Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 10, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:53:55

FBI Corruption EVERYWHERE! From Trump to Whitmer - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We heard about the news that came out today relative to the economy.
	Actually, I just want to say a number.
	Zero.
	Today, we received news that our economy had zero percent inflation in the month of July.
	Zero percent.
	Here's what that means.
	While the price of some things went up last month, the price of other things went down by the same amount.
	The result?
	Zero inflation last month.
	But people are still hurting.
	But zero inflation last month.
	How many times has he said that?
	Economists look at a measure of inflation that ignores food and energy prices, and they call it core inflation.
	That's about the lowest amount in several years, several months.
	And you couple that with last week's booming jobs report of 528,000 jobs created last month and 3.5% unemployment.
	It underscores the kind of economy we've been building.
	We're seeing a stronger labor market where jobs are booming and Americans are working.
	And we're seeing some signs that inflation may be getting to moderate.
	That's what happens when you build an economy from the bottom up in the middle out.
	What the hell?
	And everyone has a chance.
	Is he talking about it?
	Everyone has a chance to make progress.
	Now I want to be clear.
	I want to be clear.
	The challenges we face from the war in Europe to disruption of supply chains and pandemic shutdowns in Asia.
	We could face additional headwinds in the months ahead.
	Our work is far from over, but two things should be clear.
	First, the economic plan is working, and second is building an economy that will reward work.
	Wages are up this month.
	That Inflation Reduction Act that they just passed, it's already working, people.
	Zero percent over the last month when you average out two things that average down to zero over the last month.
	provide opportunity, help the middle class, and still have work to do, but we're on track.
	The second point I want to make is we This sounds like a eulogy.
	This doesn't sound like a presidential address or a press conference.
	This sounds like a eulogy.
	To the extent you can even make out what Biden is saying, which I'm having difficulty doing at times.
	Pass the Inflation Reduction Act right away.
	That's the most consequential thing that Congress can do to keep our progress on inflation from falling.
	Getting better.
	From getting worse.
	Keep moving in the right direction.
	This is not embarrassing.
	This is sad.
	It will bring down the cost of prescription drugs, health insurance, premiums, and energy costs.
	It's going to make big corporations just pay their fair share.
	Nothing more than their fair share.
	Non-sequitur.
	It's going to reduce the deficit without raising a penny in taxes and people making...
	Incomprehensible.
	You know, I'm accused of occasionally flubbing my words.
	Of occasionally rambling.
	Of occasionally repeating myself, sometimes I'm accused of repeating myself.
	I did that on purpose.
	That's incomprehensible.
	That is verbal diarrhea, but more importantly than that, on the substance of it, to the extent we can even decipher the substance, inflation has gone up 0%.
	The individual who literally just redefined recession To change the meaning from that which has been the definition for the last 40 plus years to no longer mean two quarters of negative growth is now saying inflation is 0% because we've averaged out some things which have continued to gone up with the prices of other things which have continued to go down.
	It's verbal diarrhea, word salad, that will confuse people.
	And it's an amazing phenomenon.
	It's going to confuse people into being too ashamed to say, what the hell are you talking about?
	There's a phenomenon that people don't want to look stupid.
	And if they don't understand something and it's not clear that everyone else also does not understand it, nobody wants to be the one person who doesn't understand something because it'll make them look stupid if the reason for which they don't understand it is their own fault, sort of.
	And so people just go along and, yes, yes.
	It's like that scene from The Jerk where they're explaining to Steve Martin how they're going to maximize profits.
	Oh, yes, yes, maximize profits.
	And throwing out verbal diarrhea that doesn't make any sense, but knowing that insecure or less informed individuals are going to be less likely or more prone not to ask, what the hell are you talking about?
	How does this make sense?
	I just got a Google Alerts.
	Made it into a news article.
	I love to look stupid, Queen B. I don't mind looking stupid.
	I think, for good or for bad, I have typically been the person who's not embarrassed to ask the question, what the hell are you talking about?
	Or how does that make sense?
	How does this work?
	I take for granted that I'm reasonably sharp.
	Reasonably.
	If I don't understand something, chances are someone else doesn't understand it.
	And I don't mind looking stupid by asking the stupid question, but what in the holy hell is Biden talking about?
	And it goes back to 1984.
	For anybody who hasn't read it, go read it.
	Or in my case, go listen to it on Audible.
	Not an ad, just go listen to it on an audiobook.
	There was the whole section where the government was talking about, I think it was chocolate production.
	Like, an increase in chocolate production.
	The government could...
	Decrease chocolate production by 50% one quarter, one month, and then increase it by 25% over the 50% reduction from the month over and then say it's gone up this month.
	And that level of superficial analysis, deceitful analysis, works on a lot of people.
	Inflation, zero.
	It's gone up zero over the last month where what has been the inflation over the last year?
	100% on some things.
	Price of gas doubled?
	What is it at now?
	I shouldn't conflate overall inflation with individual items that have increased.
	In some cases, twofold.
	I don't want to leave the site, but other than the fact that it's incomprehensible, incongruous, incognito, not incognito, it is...
	Non-sequiturs, in some cases, and he can't string a sentence together and get the point of the sentence out, despite clearly reading from a teleprompter.
	But at the very least, people, at the very least, if the raid on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort has achieved nothing else other than enraging half the country, at the very least, the other half of the country...
	It's not talking about inflation.
	All right.
	Now, today, people, this is, again, not an ad.
	I just bought four packs of these at Ross's.
	Perrier Yerba Mate.
	We're going to see what this tastes like.
	It's not terrible.
	It's not as good as I was hoping, but it doesn't have that disgusting...
	What's not stevia, but yeah, the stevia aftertaste, that fake sugar aftertaste.
	All right.
	Not here.
	No straw today either.
	All right, people.
	Let's get to the standard disclaimers.
	How did you get out of Canada?
	Oh, that's not the super chat that I meant to bring.
	I meant to flag this for another reason.
	I'll field this question.
	If you're asking if I'm vaxxed, you're new to the channel.
	I explained I got vaccinated last summer when I was running for federal office.
	Agree or disagree with my reasons?
	I've explained them and they're my reasons and I don't care if you disagree with them.
	But how did you get out?
	Getting out of Canada, entering a foreign country, the vaccine requirements are not Canadian vaccine requirements.
	I did not, under any circumstances, get vaccinated to leave the country because that doesn't make any sense.
	The reason for which you need to be vaccinated is when you come back to your country.
	So getting into the States, and I remember when it was.
	It was last year, maybe in November.
	The states announced that foreign foreigners had to be double vaccinated to enter the states.
	And I remember thinking, that sucks.
	It only applied to 18 and over.
	But, you know, leaving Canada, your vaccination status is relevant only to the country into which you're going.
	Coming back, however, is a different issue.
	Whether or not I ever come back to Canada.
	Whether or not they make the not up-to-date quarantine for 14 days upon arrival to Canada.
	That's forced confinement, as far as I'm concerned.
	So, how did you get out?
	There are more than a lot of people looking at visa ways.
	There are more than a lot of ways to get out of the country.
	Visas to do it legally, and Canada is now seeing its largest rate of emigration in the last 25 years.
	Oh, okay.
	So, what do we have on the menu for today?
	After the disclaimers.
	Super Chats.
	I saw one pass by.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of these little things we call Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, so better for the creator, better for the platform.
	And Rumble is a platform that people should look at supporting with their patronage and with their, you know, money if they purchase things on the platform.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
	And above all else, people, there will be no calls for civil war, nor will there be any sinister predictions of civil war on this channel.
	There's an amazing meme going around.
	It's not even a meme.
	It's a clip of Andrew Breitbart.
	20-second clip where he's talking about how the media comes out and denigrates.
	Defames, slanders, goes after anybody who expresses a sentiment contrary to official narrative.
	There's some music in the background.
	It's a 20-second clip, quite compelling.
	And it ends with Andrew Breitbart saying war.
	And now some media outlets are running with this narrative that conservatives are pushing for war.
	CNN running with the headline.
	No, it was Fox News running with the headline that FBI agents are fearing for their security.
	I will never promote violence on my channel and some people don't like that.
	People are going to say, well, what do you do?
	You can't fight your way out of tyranny.
	These are individual questions that people have to ask themselves.
	Do you want to become the monster that you're battling?
	And do you sincerely believe that there's no other way out?
	So, never.
	I saw one person the other day say, so Viva, are you going to condemn violence or do you tolerate it when it's coming from the right or threats?
	And I'm like, you've never watched my channel.
	And if you have, you're a lying buffoon.
	So I don't talk about these things.
	I don't believe in these things because I don't believe it's the type of conflict that is susceptible of victory.
	And I actually think it's exactly what, let's call it the administrative state, wants.
	It's exactly what they want.
	By needling, poking, antagonizing, berating, humiliating, harassing.
	It's exactly what they want.
	And it's almost as though they keep going with bigger and bigger types of escalation, types of instigation.
	Hey, January 6th, persecution.
	Locking up people for 500 days before even going to trial.
	That didn't trigger the response that we might have wanted to trigger from the side that we want to actually resort to violence so that we can then come in and say, everyone's a domestic terrorist.
	We've got to lock everyone down.
	We've got to do it.
	That didn't do it.
	Maybe a raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence would do it.
	So my operating theory, violence is morally wrong.
	And it's strategically wrong.
	Agree or disagree with it.
	Self-defense in the actual meaningful sense is out of necessity.
	But people are going to argue for preemptive self-defense.
	It better be a very real threat to justify any form of preemptive self-defense to qualify as self-defense.
	But the level of response has to be proportionate to the risk.
	My operating theory, however, Is that they're trying to provoke people into lashing out so they can then say, look at these savages lashing out.
	They don't operate by the rule of law.
	All we're doing is enforcing a warrant, which we could not have gotten, but for the fact that we have real good reasons to do it, they want to provoke that response.
	And if you thought they weaponized and exploited January 6th, see what happens if people...
	Start to react in a manner even worse than January 6th.
	Let's see this.
	CD.
	Raid equals diversion tactic to plant listening devices.
	Well, we know what they tried to do by getting the spy warrants on Carter Page.
	What do they call it?
	Jump step or one step or two step to Trump?
	Okay.
	So, by the way, with that said, and that is...
	That is...
	Probably the perfect segue for a correction, people.
