All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:55:53
Trump RAIDED! Banana Republic Lawyers! Pelosi Gaffe? AND MORE! Viva Taco Tuesday!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We still support the one China policy.
We go there to acknowledge the status quo is what our policy is.
There was nothing disruptive about that.
It was only about saying China is one of the freest societies in the world.
Don't take it from me.
That's from Freedom House.
It's a strong democracy, courageous people, and it's just, I don't know why.
Except there's some commercial interests who would like to diminish the relationship.
We still support the one-China policy.
We go there to acknowledge the status quo.
We still support the one-China policy.
We still go there to support the status quo.
People, first of all, good afternoon.
Uh-oh, what did I just do?
We'll come back to that.
We'll come back to that when it's ready.
Good afternoon.
Going to come back to that in a second.
A lot of people saying that's what a lifetime of drinking hard alcohol does to the brain.
I mean, I don't know.
I do know that I think every now and again she appears to be intoxicated.
We'll get back to that.
Because there's context that needs to be provided.
And it's not clear what that context provides by way of clarification.
So first off, we seem to have awoken to the new era of Banana Republic terrorizing, persecution, prosecution, whatever you want to call it, of your political adversaries the day after the Trump raid.
We're going to talk about it.
This is not alcohol.
This is cold brew with a little cream and a bamboo straw.
A bamboo straw.
Because apparently it's good for the environment.
At a buck a straw, there was a pack I got for my kid because the kids like using straws and I hate straws.
I hate plastic straws.
I hate straws in general.
As if we are so lazy as humans.
This might be a Jerry Seinfeld bit, so don't anyone accuse me of stealing this.
This was my own thought as well.
As humans, this is too hard.
We need something to shorten the distance.
From that cup, which is two inches from our mouths.
So we made a straw.
I just wanted to see how they work.
I've got to test them out to make sure that there's no poison in them before the kids use them.
No little bits of plastic.
It's not made in China.
It was made in America, I think.
So this is the day after the raid.
Of a former president of the United States House.
And not like a raid because, you know, he was flying on a convicted pedophile's airplane multiple times without security detail.
Nothing for that.
Not a raid because someone admitted to smashing or wiping with a cloth, bit cloth, smashing with hammers, emails or devices that contain 30,000 emails, many of which were in fact classified.
Emails.
Nothing to do with that.
But because allegedly, Trump, when he left the White House, he decided to abscond with boxes of classified information because that's how it works.
You know, like when the employee gets fired or on their last day of the job when they retire, they often steal from the employer.
That's often what happens.
They walk out with a box of belongings to their former employer.
So, it's a new era.
It would seem.
Everyone in the States is flipping out, saying, you know, this is a dark day, the new day.
I'm from Canada, people.
I'm from Canada where the government, without court orders and promising to immunize the banks, froze the bank accounts of people involved in the occupation.
Sorry.
I'm from a country, and more specifically a province, where we were under curfew People don't seem to understand this.
We were under curfew for five months straight.
From January to...
It was five months in 2021.
January to April.
January, February, March, April.
It's my problem.
It was five months in 2021.
And if it's four months, forgive me.
We were in curfew.
We were not allowed...
To leave our houses for five months from the hours of, I think it was eight at night to five in the morning.
And then the next year, they did it again.
People saying, like, this is a dark day, a new era.
I think, you know, Canada's a smaller country, less national importance or influence.
I think we've seen darker days in Canada, but this is certainly a milestone, a threshold that has been breached.
We'll get there.
Nothing to do with child trafficking.
Nothing to do with visiting the Big Key Island multiple times as a president without security detail.
Nothing to do with smashing cell phones and hard drives containing classified emails.
Nothing to do with that.
No, no, no.
We'll get there.
That's what's on the menu.
But before we even get there...
And before we dissect this Nancy Pelosi, add the requisite context, which only makes it more confusing.
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice.
These little things that you see popping up, super chats.
YouTube takes 30% of that.
If you don't like supporting YouTube, we are, should be, but probably are, simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles, where they have the equivalent called the Rumble Rance.
Oh, I see I'm competing with some big players today.
I picked a two o 'clock time because it's too hot to do anything outside.
So I'm going to do this now.
Go for a jog afterwards.
Maybe try to squeeze in some fishing.
We're live on Rumble.
Let me just see what's going on there.
Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
So better for the creator, better for the platform to support a platform you like.
Yes, we are currently live on the Rumbles.
Okay, good.
Best way to support, however, VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
What was this chat?
Straw's siphon aerates the liquid.
It changes beverages like soft drinks as you drink it.
Plus, it ensures you don't drip all over you.
It's not just lazy.
I will accept that justification.
There are extremely dark days ahead for my country.
Yay.
I'm going to take the more optimistic tone.
The backlash, the outrage, is a sign.
Of not darker days.
It's always darkest before the dawn.
Something along those lines.
Biden bobblehead found in Trump's safe with sign Chris Rae on my finger.
Okay, we're going to get to all of that.
But let's just go back to where we started.
So we don't forget good old Nancy Pelosi.
Let's listen to this clip one more time.
We still support the one China policy.
We still support the one China policy.
We're going to get to that in a second.
We go there to acknowledge the status quo is what our policy is.
There was nothing disruptive about that.
It was only about saying China is one of the freest societies in the world.
Don't take it from me.
That's from Freedom House.
Let's talk a little bit.
Courageous people.
And it's just, I don't know why.
Except there's some commercial interests who would like to diminish the relationship.
There are some commercial interests that would like to diminish the relationship.
And we've got to ask what relationship she's talking about here, but we're going to get to the we support the one China policy.
We still support the one China policy.
Okay, so let's back it up, people.
Let's back it up and try to understand what the hell is going on here.
Some people are saying this clip is taken out of context.
She's talking about Taiwan.
It's a Freudian slip.
She meant Taiwan.
Now, this is a one minute, 30 second clip from an eight and a half minute interview with Savannah Guthrie on USA Today.
Let's go.
I went to listen to the full interview and then I posted the Broader context of that particular statement, which I believe is here.
Let's listen to the broader context of that particular soundbite.
But you know what?
Why don't we just show China that we support Taiwan?
It is part of the Taiwan Relations Act.
We didn't go there to change our policy.
We still support the One China policy.
We go there to acknowledge the status quo is what our policy is.
There was nothing disruptive about that.
It was only about saying China is one of the freest societies in the world.
Don't take it from me.
That's from Freedom House.
Let's talk a little bit.
It's a strong democracy, courageous people.
And it's just, I don't know why it is, except there's some commercial interests who would like to diminish the relationship.
Well, tomorrow we'll have a press conference.
You'll hear from my other members about the pride we took in going there, the reception we received, the fact that the Chinese are going to do what they're going to do.
And just because the president of China acts like a bully, has his own insecurities, it doesn't mean that I'm going to...
I want to replay one thing.
The Chinese are going to do what they're going to do.
Let's, before we get into what the hell she's talking about, the Chinese are going to, I can't, that's the worst Trump impersonation ever.
Imagine Trump had said, the Chinese, the Chinese are going to do what they're going to do.
I mean, accusations of racism would be flying.
Nancy Pelosi says the Chinese are going to do what they're going to do.
Crickets, but regardless.
So here's the question.
Was it a Freudian slip?
Was she trying to talk about Taiwan?
And if she's trying to talk about Taiwan, what sense does that make if she's affirming the one China policy?
Now, some of you might not know what the one China policy is.
So let's just...
One China policy.
Let's just go, for the sake of it, for those of you who don't know, what the one China policy is.
It's from Wikipedia.
Take it at a grain of salt, although for some things you can nonetheless get an indication from Wikipedia.
The one China principle is the position held by People's Republic of China that there is only one sovereign state under the name China with the PRC Serving as the sole legitimate government of that China, and Taiwan is a part of China.
China!
Now I hear Trump's voice in my head.
So the one-China policy, which Nancy Pelosi is affirming, means that the PRC runs Taiwan, and Taiwan is a part of China.
Now, can we contextualize what she said as though she was talking about Taiwan and not actually China?
I don't know.
I don't know what the hell's going on there.
Although I know one thing, if it's she's talking about China and she means to talk about China and the people of China, it is 1984 straight up.
If it's a Freudian slip or a gaffe, it's evidence of a broken brain of a politician who should have retired long ago.
And I think we can say this with confidence, with...
Basically, what's the word I'm looking for?
Unanimity.
Unanimous support.
Term limits.
Term limits on politicians.
You have to take, in some states, in some countries, you have to take a driver's license anew when you reach a certain age.
Things happen.
It's nature.
It's life.
First of all, it's not normal that politicians should make a career out of being politicians, even if they remain sharp and intact as George Burns to the last day.
Being a politician is a service and not a career, and people should not make a life career, a very lucrative life career, out of being a public servant.
First.
Second, the brain deteriorates.
Faster depending on some people, faster depending on what their life habits are.
The brain deteriorates.
At a given point in time, people retire.
People should retire from politics.
Also, at a given point in time, your interests, the ones that you necessarily consciously or subconsciously reflect through policy, become increasingly detached from the people you are intended to serve.
So there's that.
Now, let's just go in the chat.
Having heard the fuller context, was it a Freudian slip?
Was she talking about the people of China in contrast to the Chinese government?
Was she talking about the Chinese government?
So let's hear it.
One, it was a Freudian slip.
She was talking about Taiwan.
Two, it wasn't a Freudian slip.
Yes, it was a Freudian slip.
Was one.
Two, it was not a Freudian slip.
Yes.
We got some I don't knows in the crowd.
But the important thing is, Context.
Verification.
The bottom line for this, it doesn't matter.
It's either a Freudian slip or it's what she meant to say.
And I don't know how to contextualize it with her affirming the one China policy, which is the People's Republic of China, asserting ownership and dominance over Taiwan.
So, 1.5.
Oh, what the heck is that?
That looks like a cute little chihuahua mix.
Is she 89?
She's not 89. Hold on one second.
How old is Nancy?
She's 82, people.
Come on, don't exaggerate.
82. Too old.
I'm not saying you should take her house away because she's too old.
You can't take her house.
That's too old.
And it's not to say people can't be sharp.
You know what?
I'll take it back.
Case-by-case determination.
Someone runs for office for the first time when they're 78 because they want to save the world before they leave it.
Fine.
Someone been serving in office.
How long has Nancy Pelosi been in politics?
People, pick a guess.
