	Here, on the bottom here, let me see if we can do this.
	Okay.
	Serenity C. Jones, age four.
	Rebel Salapi, I can't see that one.
	Little One Jones, one and a half.
	age 13, age 15, age 1, age 13, age 4. It was kind of, it's surreal, you know, being on, I think the word is hallowed ground.
	I think that's the right word.
	Age four, age one, April 19, 1993.
	Age two.
	You know, it was, I watched the series Waco.
	I went to the site.
	I saw the current pastor.
	I wish I could have sat down and interviewed him.
	Maybe one day, but surreal.
	And, you know, at the time, crazy right-wing religious fanatics in a cult, which may very well be true.
	Let that even be true.
	The punishment for being a cult is not summary execution, is not massacre after a month and a half of torture.
	And if anybody doesn't know what methods were used by the FBI...
	If for no other reason than they could, they could and had the excuse to use them on fellow humans, watch Waco the series.
	I have been told that even Waco the series is not entirely accurate, but at some point, you know, you have to just assume you have enough of an understanding to understand the overview.
	Unless you were there, and even if you were there, sometimes it's just impossible to know exactly what happened.
	Get Help Viva.
	Interesting.
	Viva and chat, check out Texas Education Code, TEC, section 54367.
	Chat, I'll leave that one up so you can go check it out and I'll screen grab it.
	So it's a crazy world once...
	You see it for what it is, and it can become traumatizing in the way that it became traumatizing for Alex Jones, where you live through and you see the corruption and the abuse in Ruby Ridge.
	You see it in Waco.
	You see it in the Oklahoma City bombings.
	You see it in 9 /11.
	And then, unfortunately, it does come to be that you see it everywhere, even places where it might not be.
	It's the litigation.
	It's the litigation trauma, but on a...
	On an alternative narrative scale.
	And we'll get to Alice Jones in a second because there's still more there.
	We know he was a bad man because the FBI and the media told us he might have been, but he might have been a bad man.
	Marrying multiple women, illegal.
	The age of some of the brides can be illegal.
	Siege, torture through means just because you have them, culminating in...
	What is nothing but a massacre?
	It can't be justified because they're bad people.
	They always do that.
	It's like all predictions.
	Oh yeah, sorry, I got this over before.
	So let's just get rid of these super chats.
	Viva, did you catch any of the legislative hearing with FBI head Christopher Wray?
	It was very interesting.
	P.S. I'm not a sex bot.
	Sex bot otherwise either.
	Michelle Parsons, I was watching, I was following, oh, Kelly.
	She's Louise.
	What's Kelly's first name?
	Just had her on the channel.
	Julie Kelly, for goodness sake, I'm senile.
	I was following Julie Kelly's live tweets of it.
	No, no, it says, I'm going to catch up and we're going to talk about it Sunday.
	Fun fact, if you adopt a child through Texas, the state will pay their tuition to any state-funded college or university.
	That seems like a chat we had the other day as well, Julie.
	Why would anyone allow themselves to be taken into custody by the state at this point?
	It's clear that justice isn't for the regular people.
	Dangerous precedent for a lawful society, I think.
	It's obvious Trump kept an extra set of the keys.
	And a super sticker, thank you very much.
	So let me see what else I had on.
	Jennifer Cochran, welcome to Texas.
	I hope you experience the southern hospitality we are known for.
	Jennifer, thank you for reminding me.
	I have never seen a people who are more proud to be not just American, but to be from a specific state, Texas, than in Texas.
	I've never seen so much...
	So much state patriotism.
	We were at a water park hotel.
	A lot of people have tattoos.
	I find it surprising.
	But I like tattoos.
	They tell a story.
	I wouldn't get them.
	I might.
	We'll see what happens.
	But I don't have any tattoos.
	I like tattoos.
	They tell a story.
	They're fun to look at.
	They're interesting to look at.
	And you try to decipher the story, the history behind anyone's tattoo.
	The amount of tattoos I've seen here.
	Texas.
	Born in Texas, made in Texas, the state of Texas, Lone Star.
	The amount of Texas pride tattoos I've seen on people, I love it.
	It's fantastic.
	And touch wood, I haven't had a bad experience with anyone in Texas, or Florida for that matter.
	And I'm realizing now what they call that Southern hospitality.
	Some of the nicest, proudest people I've ever seen.
	One thing I find interesting, they don't seem to have carbonated water at gas stations.
	Or de-alkalized beer, for that matter, because I'm going on a one-month cleanse.
	They don't seem to have de-alkalized beer at gas stations, and carbonated water is hard to find.
	Although I found a carbonated water made in Mexico, which is delicious.
	But it's Florida Proud, Texas Rock.
	It's amazing.
	And it's amazing without the slightest hint.
	Of any negative aspect to it.
	People say they find patriotism scary.
	I find that thought scary.
	It's a beautiful thing to be patriotic.
	But I've never seen such state pride as in Texas.
	I've been to Florida.
	I've been to the beach.
	I have not seen Florida tattoos on people.
	Anyways, I love it.
	It's been great.
	We landed in Austin.
	I drove to Albuquerque, New Mexico with my daughter.
	Came back.
	Did the Lazy River in San Marcos River.
	Wife and other two kids came.
	We went to Waco.
	We went to a place outside of Austin.
	I think I've seen the better part of the state, and it's beautiful.
	Too hot, too dry.
	Florida, at least it rains, and there's water everywhere so I can fish, but Texas is beautiful.
	Stop drinking alcohol.
	It's the best thing ever.
	Everybody knows I have IBS.
	I have certain bad eating habits.
	And I've been told, you know, alcohol irritates the gut.
	Not good for IBS.
	So I figured I'll try it for an extended period of time and see if I sleep better, if my movements get not more consistent, but, you know, just better.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Okay.
	Parentheses closed.
	So we got to that one.
	I think it's about time.
	Oh, no, that's right.
	That's right.
	This is...
	Only slightly related to January 6th.
	The basketball player.
	Greiner, nine years in jail for a non-violent, drug-related offense.
	That's it.
	Topo Chico.
	That was it.
	It's delicious.
	Brittany Greiner, sentenced to nine years in Russian prison.
	I haven't actually read this particular article of the subject.
	Let's just see how ESPN frames the punishment.
	A Russian court sentenced WNBA star, WNBA, to Brittany Griner to nine years in prison Thursday.
	Unexpected conclusion to her trial that should allow negotiations for a prison stop to accelerate.
	Griner, who was arrested on February 17th for bringing cannabis into the country, had been prepared for a harsh sentence, sources close to the player said.
	But she and her supporters have always been aware that Russia was not going to move forward with a trade that could bring her home until her trial was completed.
	Guilty verdict was considered a foregone conclusion.
	And Greiner pleaded guilty July 7, though the case continued under Russian law.
	During sentencing, Judge Anna Sotnikova said that she had found that Greiner intentionally broke the law and also fined her 1 million rubles, $16,000.
	Greiner has served a certain Sotnikova said the time Greiner has served in custody since her arrest in February would count towards the sentence.
	Greiner reacted to the sentence with little emotion, yada yada.
	As she was let out of court, she said, I love my family.
	The nine-year sentence was close to the maximum of tenure that Greiner had faced under the charge.
	And prosecutors had asked for nine-and-a-half-year sentence.
	Greiner's defense said they would appeal.
	The defense said in sentencing the court had ignored all evidence it had presented and Greiner's guilty plea.
	It's difficult for her.
	U.S. Joe Biden issued a statement on the verdict.
	U.S. President Joe Biden.
	Issued a statement on the verdict that referred to Greiner as wrongfully detained, a designation U.S. officials have used since May and called for her release.
	She's wrongfully detained.
	She's alleged to have broken the law in Russia by importing, bringing in, smuggling, whatever, cannabis.
	Wrongfully detained, according to Joe Biden.
	Today, American citizen Brittany Griner received a prison sentence that is one more reminder of what the world already knew.
	Russia is wrongfully detaining Brittany, Biden said.
	It's unacceptable.
	And I call on Russia to release her immediately so she can be with her wife, loved ones, friends, and teammates.
	Wrong.
	It's wrongful incarceration.
	It's an unjust punishment.
	And what did he say?