	A correction.
	I made a mistake yesterday.
	I said, and I say this, it's a funny mistake because it's one of those mistakes where it's worse than I had remembered.
	Yesterday during the stream, I was talking about Kevin Clinesmith.
	You know, when people are saying the FBI, they must have had good evidence to get this and no judge just rubber stamps it.
	Judges have to see convincing evidence to issue a warrant, ex parte warrant, to raid a former president's house.
	They wouldn't have done it if they didn't have good evidence.
	And we can trust the FBI to have that evidence.
	And I was mentioning this inconsequential individual named Kevin Clinesmith, who four years ago...
	Falsified documents which were submitted as evidence to obtain the renewal of effectively unlawful spy warrants, FISA warrants to begin with.
	We talked about it at length yesterday.
	And I said, my recollection was that Clinesmith had deleted a portion of an email from intelligence saying that Carter Page was a source.
	Then people in the chat said, no, I think he actually inserted and was, I think he actively inserted some False statement into an email to which he was neither the sender nor the recipient prior to submitting it as evidence.
	I thought he'd only deleted it.
	I was wrong.
	And let me just show the homework because I go and I looked into it afterwards.
	Why can I not find my damn correction?
	That's right here.
	Here we go.
	I have to go double check.
	I don't like making mistakes, and I certainly don't like downplaying or understating the actual level of insidious in-your-face corruption from the actual lawyer for the actual FBI when actually petitioning a secret court for a secret warrant.
	This is from the information, which is like the criminal complaint against Clinesmith, the lawyer.
	The defendant had altered the June 15, 2017 email from the OGA, I forget what that stands for, it doesn't matter, liaison.
	I'll remember what it means in a bit.
	By adding the words, and not a source.
	It was a deletion and an addition to falsely put into an email to which he was neither the sender nor the recipient that Carter Page was not a source, not just delete that he was a source, making it appear that the OG liaison had written it in the email that individual number one, Carter Page, Was not a source for the OGA.
	Relying on the altered email, the SSA Secret Service agent signed and submitted the application to the court on June 29, 2017.
	The application for FISA number four did not include individual one's history or status with the OGA.
	Which also goes to say that neither did number one, two, or three.
	So, my bad.
	I understated the FBI's level of corruption.
	As recently as 2017.
	So, mea culpa.
	Someone jokingly said, better be careful, Dave, Viva.
	Clinesmith might sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	I said, yeah, for understating his level of patriotism to get Trump.
	All right, so what do we got today?
	Anyhow, the Trump raid and everything about it.
	And Gretchen Whitmer.
	Now, this all goes back and started with, to some extent, Gretchen Whitmer.
	This FBI that is, what's the word?
	Sacrosanct.
	Totally transparent, totally honest, have never done anything wrong.
	Except falsifying evidence a la Clinesmith when going after Carter Page.
	Oh yeah, and fabricating.
	Setting up that entire kidnapping plot, the alleged kidnapping plot against Gretchen Whitmer, which led to two acquittals and two hung juries.
	The two individuals who had the jury hung are now going back for retrial.
	They're going to try them again and they're going through jury selection.
	So we're going to update the story on that.
	I was trying to find out what the numbers were on the hung jury.
	Was it...
	I mean, was it...
	I don't know what the numbers were on the hung jury, which might indicate the level of incredulity on the jury.
	If anybody knows what the numbers were, was it one juror who couldn't convict?
	Was it five?
	I'd love to know.
	Ever wonder why the news agencies employ former CIA?
	I don't wonder.
	I think we all know.
	And so we got that.
	And we got these just people with incredibly awful takes, incredibly awful interpretations of what's going on.
	And let's break it down.
	We're going to sew it up.
	We already did this.
	So yeah, correction number one, it's out there.
	I got to bring up a CNN article.
	You got to read this.
	This is...
	CNN describing Trump's reaction and blaming the backlash from this raid of a former president, not on the abusiveness or seeming politicized weaponizing of unprecedented levels of the FBI and intelligence agencies.
	They're blaming it on Trump for fueling the backlash.
	Donald Trump's presidency at times threatened to tear America apart.
	It wasn't the presidency.
	It was the media that tried to tear the country apart.
	And the country's democracies, institutions and equilibrium staggered away from his four-year term, barely intact.
	This is supposed to be news, people.
	Trump's fury on his truth platform, warnings of retaliation by congressional Republicans and threats of violence in pro-Trump posts on social media were enabled by a vacuum of concrete details about the FBI.
	They're blaming the backlash on Trump and his call for political response to this political maneuver.
	Everyone should appreciate what this effectively means.
	It's shut up and take the abuse.
	And if you dare complain about our abusing you, you're the one who's creating the backlash against us.
	The headline was even worse, which I picked up on Twitter.
	The headline was even worse in that they're making you feel bad for objecting to the abuse.
	And then they demonize the people who respond politically, verbally.
	They demonize them for responding to the abuse.
	It's a wonderful system.
	It's a wonderful method of abusing the victim and then abusing the victim again when the victim complains about the abuse.
	But what is the latest?
	No, you know what?
	Let's do this.
	Let's hear this.
	Let's hear the press secretary respond to a pretty straightforward question in a manner that I think speaks volumes to the actual answer.
	Throughout his time in office...
	We will be playing the quote tonight at 6 o 'clock.
	Is this administration weaponizing...
	The Justice Department and the FBI against political opponents.
	Peter, the President believes in the rule of law.
	The President believes in the independence of the Department of Justice.
	Is that a yes or no?
	No, it's a yes or a no for you.
	I'm answering the question.
	You may not like it, but I'm answering the question and I'm telling you that we are not going to comment on She laid out his thoughts.
	Well, he saw the Department of Justice, and I'm just going to leave it there.
	We're not going to comment from here, from this White House, No one asked you to comment on the criminal investigation.
	The question was this.
	Is this administration weaponizing the Justice Department and the FBI Peter.
	Peter, when someone starts off by repeating your name in response to the question, you're about to get lied to.
	You're about to get the runaround.
	You're about to get deceived.
	Peter, I will not comment.
	Nobody asked you to comment on the criminal investigation.
	In fact, I suspect the reason for which she doesn't want to answer that question is because the other day...
	She said, Joe Biden found out about the raid like everybody else on the news.
	And that really actually made me feel like I was having deja vu because I remember hearing that over and over again at some point in time.
	I found out about it the same way you did by watching the news when it was lies back then.
	And it was Obama who said it at the least on two occasions.
	I think with the IRS scandal.
	And there was one other one which happened in 2014.
	Obama came on 60 Minutes and said, I found out about it the way you did by watching the news when it was demonstrably false.
	People are asking now, who knew about this as it happened?
	A raid on a former president's house on a basis that we don't yet have the details.
	It seems that the warrant is leaked.
	Not leaked.
	Sealed.
	Which means that it, from what I understand, potentially cannot be released.
	The raid of a president's house and Biden, it's one of those things where he's damned one way or damned the other.
	He either did know and is lying about it, or he didn't know in which case it's not clear who controls the country, who's running the country.
	And the press secretary is asked a very straightforward question, and the answer should be, Obviously, no.
	Unless you, I mean, you can't say that when you know what you're doing.
	And then goes into saying, no, we don't comment on criminal investigations.
	No one asked that.
	This is, Biden is a puppet.
	This is, well, this is Obama's third term.
	The government is acting just like the IRS did.
	Does anyone on the one hand remember which specific scandal it might have been?
	He said he learned about the gun running fast and the furious.
	And the IRS scandal, the same way everyone else did on the news.
	But there was one in particular that he addressed on 60 Minutes, and I want to say it was Benghazi, but I can't remember exactly.
	I learned about it on the news, the way everyone else does.
	Bull crap.
	And to the extent that you have to lie about having had advanced knowledge of it, it legitimizes the question as to whether or not you're weaponizing the Justice Department.
	Biden White House.
	Ministry of Truth.
	The Duran in the house.
	Duran, thank you very much.
	It's straight out of 1984.
	Inflation is 0%.
	You don't even know if what they're saying is true anymore.
	Words have no meaning.
	They've changed the definitions in real time so that inflation is not inflation.
	Transitory inflation becomes permanent.
	Recessions aren't recessions.
	And then they give you some stats.
	0%.
	It is 1984 over and over again.
	Someone the other day faulted me in one of the videos.
	I think it was yesterday where I said we're quickly reaching communist Russia level types of politics.
	Then the person says, how is it like communist Russia?
	I'll give everyone this.
	I've never lived through communism.
	I've never lived in a communist country.
	Up until recently.
	So I don't know what actual communist Russia looked like before the USSR broke up because I wasn't alive.
	I've spoken to more people, I think, than most people out there have spoken to.
	Hungarians, Venezuelans, Russians, East Europeans, Poles, Polish, all say the same thing.
	This is what it smells like.
	When someone says, Viva, it's hyperbolic.
	You're exaggerating.
	You should count your lucky stars that you live in the West.
	You might be right about that because it's probably worse elsewhere.
	But how is the overall political environment turning something like Soviet Russia, political prisoners, January 6th, Ottawa protests, secret trials?
	People don't appreciate that we had a secret trial in Quebec where we didn't even know the name of the defendant, the nature of the suit, anything.
	Here we're having secret court proceedings where people are getting warrants against the former president of the United States.
	The government weaponizing the media.
	The government suppressing information.
	The government deplatforming, which is effectively like a form of locking up ideological political adversaries.
	History doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	Mark Twain.
	And now it looks like the rumors on the street from Jack Posobiec.
	That Merrick Garland is looking for an indictment of Trump.
	Actually, you know what?
	This might be a good segue into...
	Why didn't I bring up my notes properly today?
	This might be a good segue into one of the talking points that's making the rounds here.
	A video of the right talking about Hillary Clinton.
	Let me get the video.
	We'll play the video, and then we're going to talk about the mild, the mild, not insignificant differences between what Hillary did and or admitted to and what Trump is accused to have done.
	Because bear in mind, by the way, this entire raid, this entire warrant, allegedly pertains to allegedly classified documents that Trump allegedly took out of the White House when he left in boxes.
	That's what it pertains to.
	When we're talking about what Hillary actually did and admitted to doing it, where is the darn video?
	Are we going to get it?
	I'm not going to be able to find it.
