All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 16, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:44:51
Fake Fact Checkers Again! Twitter v. Musk! Criminalize Critique & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Somebody had to take the babysitter home.
Then I noticed she was sitting on her sweet can.
I grabbed her sweet can.
Oh, just thinking about her can.
I just wish I had her sweet, sweet, sweet can.
So, Mr. Simpson, you admit you grabbed her can.
What do you have to say in your defense?
Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further.
No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me.
Get back, get back.
Mr. Simpson, no!
Damatization may not have happened.
There was once a time when people could disagree with each other without disagreeing with each other.
When people could actually speak freely without the risk of being shouted down, cancelled, demonized.
When the Simpsons used to be funny, people.
There was a time when the Simpsons used to be funny.
But, you know what?
I can't say but no more.
I stopped watching them.
Maybe I stopped having a sense of humor.
Maybe they stopped being funny.
Up until season 15, still classic.
Now, side note.
I was at a thrift shop getting furniture.
And I found this.
Look at this.
Now, it's beautiful.
Hold on, let's see if you can get in there.
There you go.
It says on the bottom, Simpsons Summer Games.
1992.
And on the back, bronze medal.
Butterfingers Baby Ruth Presents Raisinets.
Proud sponsors of the 1992 Simpsons Summer Games.
It's heavy.
So if nothing else, at least it's worth, I don't know, 35 cents in bronze.
But I couldn't avoid it.
I looked it up online.
In good condition, there actually might be worth a little bit of money.
This one's rusted and got a black line on it.
People.
There's a reason why I showed that clip in the opening.
First of all, as I've explained in the exclusive that I just did prior to this called Vibing with Viva or Vibin with Viva.
We will be Vibing with Viva on the locals.
I did this thing called Vibing with Viva where I think I'm going to go like a half an hour, 40 minutes live exclusively on locals before going live on the YouTubes and the Rumbles.
And I said, it can't always be.
A rant.
Oftentimes it will be because the state of the world is such that it's amenable, susceptible, prone to venting at the insanity, the outrage, the madness.
But then other times, you know, we can play a little Simpsons and have a little fun at how the Simpsons was very good at predicting the world, the future, much in the way Orwell was good at predicting the future because past his prologue, When you're predicting the future, all you're really doing is reformulating what has already occurred in the present and the past.
So, this clip, why is it relevant?
Because it's funny when the Simpsons pokes fun at fake journalism, clearly splicing together nonsense to make a narrated nonsensical story out of that which was never the case.
It's true.
It's funny, but it's obvious.
That's humor.
Humor and satire are closely correlated.
And there was a video circulating, which, I will forgive anyone who got duped by it, was obvious.
Was obvious by context and by content.
Was obviously an edited parody spoof intended, in theory, to show the hypocrisy.
Of the right, the conservatives, the GOP side, DeSantis, Sean Hannity, and Lara Trump, intending to show the hypocrisy of the right justifying warrants when they like it, but complaining about warrants when they don't.
And people fell for the video, it seems, because Reuters had to do a fact check on it.
We're going to go into that in some detail.
I didn't want to start with the actual video itself because I want to break it down and commentate.
On where it should have been obvious to everyone that that was obviously satirical, intended to show what someone argues is hypocrisy.
Reuters had to fact check it.
Okay, that's one thing that we're going to get to.
Second item that we're going to discuss today, I have to make sure I don't screw up the term.
We found a new term, a catch-all term, to stifle any and all public discourse.
That term.
Is stochastic terrorism.
That's right, people.
Stochastic terrorism is the term now being given to public critique because of potential bad actors doing bad things, making threats, harassing people because of this public critique.
Hey Siri, what does stochastic mean?
Stochastic is a technical term it means.
Randomly determined.
Having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically, but may not be predicted precisely.
The idea that it's stochastic terror.
And now I'm thinking maybe stochastic has to do with staccato.
Like when you play piano, tick, tick, tick.
Maybe it has to do with staccato.
Maybe it has something of the same origins.
Random.
Unpredictable.
But you know something might happen.
So, stochastic terrorism.
S-T-O-C-H-A-S-T-I-C.
Spell the word.
It is S-T-O-C-H-A-S-T-I-C.
Stochastic.
Can you use it in a sentence, please?
People who critique doctors for performing transition therapy on children.
Are engaging in stochastic terrorism, according to one U of T professor.
We'll get there.
Another issue.
How to stifle free speech.
Okay.
There's an update in the Elon Musk Twitter battle.
And I love the way the media frames it, people.
A win for Musk communication of documents, whereas I thought Twitter had already communicated everything that...
Anybody purchasing a $60 billion company would need it.
I thought they sent everything to Musk.
We'll get there.
And one more thing before the random stuff.
The affidavit.
The affidavit in support of the warrant heard around the world.
The Justice Department fights to release the warrant and the list of exhibits.
And also simultaneously fights to withhold the affidavit.
Filed in support of the warrant.
The affidavit of probable cause to justify the warrant.
We're going to get into the good arguments, which should take us about zero seconds, and the bad arguments, talking points, that I'm not calling them NPCs.
I just know that other people would.
That those who will never be convinced that they were wrong are going to repeat as the new talking point.
So much transparency.
Indubitably.
But!
First things first, standard intro disclaimers.
Maddow is incredible news, so can't defame.
Jones is and can.
You're not going to have to convince me on the hypocrisy and the double standards of media, but he's not media, by the way.
That's the response.
Jones is not media.
It's misinformation propaganda, therefore doesn't benefit from the media protection.
Thank you for the super chat.
And where are the tacos?
Yeah, I forgot to do...
I forgot it was Tuesday today.
I thought it was Monday, so...
Do I really need to make some...
I'm getting miffed.
Do I really need to make some to pick up your slack here?
Sorry, people.
It's Taco Tuesday with Viva Fry.
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice, no election fornification advice, no legal advice.
No stochastic terrorism either, by the way, people.
I wouldn't...
Harassing is wrong and illegal.
It's already there.
Making threats is wrong and illegal.
It's already there.
Criticizing publicly people is neither wrong, nor immoral, nor illegal.
We had three there.
Nor is it stochastic terrorism, people.
Nor is it stochastic terrorism.
Let's...
Do we start with that?
Well, let's start with Shardy McDumass.
Shardy McDumass.
Viva, I will make you a deal.
You and your family come to my house.
If I can get your whole family to fish to mount, a fish to mount, you have to consider opening a guide service with me deal.
How did that one comment catch my eye?
I never make promises.
That's not true.
I make promises.
I just have to make sure I can keep them.
Okay.
Let's just...
I mean, we have to go with the stochastic terrorism.
Let me just get the tweet that brings us...
No, we're starting with this.
We're starting with this.
The world's gone crazy.
The world has gone crazy.
On a day now where Jill Biden...
Who claims, publicly states, and I have no reason to deny it.
I know people say saline shots and whatever.
Can't verify that.
Jill Biden.
Double vaxxed.
Double boosted.
That's four doses.
Test positive for COVID.
Okay.
She thanks the protection that the vaccines have given her.
We went over that in detail yesterday.
It's become a...
It's become the catchphrase of the cult, is how I describe it.
Nobody thinks twice.
It's not like...
On the one hand, maybe it doesn't do what you said it does.
On the other hand, maybe it actually, you know, maybe everybody who's now announcing that they're double vaccinated and double boosted and nonetheless getting the Rona, maybe there's another dot to be connected there that's not exactly thanking the vaccines and the boosters for their additional protection.
This tweet, Patricia Carvelas, RN Breakfast, ABC News.
The party room.
I swear to you, you don't know parody from reality anymore.
I've just had my fourth dose after recovering three months from actually having COVID.
And I'm very happy to be boosted.
Thanks, science.
I swear to you, this is not to be mean.
This is not to engage in stochastic terrorism.
I thought this was a joke.
I thought it was someone making fun of people.
And I was like, not my type of humor.
I wouldn't do it.
I thought it was a joke.
A bona fide joke.
I thought she was making fun of people who are double vaxxed, double boosted, apparently just recently had the Rona, and are now, you know, I thought it was satire.
Before I responded, I had to go check the profile and it's not, it's not satire.
So this is real.
Then I had to make sure I understood the tweet properly because what it reads like is I've just had my fourth booster or my fourth dose after three months after having COVID.
But then I read it a second time.
I was like, maybe I've just had my fourth dose after, after recovering three months from actually having COVID.
Then I thought maybe.
She took three months to recover from COVID, had a very bad boat, and is so traumatized from that three months recovering from COVID, she feels compelled to get a fourth dose, second booster.
But I think my reading of it is accurate, and that is someone proudly wearing an M95 mask, double vaxxed, double boosted, and just had Rona three months ago, getting the fourth shot, thanks science.
What can we reasonably conclude from such scientific and medical...
Reasoning.
Acumen.
I like that word.
Acumen.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your tweet, that's just to say maybe she had the three-month recovery from neurona, which might change things.
Is that to say that according to your logic and medical acumen, you'll be getting a booster every three months now?
You have to appreciate, other than the fact that this is insanity, I don't think there's anybody out there that doesn't recognize the...
Call it benefits, but I don't want to be accused of giving medical advice.
There are consequences to being infected.
Having been recently infected, I believe now, unless I'm mistaken, CDC recognizes natural immunity.
I believe the CDC just announced that they are recognizing natural immunity.
Okay, it's not just, but they recently announced that they're recognizing natural immunity.
That means that a recent infection procures the beneficiary of such infection of natural immunity for a certain period of time.
Someone who thinks that three months after having been infected, they no longer have the benefits that the CDC recognizes one procures from a recent infection, they're basically saying, jack me up every three months with a booster.
That's the logic of it.
And as if...
As if there might not be, depending on which doctors you listen to, as if there might not be their own set of considerations to think, I can tell you from Quebec, they told you not to get boosted if you had had a recent infection.
Now, I don't recall the exact dates.
I remember not being particularly impressed with the dates, like it was like 60 days or 30 days.
But there's a reason for which that initial rule, set aside the time frame, exists.
And that's because there are benefits and consequences to recent infections such that if you just got infected, even the doctors are saying, don't go get a shot, a booster.
There's a reason why they ask you if you're feeling sick on the day you're supposed to get the shot.
Whether it's 60 days, 30 days, or any other, there's a time frame within which you're not supposed to get a booster or a shot from recent infection.
This person thinks, infected three months ago, And three shots wasn't enough.
Go get the fourth and don't ask questions.
Yay, science.
Nuts.
Oh, here we go.
We got a body shamer in the house.
Viva took the jab.
Don't listen to what he says.
He has no skills of discernment.
Stick him up, punk.
It's the fun-loving conservative.
You know what?
If I were thinking that someone were in here...
Trying to sow discord within the community and trying to discredit someone who's been more than honest and upfront with everything for the detriment of the community.
This is how you do it.
Hey, Viva.
Viva took the jab.
Don't listen to what he says.
Hey, dude, you're no better than Trudeau.
Anybody shaming people for the decisions that they make with their bodies.
It's no better than someone telling you what to do with your bodies.
And just so we're clear, by the way, on my critique of the woman who's taking to social media to say, yay, science, I'm getting boosted three months after infection.
It's not to shame her decision.
I might feel bad for her decision.
That is using her blue checkmark social media clout to influence other people to do something with their own body.
Anybody coming in here saying, don't listen to Viva because he got jabbed.
First of all, you're entitled to your opinion.
And if you want to shame someone for what they did to their body, you are no different than people who want to shame someone for what they didn't do to their body.
So congratulations, you have become the enemy.
Your own enemy, by the way.
Although I just think it's a newly created account coming in here to try to sow discord in a community that comes here to get open discussion and good and accurate information.
Moving on.
It's a mad world where you can't discern parity from reality.
Which might explain to some extent...
Let's see here.
Which might explain to some extent why people can in fact or do in fact have a propensity to believe things which otherwise would never be believed.
Let me do this here.
Okay.
Actually, we'll read the article before we watch the video.
We'll read the article.
Here we go.
Lulu Bob's natural immunity stronger if you get COVID and you're unvaccinated.
I don't know that.
I'm not a doctor.
I know that I read things.
I know some people have said certain things.
Okay, but let's read the fact check, people.
Because before, if you haven't seen the video, you're going to read the fact check, and then you're going to say, hmm, this had to have been serious.
Oh, here, look at this.
Reuters.
Four-minute read.
What's the date?
August 15, 2022.
What's the date?
It's August 16 today.
Fact check altered Fox News segment showing Sean Hannity with Ron DeSantis.
Okay, so, fact check, altered, I can't tell if this is fact check, altered, no, it's fact check, altered Fox News segment showing Sean Hannity with Ron DeSantis.
Social media users are sharing an altered video that appears to show Fox News segment with host Sean Hannity, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and Lara Trump discussing an unidentified rate.
Okay, we'll get to the video in a second.
The guy who shared it, Timothy Burke, we'll get there.
Ron DeSantis went on Hannity and things got spicy.
The text in the original tweet, okay, that's what we just read that.
The video begins with Hannity saying, when this raid happened, and it was a raid, before appearing to be interrupted by DeSantis, who disputes the use of the word raid.
Already, as Reuters is describing it, they're leading you to believe that they're not starting this off by saying it was obvious parody, it was obvious spliced together video that no one, Should have taken seriously.
They're not starting off with that.
Even reading this, you're sort of building up the expectation in your mind that it was a real interview.
He said, it's not a raid.
With all due respect, it was not a raid.
They were serving valid process in accordance with the laws and constitution of the United State of Florida.
They did it with integrity.
They did it with honor.
And to say it's a raid is disinformation.
The alleged back and forth, yada, yada.
But this debate...
Did not take place.
Rather, the alleged segment is a product of splicing and combining separate videos from different topics on different dates and editing them together to make them appear as part of a single conversation.
The clip of Hannity can be traced back to August 22, 2022.
Fox News segment about the FBI.
Okay.
Part of it's about one raid.
The clip of DeSantis, meanwhile, can be traced back to December 11, 2020, here.
Let's go listen to this.
At the Rebecca Jones raid before it happened?
What?
Excuse me?
Were you aware that the Rebecca Jones raid was about to happen?
I knew there was an investigation.
I didn't know what they were going to...
It's not a raid.
I mean, with all due respect, what you just said is editorializing.
They serve...
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
No, excuse me.
I'm not going to let you get away with it.
These people did their jobs.
They've been smeared as the Gestapo for doing their jobs.
They did a search warrant.
Why did they do a search warrant on the House?
Because her IP address was linked to the felony.
What were they supposed to do?
Just ignore it?
Of course not.
They went.
They followed protocol.
We actually have video from the Tallahassee PD showing that they were very respectful.
She was not cooperative.
It was not a raid.
They were serving valid process in accordance with the laws and constitution of the United States and the state of Florida.
They did it with integrity.
They did it with honor.
And to say it's a raid is disinformation, and you guys need to drive--- Question and answer, that's why.