How long has Nancy Pelosi been in politics?
This doesn't look like it's as long as I thought it was going to be.
No, okay, let's see here.
People, how long?
How long?
Ugh, this is early career.
Okay, who's going to take a guess?
This is actually quite funny.
Hold on, close this up here.
Someone says 40 plus years, 27 years, 55 years.
This is just, I think this counts as the starting date.
After moving to San Francisco.
Pelosi became friends with the 5th District Congressman Philip Burton and began working her way up in Democratic politics.
In 1976, she was elected as Democratic National Committee member from California, a position she would hold until 1996.
That counts.
We have an answer, people.
How old am I?
I'm 43. That's 45 years.
That's too much.
That is...
Living the political privilege for 45 years.
Let's just go see what Nancy Pelosi's net worth is.
It doesn't matter.
Millions.
Nancy Pelosi net worth.
Her net worth is estimated at $120 million.
Okay.
No comment.
Almost 50 years.
That's too much.
Disconnected, detached, no longer She might think she's representing the interests of the people.
She is so far detached from the people's interests, she doesn't even know what they are.
60 years if you count.
Well, I don't know what that is, but 666 years.
All right.
Do you think the DOJ-FBI are capable of planting evidence on Trump?
They've already foresworn any principle that might prevent it.
God bless, brother.
So here's the deal, George.
We're going to get into it.
I asked Barnes yesterday during one of the Bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.locals.com what the risk is.
Barnes is right.
It was sort of my intuitive, you know, my intuitive reflex is if they wanted to plant the evidence, they would have done it in a different way.
They would have done it.
I mean, they would have the means to do it in a different way before something like this, not after or as a result of something like this.
They would have done it differently.
I mean, the risk is always there, but, you know, like, even, we're going to get into it, but even with Carter Page FISA warrants, when Clinesmith, you know, when he fabricated evidence, he didn't plant it in Carter Page's computer or whatever.
They just fabricated it and submitted it to a judge.
They would have done it differently.
So that was Barnes' response to my gut reaction.
If they were going to do that, they would have done this differently.
But we'll get into it.
Now.
So, the big news of the day, people.
The FBI has raided Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida.
The National Pulse.
No, I don't want you to keep me posted.
I want you to close this.
This is about the judge.
Had to independently confirm that.
That's not what I want to share right now.
Let's just get the story itself.
So that no one accuses me of misreporting.
I might just have to pull up the damn article.
Okay, I have to pull up the article.
I seem to have lost it.
What source do we want to read it from?
Trump Mar-a-Lago rated.
I mean, we don't want to look at Fox News because that's biased.
We don't want to go to CNN because that's too propagandized.
But I think we're going to.
Let's do CNN.
Know thine enemy, people.
Know thine enemy.
Let's see what CNN is saying about it.
And that way no one can accuse me of pussyfooting around this for the protection of the Donald.
All right.
The FBI.
And we're going to get into the FBI.
Are either ignorant, willfully blind, deliberately have short memories, accidentally have short memories, or choose not to believe.
The FBI.
And then you have your useful idiots, David Axelrod.
We're going to get to.
The FBI executed a search warrant Monday at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort in Palm Beach, Florida, as part of an investigation into the handling of presidential documents, including classified documents that may have been brought there.
Three people familiar with the situation, told CNN.
Okay, three people familiar.
Who's this?
Oh, I need that.
Hello.
Yep.
Good to go.
Thank you.
Okay Um...
Anonymous sources, whatever.
Oh, get that out of here.
Take it for what it's worth, but we know what happened.
The former president confirmed that FBI agents were at Mar-a-Lago and said, they even broke into my safe.
There was nothing in the safe, apparently.
He went at Trump Tower in New York.
He was at Trump Tower in New York when the search warrant was executed in Florida, a person familiar told him.
Okay.
It's a search warrant that the FBI sought the issuance of and the judge stamped.
Some might say rubber stamped.
Some might say maliciously rubber stamped.
Others might say politically stamped.
Looked at it and said, me like you what me sees.
And we'll get to that also.
Who the judge is alleged to be.
Verified.
National Pulse reported it.
I don't know if they're NewsGuard certified, so I have to double-check another source.
The Independent also citing this.
We'll get there.
We've got the FBI seeking and obtaining a search warrant from a judge to search the resort of the former President of the United States of America.
And you've got a lot of people out there, a lot of useful idiots, or just a lot of ignorant people saying, I'm sure the FBI wouldn't have...
Sought this warrant unless they had good reasons.
And I'm sure a judge wouldn't have issued it unless he saw good reasons.
They may not have been born yesterday, but they were born after 2016.
My beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided and occupied by a large group of FBI agents, Trump said in the statement morning.
The extraordinary move to search the home of a former president.
Extraordinary?
Unprecedented, unheard of, never in American history.
He's been impeached twice, so let's just go whole hog.
The extraordinary move to search the home of a former president raises the stakes for the Justice Department.
Who's in charge of the Justice Department?
Merrick Garland?
And comes as Trump's legal problems continue on multiple fronts.
People seem to have lost track of the manufactured consent through which we lived four years ago.
Documented, manufactured consent coming from bogus intelligence agencies, fabricating bogus evidence, going to bogus courts, obtaining bogus warrants, and then leaking the info to bogus media to create a perception in the mind of a gullible, ignorant, or willfully blind public so that people can say, He was twice impeached.
They were never convicted by the Senate.
And he was raided by the FBI.
I mean, that doesn't happen to innocent people.
The FBI doesn't fabricate evidence and submit it to a secret FISA court to obtain an unlawful extension of an unlawfully obtained FISA warrant.
They don't do things like that.
The Justice Department...
Oh, no, that was the Department of Defense.
They would never talk about committing acts of terrorism on their own citizens to justify the invasion of a foreign country.
They don't do things like that.
Or if they do things like that, They did it in the past.
They can be trusted now.
The Justice Department has two known active investigations.
Yada, yada, yada.
One on the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
And January 6th.
And the other involving the handling of classified documents.
Okay, so here we go.
Investigation into documents.
The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said at least 15 boxes of White House records were removed from Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence, including some that were classified.
In early June, a handful of investigators made a rare visit to the property seeking more information about potentially classified material from Trump's time in the White House that had been taken to Florida.
The four investigators include...
Oh, whatever, yeah.
Yada, yada, yada, yada.
Doesn't matter.
So that's what happened.
This is a raid based on a warrant sought by the FBI, issued by a judge, purportedly because the president took boxes of potentially, allegedly classified information, classified documents from the allegedly, purportedly might have.
When?
What information?
Who knows?
But the FBI wouldn't have sought this warrant unless they had good cause, and a judge wouldn't have issued this warrant unless they had good cause.
And I was born yesterday.
Bamboo straw.
This is not the first time I've heard of this theory.
Maybe it was evidence on criminals in the FBI, CIA, Congress, and Biden.
Doubtful, but it would be funny.
Well, there are some people who have floated that hypothesis that this might not be classified information, but this might be information which, hypothetically, might be evidence of the fact that Trump asked for the National Guard on January 6th and Pelosi said no.
That there was advanced warning of what might occur on January 6th and nothing was done.
Stand down orders.
Half-employed police officers because of COVID.
It's not far-fetched.
It's not outlandish.
It's an interesting hypothesis.
Thus far, I've only seen one take with which I disagree, even though I still respect the opinion.
Kirk.
What's his last name?
Oh, for goodness sake.
Kirk?
Not Kirk Douglas.
His last name is Kirk.
Oh my goodness.
The theory was that Charlie Kirk on Twitter floated the idea that this might be the FBI trying to prove its apolitical nature before going after Hunter Biden.
So they go after the former president of the United States to show they're not a political organization before dropping the hammer on Hunter Biden.
I don't...
I don't buy that whatsoever.
Because this is...
It's not just unprecedented.
It's unheard of in a functional democracy.
Rating a former president's residence, resort, whatever you want to call it, it's unheard of.
It's banana republic level political vengeance that you would expect more.
I don't want to pick on a country.
Just, I'll pick on Russia.
You would expect this in communist Russia.
Nobody can have a problem with me picking on communist Russia.
It's something you would expect from a banana republic like communist Russia or communist Cuba.
So, you know, if they were going to try to show their apolitical nature, they would go after a small fish of the conservative side, not the biggest of the big fish.
That and I don't think they're going after Hunter Biden because I think they...
Have had Hunter Biden's information for a while and they've been protecting it, not contemplating going after it.
Arguably protecting it as their own insurance for the sitting president of the United States.
So I like Charlie Kirk, but I disagree with that take.
Another take with which I disagree respectfully.
Scott Adams said, I'll give my government 48 hours to explain.
I say no.
I say...
Absolutely not.
When you do something unheard of that can't really get much higher, you'd better have your answer ready immediately, contemporaneously with the execution of the FBI warrant.
You'd better have your explanation there, and it better be damn compelling.
It better be incontrovertibly compelling so that no one out there can say this is political chicanery.
You know, not 48 hours so the FBI and...
Justice Department can wait, gauge the public outcry, and then gauge their, or then, what's the word I'm looking for?
Craft their response based on their assessment of the public outcry.
If people don't get too pissed off, we don't need to give much of an explanation.
If they get outraged, we might have to come up with an excuse.
No.
You don't get 48 hours when doing something of this magnitude to say why you did it, to show your evidence.
You do it instantaneous, contemporaneous.
Unequivocal, and it better be damned compelling, to justify raiding the former president of the United States of America's resort, home, residence, whatever Mar-a-Lago is to Trump.
You don't get 48 hours to see how people react, to gauge your response.
Everybody should be outraged.
This should be beyond politics.
Everybody should be outraged.
And if you're not outraged, you're blinded by politics.
Or you're a useful idiot tool for that banana republic, trying to secure your seat in that banana republic, just hoping that if you kiss the boot, that it won't come down on your neck at one point in the future.
We're not going to get a better segue into that.
Useful idiots licking the boot.
Of the tyrant thinking they'll either get spared the same fate, or maybe they'll just secure themselves a seat in the Banana Republic for as long as, you know, they remain in the good graces of the Banana Republic.
But one thing is clear, by the way, the revolution eats itself.
And at some point in time, everyone who thought they were in the good graces of the Republic end up in front of the proverbial metaphorical firing squad.
And if you're Kim Jong-un's brother, the literal firing squad.
David Axelrod.
I'm going to pick on him because it's the idiot of the day.