	When we're talking about what Hillary actually did, which was actually destroy...
	Emails that were required to be turned over, that were actually classified, made a joke about wiping things clean with a cloth and smashing phones with hammers, and her capacity of Secretary of State and not President of the United States, one of whom is the head of the executive and can unilaterally declassify things, and the other one cannot.
	There's some mild differences.
	I hear someone has gotten back to the House.
	I don't know if you can hear that.
	So give me one second.
	Let me see if I can find this video.
	I'm getting lost in Gretchen Whitmer.
	Gretchen Whitmer is giving updates of her battle with the Rona from her quarantine.
	It doesn't look like I'm able to find the video.
	Bottom line on the video, people.
	Hypocrisy.
	Right-wing hypocrisy.
	They were calling for an investigation locking up Hillary Clinton because of her handling of classified information on emails.
	Secretary of State versus President of the United States.
	One has the ability to declassify.
	The other one does not.
	B, we know what Hillary did.
	Hillary actually admitted what she did in jest.
	And now, in a little bit more jest, she's hawking merch that says, what about her emails?
	Rubbing in the face of the general public that she got away with it because, third element, she was never raided.
	Her home was never raided.
	Her office was never raided.
	She was never charged with anything.
	So, and by the way, talking about locking her up is far different than doing what the FBI did by getting a warrant from a judge who has questionable, a questionable history, and apparently such a questionable history that the judge had to recuse himself from a civil case involving Trump, but signed off on the warrant in a criminal case.
	So, let's just repeat those three main differences.
	People playing that clip, calling for an investigation, chanting lock her up.
	First of all, what Trump is alleged to have done is mere allegations in an as of yet undisclosed, unreleased warrant.
	Nobody knows what it says from an FBI with a history of corruption, politically motivated corruption, specifically against Trump, versus what Hillary actually did, admitted to doing, in a capacity of Secretary of State with no power.
	To declassified documentation.
	Oh yeah, and she lied about it.
	As of yet, Trump's pleading the fifth in a separate case.
	But Trump has not admitted to anything.
	So, minor details to distinguish between the two.
	Let me see this.
	I saw a comment here.
	Spitfire Red.
	You are correct, Viva.
	The ones in control want everyone to get angry.
	You need to be opposite of them and learn a way to defeat them with honesty.
	You know what?
	They will get defeated when they keep pushing the envelope with brazen conduct.
	The only problem is there's a lot of useful idiots with a lot of blue check marks who run around influencing others with stupid talking points and manipulating them into thinking.
	It's either no big deal or it's deserving.
	One of which is this guy, Ron Filipowski.
	I don't know how I ended up following him.
	He started following me.
	And then I guess Twitter said, hey, these guys are going to fight.
	So Ron Filipowski tweets, Republicans now want to abolish the FBI, CIA, IRS, Department of Education, impeach the president, which the Democrats did twice.
	But now somehow it's faulting the Republicans for wanting to do it, allegedly.
	Impeach the VP, DHS secretary, and attorney general.
	Put the NIH director in prison, and it's only Tuesday.
	Can you imagine somebody thinking?
	Let's just go through this one by one.
	Filipowski.
	Republicans now want to abolish the FBI.
	The FBI has a recent track record of proven political corruption, dishonesty, fabricating evidence.
	I just want everyone also to understand.
	Any other normal person.
	Any other normal lawyer who does exactly what Clinesmith did goes to jail.
	Disbarred for life, goes to jail.
	You know what happened to Clinesmith?
	One year suspension retroactive.
	I think he's back as a member of the bar, back practicing.
	Didn't step foot in jail for one day.
	So any normal person will go to jail for that and get disbarred for life.
	Falsifying evidence and submitting it to a judge doesn't happen by accident.
	You don't slip and fall and accidentally delete and add something to an email.
	Any normal person who is not politically aligned with these corrupt institutions goes to jail.
	So, yes, Ron Filipowski, Republicans now want to abolish the FBI, as you should.
	And if you don't want to abolish a corrupt institution with recent evidence of politically motivated corruption, that makes you politically motivated and corrupt.
	Oh, the CIA?
	Don't get me started on this yet.
	IRS?
	Oh, like the scandal where they target political adversaries, where they harass ideological political adversaries.
	The Tea Party scandal from Obama's scandal-free presidency.
	The Department of Education.
	They want to impeach the president.
	Can you imagine how terrible that is?
	They want to impeach the president like the Democrats just did twice.
	Based on false information and lies.
	The vice president, I haven't actually heard anyone calling for the impeachment of Kamala.
	She's been actually quiet and pretty useless.
	I haven't heard anybody say that, but I'll give you that.
	And put the NIH director in prison.
	I presume he's talking about Fauci.
	Fauci is the director of the National Institute of NIAID, but I think it's the same thing here.
	Can you imagine not thinking that Fauci...
	Should be locked up.
	Or at the very least, if for nothing else, like forget the whole crimes against humanity aspect of gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.
	Forget all of that.
	Let's just say we can't prove that.
	Although it's been proven that he funded it through third-party NGOs and then lied about it.
	If for nothing else, he lying under oath to Congress ordinarily gets you put in jail.
	Roger Stone.
	Steve Bannon, probably going to go to jail for allegedly.
	Bannon was contempt of Congress.
	Sorry, not lying.
	Stone was lying.
	Michael Flynn was allegedly lying.
	Fauci lied.
	People died.
	Lied about not funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.
	Lied about it.
	It was found out that it was actually financed through third-party non-governmental organizations.
	Then what does Fauci the liar do?
	Comes back and changes or obfuscates.
	The definition of gain of function deserves jail time.
	And had it been anybody else on the other side of the political aisle would actually serve jail time.
	But can you imagine being this guy and thinking it's a bad thing to want to abolish demonstrably corrupt governmental institutions who have weaponized their corruption for political purposes and a proven liar whose lies have probably devastated a generation.
	But yeah, that's...
	I mean, no real words.
	It's the blue check marks coming out, normalizing corruption, and trying to get low...
	And I'm not saying low intelligence, low information citizens to say, well, I guess I guess the FBI wouldn't have done it unless they had good reasons to do it.
	Seven years of digging and no evidence.
	FBI is gardening again, and I'm pretty sure they were at the nursery buying plants just a few days ago.
	Trump had suggested today that they planted evidence because they wouldn't allow...
	Apparently, they did not provide the warrant to Trump's attorneys.
	They would not allow Trump's attorneys to be present when they were going through the rooms.
	They opened a safe for whatever the reason, and they went through Melania's wardrobe as well for whatever the reason.
	So Trump is...
	Vocally suggesting that they planted evidence.
	And then the media mocks it the same way they mocked the fact when he said they wiretapped me.
	Oh, they didn't wiretap you.
	We didn't wiretap you because we don't tap wires anymore.
	We just get authorization from a FISA court to spy on your campaign.
	There's no wiretapping, but we did, in fact, spy on you thoroughly and hard and lied about it.
	Now, there was a yellow super chat that I'm trying to find.
	Down here, I think.
	So the problem is there's a lot of very politically motivated blue checkmark crowd running around convincing people it's not such a big deal, it couldn't happen without a good reason, and not mentioning the historical demonstrable corruption.
	I listen to you.
	I listen to you, then I ask other lawyers and they debunk you every time.
	You make so many excuses for Trump.
	Okay, thank you for the super chat.
	Instead of wasting $10 telling me how they debunked me every single time, give me one example where they debunked me.
	And that would be a better use of the money.
	You guys are getting paid to lie.
	Getting paid to lie.
	First of all, I guess that means you're paying me to lie, but I would like you to show...
	Give me one example where your other lawyers debunked me every time.
	I swear, give me one and I will eat my shirt.
	But thank you for the super chat.
	Barnes is on Alex Jones payroll.
	You have more information than I do then.
	I see that now.
	I see that now.
	Atheist, I'm going to see if you've ever commented on the channel before.
	There's an interesting website where you can actually see any given user's historical comments.
	And people come in to try to induce others into thinking, I'm unsubscribing, so you should too.
	They've never commented before, ever.
	Come in all of a sudden and say, you've changed, man.
	You used to be cool.
	I'm unsubbing.
	And they've never commented on a video before.
	But either way, let me see who that was.
	Atheist miracle.
	Put in a $2 super chat.
	Don't even put in a $10 one.
	Give me one example where your lawyer friends have debunked anything I've said.
	For the sake of reflecting reality, our beloved governor should be referred to as Governor Whitless.
	Oh, Governor Whitless.
	So...
	Let me see what else we got here.
	It's the Ukraine flag.
	Anyhow.
	No, no.
	Someone spent $10 to tell me how their other lawyers debunk me every time and doesn't give me the example.
	Reinhardt wasn't Epstein's employees lawyer.
	He was Epstein's company, co-conspirator's lawyer.
	Buckle Bush Jones.
	So that's the lawyer, Bruce Reinhardt.
	A Trump appointee.
	Everyone wants to make sure that, you know.
	That's the level of his objectivity.
	He can't be biased and he can't be compromised because he's Trump's appointee.
	I was just reading what The Independent was referring to yesterday, that he represented the employees of Epstein.
	He got them a sweet plea deal, so he did good for them.
	Thank you, alien.
	Alien testosterone.
	That's got to be even better.
	Oh, okay, so the website is called...
	Tell us what the website that allows us to check users' comments.
	YT Comment.
	Let me see here.
	YT Comment.
	I'll give you the link.
	YT Comment.
	Hold on, guys.
	Hey, here we go.
	Okay, that's why.
	It's ytcomment.kmcat.uk.
	And what you do in here, people, you go into this website, you put in the channel, and it'll give you selection of specific videos or the entire channel.
	You know, let's just do this.
	Let's just do this right now.
	Search for a video.
	Eva Frye.
	Here, let's see this here.
	Okay, I'll show you how it works.
	Stop screen.
	Share screen.
	There are many, many useful...
	The only problem is it can become...
	Very obsessing.
	Obsessing?
	Obsessive?
	Do we see this here?
	One can get easily obsessed with doing this as a...
	I do it to make sure that if I'm going to be harsh with someone that I'm right to do it or I'm reasonably justified and I'm not misunderstanding what they say.
	So you go.
	You put in...
	It says put in a channel, put a name.
	Viva Fry.
	Loading.