	She's being wrongfully detained.
	Okay.
	Okay, that's what we needed to know.
	That's what happens for Greiner.
	Wrongfully detained, according to Joe Biden, where there are people, January 6th defendants, who are still in jail, who have been sentenced to seven and a half years in Guy Ruppet's case, five years in Jake Angelli's case, the QAnon shaman, for non-violent crimes.
	They're not wrongfully detained.
	Solitary confinement, denied medical treatment in some cases, that's not wrongful detention when Washington does it.
	But when Putin detains a woman who smuggled cannabis into the country, that's wrongful detention.
	Nine years in jail for a nonviolent offense is proof of a broken authoritarian judicial system when Vladimir Putin does it.
	When D.C. courts do it, it's called justice.
	I mean, it's just so in your face, it's inconceivable that people can feign moral outrage with a straight face.
	You know, some people are joking, she's lucky she wasn't in Singapore.
	Singapore or Iran, for that matter.
	Saudi Arabia, sorry, not Iran.
	She probably would have already been flogged.
	What would have been the punishment in Singapore?
	And by the way, I'm not justifying this sentence.
	Smuggling drugs into a foreign country, I mean, no one who's ever seen Locked Up Abroad would ever do that.
	Smuggling drugs into a foreign country is probably the biggest no-no ever.
	You're asking, especially when it's certain countries, you're asking for the most serious of problems ever.
	So I'm not even sure.
	Nine years seems like a lot for cannabis.
	It's the laws of the country and there's a reason why I might not visit that country.
	But for the president to come out and say wrongfully detained because she's what?
	Identity politics?
	Just politics?
	She's a lefty?
	She's a female basketball player?
	Wrongfully detained for smuggling cannabis into Russia.
	But the non-violent January 6th protesters, some of whom Did nothing more than picket or parade in a restricted area.
	Locked up for, in some cases, 500 days in pretrial detention.
	Totally fine.
	Nothing to see here.
	That's American justice compared to Russian injustice.
	Okay, we're going to get to Alex Jones in a second.
	I had to bring it up because you knew she was going to get a hefty sentence.
	13 years hard labor.
	For Otto Warmbier in North Korea following a show trial.
	You know, people scream injustice then.
	But turn a political blind eye when it's happening right here in your home, my temporary home, not D.C. as in my home, but in America, in D.C., nonviolent...
	Guy Reffitt brought a firearm to a protest to the Capitol Hill.
	Was involved in the protest, although committed no acts of violence, didn't actually enter a building, got pepper sprayed and left, ratted out by his son, who surreptitiously recorded damning information, tipped off the FBI seven and a half years.
	Jake and Jelly, the QAnon shaman, who didn't commit any act of violence, entered the Capitol, sat with his feet on Pelosi's desk, I think, five years.
	Nobody bats an eye.
	Because it sets the example they want to set for their ideological adversaries back home, whereas this can be milked for political virtue signaling points back home.
	Okay, before we get into the Jones of the day, let's see this.
	I'm not a lawyer, but don't bring illegal drugs into anti-American countries.
	I have a separate rule.
	Don't visit countries that don't have the rule of habeas corpus.
	Don't go to a country where you do not get to have someone petition to see you if you've been arrested.
	I once went on a cruise.
	This was way back in the day.
	I got off at a port in Mexico, and I realized I'm not comfortable in a place where I can't speak the language, where the police who are carrying very long guns, who are known for being corrupt, who also don't speak my language, I'm not comfortable there anymore.
	Now, it might be my loss in life.
	There's going to be a lot of countries I'm not going to go to, but one thing's for certain.
	I'm not going to be here Saturday, but darn it, we should have gone.
	That might be one thing we might have to do tomorrow.
	I will not go to a country that doesn't have the rule of habeas corpus because you get arrested in a country that doesn't have habeas corpus.
	Good luck ever being found again.
	You have to have Whataburger.
	Now you're in Texas.
	It's better than your recent discovery.
	P.S. I'm not a bot.
	I'm a board member.
	Booyah.
	I saw there's a Whataburger not far from here.
	Let me go try that.
	Watch The Ashes of Waco.
	Might be on Newsmax and YouTube documentaries.
	So sad what the government did.
	The Ashes of Waco.
	Will do.
	You need to go to the Alamo in San Antonio.
	Son of a gun.
	She's lucky she didn't get 50 lashes like the dude in Singapore.
	And here we go.
	In Singapore, mandatory sentence is a long trip at the end of a short rope.
	I've been to Singapore.
	Frightening.
	But hey!
	Steve, as they say, at least there's no crime in Singapore.
	Okay, the Alamo and the Riverwalk.
	I'm going to have to take this down.
	Okay, so that's that.
	Christopher Sandoval, thank you very much for the beautiful avatar.
	The moon.
	I know what the moon looks like.
	All right, let's get into Alex Jones, people.
	I've watched Midnight Express.
	I just saw that chat there.
	Jeez, I haven't seen Midnight Express in a long time.
	But I don't want to see things that make me unhappy anymore.
	Getting sensitive.
	And weak in my old age.
	Okay, Jones, people.
	What the fudge?
	First of all, we've got to dispel a number of misconceptions here.
	I'm not defending things that Alex Jones said.
	That some people find offensive, others find outlandish, and the plaintiffs find You don't have to defend an individual when you are defending a principle.
	And the principle is not that anybody can say whatever they want with impunity.
	That's not ever what I've been saying.
	And for those people who are out there reading intentions, divining intentions, saying I'm biased on this because I love Alex Jones, I have taken flack from the Jones side from the beginning for saying that I think what Alex Jones said on a couple of occasions was wrong and that I could reasonably see it leading to a claim for damages.
	I said it.
	I actually believe it.
	But those damages have to be proportionate and rationally justified.
	And the process has to be one that respects constitutional rights of the adversarial process that is litigation.
	Let me just open this.
	I think some of the claims that Alex made...
	Some of the statements he entertained, if not made himself, I can see them being very, very distressing for the parents of people who have had their child killed by a madman.
	I can see that.
	That doesn't mean that you bypass the adversarial process of litigation and let the evidence come out, because as it came out, even in the limited evidence that was disclosed in this trial on the damages only, The plaintiffs didn't even hear the statements personally, nor did they hear them in real time.
	Now, true, hearing of them afterwards could be distressing.
	Hearing, it could be distressing.
	Hearing someone with a big platform entertaining people, floating certain ideas that could lead to ridicule, maybe even harassment, I could see that.
	The question's going to be, the world is filled with a bunch of people.
	If everyone is responsible for the actions of others because they feel motivated because of what statements an individual might have said, even one with a big platform, in law, short of calling for direct targeted harassment, if someone goes out and feels motivated to harass someone because of what they heard on the news, you don't go after Bernie Sanders because some wacko decides to go shoot up a Republican baseball game, even though you could reasonably conclude that he might have been motivated.
	By the discourse and speech of the Sandruses of the world, of the Maddows of the world.
	So I am not even defending what Jones said because I think some of it was factually incorrect and could reasonably cause distress in the parents of children who have been killed by a madman.
	There.
	$75 million?
	Foreclosure from pleading because you didn't allegedly fully participate in discovery?
	I will defend the principles, and I will defend the process, and I will object when the principles and the process are being desecrated so that one can achieve a certain result.
	Barnes called it a scripted trial.
	That clip made it into evidence in the trial.
	It's quite hilarious and ironic that in a trial where the lawyer is asking Jones, do you think this is scripted?
	And the judge interrupts and says, you can't say this in your answer.
	Scripted does not necessarily mean writing the words down to be said, but rather also striking the words that cannot be said and thus limiting the discourse, limiting the response.
	So, that said, I have nothing against Alex Jones as a fundamental human.
	He's said things that are wrong in the context of Sandy Hook.
	That being said, he has said a lot of things that have actually turned out above and beyond the hyperbole to be accurate.
	Brian Stetler has said more false and defamatory things, not necessarily in the context of a school shooting, but in other contexts.
	He has said more false, more defamatory, more egregiously unsubstantiated claims than Alex Jones.
	I don't even hate Brian Stetler.
	I don't even think that Brian Stetler shouldn't be allowed to say these things.
	He should.