It's the useful idiot of the day.
Whether or not he believes the dribble, the crap that's coming out of his Twitter feed, he wants other people to believe it.
You know what?
I don't even know if he wants other people to believe it.
Other people might be susceptible of believing this political, partisan, idiotic dribble.
Director, you...
CHI Politics.
What is that?
Oh, University of Chicago Institute of Politics.
Senior Political Commentator at CNN.
You know what?
I should have known, but...
Okay.
I'm joking.
I knew that, but...
Comedic effect.
Author.
Believer.
My 40 years in politics.
Too much time in politics, Axelrod.
You die the hero or you live long enough to become the villain.
40 years in politics, you become the villain.
What does...
What does David Axelrod...
I think he's a lawyer.
I mean, he is a lawyer.
What does David Axelrod have to say about this?
One thing is very clear.
Read this as though David Axelrod is a Michael Malice-level troll.
Do that exercise, and life takes on new meaning.
Read this tweet as though it's intended to be Michael Malice-level satire.
Troll.
One thing is very clear.
Garland would not have authorized this raid and no federal judge would have signed off on it if there weren't significant evidence to warrant it.
Read that as a troll and it actually is quite insightful.
The only problem?
The useful idiot is being serious.
One thing is very clear.
By the way, I'll say it over and over again.
Unless someone says to clarify, which I'll add as a caveat, because every now and again, I say for clarity or to clarify, but not let me be clear.
One thing is when you hear someone say, let me be clear, nine out of 10 times, they're going to follow up with a load of crap.
They're going to follow up with a load of pulling the wool over your eyes, treating you like you're an idiot, gullible or willfully blind, who will believe the clarity.
One thing is very clear.
Garland would not have authorized this raid.
Are you an idiot, Axelrod?
I mean, have you not been following Garland with Bannon?
Oh, but Bannon was convicted, so Garland's persecution of Bannon was totally justified because, you know, you go after Bannon for political pressure.
And don't trust me, people.
Do not trust me.
Trust CNN.
Garland.
Political pressure.
Bannon.
It was on...
I saw it on CNN, but we'll just...
Yeah, here we go.
Here we go.
New January 6th, increased pressure on Garland to set an example with Bannon.
No, not G, not G. Political.
Political pressure.
There was one...
There was one where it says political pressure.
Here we go.
AP News.
Funny, and I just remember these things because when I read them, I say this doesn't make sense.
I don't remember what I remember.
I just remember why I remember it.
It all puts Garland, who has spent his tenure trying to shield the Justice Department from political pressure, in a precarious spot.
This is not the right article where it says it.
There was one article where it says he was facing political pressure to go after Bannon.
But the Department of Justice facing political pressure means it's no longer a justice department, it's a political department.
Garland would never have authorized this raid unless he's facing political pressure to do it, a la Bannon.
Unless he's gotten the political permission slip to do it from an administration that...
It's not even clear Biden knows what the hell is going on.
It's not even clear that the people making these decisions are advising Biden.
But Garland would never have authorized this raid.
And no federal judge would have signed off on it if there weren't significant evidence to warrant it.
Let's just see the flack that he's getting.
Steal dossier much, David?
Collusion is rampant in the district.
Or they lied to the judge.
Not like that hasn't happened before.
Hmm.
Hey, Axelrod.
Do we need to do a little Kevin Clinesmith?
Kevin Clinesmith.
Does everyone remember Kevin Clinesmith?
No judge would have ever signed off on it.
It's not like the FBI has ever falsified evidence and submitted it to a secret FISA court to obtain the renewal of an unlawfully obtained spy warrant on Carter Page.
How do I get rid of this crap?
This is...
This happened four years ago.
Ex-FBI lawyer avoids prison after admitting that he doctored email in investigation of Trump's 2016 campaign.
Let me just stop here for one second.
Chat.
Who knows the Clinesmith story?
One yes, two no.
Who knows about Clinesmith?
Well, I sip from the bamboo straw.
I feel like Steve Martin out of the jerk when he gets a little bamboo umbrella for his drinks and he's sitting sipping there and after he loses all of his money, Bernadette Peters comes and says, Honey, honey, can't you see I'm drinking?
One, two.
Okay, this is split.
He got a year probation retroactive.
So just so we can satisfy the half that may not know.
The former FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email that other officials relied upon to justify secret surveillance of a Trump campaign advisor was sentenced Friday to 12 months of probation with no time behind bars.
Yes.
Klein-Smith was the lawyer in the FBI working on the Carter Page investigation.
And they were investigating Carter Page so that they could get to spying on the Trump campaign.
One of the issues in the Carter Page story was correspondence interactions that Carter Page had with Russian assets or Russian individuals.
It was known that Carter Page was a CIA asset, which would explain why he was having exchanges, correspondence, communications with Russian entities.
This was confirmed to the FBI via email, where it said Carter Page...
Well, if they had told that to the judge when they were trying to get their secret FISA warrants, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court warrants, done ex parte, done in secret, if they had disclosed that to the judge when trying to get the spy warrants on Carter Page, that his correspondence, his interactions with Russian entities was actually not bizarre suspicious whatsoever because he was an actual intelligence asset, well, they wouldn't have gotten it.
Or they wouldn't have gotten it renewed.
And at one point, it became clear that they were going to have to disclose this to the judge.
Forget exactly how it happened.
So they asked the intelligence, was Carter Page an asset?
And they say he was an asset.
Clinesmith, FBI lawyer, and this is assuming that Clinesmith did it on his own, there was no instructions from the top down, deleted the part of the email from intelligence, from the CIA, I believe.
Saying that Carter Page was an asset.
Deleted it.
And then submitted it to a judge in order to obtain the warrant on the basis that Carter Page's interactions with Russian entities has to be suspicious.
It has to be a sign of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Because they deleted the fact that he was an intelligence asset.
They got the warrant.
They got the renewal.
They got like three renewals of the warrant.
And then it became known.
It became known that an FBI attorney actively, physically falsified evidence that was then knowingly submitted to a secret FISA court to obtain an unlawful, a renewal of an unlawfully obtained search warrant.
This was in 2016 as relates to Trump.
But now people don't, don't, don't, I mean, for anybody who didn't even know that, for anybody who didn't even know that, Cripe, I can't find the tweet now.
Here we go.
For anybody who didn't know that, no federal judge would have signed off on this unless there was solid evidence presented by a trustworthy FBI.
And Garland, who might be bitter from being denied a seat on SCOTUS.
But set that aside.
Garland, who...
Recognized who have felt tremendous political pressure to go after Bannon might not feel tremendous political pressure to go after Trump.
No federal judge would have signed off on it, as if a federal judge didn't sign off on an unlawfully obtained and renewed FISA warrant within the last three years.
Axelrod treats people like they're idiots.
And it's not conceivable that Axelrod does not know this.
And if he does not know this...
Oh my God.
If he does not know this, it is...
Unforgivable incompetence.
Unforgivable negligence from someone who purports to be a senior advisor for CNN.
Okay.
That's that.
Oh, come on, Dave.
You don't think Rudy knew.
Oh, no.
Please don't lie to me.
Contreras says in public after going over the plan with stroke page.
Okay.
And I missed a couple of other super chats here.
Salty crack at Ami in the house and Salty looks like he's feeling better.
At least he was tweeting today.
He should be live sooner than later.
These documents were for the presidential library, just like all other presidents.
As president, he could declassify the documents, unlike Hillary.
I don't even need to compare it to Hillary.
But we will, in a bit.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you.
Biden and Trump orchestrated this to make the presidency look strong to the dictators he they have to intimidate.
Haunt us?
No.
There is...
The only reason why Trump...
If you want to do like a double fake conspiracy theory, Trump is behind this because this is going to galvanize the base of the GOP and conservatives for the midterms and for the presidency.
This makes a martyr and it will not make an ineligible candidate.
So I could hypothesize if we want to take like Tom Clancy where you keep having double fake, you never know where it ends.
Trump could be behind it because it's going to galvanize his base and it's going to galvanize or at the very least red pill people in the middle.
Who might be saying, look, I'll put up with five, six dollar a gallon gas.
I can live with that.
Maybe some people are going to say, I can't live in an America that's run like a communist Russia.
This is not going to convince people who do not think or who are on the fence as to Trump being a criminal.
It's not going to convince them.
This is only going to satisfy 10 to 20 percent of an in, what's not incorrigible, but Of a base that can't be convinced otherwise.
The TDS base.
This is not going to convince anybody who's in the middle.
So I can see this.
If there's going to be like a total double fakey unforeseen twist in a movie, Trump's behind it.
But I'm not even sure Biden's behind it because the dude doesn't know what's going on.
By Chuck Schumer's own admission, the government is running without disclosing what they're doing to the president himself.
They're talking about the passing of that inflation reduction bill.
Being drafted, negotiated, not to the knowledge of Biden himself.
There is an administrative body to this government that operates without the presidential consent, without presidential knowledge, and the president is just a little tool to that administrative regime.
We're going to get there.
I think we're going to get there.
You're absolutely right.
That was a terrible Trump.
Hold on.
Remember that Asian woman who snuck into Mar-a-Lago when he was president?
Who says they haven't attempted that again?
I do not remember that, but I was not as awake back then as I am now.
Miami Herald says warrant judge.
Okay, we're going to get to this.
Was also Epstein lawyer.
He was Epstein employee's lawyer the day after he stepped down from office.
Allegedly, if it's the judge that issued the warrant.
And shouldn't they have special master in this case?
Jeez.
Procedurally, I don't want to make a mistake as to whether or not that's not even the appropriate procedure.
I think they should.
I don't want to make a mistake about procedure here.
The special master, we saw one that was appointed in the Project Veritas case, and I suspect it is the proper procedure given the federal jurisdiction here.
They should have someone making sure they don't...
Go over documentation that has nothing to do with the allegedly purportedly potentially classified documents that Trump allegedly walked out of the White House with.
In the same way, he also took out the Martin Luther King bust from the White House.
If the January 6th panel wins, does that mean Trump can't run again or does it mean his name won't be printed on the ballot?
Deferring to Barnes on this and other people, it's not clear that they can keep Trump off the ballot, even if they attempt to indict him.
And that would just be the next level to what they've already done here.
And then we got, yay, God, says $5 Canadian.
Thank you, yay, God.
Or is that, yeah, why, God?
Let's see here.
Potential for, oh, dude.