	Doesn't usually take this long.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Let's just refresh this here.
	Okay, YouTube.
	Okay.
	Search the internet.
	So put in Viva Fry.
	And now we can go to the...
	It says either the channel.
	Yeah, search all videos.
	And let's just put in Atheist Miracle.
	Thank you.
	Search.
	Oh, I spelt wrong.
	For goodness sake.
	We'll see how that works.
	But that's how it works.
	And you'll see if the person has, in fact, been around the channel for a long time and is genuinely upset with what you've said or done versus not.
	It seems to work better on mobile, but that's the website.
	Oh, sorry.
	I'm supposed to put the website in here.
	Oh, hey, Cynthia.
	How are you doing?
	You're always welcome.
	Viva rocks.
	Cognitive warfare.
	Let me just go to one of the other.
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	Speaking of the man who doesn't belong in jail, who didn't lie to us about gain-of-function research, funding it, listen to what he says, people, an expression you're never going to forget, truth in jest.
	Jokes that have absolutely no element of truth to them are not funny.
	They're not funny because It's not even absurd.
	It's just that there's no element of reality to it such that what would make it funny?
	There has to be an element of truth, insightfulness to something in order for it to be not funny, but entertaining, comedic, insightful, truth in jest, which means that in every joke, in every good joke, there has to be an element of truth.
	Let's hear from the Fauci man himself.
	We're at the epicenter of the initial outbreak.
	WA1, Washington 1, is considered the ancestral model strain.
	No, I developed the ancestral model strain.
	I created it.
	That's right.
	You let it loose.
	I was in my kitchen.
	You let it loose.
	Okay.
	Gain of function.
	Here we come.
	You're making a rancho in the Italian meatballs, and that's a gain of function.
	All right.
	We're at the epicenter of the initial outbreak.
	WA1, Washington 1, is considered...
	Can you believe it?
	It's the Hillary Clinton.
	Did you wipe your server?
	Oh, you mean with a cloth?
	Did you make...
	Oh, you mean like in my kitchen?
	No, you dumbass.
	We actually mean like in a lab in Wuhan, China through funded non-governmental organizations.
	That's what we mean.
	Not in your kitchen.
	But thank you for indicating that there might be some element of truth to that.
	In my kitchen.
	It's so witty.
	It's so witty.
	Let me just see if we can gain of function voucher.
	Let's just see one other interview that he gave.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Hold on, peeps.
	Here.
	Skip this.
	I know, people.
	I don't have premium.
	We don't know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally, but we should want to know.
	Three million people have died from this pandemic, and that should cause us to explore all possibilities.
	Instead, government authorities, self-interested in continuing gain-of-function research, say there's nothing to see here.
	Gain-of-function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans.
	The U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus' ability to infect humans.
	Juicing up super viruses is not new.
	Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans.
	For years...
	Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr. Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute.
	Just some hard facts.
	...about how to create superviruses.
	This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH.
	The collaboration between the U.S. But he didn't make it in his kitchen, Mr. Paul.
	The SARS virus had a 15% mortality.
	We're fighting a pandemic.
	That has about a 1% mortality.
	Can you imagine if a SARS virus that's been juiced up and had viral proteins added to it, to the spike protein, if that were released accidentally?
	Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab?
	A little bit of a preamble.
	Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect.
	That the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Do they fund Dr. Barrett?
	We do not fund...
	Do you fund Dr. Barrett's gain-of-function research?
	Dr. Barrett does not doing gain-of-function research.
	Ah, so they fund...
	It's according to the guidelines, and it is being conducted in North Carolina.
	Oh, can you believe this?
	This is literally...
	Literally the moving goalposts of dishonesty.
	We do not fund gain a function in a lab in Wuhan, China.
	Okay.
	Because he's about to tell you that they funded...
	Dr. Barrett does not do it, does not now fund gain of...
	Oh, sorry.
	Incorrect.
	Completely, okay.
	That the NIH has not ever and does not now fund...
	Gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.
	Do you understand what he just said?
	We have not ever and do not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab.
	That is probably a true statement.
	They might do it elsewhere.
	They might also do it indirectly, which they do.
	So this is a lie.
	We've never done it and don't now do it in Wuhan.
	We don't fund it.
	Third-party NGOs that we go through, and that's where he's getting to now.
	Dr. Barrett, we do not fund...
	Do you fund Dr. Barrett's gain-of-function research?
	Dr. Barrett does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it's according to the guide.
	I didn't do it, but if I did, it was totally legal when I did it.
	We don't fund...
	Do you fund Barrett?
	Yes, we do.
	He doesn't do gain-of-function, but if he does do it, it's totally lawful.
	...lines, and it is being conducted in North Carolina.
	So we fund gain-of-function research in North Carolina.
	You don't think inserting a bat virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus is gain-of-function?
	You would be in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain-of-function.
	Well, it is not.
	And if you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that.
	So do you still report sending money to the Wuhan Virology Institute?
	We do not send money now to the Wuhan Virology Institute.
	We do not send money now.
	We report sending money.
	We did, under your tutelage.
	We were sending it to Nico Health.
	It was a sub-agency and a sub-grant.
	Do you support the money from NIH that was going to the Wuhan Institute?
	Let me explain to you why that was done.
	I'm sorry.
	Does this not enrage everybody else?
	Does this not enrage you?
	We do not do it.
	But if we do do it, let me explain to you why that was done.
	This is pathology.
	SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China.
	It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses.
	Or perhaps it would be impossible to send it to the Chinese government that we may not be able to trust with this knowledge and with this incredibly dangerous viruses.
	Who in the chat has not seen this video yet?
	One, no, have not seen it.
	Two, yes, have seen it.
	And I'm going to let it play a little more.
	People need to parse words and see.
	Through the lies, and I think most people do if they take enough time to look at it.
	Some people just hear the words, oh, okay, he said no, and don't actually hear the fact that he, in fact, implicitly, although more explicitly, admits everything that Paul is saying he did, which he initially denies.
	We'll just see in the chat who has not seen this yet.
	Enraging lies is what this is.
	Let me see this here.
	Okay, so that's good.
	This seems to be 80% have seen it.
	Let's just keep doing it now.
	I don't favor gain-of-function research in China.
	You are saying things that are not correct.
	Correct.
	Government defenders of gain-of-function, such as yourself, say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not designed by man.
	But interestingly, the technique that Dr. Barak developed...
	Forces mutations by serial passage through cell culture that the mutations appear to be natural.
	We'll stop it there because I'm not a doctor.
	I have no idea what Dr. Paul is saying.
	Everyone can go watch that if they want that.
	So, after all of that, Dr. Fauci makes a joke.
	And it's like...
	By making the absurd joke, yeah, I cooked, I made it in my kitchen, it's going to lead people to believe that he had nothing to do with what we now know he had something to do with.
	I'm just going to close that window.
	But they made a joke.
	Ha ha, funny.
	You mean like wipe it with a cloth?
	Maybe those new 87,000 IRS agents could audit Fauci and NAID.
	At least they might earn some of those billions.
	Yep, he is.
	He is sickening.
	Okay, now hold on one second.
	I saw something here, which was, so Trump does have documents.
	The problem is, are they documents he's in legal possession of?
	And did he tamper with them?
	We're having a sidebar tonight with Steve Deese from The Blaze.
	It's a shorter sidebar as far as the interview goes.
	And then Barnes and I are going to talk about this.
	And I'll ask Barnes because...
	I know the limitations of my own knowledge.
	We love you, bro.
	F the trolls.
	We are all wrong from time to time.
	I do not think you're wrong.
	And I am a lawyer.
	And that is Nate the lawyer, my friend, who we respectfully and sometimes heatedly disagree on stuff.
	But I like Nate.
	I don't just like him as a lawyer.
	He has become a good friend of mine.
	Which might make me biased and not see any nefarious motivations to what I disagree with when he says things that I disagree with.
	We respectfully disagree on a great many things, but between the two of us, everyone can listen and come to their own understanding of what they believe to be the truth based on hearing diverging sides.
	I'm still waiting for the atheist miracle to tell me specifically how I get debunked every time, every time.
	I've never said anything that's right.
	It's amazing.
	Okay, so that was Fauci telling us the truth through a joke.
	This was the article about, yeah, Trump is responsible for the backlash.
	Okay, we got that too.
	It's not the FBI abusing of its powers to raid the house of a former president with no further explanation.
	Seemingly at the direction or approval of Merrick Garland, who might still be a little, as we say in the industry, salty from not having gotten his Supreme Court nomination.
	The ring.
	His proverbial ring that he was craving for like Gollum might be a little salty about that, might feel a little political pressure, might feel a little political support, a little political approval to do what he's doing.
	It's Trump's fault for people reacting angrily at the desecration.
	Of the separation of the powers and the very constitution that made America the wonderful experiment that it is.
	And will continue to be in my mind.
	But let's take surprising takes of people who seem to have seen the light because they sent so many people to the light.
	I just made that up right now.
	Andrew Cuomo.
	The original granny killer.
	The man who single-handedly threw his policy knowingly And I will say negligently caused the deaths of over 10,000 elderly in New York.
	The man who saw the light because he sent so many people to the light.
	Truth in jest.
	That joke would not be funny if Andrew Cuomo didn't actually cause the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people.
	That joke wouldn't be funny for someone like...
	I have someone who did not kill a lot of old people through their policy by sending infected people back to nursing homes and requiring the nursing homes to take infected COVID patients back into the nursing homes.
	And then, oh, by the way, immunizing the executives of those nursing homes contemporaneously with those executives making substantial donations to Andrew Cuomo's re-election campaign.
	The joke would not be funny if Cuomo were not an actual, in my humble opinion, killer.
	But he comes out with an amazing take.
	It's surprising.
	Until you read into it.
	Andrew Cuomo.
	I can't say Cuomo.
	I'm Andrew Cuomo.
	I can only say it with that guy who did that funny channel.
	Me, Andrew Cuomo.
	Department of Justice must immediately explain the reason for its raid, and it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives, or it will be viewed...
	So by the way, here.
	Should have just stopped right there.
	That would have been an actual good take.
	Without being cloaked in this.
	DOJ must explain it's got to be something more important than inconsequential archives, or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation and legitimacy of Jan 6 investigations.