	And when he crosses the line, he should face the consequences for that crossing of the line.
	With a process that respects his rights as much as everyone else's.
	So that being said, Alex Jones in this trial was found guilty by a default verdict in November in Texas.
	The judge, in rendering her default verdict, cited alleged discovery defaults or violations in the Connecticut lawsuit, in the other pending lawsuits, to say that Alex Jones...
	So fundamentally failed to comply with his discovery obligations that he should be foreclosed from pleading, that he has no meritorious defense, and that plaintiff doesn't even need to go to trial to prove their claim.
	Verdict by default.
	Foreclosure to plea.
	We're having a big discussion as to whether or not that's remotely justifiable of a sanction.
	There's a lawyer named Rubia who's often on Nate's channel.
	I've seen her here as well.
	Very smart.
	In as much as I can tell, I don't know her from anything.
	I just know that I think she's a real lawyer.
	I think she practices in Texas.
	And I think she knows what she's talking about.
	The question is whether or not, under these circumstances, under what circumstances, a default verdict of guilt can ever be justified.
	People are saying, oh, Alex Jones refused to comply with discovery.
	This is how Nate and I sort of got into a back and forth on Twitter.
	Cernovich said in a tweet, a judge ordered Jones to produce documents that he doesn't have because he no longer has access to Google Analytics.
	He no longer has access to his YouTube videos because YouTube, when they deplatformed him, also deleted all of his videos.
	And apparently, if you believe him, choose not to.
	He did not have backups of those videos, which are all live broadcasts.
	I can understand that to be the case.
	Because when I do my lives, But for the fact that I know they're going to stay up on Rumble, I don't have hard copies on my computer unless Eric Hundley, unstructured, America's Untold Stories, sends me the version that he rips from YouTube.
	So Cernovich said a judge found Jones to be in default of his discovery obligations because he failed to produce videos or documents or information, data, that he no longer had access to and that no longer existed because Google deleted it.
	That's true.
	Whether or not there are other alleged defaults is a separate issue.
	That statement is true.
	Nate Brody put out a tweet and said, not all the truth.
	A judge found him in default of other disclosure failures, one of which was the failure to identify videos or to list the videos that he published on Sandy Hook.
	Again, arguable that he could even produce that because he might not have those videos if you choose to believe him or not.
	YouTube unpersoned him, deleted all of his content, so it's no longer accessible by Jones or YouTube, apparently.
	I wrote back and said, the day after the judge said that, where she said Alex refused to comply with Discovery, I said she walked back that claim just a touch because the next day she said he chose not to fully participate in Discovery.
	Some people out there say, Viva, you're splitting hairs, you're just offending the indefensible Alex Jones.
	Not fully complying is tantamount to refusing to comply.
	To which I respond, if that's what you think, fine.
	But refusal to comply, refusal to submit, refusal to answer any questions, refusal to dignify the claim is far different than submitting five, six times, submitting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of emails.
	Turning over hard drives, turning over email boxes, including unread messages in the junk folder, but not providing some documentation that was requested, which arguably could not be turned over, or let's just say he actually defaulted on turning over financial data.
	There is a material difference between refusing to comply and not fully participating in discovery, and I think the judge walked it back on purpose, possibly because of public scrutiny, as to the Untruthfulness of that statement.
	Alex did not refuse to comply.
	He might not have fully participated.
	And that is a question of degree.
	And then when does it get to the degree that you just bypass the trial by jury process entirely and proceed to a default verdict?
	When?
	I'll argue, although I'm told it's not this case under Texas law, when?
	When it's sufficiently material, such that the failure to fully participate...
	Prejudices the plaintiff's ability to even prove their case.
	In this case, let's set aside the videos that Jones says he can't access because Google /YouTube deleted them.
	Let's set aside the analytics that Jones says I can't provide because Google deleted them.
	Let's set aside the list of Sandy Hook videos because I think that's a preposterous undertaking.
	Certainly one to default him under.
	There's the issue as to whether or not Alex Jones The argument is that, and the evidence apparently now with this cell phone disclosure, which we'll get to, he deliberately or he lied.
	The argument is that he lied when he said he couldn't provide the financial data for the company or simply played games and did provide it.
	Let's just even take that at its face.
	He played games.
	He did not communicate that information as to the Finances of Infowars free speech systems.
	How does that prejudice the plaintiff's ability to prove their case?
	It might.
	It might affect their ability to collect, but it does not affect their ability to prove their case.
	It does not affect their ability to access documents which are public, which by their very nature were public, which is how they heard of the defamatory statements that caused them emotional distress.
	That default...
	In as much as it ever existed, could impede a financial assessment of the company, but it wouldn't even impact a judgment against Alex Jones.
	Render a judgment for $150 million, put the company in bankruptcy, a trustee will get to the finances of that company.
	So all of these defaults, even though people are just running around, shutting their eyes, he refused to comply.
	He didn't.
	He may not have fully complied.
	I might disagree with that.
	I might say that I don't necessarily know one way or the other, but I'll even grant you.
	He did not fully comply.
	He didn't provide a list of the videos he published on Sandy Hook.
	He didn't provide financial information about Infowars free speech systems, although he did get up there and testify that they had $165 million gross revenue, which is not net, but gross.
	They did testify on that.
	I'll grant you all of that.
	To go from there, to foreclose him from pleading, and go to a verdict, a default verdict, is an abuse of the process.
	But for the fact that it was Alex Jones, it would not have happened with anyone else.
	Even assuming the failure to fully participate in discovery, it had zero impact on the plaintiffs' ability to make their case.
	Their case was based on the fact that Alex Jones made public statements that were defamatory and that caused the family's emotional distress.
	It's public.
	A forensic accounting of Infowars and their revenue, people are going to say it goes to motive.
	He was making money off of it.
	That's admitted.
	Nobody denies that.
	How much money?
	Oh, is that going to make the statements more defamatory?
	Is that going to make the statements more emotionally distressing if he was making more money off of that?
	He admitted.
	And it was known.
	They were making gross revenue over $100 million.
	They might have even been making...
	Several hundred million dollars.
	Gross.
	Not net.
	It's a big difference that some people don't necessarily appreciate.
	So that's where it's at.
	You can defend Alex Jones because of the principle without defending the statements Alex Jones made.
	And I happen to think, had this run a normal course of action, which did not cause people to question the process itself, I think he would have probably been found liable in a reasonable amount, in order to pay it.
	Definitely learned his lesson because of the headache that this caused.
	I mean, Paul Joseph Watson at the time was saying, this isn't worth it.
	Why are we even doing this?
	He would have learned his lesson regardless.
	He would have had a normal process, and I think he probably would have been found guilty of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and probably ordered to pay a reasonable amount of money.
	There might have been a legal argument as to whether or not the statements were made with actual malice, whether or not the plaintiffs...
	I think it's recognized that they would be considered public figures because they wrote a book, did political tours, did interviews.
	Had this followed a normal adversarial process, A, people would not have these suspicious thoughts.
	B, people would not think it's a travesty of justice.
	C, people would not think it's politically motivated.
	And D, or four, you probably would have gotten to something of a reasonable, justifiable...
	Resolution to this dispute.
	But they are massacring constitutional rights and they are massacring the judicial process by turning this process into an absolute kangaroo court of a show trial.
	And the judge asks Alex Jones if he thinks this is scripted, this is a staged event, when she literally tells Alex Jones, you cannot assert...
	That you complied with discovery.
	You cannot say that you think you're innocent.
	You cannot say that you did not intentionally inflict emotional distress.
	You can't say it.
	But this is not a staged.
	This is not a scripted event.
	And you can't say it.
	And then you get the people out there just following the chorus saying, well, he was found guilty, so he can't say it.
	Jussie Smollett was found guilty.
	Justice Smollett can leave the court with his fist in the air saying, I'm innocent, I'm not suicidal, all day long.
	Imagine telling a defendant they are foreclosed, precluded, from asserting their innocence even after they've been found guilty.
	Imagine that.
	And this is okay with people?
	And then during the trial, it comes out that Ms. Lewis, as a plaintiff, when asked what she hopes to accomplish by her lawsuit, she wants to usher in an era of truth.
	And you have the jury members asking the question to the expert last week.