When Ray gets up before Congress and says they did not, they couldn't have foreseen what happened.
Liars.
Liars, bald-faced liars.
The media was reporting what was happening.
They had, let's call them protesters, but they had people obtaining permits, protest permits in advance.
Intelligence knew of these, what they called outlandish plans to storm the Capitol.
In as much as any, you know, idiots were planning something idiotic, intelligence knew.
One thing's for certain, they knew a massive amount of people were going to descend on Capitol Hill.
They knew.
For Ray to get up there and say, we had no way of knowing, that makes you an idiot.
If you genuinely think that, you're an idiot.
You have no place in office.
Ray knew.
He's a liar.
He lied to Congress.
And he's the one behind this raid on Trump as well.
What do we got here?
America, let's get that Trump train convo rolling.
President Trump stands for us.
We must stand with him now.
Yeah, apparently people were heading down to Mar-a-Lago to...
Show their support.
I don't know if it was protests.
I don't know if it was protests.
I'm an idiot.
I swiped myself out of the stream.
Yeah, apparently people are going down.
I would just be very careful.
You go down in that vicinity.
Call me a coward.
Call me whatever would be the name.
You go down in that vicinity and you see what they're doing to anybody who is within the vicinity of the Capitol Hill on January 6th.
Past is prologue, people.
Ah.
Bye.
Thank you.
I wish Viva would bottle up some of his energy.
You know what?
Now it's starting to smell like wood.
Okay.
Okay, Rudy Giuliani revealed on Crowder this morning that the FBI removed a padlock they themselves had installed a week or two ago.
LOLs.
It's chicanery.
It's buffoonery.
The only question is how people deal with this level of stress.
They have to love the game.
And I say even Giuliani and Trump have to love this game to play it.
I never thought this could happen in the United States.
Breaking into a presidential residence to look for evidence.
Meanwhile, Epstein clients remain unexamined.
Well, speaking of Epstein, let's get to the judge on this.
Now, this is...
So, we're going to get back to Axelrod and his absolutely idiotic takes, but I think he's had enough for now.
So, Rasmussen reports.
Rasmussen.
Blue checkmark, news agency on the Twitterverse, breaking.
Judge reportedly behind Mar-a-Lago raid.
Warrant is former Jeffrey Epstein lawyer, Obama donor.
The article from the National Pulse.
Just bring it over here so we can see this.
I don't know what the National Pulse is.
I might be ignorant and it might be as reputable as the National Review, which people call partisan stuff.
I do not want to subscribe.
Don't take it personally.
The judge...
Judge Bruce Reinhart, who is reportedly the most likely judge.
This is very ambiguous, equivocal terminology that you have to read with scrutiny, even if it tells you what you want to believe.
Likely behind the warrant authorizing a raid on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate is a former attorney who represented employees of convicted bad man offender and notorious pee-boo-y boy right there, Jeffrey Epstein.
The National Pulse can reveal.
National Pulse can also reveal that Judge Reinhardt has donated to the campaigns of former President Barack Obama and to the establishment opponents of Donald Trump during his 2016 election, including Jeb Bush.
Politico, the news outlet's closest link to the establishment in Washington, D.C., named Reinhardt in their morning playbook email on Tuesday the 9th.
Okay, fine.
So we see that.
A lot of reportedlys, a lot of allegedlys.
You gotta stop, collaborate and listen, or take a deep breath.
Steve Britton, you are...
There will be no refunds.
Oh, I should have also prefaced this.
There can be no refunds on Super Chats.
YouTube, for obvious reasons, has not implemented such a function.
But thank you once again, Stephen.
Okay, so that's what National Post reports.
I hear a lot of reportedly, potentially, maybe behind yada, yada, yada.
That's the same article.
Then I go to...
Son of a beasting.
Where is the article?
Oh, for goodness sake.
And now I didn't...
It was reported by The Independent.
Let me just pull up that article.
Independent, at least in 2020, was NewsGuard certified 100%.
The Independent Judge Reinhold Trump.
So let's just see here.
News.
I'll get the article eventually.
Here we go.
News guard certified 100%.
Don't anyone accuse me of repeating false misinformation.
I'm not...
Going to Washington anytime soon, and I'm not going to Mar-a-Lago anytime soon.
So I do my best to just double-check.
Reportedly, potentially the judge who might have been behind the issuance of the warrant.
This is the independents.
This is one hour ago.
Judge who reportedly approved FBI raid on Trump once represented employees of Jeffrey Epstein.
Okay, so we're seeing a lot of this.
The future judge reportedly left South Florida U.S. Attorney's Office on New Year's Day 2008.
That was when Obama got...
Appointed.
Or won.
And began representing Epstein's employees the next day.
The very next day.
The judge who approved the search warrant for former President Donald Trump's South Florida estate is reported to have departed the U.S. Attorney's Office in the area in favor of representing employees of the late financier and convicted bad man Jeffrey Epstein.
Judge Bruce Reinhart reportedly approved the warrant allowing FBI agents to raid Mar-a-Lago.
You see...
And then we get into the article which we read before.
Axelrod, the useful idiot that he is, says no judge would approve this without serious evidence.
Well, sometimes, especially when it's ex parte and there's no adversarial voice, the judge gets presented with the evidence which is supposed to be bona fide evidence presented in good faith and is supposed to also present Exculpatory evidence.
This warrant was obtained, I presume, ex parte, meaning nobody from Trump was there, notified, warned, etc.
So you have one person telling the story to the judge, and when you do that, when it's ex parte and you do not provide the defendant with the fundamental right of justice to be heard, audi, alter, and parte, whatever it's called, when that happens, the petitioning party, the prosecuting party, Has not only an obligation of transparency, but they have an obligation of positive disclosure.
I don't know what the terms are going to be depending on the jurisdiction.
They have the obligation to disclose potentially bad exculpatory information for the benefit of the party that's not there.
So this judge is not making it up.
The judge might just sit there and say, I see what you've submitted to me.
I hear no opposition voice to contradict it, to undermine it, to present any opposing side.
So based on this, rubber stamp.
A federal judge, which we have seen in the past, issued improper warrants.
A federal judge, which we saw in Project Veritas, authorized certain things that might have been prohibited by another judge.
At the same time, from an FBI that we have seen, it's not the first time they falsified information to get a court to rubber stamp something in 2016.
It's not the first time.
It won't be the last.
It happens all the time.
It's corruption to the core.
And so you have this judge rubber stamping because he sees enough to say, okay, now I can give you the go-ahead.
Barnes is on the Duran.
I did not know what Barnes' schedule was this week.
Whatever.
We can go watch the Duran or you can watch me later.
One or the other.
But there's too much to talk about in this.
It is what it is.
So the judge who's reportedly behind this has something of an interesting past.
Ironically enough something similar to the judge in you know An interesting history, akin similar to the judge in the Alex Jones trial.
The highly partisan judge in the Alex Jones trial.
So interesting.
Many things are coming into play here.
Despite useful idiot Axelrod saying, the judge wouldn't have issued this unless he saw compelling evidence, the FBI wouldn't have sought it unless they had compelling evidence, and Garland wouldn't have authorized this unless he had compelling evidence.
Now we've seen FBI corrupt.
Judge's rubber stamp, corruption coming from the FBI.
With a very questionable history.
At least one that can raise some questions.
Garland himself with a very questionable history.
And all that we know, a former president of the United States residence, estate, has been raided.
Okay, now let me see here.
Oh yeah, here we go.
We're going back to our Banana Republic idiotic takes of the day.
Useful idiots trying to mislead people into...
Just, I'm sure they had their reasons.
David A. French.
Given that we still haven't seen the warrant, much less the warrant application, maybe, maybe, you know, all men are equal under the law, but maybe when you're raiding a former president's house, you show that right away.
To quell concerns.
To quell any...
Fears that this might be Banana Republic chicanery.
Given that we still haven't seen the warrant, much less the warrant application, the immediate frenzied anger at the FBI is completely unjustified.
Oh really, fool?
Oh really?
The immediate frenzied anger at the FBI with a history of politically weaponized corruption is unjustified?
No, it's not.
It's completely justified.
It's not only completely justified, it's predictable.
It is to be expected.
It's a historical fact.
And the fact that the FBI doesn't have an immediate response but instead chooses to piecemeal leak information to the media is further evidence of their politically weaponized corruption.
It is not completely unjustified, French.
It's completely justified, expected, and warranted under the circumstances.
There is no constitutional, statutory, or moral foundation for the belief of a former president is above the law.
So, wait.
If the DOJ's actions turn out to be unjustified, then responsible officials should be held accountable.
Oh, you mean like a one-month retroactive suspension of a lawyer who falsified evidence and submitted it to a judge who, as far as I understand, is now back to being a member of the bar, didn't serve a day in jail?
Oh, yeah.
If the Department of Justice turns out to have falsified evidence, as they did in 2016, the responsible officials should be held accountable.
No jail time.
For a lawyer, for the FBI, falsifying documents.
But QAnon shaman Jake Angeli gets five years in jail for putting his feet on Pelosi's desk.
But it's wrong to presume an abuse of power.
It's not a presumption, you useful buffoon.
It's a fact.
It's a historical, demonstrable, demonstrated, documented fact.
And the talk of civil wars, well, I agree with that.
Frivolous Twitter LARPing.
You mean like you're frivolous Twitter LARPing as a lawyer, David?
And by the way, yes, I can see that someone can say the exact same thing to me.
I look like a lawyer who's been living unkempt in the woods for years.
I know what I look like.
I know the jokes people can make about me as well.
The one joke people cannot make about me is that I have been historically wrong or that I have been historically untruthful, inaccurate, or even unverified.
The image is one thing.
The track record is another.
Right up until...
Okay.
French, you know what makes people talk about the terrible stuff that you've mentioned right here?
Lawyers telling people to shut up, that the FBI doesn't have a history of this, and that they're idiots for thinking that it's true.
That's what actually enrages people even more.
I agree.
It's childish and small-minded to use someone's appearance to attack their character.
I hear people screaming outside my office.
I've locked the door.
The only problem is that the door unlocks from the outside.
Cool whip.
But Axelrod doesn't stop there.
Just because it's the first time in the history of America that it's happened doesn't mean it's bad.
I'm sure they have their reasons.
Now, now, now.
Let's not jump to any conclusions.
Okay.
I might not be endorsing these bamboo straws.