	Do you see the interesting sleight of hand here?
	This is like picking on a big lie so that you could try to slide in or legitimize what you believe to be the lesser of the lie.
	Let's just...
	Let's just operate on the basis that the January 6th investigation is itself a political travesty.
	But a lesser of a political travesty, unless you're one of the 500 accused who's been spending indefinite periods of time in jail, solitary confinement, pretrial detention, and if you get sentenced to seven years for non-violent crimes.
	Let's just say that the January 6th, we agree, it's a political show.
	But a lesser political show than the egregious over-the-top raiding of a former president's home.
	Cuomo uses the egregious over-the-top nature of one so as to attempt to legitimize and justify the other, which in my humble view is just as egregious, if not more so, because it actually results in the deprivation of liberty of great many people.
	They must immediately explain this raid.
	Otherwise, it's going to compromise the legitimacy, the total legitimacy of the January 6th investigations.
	Hey, Cuomo, how about it's the extension of the January 6th politically motivated persecution investigations?
	How about it's the extension of that?
	It's not unrelated.
	It doesn't undermine the potential illegitimacy of this raid.
	Does not undermine the actual illegitimacy of the political persecution of those involved in January 6th.
	It's an extension of it.
	And this, it looks on its face superficially like Cuomo has seen the light.
	He hasn't.
	He's seen the light so that he can cast the darkness, the shade, on the January 6th persecution to make it look, by comparison, legitimate.
	No way this dude stood up for Trump.
	No, he didn't.
	This is a ploy.
	This is a cheap, superficial tactic to try to legitimize the January 6th investigations.
	In reality, the raid on Trump's home is an extension of the political persecution that is the January 6th investigation.
	We've seen it.
	The entire purpose of that January 6th investigation was to gear up for an indictment.
	Not poison the well, but rather get everybody used to the idea.
	Get them ready to accept the idea that the only appropriate remedy for the 9-11 2.0 is indicting Trump.
	He did not see any light.
	He's not defending Trump.
	He's just trying to legitimize the illegitimate political persecution kangaroo court show trial.
	That is the January 6th committee, whose sole objective is to find a way and to sensitize people to accepting the idea of indicting Trump to try to keep him off the ballot in 2024.
	Viva, I find you to be very switched on mentally.
	Have you read Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power or the 33 Strategies of War?
	No.
	Did legal training or self-determination turn you into a mental ninja?
	I'd like to thank Neuroses and OCD.
	That'll be my acceptance speech.
	I'm going to read both of those books because I'm always looking for a good book to listen to, but it has to be on audiobook.
	But thank you very much.
	No, I think it's a hyperactive brain.
	A hyperactive mentality, which has its...
	It has its pitfalls as well.
	Theophrastus 3.0.
	Good to see you again.
	I still remember when Viva and Barnes thought I was a bit overdramatic when I claimed fascism and dictatorship were coming our way.
	Not so crazy now.
	People I know from Venezuela have said so too.
	Yep.
	I got blackpilled a little bit when the most peaceful protest I've ever seen in my life was violently suppressed and the people involved in it I'm going to read this because I do also like getting diverging opinions.
	I am not an experiment.
	America was founded on the backs of genocide of our Native Americans.
	When I say the experiment, it's the experiment of democracy and The experiment of the American liberation from British rule.
	And if anyone thinks, founded on the back of genocide of our Native Americans, you cannot make up for the historical injustices that have occurred.
	There was war.
	There has always been war.
	And there's a victor in a war and there's a loss.
	I say a loser.
	There is a losing party in war.
	There was a conquest.
	You cannot remedy certain historical injustices without creating new current injustices, which is part and parcel of my entire critique of what is typically known as CRT.
	But the American experiment to which I'm referring is democracy.
	America, one of the lone beacons of democracy that still exists in this world, crafted on principles which were devised by Inasmuch as they were slave owners and sinners by today's standards, people with foresight, with insight, with wisdom, to know how to craft a constitution so that America did not ever become a tyrannical government similar to the one that they just fought for their freedom.
	The separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch.
	The checks and balances, and the checks and balances, oh, I got to bring that up, are not a secret court rubber stamping a secret application by a corrupt FBI.
	The checks and balances are ensuring that one branch of government does not override or investigate the other.
	So that is the experiment.
	As far as, you know, historical injustices that have been committed in the history of the evolution of the world, there are certain historical injustices that will not be able to be remedied in present time.
	To paraphrase Cuomo, stop showing your cards.
	Bots are copying me and repeating my likeness.
	Well, you know what's funny?
	I haven't seen any sex bots today, Corn Pop, or the Chinese bots.
	I got to bring up, actually, now that I mention the checks and balances.
	I have to go to my Twitter feed for this.
	Oh, that's another story.
	Yeah, we'll get to that in a second.
	Hold on.
	Got a lot of articles on Gretchen Whitmer.
	Okay, we'll come back to this in a second.
	No, I'm going to have to leave it here.
	Hold on.
	I'll have to open up a non-incognito window and go to my actual Twitter feed.
	They called themselves civil rights attorneys as well, which is shocking.
	Or civil rights proponents.
	Twitter.
	This is my feed.
	Okay, hold on.
	And I think it was earlier today.
	It was an interview on television.
	We're going to talk about that article as well.
	Not doing the Justin Bieber, allegedly.
	Not her.
	Son of a bee sting.
	Where was it?
	I might be losing my mind here.
	See, the one thing that's disconcerting about making mistakes, like forgetting that...
	ClientSmith actually deleted something and added something and not just deleted.
	I begin to question my memory on everything.
	But I know that I saw an interview with a woman who said there's checks and balances because...
	Damn it.
	And that's last night.
	Forget about it.
	I won't be able to find it.
	Okay.
	You know what?
	Before we get into Gretchen Whitmer, there was one super chat that I had here.
	Fauci, what did you do with all our bats?
	In seven years, five million U.S. bats gone.
	What's up, dude?
	I'm almost done.
	How was school?
	Okay, out.
	25 minutes.
	I'm going more than 25 minutes.
	Okay, good.
	Get out of here.
	Close the door.
	I lock the door, but he's found a way to open the door.
	Silver Fox, thank you for challenging Atheist Miracle to provide just one example, although they should probably have more than one, of when you've been debunked by their so-called lawyer friend.
	I'm all ears.
	I've had this argument with many people.
	If I make a mistake, I'm going to correct myself.
	I don't like being wrong.
	I don't even like being wrong when I understate the problem.
	Disease did most of the damages.
	Doctors didn't even know the importance of washing their hands until the 1870s.
	Okay.
	Wuhan.
	Jan 6th.
	How quickly we forget the worst of them all.
	Barely mentioned two episodes and then gone.
	There was no booger.
	I'm told now that there was no booger.
	Democracy is simply the dictatorship of the majority.
	No.
	First of all, you're going to get...
	You're going to get corrected.
	America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
	But it is not a dictatorship of the majority when even the majority recognizes that there are certain fundamental rights that even the majority cannot trump over despite the fact that they are the majority.
	That's why a constitution is a very valuable thing to the extent it remains respected.
	Charter of Rights is a good thing until the majority says...
	You selfish bastard.
	If I tell you to go home and lock down and take a shot, you better do it because that's what democracy means.
	So no, it is not.
	Well, maybe democracy in the purest form, majority rule.
	The reason why this analogy fails is because it is not immoral for two wolves to eat a sheep, but it is immoral for two humans to tell a third human what they have to inject into their body so those other two humans feel good.
	Okay.
	Now, Gretchen Whitmer people, speaking of FBI corruption, one of the things about which I was not wrong, atheist miracle.
	In fact, I took flack from friends and family.
	Not flack so much, but they said, we better watch it, Dave.
	When you suggest that there might be entrapment in the Gretchen Whitmer alleged kidnapping plot, you're playing into right-wing extremism.
	I cannot control how people are going to interpret what I think Is a fact.
	What I think is an accurate assessment of a pattern of facts.
	And nor will I buy into the argument that you cannot defend the unpopular because it might encourage other people, other bad faith actors.
	Everyone deserves an attorney.
	Whether or not I could be that attorney is a separate issue.
	But if I happen to think that unsavory characters are nonetheless innocent of that of which they're being accused, I'm not going to be too shy to defend them.
	I'm not going to be too shy to say it, even if they are people that I would not necessarily want babysitting.
	So when the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot arose, and Barnes and I were talking about it at length, an election time plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, who was...
	She was radically unpopular.
	November 2020 election coming up.
	Everyone wants to paint Donald Trump as inciting right-wing extremism.
	What better way to do it than this magical plot that comes up...
	Right around that time of people who were arguably capable of doing that which they were alleged to be plotting to do, it seemed suspicious.
	And then as more details of this came out and it became increasingly clear that the accused, you know, they might have been pawns in what was clearly being revealed to be something of an FBI scheme.
	When you have more informants and FBI agents, Involved in orchestrating the plot than actual alleged defendants in participating in it, you might have a problem.
	You might have a problem where these defendants might have a legitimate defense.
	We might be big talking buffoons on the interwebs, but for the involvement, the active planning, orchestrating, financing, technical training from the informants and the FBI, we would never have done anything like this.
	I was right about it.
	Atheist miracle?
	I was right.
	I'm going to say I was right because I did take from Barnes and I did learn on my own.
	I was right.
	Two of the men were acquitted outright and then two had a hung jury.
	So they went to trial.
	That case went from bad to worse.
	BuzzFeed ran an article asking, you know, what level of involvement could be deemed to be entrapment?
	Informants getting paid $60,000 a year, getting cell phones, computers.
	The informants training the accused.
	Handling all aspects of the alleged plot.
	Technicalities.
	Encouragement.
	FBI agents getting arrested for abusing their wives.
	Getting kicked off the case.
	One of the informants, I think, got indicted for felony gun charges.
	It fell apart.
	It fell apart.
	Two were acquitted.
	Two had a hung jury.
	This is Old News April 8th.
	Quitmer kidnapping plot.
	Two men acquitted.
	Hung jury for two more.
	A jury on Friday acquitted two men.
	You know why they got acquitted?
	Because it was deemed to be entrapment.
	Not that they didn't prove the elements of the case.
	The defense of entrapment succeeded.
	They couldn't reach verdicts against the other two alleged leaders.