	Are lawsuits like these the appropriate way of dealing with election deniers?
	You're going to go from this foreclosure from pleading because you didn't provide some documentation which had no meaningful impact on the plaintiff's ability to prove their case.
	Foreclosure from pleading and people are going to say it's normal.
	It's par for the course now.
	And you think it's going to stop with the likes of Alex Jones?
	In the same way the deplatforming stopped with the likes of Alex Jones?
	Just follow the trajectory of what happened to Alex Jones in terms of deplatforming, unpersoning, and how it was escalated and expanded to everyone at large and then up to the President of the United States of America.
	And think about what this precedent, if it is allowed to stand, is going to send.
	It's going to expand like milk and water the exact same way the unpersoning went from Alex Jones to the Alex Berenson's to everybody, to the president himself.
	And you're going to get into a world where denying the election was valid is going to be a sanctionable offense.
	Where you're going to be precluded from defending if a partisan judge decides that you missed one document such that you didn't fully participate in discovery such that a default verdict is warranted.
	Okay, so I hope that wasn't too long.
	What happened yesterday, people?
	Ghost of Recon?
	Okay, don't be offended if I don't.
	I'm just screen grabbing.
	What happened yesterday?
	We're going to get to it after.
	After this.
	Loving the honest content, Viva.
	Keep up the great work.
	Thank you very much.
	Someone told me I'm repetitive, but I think, even if I am, repetition is the way to get a message out and absorbed.
	But I don't think I'm repetitive.
	But maybe I'm repetitive.
	Sometimes.
	Sometimes I can tend to repeat myself.
	Every now and again, repetition is my job.
	It's my job to be repetitive.
	Being repetitive is...
	Okay, that's from The Simpsons.
	Please make a note of the many Latino names among the Alamo's defenders.
	Alamo.
	It's wrongly portrayed as gringos versus Mexicans.
	Santa Ana dictator.
	Alex Jones was caught red-handed lying in court.
	So what is the excuse this time?
	Well, John Torres, I hope you just listened to what I said.
	By the way, John Torres, you don't have to do it in Super Chat.
	What was the red-handed lie?
	Tell me what the red-handed lie was.
	Don't give me the...
	He was caught.
	What was the red-handed lie?
	I challenge you.
	NFL player...
	Oh, yeah.
	Agreed.
	But we'll see if they got $4 million.
	As a previous lawyer, how can you defend Alex Jones and pay almost no attention to him openly lying in court?
	You've lost your way since Ottawa.
	You have to go after the intentions of the person.
	You have to make it.
	Tell me you're embarrassed.
	Tell me you're ashamed of me.
	I mean, that's what it's missing.
	You tell me what Alex Jones lied about in court.
	Hard Rock Miner, I defy you.
	I've lost my way since Ottawa.
	Maybe I found my way.
	Maybe I actually can see now beyond the garbage.
	Maybe I can see now that, you know, the same media that lied to you about the Ottawa protesters, maybe, maybe they treat other people that they don't like equally unfairly.
	Hard Rock Miner.
	I say this with love and affection because maybe you didn't mean this quite as snarkily as it can come off.
	I've lost my way since Ottawa.
	Dude, I've existed for four years before Ottawa on this platform.
	If you want the facts about Waco, watch Waco, the rules of engagement at Waco, a new revelation.
	Much worse than the Netflix series depicted.
	Those anti-Jones people attacking are calling themselves out as low-information establishment simps who only know the smear content.
	AJ messed up big.
	Media does it every day.
	He apologized, listed his failures.
	They never do.
	I want to know what Alex Jones was caught red-handed lying about on the stand.
	Well, so does this mean Tim vs.
	Sullivan is dead?
	No, because they never recognized Alex Jones as media.
	Alex Jones was never media.
	If someone can tell me what Alex Jones red-handed lied about on the stand, please tell me.
	Was it what was on his cell phone?
	We don't even know what was on.
	So, I want to see if I can get this.
	On another trial, if you want not to use alcohol, don't watch Legal Mindset stream from this morning.
	Hey, dude, that might make someone not want to drink alcohol.
	Expand like milk and water.
	Explain, please.
	Spread.
	Infiltrate.
	The parents are allowing this trial to happen.
	Makes them seem like they are more worried about getting the money than doing the right thing no matter what.
	They won't look good coming out of this.
	I was thinking about that.
	I would not want to win a lawsuit this way.
	I wouldn't want people thinking I was in it for the money, relying on a partisan judge to allow me to win literally by default.
	And then to literally dictate what evidence could be adjuiced at the damages stage.
	Thank you.
	I want to see I want to see what Alex Jones lies But we are not going to tell you where.
	Right.
	I want to know where Alex Jones lied.
	People, if someone puts the comment in, everyone just post it so I can see what the lie is.
	I want to know what the lie is.
	A gagged wolf can't bite the flock.
	A gagged wolf can't bite the flock.
	Okay, so if the individual who said I've lost my way since Ottawa would care to tell me specifically What Alex Jones lied about.
	Whether or not he had access to financials, whether or not he turned over everything that they had asked for.
	And the judge said, I don't care.
	You may believe what you say.
	I know you believe what you say is true, Alex, but it's not.
	Well, that might be relevant.
	I know there's the reckless disregard for the truth, even if the individual truly believes that.
	There's a basement to the Comet Pizza where they're doing bad things, even if they truly believe it but make no reasonable efforts to verify it.
	Yeah, I can see that.
	But if the judge actually acknowledges that Alex truly believed what he said, based on what Alex thought was the evidence at the time, and made statements as relates to public figures, that could put a little stick in the spokes of this lawsuit.
	Have they told me, Sadie, have they told me what the lie was yet?
	Hold on.
	Dude, with the AJ lies apparently lost his way.
	What were the lies, people?
	I can't say what he lied about.
	If you can't say what he lied about, then you would be lying.
	Oh yes, I'm sorry.
	It's totally not a scripted trial either.
	But Alex Jones could not reference the multiple apologies that he issued as relates to the two factually incorrect and, you know, untenable statements he made.
	Can't tell the jury that he apologized.
	Can't let the jury know that he apologized when they're adjudicating on damages, which under Texas law, as far as I understood, can be mitigated by an apology.
	I won't venture into what I know that I don't know.
	Okay.
	He didn't lie about the frogs turning gay, but he was hyperbolic about it.
	It didn't turn him gay.
	It just interfered with their reproductive...
	Not right.
	With their reproductive capabilities.
	I'm just going to go to Rumble and see if we have any Rumble rants.
	I'm sorry.
	I want to know what he lied about.
	Let's get into the drama of the day, however.
	After I see if there's any Rumble rants.
	The phone.
	That was the big stuff yesterday.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	One watching?
	That can't be right.
	Okay, my phone is not on, for goodness sake.
	2,300 watching on Rumble.
	Very good.
	Very nice.
	Okay, I can't find it.
	Anyone?
	I seriously want to know what the lines were.
	Specifically.
	Specific lies, not equivocations, not I can't remember, not I'm not sure.
	They asked Alex, let me pull it up.
	They asked Alex, did you, is it not true that you and Infowars came on air and said that this whole event was staged, that this trial is scripted?
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	Listen to this, guys.
	Let's see if this is the lie.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	This is one of the impeachment of Alex Jones where Barnes pops up on the screen.
	Pun intended.
	Let me ask you the question again, Mr. Jones.
	Make sure you understand it very clearly.
	I'm going to ask you the question again.
	You and your company.
	You and your company.
	Want the world to believe that this judge is rigging this court proceeding so that a script, and I mean a literal script, is being followed.
	That's what you want the world to believe.
	I believe when you're given a court order that you cannot say you're innocent, that that's not America, and the court order's right there on the table.
	I've been told.
	Mr. Jones.
	So you need to answer the question that is asked.
	I asked you this question.
	Yes or no, that's what you want the world to believe.
	No, I believe the jury's real, and I believe that I'm innocent until proven guilty, and I believe a jury should decide my guilt.
	Your Honor, at this time we'd like to offer a clip from InfoWars on Friday.
	Remember the question, people.
	You and your company want the world to believe that this is literally scripted.
	...for the purposes of impeachment in which those exact words were said.