Maybe it adds a nice, woody, oakish flavor to the coffee.
We're talking about Pelosi.
45 years.
But I think she married, if I'm not mistaken, she's worth $120 million.
I don't know if that's family money or married into family money.
But if she made 120 mil as a career politician, that's cray-cray, as we say in the industry.
I believe we were not done with French's absolutely idiotic take.
Hold on.
No, this was just my take.
Repetitive.
I trust the FBI.
No, I think we might be done with French.
Let me see here.
This was Pelosi.
What's this?
Oh, that was for Scott Adams.
No.
So that's it.
That's the latest of the day.
Nothing to see here, people.
Just raiding a former president's office.
And can you imagine, by the way, just imagine for one second Trump takes office in 2016 and then a year later raids Hillary Clinton.
There will be people out there who might feel that that would have even been justified.
When you have actual hard evidence, actual admissions, Of deleting 30,000 emails, wiping it with a cloth.
When you have actual evidence of deletion of actual classified emails and lying about it, there are going to be a lot of people who are rightly going to say that would have been more justified than this.
But can you just imagine for one second the outrage?
I mean, summer of love?
There would have been a summer orgy on ecstasy of love had Trump come into office in 2016 and in 2017 raided Hillary Clinton's home.
I just got here.
I hope your day's going well.
Have we drawn the comparison to the 40s Germany?
No, no.
I try to avoid Godwin's law in as much as possible.
Although I think what you mean probably is more of a Reichstag fire.
You know?
Setting up certain events to justify certain responses.
Just hypothesize as to what would have happened had Trump in 2017 had his FBI, his department, his Justice Department raid Hillary Clinton's office.
Office, I'm sorry.
Home.
Home.
Okay.
So what else?
I mean, I think that covers Mar-a-Lago.
I think that covers Mar-a-Lago, and it'll bring us, at the very least, an orgy of information.
Destroying cell phones, smashing them, because that's what you do.
Under Biden's Justice Department, under Biden's presidency, January 27, deleting emails from Secret Service about January 6th.
It's actually...
If you want to piece together dots, like just the dots are out there.
I had one dot.
Not that I connected, just I noticed it.
Last week, accidental disclosure of Alex Jones' cell phone over the last two years to plaintiff's counsel in that lawsuit.
Plaintiff's counsel alludes to or, in fact, expressly states that he's going to contact law enforcement and turn it over to them because it might contain information as relates to January 6th.
A week later...
You have a raid on Donald Trump's residence.
Those two dots are probably not connected, but that is the timeline in which we live.
Tabarnouche, I just forgot the timeline I was trying to connect.
Oh, for the love of goodness.
Hold on, let me get it.
We were trying to draw the connection to the timing of this.
Oh, yes, that's right.
The timing of...
Accidental deletion when migrating the cell phones from one Secret Service batch to the next.
Delete all of the text messages relating to January 6th.
Delete that, and then later on in the timeline, raid Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, seize allegedly classified documents, which in theory could contain information relating to January 6th, the response or the lack thereof.
There's going to be a lot of hypothesizing, but at least for now, we know who the judge was, what the history of the FBI was, what the hell is going on, at least as of now, and the useful idiots, the guarders, the protectors of the Banana Republic, saying, no, no, no, this wouldn't have been done unless there was a good reason, and never mind that pesky little thing called history.
It was never Trump's FBI.
The FBI belongs to the bureaucrats who belong to the DNC, which belongs to...
Frou-frou Featherstone?
True.
But even more important than that, the deletion of the text messages from January 6 occurred on January 27, when regardless of whose FBI it was, it was under the presidency of Joe Biden.
It was under his control when it happened, unlike what that other useful idiot put out into the interverse, the webverse, the interwebs.
Rob Reiner says the deletion on January 6...
Of the text messages from January 5 and January 6, except that's wrong timeline, wrong facts, which might modify the conclusion to which you might have already come.
The deletion of the January 5 and January 6 text messages of Secret Service occurred on January 27, one week, nearly one week, after Biden took office.
Details.
Bygones.
I say tabernush because tabernak.
Is the Quebecois word for the F word.
Comes from the tabernacles.
Fun fact, parentheses while we shift gears a little bit.
In French, France swear words.
Anybody who doesn't know this, all of the swear words from France have to do with sex.
Salope is a S-L-U-T.
Putain is sort of like another one of the, you know, a promiscuous woman.
A salope, putain.
I mean, all of the French swear words have to do with prostitution, female promiscuity, and sex.
All of the Quebecois swear words have to do with religion.
Tabarnac comes from tabernacles.
Caolis comes from the callus, that thing that you eat.
I don't eat it, but yeah.
Caolis, tabarnac, maudite, damned.
Caolis de tabarnac is like the standard swear word out of Quebec.
And it's the callus, the callus, the wafers.
Tabernacles coming from the church.
Quebecois swear words, all related to the church.
French from France swear words, all related to sex.
That tells you something.
And it's fun.
I will not answer this question.
I do not think Trump was ever pushing it.
I think he was definitely promoting its existence.
It will be a problem for him because, you know, the warp speed, garbage in, garbage out, do something in warp speed, it might potentially have problems.
And regardless of what Trump might have been pushing, even if we concede that Trump was pushing it, there is a difference between pushing or promoting a product you think you had a hand in developing and mandating it, failing which you get fired or excommunicated from civil society.
But Trump's going to have to answer to that.
He's going to have to answer for that because a lot of people are going to feel that a lot of the problems that people might be seeing in nature right now Could potentially be the result of garbage in, garbage out, warp speed on something that has never been warp speeded before for a potential virus for which there has never been any form of the big V solution.
And he certainly came out and touted it.
Marty, they found us.
Yeah, and that is the distinction.
Sell your product because you believe in it, but don't make me buy it.
Speaking of which, that might actually be a pretty decent segue into Canada.
My brother, people.
Lion Advocacy is my brother.
My brother right here.
Let's see this here.
It's public.
Look at that good-looking man.
We call him the mailman's son.
It's not a joke.
It's a family joke.
It's not a joke.
It's a serious family joke.
This dude, if anybody's ever seen any of my other siblings, which you probably won't.
Dan does not look like anybody in the family.
This is his Twitter handle.
At Lion Advocacy.
Lawyer, dad, concerned citizen.
Tweeting best practices for responsible V rollouts.
Trusted voice.
I didn't even see this before.
Personal advocacy account?
VivaFriesBro.
I never saw him do that.
I didn't know that he actually...
Well done.
This is my actual blood brother.
Story time.
We once got into a fight over a grilled cheese sandwich.
Wait a minute.
Yeah, it was a grilled cheese sandwich.
We once got into a fight over a grilled cheese sandwich.
I don't remember the fight.
I just remember wrestling with him under the kitchen table.
He had me in a headlock, which I found to be a little bit too suffocating.
I immediately panicked and began clawing at his face for immediate release.
Scratched his face all over.
Then he took what looked like a, when you get arrested, a mugshot of his face with the scratch marks in like a Z. Like I carved Zorro on his cheek and the grilled cheese sandwich in his mouth for victory.
So he started getting involved and he started following things and following things.
And the big story out of the news, let me just open up a separate window for this actually.
The big story was...
Trudeau.
No science.
Let's see here.
Here we go.
This is from the Toronto Sun.
So don't take my word for it, people.
I loathe Trudeau.
I have nothing good to say about him except for the fact that he is the best Prime Minister Canada has ever had at destroying Canada and Canadian values.
He's doing that.
You couldn't do it better if you were trying to do it.
Assuming you don't think he's trying to do it.
Lily, Trudeau government's air travel rules based on fear, not science.
So this was the big news this week.
The Trudeau government showed once again...
This is an opinion piece.
I believe it's an opinion piece.
Let me just see here.
Columnist, yeah.
The Trudeau government showed once again on Thursday that when it comes to COVID, they're more interested in the political science than the medical science.
At the behest of absolutely no one.
They announced that mandatory random testing for incoming travelers to Canada will come back on July 19. This would explain some of those lineups you've been seeing in videos on Twitter.
While Justin Trudeau himself private jettisons himself out of Canada, maskless, to Costa Rica for two weeks.
Scum of Canada.
Scum of Canada.
As if our airports didn't have enough problems.
Quote, there was no science shared to test fully vaccinated air travelers at airports.
There was no science shared to pause the testing.
There has been no science shared about reestablishing mandatory random testing off-site of airports for air travelers, conservative transport critic Melissa Lantzman said.
Thankfully, this testing will be done off-site and shouldn't add to delays passengers are already experiencing, but there's no need for it at this point.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It's done off-site?
No delays to other passengers.
So people are being directed off-site and being detained by federal authorities to be coerced into testing.
Okay.
That's cool.
Nothing wrong with that.
What did I just do here?
Nothing wrong with that at all.
Where were we?
Where were we?
We lost it here.
Yeah, early in the pandemic, before we know what's going on, who cares?
When the Alpha variant was first discovered in the United Kingdom and calls were made for increased screening or testing, the Trudeau government rejected those ideas.
The COVID-19 vaccine was here, but in short supply.
Well, now we've got 400 million of them, so much so that Matt Trudeau is going to require it every nine months to be up to date if you want to avoid 14-day quarantines upon return to Canada if you're not up to date.
Yada, yada, yada.
Who cares?
It's politics, people.
And we knew it coming out of Quebec.
That policy was being determined not by science, but by polling.
Listen to this.
Now that we have vaccines, now that more than 93 of the adult population is fully vaccinated, and many have had their boosters, especially the most vulnerable, the Trudeau government won't give up on border measures.
Of course not!
Because petty tyrants suck...
The sooner we stop talking about COVID, the sooner we start talking about Justin Trudeau's corruption, lack of ethics, and awful...
The sooner we get out of this crisis, the sooner we can focus on Trudeau corruption.
We're never going to get out of this crisis.
Their announcement Thursday wasn't just a return of mandatory random testing, but that anyone who tests positive must isolate for 10 days at least.
Oh, unless you're unvaccinated and test negative.
Then you have to quarantine for 14 days at least.
I'm going to have an aneurysm.
Let that sink in for one gosh darn second.
If you test positive under Justin Trudeau, trust the science, I'm not a discriminatory bastard.
If you test positive, if you test positive for COVID, you have to isolate for 10 days.
If you're unvaccinated and test negative, you have to quarantine for no less than 14 days upon your return to the country.