I have very limited time.
- Excuse me.
We're gonna talk about the double hypocrisy here.
- You guys need to look at facts and stop trying to feed narratives.
I understand why you do it, but it's not supported by facts.
- I don't do that, sir.
- And so you should be better than that.
- I don't do that, sir.
- Thanks everybody.
- Well, that's a good answer.
And by the way, just understand the double meta hypocrisy here.
Back then, they were accusing DeSantis of having engaged in a raid for allegedly serving a subpoena on someone who I guess...
Actually, I'm not sure about the details of the Rebecca Jones investigation, but they were accusing DeSantis of a raid, accusing him of not having had required evidence to justify a warrant and a seizure.
One notable difference...
In DeSantis' response is specific reference to specific facts that could justify it.
Evidence that you'd find in the affidavit of a warrant for probable cause.
We'll get there.
So that was the clip from a while back where DeSantis was saying, it's not a raid, we had all the grounds that we needed under law, it was done properly, etc.
Spliced together with a Hannity interview, made it look like they were talking about the Trump raid, and some people were believing it.
Okay, we got that.
Jones, oh, it shows DeSantis discussing the raid at the home of a top data scientist, a separate event at the Mar-a-Lago raid.
U.S. law enforcement searched the...
Sorry.
It shows DeSantis discussing the raid of the home of a top data scientist, a separate event to the Mar-a-Lago raid.
U.S. law enforcement searched the home of Rebecca Jones, who helped build Florida State's online COVID dashboard in December 2020 on suspicion of hacking a State Department of Health communication system.
Jones had previously alleged she was fired from a government job because she refused to manipulate data.
Read more about her case.
Okay, fine.
In response to the spliced video on Hannity, Hannity said, Warning!
If you see this on Twitter, it is edited fake news.
This never happened.
They spliced in comments the governor made years ago.
Twitter needs to step in and remove this immediately.
Whether or not you agree with Hannity's demand that they step in or his response, period.
Separate issue.
Verdict altered.
The video has been edited to include it.
Yeah, yeah.
That's the fact check that they did, people.
Shall we go watch the original video to see whether or not it's susceptible of not immediately being identified as a spliced video, clearly for satirical commentary purposes?
Let's see.
That's the Homer Simpson one.
Come on, where is it?
Where?
Oh, son of a beasting.
You know what?
Forget it.
We'll just have to go through here.
Okay.
This is the video, people.
I'll give you this.
It's well done.
But if this is an interview, what kind of...
I mean, right off the bat, this screen grab or this image right here is enough to tell you it's not a real interview.
What position is DeSantis in for this interview?
Setting that aside, just wait until you actually see it.
When this raid happened and it was a raid...
It's not a raid.
I mean, with all due respect.
When this raid happened and it was a raid.
It's not a raid.
I mean, with all due respect.
It, of course, was a raid.
It was not a raid.
They were serving valid process in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States and the state of Florida.
They did it with integrity.
They did it with honor.
And to say it's a raid is disinformation.
And you guys need to- Excuse me.
Excuse me.
Let me just stop here.
Let's just go to the chat by way of one or two.
One, this is believable.
Yes.
One, yes.
This is believable.
Two, no.
This is clearly not believable.
This looks like a mixtape that a kid would make in high school or 15 minutes on his phone on the bathroom in the morning.
Not that I've ever done that.
It gets worse.
It gets worse.
Let me just say, I'm sorry, I've poisoned the well.
This requires a fact check, people.
And by the way, question to ponder right now, Hannity demanded that they take it down, so we're doing this to please Hannity?
Ask yourselves why Reuters is doing this fact check.
Is Reuters doing this fact check to protect Hannity and because Hannity said to take it down?
Hmm.
Let's keep going.
Let's keep going.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
It is ridiculous.
I mean, is anyone watching the disjunct of it?
Okay.
For anybody to call it anything other than that, I don't know what you call a bunch of people unannounced breaking into your home like this and taking whatever they want for themselves.
Hannity's doing a Shmoyoho remix turntable thing with his hands.
Oh, that's exactly the definition right there.
You guys need to look at facts and stop trying to feed narratives.
I understand why you do it.
But it's not supported by facts, and so you should be better than that.
Well, you don't raid the president's home before dawn.
A zoom in.
A zoom in during an interview.
Apparently some people believe.
...of agents for a few documents that may or may not belong to the National Archives.
They, sir, excuse me, excuse me.
No, excuse me.
I'm not going to let you get away with it.
These people do.
Because DeSantis, in an interview, is going to call Sean Hannity, sir.
They've been smeared as the Gestapo for doing their jobs.
They did a search warrant.
Well, call me a skeptic.
I don't buy that for one second.
What you just said is editorializing.
The fact that the FBI, I think this is something else that's very upsetting to the American people, has been focusing their time and energy and resources on this.
What were they supposed to do?
Just ignore it?
Of course not.
Look at Lara Trump's eyes.
They followed protocol.
I don't think they have a thing.
And if they did, it would have been leaked by now.
Okay, now, so I've got so many questions.
First of all, now you get the Simpsons reference.
Let me ask you this.
Is it the role of a fact-checker?
Is it the role of a bona fide fact-checker to fact-check that?
Is this what fact-checkers have become?
They're going to fact-check what is obviously clear satire and parody.
Because somebody took it seriously?
100% believable to the average normie?
I don't think so.
Now here's the question.
And this is the serious question.
Reuters purports that Sean Hannity posted a tweet.
Take this down.
It's fake news.
When is Twitter going to step in?
I saw the tweet myself.
You can go look it up.
It's still there.
The question is this.
Was Sean Hannity trolling?
When is Twitter going to step in?
Was that a troll itself?
I don't know.
I genuinely don't know anymore.
The one thing I do know is that I bet dollars to donuts.
Reuters did not take that down to protect Hannity.
Why?
People, when I posted this, said, Viva, it's clearly edited.
What's your point here?
Others were saying, I was so disappointed in DeSantis.
If there was anybody on the conservative side that believed this and was disappointed in DeSantis or it's so discord within the conservative community, people were now turning on DeSantis or wonder what the heck was going on.
Reuters never makes that fact check to clarify that for conservatives.
Don't get mad at DeSantis when it's obviously parody to anybody and there would be no need to ever make that fact check in the first place.
If it were sowing discord within the conservative community that risked people turning on DeSantis for hypocrisy, I don't think they ever issue this fact check because they don't have to because it's clearly parody and they don't mind that outcome.
They're not doing this to placate Sean Hannity either.
They're not doing this to make Sean Hannity feel good or to make him happy.
They have no problem upsetting Hannity regardless or just not listening to him.
Thanks Hannity.
It's clear satire.
We're not fact checking this.
Get a sense of humor.
I think they're fact-checking it because there were probably a lot of people on the left or people who were neutral or indifferent saying, oh, look at...
People who are sort of anti-Trump now saying, DeSantis is, you know, he might be reasonable.
DeSantis defending a raid on Trump might be reasonable, might be someone worth supporting if he were to decide to run in 2024.
My operating theory is that Reuters did this fact check to make sure that no one grew unjustified or unwarranted in their mind admiration for DeSantis for sticking up for the rate.
That's my theory.
No reason for the air quotes.
I like to do random unnecessary air quotes and just help myself fly away like Chris Farley in that Saturday Night Live skit.
But this highlights the absolute absurdity of fact-checkers.
There's undoubtedly some political motivation to the fact-check because you don't run around fact-checking parody.
I mean, it's almost as stupid as...
I mean, this one is actually a little less stupid than fact-checking the doctored image of Donald Trump on Rocky Balboa's body.
Everyone delete your Twitter and this wouldn't be a problem.
But that's my operating theory.
But let's just understand this a little more, and it's going to segue us into the next subject of the day.
Do I get in trouble for bringing up this avatar?
That looked like the old Indian symbol for peace and love, which was the inverted swastika before it was appropriated by the Yahtzees.
Yeah, so I'm telling you, they ran that fact check.
To make sure that people in the center or people on the left did not grow an accidental admiration for DeSantis thinking he would actually defend the raid on Trump.
They don't realize it's when you go watch DeSantis' original interview that it makes very clear the difference between a justified warrant being executed and a warrant being abused for the purposes of political reprisals.
What did DeSantis say in his response?
We had evidence indicating that the documents were there unlawfully.
We knew that the breach came from an IP address at that house.
That, I didn't see the affidavit in support of that warrant.
That is evidence that you would see in an affidavit in support of the warrant, to justify the warrant.
Why do you need this warrant?
Why do you need to go to this woman's private residence?
We have evidence of a hack and a download and a breach that came from this IP address.
This is her IP address.
What else was there?
I forget what the other element of evidence was.
DeSantis' own response highlights the difference between a proper warrant and an abusive warrant, which is nothing more than a political raid.
I doubt anybody's even going to have gotten that far into the fact check to actually go watch DeSantis' response, which is great.
What else does it highlight?
The absolute hypocrisy of the media when it's a Republican governor executing a warrant on someone.
But I do remember the story briefly now.
Someone who claims that they were fired for refusing to doctor information when that wasn't the case.
When it's a Republican candidate executing a lawful, justified warrant on someone who is actually accused of actually breaking the law, then the media calls it a raid.
They don't understand that this fact-check is a double-fakey, making yourselves look like idiots.
They were harping on DeSantis, saying it was a raid, an abuse of power, when it's a Republican governor doing it to someone they love.
And now, when it's a weaponized, well, let's just call it administrative state, but we'll call it, you know, Biden-supporting entity doing it.
On a Republican, former president, number one contender political adversary of the current administration, then it's justified.
It's not a raid anymore.
And what's the reality so that I'm not, you know, no one accuses me of just saying, well, I'll defend it when it's DeSantis and I'll attack it when it's Trump.
You know what I can probably guarantee you?
The affidavits contained Sufficient information in one case and probably don't contain sufficient information in this case.
One thing I can probably guarantee you, the warrant, even as described in that response, was more circumscribed and more specific in that case and dealt with the actual allegations of that particular case and was not a phishing expedition compared to the warrant in Trump's case.
I can call a spade a spade when we're playing cards.
I'm not going to pretend things are equivalent when they're not.
A warrant which is reasonably circumscribed and is not a general warrant.
We want any and all presidential records created between January 21st, 2017 and January 20th, 2021.
Mm.
How does American maple syrup compare to Canadian?
I haven't had...
I don't like maple syrup all that much.
I used to put it in coffee, but not anymore.
But Vermont maple syrup tastes...
Indistinguishable from Quebec maple syrup.
So that's the issue.
It's not a question of me playing partisan politics either.
You can assess each case on its own merits.
Even in his response, DeSantis offered specific information that you know is in the warrant.
As relates to a warrant, the affidavit in support of the warrant, as relates to a warrant that was specific.
And looking for specific documents as opposed to this fishing expedition based on an affidavit that has not yet been released.
Roman Baber is going to be on the show today at two o 'clock.
In fact, let me do this.
Give me two seconds, peeps.
I'm going to go tweet this out.
Yeah, Roman Baber coming on at two o 'clock.
Okay, let's go here.
Let's go here.
This.
Pause.
I'm getting an ad for Governor DeSantis on a YouTube video.
Interesting.
Give me two seconds.
And at 14 o 'clock, Roman Haber is coming on.
Then at 14.30, Jim Carahalios.
Be there and share the link.
There we go.
It's on Twitter, people.
Share it around.
Oops, here we go.
Share the link and make sure everybody knows.
Okay.
So, yes, Baber's going to be on at 2 o 'clock.
What's the other news of the day?
Have they found the nuclear documents yet?
It's a preposterous world.
I called it at the time, not much of a prediction.
Nuclear documents.
They needed that warrant because Trump had nuclear documents.
Emergency.
No other way to get it.
They had top secret documents.
We only learned about it in June, except the Washington Compost published an article about it in February.
And they execute the warrant, personally approved by Merrick Garland.
Issued by a judge, Bruce Reinhart, who recused himself from a case involving Donald Trump and the Clintons because Bruce Reinhart was an attorney for certain Epstein co-conspirators, Epstein employees, recused himself from that file a month and a half.
I might have said two weeks earlier.
A month and a half.
Prior to signing off on this warrant, conflicted out of a civil matter involving Trump and the Clintons, from a judge who represented Epstein defendants, co-conspirators, or employees, and then a month and a half later, not conflicted, signs off on a warrant, and my understanding, it was 91 days, 92 days prior to the November midterms, because they're not allowed doing anything that might affect an election within 90 days of the election.
Everything's kosher people.
Everything's above board.
Don't ask any questions.
That would be scotastic terrorism.
Merrick Garland comes out and says he personally authorized this seizure raid on a former president and frontrunner, political frontrunner to the current administration.
Okay.
Trump makes it public.
There's debate as to whether or not anyone thought Trump would make it public.
Whether or not they thought they could do this and Trump would be quiet about it and the public would not know about it in order to get outraged about it.
This is Robert Barnes' theory that they thought Trump would be quiet, just, you know, get this over with and don't make a big deal of it and nobody gets embarrassed.
And Trump didn't go that way.
Trump didn't go that way and makes it public.
People flip out.
Rightfully so.
Politically flip out.
People get outraged.
That this is an absolute banana republic move of a weaponized government apparatus, an administrative state, deep state apparatus that is doling out political injustice for the purposes of deterring and terrorizing political adversaries.
Trump makes it public and then the Justice Department says they move to Uh, release to unseal the warrant and the list of exhibits.
We went over that last Friday.
They moved to unseal the warrant and the list of exhibits.
And Trump, in true-to-form troll format, from what I understand, joined in that motion to say, yeah, release it.
We want to see it too.
They released the warrant.
They released the list of exhibits of documents they seized in this raid.
And I'll refer to it as a raid and not as a warrant for seizure of documents because this was a raid based on a generalized warrant, nothing less, maybe even more.
They released the warrant.
Maybe we have to pull up the warrant.
Let's see if I can pull up the warrant real quick.
Hold on.
It was last Friday that...
if we have if you haven't seen the warm we'll just have to do it real quick you Let's see here.
When was it?
August 15. My goodness, that was not even yesterday.
August 14. What was the date on Friday?
It's the 16th today, 15th, 14th, 13th, 12th.
And it was a Jack Posobiec tweet that had the warrant.
Ah, come on.
Jack Posobiec warrant released.
The bottom line, people.
Is that the warrant was a fishing expedition.
Are we going to be able to find this in a time that is not going to drive people crazy?
We're not going to be able to do it.
Okay.
It was any and all documents made within the four years of Trump's presidency.
Anything located in the premises, not in private rooms.
Presidential records.
It was everything.
Nothing specific, nothing circumscribed, certainly nothing that was responding to what would be the required details in an affidavit for a warrant.
And so they released the warrant, they released the list of exhibits of items that they seized, and the list of exhibits of items that they seized...