	In which those exact words were said.
	By whom?
	A representative of InfoWars?
	Arguable?
	You and InfoWars said this?
	Is this what people think is a lie?
	Right?
	That's why the judge is ringing the court proceeding to make sure that the script, this is literally a script, a script gets told in a certain way for future audiences.
	By the way, how many seconds was that?
	How many seconds was that?
	124, 125.
	That's why the judge is reading the court proceeding to make sure that the script, this is literally a script, a script gets told in a certain way for future audiences.
	Seven seconds.
	A seven-second clip, by the way.
	And to highlight the hypocrisy, the fact that this isn't a script, this isn't being guided so a certain outcome occurs, the judge refused to allow some of the video evidence that the defendants wanted to put in on the basis of completeness rule.
	Because they wanted to show clips of episodes without showing the whole episode.
	Judge said, no, you're not showing clips.
	Even if they're unedited, unaltered clips of a longer piece doesn't respect the rule of completeness.
	They played a seven-second video of Barnes.
	That's Barnes, by the way.
	As far as I know, not a spokesperson representative of Infowars.
	Alex Jones never said it.
	Whether or not Alex Jones even knew that Barnes said it is another, I don't know.
	The question was, you and your company literally want people to believe it's a literal script.
	You said it.
	Neither Alex nor his company, unless Barnes represents the company, said it.
	And the judge allowed in a seven-second clip.
	Oh, hold on.
	Actually, let's just bring this back because it's the way she says, well, that's clearly going to be allowed.
	Let me see where that was.
	Well, that's clear.
	Like, it's a one-side-of-rule.
	Is this it?
	No, that's not it.
	Where is it?
	I'm such an idiot.
	Why do I do this?
	Is it this?
	This is it.
	Okay, listen to where it goes.
	That will definitely be allowed for impeachment.
	Oh, that will definitely be allowed for impeachment.
	A seven-second clip where the same jury, the same judge, disallowed clips that were much longer, much more contextualized because of the rule of completeness.
	That will definitely be allowed for impeachment.
	Because apparently Barnes speaks for Infowars, and apparently when Barnes says something, that is also Alex Jones.
	It's free speech systems.
	It's free speech systems?
	Says who?
	I heard it say you were on your show saying these things.
	We can go back, but he said your company.
	He said you and your company.
	Not you or your company, not you or a guest on your show who happens to be making an appearance.
	So there's that.
	The guy is obsessed with Bobby.
	Bobby Barnes!
	Bobby Barnes!
	If anybody heard it, it was live.
	It wasn't a hot mic, but when Barnes came into the courtroom, I was driving back from Albuquerque Thursday of last week.
	Judge went, not the judge, plaintiff's counsel went haywire when Barnes walked in.
	For the chat, start dogging Bill Cooper and watch what happens.
	He lied, claimed he predicted 9-11 first.
	Some people started a religion.
	Don't dog anybody in my chat.
	You can follow.
	You can engage respectfully with.
	Do not dog, harass, or bother people.
	The only lie I can think of was there was no WMDs in Iraq.
	We found thousands of Saturn rockets, but even that error was based on the fact that CIA deliberately contaminated the intel.
	Have we gotten the lies to which they were referring?
	And I'm not trying to be a jerk about this.
	I'm being genuinely serious.
	Has anyone identified the red-handed lies Alex Jones issued in court?
	Okay, someone's asking the question.
	I guess we haven't gotten to it yet.
	All right, so the drama from yesterday, it's...
	I saw the clips and I saw the highlights and I had to go back and watch what I could find on law and crime.
	I had to go back on Law and Crime and watch it.
	Apparently, it just happens that Jones' attorney accidentally turned over the contents of Alex Jones' cell phone for the last two years to plaintiff's counsel, then failed to respond to...
	What they call the clawback provision, the snapback, sorry, the snapback provision under Texas law, which is if there's accidental disclosure of privileged information, the disclosing party upon notification has 10 days to exert privilege over the documents to claw them back or to snap them back so that they can't be used.
	And if there's a failure to claim privilege, any privilege is deemed waived.
	So apparently, I know more about the context now as it happened, but yesterday in court, plaintiff's counsel springs on Alex Jones on the stand, unaware of this.
	You know your attorneys accidentally sent me your cell phone with the last two years of text messages and emails?
	You know that, right?
	Alex Jones seemingly had no knowledge of the fact that his cell phone, which he had turned over to his attorneys, which is typically what you do when you're trying to hide information, was accidentally communicated, accidentally or whatever, disclosed to opposing counsel.
	Alex Jones: Um...
	I just totally lost my thought there.
	Plaintiff's attorneys spring this on Alex Jones.
	Your lawyers accidentally sent us your entire phone for the last two years of text messages correspondence emails.
	By the way, the default verdict was rendered against Alex in November 2021.
	So they're now dealing with ex post facto correspondence, and some of which apparently relates to January 6th, as if anybody's going to like, this is cool.
	This is all cool.
	This is how the system works now.
	They sprung in on Jones.
	Jones was flabbergasted.
	Apparently, the phone contained financial information of Infowars, free speech systems.
	Showing that at times they were making $300,000 a day selling their supplements during November elections, allegedly during some of the Sandy Hook stuff.
	The documentation which is alleged to have not been communicated or further evidence of not fully participating, financial information about the company.
	I'm sitting there watching this and I'm saying, first of all, my first question, I'd like to see the notice.
	From plaintiff's counsel to defendant's counsel, alerting them to the fact that they have apparently, and by plaintiff's counsel's own admission, accidentally sent them Alex Jones' cell phone, which obviously, obviously contained, I would say, which probably contained privileged information, if for no other reason than it probably contained solicitor-client.
	correspondence between Alex and his attorneys.
	Probably.
	I presume.
	I would like to see the notice.
	Because, you know, I'm a lawyer.
	I've been a lawyer for a long time.
	2007.
	I could conceive that, you know, a lawyer gets a treasure trove and says, oh, I'm lawfully obligated to notify opposing counsel under this clawback, this Texas snapback provision.
	I need to notify them so the 10 days for them to exert privilege starts to run.
	I could conceivably imagine they say, did you mean to send this to us?
	With nothing else.
	Which, you know, someone might read, might ignore.
	I could conceive of sneaky lawyers notifying opposing counsel of an appearance by their own admission.
	Accidental disclosure of...
	As opposed to what I think...
	Ruby is in the house.
	As opposed to what I think...
	Ruby, I'm going to get to this in a second.
	As opposed to what I think they ought to have done, which is formal notice of accidental disclosure of potentially privileged information, dear confrères, consoeurs, as we say in Quebec, A link.
	We now know it's a link, but we received what appears to be accidental disclosure of potentially privileged information.
	Was it your intention to send this to us?
	And do you intend to exert the clawback as per Texas rules of procedure?
	That's how I would expect an ethical, responsible lawyer to notify an opposing party when they themselves know they probably screwed up and accidentally sent them privileged information consisting of two years of Alex Jones' cell phone.
	That's how I think ethical Attorneys would do it.
	That's how I would do it.
	I could imagine less than ethical attorneys skirting the rules, maybe saying, send a quick email, midnight, Friday night.
	Hey, did you mean to send this to us?
	Oh, they didn't get back to us?
	Waiver of privilege.
	So today I'm thinking, I want to see what that notice was.
	The notifying Jones's attorneys.
	I'd like to see what it was.
	Turns out, by the way, it was even a little more interesting than that.
	Is this it?
	Okay, here we go.
	So there's Anna Merlin, who is senior staff writer at Vice, who's been covering it.
	She, I've been following her Twitter thread on it, which was apparently discussion today, but I don't know that it was broadcast.
	And it actually seems what actually happened, I hear kids screaming in the other room, is that what actually happened is that It was either a paralegal or whatever accidentally sent a link to a Google Drive or not maybe Google Drive, but Dropbox.
	A paralegal or someone accidentally sent a link to plaintiff's attorney linking to this information.
	There is a whole lot of potential malpractice going on with Jones's attorneys, and I'll get to it, but I don't like planting seeds of people suing for malpractice.
	But this is not a pass for...
	Jones' attorneys.