And don't believe me, don't believe me, unvaccinated, quarantine 14 days.
Okay.
I have to do it.
It's in Canada.
You guys are going to...
I mean, I think you know this already because I've told you this.
Here we go.
Oh, my brother's in the background.
Okay, Dan, give me two seconds.
If you are unvaccinated, if you're unvaccinated but test negative, unvaccinated children under 12 years of age must quarantine for 14 days and if a fully vaccinated parent...
This might be old.
I don't want to quote the old one.
When is this from?
Why doesn't it say when this has been updated?
Date modified July 22nd.
Good.
And just so people see what I'm doing here.
Date modified July 22nd.
If a fully...
That's test positive.
Okay, hold on.
Okay.
Quarantine.
Come on.
Might not be able to find this.
You might have to take my word for it.
Cripe.
I'm not sure I'm going to show my work now.
You'll have to go.
This one you might have to just double check on your own afterwards.
And then, and then, and then, and then, and then, and then.
Checklist, arrival testing, mandatory.
Checklist of who are already at the border.
Check if he qualifies fully vaccinated.
Okay.
This might be it.
Okay, forget it.
We're going to...
I'm not going to waste time on that.
If you are unvaccinated, you have to quarantine...
Unvaccinated 13 and over, you have to quarantine for at least 14 days.
Even if you test negative.
But if you test positive, you only have to quarantine for 10 days.
So that was there.
Now let me just bring back my brother's tweet here because my brother's been reading this stuff.
That was the article.
It was not based on science.
It's willy-nilly fear porn politics of a petty tyrant who has seized control and doesn't want to give it back just yet.
This is the epic moment when the government's expert witness, who was relied upon to justify vax mandates for travel director, is stunned into silence and has to admit there was no document supporting a recommendation for mandates.
And if we can expand this.
And my question for you is, do you have any emails, briefs, or reports from PHAC or Health Canada recommending the implementation of mandatory vaccination policy for travelers?
What you can't necessarily see in the transcript here is a passage of time.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
Do you know what this means?
There was an extended period of time between the question and an absence of a response.
One does not ask the question and say, can you hear me right away?
You ask the question.
Do you see any documents or policy to support this?
Can you hear me?
Oh, I can hear you.
I'm reflecting on your question.
Oh, reflect.
Reflect away.
I do not recall a document from the Public Health Agency or Health Canada to Transport Canada recommending that Transport Canada take this approach.
Pulled it out of our butts, people.
Pulled it out of their stinky, corrupt butts.
Okay, with that said, my brother.
Hey, what's going on?
Good to see you.
Gosh, I look baggy.
Hi.
It's only your sleep.
How you doing?
How's Florida?
I'm going to refresh and see if we're still green-lighted here.
We are.
How's Florida, Dan?
Look at this.
Politics ruins everything.
Yeah, there you go.
Sweat stains.
You see that?
Wow.
Maybe you can't see it.
No, I can't.
It's hot.
It's humid.
But it's free.
Freer.
How are you doing?
Good.
And I was surprised that that tweet got so much circulation.
I think the vaccine mandates have a lot of frustration widely held, almost universally.
My brother needs more light?
Yeah, it doesn't matter.
Or turn your computer so that the light is in front of you.
No, no.
Rotate.
The other way.
Unless something's behind you that you don't want us to see.
More.
More.
Another 90 degrees.
More.
It's the window lighting that you want, Dan.
No!
You can't have backlighting.
That makes your face darker.
Hold on.
Let me turn my shades down.
Hold on a second.
No!
No, no, no!
He doesn't know how it works!
Dan!
Dan, turn backwards so that the window is in front of your face.
So you get front lighting.
That's better.
Now leave it like that.
Okay.
Okay, dude, so give us the context of that clip.
That's from depositions in the context of one of these federal lawsuits, or was that just the...
Yeah, that was the one I think JCC...
There was a couple there.
I think it was JCCFs.
I'm not sure.
But I'm not sure if that was packed.
I got to check the...
The docket.
We look like brothers.
Yeah, I got to check which file that was.
But the point was...
Actually, I can pull it up.
Yeah, because my understanding, that's in one of the lawsuits where they're actually deposing the experts and saying, how did you come to these arguably discriminatory, definitively unconstitutional travel restrictions?
And they're basically saying, we didn't have any expert science to justify the recommendation or the implementation of that policy.
Keith Wilson from JCCF mentioned that a while ago, but he was privy to those cross-examinations that weren't made public until just quite recently that are now downloadable and available for everybody's viewing.
But there's 1,800 pages and nobody knows where to start.
So yeah, you can actually see all this now in real time.
And I think when people are going to start reading it and understanding the way the communication was manipulated between The different ministers' offices and the different, you know, the ministers and the advisory panels, the way all that was manipulated for basically Trudeau to get what he wanted, which was people off planes, I think there's going to be a lot more, you know, discussion about this.
And I just want people to highlight this.
The 1141 on the bottom is, in fact, a page number.
I don't know if it's from one deposition, but from the documents you sent me, Dan, I mean, they go, there's like, A thousand plus pages.
There's like compilations of affidavits and then there's, what do you call it?
And then there's the transcripts, which the transcripts are full day or, you know, they go multiple days.
And everybody bear in mind, the transcripts are also on that page.
You're not getting 350 words.
It's not single space.
So transcripts of depositions.
You could read through a page in 10 seconds, 15 seconds, but it's a page.
It takes, yeah, and you see the passage of time.
So I don't know what that gap was in that particular tweet, but just to see it on the record, you go, can you hear me?
She's like, I'm hearing, I'm reflecting on.
And to me, that exchange shows that this whole, this mantra we've been told, the science, the science, we've been following the science, and then you look at it, and there really is nothing, no one ever recommended, no one ever would recommend this.
I think all the top folks at NACI never recommended.
Barring the unvaxxed from planes.
And it's just weird that, well, not weird to some, but the media is not picking up on this and not, you know, really addressing this the way it should be addressed for everyone who's been affected.
And it's not just the unvaxxed.
It's the whole family, like entire families.
I hear cases, heartbreaking cases, that they couldn't go to funerals, you know, weddings, birthdays.
It's just a disgrace.
I don't even know where to start.
I want to show, you know, that the public doesn't seem to be interested in it.
Hold on.
I'm going to pull this up.
The video of Trudeau landing in Costa Rica on his private jet.
It's not his private jet, but on the private jet.
I'll just show a video here.
It's at the end of this montage.
Right here.
This video...
This video on Twitter got something like...
Five million views, the original.
Media doesn't touch it.
People have an interest in it.
People are shocked and outraged by it.
People want to see it.
They're gravitating towards it.
But the Trudeau subsidized government, it doesn't talk about that whatsoever.
Nuts.
So you're reading through this for fun.
Well, it's relevant for a few things.
No, I've had...
The fact of these mandates, okay, have impacted other areas outside of the airline industry.
So I'm getting a lot of, I work with a lot of companies and employees who are, you know, dealing with wrongful, you know, ongoing stay away from the office if you're unvaxxed, right?
And a lot of it's kind of like this whole coalition of who is still supporting, like, what are we still doing with the mandates for?
Like, we got rid of them all, right?
Like, we got rid of vaccine requirements.
You have to see over time who is relying on what evidence to justify vaccine mandates.
And I'm seeing it now.
I'm getting more inquiries from folks that are trying to have some assurance about university, right, that they can go to university next semester.
And you're seeing U of T, what do you call it, impose vaccine requirements on residents and University of Western Ontario in kind of like this gray area.
So what's your authority?
Who are you relying on for your...
Expert scientific evidence.
It's like this coalition of information that's all supporting each other but doesn't actually have any foundation.
Reading through this evidence, the scientific evidence that the governments that are now part of the public record is important to understand how you're justifying these policies.
Here you see it.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
No one has to take your word for it.
You can see this.
University of Toronto requiring students living in residence to be triple vaccinated.
We're talking for 20-year-old kids that are like...
Which we now know.
I will say we know.
Dr. Kieran Moore confirmed 1 in 5,000 risk of myocarditis for this specific bracket.
1 in 5,000 per dose as now confirmed by German...
They're requiring this bracket who are at risk for that mild condition to be triple-vaxxed.
And it's the reason or lack thereof and who's making the decision and who's relying on what authority.
So if it's the provost of the university, who is that person relying on for their opinion?
You just want to...
You want to get down the one person who's saying, that policy makes sense.
So in the Globe and Mail, another tweet this week, the Globe and Mail recently had an article on this, and it was a pretty senior doctor at St. Mike's or U of T who was advocating for more universities to have vaccine mandates because that'll increase the uptake of the vaccine, obviously, because kids want to go to school.
But I sensed he was being misquoted.
And so the question is, you know, If he's not saying it, but they're kind of relying on him, who at the end is making all these circular kind of justifications?
I'm dealing with a lot of entities where they have the ongoing policies of vaccination requirements for remote workers, people that have been working remotely, right?
It's crazy.
It only makes sense if you...
It can only make sense if you don't...
Well, no, no, because people have...
Theories that can explain this away.
People have conclusions that this would justify.
There's a number of them.
We won't get into them, but bottom line, money.
Money, corruption, and power.
I mean, that's what it is.
That's what it looks like.
There's got to be a more moral or ethical way to make money for these institutions.
Come on.
And how much money?
Well, no, from the institutions, I was thinking about it.
Like you say, it's a vicious circle.
The government-appointed medical experts are giving advice.
The politicians are relying on the advice of the experts they've appointed based on the expertise of the scientists who come out and say, we've gotten a vaccine, it's 100% effective.
And it creates its own vortex of lack of responsibility.
Everyone says, well, the other person told me it was good.
And at the end of the day...
The outcome is what it is, and it's devastating, but everyone's like, well, that's the best we had at the time based on the science and what the scientists told us.
Politicians were relying on the experts based on the best of the time, and everyone's screwing up.
Well, the other side of that, which is an interesting side, is that some of these institutions, let's say if you put it to a vote to, let's say, the university or to a union or to a company, who's in favor, just on a general, pure democratic basis, who's in favor of forcing?
You know, vaccines on the minority that haven't gotten vaccinated yet.
I'd be curious if it would really impact that company's customers or employees.
Like, they'd all quit.
You know what I mean?
Like, in that sense, there's an economic side of this that, you know, is legit.
Meaning, for example, my law society won't let Unvaxxed into the Great Library still, okay?