There was no specificity in it that allowed anyone to determine anything other than the fact that there were photo albums, Roger Stone's documents for his pardon, and then box number 14, box number 12, whatever.
Nothing.
Nothing that allows us to even know what they took, and nothing that allows us to know with any degree of specificity what they were even looking for.
And then people are like, okay, really, you know, the Justice Department made a motion to make public the warrant.
Surely they should also be amenable to making public the affidavit for probable cause that was filed in support of the warrant in order to get the warrant issued.
We might have an interest in understanding what was alleged in the affidavit for probable cause that could have ever justified.
What was effectively nothing more than a general warrant, which, from what I understand under American law, is unconstitutional.
Let's see here.
You would think that.
But no, they don't want to release the warrant.
We're going to find out why.
Now, why am I reading CNN, people?
I know what CNN is.
We're going to get to this guy's video right here in a second.
I know what CNN is.
Partisan garbage.
But I want to know what is the steel man argument that is being presented by the biased partisan garbage.
What is their best argument for why they refuse to release or why the Justice Department is opposing the release of the affidavit?
I think I know.
I think I know.
I just want to see them say it first.
Okay, where is it?
DOJ now opposes making public details In Mar-a-Lago's search warrant's probable cause affidavits, saying it could chill future cooperation.
Isn't that special?
The Justice Department is opposing the release of details in an affidavit that lays out the argument that investigators made to a federal magistrate, a conflicted federal magistrate with a questionable history as a judge, as a lawyer, I should say, explaining the probable cause it had to search former presidents.
Mar-a-Lago State last week, saying it could have a chilling effect on the inquiry.
In their new filing, arguing for some continued secrecy, for some continued secrecy, for now it looks like total continued secrecy, because releasing some information that tells you nothing while insisting on not releasing the information that will tell you something, that's beyond total secrecy.
That's actually misleading.
Oh, look, we're open.
Here's the warrant.
But not the reasons for which we told the judge we needed this warrant.
Effectively, on an urgent basis, to come in with 19 armed agents and raid a former president's house.
In their new filing, they argued for some continued secrecy.
The Justice Department made it clear that the seriousness of the ongoing criminal investigation, saying it implicates highly classified materials.
Where have we heard this before?
Disclosure of the government's affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought, not will be sought, not is being sought, purely perspective.
May be sought.
There may be some witnesses who might get chilled.
How?
As this investigation progresses, as well as...
As well as in other high-profile investigations.
The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential future harm.
The potential harm if the information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly.
Well, here's an idea.
How about you disclose it properly?
It's an amazing thing.
The warrants, which was a blanket, general warrant, everything and anything.
That they can release.
The list of items, because it says nothing, they can release.
The affidavit in support of it, which would detail the why and the urgency and the sheer uniqueness of this situation.
And by the way, when they say it includes, what do they say?
Highly classified materials?
Let me just do this.
Let's just do this.
Washington Post.
Classified materials trumped February 2022.
I don't know if I spell it properly.
Let's just do top secrets.
It's highly classified.
They can't tell you this now.
Some Trump records taken to Mar-a-Lago, clearly marked as classified.
Top secret, February 10, 2022.
It just now became the emergency and they can't disclose anything because it includes highly classified materials.
Or maybe, and just maybe, the public is going to be outraged at the lack of substance to the affidavit for probable cause that was submitted.
To this judge who then...
Uh-oh, did we lose that article?
There we go.
Who then issued a warrant despite being conflicted with Donald Trump.
Media organizations, including CNN, had asked for the affidavit to be unsealed after the search last week.
The Justice Department said in its filing that disclosing the affidavit details at this juncture would cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.
There's nothing better than secret trials, secret courts, secret raids.
They go public, but they only go public with certain details, and then they run to the media to leak other details, like Merrick Garland did after his Wednesday or Thursday public speech last week.
All I can say is that the FBI is good, unquestionable, patriotic, can't say anything more than that, and then two hours later leaking inaccurate information to the media.
The Justice Department said, yada, yada, yada.
The redactions necessary to mitigate harms to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive as to render the remaining unsealed text devoid of meaningful content, and the release of such a redacted version would not serve any public interest, said the Justice Department.
CNN joined the Washington Post, yada, yada, yada, asked the judge last week to unseal his documents, including any probable cause affidavits connected to the FBI search.
Not since the Nixon administration has a president been subject of such a dramatic and public criminal process, the outlet said in the filing, adding that the outlets are, quote, attempting to shed light on the federal government's unprecedented actions and motivation.
Oh, they're very noble.
The media all of a sudden is very noble.
You know what I can guarantee you?
If there were damning information or details in that affidavit for probable cause, it would have already been leaked to this media.
I'm just reading a chat here.
Viva, the judge is going to do an in-person open the affidavit.
I think that's a joke.
Tucker Carlson's breakdown last night was epic.
Worth the watch.
I suspect that if there were any damning information in that affidavit, it would already have been leaked, at least in part.
Viva, could Trump argue for the release of the affidavit by pointing to Clinesmith and the FBI's past lies to get warrants against him?
I don't know criminal procedure in the States.
I don't know if...
Maybe the chat knows if Trump has even seen the affidavit for probable cause.
I suspect he...
I mean, he could not have seen it.
So he gets served with the warrant.
Yeah, I'll actually...
I'll ask Barnes tomorrow or I'll ask other lawyers and tweet the clarification.
I don't know what the process would be for Trump himself.
Petitioning the court to see the affidavit for probable cause.
On the one hand, I mean, I don't know how he could possibly have access to it if the reasons for which the Justice Department doesn't want to make it public.
I mean, Trump knows who the witnesses are, who the leakers are, who the whistleblowers are.
That would compromise an investigation.
The idea that they can't redact it and at least provide the...
Factual allegations to justify the necessity for this.
I don't believe it.
And if there was anything in there already, it would have come out.
Where's the article?
Where's the article?
I put it on the back burner now.
Here we go.
Here there could not be a more historically significant event than the FBI raiding the former president's home for the alleged removal.
We know that.
We know that.
New York Times, all these other places, they requested the affidavits.
A magistrate judge unsealed the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and property receipt on Friday after Justice Department lawyers and lawyers for the former president agreed they should be released.
Other parts of the search warrant, including the probable cause affidavit, were not addressed at the time.
Trump's team does not have access to the G.O. There's our answer right there.
Trump's team does not have access to the DOJ's affidavit, though it was reviewed confidentially by the judge before the search.
By which judge?
The one who was conflicted out of a file?
The one who stamped the warrant?
Yeah.
But bearing in mind, people, that last That last chat, talking about Kleinsmith, the last time the FBI did this, specifically in respect of Trump as well, 2017, they falsified evidence, submitted it to a judge who then rubber-stamped off on a renewal of a FISA warrant.
The search warrant made public identifies violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records as reasons for the search.
Those are the reasons for the search.
Then we get into the receipt.
Republicans have continued to demand that the Justice Department explain its reasoning for taking the dramatic step to search Mar-a-Lago, with some along with Trump's circle of advisors trying to downplay the seriousness of the documents.
But the DOJ's filing on Tuesday disputes that demand by saying the investigation deals with highly classified information that they've known, at the very least, that they purport to have known about since February 2022.
What else is there in here?
Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota said on NBC's Meet the Press that releasing the affidavit would help.
At least that would confirm that there was justification for the raid.
Yeah, unless releasing it would reveal that there's no justification for the raid and that it's a pure political shenanigan.
And by the way, Merrick Garland signed off on it personally.
So what happens now if this...
Affidavit for probable cause actually shows no meaningful probable cause to possibly warrant this unprecedented historic raid of a former president's house and Merrick Garland personally signed off on it.
What happens then?
What happens when the attorney, what's his name, AG, the head of the Justice Department, Merrick Garland, gets outed for potentially, maybe, arguably, maybe it's got the best information in the world.
Maybe there's a fang-fang.
In Trump's inner circle, Fang Fang is Eric Swalwell's alleged Chinese girlfriend spy.
I say Chinese not because that matters, just because it's the Chinese spy aspect that's the relevant alleged girlfriend, Fang Fang.
Maybe there's a Fang Fang mole within the Trump department who has, this time they've got him, people.
This time, they've so got him, they don't even have to falsify the evidence.
Maybe.
Or maybe not.
And Merrick Garland personally signed off.
On an arbitrary, baseless, abusive search warrant that they then found the right magistrate to rubber stamp as well for what is nothing more than potentially the most scandalous political move in the history of American politics.
Maybe.
Notice that they won't discuss Hunter Biden, but will give all damning evidence they have related to Trump.
Well, I notice if it's...
Knowing that they had classified information.
Oh my gosh.
Knowing that they had classified information.
It's serious.
That's why they had to do this.
But not with the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State admitted that she had recognized that she had classified documents on an unsecured external server.
Not then.
You know what?
And that might be the good segue.
It's not the whataboutism.
It's the double standard.
First of all, everybody should appreciate that paper documents behind a lock and key is exponentially safer than digital documents on an unsecured external server.
Exponentially.
Technically, someone can still go look at those paper documents, make photocopies, and take a picture.
That would have to happen pretty much one person at a time after they're let in behind a door.
Digital documents on a digital server, on an external unsecured server, that is pretty much open to anybody and everybody in the world all the time.
And they don't even need to make physical copies.
They can make digital copies.
So to purport that this warrants what happened, whereas other stuff didn't warn what didn't happen, is an exercise in stupidity.
That and also, Trump is the president.
One question in all of this is whether or not Trump declassified everything that he took or was in the process of disputing it, discussing it with National Archives, however that works.
That's one question.
It's a question that you don't ask with a Secretary of State who doesn't have the power to declassify classified documents in the first place.
Oh, and by the way, there was an article that came out.
That said, you know, when it comes to Hillary, let's just set aside the fact that she's a secretary of state, could not declassify the documents, period.
That it's digital documents on an unsecured external server, which is exponentially more exposed than hard copies behind lock and key at Trump's tower of Mar-a-Lago.
The fact checkers are now coming out and saying the documents were less obviously classified for Hillary.
Hold on.
We'll get there right now after this.
Imagine this.
FBI used to get sensitive documents from former president.
FBI gets dismantled, but there just happens to be ten thousands of positions open in the IRS.
Not bad.
Not bad.
It's an interesting way of scripting this movie.
And then what was this one here?
Wasn't the conflict that caused this judge's recusal technically a conflict with the Clintons and not Trump, so not a conflict in this case?
Well, that is the argument.
We don't know what exactly was the nature of the conflict.
But the general argument would be that when you're conflicted with parties, it will give the appearance of lacking transparency.
A judge recuses himself from a file involving two parties.
And then doesn't recuse himself in another file involving one of the two parties in a file from which he recused himself.
They say that, I don't know how it works in the States, maybe that would be okay, but there's the issue that it's the impression of, oh geez, what's the word?
Lack of partiality.
And not actually the presence of lack of partiality.
A judge who's already recused himself in a file involving two parties, there's going to be an issue, at the very least, of an appearance of partiality or an appearance of a problem.
When they don't recuse themselves a month later in another file involving only one party.
So yeah, that's the argument.
I had asked that during one of our streams as well because the theory is that he recused himself because of his connection to the Epsteins, which kind of says something about Epsteins and the Clintons that one Alex Jones made a point about on the stand.
It shows that there might be some connections that some people try to deny.
But on the bottom line of it, a judge that recuses themselves in a file involving two parties a month and a half earlier then signs off on a warrant involving one of those parties a month and a half later, that might give the impression, even if it's not there, of some problematic bias partiality.
I looked this up the other day.
It said only nine times.
Epstein visited...
Oh, the Clinton White House.
I'm sorry.
Epstein visited the Clinton White House 12 times.
I believe it was Clinton, Bill Clinton, who flew on the Lolita Express at least nine times that they knew of without security detail on some of those occasions, from what I understand.
But let's just see how the media mitigates...
How the media mitigates bad facts.
PolitiFact.
Is there a way to ask for money from PolitiFact?
Comparing Hillary Clinton's emails to Donald Trump's boxes of files.
Hold on.
Do we all see what they did there?
Does everyone see this?
Comparing her emails, it's like, it's like, it's like Lionel Hutz.
There's the truth and the truth.
Comparing Hillary's emails, 30,000 emails.
Comparing her emails to Trump's boxes of files.
One is small, just a few emails.
Hey, by the way, PolitiFact fake fact checkers, print up 30,000 emails, see how many boxes of files that fills up.
But they're already minimizing it.
Comparing Hillary's itty-bitty-bitty-bitty emails, just a little online shopping, to Trump's boxes of files.
Okay, right there in the headline, some people might not even pick up on that trick of psychological manipulation.
Let me see if the chat is telling me how funny and smart I am.
Okay, good.
I feel better.
If your time is short, the National Archives in February said it had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records that former President Donald Trump had taken to his home in Mar-a-Lago.
This was a breach of the Presidential Records Act.
I'm not convinced that that's true.
Politifact.
Archives said it had recovered.
I think they mean identified or recovered.
Okay.
Some of the documents were marked classified national security in February people.
Hillary Clinton used a private email address for exchanges with her State Department staff.
State Department.
In three instances, email chains included information with ambiguous classification markings.
In three, a fact check is straight up lying here.
I'm gonna have to go find that Comey clip where he details the documentation that was marked classified at the time.
And remember, just remember, does anybody remember the goalposts?
I didn't have, I mean, I think it actually started with, I never had an external server.
Okay, I had an external server, but it was for personal use.
Okay, it wasn't for personal use.
I used it for work sometimes, but it didn't have any classified information.
Okay, it had classified information, but that information wasn't classified at the time.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It had classified information at the time on the external server that I had outside of proper security.
Does everyone remember that exact moving goalpost argument that we had to endure with anybody who had the discussion?
It never happened.
Okay, it happened, but it wasn't a problem.
Okay, it happened, but it was a problem, but it wasn't that big of a problem.
Okay, it was that big of a problem.
I'm sorry.
Ding, ding, ding.
Uh...
Yeah.
Yes, Rockstar Murray, thank you.
I am not.
I'm not.
I just want to make sure that I'm not actually boring people and that I actually add some insight to people's day and understanding of the world around them.
Biddy biddy box.
A little bit, oh God.
I'd like to remember exactly what the moving target was, but I do remember.
I don't have it.
Okay, I have it, but it was for personal use.
Okay, I have it, and I used it for work stuff, but it was not classified.
Okay, there was classified stuff on it, but it was not classified at the time.
Oops, I'm screwed, but I'm better than Trump.
That was the argument.
Soon after FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago estate, former President Donald Trump posted a statement decrying the, quote, I agree.
He called the search, quote, political targeting at the highest level.
I agree.
And contrasted what was happening to him with what happened.
I'm sorry, with what didn't happen.
Hillary Clinton was allowed to delete and acid wash 33,000 emails.
After they were subpoenaed by Congress.
This happened, people.
Absolutely nothing happened to her to hold her accountable.