	But it seems that what happened is that a paralegal or someone accidentally sent a link to plaintiff's counsel linking to this information, linking to this data.
	Jones' attorneys wrote to plaintiff's attorneys, said, please disregard.
	He's saying that Bankston, so he's saying, Jones' attorney is saying, Bankston, plaintiff's attorney, would disregard the link he sent because he asked him to disregard the link he sent.
	So apparently, someone accidentally sent the link to plaintiff's counsel, said, "Please disregard that link." Not only do plaintiff's counsel not disregard the link, they go into it, look into it, see that it contains potentially privileged information by their own admission that was clearly accidentally sent to them.
	They don't disregard the link.
	They then notify under this Texas Clawback provision, Jones's attorneys, "Did you mean to send this to us?" And when they don't get a response after initially being told, "Disregard the link." They then say, waiver of privilege.
	We're going to give this to law enforcement.
	We're going to try to spring this on you at trial.
	From what I understand, the judge is probably going to block or order the destruction or return of privilege information.
	That's what actually happened.
	A little suspect.
	To summarize, Jones apparently, through paralegal apparently, or potentially someone, accidentally sent the plaintiff's link to the plaintiff's attorneys.
	They say, please disregard.
	They don't.
	They view the information.
	They see a trove of what they know they ought not have been sent.
	They don't disregard.
	They then notify.
	And when they don't get a response in 10 days, maybe because Jones' attorneys think they've already told them to disregard, they then claim privilege waived.
	What the hell?
	Jones' attorneys didn't just destroy the link and create another one.
	Might have been too late once they've had access to it.
	You can't, as Emily D. Baker says, you can't stuff the poop back in the horse.
	The other expression is you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
	I don't know what the hell's going on here.
	From what I understand, I'm not sure what's on that phone that is damning or crushing to this case.
	I don't know what amount of what they think relates to Sandy Hook actually post-dated the default verdict.
	But that's the drama.
	And there's more to the drama than meets the eye than was disclosed yesterday.
	And people are saying, why are you defending Alex Jones, Dave?
	It's evidence that he lied.
	You know what?
	Even if that's true, you can't get evidence through unethical, unlawful means.
	For those of you out there saying, well, he had to exert privilege on each and every document after they already told him to disregard the link, maybe.
	Maybe.
	It might be a valid argument.
	But at least let's get clear on the facts.
	And if that's the facts, and that's the timeline, and people are saying in the chat the evidence was inadmissible, when someone says disregard the link, And then you open the link and see that it contains stuff, and then you play a game.
	I'll put them on notice.
	In the event that they don't exert this privilege under the clawback or snapback provision, then I get to use it.
	If you have such a slam dunk case, you've already been awarded a default judgment.
	You need to resort to this.
	The people who organize and attack Jones, comments, live streams, etc.
	are generally groups that worship Cooper's work.
	Believe the Zionists are the NWO.
	Cooper died in a shootout with cops.
	Interesting.
	I still don't know who that is.
	I'll look that up.
	Okay, now there are a few more here and I'm going to get to...
	Is it interesting at all to Viva that the text messages prove that Alex Jones is an ethic?
	Is this a joke?
	John Torres, you wasted another $5 and you didn't give me the specific lie.
	And I'm not being tongue-in-cheek or facetious.
	What was the lie?
	Like, this is a $5 super chat.
	I'm reading it, and you didn't include the specific lie.
	Gosh, and I'm not joking with you.
	I want to know what the lie was.
	What is the lie that proves that Alex Jones is an effing liar?
	Is it something along the lines of Bonnie...
	What's her name?
	The Ontario commissioner saying a kid died from COVID when he didn't and then apologizes.
	Is it that much of a lie?
	Is it as much of a lie as Biden saying if you get the booster, the shots, you won't get COVID?
	Is it that much of a lie?
	What was the lie?
	You spent $5.
	Why can't you just tell me what the lie was?
	And I'm being serious.
	Tell me what the lie was.
	Now they accidentally sent, I don't know, no lawyer.
	Okay, by the way, I'm not going to entertain the theories that Alex looks surprised.
	No lawyer is going to scheme like this without asking their client first.
	Alex generally looked...
	I just want to know, but I'm serious, John.
	Unless it's a troll.
	It's like Jablinski Games.
	When Jack Black started Jablinski Games and he's like, it's going to be the best gaming channel ever.
	And like seven episodes in, he never got to the gaming.
	And I just thought it was going to be like the joke for the rest of the channel.
	He'll never get to the gaming.
	And then he got to the gaming.
	What was the lie, John Torres?
	Just put in a $2 super chat.
	I just want to know.
	No lawyer is going to scheme like this without running it by their clients.
	No lawyer is going to screw up like this on purpose for a mistrial because this can reasonably and totally predictably end in a malpractice lawsuit from Jones against his attorney.
	It might result in a mistrial.
	I don't think it's going to.
	I know the verdict came out.
	I know 4.1 million.
	I'm going to get to it.
	So the lawyers are not doing this on purpose.
	The lawyers are not doing this to scheme.
	It's an F up.
	It might be negligence.
	Oh, okay.
	But then, okay, fine.
	You know, the paralegal might have hated Jones or I don't know.
	But the bottom line, no lawyers are going to do this for strategy without strategizing with their clients.
	No lawyers are going to screw up like this on purpose because Jones.
	Reasonably has a claim of malpractice against his attorneys.
	So I don't know how to make sense of it.
	The text was from Paul Joseph Watson.
	It basically said, don't let COVID become Sandy Hook.
	Not even should have been submitted.
	How does that prove that Jones lied?
	There's no question that Jones got it wrong.
	He even apologized for it.
	Now the question is...
	Is there a text that says, I know this is a lie, but I'm going to milk it for money?
	Show me that text or anything unequivocal to that extent.
	It's like you can be wrong without being a liar.
	People don't understand that.
	Being wrong does not make you a liar.
	Knowing what you said was wrong when you said it, or having taken absolute, or recklessly, not even caring if it's false, that's a lie.
	I think I saw...
	I thought that said leaving the room.
	Judge lied.
	We all heard it.
	We all know.
	We have a court reporter.
	I just want to know the lie.
	The red-handed lie.
	Okay, now...
	Hey, Vito, love your content.
	Can a judge be found in contempt in a trial?
	Can a judge be found in contempt during a trial?
	They are presiding out.
	If so, no.
	I don't know about Texas law.
	A judge, to be sanctioned, it has to come from other judges.
	I mean...
	I don't know what the rules are for sanctioning.
	It's not going to happen.
	She's certainly not going to be held in contempt because the only person that holds someone in contempt in a court is the judge.
	She might be recused, but the only person that recuses a judge or decides on that is the judge, him or herself.
	So that's the irony.
	Now, Rubia.
	Thoughts on $4.1 million verdict?
	Plaintiff's attorneys lost big because this won't cover their time.
	His attorney was awful.
	Good attorneys would have limited it to less than $1 million.
	Punitive phase coming but limited damages.
	Thoughts on the $4.1 million.
	Plaintiff's attorneys lost big because this won't cover their time.
	His attorney was awful.
	Good attorneys would have limited it to less than $1 million.
	So, Rubia, thank you very much.
	And by the way, Rubia is the lawyer, the Texas lawyer that I'm talking about, who by all accounts knows her stuff.
	$4.1 million from a Canadian perspective of some of the judgments we've seen out of the States.
	It's not atrocious.
	It's certainly feasible, but now you have to multiply that by three or four more lawsuits.
	Punitive, I don't know what punitive is capped at.
	4.1 million, you know, I'd put that up there with excessive damages that a litigious society is known for, but compared to what it could have been, it's not that bad for Jones.
	From what they're making, they can pay that off and they can probably pay three off.
	They can pay off three of those.
	I still think it's more than what I would have if I were on the verdict.
	If I were on the jury, faced with the case at this point in time, I mean, you know, quantify the damage compared to the actual source of the trauma.
	What is the endgame for Alex?
	Appeal all the way up.
	I hate the way supposed friends have turned on Alex, especially Tim Pool.
	Do they not realize the precedent this sets?
	Ridiculous.
	I don't know how Tim Pool has turned on Alex.
	But look, you're not turning on someone if you're being sincere and you think you're holding them to what you think is an appropriate standard.