	A stunning defeat for the government after a weeks-long trial that centered on a remarkable FBI sting operation.
	My butt.
	More like a plot just before the 2020 election.
	Whitmer did not immediately comment on the outcome, though her chief of staff was critical, saying, living through the normalization of political violence.
	How about living through the normalization of politicizing corruption?
	Political corruption within the FBI.
	How about living through that?
	Because we're living through that.
	The result was announced, yada, yada, yada.
	Let me see what they said here.
	Daniel Harris, Brandon Cancerra were found not guilty of conspiracy.
	By the way, this is bearing in mind, one of the individuals who testified in this trial pleaded guilty.
	Testified against the other four.
	I think he's serving close to five years.
	If I'm not mistaken, I forget his name, Ty Garber.
	One of the guys pleaded guilty.
	A judge sentenced him to five years.
	He testified against the four others, two of which were acquitted.
	The other two are now going back to trial.
	Oh, and by the way, there was something in here that I wanted to show.
	The jury could not reach verdicts against Adam Fox, Barry Croft Jr., which means the government can put them on trial again for conspiracy charges, and they are on trial again.
	They'll remain in custody.
	They'll remain in custody.
	Now, it's been two years?
	Over two years?
	But there was something that I remember about the other one.
	18?
	Yeah, here we go.
	Harris and Concerta embraced their lawyers when U.S. District Robert Jonker, same judge in the retrial of the other two, said they were free after 18 months in jail.
	They spent a year and a half of their lives in jail.
	Awaiting trial.
	Now, not to be totally hypocritical here, these charges are sufficiently serious that I could foresee potentially.
	I could make the argument for deprivation of liberty prior to trial, even though they're legally innocent, but given the nature of the accusations.
	18 months, though, they spent in jail to be acquitted.
	They don't get that 18 months of their life back.
	Whether or not there could have been accommodations to release them pending a trial, I would think that there could be.
	Tracking devices, passport revocation so they're not a flight risk, weapons restrictions so they're not, in that sense, a risk.
	But I can understand, given what they were accused of, if they had gotten convicted, then you could justify the 18 months pre-trial detention.
	But 18 months pre-trial detention acquitted.
	They're gone.
	They're never getting that year and a half of their life back.
	They're never getting the cost of a defense back.
	And the other two are now going back for trial.
	And we'll get to there in a second.
	Same judge.
	And new trial.
	Let me just see something here.
	Okay, I got that one already.
	A republic is a dictatorship of the majority through representatives.
	Touche, Party Story University, but I'll disagree with you.
	Because there is no dictatorship where fundamental rights are recognized and respected.
	Either that or we're just using dictatorship differently.
	Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, lays out the qualification for presidential candidates.
	All the threats of prosecution is a waste of their time Screen grab to be discussed tonight with the venerable Robert Barnes.
	So, 18 months in jail, two acquitted, hung jury on the other two.
	I still don't know the number of the jury members who...
	Could not reach a unanimous verdict.
	If anybody knows, I'd love to know.
	But let's just get into some of the news here.
	I pulled up this article for a reason.
	Hold on.
	April 8th.
	This was entitled by BuzzFeed News.
	A stunning surprise in the Michigan case.
	I guess the stunning surprise was that they were acquitted.
	Okay, sorry.
	So that's just BuzzFeed News.
	Stunned by what?
	Would not have been stunning to anybody who had watched Viva Frye and Viva and Barnes leading up to that trial and that acquittal.
	So here's the deal now.
	They're going for retrial again, by the way.
	And what do you think is the most important thing in this case?
	Jury selection, people.
	One thing I think the prosecution will have learned.
	Make sure that you don't have jury members that believe in the defense of an entrapment.
	Jury selection.
	They learned their lesson.
	And they're going to make sure to get jury members who are amenable, not for justice, but for conviction.
	And if they do it in any way close to the way the jury selection was done in Alex Jones, I was there for day one jury selection.
	You had the plaintiff's attorneys in Alex Jones' trial jury selection asking the jury members how they would feel.
	About issuing a judgment, a verdict, for $150 million, if the damages aren't quantified like in a ledger.
	You had plaintiff's attorneys literally asking the jury members if they're going to sentence, if they're going to convict for $150 million, obviously with the idea that anybody who says, no, I'm going to need some damn good evidence for that, gets booted.
	And anyone who says...
	Yeah, that sounds fair.
	That seems like a good way to punish election deniers.
	We'll get put on the jury.
	You know, it's called jury selection, but what it really is is jury curating.
	Quit Merkidna plot retrial selection starts.
	It could make or break the case.
	Thanks, Captain Obvious.
	When is this from?
	August 9th.
	What day is it today?
	It's August 10th?
	Yeah, it's August 10th.
	So the two who were not convicted, the two men accused of leading a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, are being retried.
	They're being retried when two of the four defendants were acquitted.
	The jury includes three people of color after an all-white jury ended in a mistrial.
	This is interesting.
	I can't go by any stereotypes in the sense of, I don't know which demographic would be more skeptical of government abuse.
	I might imagine.
	If I had to, that people of color, and I'm not sure if that means black or black, brown, Asian, or whatever.
	I don't know what people of color means.
	I would be interested in knowing if people of color might actually be a little more skeptical of this type of government abuse, potential government entrapment.
	We'll see.
	Or maybe...
	The prosecution has crap evidence because they have a crap case, because they blew it, because it was actually pretty much as clear-cut a case of entrapment as you can get.
	Opening argument set to begin Wednesday for a retrial of two men accused of leading a kidnap plot against Gretchen Whitmer after a more diverse jury was saluted.
	Okay, the two men, we got that part.
	Robert Jonker, the judge again, spent much of Tuesday in a Grand Rapids courtroom.
	That's too far away.
	I can't drive there.
	Questioning potential jurors before seating 10 women and 8 men.
	So that's interesting.
	And I don't know if they're going to specify who makes it onto the jury and who's an alternate.
	Unlike the previous jury, which was all white, a Hispanic man and two black women are on this jury.
	Experts say jury selection is crucial.
	My goodness.
	Can you believe this is news?
	Experts say that jury selection is crucial to the government's case.
	It's pretty crucial to every case.
	Jonker quizzed potential jurors about their livelihoods, biases, politics, COVID-19 vaccine mandates, news consumption, and trust of the government.
	This is interesting.
	When one potential juror, a female hairdresser, told Jonker she didn't trust politicians, he responded that may actually be one of the more popular opinions these days.
	that seemed to be gripping the nation.
	Stay-at-home father says he's uncertain he can push his biases aside because he's related to a county clerk who has received threats related to the election.
	Hmm, interesting.
	A gunsmith, also interesting, said he owns semi-automatic rifles and is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but can decide fairly in this case.
	Strike!
	Peremptory strike!
	Get him out!
	If you're the prosecution.
	solution.
	Jonker declared a mistrial in the charges against Fox and Croft on April 8th after jurors were deadlocked.
	See, we just don't get the number.
	The nearly four-week trial featured allegations of militia members plotted to kidnap, yada, yada, yada.
	We got all that.
	Okay.
	I think we've gotten as much as we need out of this story.
	So it's starting anew.
	The two remaining defendants are being retried.
	And jury selection is important.
	And I'll take things that are obvious for 200 Alex.
	Predictions on this case?
	I mean, I would like to know what knowledge the current jury are going to have of the last trial.
	I presume they're not going to want to have anybody with any knowledge of the previous trial and acquittal of the two defendants because that won't help the prosecution.
	Yeah.
	Let me see here.
	Just because I saw this one.
	Viva, we say left or right.
	How is the Democrat own extreme left and extreme right?
	How is the Democrats own?
	I think I understand what you're saying there.
	Okay, so that is the retrial of the two remaining defendants in Gretchen Whitmer.
	They've got a more diverse...
	Jury pool.
	We'll see how that works out.
	Booger footage gone, just like Epstein footage.
	Just kidding.
	Stuck here in Quebec and would have loved to invite you for great Matapidia Gaspésie fishing.
	Oh, Gaspésie is among the most beautiful places on earth.
	Everybody wants to know how big Quebec is.
	Everybody says Texas is huge, and it is.
	Quebec is twice the size of Texas, geographically speaking.
	You can drive from Montreal 18 hours to the east, and you get to the Gaspésie Peninsula, or the Gaspé Peninsula, where they have something called the Roche-Percée.
	Which means the pierced rock.
	It's a famous landmark icon of a rock.
	I have to show you.
	Of a rock with a hole in it.
	But I believe it's gotten so precarious that they no longer allow people under it for fear of collapse.
	Let me see if I can show you a picture here.
	Let me get your days worth of information you didn't know that you...
	Actually want.
	Here it is.
	Look how beautiful that is.
	That's too small of a picture.
	That's too small.
	Here we go.
	Roche-Percet.
	Here.
	This is it.
	You can walk along the beach when the tide is down.
	You've got to make sure to get out before the tide goes up.
	I've been there a few times.
	It's gorgeous.
	Oh, and then if you want to know how far that is, watch this.
	Watch this.
	Montreal to Perse.
	A map.
	Look at this.
	22 hours, people.
	Where's the picture?
	Oh, here it is.
	Well, okay, that's the loop.
	That's the loop.
	To Perse, it's about 16 hours, but there's always traffic and there's always lanes shut down.
	Oh, you're not seeing the map.
	Sorry.
	Hold on.
	Here, look at this.
	Look at this.
	If you're looking to go, the only problem, you know, lockdowns, rampant communism.
	Other than that, Canada's a beautiful place.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Other super chat.
	Here.
	Have you seen Dershowitz rumble last night on legal reasons for a raid on Trump instead of subpoena?
	Your take.
	I haven't seen Dershowitz's take on it.
	I could build the arguments.
	They're going to say Trump did not declassify the information.
	He took classified information, which he was required to return.
	Hey, if there's bona fide classified information that Trump unlawfully took from the White House for whatever the reason, unlawful reason, okay.
	By all accounts, there was an open channel of communication between Trump attorneys and the Justice Department.
	A raid like this.
	Can be difficult to justify.
	I've also heard the reports that there was specific information that they had from an insider, concrete information with specific details which justified it.
	Put it this way, I could build the arguments, but when I see the evidence, it had better be damning evidence that what Trump took Was in fact classified, was in fact unlawfully taken, and was in fact sufficiently serious by way of classified information that this was the only appropriate remedy.