And that's part of a corporate statement issued by the CEO of the Law Society.
So you're like, what does that have to do?
Why is a medical policy...
Maybe it's a business decision on the part of the CEO of the Law Society that it's a good business decision to bar unvaxxed lawyers from the Great Library.
I'm like, so that's the business side of it, right?
And legit, if they're just weighing it from that perspective, I mean, yes, you've got the human rights aspect to deal with, but I don't know.
So people might not know what the Great Library is, Dan.
What's the Great Library?
Oh, the Great Library is the Lawyer's Library in downtown Toronto.
They call it the Great Library.
And in order to access the Great Library, you need to be vaccinated.
That was unupdated.
I haven't checked it in the past week or two, but as of...
As of two weeks ago, the Law Society of Ontario was effectively saying Black lawyers, Indigenous lawyers, Latino lawyers, less welcome than...
White, Asian lawyers.
I mean, they may not be saying it like that.
They may not even think they're saying it, but that's what they're doing.
So those groups haven't been speaking...
I haven't seen in the media at least anybody speaking up for any of these groups that you'd think would be more proportionally affected by these policies.
So I don't know where that's holding.
But the reality is that the Great Library, it doesn't have that many people in it to begin with.
And you could space out...
Libraries have been a hotspot for COVID spread because you go to the libraries and you're just making out and having sex parties.
It's like the fact that they require the VAX for tennis and for golf, like two of the least contact sports on earth.
One of the sports, you can't play within two meters of another person.
Yeah, no, I don't get it.
I don't get it.
I've asked, I'm trying to solicit from the international community.
I don't know what percentage of your viewers live abroad or Europe, whatever.
And by the way, North America.
So I think United States, I don't think you're much better there, bro, in terms of some of the wonky policies, sciences.
Hallelujah.
The person who I am convinced is actually a satire account.
Science is winning.
Oh, yeah.
It depends on what you mean by science, and it depends on what you mean by winning.
One in 5,000 myocarditis per dose for 18-year-olds.
Yep.
Science is winning if you are the most evil person on Earth.
Yeah, no, it's not, you know.
Go for it.
Well, what I'm trying to gauge from the international community is, first of all, on the termination.
See, I didn't know in Israel, people, if they refused to get vaccinated, there was no termination without severance in Israel.
So that's an interesting fact I didn't know.
So I'm curious what other countries...
Yeah, Sweden.
I'm curious what other countries required vaccines for work or whatever, but then if a person didn't agree to it...
What was their treatment?
Did they have to take PCR tests or rapid antigen tests?
Did they get put on leave with pay, leave without pay?
These are questions.
I'm curious to hear where every country held.
The United States is a bit of a beast because I think there you can just fire people without notice anyhow.
Yeah, it's at will employment in most places.
See, here in Canada, the issue is that you can't do that.
Under common law, you cannot fire someone for no reason.
I've always thought, like, if you're going to implement this wonky policy of firing people for not getting vaccinated, the very least you do is pay out the severance.
Pay out what they're...
Give them notice.
Dan, we want to see the victory photo of Dan with the cheese sandwich in his mouth.
I've asked him to look up this picture.
Oh, we're going to find that.
You've got to find it, Dan.
I've got to show it to my kids.
Yeah, it's an amazing thing.
It's LWAP.
Leave without pay.
Don't get the facts.
Yeah, you're not fired, by the way, which is a double whammy, because at least if they fire you...
You can go apply for EI in theory.
If they fire you, you can go apply for benefits.
LWOP, leave without pay.
You can't apply for benefits.
You're not fired.
You can come back to your job if we change the policy or you comply with the policy.
Whereas in the States, at will, it's...
Look, as the business lawyer, I was sandwiched at the height of this craziness, right?
So there was a period of time where some employers couldn't hire, couldn't keep their employees or couldn't allow their employees to come into work by regulation, by one of the regulations.
So that was really an awkward situation.
You basically had to fire or you had to work something out with the employee.
Like, look, I can't have you in here.
I'm going to get fined, right?
So those are the real challenging discussions.
And I tell you, it's a real mess.
Again, going back to the airport, when a policy like a travel restriction impacts so many based on a science that everyone trusts as a science, then you have to...
That was kind of what I was looking at.
What was the science in there?
And it was literally a couple of those affidavits in the cross-examination.
There was no science.
Bottom line, period.
There was no science to it.
And now Bear Lamb says something.
I've heard another alternative to this.
I got fired from the airport.
Didn't get vaccinated.
You will never get the same service again.
Good luck to you all.
This is when accidents happen.
I've heard that fear about...
I've also heard another theory for this is that they fired...
Whoever didn't submit, fired.
Or no longer working there.
As a result, they get to employ younger, less qualified people.
For lower price.
So more profitable in theory, but also they don't know what the hell they're doing.
So setting aside accidents, they don't know how to pack bags.
They make a mistake and count one bag or don't count the bag.
They got to unload the entire plane again, adding delays, which is why Canada has turned into a third world country when it comes to air travel delays.
You could be a day late sometimes.
Have you flown recently, Dan, in Canada?
I did.
Mine wasn't so bad.
They were trying out, it was at Pearson.
They were trying out a new conveyor system for, what do you call it, the luggage.
So that was the issue.
Apart from that, things weren't so bad.
This was at Terminal 3, but I'm curious.
Yeah, I saw some horrible videos.
I don't know what terminal I was at.
It was one guy from Barstool Sports, never coming back.
I know people.
It's not hearsay, you know, someone told me.
Endless delays, cancellations, you've got to find accommodations, yada, yada.
I would just say, if you're in Toronto, just fly out of Billy Bishop, get to the United States, and that's your ticket to freedom.
So use the United States as your exit.
Don't use prison.
Someone recently that we know.
Crossed the border from Quebec to Burlington.
Flew from Burlington, domestic from Burlington, but crossed the land border.
It's just exponentially easier and you're avoiding all of this crap.
Or just drive.
I drove to Virginia.
I wasn't flying.
A three-hour flight can turn into one day, whereas at least you have a drive and you can listen to books when you drive.
What are you working on these days that you can talk about?
What can I talk about?
I try not to talk too much.
I'm the corporate guy, so I do most of my corporate by day, advocate by night.
But it's mostly on the advocacy slash, it's a lot of employment, the wrongful dismissals that I'm trying to negotiate resolutions for amicably.
So folks that are, you know, irrationally being left on the sidelines, even though there's no more mandates, you know, no more.
No more provincial or federal mandates.
People are still holding on.
You've got to hold on to that dream of having everyone vaccinated.
So wrongful dismissal.
And then just personal advocacy is my alma mater, Western University, trying to get some clarity there on, what do you call it, making sure that kids can go back to school.
I don't think people realize the human toll of this.
We're talking about kids that are being denied, not just university, but everything that goes with that, right?
They were already off for a year or two, and you're now putting this on them?
I don't even know where to...
Look, I was very reluctant to get to the crimes against humanity side of it, and I'm only talking about the documented effects now, which people know about.
And despite knowing about it, Kieran Moore came out and said it.
It's becoming incontrovertible fact, and yet you still have...
Universities now mandating, requiring a third shot, a first booster, a second booster to that very demographic who are statistically not at risk for the RONA.
Statistically, exponentially more at risk for side effects of the Fauci juice.
It's a crime against humans.
So, yeah, in that regard, so I do advise, and I have a few folks in the system on the vaccine injury side, and I know we can't, I don't know, am I on Rumble?
No, just go for it.
So, because I do work, as your viewers know, I work in association with top quality personal injury lawyers, so it's been interesting.
So basically, the issue is that...
Your first point of practical, what do you call it, recourse is the vaccine injury support program, okay?
In Canada.
In Canada.
In the U.S., you're statutorily, I don't know, there's some statutory immunity for the manufacturers.
Here, we don't have that.
We just have the indemnity.
So basically, you could eventually sue Pfizer in theory, but the reality is that Health Canada is going to indemnify, I think, Pfizer for any claims that are brought against Pfizer.
So the point is, the first point of a lawsuit...
Canada is going to indemnify Pfizer with taxpayer dollars for damage that Pfizer might have done to civilians who then go to the vaccine injury program for compensation from the government.
The practical point is that if we start a claim against any of the manufacturers or any of the deliverers of the vaccine, okay?
First of all, I don't know how many people signed.
I don't recall signing.
Who signed actual waivers of liability when they got vaccinated?
Nobody!
They didn't even explain to you any potential adverse effects when you did it.
It wasn't doctors administering it.
It was at pharmacies in parking lots from people who, Lord knows, what they were trained to do to administer this.
I'm curious how many people signed.
Apparently there are, some people did, at least in Ontario, there have been waivers signed at the time of injection.
So that will be a bar or it'll be a hurdle to get over for the ultimate vaccine injury if the goal is to go after the manufacturer or the service provider.
But there's a clock that runs and people need to be aware of it.
The clock runs at, what do you call it?
It's generally two years from the discovery of the injury, right?
In Canada, I think it's three years.
I don't think they can reduce it.
I think on the vaccine injury thing, it said three years regardless.
Three, right.
And they'll probably be flexible.
But if the goal is to chase a civil claim, they have to be mindful of that.
And the uninformed consent...
There's the whole issue as to whether or not this was informed consent and whether or not when they said...
But your damage is your damage.
So at the end of the day, how has the injury affected your life?
And yes, so the deaths...
No, but Ministry of Goof, SADS has always been around and it's always been there.
And the recent reports of global warming, hottest summers on record...
It's not priming you for the news you're going to get.
The damage from fatalities, and if you get down to the frequency or how you even prove that, I think you really have to do a lot of unpleasant post-mortem, you know, autopsy.
Autopsy.
I don't know any family that actually wants to do that to actually chase those.
People would not want to know the truth.
Not the truth.
And yeah, for what?
They're going to do that for money?
I'm hearing stories of families being torn up over this.
One side of the family wants to do the autopsy because they want to...
First of all, there's not just the money aspect, but just the culpability.
Was this an injury for medical knowledge?
And then, yeah, families are torn up over this.
It's really nasty.
I was trying to get some information on what post-mortem non-invasive information could be obtained from...
That's where it's always going to be like the sophistry.
It's going to be, okay, well, we don't have any concrete evidence.
Even if there were concrete evidence, we blame it on a prior infection, given that pretty much everyone has already had a prior infection.
Blame it on long COVID.
Don't do the autopsy.
Don't do any physicals.