	I still don't know what the bald-faced lie that the texts prove.
	I'm still waiting for...
	Damn it, I forgot his name now.
	Still waiting for it.
	John Torres, if you're going to do another Super Chat, just specifically identify the lie.
	That he knew what he said was false when he said it.
	And as far as him saying it, it never happened.
	I think he entertained that thought, but I think was effectively not making the statement himself, but giving more of a platform to someone who was making that statement, which I think could reasonably be argued for free speech systems liability.
	The argument that...
	You're not liable for the opinions of the people you have on your channel.
	I can understand it to some extent.
	Repeat guests.
	Giving a platform to someone who's going to say something.
	There's an argument there.
	I'm not convinced one way or the other.
	Let's see here.
	A lie is when you say and you know something is contrary to the truth.
	A mistake is saying something you don't know to be true.
	And Alice was...
	You know, insensitive as it may have been, was exploring what have been historically actual incidents that have occurred in other circumstances, other types of false flags, you know, Reichstag fires, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird.
	You know, Alex Jones was applying what have actually occurred by way of historical false flags, hoaxes, setups.
	Politically exploited events.
	He was applying them to this circumstance and having people on to speak about why they think that's the case.
	Do I think it's wrong?
	When you cross a certain threshold, it's wrong.
	Do I think it should be this wrong?
	Viva, these guys are trolls.
	They're eating your time.
	Pay attention to the live chat.
	Okay.
	Rumble rent.
	Well then, thank you.
	Let's go here.
	Got slow interwebs on my phone.
	And then the question is going to be, you know, if lies, if making false statements lead to these types of damages, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Holland, CNN still have not apologized.
	Alex Jones apologized.
	He made statements about a much more A much more shocking, horrific incident.
	He apologized.
	CNN, Deborah Holland, Elizabeth Warren still haven't apologized for an event that objectively, the event itself, not the statements made about the event.
	So let me rephrase.
	The characterization of the event itself, and not a separate event, caused immeasurable harm to Sandman and the Covington kids.
	Daddy Dragon says, In an English court, the judge says to the jury, a witness can be wrong.
	It does not mean they are lying.
	They can be genuinely mistaken.
	So anyways, that's it.
	So 4.1 million, they're coming back on punitive.
	Chat, do we know what the punitive is capped at?
	And by the way, there are people in the chat on my channel who entertain theories that I do not entertain.
	I don't ban them.
	I think...
	You know, I don't entertain these theories and then people will question my motives for not entertaining them.
	There's certain things that I just do not believe and do not have discussions on because it will never result in a mutual understanding.
	It will only be about proselytizing.
	But I think people should be allowed to inquire, to speak freely.
	And unless, you know, they're doing it maliciously.
	And malicious is different than opportunistic.
	In this trial...
	They were trying to fault Alex for making money off of his reporting.
	For making money off of his show.
	For selling supplements.
	As if CNN wasn't making money off of what I would argue was much more malicious misinformation about Sandman.
	Much more malicious misinformation about Russia collusion, Russia game.
	Much more malicious misinformation about shithole countries.
	About Donald Trump removing the bust of Martin Luther King.
	These mainstream media outlets.
	Exploit their own misinformation stories in a much more egregious manner than Alex Jones, but that they're allowed to make money off their work.
	They're even allowed to make money off their mistakes.
	But this case, they were trying to hold against Alex that he has a loyal fan base that buys his products and that he makes money doing what he's doing.
	By the way, I'm also not an investigative channel where I don't entertain these discussions because I'm not investigating these types of things, so it will only be a limited discussion, so I don't have it.
	Alex testified that he searched his phone for texts about SH.
	Found none.
	Lawyer says AJ lied because lawyer found texts about Sandy.
	So now, twisted ponies.
	My understanding is that the text that you're talking about right now was an incoming text to him.
	Someone saying something about Sandy Hook to him.
	And if this is the lie, and I'm saying this with total sincerity, that the lie is that he didn't have any on his phone, that he searched and couldn't find because he missed one?
	Because he missed an incoming text?
	Or because, do you know how many text messages I have on my phone?
	I could search and I could, in good faith, miss one?
	If that's the lie, I will understand what you're referring to now, and I will respectfully disagree that I would qualify that as a lie, certainly a lie serious enough to warrant a default verdict.
	We can agree on that.
	My understanding is AJ was asked in deposition if he had texts related to SH.
	He said he didn't, and the text dump showed that he mentioned it in his texts.
	My understanding is that the texts that said that were incoming texts to him.
	And by the way, it would be a pretty stupid lie because we know of all of the statements that he made on Sandy Hook.
	I mean, even if it is a lie, and I'm saying that I'll probably chalk that up to either not having seen it, not knowing about it, or just absolutely forgetting about it, given the volume of text that he uses, or emails, whatever.
	My understanding is that it was an incoming text, even still.
	Private text messages on his phone.
	Let's just say he boldface lied about it.
	I have no Sandy Hook text messages on my phone.
	Oh wait, I do.
	This is a defamation intentional infliction of emotional distress default verdict.
	What would private text messages on his phone have to do with any intentional infliction of emotional distress?
	Unless the text messages said, I knew it was wrong when I said it, but we were making such good coin off of it, I had to keep the narrative going.
	If it's that, I will be honest.
	I'm always honest.
	If it's that, I will say that's bad.
	Now, what would be the appropriate sanction?
	Can families of dead US service people sue the US government for lying about the Iraq war?
	Hey, can the family of Elvis sue if people say Elvis is still alive?
	Can the family of JFK sue if people say Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the only person?
	Can the victims of COVID sue people who say, I don't believe these people died of COVID?
	CNN a break.
	They made less than $1 billion last year.
	Hey, by the sounds of it, Alex Jones making $165 million gross.
	That's not net.
	That's still a lot of income.
	Thank you.
	I told a long time, Viva, thanks.
	I'm not sure what that was.
	Defend at all costs.
	You are a disgusting person.
	Ad hominem.
	So that's it.
	So that's a $4.1 million verdict.
	It could have been much worse for Jones.
	This means that he will be able to afford an appeal because even if you have to post bond, he can post bond for a $4.1 million verdict, go to appeal, get past what I understand is a highly partisan, politicized Austin Court of Appeal, and take it to the Texas Supreme Court.
	Here we go.
	May not exceed more than two times the amount of economic damages, plus the amount equal to non-economic damages not to exceed...
	Okay, so I don't understand this.
	May not exceed more than two times the amount of economic damages, but there have been no economic damages, or is the 4 million the economic damages?
	Plus the amount equal to non-economic damages not to exceed $750,000 or $200,000.
	Okay.
	So I'll have to figure that out afterwards.
	Anyways, I'm going to talk about it with Barnes on Sunday for sure.
	Fleeting floating feathers.
	Tim said that Alex crossed the line back when he said the things he did and was wrong to not listen to former staff who at the time tried warning him that his drinking and his words were not helping the show or anyone.
	Okay, that's a fair criticism.
	I think Alex Jones acknowledges that.
	In fact, I'm certain Alex Jones did acknowledge that.
	But it is...
	Whether or not that shows that Alex Jones...
	I truly did not believe what he was saying, which was not, you know, what the media says was denying it ever happened.
	I heard the evidence during this trial repeatedly, systematically acknowledged it happened.
	Did argue that it was being weaponized, politicized, that it was going to be used as a pretext to go after Second Amendment rights.
	Did hypothesize as to, what do they call it?
	Not the head medicine.
	The head medicine name that they gave to kids who take these psychotropic Psychoactive drugs and, you know, do these things.
	Did hypothesize as to whether or not that was a possibility.
	Hypothesize about a false flag, sort of staged or aided and abetted event.
	But Tim is not wrong and Alex recognized as much.
	Question is, take the kids to Barton Springs near Austin.
	Spring fed, it's always 68 degrees, just like Canada.
	Okay, so Rubius is 8.85 million cap on punitive.
	So then we'd be up to 12 or 13 million.
	Yeah, I think that still can be bond posted for while it goes to appeal.
	Alex Jones is sober from us.
	Anyways, the question is, even if you think that he's a bad person, that he did bad things, and you despise everything about him.