This is the reality of what actually happened.
What do you mean?
Did I wipe it with a cloth?
I'm so funny.
It's my first day.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, chants of lock her up, lock her up were regular features at Trump rallies.
I think that I actually was not that much of a fan of the lock her up, lock her up.
I think.
Even though I think she should have gone to trial.
Or there should have been some system in place to determine whether or not she broke the law and dole out the proper and appropriate and proportionate sanction.
While she was never charged, not only was she not raided, she was never charged.
Clinton's use of private email account for exchanges with her staff.
By the way, it was with more than her staff.
Dude, just go to WikiLeaks.
It was more than her staff, you lying con artists at PolitiFact.
During her time, the Secretary of State drew an FBI investigation.
Now, according to new accounts, the Justice Department is probing Trump and the classified documents he took with him to Mar-a-Lago.
Okay, fine.
We explore the legal risks Trump's faces in a related article.
Oh, yeah.
Go there if you want to be misled and bamboozled.
Clinton's emails.
Do we need to go into this?
No, we'll skip here.
Ultimately, Clinton paid a political, not a legal price, yada, yada, yada.
Trump's documents.
The details of the warrant behind the search of Trump's residence remain unclear.
We do know that Trump crossed swords with the National Archives.
I visualize crossed paths for some reason.
When it was learned that he had taken official records with him when he left the White House.
So they knew, at least from February, but probably from the day he left the White House, I'm going to suspect because he didn't do it without notifying people.
I'm just going to hypothesize that.
It's not because I like Trump.
It's not because I presume he's infallible.
I'm just going to presume he's not stupid.
Although some people out there think he's the dumbest person on earth, yet capable of the most insidious, double secret, super duper, ultra mega probation spying.
The Presidential Records Act requires that everything go to the archives.
And that he's allowed taking copies of certain things is my understanding.
Not that he can't keep anything because then Barack Obama would be in trouble.
Presidential Records Act requires that certain copies of records or originals be preserved.
It doesn't preclude someone from retaining copies or originals to the extent that the archives have what they need.
Head of the archives told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in February.
That his agency had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records.
By the way, you know what the itemized list stopped at?
I think it stopped at 14. Boxes.
They still listed the boxes by the numbers that they had identified them as in February 2022.
He identified items marked as classified national security information.
NC.
Is that CNSI?
Okay, yada, yada, yada.
Okay, let's skip this.
In 2018...
In 2018, about halfway through Trump's presidency, the National Archives learned that Trump was tearing up documents, another breach of the rules.
Oh, I was going to make a joke, like Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union address.
And then people were like, that's destruction of National Records Archives.
Not if they have a copy.
Not if it was a copy.
I'm sure Trump is just running around tearing up nuclear codes.
All day long, Trump just runs around the White House naked with this pacifier in his mouth, tearing up documents.
White House staff were attempting to tape them back together for told the White House committee.
All the White House staff during the Trump administration recovered the tapes together.
Some of the torn up records, a number of other records that were transferred had not been reconstructed by the White House.
This is Ferrero's testimony in February.
A key difference between the two.
Let's just hear the spin, people.
Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who works on national security cases, said that Clinton and Trump are significantly different.
Yep.
One's the president.
One's the secretary of state.
One had physical copies behind lock and key.
The other had classified information on an OCR.
Let's hear what he has to say.
What's he supposed to do?
Make paper airplanes out of them?
And sorted them in an unsecured location in his residence.
I'm sorry.
I think an unsecured location in his residence is an oxymoron.
I think it's a contradiction in terms.
His residence is a secured location.
I think.
I would argue at least.
The presence of classified information in Clinton's emails was less obvious.
Oh, you mean like the Secretary of State didn't know that that little C in the top right corner meant classified?
These emails were never marked as classified because there were communications from unclassical...
These emails were never marked as classified because these were communications from unclassified government accounts, Moss said.
I believe this is a lie.
There were documents that Comey identified as marked as classified.
In three instances, email chains included information with classification markers.
It was never clear that Clinton was aware of the presence of the marker.
Oh, my sweet, merciful goodness.
It was never clear that Clinton was aware of the presence of that marked information, or if the classification marking was clear.
As for the personal...
Oh, it doesn't even matter.
Moss cautioned that while some documents at Mar-a-Lago were clearly marked as classified, had they been declassified?
Many questions remain such as where the records were originally located, who boxed them up, when Trump and K.R.R.
were the existence of the records of Marlowe, I noticed he didn't ask the question as to whether or not Trump had declassified any of them.
That's PolitiFact right there, people.
Running the hardest cover, humanly possible, for Hillary Clinton.
Viva, you're smart and funny.
Thank you.
And not good looking?
Anonymous?
I'm joking.
Thank you very much.
And then there was a few more here.
Neil Oliver wakes up with Dr. Tess Laurie.
Full episode number one.
Please watch this when you have the time.
Amazing.
Love the show.
Grateful and thankful.
Nova.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go ahead and watch that.
I screen grabbed it.
Is it me?
Or does it just feel like we all went to sleep and woke up in the twilight zone?
It does to me.
It does to me when we get into stochastic terrorism.
And we're going to do that before Roman Baber.
Let's just see.
Let's just see how we're doing on the green light, yellow light.
Wait a minute.
Hasn't come up yet.
Refresh, people.
We're still good.
Good.
Would you consider joining Truth Social?
Would like to see your presence out on there.
I'd consider it.
I mean, as a matter of fact, I just can't get it on my phone because I still have a Canadian operating system and it's not an app available in Canada.
On the other hand, I like being the thorn in Twitter, but I have nothing against it.
At some point also, just too many apps, too many platforms, too many platforms through which additional messaging just adds baggage.
to the day.
Is Roman Baber on the show today?
Yes, we got that.
And 30,000 emails, let's say one page per email, 500 sheets per Okay, thank you, thank you.
Sometimes I'm a little too fast and furious with my pages.
I have no idea what's going on there.
So that's the latest.
We need to see that affidavit.
And not in the sense of unlawfully.
They need to release that.
They need to release it.
Redact it.
Don't redact it like some of those documents coming out of lawsuits where you get three words on a page.
Here's the problem I have with the argument for it needs to be redacted.
The allegations in it were necessary for the warrant and the seizure.
It's the affidavit for probable cause for issuance of the warrant.
To say that they can tell him what alleged crimes he's supposedly, in theory, accused of having violated.
What documents they're looking for.
To then say, well, we can't provide the evidence.
That warranted the seizure because it would compromise our investigation.
What does it sound like to me?
It sounds like to me a little bit of that old expression, show me the man and I will find you the crime, a well-known proverb of communist Russia.
To me, it sounds like, holy crap, people, we're getting a little bit too much scrutiny here and our affidavit is not going to justify this and now the public is enraged and if we show them this affidavit and it just says...
We think he broke the espionage act.
We want to see it.
People are going to flip out even more, so we better go make sure that we can find something to charge him with, because at least if we indict him, that will pacify half of the frothing mob, and then they won't care about the fact that the affidavit never justified that in the first place.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Thank you, Anonymous.
Scottastic what?
Scottastic terrorism is the term.
What else?
Thank you.
Let's see.
Twitter is a leftist hate sewer.
Cancel Twitter.
It's definitely a black hole of nastiness.
But I realize now, I started this stream with the stochastic terrorism, and I didn't bring up the tweets about the stochastic terrorism.
Let me do it.
Let me just find this here.
Oh, well, hold on.
Hold on a second.
The Justice Department made a motion to unseal the warrant and list of items, but they want to keep the affidavit in support of it.
Nothing fishy about that.
You just love it.
New York Times, Justice Department, in full transparency, moves to have the warrant in Trump's search released.
A week later, Justice Department opposes unsealing the affidavit.
We're for full transparency when we want it.
If you wanted charming and beautiful, you should have reconsidered the secret smell.
Someone's going to have to go back and watch yesterday's stream if they don't get the secret deodorant mullet, what I wanted.
I can, oh my gosh, you know what?
If I cut my hair, I could have the nastiest.
What's a fro mullet called?
Is there a word for that?
A mullet?
An Afro mullet.
I got good names for that.
Okay.
So we did this.
Sorry, I can't find the Scottastic terrorism.
Is this it?
You know what?
We're just going to have to...
Well, this is my Twitter.
Let's just go for it.
Okay.
So people were calling out these doctors from the Boston Children's Hospital.
Talking about transition therapy for transgender kids, we're talking about.
There was another doctor from Pittsburgh Hospital saying that puberty blockers, they're just something that say, hey, let's put a pause on puberty.
And people were getting mad.
And one person called it stochastic terrorism.
One person who is...
A professor at University of Toronto.
Tagging the RCMP.
I mean, this is also just where...
This is what a mob does.
Tag RCMP like they don't have actual crimes to deal with.
Hey, RCMP, you need eyes on Billboard Chris.
So they're attempting to...
This is effectively swatting, by the way.
This is a form of digital swatting.
And to think it's appropriate and that it shouldn't itself be a crime and that this person, for the greater good, is attempting to sick the RCMP.
That's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the dudes on horses up in Canada.
Attempting to sick the police on a private individual, this is no better than swatting.
This is swatting of a digital nature.
Hey, police, you need eyes on Billboard Chris, who's engaging in stochastic terrorism and eliminationist rhetoric.
Concerning trans and LGBTQ plus people.
He is literally, literally, this seems like a Rachel Maddow literally, inciting people to harm medical professionals.
And we have hate speech laws.
Do it now!
Before someone.
Hashtag every fear hides a wish.
So just appreciate what's going on.
You haven't seen the tweet from Billboard Chris because he's literally.
Inciting harm, literally.
Which means he must have said, go out and harm medical professionals.
What was the tweet?
This, apparently.
This message has been sent to all employees of Boston Children's Hospital.
The employees who sent this to me said, they are getting hammered.
Metaphorical as in they are getting flack, blowback, negative feedback for this advisor.
Sorry, not for the advisor.
The advisor is saying they're getting...
They're getting blowback because of public statements they've made about procedures that they give to children who say they want to transition.
But this person who is accusing someone of stochastic terrorism, are we looking at the same thing?
Stochastic terrorism and eliminationist rhetoric by literally inciting harm where there was no literal and there was no incitement of any harm.
Tag the police.
Get them in trouble.
The person's name is Dr. Ruth is kicking against the pricks.
Talking about rhetoric of harm.
Kicking against the pricks.
Tag is what the F is to be done and a professor at University of Toronto.
Stochastic terrorism, people.
And then you got celebrated the fact that providers At Boston Children's Hospital are being harassed and receiving death threats.
I don't think that's what he was doing at all.
At all.
Unless criticizing and then sharing the email that they got internally saying, we've been getting a lot of harassment.
A lot of aggressive messages coming in.
And here's an advisory.
And he says, this is what someone sent me.
Apparently, and I'm quoting the person who sent it to me, they're getting hammered and they take this as stochastic terrorism and, what did he say?
Celebrating the fact that they're receiving death threats.
I don't see any celebration in there.
And I don't know Billboard Chris well, although I've now come to talk with him and we might actually do a live stream together.
I know a bit about his story.
I don't think Chris is that type of person to celebrate violence, to celebrate threats.
I think that, if I dare say, is a little confession through projection.
A little people imputing on others what they themselves actually feel when it's the right kind of threats, the right kind of intimidation.
And I said, I don't think that's what's going on here.
In Billboard Chris's tweet, but are people not allowed expressing their discontent with doctors who tell parents and children that puberty blockers are just a way of saying, hey, let's just put a pause on puberty.
Puberty blockers are basically a medication that says, hey, let's just put a pause on puberty.
Puberty blockers are basically a medication that says, hey, let's just put a pause on puberty.
And now, so nobody accuses me of just taking that out of context for the sake of it.
The fuller clip is even more shocking.
Hi, my name is Priya Dar.
I'm one of the doctors at the Center for Adolescent and Young Adult Health here at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.
I wanted to talk to you guys today a little bit about puberty blockers.
Puberty blockers are basically a medication that says, "Hey, let's just put a pause on puberty." And that can be really beneficial for younger kids who have already started the puberty process who either might go through a lot of psychological distress as they go through puberty if they're struggling with gender dysphoria.
Or for somebody who's saying, hey, I'm not really sure if I feel comfortable in my body or what gender I truly identify with.
Hey, doctor, are you telling me that the only consequence to puberty blockers is they just say very politely to your hormones of a developing child?
Let's put a pause on puberty.
We'll get back to you, puberty, when we're ready, if we decide to.
And no other consequences than that.
Puberty comes right back when you're 20 years old, 18, 22. Is that what you're saying, doctor?
Because I don't think that that's factually, scientifically, medically correct.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm just a lawyer.
If that is, in fact, what you're saying, am I allowed expressing my outrage?
Am I allowed saying, I think this, in a normal, sane universe, probably qualifies as child abuse?
Am I allowed saying that?
If I say that, doctor, because we do live in a world that respects freedom of speech, is that wrong?
Am I not allowed saying that?
Is me expressing politely and respectfully my discontent with what I think is egregious, over-the-top misinformation, or at the very least concealment of detrimental information, that qualifies as abusing of children, am I engaging in stochastic terrorism because I do that?
Is now any form of public scrutiny, public critique, Stochastic terrorism.
Celebrating the threats that might come.
And by the way, people, again, I'll say it every day.
Don't threaten people.
Don't send those emails because those emails then come back and are used to say, look, now you can't even criticize us because it's stochastic terrorism.
Hold on.
I want to bring this up here.
Someone is enlightening us.
You can make a truth account on PC.
I have a Mac, so I can't do that.
Telling the RCMP to investigate someone over Twitter is just virtue signaling as the RCMP doesn't follow tweets up.
Don't give them any ideas, Stephen.
They're going to call in the police this time.
Hopefully get laughed out of the room or maybe get a ticket for phoning in false claims.
I'm not getting into that, I'm your guy, buddy, but maybe I'll ask Barnes if he can do a hush-hush on that.
What I wanted to get...
Was the super chat explaining what stochastic meant.
Looks like it, like a great many other fancy words, is rooted in the Greek word stochism, which is to think, basically thought terrorism.
Accurate.
Well, hold on one second, Alexandros Marinos.
Which one is the thought terrorism in this?
Is the thought terrorism the one that says you can't criticize because it's terrorism?
It's interesting, actually.
Stochastic.
Now I'm wondering what staccato means.
If staccato has anything to do with stochastic.
It has a root in the Greek word stachosome, which is to think.
Stachosome.
Basically a thought.
Interesting.
But that is...
People don't need to be told not to threaten and not to harass because the people who do it, it's like the whole law-abiding citizen versus criminals.
The people who do it don't need to be told that it's wrong.
They're doing it, despite knowing it's wrong, for a variety of other reasons.
It's counterproductive.
I don't think it's right.
And I don't think it does good for anybody.
And also, don't do it.
It's illegal.
But, expressing your discon...