It'll be, what's the word I'm looking for?
Contemporaneous, not coincidental, circumstantial.
But then the same thing.
It wasn't definitively caused by what you did a month earlier.
It was definitively caused by an infection you had a year earlier.
It's motivated science.
There's definitely that side of it.
There's a whole process of medical inquiry.
That's why the vaccine injury program is taking 18 months to freaking pay out any reasonable claim.
And what are they paying out in Canada?
Do you know?
So I thought it was too...
Statutorily, it was around $300 for a motor vehicle.
But I think for the vaccine injury, it's more.
For death, it's up to $450 or something.
And then for other more serious injuries, it's a range.
The ultimate examination is how the injury affects a person's life.
A lot of these injuries, the damage is unknown, like myocarditis or whatever.
I was going to say, everyone should just go back and watch Francis Christian sidebar, either on YouTube or the full unedited one.
What did he say?
He had an interesting explanation as to...
Sorry, I'm playing a video that I...
Stop that noise.
I hear noise in the background.
He had an interesting explanation as to why the immunological response from a COVID infection was materially different from the immunological response from the COVID jab, from the V, from the Fauci juice.
It's fascinating as to why the body responds differently to a singular response as opposed to a global systemic response to an actual infection.
It's fascinating.
Go check it out.
And don't listen to me because I'm not a doctor.
I'm just a lawyer who listens to doctors.
Always talk to your doctor.
We always say that, right?
Even though you've got to be careful who they're sharing their information with these days, but that's another story.
But that's it.
Okay, I'm back to the grind.
Yeah, your lunch, your break is over.
Get out of here.
Dan, good to see you again.
May we one day be able to meet and go fishing down here.
You're the Crocs?
Yeah, I'm going to go out and see if I see any.
I haven't seen any Crocs on site, but we might go down to the Glades.
See actual Crocs.
Okay, good stuff.
Bye, man.
Talk to you soon.
Bye, bro.
Ciao.
Bye.
That's my brother.
Oh, okay.
There was one thing that I wanted to bring up in the backdrop before we go for the day.
I'm going to go back to my Twitter feed.
My diary of my descent into Red Pill.
I'm putting an H in red pill.
Um.
Oh, there was...
Where was it?
I'm not talking about Michael Rappaport, people.
There was one thing that I wanted to talk about before we...
This is the funniest meme of all time.
MTG, I don't think this guy did...
This is the funniest meme of all time.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about either.
Definitely don't want to talk about this guy.
And we did this yesterday.
So hold on.
Where was it?
There was one last thing.
This.
This is what it was.
Okay.
Here.
These clips, man.
This is like Nancy Pelosi.
Do you expect the inflation bill to help Democrats during the midterms, once it passes, Mr. President?
Do I expect you to help?
Yes, I do.
I'm going to need you to help.
For example, no senior on Medicare will have bills more than $2,000 for drugs, no matter what the costs are.
that's a big deal changing people's lives a whole range of things that are really game changing to ordinary folks now some of us not going to kick in for a little bit but it's all good it's really going to lower the daily when you sit down that kitchen table at the end of the month you'll be able to pay a whole hell of a lot more bills to what extent do you expect the inflation First of all, the most obvious thing, has anybody noticed that dark Biden, or sorry, dark Brandon?
Has now been sporting sunglasses a little more than he has been in the past.
There could be medical reasons for it.
Cataracts, for example.
Or it could just be image reasons.
They're embracing the dark brand.
Bring out the sunglasses.
Bring out the sunglasses that instill fear.
Biden.
Putin.
Time.
Magazine.
Bring out the Biden that will instill fear in Putin.
Look at this crap.
Look at this crap, people.
This is how the media tells you Biden is doing.
Look at that.
Oh, yeah.
Badass Biden and Putin trembling in his boots.
I just realized we might not be seeing the same thing right here.
We're not seeing it.
Oh, okay.
We're sort of here.
Badass Biden and Putin quaking in his boots.
He's wearing the sunglasses a lot more now.
And I don't know why, but I have my suspicions.
Embracing the dark Brandon meme.
But it's not clear what he says here, which is specifically a very big problem when you have a president who requires interpreters to explain what he says in public.
Some people are saying it's another one of Biden's gas.
You're going to have a hell of a lot more bills to pay.
Oh, and then, no, no.
What he said was, you're going to have a hell of a lot more money to pay the bills.
When the president requires an interpreter to say what he says, to interpret, what's the word?
When you need interpreters to explain what the president says, There's a problem.
When you need interpreters to explain that the president didn't mean to say what he said when he said things like having cancer, you got a problem.
You got a big, fat problem.
And, you know, in as much as in Canada, Trudeau wants to harp on crises to distract from scrutiny of his prime ministership, one can also reasonably conclude that in the United States, they are creating political drama.
Raiding Trump's house so they can divert, distract, and just point people in another direction from the abject debacle that the Biden presidency has turned into.
Okay, people, that's about it.
I'm going to go exercise.
Go for a jog.
Try to go catch a fish.
If I catch a fish, décortiquer means to, like, piece together.
Or to unscramble.
Unscramble is décortiquer.
Oh, there were two super chats that I forgot to get to.
Steve Brighton says, you just called yourself an idiot.
No, I got to that one a while back.
You know, Streamlabs only takes about 5%.
Why don't you guys use them instead of letting YouTube rob you of 30%?
There is a reason.
People don't need to contribute on YouTube.
In fact, anyone who wants to support the best way is via vivabarneslaw.lickles.com.
You don't leave YouTube.
Out of spite.
You don't leave YouTube, which is your biggest access, your biggest bullhorn, to the biggest new audience.
The people who know and the people who hate YouTube are already on Rumble.
They're already on Locals.
The goal of this is not to limit the audience that we can reach.
It's to get as many as humanly possible to understand and to hear what is going on.
And you don't get that by muzzling yourself.
Florida Farmer, I like this.
Viva is wrong about straws.
They allow you to drink without putting your mouth on the rim of the glass where the waitress put their hands.
It also protects your teeth from stains.
Whoa!
The last one I like.
The last one I like.
So, that is it.
Red pill the newcomers.
You do not reach a new audience by cutting yourself out of the market.
So, no.
I understand the sentiment.
I strongly disagree with it.
Now, with that said, people, we're going to call this one an end for the day.
I'm going to go to Rumble, see what's going on on the Rumbles.
Jill Biden is an enabler.
Disgrace.
President of the United States, POTUS.
Okay, she is the handler.
We've got people here.
Yeah, I saw that.
Schumer is in a chair on the beach kissing what looked like an eight-year-old.
Okay, what is going on in the chat on Rumble, people?
So that's it.
Tomorrow night, we've got a sidebar.
Tomorrow, I will be going live during the day.
Schedule will be getting closer to normal now that the kids will be back in school, hopefully.
So that is it.
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you all for being a part of documenting the world in which we live.
Go out there.
Reach some new people.
Red pill some new people.
It is darkest before the dawn.
And what happened yesterday to Trump is indeed a dark day.
I'm not in the game of waiting 48 hours for the corrupt FBI to give us their corrupt...
Dishonest lies of an explanation.
It's outrageous.
People should be outraged.
People are outraged.
But people who are saying crime or...
Useful idiots.
Hopefully you've heard something today that will sensitize you to the fact that you are being used as a pawn in this game.
The axel rods of this world are profiting, are capitalizing off your ignorance to use you as the pawns for their political games.
They should be ashamed.
They probably know better.
They probably just don't care.
Axelrod wants himself a seat as the counsel, the attorney of record for the Banana Republic.
Saw you and your sweet family on Somebody Feed Phil when he was in Quebec.
Knew it was you immediately.
That was pre-COVID now.
That entire episode of Somebody Feed Phil was pre-COVID.
I do wonder if they would have invited me onto the show now, given politics.
Do not be blackpilled, D-Sense, a sleeper hunter.
First of all, it does nothing.
You're here.
You're in the game regardless of whether or not you like it.
Okay, this is the last revelation of the day.
I was sitting out there jogging the other day, see a bird just waiting for a frog.
The bird, it's a heron or it's an egret.
It's an egret or a heron.
It's one of those white birds with the long bees.
It's just sitting there, absolutely motionless.
And I'm like, that bird is wasting its day.
Now I appreciate it needs to preserve its energy to eat.
The more energy it expends in eating, the more it has to eat.
It's like a cycle.
I'm thinking like, what a wasted existence.
That bird, all it's doing is sitting there waiting to eat.
All that that frog is doing is trying to survive.
But that is the predicament of the life that they have once they come into existence.
We are here.
We are in existence.
There's nothing we can do about it.
In the meantime, other than live it, bask in it, revel in it, and try to change that which needs to be changed.
Blackpilling does none of that.
Blackpilling is just shutting off, shutting out, shutting down.
That's the wrong thing to do.
So that's my white pill of the day.
I have been thoroughly, thoroughly red-pilled.
I cannot look at the world the same way.
I will not ever look at the world the same way again.
It's not going to deter me from doing what I'm doing, which is the pursuit of this truth, Not my truth, the pursuit of this truth and the truth.
And to make sure that I document the lies in real time so that when people look back and they go through the diary of the Viva Fry through this tumultuous period, they will see documenting the truth, calling out the liars, and making sure that the world never forgets.
So with that said, I'm going jogging, I'm going fishing, and then back at this.
People, enjoy the day.
Thank you for everything.
Snip, clip, share, and you know what to do.
VivaFry.com for merch if anybody's inclined.
I keep forgetting to do this.
All of the shorter clips are on Viva Clips.
So go to that channel if you want to see clips, if you don't want to sit through two hours of a stream.
The other thing that I keep forgetting to talk about, these go out on podcasts as well.
It's called Viva Barnes Law.
Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
It's on iTunes, Stitch, Google, Stitcher.
It's on all of the podcast formats.
So it's also on podcast.
But more important than that, just remember the Viva clip.
But more important than anything, get out there, fresh air, exercise, and talk to real people in real life.
And you'll see that even the disagreement among people, in human, in the flesh, is oftentimes much more civil and much more pleasant.
Than any discourse people get into on Twitter.
All right.
That's it.
Go.
I was going to bring this up.
Viva for Prime Minister.
Not going to happen.
I don't think I want it.
Even if I could get it.
Which I can't.
Okay.
Love you all as well.
Pissed off, Dragon.
See you tomorrow.
Peace out.
▲
Export Selection