	If that evidence comes out, I will not defend the indefensible.
	Constitutional government was a theory of Aristotle, described in politica, meaning a combination of government types.
	The Roman res publica, public thing, used elements of democracy and oligarchy.
	I know I should remember some of that from my days of philosophy.
	So it's not a question of defending Trump, period.
	It's not a question of defending Trump.
	In order for this to be justified, it had better be something exquisitely serious and exquisitely damning.
	Don't expect me to trust the FBI, though.
	And don't expect me to believe...
	What has not come out by way of justification.
	And don't expect me to believe it even if they come out and say, trust us.
	Trust us this time.
	Once rotten, always rotten.
	And unless Ron Filipowski was affirming it with approval, disband the FBI, disband the CIA, disband the IRS, reform it in a way that it is not filled with deep state, permanent administrative actors, unelected, who...
	Run amok, because there's no way to rein them in.
	I now live in the U.S., but I am originally from Gaspé, about a 45-minute drive from Perseille Rock.
	It is indeed beautiful back home.
	How has Google muted me?
	Google, I demand answers.
	Don't reform, just disband.
	Okay, now let me see if I didn't miss anything with Gretchen Whitmer that I wanted to bring up.
	So we did the jury selection.
	Let me just take that down.
	This was just from another article, more of the same.
	You've got to just cross-reference articles and make sure that you're not reading a syndicated piece, which is going to be pretty much verbatim the same in every publication.
	And hold on.
	Yeah, we've got more diversity.
	Diverse jury and Whitmer kidnapping plot.
	Mistrust of government.
	Dominated the process, yeah.
	No crap.
	If you're the prosecution, you want to get people who are still so naive, they don't know not to trust the government.
	I also do, just like saying, Whitmer.
	Every channel has their, what's the word?
	Pillar of marketing.
	Something like that.
	You have your things.
	Scott Adams has that sip a cup of coffee.
	I never thought I would do one.
	Who's got the...
	Law nerds for Emily D. Baker.
	Who else can I think of?
	Who do it well where I can actually remember it offhand?
	We just have the H in everything.
	Okay.
	It's been...
	Well, this is another problem.
	It's been two years since he's been out of office.
	Bull crap.
	But Dershowitz plays devil's advocate.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	And Dershowitz is a smart guy.
	Sometimes his reasoning is weak, and I've pointed it out.
	When I see it, but he's entitled to his opinion.
	And he's also entitled to be wrong from time to time without being destroyed as a human.
	Okay, that's right.
	One other story, people.
	This one.
	This one.
	We're going to read this.
	We're going to read this.
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm a raging hypochondriac with a morbid fear of death.
	But I'm not a doctor.
	What the heck is going on with my internet here?
	Oh, AT&T.
	I don't even know if we have AT&T.
	Here we go.
	Let me just get this open here.
	Okay.
	I don't know why it's not populating in the under window.
	Okay.
	The title, the headline is UK mom dies in her sleep on flight with husband and two kids.
	Now to say that this is not a nightmare of mine, what do you mean you can't find the article?
	Viva getting angry.
	The computer's not thinking as fast as I needed to think.
	We're going to go back to that in a second.
	I want...
	There's nothing of...
	Like...
	Okay, we're going to close this down.
	Bring it back up, people.
	Sorry.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	Google.
	Come on, man.
	Quit messing around.
	Here we go.
	New York Post.
	Take it or leave it.
	You can desecrate the...
	You can undermine the source.
	New York Post.
	He believes only what he reads in the New York Post.
	Movie reference.
	First one to get it wins a compliment.
	UK mom dies in a sleep-on flight with husband and two kids.
	Okay.
	A mother of two traveling back from the UK.
	She's traveling back from Hong Kong, so it's a long flight.
	We'll get to it.
	Passed away.
	She's flying from Hong Kong to the UK on August 5th when she passed away in her sleep.
	We are still in disbelief and shock at the sudden passing of our dearest friend.
	She was found unresponsive hours into the flight.
	It's horrendous.
	Unimaginable loss.
	There are no details in this.
	Although this is extremely traumatizing to the family, they all had time to say what they needed to say to her.
	Okay.
	So there is something known as deep vein thrombosis, which is...
	The internet is so slow here.
	Deep DVT.
	And not a doctor, just a neurotic hypochondriac.
	Deep vein thrombosis is a blood clot in a vein, usually in the leg.
	It can be dangerous, get medical help as soon as you see it, or have DVT.
	Warm skin, yada, yada.
	And it can lead to...
	Who is more likely to get deep vein thrombosis?
	Over 60?
	Overweight?
	Have had it before?
	Contraceptive?
	Cancer heart failure?
	Varicose veins?
	Okay.
	And basically, you can get these clots if you sit immobile for an extended period of time.
	And what can happen...
	Actually, let me just see if we can read that.
	What can happen is they can break off and cause pulmonary embolisms or stroke, I believe.
	DVT stroke.
	Okay, this type of clot does not cause heart attack or stroke.
	A blood clot, let's see this here.
	Maybe it doesn't cause stroke.
	Does DVT cause heart attack or stroke?
	There are two main types of blood clots.
	How a clot affects the body depends on the type and location of the clot.
	A blood clot in a deep vein of the leg, pelvis, etc.
	is called deep vein.
	This type of clot does not cause heart attack or stroke.
	A clot in an artery, usually in the heart or brain, is called arterial thrombosis.
	This type of clot can cause a heart attack or a stroke.
	So the question is, I'm just asking, you know, whether or not we're hearing more of these stories, whether or not more of these stories are being reported, and whether or not when these stories occur, given the current context, whether or not we're allowed asking what many people believe to be the obvious questions, and just an overall sad state of affairs when we're being basically conditioned to think that this is normal with these...
	Newly concocted or newly refurbished concepts like sudden adult death syndrome.
	SADS.
	Sexbot.
	I said it.
	I said it.
	If you build them, they will come.
	And if you talk about them, the sexbot.
	Clots travel to lung from legs.
	So there's obvious questions.
	There's obvious questions that people have.
	And we seem to be living in a...
	An age where you can't ask them.
	Okay.
	That was the story.
	Just another tragic sudden death of a healthy, potentially otherwise healthy adult.
	Who knows?
	Get used to it.
	Don't ask questions.
	And if you dare ask questions, you're an insensitive bastard who wants to politically weaponize tragedy.
	Or maybe, just maybe, you actually want to know the truth so that people can adjust their conduct and governments can adjust policy accordingly.
	I've been withholding judgment because emotions are high, understandably, but I don't see how this could be justified given what's known.
	What you have to do is you take the steel man hypothetical.
	What would have to be on that allegedly classified documentation that Trump had?
	What would have to be in it to possibly justify this?
	And the answer, going back to David Langford's statement, there could be nothing in it.
	That could justify the length of time it took for this raid.
	Nothing.
	It could be the worst stuff of the worst stuff.
	They've known about it for a while.
	They would have done it earlier.
	The timing is odd.
	Nobody's talking about inflation.
	Nobody's talking about Russia.
	Everyone's just outraged about this.
	Dersh said if subpoena, then Trump could claim immunity.
	If taken, they'll be used against him.
	Hold on.
	If they subpoena him.
	He can claim immunity.
	Okay, I'm going to try to piece that together.
	Maybe I'm going to go watch it.
	If he has immunity, I don't see how a raid could therefore then be lawful.
	I don't see how you could raid what would otherwise be lawfully protected by legal immunity if he ever benefited from it, but maybe there's something I don't understand, but I'll see if I can go listen to Dershowitz.
	Maybe we'll have Dershowitz back on.
	Would it be funny if the document was Epstein's client list, therefore having the warrant sealed?
	Well, Julian, a lot of people are hypothesizing that the information that they did in fact seize might have something to do with January 6th and might have to do with not Trump's incriminating behavior, allegedly incriminating behavior, but potentially other players potentially incriminating or exacerbating behavior.
	There might be a reason why Trump Might have even had what might be potentially classified information.
	There might be a reason why he had it.
	Presumably, he's not going to...
	Let's just assume people are saying it's incriminating information for Trump.
	If you're going to take classified information that's incriminating, you're not just going to store it so that it can be found and seized later.
	My best guess, if I had to guess, is that whatever was on this information is probably more incriminating to the Biden administration or the Washington response to January 6 than anything incriminating against Trump.
	That would be my best guess.
	FBI mistook Mar-a-Lago for Project Veritas while seeking the deleted show.
	That's not funny in the disgusting, insidious details that are in Ashley Biden's diary, but it is funny the degree to which the FBI is out of control.
	Raiding journalists, raiding presidents, ex-presidents, raiding journalists over an allegedly stolen And they thought he had classified material and then came to get it back when he was gone.
	He doesn't have a photocopier.
	He hadn't been in communication with intelligence and authorities for months prior to.
	Oh my goodness, I almost forgot the one thing we've got to do before we leave.
	A live unboxing of my new kicks that Murph's Kicks sent me.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Yeah.
	Oh, then they...
	I don't know if the cameras were off.
	I just know that the reports are that didn't give the warrant to Trump's attorneys, didn't allow his attorneys to be present.
	This is banana Republic-level stuff that can only be defended by banana Republic-level lawyers like David Axelrod.
	Okay, let me just go to my note.
	Oh, no, I wanted to go...
	One thing at a time.
	Going to Rumble.
	Nearly 3,000 people watching on the Rumbles.
	Awesome.
	Chat is not populating, but if I missed a Rumble rant, Miss Coozie.
	Miss Coozie.
	8878, Nixon's resignation speech.
	Coincidence.
	I'm first going to double-check if that was actually Nixon's...
	Didn't they do something else recently, which was also on an anniversary of Watergate?
	Too late for the FBI to reclaim lost credibility.
	They faked evidence before.
	People will be right to assume they planted anything incriminating.
	I agree.
	Someone said it was a Latin expression.
	Once rotten, always rotten.
	There's no other way to look at the FBI now.
	And there's no other way to look at the Trudeau regime ever again.
	Once rotten, always rotten.
	The only political solution...
	Booted from office.
	Never allowed to run again.
	And then maybe go slap him with a third ethics violation.