How about if they're getting hammered because they're just getting flooded by parents saying, what the hell are you saying online?
Why is the Boston Children's Hospital now apparently coming out?
As trans rights activists and putting a message out there which is probably going to influence people and not treat existing people.
People know when they have issues that need to be treated that they go to a doctor.
I have a problem with advertising medications in general.
This is beyond advertising medications.
This is activism for what is designated by the DSM-5 as gender dysphoria, a mental...
That is categorized in the DSM-5.
And they're basically promoting it, amplifying it.
And it's an amazing thing.
What happens when people do this?
More people start thinking about it.
More people start thinking they have it.
And it becomes a social issue and not a medical one.
Gender dysphoria is a medical term.
It's a medical condition.
I won't say a medical issue.
It's a medical condition.
That's why it's identified.
That's why there's treatments.
That's why there's therapy.
But now they're coming out and wholesale publicizing and marketing transition therapy, puberty blockers, on the basis that all that they do, all that they do, according to this doctor, is say, hey, puberty, let's just put a pause on that.
It's no bigger than that.
And if parents come, oh, it just puts a pause on it so I can get back to it in four years?
And then four years later, oh, what's that?
I'm not responding to puberty?
Does nobody know what happened with these Russian gymnasts, with gymnasts in general, because of the exertion that they...
Output in sports, it stunts their development because it delays their puberty, it delays their period, so they don't develop, which is why they end up having certain specifically identifiable physiques, and I say it without judgment.
Oh, no.
And then when they're 18, 19, they say, yeah, you know what?
It was just a phase.
I found other ways to cope with it.
Oh, sorry about that.
You're never going through normal puberty.
Your bone density is never going to get to where it would have otherwise been.
Oh, what's that?
You might have actually had a double mastectomy like Chloe Cole, who I just started following on Twitter.
Too late for that.
Oh, we can rebuild those things, but not the mammary glands in them.
So enjoy the rest of your life because as a kid, you had parents who were following medical advice that said, puberty blockers just put a pause on it.
Mystectomies just remove them.
We can rebuild later.
Brandon Lesko says these people are either mentally ill, trying to use cognitive dissonance to create a void to fill, or just crazy.
Aren't they engaged in stochastic terrorism by continually putting random variables into thought arguments?
Aren't they guilty of stochastic harassment?
Or stochastic...
What's the word I just said earlier?
When the cops come?
Stochastic swatting.
By just going out on Twitter, tagging the police, and trying to get people in trouble for a tweet.
Not a threatening tweet.
Not a harassing tweet.
Not a criminal tweet.
A tweet.
Tweet.
So that was stochastic, people.
Oh, I'm going to see when Roman Baber gets in here.
Should be here in a few minutes.
Hold on.
Let me see here.
My wife, she's texting me.
Will you be done by 3.15?
I should be done by 3.15.
Apparently, Apparently, I just got another text that there's a Trump hearing near me.
Hmm.
Might have to go to court and do some documentation.
Okay.
So, oh yeah, hold on.
That's what I was going to do.
Booty call.
Dude, is it called a booty call when it's your wife?
My wife?
Let me see if Roman Baber is...
I'm just going to make sure that he's on time or he is still there, still good.
Dun-dun-dun-dun-dun.
I think she can hear me through the wall.
Thank you.
Still good, question mark?
We've got a nice crowd, smiley face.
Stochastic.
All right.
And then we have a couple of more stories which I'll get to maybe afterwards.
Hold on.
Let me just close up some windows so I can...
Feel less anxious about all of these things in the back.
Oh, what was the PolitiFact on fact?
Oh, yeah, no, this was just National Archives said it had recovered government documents in Mar-a-Lago.
The presence of the information classification on Hillary's.
Yeah, we got that.
Preposterous.
So I was talking with in the Locals exclusive before we got started.
Where someone's saying, you know, these judges, activist judges, can't they be removed from the bench, you know, through impeachment or removal or sanctions or whatever?
I was like, you know, I don't know how it works in the States.
All that I know is in Canada, it's so difficult.
You have to do things like, literally, this was a case, and I don't remember if or when the judge ever was formally disbarred, but former Quebec judge convicted of killing wife to be freed ahead of new murder trial.
This was, when was this?
2021.
Dalil, the judge, was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife and was sentenced to life in prison.
He calls himself a victim of judicial error.
Now, let's just see if he was ever disbarred.
Let's see.
Uh...
Francois Huard removed from bench.
And it drives me nuts that I wish...
This came up spontaneously.
Removed from bench.
Let's just see if we can find this.
I'm not getting the answer.
Anyhow, I don't know what the rules are in the States, but no.
Generally, to be removed from the bench, it has to be egregious, and even in the presence sometimes of criminal conviction, not enough.
Check out...
X Sulancic on Rumble Odyssey.
Get her on your show.
She has a series of depth videos on BCH.
Oh, that's Boston Children's Hospital.
Sinister Practices and much, much more.
Banned on YouTube.
Trigonometry interviewed her as well.
Okay, screen grabbed and we'll see.
And then there was another one.
Viva, you missed my second super chat where I finished my thought about scotastic terrorism and naming someone that...
Naming someone that...
Oh, don't give a super chat, Steve, but I missed it.
I don't think I can go back.
Is the hearing on today, people?
The hearing, is it?
I don't think I can go today, so I'm just hoping it's not on today.
The hearing, for anybody who knows, when is it?
When is it?
Oh, and by the way, I forgot to look on the Rumbles.
See if I missed anything there.
Oh, I see Roman Baber in the backdrop, people.
It's going to get interesting.
Did I miss any Rumble rants?
Before we get to Roman Baber, who's running.
So for the brief rundown.
Roman Baber.
Is running for Member of Provincial Parliament.
I like Roman.
I told him, and I'll tell everybody else, still won't vote Conservative as a party.
But if I were voting for the leadership, I'd probably vote for Baber.
Who knows?
But I told him, they're going to have to earn my vote back with blood, sweat, and tears.
No, not blood.
That can be taken the wrong way these days.
Sweat and tears.
Roman, I'm coming in.
Get ready.
Okay, he's ready.
He's running for office, running for the head of the Conservative leadership against Pierre Poilievre, and we're going to get the update, people.
The lowdown.
Roman, sir, how are you doing?
Good to be with you.
Good to have you back here.
So what's the 30,000-foot overview for those who don't know who you are?
What are you doing?
And I have a lot of questions just to the update right now.
To those that are not as well familiar with me, four years ago, five years ago, I was elected as Member of Provincial Parliament.
The District of York Centre in Toronto.
And I was chair of the Justice Committee.
Steered clear.
And then a couple of years ago, I made a decision that I wasn't going to watch my former Doug Ford government continue to inflict harm on Canadians.
And so I authored a sensible, moderate letter to the Premier asking that we factor in the collateral harm, the disastrous harm of lockdowns into our public health response.
And unfortunately, the government didn't see too kindly to that.
And I was removed from the Ontario PC caucus.
Since then, I consider I continue to fight for our democracy, our children, against lockdowns, against passports, against mandates.
And I invite yourself and your viewers to join me and work with me and compete with me until every single Canadian has every single one of their rights fully restored.
Okay, now, Roman, what is your website where people can go and see your platform, see your policies?
JordanRoman.ca Jordan Roman.
No, join.
Join Roman.ca.
Okay.
Now let's get an update on where things are at.
You're running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Tell everybody, not to give free publicity to your competitors, but who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party?
So we have five candidates in total in the race.
This is after Patrick Brown was removed by the Conservative Party from the race.
We have remaining myself, Pierre Poilievre, Jean Charest, Lesley Lewis, and Scott Atchison.
The race is almost at its conclusion.
Ballots are coming in.
And to those of you that are Conservative Party members, I ask you to please mail your ballot this week.
You probably have another week left until you're pushing it very close with elections with Canada Post.
Your ballot is due on September 6th.
If you're going to get it in, you should send it in this week by mail.
I want to go through each of those candidates one by one.
Let me just ask this.
Is there any internal polling?
To show who might be leading, who might be trailing, or to show where the respective candidates stand in respect of each other?
There's a lot of polling out there.
There's no question that Pierre Polyev is running a very strong race.
He, of course, has excellent social media presence and enjoyed the benefit of being a shadow minister of finance for a number of years.
Quite a vocal guy.
There's some thinking that maybe Jean Charest is also competitive, although I'm not exactly sure.
Look, Viva, at the end of the day, David, it's very, very important that we emerge as united.
And I appreciate that there are many dissenting opinions within the party, and I agree with some of my friends more than others.
But I can't conceive the return of another liberal government.
And that's a bone I've got to pick with you gently.
Do it.
I mean, now's the time.
Your argument, Roman, is going to be we have to vote Conservative, abandon the PPC, because it's your best option.
If you split the vote with the PPC, a Liberal government might come in with a minority or a coalition with the NDP.
Look, I say to folks that I meet on the road all the time, I appreciate why many former Conservative voters or voters generally went and voted for the PPC.
I understand.
I understand.
That a lot feel that the Conservative Party has abandoned them.
That it did not stand up for them in the last couple of years against the mandates, against the passports, did not defend their children against the mental health pandemic that's been perpetuated against them.
I agree.
The Conservative Party used to stand on principle.
That's what distinguished it from the Liberals.
And in fact, that's why I ask for your viewers' vote, those that are voting in this leadership, is that they help me shake up the Conservative Party.
So they stand on principle again, and they remember that we need to say what we believe and do what we believe is right, even when it's unpopular, and certainly not wait for the trucker convoy to come to town and rescue us or liberate us.
So I've been on this for a couple of years now.
I've been the only elected mainstream conservative that opposed the common narrative.
Look, I don't disagree with you.
They were afraid to be canceled.
They were afraid to be kicked out of caucus.
They're afraid to be cancelled by the culture mob or the Twitter mob, what have you.
I'm running to restore a culture of responsibility and conscience to the Conservative Party.
But if you maybe tee me up for another question with respect to bringing you back or anyone else back, I should probably stop and take a breath.
Take a breath there.
I got other questions that I want to ask in the meantime.
I'm just looking at some stats in the back.
I can't find any, but it doesn't look like Charest is even close.
I got a question about Charest.
He's a liberal.
I mean, am I wrong or was he not a liberal at one point in his life?
Okay, so I'm not here to speak for or defend any other candidate in the race.
Oh, no, that's not a defense.
I don't understand what makes Charest even a conservative in any sense.
Well, first of all, the democratic process does not preclude you.
If you're a party member and you want to contest a nomination, then provided you have nothing checkered.
Nothing, no criminal record.
You should be able to contest a nomination.
The issue that we have to consider is that the political rail in Quebec is very different than it is in the rest of Canada.
I joke with some people that Quebec conservatives are liberals.
And we also have to appreciate that we have a different flavor of conservatives coast to coast.
In British Columbia, you don't even have conservatives.
And at the same time, the NDP government, arguably the NDP slash Green government, In British Columbia was a lot more right-wing than the Doug Ford government in Ontario on COVID response.
They didn't have schools closed as much.
They didn't have a mandate, a mask mandate that went on for that long.
So I'm not even sure that some of these things are applicable anymore.
And I'm going to tell you, Jean Charest and myself, we don't agree on many things.
Maybe four out of five.
Sorry, four out of ten.
Five out of ten at best.
But I still...
Believe that we have to welcome all flavor of conservatives, and that includes red Tories as well.
Okay?
I come from the blue side of the Conservative Party, even though I'm moderate on social issues, even though I'd call myself more of a libertarian on social issues.
But at the same time, we have to appreciate that there's about 20 to 25 percent of the Conservative Party that go towards the center, and they need to have a voice in our party as well.
And that goes to the point that you made of bringing you back or uniting our party.
I want to take a deep breath for a moment, okay, David?
And just imagine for a moment, it's the day after the next federal election.
And Justin Trudeau is back in power.
Or, Chrystia Freeland is now the Prime Minister.
How do you feel about that?
I'm very, very scared.
I can't imagine a life in our country if that happens.
And so I'm going to do my darndest when this race is over on September 10th to do everything.
I'll plead and beg you to come back.
And I'll plead to the centrist to say, please, we need you to come in now.
I'll go to the social conservatives and say, I'm sorry, we didn't offer you democracy.
We owe you parliamentary democracy.
We'll go to the West and say, we'll never alienate the West again.
And that includes a vibrant natural resources plan, any equalization, having voter parity.
I get it.
But please give us a chance to earn your vote and let's try and keep the centrists so we can survive, so we can survive.
Well, let me ask you this.
You said the votes are coming in.
What's the deadline for the vote for the leadership?
The deadline for your ballot to be received in Ottawa is September 6th, which means that if you're mailing it with a self-addressed envelope, you want to drop it in the mail no later than August 23rd, which is a week from today.
Now, I'm going to bring up one comment, only because I know I see George giving you a hard time.
I'm not going to bring up the other comments.
I'll say one thing about you, Roman.
Not about anybody else, specifically you and specifically Roman for everybody watching.
Roman was putting himself on the front line before it was even politically popular to do so.
So as an individual, and I've said this to Roman privately and I'll say it publicly, as an individual, I like Roman and trust him and know that he's been pretty ballsy as a political, say not as a leader, but as a politician, as a member of parliament, provincial parliament.
Same is not true of the Conservative Party at large, and that's where...
I'll bring up another one, Roman.
It'll give the best argument.
Rob A. says, Viva, you ran for the PPC, tried to convince voters NDP was not a viable alternative to the Liberals.
You wanted to defeat the Liberals.
Now you will not support the viable party that can defeat Trudeau.
That's true.
Okay, now the question is this.
Tell me why you think I should compromise my...
Let me rephrase it.
The Conservative Party has proven to be totally useless under O'Toole, and I would say even more destructive than the Liberals, because at least we know Trudeau is who he is.
Not going to change, maybe just going to get more transparent with his awfulness.
The Conservatives were even worse flip-flopping on the biggest issues, conceding on the biggest issues, and turning the Conservative Party into nothing better than the Liberals, so there was no difference to vote for them.
Convince someone as to why they should now vote for the party.
On the basis that the party will do something prospectively when they haven't done it historically.
The party is going to come into new leadership.
And if arguably that leadership shares your ideological persuasion, and at least on the face of it, presents a viable alternative to get us out of the mess we're in and take us back in the democracy direction.
Then I think we owe it to our country to give it an opportunity.
But that is not to say that we don't need to earn it and not to present a credible alternative that you have to take at face value.
Look, I'm so scared for Canada's democracy.
And some of your viewers know I have a unique perspective on democracy.
And that's because for the first nine years of my life, I was born and lived in the former Soviet Union.
I lived under a communist regime, and I know how fragile and how precious our democracy is.
And I look at what's happening in our democracy right now.
One of the main tenets is that we respect individual choice.
And for the record, we still agree that it's still a choice.
And COVID has no reason to abridge any human choice.