	You're not defending Alex Jones.
	You are defending what will come knocking at your door one day, sooner than later, if the world keeps progressing the way it's progressing as it is.
	Nine years for Greiner in Russia is terrible, autocratic, corruption, totalitarian, evil Vladimir Putin.
	Seven and a half years for Guy Refit, Washington.
	Totally fine.
	Even if he did a wrong.
	The punishment should be proportionate, and the process should be fair.
	And even if you think he defaulted on disclosure obligations, didn't fully participate in discovery, negative inferences, hell, jail him for contempt!
	There's something called civil contempt.
	It can lead to monetary punitive damage, monetary damages, and even jail time.
	Oh, no, but forget that, because that wouldn't allow the judge to literally control the words that were spoken after having issued a default verdict in the absence of the plaintiff.
	Okay, what do we say, people?
	Let me go see what we got on Rumble.
	Six o 'clock, I think I'm going to hit the pool with the...
	I do not see anybody.
	I can see the pool from the window.
	It's an outdoor pool, so we might have to hit that with the children.
	There was another Rumble rant coming from URS 8243.
	I am the only one who doesn't give a crap about people's feelings.
	I'm sorry, but you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, whether or not it hurts people's feelings.
	Grow the hell up.
	But sometimes the truth hurts people's feelings.
	The question is, spreading disinformation that you know to be false, that compromises or damages people's reputations, or causes them emotional distress.
	I would tend to think of the emotional distress of having a child killed by a madman.
	And then some kooks out there saying it never happened.
	You know that people are going to be saying that.
	Whether or not you hear them, you know that people out there are going to say that, regardless of what the event is, regardless of what the tragedy is.
	You know it.
	I don't need to see the negative comments of the trolls out there to say, I know that people are going to say, I'm Mossad.
	I'm controlled opposition.
	I'm a coward.
	I know that people, whether I see it or not, I know people are saying it.
	And at some point...
	You have to accept the life circumstances, which are, in this case, much more unfortunate than the awful things anybody could have said.
	Life circumstances put you in a position where you know people are going to say it.
	If it comes to the point where they try to destroy your reputation and get you fired, cause you damages, harass you, yes.
	But you know with any highly publicized tragic event, people are going to say it.
	When it comes to any public figure, people are going to say all sorts of terrible things.
	You have to accept that that's going to happen.
	I speak for a lot of us.
	We are proud of you.
	By the way, didn't you use to live in my state, Virginia?
	I never lived in Virginia.
	I drove through Virginia.
	I drove through Virginia to go to Tim Pool, and I drove through it.
	I don't think we drove through Virginia to get to Florida, but we drove through New York, New Jersey.
	Definitely North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, then Florida.
	Hey, Viva!
	Hey, Fair and Bounce, what's up?
	Will Biden release all the people in the U.S. for marijuana charges that had less than what Brittany Griner had on her?
	Asking for them.
	And I do fully support the idea of releasing non-violent, petty drug offenders.
	And by the way, I think there was an argument as to whether or not, had Trump said that as a policy, could have had an impact on the election.
	Exactly.
	Tim said nothing.
	Alex has not said himself.
	Also, AJ believed what he said at the time was true.
	No, but I think Alex would agree with what Tim said.
	It's not to say that Tim says he should be foreclosed from pleading.
	Verdict by default, $75 million punitive damages.
	Tim is saying Alex fucked up.
	And he did.
	Alex admitted it.
	Alex admitted, despite the fact that people out there hate the fact that Alex admitted it.
	There are people out there who call Alex Jones Mossad, controlled opposition, because he apologized for it.
	That's the world in which we live today.
	Okay, Viva, how much of the 4.1 million do you think the plaintiffs will actually see after the lawyers take their fees?
	Rubia, if you're watching, is there a cap on what Texas lawyers can take by way of settlement fees?
	Or this is not a settlement, but by way of judgment.
	I know certain states cap by percentage what lawyers can cut from any settlement or judgment.
	I don't know.
	Anyways, that's it.
	This was as close to my 15 minutes of fame.
	This is as close to my 15 minutes of fame.
	I want to get Vins.
	That is Rick Moranis from, let's say, Ghostbusters.
	All right.
	Jewish lawyer David Frye.
	You got me.
	I think that's a joke.
	A play on...
	What the guy from Gab said.
	Jewish lawyer David Frye.
	All right, he got me.
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	Okay, no, I was going to make a bacon joke, but I won't.
	It throws a massive wrench in his image, if you ask me.
	I think Tim is honest.
	Okay, now I just missed the super chat, but I think I have to wind up as much as I want to keep going.
	Let me see here.
	He is controlled opposition.
	He's controlled, pretty obvious.
	You will never be able to please everybody.
	And true freedom is the day when you realize you can't, you won't, and you cannot care about the fact that you won't.
	Mic drop.
	Let me see if we have anything else on the rumbles.
	And look at this.
	We're still green, and I should feel ashamed that I expect this to remain monetized, despite the fact that I'm making ad revenue.
	Talking about something in an honest and what I hope to be insightful manner.
	Zionad on Rumble Rant says, I left you a message on Locals about IBS.
	My wife and others cured, reversed it with a carnivore diet.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	Zionad, I'm going to look in Locals DM.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I am probably on a default beef diet as it is because I eat a ton of beef.
	I drink coffee.
	I have Red Bull.
	So I said I'm going to just try to cut out all alcohol for a bit and see if that affects my sleeping and affects my bowel, my IBS.
	But Tim said Alex defamed a private person.
	That was an untrue statement.
	Tim is a snake.
	No, that might be what Tim believes, and it might be based on his interpretation of the law, which I will disagree with.
	I don't think Tim is lying.
	I think Tim might not appreciate what a private person is, what a...
	I think if this had gone to trial, at the very least with respect to Ms. Lewis, she wrote a book, she did interviews, she did the media circuit, she got political about it, and then Jones' statements came three years later after she wrote her book and after all of this, I think she would have qualified as a public figure.
	And therefore I think if it had gone to a trial on the merits, plaintiffs would have had to have proven actual malice.
	Tim is entitled to be wrong.
	Without being a snake.
	If I know that Tim is doing it for, what's the word I'm looking for?
	For sinister reasons to keep sponsors.
	And I'm not saying it.
	I'm not suggesting it.
	But if I were to find out that Tim is deliberately saying something that he knows to be legally untenable for financial or self-interested purposes, okay, then we can, you know.
	Keto cured my IBS vasillitis.
	So will carnivore.
	Can you still drink alcohol with keto?
	I'd love a good martini.
	Tim isn't time to be a fan.
	Okay, dick, dick.
	All right, people, let's wind it up.
	Thank you all for everything.
	I hope that clarified everything.
	I want everyone to know.
	I have no ill feelings towards Nate.
	I understand that when I read tweets, A, I have to have a little bit of thick skin because it's part of the game, and B, I know that Nate likes me, respects me, and I have to read his tweets with that in mind.
	Now, I might read different.
	I don't know how much I can bring back to Florida.
	I might order a case of it and have it delivered.
	Come on, white pill?
	People are beautiful.
	By and large, people are beautiful.
	People want to live in peace.
	People want to live and they want to love and they want to lead happy lives.
	The only people who seem to be screwing it up are politicians and MSM, who live off the divide, live off the discord, and live off those nasty clickbaits.
	But I think in the long run, truth will prevail, goodness will prevail, and as whoever said it to King Solomon, this too shall pass.
	Just thank you for your service you provide.
	Hair is still glorious.
	You know what?
	I don't even need.
	I don't even need the headphones.
	Oh, yeah.
	The stress streak is still there, people.
	Okay, go.
	Be gone.
	Enjoy the night.
	Go out there.
	Talk to people in real life.
	Fresh air.
	Exercise.
	More important than anything.
	And Sunday night for sure.
	Probably go live tomorrow.
	Oh, wait a minute.
	I have one starred super chat.
	Okay, no.
	That was the one I saw earlier.
	No punitives in this case, Viva.
	Okay, good.
	Rubia, thank you very much.
	That is it.
	Go.
	Enjoy the evening, people.
	I will see you tomorrow or Saturday, definitely Sunday, and probably twice in between.
	Have a good night.

▲