	Go slap Trudeau with a third ethics violation for unlawfully invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Okay, so I don't actually think that I've missed anything, but I might just go to Twitter for two seconds just to make sure.
	Are we looking at the Twitter?
	This is my diary, people.
	My diary of my descent into the red pill enema.
	Okay, so we got to...
	We did...
	This is a story which I think people...
	It's not going to mean anything to people, but someone, Ziggy Shrugged, having a YouTube channel taken down, which she used to sell things that she made.
	Just YouTube saying, deceptive practices shut it down as though you're just shutting down a channel.
	It's not like you might be shutting down someone's livelihood.
	Better have good reasons for doing it, but better look into it.
	So, Ziggy Shrugged, anyone who wants to go retweet that, get it to the attention of...
	The YouTube overlords.
	Why would they shut down someone's channel who was selling her own...
	Promoting her own handmade products, from what I understand.
	Yeah, giving Jagmeet Singh a hard time.
	Don't care.
	Oh, this was the headline.
	Trump stokes uproar.
	Trump stokes the uproar.
	Not the FBI.
	It's Trump for complaining about the FBI abuse.
	It might have been in this thread.
	Yeah, okay.
	Go back.
	Okay.
	I think we've gotten everything.
	Oh, Ryan, Trump is the one stoking anger by complaining about FBI egregious.
	Overreach abuse.
	And now, apparently, the judge is the victim of public discontent.
	Now, I don't know what concrete...
	I asked this guy, Ryan J. Riley.
	Do you have any concrete evidence of the alleged harassment that the judge is facing, other than potentially people expressing their discontent?
	Because if there is, contact authorities and go after anybody who makes a threat at a judge.
	Bruce Reinhart's page came down after he was targeted.
	Oh, and I just said, what happened?
	Were people protesting on his front lawn?
	It's so disgusting.
	It was disgusting and unlawful when they did it to Kavanaugh.
	And if they're doing it to this judge, it's disgusting and unlawful.
	Unless what this individual is purporting is being targeted, is people expressing their discontent at judicial figures.
	There's a way to express your discontent and there's an unlawful way to express your discontent.
	And this guy doesn't specify details.
	Just makes the judge.
	The judge is now the victim.
	Because when people find out that the system is being desecrated for political persecution and they say, whoa, I don't like this, if they say it lawfully and without actually constituting harassment or threats, the judge becomes the victim.
	But when they're...
	Picketing on the front lawns of a sitting Supreme Court justice.
	Crickets.
	In violation of actual U.S. statute.
	Crickets.
	Oh, yeah.
	And then this is another beautiful, beautiful thing.
	The aggregate knowledge of the Internet.
	Now that the judge has been identified, people can go find some rather egregious social media posts which might illustrate not just bias.
	But malice from a judge who signed off on a warrant based on what might very well yet again be fabricated evidence by a corrupt FBI?
	There's a reason why they don't want people releasing, they don't want to release the 14,000 hours of surveillance footage from January 6th.
	You know why?
	They might find a little bit more on a little bit other people, like Scaffold Dude, Scaffold Man, Ray Epps, etc.
	The aggregate knowledge of the internet is more effective and more accurate than...
	All intelligence agencies combined in less time.
	Release the 14,000 hours of January 6th and see what happens.
	And then we got Cuomo.
	Okay.
	I think that...
	Hi, everybody.
	Working from home.
	A little congested.
	My dogs keep coming to check on me through the windows.
	With my husband.
	But just working through the day.
	A little more casual than usual.
	But keeping up the schedule and just wanted to check in.
	Hi everybody.
	Working from home.
	A little congested.
	My dogs keep coming to check on me through the window.
	Can you imagine like talking about...
	But just working through the day.
	Like having the Rona is like surviving the big C. Okay, we've gotten through all of it.
	Keith Hutchins, always in with the insightful comment, I need help.
	Oh, I could use a producer, actually, if that's what you mean.
	Although I think everybody does need help.
	And if you're trying to shame me for needing help, well, I believe you should be cancelled, sir.
	That is a joke.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Just working from home.
	I got COVID.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	People think they've survived.
	They've been to war.
	Like, COVID is the new survival of war.
	You get through COVID, you survive.
	It's like, you get a Purple Heart.
	No perspective.
	There's no perspective anymore.
	And it has been so weaponized, so terrorized, that people literally feel like they've survived skydiving without a parachute.
	Since we know that the FBI had an informant in Mar-a-Lago, how do we know this wasn't another setup?
	We could just fabricate evidence anyhow.
	We've seen Clinesmith do it.
	Ziggy Shrugs.
	Hey, dude, Mr. Fry, Ziggy Shrugged is me.
	Thank you for the shout-out and support.
	Ziggy, may you get some response, everyone.
	I encourage you.
	If Eric Hundley says that Ziggy Shrugs is a trustworthy, wonderful person who had no reason for this to happen to her channel, I trust Eric Hundley.
	Unequivocally without even having to second guess.
	I saw some evidence.
	I feel sufficiently comfortable in retweeting.
	Everyone can go to my Twitter tweets and retweet at Team YouTube and maybe allow Ziggy Shrugs to get her channel back and get on with a living, which is very important to most people.
	Ziggy, Godspeed.
	Let us know what happens.
	FryFam must watch PPC's Maxime Bernier on Mr. Sunshine Baby.
	Please vote PPC, Canada's only option, to resist a one-world government.
	Mr. Sunshine Baby.
	Everybody, go watch Maxime Bernier, or as we say in Quebec, Bernier.
	Maxime Bernier, People's Party of Iran for the People's Party of Canada.
	Maxime Bernier was my political leader.
	Go check him out on Mr. Sunshine Baby.
	And I don't tell people who to vote for.
	I'll just tell people that I would never run for any other party other than the PPC.
	All right, now.
	People.
	Oh, shizzle.
	Sorry.
	I just dropped the knife.
	This is a live unboxing of...
	I'm going to make sure not to cut into this.
	This is Murph's Kicks.
	And everyone, you're never supposed to cut into you.
	You're never supposed to cut into your body with a knife.
	We're going to see.
	This is not a sponsored ad.
	This is not paid for.
	Murph, send me a pair of shoes once upon a time.
	I'm not wearing them now because I actually got sandals.
	I've gone full.
	Hold on.
	I've actually gone.
	That's because I'm using the knife the wrong way.
	I've gone.
	Flip-flops, people.
	I don't think I've ever had a pair of flip-flops in my life.
	Okay, let's do this.
	Come on.
	Open!
	Okay, we're doing this.
	We're doing this.
	This is slightly less classy than Casey Neistat's unboxings.
	Just going to make sure I'm not reading anything that Murphs kicks on Instagram, people.
	Murphs kicks.
	There's a letter.
	It says, What up, brother?
	I hope these are cooler for you to run in.
	As always, if you need anything, contact me anytime.
	Merce Kicks.
	Thank you very much.
	Now let's see them, people.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Official supplier.
	This is not a sponsored ad.
	This is nothing sponsored, people, but this is...
	You cannot...
	You cannot love awesomeness.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	The thing is this.
	I'm not going to run in these.
	I'm going to run in the other ones because I've already destroyed them.
	I'm going to use these.
	Okay.
	That is cool.
	I love it.
	Like genuinely love.
	Oh, they smell so much better than my other ones.
	Murph's Kicks, thank you very much.
	It's got to do it one more time.
	They're amazing.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay.
	Absolutely, absolutely amazing.
	Okay, Murph's, thank you.
	I mean, thank you.
	Okay, now, that's pretty cool.
	They're absolutely phenomenal.
	I want to sniff your shoes.
	Did I miss anything?
	No, let me see here.
	Okay, Ziggy Shrugs, I got that super chat.
	People, I think that's all we have for the day.
	Tonight, we will be going live sidebar with Stephen, I think it's Dietz.
	Dietz is how you pronounce it, from the Blaze.
	We only have him for 45 minutes.
	Afterwards, Barnes and I are going to talk about some stuff where I'm going to defer or ask Barnes some questions that I think I still have about all of this.
	And I'm going to try to read.
	Watch.
	Dershowitz, and then have a discussion with Barnes tonight.
	Hoag's Live if you're into raids, Viva.
	Hoag's Live?
	Hoag's Law?
	Well, here's what I would suggest, people.
	I know Hoag's Law reasonably well, not too well.
	Go watch Hoag's Law.
	Tell them you came from Viva's channel, and let's see if we can, you know, take over the chat.
	Okay, let me just go make sure I didn't forget anything on the Rumble rants.
	Those are sweet.
	Those must be available for all your fans.
	Elk11.
	This is on Rumble.
	Those are so great from CutiePie.
	Q-T, the letters P-I-I-E.
	Flucky, excellent gift, beautiful.
	Murph's Kicks.
	And I think it might be Murph's underscore kicks.
	Hold on.
	Let me...
	First of all, we're going to refresh and see if we're still green on the YouTubes.
	We are.
	Good.
	Instagram.
	I'm going to share Murph Kicks.
	Murph's kicks right here.
	And then I'm going to put it in the pinned comment later.
	Go check them out.
	You will never lose those at the gym.
	And better yet, no one's going to take them.
	Citizens, stay strong and do not...
	I have a working theory, people.
	That people encouraging other people to commit violence are actually the ones who want them to do it so they can weaponize it.
	I believe that they are...
	I don't want people like, no.
	Viva's gone full Alex Jones.
	I'm saying it tongue-in-cheek.
	Treat everyone who encourages you to engage in some form of violence as potentially...
	Just think for a second.
	Are they telling you to do something bad knowing that it's bad because they want you to do it so they can exploit it against your interests afterwards?
	When people come on my channel and say, Viva, you're a coward.
	You're not going to fight your way out of this.
	I know some of them are being sincere in their beliefs, but I have no doubt also there are some people who would love to see people make big mistakes that they can then weaponize.
	So, with that said, do not lose faith, but do not keep a blind faith.
	Stay vigilant, stay honest, and stay civil.
	Because...
	Who was it that said it?
	When battling demons, when battling monsters, do not become a monster because if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares right back.
	And there's no point winning at the cost of your dignity and human decency.
	So with that said, people, go out, enjoy the day.
	See you tonight, 7 o 'clock, Stephen Deitch with Robert Barnes, and we're going to talk about other stuff.
	Go.
	Prosper.
	Be merry.

▲