And yet, when we tell someone that they can't put food on the table, As a condition of weighing that against their personal health, it's not just inhumane.
It's no longer a choice.
We're still treating 15% of Canadians like second-class citizens.
I have former constituents that aren't able to visit a loved one in a long-term care home.
Especially not letting family visit, especially at end-of-life, is one of the most evil things we've ever done.
We're seeing a remarkable abridgment of our freedom of speech, the Holy Grail of all rights, because through speech we defend all other rights and all other Canadians.
And we have...
Government legislation now making its way through Parliament that will abridge my ability to say what I say and will at the same time reorder, allow a bureaucrat to reorder what you and I see online or say online or how often and which frequency.
This is unthinkable.
So our democracy is...
And I appreciate that you're saying, well, your track record does not meet my expectations, but if our alternative and our future prospect...
I will not commit right now, but I will ask you this.
I think I know the answer.
Where do you stand on defunding the CBC?
I will defund the CBC on day one, and it's a crown corporation, so I'll spin it off and I'll sell it off, and I'm not going to let Rogers or Bell buy it.
This is very important.
We need less media monopolies, okay?
So I'm not going to let any of the big players buy it.
On freedom of speech, I want to add this.
So in addition to the CBC, we need to end all the bailouts and the subsidies.
It wasn't just a $600 million round in 2019.
There was another round in 2021, $62 million right before an election.
Right before an election, the government hands over the media money.
It's like a banana republic.
And we need to end the advertising, this record advertising that government has been doing on the news media as well.
We need to end all financial dependency of media on government.
That's a very important tenet of our freedom of speech.
And just to round off the speech point, repeal the legislation, end the financial dependency by media, defend regulated professionals.
I think that if regulated healthcare professionals were able to speak freely without fear of reprisal in the last couple of years, we would have been out of this mess years ago.
And finally, there's work to do with the social media giants as well.
They're platforms.
They're not content creators.
They should not be enjoying some of the liability protection that they do now.
I'm going to get the Bureau of Competition to have a serious look at them.
I'm confident we'll get a negotiated agreement to defend Canadians' free speech online, which is the most important thing.
Defending our freedom of speech is the most important thing we need to do to defend our democracy.
Bill C-11 has not passed the Senate yet, has it?
It has not.
Thank goodness.
Okay, I thought I missed some news.
How would you fix the broken economy of debt?
How do we get out of this financially?
I mean, I guess at least you save a billion dollars right off the bat if you defund the CBC.
So I'm going to get a bunch of savings.
First of all, I'm going to rein in spending to the rate of target inflation, which would be 2% a year in terms of increases.
Second of all, I'm going to, most importantly, unleash our economic opportunity by unleashing and releasing The blessing that is our natural resources.
I think Canada's natural resources are a blessing.
I'm not going to let oil and gas be cancelled.
And it's good for our strategic interests and economic bottom line.
And it's also good for the planet.
Because Canadians can derive and produce energy cleaner and safer than any other nation on Earth.
And so I'm going to look for a massive economic expansion by turning Canada into the natural resources superpower.
Someone's asking the question.
I think I know the answer.
Why is he running for the Conservatives and not the PPC?
Look, I've always been Conservative.
It's my party.
And I'm fighting for the soul of one of Canada's mainstream parties.
And the Conservative Party is one of them.
And I believe that we are broad enough to be able to entertain diversity of opinion and welcome Canadians.
Coast to coast, regardless of their political affiliation.
Again, I understand why folks went and voted last time around the way you have and for the party that you have campaigned.
I get it.
One source of disagreement perhaps I have with the PPC is that I'm very much in favor of legal immigration in Canada.
I'm an immigrant to Canada.
And I've had every blessing this country had to offer, and I've contributed immensely to our country.
I paid a lot of tax.
I served my community and hope to serve again.
And we have a major labor shortage right now.
We have a shrinking labor force, aging population, and we need workers desperately, skilled workers, unskilled workers.
We're heading towards a demographic catastrophe.
And so I think that we need to encourage legal immigration.
Not illegal immigration, but legal immigration.
And that means changing the tone that the conservative movement typically had on immigration.
And that also means appealing and speaking to new communities.
We have to do that to enlarge our base and to win in the cities and the GTA.
Someone says to Roman, what actionable things will you do to shake up things?
I think you got to this in a meaningful way.
It's only a question of...
I won't ask.
I don't...
Expect you to come here and do the publicity for the other leaders.
What issues the Conservative Party in general are they in agreement on?
Defunding CBC?
Responsible immigration?
Unlocking, unleashing natural resources?
Repealing?
Does the Conservative Party as a party undertake to enact whatever legislation would be required to ensure that the government never again has the right to lock people in their homes or compel vaccination of novel Treatments?
I'm a very big fan of Canada's constitution and I teach it a little bit.
And I can think of some legislative reform that we can conceive.
For instance, I'm going to propose to amend the Canada Health Act to make sure that we never discriminate against someone because of their healthcare choice or their medical status.
I would have thought that that would have been read into human rights legislation or protected by the Charter.
It's not the legislation that's at issue.
It's the interpretation.
It's the application of legislation.
And unfortunately, in the last couple of years, judges and the courts have not been immune to the bizarre world that we've been living in.
And as a result, sided consistently with public health without actually testing the evidence.
In addition to some legislative reform, what we really need to do is we need to empower each other as Canadians, as conservatives.
As people that love individual choice and freedom, to speak and stand up for one another.
And that's why I'm saying that speech is so important.
So many more, I'm sure, occupants of the bench, by that I mean judges, would have probably had more courage had they to push back against the government if they felt that they had cover from the street, from popular culture.
But unfortunately, they did not.
And so every institution had failed.
I have faith that sensibility will return to the courts, and so will expression.
But we need to push not just against the lockdowns and the mandates, per se.
We need to push against the radical left wing, essentially communist culture that brought all of this about, that rolled over any dissent, that demonized anyone that potentially disagreed with it.
It's a cultural and political and ideological fight.
Roman, let me ask you one question.
Someone had asked.
I can't find the comment now.
Ukraine?
Canada's involvement in the war between Russia and Ukraine.
What's your stance on that?
My stance differs somewhat from the other candidates on this.
I think that we've got to do everything possible to end this conflict.
Instead of figuring out ways to fuel the conflict.
It's not good for either nation.
And half my family is from Ukraine.
We're Odessa Jews.
And half my family is from Russia.
And this is just a tragic situation.
And it's also bad for global economy.
It's bad for food supply.
It's bad for energy.
In Europe, we need to talk about ending this conflict.
And no one's doing that.
And that is where our proposal should go.
I don't know why the chat thinks you have anything to do with the WEF.
Roman, are we going to Google your name and WEF and see a landing page on the WEF?
No.
What's your position on the WEF, Roman?
It's unfortunate.
If you're just in a political class these days, people just immediately dismiss you.
And that's too bad that so many of your viewers or people generally today are so cynical about politics.
And this is what I invite that we need to rethink.
And this is what I think...
My candidacy brings to the table.
I say it how it is, even if people disagree with me, and I'm not worried about votes.
So here it goes on the WEF.
I've never had any communications with them, and I've never been a member.
But what I would say is that I'm more worried about the radical left-wing ideology, the communist ideology that the WEF espouses.
And it's not just in the WEF.
It's in the World Bank, it's in the United Nations, it's in the IMF.
It's not new.
It wasn't Klaus Schwab who said, you're going to own nothing and you're going to be happy.
It was Karl Marx who said that like 150 years ago.
And this radical ideology is not only in these international institutions now, it's seeped into Every domestic institution, it's in your provincial government, it's in your municipal government, it's in your school board.
Okay, it's definitely in your school board.
And so we need to expose, to shine a light on this ideology and expose it for what it is, which is a very radical left that can only affect it by force against people's will because we don't want to redistribute.
We don't want to erode our nation state.
We don't want to force each other to do things against our will.
And I think that this message will resonate with Canadians.
We are generally cool.
And this thing that happened with the Vax will hopefully, Canadians are now coming around to this, and this will end.
But we don't want to tell each other how to live.
We want to love our families, work hard, and have government leave us alone.
And the best thing that folks can do to defeat this WEF ideology in Canada is to get rid of Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland.
Someone's asking if you've ever attended any WEF events.
I don't care about that.
No.
My question is this.
If I were to run for office...
Again, never attended any events.
Never had any communications.
Never been a member.
Get over it.
No, I could even give a pass to someone who attended a WEF event.
Sorry, my computer is low on power.
Bear with me for a second.
Go with it.
I'll tell the chat.
I can understand how someone ended up at a WEF event or even went to see what it looks like.
At some point, you do need to know your enemy.
My question is this, and Roman, if I ever were to become Prime Minister of Canada or any influential member of Parliament, the first thing I would do is actually enact some form of legislation that would effectively preclude our politicians from having any associations with or being entitled to attend these...
These events which are intended to dictate national policy from unelected, global, whatever the hell they want to call themselves, what would you be able to do to dissociate, to unpenetrate the WEF from the Canadian government?
I can't imagine another conservative politician in their right mind attending a WEF event, okay?
Like, it's not going to happen.
But I suggest that we need to be thinking in a different direction.
I think we have a major opportunity right now as conservatives to, and by that I don't mean capital C conservatives, but small C conservatives, as freedom-loving, democracy-loving people, to turn on these international institutions, to turn on them and say, you have no credibility left.
The World Health Organization has no credibility left.
The WF espouses a lot of hate.
The United Nations lost all credibility whatsoever.
We have commissions, right?
When we think about some of these UN commissions, I like to joke about this.
The principal member of the Human Rights Committee is Iran.
And on the Committee of Refugees, it's Syria.
And the status of women, it's Saudi Arabia.
Okay, it's a joke what's happening in these international institutions.
We have friends right now.
I don't think we should disconnect ourselves from the world because then we may be able to lose an ability to affect world events and we still need to affect them.
But we have friends in South America, the ones that are not communists.
We have friends in Eastern Europe that are fed up with this, that don't want this.
We need to turn on them and expose them.
And I'm not going to play pretend.
I'm going to call them for the communist hypocrites.
That all of them are.
That should be clear enough, Chet.
I know that everyone's a WEF mole, everyone's controlled opposition, whatever.
If I ever become a politician, there has to be a formal, official dissociation.
These global institutions should have no role to play in dictating or influencing national politics.
That's for the citizens.
Can I continue to alienate some of your viewers?
Go for it.
The public, a lot of folks have a misconception as to how this works.
What ties the WF together with Justin Trudeau is not that they are having him or members of this cabinet as a puppet.
What ties them together is that they agree with one another on the fact that they want to intervene in our lives, on the fact that they know best.
And the fact that it's expected that we would make concessions with respect to our lifestyle, such as, for instance, we will eat less beef and we will farm less and in exchange we'll have to eat crickets.
And I'm not eating any crickets.
David, politicians are not, in my view, bought largely or controlled by these institutions.
They're either driven by their misguided ideology, a very left-wing ideology, or they're simply afraid of political correctness because they're afraid for their seats.
For many of these people, this is the best job they ever had, okay?
So they get a steady salary, and on the federal level, they get a pension, and that's enough to dissuade them to go against the grain.
That's all it is.
Look, I don't care to talk about myself.
In the last couple of years, I've paid a remarkable price to my political career and to the well-being of my family.
And it's been very, very tough being the subject of a lot of attack by the left.
So you haven't gone far enough yet.
Declare them a terrorist organization.
Okay, Roman, two questions, specific ones.
Guns and abortion.
I come from one of the heaviest, one of the writings in the country that have the most gun violence in the country, and all of it is with illegal guns.
And that's what we need to convey very clearly.
Almost all gun crime is perpetuated with unlawful guns, not by criminals, not with legal guns, by law-abiding Canadians.
And so nothing any liberal government has done in the last 30 years to try and control Guns has had any effect on gun crime.
What we need to do is we need to focus on where the problem is, which is at the border.
The CBA, the Canada Border Agency, is a dysfunctional agency, bad culture, understaffed, bad morale.
And the flow of guns is what's really contributing to this crisis that we have.
Not lawful guns.
So I'll repeal the regulation and the legislation.
On abortion, I come more from a...
It's a libertarian wing on social issues.
Just like we don't want the Justin Trudeau government telling us how to lead our lives, I don't believe that a conservative government should tell people how to lead their lives either.
And I'm not sure that I have the role to tell a family that now they have to grow.
What I will, however, say is that I will allow full parliamentary democracy to social conservatives.
And that means that they should be able to run, and I will not cut a conservative candidate like O'Toole would do.
I would not prevent anyone from introducing legislation in Parliament.
That's their fundamental duty as a parliamentarian.
And I will allow people to vote their conscience because I was made to vote against my conscience and I'm never going to do that to anyone.
Okay, let me think if I'm missing anything.
Hold on, I had some starred questions.
Let's talk about the environment.
Let's talk about...
Where we need to take this fight against this radical left.
Hold on.
This one right here.
Legalized suicide.
Now, my brother just made me aware of the fact that apparently in Canada, we have had 10,000 medically assisted deaths for a population of 30 million, which, unless I've misunderstood the numbers, compares to like 450 for California for a similar population.
What on earth is going on?
And what do you do about this piece of legislation that has now expanded the terms and the application of medically assisted suicides to the mentally unwell?
I was shocked by that number myself.
I'm even more shocked by an article that I just read, or a headline that I just saw literally moments before I logged in, that an Army veteran who was wounded and sustained a brain injury was offered Medical was offered, made by Veterans Affairs.
Offered.
I'm sorry.
Just unthinkable.
Look, so the word here, the key word is consent.
And that's what I will do.
I will review all this legislation and I will tighten up consent.
It has to be informed consent.
It has to be consent that is free of duress or made on a sound mind.
I'm not even sure.
How a minor can't consent to a tattoo, cannot consent to a marriage license, but can consent to take their own life?
I don't get it.
Let me ask you this, now that you've actually segued into it, transgender therapy for minors, where do you stand on that?
I think that, so first of all, generally on transgender rights, I think that we should respect people's choices and let them Lead lives in the manner that they want to lead them.
People are people.
And if they want to be referred to in a certain way, then why not respect that?
We should not penalize anyone.
We have the freedom.
We don't have the freedom to be free of offense.
There's no such freedom.
Because just the mere existence of us would offend someone.
So my view is, however, we should not put someone in legal jeopardy, in criminal jeopardy, if they're basically doing their job or if they're fulfilling a normal function in a community.
And that's what I'm worried about, about the legislation.
If a person comes for a consultation with a rabbi or a priest and they say, this may be against our religion, Then I would be very, very afraid.
Let me ask you this more specifically.
Would you enact legislation that would prohibit transition therapy or surgeries on minors for transitioning?
I don't know.
I'm having difficulties understanding consent, just like I have consent questions with respect to MAID.
We certainly allow for some decisions.
We allow young people to make decisions in family court starting from age 12, 13. So I'm not going to commit to anything that specific.
I don't think that this is as clear cut.
What I don't want to do is I don't want to criminalize any behavior by a parent or by a clergy person.
All right.
And you had one more thing that you want to mention about the environment.
I'm not even sure what...
The environmental question is a falsified debate, as if there's anybody out there who wants to actively harm the environment.
The only question is, is what they're talking about actually helping it?
And is it causing more harm in other manners?
But what do you want to say on the environment before we wind up?
We need to have courage to address the environmental radical left and not be afraid.
Just like Canadians were afraid to speak about mandates or passports or lockdowns, we should not be afraid of the radical environmental left.
I, for instance, I'm comfortable saying that I do not believe that taxing Sally $10 at the gas pump every time she fills up is going to change the global climate.
I don't think anyone believes that anymore.
Taxing you $10 at the gas pump is not going to change the global climate.
And we should not be afraid to say that.
And at the same time, we should not be afraid to say that government cannot override our lifestyle choices.
And that means that we should not or hinder our ability to work or produce.
We don't need to farm less, we need to farm more.
We don't need to manufacture less, we need to manufacture more.
And we certainly need to unleash our natural resources.
But we need to attack the other side.
Even within their own framework, they can't meet their own goals.
Canada produces less than a percent and a half of all global emissions.
Even if we were to cut all of them by their own standards, by their own science, it's not clear that that would make any material effect on the climate.
We know where the polluters are.
They're in China and India and Russia.
So why would we continue a discussion of potentially shooting ourselves in the foot?
Look, I don't know how much good I've done myself with this interview today.
I'm just going to say, everybody needs to take a deep breath, step back, simmer down.
And you might not agree with me 100% on issues of choice or issues of life, okay?
But why not allow for some disagreement between civil people?
Because at the end of the day, we agree on 8 out of 10 or 7.5 out of 10. And there are a lot of Canadians on the other side as well.
And we can try and find a sensible middle without compromising our values.
And that means not saying things that we don't believe, like that Klaus Schwab is running the world.
What a clown that guy is.
We give him way too much credit.
They've got a little too much influence.
No, but okay, I get it.
He's a typical communist, like all of them are.
And what?
Teteris is not?
Teteris from the WHO has a lot more influence.
Oh, yeah, but I think people are going to argue that they're all part and parcel of the same, you know, it's a big party.
No, they're not.
I'm arguing that.
And that's what people don't understand.
They're part and parcel of the same ideology.
The struggle is not with an institution.
The struggle is with the radical communist left that has been prevailing this earth for 150 years, that my family has been fighting against for the last 100 years.
That has been very, very acutely on the move in Western society for the last 40 years.
Your kid's teacher, him or she or he, do not have any connection to the WAF, but they're teaching your kid the same ideology that they espouse, especially when they teach them critical race theory that they can't succeed because of who they are or they've got to feel some sort of guilt because of who they are.
You don't need that central thing that people are thinking of.
It's a nasty ideology that we must reject.
Okay, I'm going to end with the following.
David, dude, you've got to give us the benefit of the doubt.
You've got to give us the benefit of the doubt.
Okay?
I'll tell you, Roman, I didn't even tell people to vote for me when I ran for office.
I don't tell people who to vote for.
I tell people what I think, and I give the platform.
Pierre, I haven't really reached out in any meaningful sense, is welcome to come on as well.
The issue is now, this is the pre-stage to what...
Do we know if there's going to be a federal election called within the year?
Are the rumorings that there will be?
It's anyone's guess.
I doubt there will be.
But I would welcome one because we can't afford another day of him.
But this is another important thing to suggest, that I do not see another way out of this other than an election.
The only way out of the mess we're in is an election.
Because that's how we're going to end.
And I want to end on a note of optimism.
We can end this.
We can improve everything that ails us very quickly.
Extricate ourselves out of the public health exercise.
Restore our democracy.
Very simple.
By freeing the media and social media and repealing the law and defending regulated professionals.
Restore democracy and develop our natural resources.
And if we just do those three things...
Everything will be okay.
And I actually think that the Trudeau liberals are in trouble.
He lost his shine.
He's got four or five ministers in trouble.
The media is churning on him.
We can do this.
We can beat him if we emerge out of this leadership united.
And we can restore our normal back.
And that's all I want.
I don't care about the office.
I don't care even about being prime minister.
I'll be fine practicing law and being left alone.
I love our country, and I remember what it was like in the country where I was born, and I never want to have that here in my home country.
And that means we've got to win this ideological battle that we're fighting, and that means that on our side, the right side of the ideological aisle, even if we sometimes disagree, we have to embrace one another going forward so we can win and survive.
Well, we'll see what happens after the election, Roman.
I've said it from the beginning.
I like you.
Poiliev I like, but he was a little late to the game.
I'm proud to say I turned on Trudeau before the media did, but well after other people.
Let's do a follow-up after the mail-in ballots are now.
Is there an actual in-person thingy thing, or is that not how it works?
There's no in-person.
Drop it in the mail.
If you want to read more about our platform, joinroman.ca.
To those of you that are not sure how to rank, please rank me first.
Okay?
There's no vote splitting.
You don't have to worry that if you vote for Roman, then Jean-Claire wins.
No, you can rank me first and then rank another candidate, a more popular or another candidate behind me.
That's if I don't win.
But it doesn't work the other way around.
I hear from a lot of people that I'm their second choice.
I will only get your second choice ballot if your first choice finishes in last place.
If they fall off the ballot.
So please switch us around.
Give me your vote to send a strong message to the Conservative Party that we want out of this nightmare, that we reject COVID policies the last couple of years, that we have a strong democracy wing within the Conservative Party, and that we reward politicians that do the right thing.
Okay.
Excellent.
Roman, thank you for coming on.
Thank you, Dave.
Godspeed.
God bless.
We'll talk soon.
Thank you, brother.
All right.
Have a good one.
All right, people.
That's one of the candidates for the Conservative leadership.
Currently running.
There's Leslyn Lewis, Jean Charest, Pierre Poilievre, Roman Baber, and the fifth one.
Not trying to be mean.
I forget his name and can never remember it.
For anyone Canadian watching, snip clip and you people voting for the leadership.
You have more info now than you did 40 minutes ago.
That being said, we've got another man who's been on the channel at least once.
I think it was twice, but I might be confusing our respective crossovers.
Jim Carahalios.
Founder of the New Blue Party, which is something of a provincial conservative party.
I forget exactly how to describe it.
They just had provincial elections.
We were supposed to do a follow-up the day after, then it became the week after, and then it became now.
So we're having back on Jim Karajalios.
Jim, how are you doing, sir?
Good.
It's always good to talk to you.
How are you doing?
The time just flew, eh?
It's almost...
It's nuts.
We were supposed to do it the day after.
Something came up.
Then you got, you had a cold.
I don't remember what it was.
And then we just, then, you know, life happens.
So first of all, for anybody who doesn't know you, who are you?
What's the new blue party?
And then what happened to the election?
Provincial party in Ontario, founded by my wife and I, Belinda, the former MPP for the riding at Cambridge.
And we ran up against the Conservative establishment with things like Axe the Carbon Tax, with things like fighting internal party voter fraud, the Provincial Conservative Party, and shenanigans in the Federal Conservative Party.
If only Roman was in a free and fair election for leader, then we would see what people had to say about his ideas, but he's not, because the Conservative Party, they already know who's going to be the leader of that party.
And then my wife...
Took the lead against Doug Ford's COVID policies, voted against his lockdown bill, and she got kicked out.
We both got kicked out of the party.
19 others on the Cambridge Riding Association for the PC party got kicked out.
And a year and a half ago, we started the new Blue Party of Ontario.
And we worked really hard to get 124 candidates registered in our first campaign.
I fought through bone cancer in my femur.
I was laid out for most of...
2021, the latter part of 2020, got back on my feet in the fall, wasn't even fully walking again, got right on the campaign by the fall and new year of 2022.
We were approving candidates, putting it in place, and we got through our first election campaign.
I know, Viva, you weren't happy with the results because Belinda didn't retain her seats.
Sidebar, sidebar.
The first time I was on, I was calling you Viva, and I just called you again, because it just says it right there, Viva Frye.
I answer to Viva on the streets these days.
Okay, and then I have a guy on our team, when I came off, and he said to me, his name's not Viva.
And I'm like, I know his name's not Viva.
It's like, right there, Viva Frye.
Jim, a lot of people, for two years, when they discovered the channel, when it started getting big.
Thought my name was Viva.
And then they said, who's David in the chat?
I was like, dude, I'm David.
And everyone felt...
Yeah, no, Jim, I was disappointed.
Belinda didn't retain her seat.
From what I understand, you didn't get a seat in Ontario.
I appreciate everything that goes into starting a new party, getting a full slate, getting a certain amount of votes.
I was disappointed when the PPC didn't get one seat across Canada, but got close to a million votes.
Because I'm...
I'm childish.
I don't have patience.
And I don't really like playing the political game.
But tell us why.
For those of us out there like me who are disappointed, they see all the work you put in, the hell you had to go through, despite health issues.
You ran it.
You put everything you had into it.
Didn't get a seat.
Tell us why we should not be upset.
So it was a window of 18 months, and we really were not operating at full steam ahead for those 18 months, obviously, because I was sick and you're building a party.
And to get 124 candidates in place without any institutional support, right?
Like, we didn't have...
It was great to see guys like Roman follow us and finally agree to be against the carbon tax after initially being for it.
And he followed Belinda's lead and he came out against the lockdowns when he voted in favor of it.
But he didn't support the new blue.
Randy Hilliard didn't support the new blue.
Establishment figures across the board, others, and these advocacy groups didn't support the new blue.
Networks like the True North News didn't want to talk about the new blue.
We're lucky that you covered and interviewed me and others.
Independents covered us, True Independents.
But despite all those challenges and others trying to set up fake opposition parties, we got 124 candidates in place.
123 finished the race.
Since the election, we've set up and registered 124 riding associations.
And we got more votes in our first election than Max Bernier.
We got in the PPC's first election in Ontario, and we're up against a couple parties, three parties, and the Greens have been around for 30 years, but the other two, the Liberals and PCs, over 100 years, right?
And so our first challenge is people have to know who the new Blue Party is.
And there's over 10 million people in Ontario.
And look, it's unrealistic to think in a year, 10 million people are going to hear about the new Blue Party.
Especially when you effectively get shut out of any mainstream media that gets the automatic airwaves or the automatic television waves.
Right.
And then on top of that, if you do know who the new blue is, you know who Belinda is, you know who Jim is, but we don't have the longevity yet where a voter says, you know what?
That was funny.
David is...
Sorry.
I've got to not look at the screen.
I've got to look right in the...
I'm not bringing any more up, Jim.
I'll bring them up after.
They're amazing.
It's amazing.
I wish I could be that funny sometimes.
So they know who the new blue is, other voters, but are they sold that we have the infrastructure in place and the people behind it where we could be the opposition, where we could be the third party?
We had people, if you look on social media, people who were so upset with Doug Ford for two years.
And a few of them went back and voted PC because they got scared into, well, we can't have another liberal government.
So a lot of people don't know that the PCs are doing exactly the same as the liberals.
And we have to work through that.
And that's not a quick fix.
As much as we want to be in there as the opposition or the third party in our first election in a year, we're running against some brands that have been around for a really long time.
We got more votes in our first election than any party since the 1930s.
So that's historic.
And a lot of this stuff, this growth in political circles, it's a little analogous to you start a business, right?
You start a business and you're puttering along with sales, and then all of a sudden there's a tipping point where your sales just spike up.
It's the same thing with starting a political party.
You get the 125,000 votes in your first go-ahead.
It's not every election you're only going to add another 125,000 votes.
And so we're very optimistic about the future, but we've got to fight through it.
And the only way to earn votes in politics, as much as we like to see social media influence and as much as we like to talk about media and social media, this is all important.
But someone who's watching you right now is going to have the clincher to vote New Blue if they have a conversation with someone who's already on our team or supporting us.
And that will clinch it for them.
And that takes time.
And there will be a tipping point.
And we've got to keep working through it.
But even though...
We don't have a seat.
We are going to continue to do what we've done for years.
Before Belinda was elected, in the first two years that Belinda was an MPP, and then when she got kicked out, and we didn't have the new blue party set up, which is challenge the establishment brass, the left-wing politics in Ontario, and that's going to help change the narrative across Canada.
We did the Axe to Carbon Tax campaign.
Pierre Polyev wasn't supporting it back then.
He was quiet on Axe to Carbon Tax.
Now he's running a leadership.
And his tagline is, ask the carbon tax.
We've pressured the Ford PCs over the last two years to reverse course on policies.
They're going to do it quietly.
They're not going to say, oh yeah, we changed course because of this new party called the New Blue.
Of course not.
And you see other politicians, like you had Roman, who've come on side after the fact.
He's not going to talk about us, not going to say Belinda or Jim.
But we're going to keep challenging the narrative, changing the narrative and changing the course.
For the next four years and keep building up until the next election.
And we're going to help those in the new blue family who are running for municipal politics.
A lot of people step forward.
Municipal elections coming up in October.
Okay, that's good, actually.
That was my question.
Provincial elections, are they determined or can they be triggered early like federal in Ontario?
They're determined end of October, October 20-something.
The campaign's actually already on.
It's interesting.
Provincial elections, I think, start in June or something, months in advance, and then there's a deadline later this week to register across Ontario, but the election date is fixed.
But there's no political parties in municipal elections, and a political party can't officially run candidates under a banner.
It's the way the left kind of disguises, oh, no, no, municipal politics are just nonpartisan affairs.
There's no...
But most of the trustee and councillor spots end up getting taken by left-wing ideologues because a lot of conservatives don't run and the left has the institution in place to recruit candidates.
So we've had a couple webinars.
Very quickly, other groups jumped forward, copied our webinars.
We've reached out to people on our email list to encourage them to run.
And after the end of this week, we'll see who's registered and try to give support to those.
Running for trustee and running for council.
So that's something else that's going on.
It's been very busy.
Like, it hasn't slowed down since the election.
That was more of the question.
When would be the next provincial elections for MPPs?
Is it four years?
So because Swart got a majority and because the MPPs in his caucus are just going to tow the party line like they always do, we're looking at four years.
Now, something can happen earlier if a bunch of them...
Quit the PC caucus and the PC party, and he goes down to a minority.
But we're looking at 2026.
And I already, look, it was like a couple weeks after the election.
And we put out a graphic.
I can't remember.
We're talking about how Ford is going to just present the same left-wing budget, a good budget if you're a liberal, which is exactly what he did last week.
And his top pollster, Nick Kuvalis, who's Tory's advisor and Ford's advisor.
Starts attacking me on Twitter.
Like, this guy's got nothing better to do.
He's the top advisor for the Mayor of Toronto and the Premier of Ontario.
And they're attacking me on Twitter, calling me names because we're challenging the budgetary measures of the PC.
So you could see that even though the next election's not until 2026, everything they do, they're worried about the criticism from us.
Because even though we got 125,000 votes and we don't have a seat, We are the opposition, because the liberals and the NDP largely agree with everything the PCs do.
They're just copying the playbook.
So we can hold their feet to the fire in the meantime from outside the legislature.
But to keep yourself busy, not just politically relevant, but politically growing for the next four years.
So you're going to support the local municipal elections, trustees and whatever.
I can't pretend to know how that works.
And then what?
Just keep plugging away, keep putting up messages, keep staying involved.
How do you stay involved in provincial politics now for the next, say, four years at most and continue to grow?
What's the strategy?
What's the plan of action?
So I'm not going to give you the secret sauce because you've got to have me back.
I'll have you back whenever you want.
I love it.
So it's grassroots work.
And the last two months, our team has been spending time.
You know how, you probably went through this when you ran, right, in the federal election, the ridiculous paperwork that you got to file after your campaign?
After, and then after the campaign is over, you got to do the audit of your finances.
I mean, that took a few months and cost a few bucks.
Right, so we got 124 candidates doing their filings.
We got 124 writing associations doing their filings.
So we're helping them each and every one.
We're not abandoning them because we don't want anyone not to do their filing.
We're helping each and every one of them do their filings.
We're building the party up at the ground up, helping those riding associations.
We're going to roll out a program.
There's going to be future conventions for the New Blue.
Now that we can do them in person, we had one, a virtual one in April, put together before we get the election vote.
We're not going to get angry.
We're going to turn the anger into passion.
And we're going to advocate.
We're going to hold the PC's feet to the fire with all kinds of different campaign tools.
If you followed me, you know what I'm talking about.
From the Axe the Carbon Tax campaign, from fighting them in court if we have to, from any kind of advocacy work to Belinda challenging them against the lockdown bills.
And we're going to do the grassroots thing and grow our party one riding association at a time, one voter at a time.
And we're going to unveil the candidate selection process a lot earlier next time and hopefully have as many nominations as possible because...
You know, in politics today, the leader of the other parties, they just pick their candidates.
And then we're surprised that the candidates don't defend their constituents.
And that takes a lot of work.
And like we just said, three months already passed by.
I don't know where the summer went.
We've been buried in building the party up.
And it's going to go by really quickly.
But the Ford PCs don't even give us a chance to look away because they just came back with the legislature last week and tabled their budget.
Over $600 million in loans to ineligible businesses during COVID.
They wiped it off.
Like, they're not going back to collect the money.
They gave out over $600 million during COVID to businesses that were not eligible for those loans.
Can you imagine how many friends of the Ford government got some of those eligible loans?
They're just handing $40,000 to any company that incorporated and asked for the money.
And that's the federal one.
So who knows?
I don't know if the Ford PCs had a specific program or if they just picked and choose.
They're rolling out massive subsidies for electric vehicles that no one's going to drive because there's not such a demand for it.
And on top of that, they've got a $20 billion deficit this year.
We're not past COVID.
$20 billion, way larger than anything that the Liberals ever spent under Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty.
The debt of the province is $200 billion.
25% higher.
Then where the liberals left it.
And as bad as McGinty and Wynn were, can you believe the Ford PCs are worse on the fiscal stuff?
So you were asking Roman a bunch of questions on social policy.
The provincial PCs always said, you know, we're kind of pathetic on social policy.
We don't have a backbone.
But you trust us.
They used to say, trust us when we get in there.
This is the part you don't like, right?
When I start getting a little childish like this.
No, no.
Look, I have the same reflex.
It's a human reflex.
Trust us.
And I was involved.
Oh, when we get in there, when we get power, we're going to fix up these finances, bring those electricity rates down, grow the economy, and the economy's putting along like Fred Flintstone peddling his car.
And they're spending way more than the liberals.
And they're not doing anything.
They are exactly a replica of the liberals.
And they are the official arm now of the Trudeau Liberal Party in Ottawa.
They're the provincial wing of Justin Trudeau.
You know what the amazing thing is?
Did you see?
You probably wouldn't have seen this, but their health minister, the person who got promoted.
Is it Kieran Moore?
Sylvia Jones.
Okay, sorry.
It's their health minister.
Kieran is the, what do they call them?
Top docs?
Yeah, Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.
CMOH.
Yeah, whatever.
The guy that they say they follow when they want to say that, and then the guy they ignore when they don't want to say they follow.
But Christine Elliott retired.
She didn't run again.
So he needed a new health minister.
So he goes and gets Sylvia Jones, who was the attorney general in Ontario.
So for the last three months, I've seen the Conservative Party of Canada say Mario Mendocino, Justin Trudeau's federal, what is he, the public health minister or something?
No, not public health.
Public works.
He's the guy that lied about the necessity to invoke the Emergencies Act.
Thank you.
He lied, right?
Okay.
He should be fired.
But provincially, Sylvia Jones, who's the Attorney General for the Ford PCs, she not only lied about the justification of bringing in the provincial emergency measures after the truck or convoy, she went one further.
She made it law.
She made those emergency moves into a permanent bill called Bill 100 Law.
But no one's calling for her to resign.
They said the conservative establishment said, let's give her a promotion.
Let's make her the health minister because she did a bang-up job.
So if Mario Mendocino was a PC MPP, he would have got a promotion.
But because he's got the red sign, oh, he lied.
They did the same thing but worse at the provincial level.
And we're fighting against the tribalism of politics.
You know it, right?
Oh, blue must be good.
Red, bad.
Same color.
They're called the PCs progressive conservatives.
It's as much of an oxymoron as a pregnant virgin or a jumbo shrimp.
Progressive conservative conceptually don't go together unless they're just progressive.
And Doug Ford is as liberal as any liberal politician in the States as compared to what conservatives traditionally meant.
Jim, You need to survive off funding, donations, and crowd support.
Where do people find you?
Well, obviously, I work.
And New Blue Party of Ontario takes up most of my time.
But all the donations we get for the New Blue Party goes into the party.
So newblueontario.com.
And we do have some staff.
And we're very fortunate for the support that we have.
But before you become a donor, no pressure.
Sign up on YouBlueOntario.com so you can follow our emails.
We have calls to action all the time.
We'll let you know the things that are going on in the Ontario legislature that no one else will tell you about.
It's like a big secret.
$600 million written off budget.
No one wants to talk about it.
Two years ago, they tried to pass a law in the Ontario legislature where they were going to implement a code of conduct on marriage officiants.
And if the marriage officiant didn't follow the code of conduct, they would just take away their marriage license.
First ever, an imposition on freedom of religion.
No one said a word.
And when we blew the whistle, the mainstream media wouldn't cover it.
Even the liberals in the NDP wouldn't cover it, because I think there was a deal there where the PCs were giving them something.
But the PCs took it out of the legislation.
That was late 2020 when I first got diagnosed.
From the bout of cancer that I had that I've recovered from.
But we're going to keep doing that.
But the only way you're going to hear about it is NewBlueOntario.com because the challenge in politics is if a tree falls, no one's there to hear it.
Did it make a noise?
Well, we're making noise, but the establishment doesn't really want to cover us and some of the right-wing independents don't really want to talk to us because we do damage.
But thank you.
Viva.
For talking to me, and I called you Eva again, but I just can't help it.
It's right there.
I'll have you on anytime, whenever you want, and not just because I like you, but I also like you.
I'll have people on who I don't like, but I like you.
I met you.
I heard your voice a while back, and it resonated.
I don't live in Ontario.
Certainly would have voted provincially for you.
I wouldn't tell anyone else how to vote.
But I'll put the links up in the pinned comments so people can find you, follow you, and you'll come back on time to time.
Bring me up to speed as to what might be going on in Canada in my absence to make sure I'm up to date.
And we'll do it.
We're going to have major stuff that's going to come out.
I wish it was ready for this one, but I need a couple more weeks.
And every time we announce something, they always copy us.
They get these fake oppositions.
So they always copy.
So I don't want to announce it, but if you give me a couple weeks, and I like coming here because you say you like me, and there's so many people that don't like me.
I can't understand it.
They don't like me, but I like going where people like me, so I'll be back.
Good.
Let me know when you have the announcement ready to go, and we'll come out here and maybe do an exclusive.
Thanks, man.
All right.
Have a good one.
Bye.
Bye.
I need to take these headphones off.
Oh, yeah.
That was Jim Carahalios.
He's actually co-founder of the New Blue Party.
Oh, my ears are killing me.
Well, that was fun.
So you got your dose of Canadian stuff, peeps.
The only story that I didn't actually manage to get to was Elon Musk having a victory in court.
Twitter's going to have to send him some documents that they didn't want to send him, apparently some communications with an ex-employee relating to bot statistics.
Not a big enough deal to get into right now.
Let me see before my wife comes back and kills me.
It's been going on for a long time.
Viva Fry, Mr. Baber was in the Progressive Conservative Party.
Why did he go to the Conservative Party?
And where is he on Ukraine?
Okay, so I got to that one.
Under the conservation of H's principle, I think you should pronounce when as when, don't you think?
I don't know.
Does Barnes wear pants when he streams?
My gut says he's only in a suit from the waist up.
He seems like a practical guy that likes to be comfortable.
No, unless he does not wear pants when I'm not in the same house as him, he wears pants.
I was saying that calling someone out on Twitter that way is stochastic terrorism because it makes the person a target for attacks.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Touche, Steve.
Steven.
Politicians have been promising to fix things with the West for over a century.
Nothing has changed.
Canada, simply put, isn't.
Viva Frey, do you think Valerie Plante?
Valerie Plante is the...
She's not the mayor of Montreal.
She is.
I'm getting so confused.
Likes or agrees with the WEF plans.
Hold on.
Hold on, people.
Let's see something.
Valerie Plante.
Valerie Plante, people.
Let's play the game.
Do I think that Valérie Plante likes or agrees with the WES?
Don't take my word for it.
Why is her name there?
Like, just, her name is there.
Valérie Plante, Mayor of Westmount, not Mayor of Westmount, Mayor of Montreal, on the WEF website.
Her picture's not there.
She doesn't have a beautiful bio, like, well, let's just say Jagmeet Singh.
Jagmeet Singh's got a massively beautiful, look at this, WEF forum.
Beautiful.
I'm going to play the game today.
Let's go with Angela Merkel.
Angela Merkel, W-E-F.
Yeah, let's see.
Guaranteed.
Oh, there you go.
Curious.
Let's go with...
I don't think she's going to be there.
I think I remember doing this on Nancy Pelosi.
Let's just play the game, people.
Oh, no.
Oh, she is there.
That's nice.
Can you believe this effing world sometimes?
I don't know what it means.
If my face is ever on the WEF website, they're getting a letter of demand to take it down immediately.
Lori Lightfoot, I don't know why this one's on my mind.
Seems that she might have been at a...
Oh.
She's got something there.
Lori.
There it is.
The report was also shared with the incoming...
It smells like one of those Ponzi schemes where they just put people in it and then say, look how good we are.
We have these people associated with us because we've, without their permission, built up a webpage for them and a bio.
Don't ever even stop saying, when, people.
Okay, my wife said, would I be done by 3.15?
And I will.
Marion, if you're watching, I'll be done in a few minutes.
Jim and Belinda Kalaharios are amazing.
They're amazing.
Do Tulsi Gabbard.
Let's see it in real time, people.
In...
Oh, come on.
I just closed the window down.
Come on, Dave.
No, now I'm at the wrong thing.
Share screen.
We'll do it together.
We'll do it live!
Tulsi Gabbard.
Good.
Good.
Oh, hold on.
What's this?
Tulsi Gammard, I'm honored to be selected as 2015...
What is this?
2015.
Are you affiliated with the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab?
That's from March 16th.
Surprise!
Tulsi's photo bio were removed from the World Economic Forum's website.
The same website that Klaus Schwab with a great reset.
Tulsi's got some problems.
Oh, what did people know about the WEF back in 2015?
That would be my question.
Some people are going to say everybody who knew or ought to have known knew then.
Let's see about that guy, Sean Handy.
He's not going to...
Okay.
So yeah, Tulsi Gabbard seems to have a...
There, you got that connection, people.
That's what Google results shows.
That was great.
Thank you all for being here for today.
Tomorrow night, I forget the sidebar, but it's going to be a good one.
Tomorrow during the day, as always, Dan Crenshaw?
I'll be shocked.
I'll be shocked.
No, I don't see anything for Dan.
Here are the young people pushing boundaries.
There's an article that mentions Dan, but I don't see a landing page.
It's been two hours and 40 minutes, and I haven't peed.
David, do Viva Fry just so we know.
Hold on, hold on.
My goodness, this will be funny.
Are we?
No, we're not.
I got to go share screen.
Let's see this.
Let's get that comment off.
You know what's going to come up with this?
Oh, that would be funny.
So, why does Wikipedia come up?
So, must include WEF.
Birthday special.
Okay, that's...
People, don't panic.
That's a link to a podcast.
Where I probably had less than flattering things to say about the WEF.
Okay, good.
When Tobogganing Goes Wrong.
This is going to be me, isn't it?
Yeah, it is, because it's storyful.
Hold on, how not to go tobogganing?
Where's the volume?
Children!
Behold!
Life was so much simpler back then.
It's on!
I thought things made sense.
Eh, eh, eh, eh.
Yee-hoo!
Woo!
Oh my gosh!
Oh god!
Yeah.
That's a victory!
Is that the plan?
No, I was genuinely not.
Those were the days, people.
I thought I would go through the trees at the last minute.
Oh, gosh.
Okay, well...
What happens here?
Is that it?
Oh, yeah, look at it.
Slow-mo, people.
No.
Oh.
Branch up the butt.
Sorry about that.
Okay, so I'm not affiliated with the WEF, and by the way...
Anyone ever sees me included in an article or a landing page, let me know.
Okay.
Go.
Enjoy the day.
As I always say, there's no point in winning if you have sacrificed your decency and human dignity.
Winning is not cheating.
Cheating is not winning.
Get out there, talk to people in the real world.
Transitions.
Oh, and I hear someone saying it's time to go.
If offered $100 million and safety for your family, would you support the WEF agenda?
First of all, $100 million will automatically cause problems for your safety.
That's more money than anybody needs in life.
And you will never guarantee your safety by being bought out by...
Stochastic terror.
You'll never guarantee your safety by being indebted to the devil.
Never.
And there is no point living a life where you cannot walk among your brethren.
So my answer?
No.
And there's not even an amount of money.
Would you compromise your integrity for the safety of your family?
I'm sure people would lie to save their family.
Would people compromise everything that they are for survival?
I'm not even sure that that qualifies as survival at that point.
Someone says, I need $100 million.
You know what?
Nobody needs $100 million.
No, what people need is purpose, and they need security.
And $100 million is a liability.
It's not security.
Okay, that's my deep thought for the day.
Go out.
Be free.
And prosper.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection