All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:21:17
I Made it in to Reinhart's Court - Trump Raid / Motion to unseal Affidavit UPDATE LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're all starting with my ugly mug today.
Hold on one second.
There's a reason why I have to do this this way today.
Exceptionally.
Because otherwise it's just going to be a silent video because I'm not playing this video with music because there's another way for the tech lords, the tech lord overlords to screw with content creators.
And that is to claim videos, entire streams, because of incidental music that might be copyright protected, notwithstanding all fair use, all newsworthy, whatever.
We're going to play this video, and I'm going to, like, just do the...
So you can hear...
See the Prime Minister of Finland dancing up.
And my take on this might not be the take that a lot of other people out there have.
So let's just get going here.
I'll do voiceover of what I think is going on.
We're all having fun dancing and partying.
Rome is burning, but we play fiddles and drink.
Clip.
Later on in the party.
I'm dancing.
I have no problem with the Prime Minister of any country parting hardy.
People are entitled to have fun.
They're entitled to dance.
Like it's 1999.
Or Y2K.
They're entitled to dance and they're entitled to party.
This is rubbing people the wrong way.
Stop it!
This is rubbing people the wrong way because on the one hand, it doesn't exactly make the leader of a country look good to some.
I have no problem with the image of this.
I have a problem with someone partying while they lock down a country and insist that the plebs Not benefit from such freedoms.
Or that they go partying all night long.
Let me pull up the article here.
They go partying all night long.
Don't take their cell phones on them.
Don't get notified that they have come in contact with someone who tested positive.
Go out and mingle with the world.
Santa Maria, Finland's PM.
Sorry for clubbing after COVID contact.
I think it might have been worse that she went out.
And said that she didn't know that she had come in contact because she'd never phoned.
Sana Marin went on a night out in Helsinki on Saturday, hours after her foreign minister had tested positive.
That's not a big deal for them.
She was initially told she did not need to isolate because she had been fully vaccinated.
I don't think that's actually true.
But later missed a text that advised her to do so.
Critics questioned her judgment for not isolating until testing negative.
Because even if you could, in theory, go clubbing because you're vaxxed and therefore have special privileges, notwithstanding all science and indications to the contrary, she didn't think it was in her good judgments to not go clubbing after her foreign minister tested positive.
Yeah, so it's more not the...
Image itself.
You know, like when that video of AOC on a rooftop dancing and lip syncing was going around and it was like, oh, it's so unprofessional.
That, I think, could qualify as pearl clutching.
I saw nothing wrong with the video itself.
People are entitled to be lackadaisical, whimsical.
I don't mean lackadaisical.
Whimsical.
They're entitled to have fun.
It's not because you're a politician that you're not allowed, I don't know, you know, drone bass fishing.
But when you're out clubbing.
After knowingly having come in contact with someone who tested positive, science be damned.
Science be damned.
And when you're locking down your country and your people, telling them to stay home, shut your businesses down, your lives are over, forget you, but I got to go clubbing.
But first, let me take a selfie.
That's where the issue comes into play.
All right.
Let me just get my camera angle here.
I'm going to get some paperwork out of the way here.
I got into the hearing today at the, what was it called?
The West Palm Beach Federal Courthouse.
I saw Judge Bruce Reinhart in person, in a room filled with journalists.
It was a nice experience.
And we're going to go over it in detail.
And yes, I saw that Hetler Stetler is out of work.
I take no pleasure in that.
I think it's indicative of garbage.
I don't know how he lasted this long or how others on CNN have lasted this long.
Garbage.
No value added.
Money losers and misinformation experts, despite the term reliable sources.
We'll get to that as well, but I'm not taking pleasure in his demise.
There's still a part of me that feels bad for Stettler.
I hope he has enough money, but he cannot, I don't think, feel good about his contribution.
To the world of information and the divide and the discord that they have sowed, not through speaking the truth, but through promoting politicized propaganda.
We'll get there.
And before I get into my standard disclaimers, you may have noticed, people, you may have noticed this video on the bottom, it should have said, contains paid promotion.
And American Hartford Gold is going to get their money's worth today because...
This is going to be a good stream.
And it's a good timing to plug.
Yes, I have a sponsor for this video.
And it's American Hartford Gold.
I say I'm very critical when it comes to accepting sponsorships.
In fact, American Hartford Gold is only the second company that I've ever had as a sponsor for any video.
But I do believe in the company.
And I also believe in gold because I'm down 50% at least on my crypto.
Investments, although I think it's legalized gambling.
To the extent that there's money in the bank, you're losing 8% just by having the money sit there.
Gold, people.
Let me pull up the graphic.
Look at this.
Here.
Dude, share.
I'm going to pull my face out so you can see this.
I don't think you can hear me as I pull my face out.
American Hartford gold.
I'm going to explain.
Gold?
Yes, I know the arguments.
You can't eat gold.
You know what else you can't eat?
Crypto.
You actually can't eat money either.
You can only eat that which you can get with money.
The question is, how do you just avoid losing money?
Money is easy to make.
This is a lesson my father taught me.
Sorry, I get it the wrong way every time.
Money is hard to make and easy to lose.
One question people ask, how do you just not lose money?
Buy crypto, you lose 50%.
Buy some stocks, you take your chances.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
I've screwed up.
Gold, you could actually only lose so much so quickly.
And generally speaking, over time, it's good.
American Hartford Gold is a A-plus rated business bureau thing.
Great company.
If you text Viva to 998899, you can get up to $1,500 off your first order of silver.
You have to order a lot of silver in order to get the max $1,500 off, but there are perks.
If you're thinking about gold, my view is like, it's like holding one stock of Apple.
Like, why would anyone buy a stock?
You can't hold it.
You can't see it.
You're taking your chances on it.
Gold.
Hide it.
Bury it in the backyard.
Hide it off your butt like Captain Coolidge from Pulp Fiction.
Not only will you probably, you know, it's a decent investment.
You run the risk of losing less quickly.
And over time, gold has been the gold standard.
American Heart for Gold.
Text Viva to 99. 88899.
And jokes aside, I've got a lot of silver coins.
I'm not yet in the gold market myself, but I've got a lot of silver coins.
Except they're back in Canada.
Damn it.
Damn it, people.
Okay.
With that said, I'll probably plug them again later on just because.
Potato Head.
I don't call him Potato Head.
I didn't know people called him Potato Head.
And I was somewhere.
Where was I?
Where someone referred to Stettler as Potato Head.
And I had to explain to them what the reference was because it didn't look like they got it.
Gold is a good investment.
Dude, at the very least, it doesn't drop 50% overnight.
At the very least, it's not like you need insider information to get the stock at the good time.
When you buy a stock, you're buying it late.
That's just the reality of the market.
Whenever you think you're getting in early on the open market, you're already late.
Because it's a big club and you ain't in it.
Gold, you can sit on it, you can hold it, you can touch it.
And at the very least, it's not dropping 50% overnight.
And over the long run, it's good.
Okay.
I wanted to say the standard disclaimers before we get there.
Viva Daily, you need to set a schedule so I know how to tune in.
Locals is great with notifications, but when you're working, it's hard to look on your phone.
Yes.
And I'm trying to go live at noon.
Noon to two.
It's right in the middle of the day.
Kids are not in the house.
But today...
I had to go to the West Palm Beach federal courthouse to see, in action, the hearing.
And it was juicy.
It was beautiful.
We're going to get into it.
Standard disclaimers, super chats.
YouTube takes 30%.
If you don't like that, we are also simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
They have the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
Rumble takes 20%.
Better for the creator.
Better to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
And what else?
No medical advice.
No election.
Fornification advice.
No legal advice.
And today I'm going to break it all down in a way that you will not see anywhere else in the media, in the mainstream media.
Do I want to read this?
Dude, I'm not reading this.
So Brian Stetler has been booted.
Reliable Sources has been cancelled.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to make fun of Brian Stetler.
You know, other than the fact that CNN ruthlessly and remorselessly tried to ruin the lives of Nick Salmon and all the other Covington Catholic kids, they had an overt anti-Trump agenda, run with the anti-Trump narrative, purporting to be reliable sources.
This is after CNN Plus goes bust.
It's almost as if, over time, garbage fails.
It's almost as if people, discerning people, vote with their dollar.
And over time, there's only so much clickbait you can get with propaganda, anti-Trump, TDS-inspiring rubbish.
CNN is parting ways with Reliable Sources host and media pundit Brian Stelter with his last show airing on Sunday.
This has got to be devastating.
And the thing is, imagine selling your soul to promote the propaganda and then the company...
You know, he must have...
We're going to look it up afterwards.
He must have money up the wazoo, so he'll be fine.
But there is still a thing called ego.
Which, to many, is actually more important than money.
CNN will end its Reliable Sources program on Sunday, August 21. As a result, Brian Stetler will leave the company.
We appreciate his contributions to the network and wish him well as he embarks on new endeavors.
Oh, that's nice.
That's it.
Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, is basically what CNN is saying.
He said in a statement to NPR that he was grateful for his time at CNN and the show's examination of the media truth and the stories that shape our world.
His exit comes as new CNN CEO Chris Licht has put an emphasis on news as opposed to the liberal opinion programming that the network became known for under Zucker's management.
Stelter developed a reputation as a left-wing pundit.
I don't know that he ever developed a reputation as a pundit who spent much of his airtime criticizing conservative media.
He has recently called out...
He was recently called out in a report about an attempt to restore the organization's nonpartisan approach as the, quote, face of the network's liberal shift in the eyes of conservatives.
Oh, reliable sources had issues attracting viewers during the Biden administration.
You know, the funny thing is, they wanted Trump out of office so badly, they got it, and then they lost any incentive to Washington that they ever had.
I mean, at some point, you know.
A, they're not critical enough of Biden.
If they were to be critical of Biden, maybe they would garner new viewers.
They were so eager to get Trump out of office without realizing that it would be the end of a lot of their business models.
The show is down a staggering 41% among the advertiser-coveted demographic of 25 to 54. Wow, that's actually where my channel, this channel, our channel, is actually exceedingly strong.
For the year, Stelter's program shed at 26%, yada, yada.
Okay, he's out.
This is the question.
Brian Stelter, net worth.
People, what do we say?
Don't look it up.
Don't look.
My goodness, I hope we're still alive.
Yeah, what do we say is Brian Stelter's net worth estimate?
I don't think I've looked it up.
I'm going to say 15 million.
What do other people say in the chat for estimates while I go star some super chats?
Brian Stelter never had to rely on super chats.
Viva said he was down 8% on crypto.
No, no, no, dude.
I didn't say it.
I'm down 50% on crypto.
Viva said he was down 8% on crypto.
Yeah, more like 38%.
No, I'm down 50%.
I'm not hiding how much I'm down on crypto.
That's why I don't tell people to buy crypto.
20 million?
1.8 million is not enough.
15 million potatoes.
I'm going to say...
I believe 15 is going to be a fair, reasonable guess.
Wealthy people.
Okay, so one says 10 million.
10 million.
10 million.
Showbiz corner.
How much is Brian Stelzer with salary?
Oh, well, maybe his wealth is...
Not his wealth.
His estimate's going to go down now if it doesn't factor in a salary that he doesn't have.
So it looks like consensus, and these are notoriously unreliable.
Notoriously unreliable.
Looks like it's $10 million.
While his exact net worth is unclear, it is estimated to be $10 million.
Now, the problem is...
I presume that that estimate has to factor in salary, which if he doesn't have an income, his 10 million is going to go down quickly.
And also, you know, run into judgments like, what's her face?
You go from plus seven to negative six.
Viva makes money from the commercials that run on his videos.
Whenever people start taking sponsors, the sponsor gets a say in what they say.
No, they don't.
Live with it.
I'll tell you this.
No, they don't.
At least for me.
Sorry.
Let me speak personally.
I'm not taking a sponsor that's going to tell me what to say and what not to say.
And you know what the great thing is?
This channel survives without sponsorships.
Without sponsors.
Don't need them.
And the other thing is, I don't want ones that I don't actually like and believe in.
And I'll tell you this.
If the sponsors were going to tell me what to say, Too late this week, I guess, for anyone who follows on Twitter.
But yeah, no, I don't go overboard anyhow, but I'm not going to have my content or speech dictated or limited or otherwise curated by sponsors.
The channel has gotten to where it is without sponsors, and quite simply, that's it.
When will Viva join Blaze TV?
We'll see.
I don't know.
I shouldn't say we'll see as though there's anything in the making.
I wouldn't, you know...
Opportunities, we don't...
We consider opportunities.
Hot privilege.
Bucklebirth Jones.
Viva left Canada because no more drone fishing.
They screwed up everything with the drone laws in Canada.
It's not fun anymore.
The government ruins everything.
Two facts.
Viva la potato heads.
Voting machines...
Why are you trying to get me in trouble?
Voting machines dislike electrolytic fluids.
Gatorade.
I think every electronic on Earth does not like electrolytic fluids.
Dropboxes really dislike homeless people.
Dude, I get what you're doing there.
Do not break the...
You get caught urinating in a mailbox or a Dropbox, you're going to jail.
No, don't do it.
No more drone fishing, especially not with my small drone, because that will get pulled into the water with a sunfish.
So that's it.
Stettler's out.
It's not to revel in his misery.
He's probably not miserable.
He'll probably pick up some gig somewhere else.
He'll be fine.
But it is an indication that people are not buying into this crap anymore.
And maybe, just maybe, we're coming to a world where journalists are going to actually have to start producing quality and not partisan garbage in order to survive.
Where it's going to go back to a meritocracy and not a...
Propagandistocracy.
Now he worked for me.
Sorry, sir.
John Yarber.
I will sit up straight.
Stretch.
Oh.
Okay.
So that's the intro.
One story.
Stettler.
Gone.
Doesn't make me happy.
And there's no but.
CNN has to learn.
Journalism has to learn.
They have to go back to being honest, inquisitive, and...
What's the word I'm looking for?
the government instead of carrying their water.
Yeah.
I think it's great.
Not this guy says, you can further monetize your channel, but now you're in the same category as that crook, William Devane.
But not, I presume you mean now.
And I don't know who William Devane is.
I'm going to have to go look that up.
Journalists.
Earning their keep by being journalists, by being honest.
Which brings us into our story.
So, Barnes texts me.
Robert Barnes, for those of you who don't know, Tuesday says you should get down for the hearing.
In the Trump case, it's in West Palm Beach.
So it's like, I don't know, an hour away.
I thought it was Tuesday.
It was today.
So I, this morning, remember.
And I say, what are the chances?
I call up the court.
I want to know if there's going to be any chance, a snowball's chance in a Florida summer as to whether or not I can get in.
I'm on hold for 45 minutes.
I'll just drive down there for the time it takes to wait online and cross my fingers.
Get down there.
And I get down there.
Bear in mind, people, I'm neurotic.
I'm fearful in the sense of responsibility, you know.
Don't want to get in trouble.
Don't want to accidentally break the law and get the FBI on my back.
I get down there.
I'm just going to share some pictures on my Twitter.
And it looks like I'm too late because media everywhere.
Media is absolutely everywhere.
So this is the picture coming in.
This is the federal courthouse.
You got media on the left, media on the right, and there I am stuck in the middle with you.
I go up to the courthouse.
There's a...
Not a clerk.
There's a police officer.
Super friendly.
Floridian.
I love Floridians.
Super friendly.
Floridian, but I think it's a New Yorker turned Floridian, and apparently the vast majority of the law enforcement in Florida seem to be ex-New York cops.
He says...
I said, what are the chances of me getting into this hearing?
Slim to none.
People were coming at like 8 in the morning.
Media's all lined up outside.
They got their lights on.
He says, no phone, no computer, which is why I was AWOL all day.
So I have to go back to the car, hid my computer somewhere, which no one will find it, even if I hide it in the car, lock my phone in the glove compartment, and then I go back and say, I'll take my chances.
Get in there at 11 o 'clock.
Go upstairs.
And there's a lineup of journalists outside.
And I waited for two hours and got in.
In line, by the way, in line, story time, I met someone named Karen.
A lot of you are probably going to know who she is.
Karen Turk.
Karen Turk.
That's not the Karen Turk I saw.
The Karen Turk I saw was Mrs. Florida.
Karen Turk, Mrs. Florida.
Here we go.
And she's an anchor at Real America's Voice.
I start talking, as I typically do.
And Karen Turk had an interesting story.
It seems that she was sentenced to 30 days in a federal detention center by Magistrate Reinhold.
None of what I'm telling you is private information.
She wrote a book, which I might want to see if I can find on Audible.
Karen Reinhold.
Let's see.
It made the news.
Here we go.
So, misdemeanor, from what I understood, oh, let's see this, and she was sentenced to 30 days in an FDC, Federal Detention Center, by Judge Reinhardt.
Turk's looming jail sentence to be followed by five months of house arrest was ordered by U.S. Magistrate Bruce Reinhardt after a contentious hearing.
He also ordered Turk to perform 100 hours of community service at a nursing home.
While Turk didn't show any reaction to Reinhardt's decision, she and her lawyers sought to convince him that she has suffered enough and didn't deserve arrest, much less prison time.
A conservative commentator was crowned Miss Florida 2016.
The judge said, by the way, she had mentioned this, verbatim said he wanted to send a message that if you steal from the U.S. government, you're going to jail.
Unless Karen Turk can convince an appeals court that she doesn't deserve to spend a month behind bars for stealing her elderly mother's social security checks.
And I don't know the details and I'm not judging.
She's already been judged by the system.
The issue here is an individual sentenced to 30 days in a federal detention center for what I believe was a misdemeanor.
Since pleading guilty to a misdemeanor.
So she gets 30 days in a federal detention center by Magistrate Reinhart.
And it wasn't suspended pending appeal.
So she served that time.
The Judge Reinhart, after she pleaded to a misdemeanor, sentenced her to 30 days in an FDC because he wanted to send a message.
And she was an active conservative, vocal conservative, friends with Roger Stone, vocal Trump supporter.
Reinhart wanted to send a message.
Sent her to jail for 30 days, a federal detention center, and did not stay the sentence pending appeal, like they did with Jussie Smollett.
We'll see if they do it with Steve Bannon, depending on what happens.
So, necessarily, her appeal wouldn't be heard within the 30 days, so she'd serve her time and never get that back.
Wrote a book about her experience.
So I ran into Karen Turk while waiting in line.
We had an interesting discussion.
These other journalists that I see in line.
It's like, I say this without judgment in the personal sense, it is exactly the same environment, the same rat race, mutatis mutandis, as was the practice of law in a firm, as was the practice of law at court.
Bunch of lawyers within a firm, all vying for the same clients, vying for, you know, to get the good mandates.
You know, at court, trying to impress everybody.
They mingle.
Lawyers talk with each other.
They try, you know, try to impress each other with the files they're working on.
I saw these journalists, Washington Post, Bloomberg, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal.
They're all there.
And they're all like, it's a circuit.
Like, they know each other.
And then in comes this freak being me.
I had a mask on and I had my hair.
I had it in a ponytail for a bit.
And then I just said, forget it, I'll take it down.
If anybody recognizes me, they'll recognize me, but nobody recognized me.
Except for one lawyer for, I forget, one journalist for someone else.
Sorry, I just read a chat.
Viva, a lot of lawyers not being truthful on 10-year waits, sucking up the cash.
So I see all these journalists start talking.
And then we get in.
But it was interesting.
Mask mandates in the federal courthouse.
You have to wear a mask.
And the officers, whatever they're called, the officers who do the patrol in the courthouse, there's a word for them and I forget what it is.
They're enforcing the mask mandate.
And I'm not doing anything that might potentially get me in trouble with anybody.
I'm wearing my mask.
I'm listening.
I'm people watching.
I see journalists talking about vaccines.
One individual is telling other people about his vaccine history.
It was weird.
It was weird.
It's all weird.
Bailiff.
I don't know that the bailiff is the word.
It's an actual police officer on the outside of the court, not inside.
So the conversation was interesting.
But it's like-minded journalists, by and large, mingling with each other, waiting to get in.
Everyone's got their notepads.
Some of them have computers and phones because they're accredited.
They're trustworthy.
And I don't say that as a joke.
If I come in there and say, trust me, I'm not going to record and the court doesn't know me from a hole in the wall.
So we're all there.
We wait for two hours and we get in.
Get into the courtroom.
I hate court.
I hate it.
I hate everything about it.
I hate the pretentiousness about it.
Fancy paintings of previous judges on the wall.
You had that big, massive copper thing that says South District Federal Court.
I hate everything about court.
I hate the pseudo-politeness.
You have to wait for everyone to talk.
Thank you very much, Your Honor, for the time today.
I can't stand everything about it, but it was fun to attend.
That might be court security officer.
If they're part of the marshals.
Yeah, that might be it.
So we get in after two hours waiting outside.
Room's pretty full.
And then they start.
Judge Reinhold comes out.
Magistrate Reinhold comes out.
And I'm telling you, full disclosure, I'm biased.
I look at him and I know what I think of this entire process.
So everything that I see in people's demeanor.
Reflects what I already believe.
I'm very much aware of that.
The judge comes in and sets out four ground rules right away.
He says, no recording, no videos, wear your face masks, and if you have to leave, you're not coming back in.
When they closed the door, they said, no one's leaving, and if you leave, you're not coming back in, which immediately made me have to pee.
That's how it works.
And they went on.
The judge sets out what the hearing was.
And it was very interesting.
So there's legalese, there's technicalities, there's some nuances that I'm not going to get without doing further research, but I understand what they are.
I wouldn't say villainous.
I think the judge has a vested interest right now in defending his issuance of the warrant.
And think about that for a second and digest that while we go through everything.
Right now, tremendous scrutiny on this judge for having issued the warrant.
So everything that the judge does now, knowing that he's facing scrutiny and backlash for having issued this warrant, you have to presume that everything he's going to want to do or allow happen in this file is going to validate his decision.
He's going to want it to validate his decision, which is coming under a lot of scrutiny, to issue that warrant.
So, I mean, let that marinate.
While we go over the procedural stuff.
So the judge comes in, says no recording, no video, no nothing.
If you do it, you're going to get kicked out and prosecuted for contempt.
And he meant it.
And it was at that point that I was happy that I didn't even have any electronics on me to accidentally, unwitting, like I sit on my GoPro and you hear beep, beep, beep.
And then guess what?
Viva ain't getting any sympathy from the court.
And then he sets out the framework.
He says we're here on...
The interveners, interveners people, people who intervene in a file.
They're not parties.
They're neither plaintiff nor defendant.
They're neither prosecution nor defense.
They are people who say, we have an interest in intervening for a specific question or in the entirety of the file, in which case you'd be like an amicus curiae.
What is that?
Friend of the court.
So all of these interveners are media.
The intervening parties were Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC, NBC, the usual suspects.
One of which, and it's the only one I remember, his name was Moon, was the lawyer for Judicial Watch.
And that, I remember him and by name because he made a good point in his addition to the arguments which the lead counsel, forget his name, representing the group, did not make, but we'll get there.
So the judge says, we're here on the intervener's motion to compel...
Or to unseal the affidavit.
We all agree the burden is on the prosecution, as in the prosecution has the burden to show why they're not going to unseal the affidavit.
So the prosecution, the crown, the government goes first.
The interveners respond, present their arguments.
Prosecution gets the last word.
This is a motion from the interveners to unseal the affidavit for probable cause.
In support of the warrant that was issued by the judge.
So procedurally, so everyone understands, the judge has seen all of this.
The judge has seen all the evidence.
Even that which is under seal being the affidavit.
Judge saw it under seal.
Says, okay, I'm convinced.
Stamp, you go.
And now the interveners are saying, we're media.
We have a vested interest in seeing this.
We want to see it.
And the government has to unseal it.
Disclose it.
Government says, we all agree government's burden to justify not unsealing it.
They go first.
And the arguments write themselves.
So the prosecution, the government, has to show that there's a compelling interest not to make this public.
That notwithstanding the public's right to public court hearings, to public access to the documents, there's a compelling interest Not to disclose, not to make public this affidavit.
And the compelling interests when it comes to these types of cases are obvious.
They write themselves.
These arguments draft themselves.
I could plead both sides.
It's an ongoing investigation to publicly release this information now could reveal where we're going with this investigation, where we're looking, which might lead people to potentially destroy evidence.
It might disclose the witnesses' identities.
Which could lead to witness intimidation.
So the compelling interest from the government not to make this essential piece of evidence public is preservation of the integrity of the investigation and not resulting in witness harassment, intimidation, doxing, etc.
Given the seriousness of this situation, the prominence, what's the word I'm looking for?
The publicity behind this.
And, you know, they all have their case law.
As far as I'm concerned, the prosecution had the stronger of the applicable decisions.
A big distinction in all of this, and we'll get back to it in a bit, is that we're at the stage where the interveners are asking for disclosure of a document pre-indictment, pre-charges.
So, as of now, no charges have been filed.
So, people out there are going to say, well, there's tons of case law that say, Oh, you have to make public all the documents in support of the warrant, yada, yada.
And that is probably more true, easier to obtain after charges have been filed or after the matter is effectively closed.
Okay, so there's an investigation.
It's been referred to a grand jury, whatever.
There's an indictment.
Okay, after the indictment, no more investigation.
So the compelling interest not to disclose the documents is lesser than at this stage where we are pre-charges, pre-indictment.
Okay.
That's the government's position.
I'm going to let that stew.
Yes, Stewie, while I read some super chats.
Where do you come down on Jimmy Dore being ragged on by gunk Yuko with the rising lefty?
I have no idea what you just said in there.
I know Jimmy Dore.
I recognize that word.
Ragged on, I believe I understand what that means, by gunk Yuko and the rising lefty.
I'm gonna have to go look into that.
Super, people, There's nothing wrong with getting ragged on.
It's going to happen, especially when you share public opinions.
So it has to be fair.
If it's unfair ragging, disregard any of it.
If it's fair, respond.
Viva, please quit calling him Stetler.
Stetler is a nice little town in Alberta.
Brian Stelter is a...
It started off as a gag and now it's mentally burnt into my head.
Stetler.
Stelter.
Trump endorsed two Democrats.
They are tearing themselves apart on Twitter.
We live a simulation.
4D trolling.
How is this not conflict of interest?
With the judge?
It's interesting.
And I know nothing.
I know nothing private.
So if I'm right, it's just a good guess.
Making an example of Karen Turk, a vocal Trump supporter, making an example of her.
One month in a federal detention center.
Making an example here, recusing himself in a file involving Trump and the Clintons relating to the Epstein stuff.
So one can imagine.
I do believe that political bias has tainted this process.
So when I look at Judge Magistrate Reinhart, I see...
I see...
I won't say corruption.
I see that this whole process is tainted, and therefore I view everything that this judge does, this magistrate Reinhardt, I view it as tainted by political prejudice.
That's how I see it.
Now, that being said, there is also set-aside political prejudice.
There is ego bias in this as well, where the judge now has to make sure this file comes out in a way that doesn't make him look like a rubber-stamping buffoon.
Okay.
Thank you for the Super Chats, everybody.
It's not corruption.
It's abuse of power.
It is weaponizing the judicial, the prosecutorial, and the legal system.
That's what it is.
Prosecution, they don't speak for very long.
It was actually like 5, 10 minutes.
I thought this was going to go on until 5 o 'clock, but it was actually quite succinct.
Then the lead attorney, if anybody knows who it was, it's in the news.
The one representing the biggest bulk of the interveners comes up and he says, look, this is an exceptional...
Exceptional circumstance.
This can be distinguished from all the other case law because it's a former president and it's unprecedented, which means that there has to be an unprecedented level of transparency.
Now, the judge was asking a lot of questions of the defense, of the interveners, sorry, and they were making a distinction.
They're saying, okay, what's the basis for you to ask?
For the disclosure, for the unsealing of this document, apparently there's a common law right to access of information, and there's a First Amendment constitutional right.
I understand the distinction between common law and the Constitution.
One is a federally constitutionally enshrined right.
The other is a residual of English law, common law, which is jurisprudential.
So two different rights in virtue of which The interveners are requesting the unsealing of the documents, but as far as I understand, there is going to be a difference, but in this context, it's a distinction without a difference because it comes to the same.
By and large, the criteria, the evidentiary burden is about the same.
So whether or not they're invoking a common law right to access to the documents or a First Amendment right to unsealing the documents, distinction without a difference, it comes to the same.
Who's got the compelling interest here?
What is the compelling interest?
And where is the judge going to arrive in this assessment?
They say it's unprecedented.
It should be unprecedented transparency.
The warrant has already been unsealed.
And the people have a right.
The more that this information is kept secret, the more people are going to distrust the system, etc., etc.
Okay.
Think about this.
From the judge's perspective, assuming he would like this to unfold in a way where his decision to stamp that warrant is validated or not made to look stupid, if that affidavit does not contain absolutely compelling evidence, compelling allegations to warrant stamping off on this unprecedented warrant, pun intended, the judge is going to look stupid.
The judge is going to look like a partisan, politicized hack.
So, the incentive to not fully disclose that affidavit would lie where?
To not unseal that affidavit.
If there's nothing damning in it, that's where the judge would want this to go.
Because if there's nothing damning in that affidavit, to unseal in its entirety an affidavit that could never have warranted this unprecedented search seizure rate in the first place, the judge will look like a hack.
Release it, unseal it in its entirety, and people see that, judge is going to look like a hack.
Don't unseal it.
Keep it entirely tucked away.
People are going to suspect that that might be the case.
What's going to be the solution here that's going to allow the judge to preserve his ego, to defend against accusations that it was unwarranted, politicized, biased, partisan, whatever, to sign off?
Release some of it to show transparency.
But don't release all of it so that you can always say, what I didn't release really was the good stuff.
And this goes back to my tweet of the other day.
This is like three-card Monty with a street hustler where they say, look, oh, you could have won.
Look at this one card right here without showing you the other two to show you that you could never have won.
So this is what's going to happen.
And by the way, very important thing that the judge said, And I'm not sure if he said it accidentally, if I'm projecting, or if I'm viewing it with my bias.
I don't think he meant to go this far with what he said, and I think he immediately regretted it after he said it.
The intervener's counsel said, Your Honor, everything filed in the docket is also sealed.
So we don't know by the docket filings.
That's like the little list in the court record of court filings that are filed under seal.
The intervener said, we can only see a document filed under seal.
We don't know if it pertains to the issuance of the warrant.
We don't know if it was a document considered when issuing the warrant.
So we don't know if you actually saw it.
We don't know if it's something that we want to ask to be unsealed because it factored into your consideration of the issuance of the warrant.
So could you annotate detail, explain what is under seal in the docket?
The court listings, court filings, that might relate to your issuance of the warrant.
And the judge said, I relied on nothing except for the affidavit.
I didn't have notes, I didn't have a pen, but that burnt a little, that burnt something of a memory in my head.
The judge said, I relied on nothing.
He says, I don't think I'm disclosing anything that I'm not supposed to.
I relied only on the affidavit in determining whether or not to issue this warrant.
Let that sink in.
That affidavit had better contain some meat.
That affidavit had better contain some meat.
And another interesting thing that the judge pointed out, I forget which lawyer said it, I think it was the government.
No, no, it was the interveners, but it doesn't matter.
One of the lawyers said, when you came to the determination that there might be probable cause, and he stopped the lawyer and said, no.
I concluded that there was probable cause.
There was no possibility.
I concluded there was probable cause.
Relying only on the affidavit and the allegations contained in the affidavit.
And if I understood it correctly, there are no...
It didn't sound like there were other exhibits that were filed anywhere else.
So if there were other exhibits to evidence the affidavit, which was the only thing the judge considered when issuing the warrant, I guess if it's filed with the affidavit, we don't know.
But none of the other docket entries, from what I understood of what the judge said, were considered or relevant to the determination to issue the warrant.
So only the affidavit.
I want to see what's in that affidavit now.
Redact names.
I don't care about names.
What were the allegations that the judge said?
I came to the conclusion of probable cause.
I came to the determination there was probable cause after reviewing the affidavit.
So, interveners make the argument compelling interest to the right to know the public.
We're the media.
This is what we do.
The Judicial Watch's motion, very short motion, said we're educational.
We need this information for the purposes of our organization to inform the public.
It's in the public best interest.
Therefore, compelling interest weighs in favor of disclosure, not in favor of maintaining the seal.
The judge says basically straight off the bat, at first glance, I'm going to make public some of the affidavit.
He basically said, look, this is not my ruling, but prima facie, on the face of it, I'm not keeping the entire affidavit sealed.
The only question now is how much and what?
Dewey Unsealed.
There was an interesting discussion as to whether or not the judge, the court, or the prosecution, the government, would have to go through the painstaking line-by-line determination, what to redact, what not to redact when they make it public.
So there was the argument there, who has that burden?
If it's a 150-page affidavit, does it become exceedingly onerous for the government to go line-by-line, decide what to make public and what to redact?
The judge basically said, though, some of it's going to be made public, period.
I mean, just looking at it, I know it's in that affidavit.
We're going to make some of it public, but I'm not going to do that.
I think the courteous, the judicious, the fair thing to do.
And he asked the prosecution, he says, do you guys mind?
How much time would you need to submit to me a draft redacted affidavit that we'd make public?
You redact what you think you need to redact.
I'll review it afterwards to see if I agree with your redactions.
And to make public what you're prepared to make public.
If I think you're redacting stuff that should be made public, I'll let you know then, but I'll give you the first kick at the can.
How much time do you need?
And that's basically where it ended.
The judge effectively said, okay, I know some of it's going to be made public at first glance.
I'm going to give the prosecution the first kick at the can, the procedural benefit of the doubt.
Prosecution, you go over it, redact what you think needs to be kept secret.
And let me know what else you think we can publish.
How much time do you need?
They said a week.
We'll be back next week.
And they're going to submit it to the judge.
Ex parte.
So the interveners are not going to get to see the draft.
Oh my gosh, we have a new dog.
We don't have a new dog.
Winston?
Oh.
Everyone was saying, give Winston a haircut.
Oh my.
Look at Winston.
Look.
At Winston.
Oh, big baby.
Oh, he smells so good, too.
Now you can see his blind eyes, people.
Okay, dude, go give him a candy.
Go give him a cookie.
Get out of here.
It was time, people.
Close the door on your way out.
Close the door.
It was time because, don't judge me, he was getting his nails caught in dreadlocks in his fur when he was scratching, so it was time.
He smells so good.
He's naked.
Winston is naked.
Oh, poor dog.
Okay, where was I?
So the judge said, you guys, prosecution, submit it by next week.
I'm going to review it ex parte.
I have an issue with this.
I mean, I don't know how the procedure works in the States.
If the prosecution is prepared to submit a draft of that which they recognize can be disclosed, Subject to whether or not the redactions are justified.
I think the interveners should get to see that anyhow.
But it's going to be submitted ex parte.
The judge is going to look at it.
I'm not sure if he's going to give a copy.
But the judge is going to look over and the redacted portions and see if he agrees with the redactions or not.
There is going to be a substantial portion of that affidavit for probable cause that is going to be redacted.
If not out of actual justifiable necessity, If only to maintain the allure, the uncertainty that there was a portion of it that had to be redacted for compelling interests so that the judge can hang his hat and say, look, you guys haven't seen the entire affidavit.
If you're going to judge me, you're judging me on partial information.
That's what's going to happen.
DeSantis announces the arrest of 20 individuals for voter fraud across the Sunshine State.
Let me Google that in a second.
Valhalla Awaits says to protect the corruption.
Well, one thing's for certain.
Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant.
Disclose that entire affidavit and let the world see, saving names and whatever.
And if they say, well, we've seen all of it.
There was nothing in there that could have possibly justified this.
It's a political hit job.
Yeah.
What best way to avoid that potential outcome?
Don't reveal everything.
And you can always say, there's something in there that you haven't seen that justified the decision.
At the very least, that's the way the media can spin it in the meantime.
Now, hold on.
There was something else that I took note of.
Pre-indictment versus post-indictment disclosure.
I got to that.
Specified he relied entirely on the affidavit.
Yep.
About the finding of probable cause?
Yeah.
And I can't read my own Siri dictate.
The distinction also between law of the right to disclose.
Oh, First Amendment.
I don't even know what I wrote there.
Okay.
Superchats.
Let's get to these.
I will have to show the Winston clip to Dot, our dog who loves Winston.
Her vote is definitive, I would think.
Well, it's too late.
That doggy's hair is shaved.
He smells delicious.
They have these things here called mobile groomers, and they come to you.
Pet groomers, people.
I just said it.
Keep fighting.
Thank you very much.
They come to you and they cut your dog's hair.
I don't even know how they did it.
I can barely snip.
I could barely snip the wheel knots out of Winston's butt.
No, I got to this one already.
When Winston got the nuggets stuck in his butt fur.
Very disgusting.
Does your wife like your hair?
I think she likes it.
Today it looks particularly crazy because the gray hairs are out.
It's too straight because I washed it last night.
I appreciate it might look a little...
Unprofessionally crazy today.
DOJ has the list.
Reinhardt quit prosecution to join Epstein's defense of the pilot, etc.
I'm making a jump, but no way he's not on Epstein list.
There are things we can prove, and there are things we can only think we know until we can prove them.
How to know if it contains meat if we never see it.
We're going to see a portion of it next week, and we'll see if they've released anything with sufficient meat.
To justify the most unprecedented raid in American history.
We'll see.
Next week.
And then, I think he said also that they would also, if the parties wanted to appeal to a higher court, you know, they can do that.
I forget what he said about that.
You spelt freedom wrong.
Freedom wrong.
Where did I spell it?
V. Really dig your hair.
LOL.
Meany's out there teasing you.
Did you say...
Jay Siculo and Tom Fitton were there?
No, it was Moon.
And thank you for reminding me.
Do you think that they will cut their losses and release with huge swaths of redactions?
They're going to release something next week.
We'll see what the swaths of redactions are and we'll see what is included in what they release.
So it wasn't Tom Fitton.
It was a lawyer by the name of Moon.
Let me see if we're still green-lighted here.
It was a lawyer by the name of Moon.
Let me just see if I can't find his name.
And he made a great point to the judge.
The prosecution was saying we're pre-indictment.
We need to keep forgetting the word.
Compelling interest is to preserve the integrity of the investigation.
It's never been done before.
That's it.
Interveners say, compelling interest, this is unprecedented, more transparency, etc., etc.
Norman K. Moon, I believe, was the lawyer that I saw from Judicial Watch.
And what he came up and said is, okay, I adhere to my confreres' wise and compelling arguments, but I want to add this.
We are in such unprecedented territory that they've already released The warrant.
Typically, from what I understand, I guess, is that in the ordinary run of things, if this were just any Joe Schmo off the street, they wouldn't have even released the warrant or the list of exhibits seized.
So Moon from Judicial Watch says, look, we're already in uncharted territories.
This is already distinguishable from every court case out there because it's already so exceptional that they made the exceptional decision to unseal the warrant and the list of exhibits.
This is the next logical step.
So, Your Honor, the court is empowered to do it.
It's a good argument.
What's the judge going to say?
Look, yeah, it's so unprecedented that we've done things which are not done typically in other cases, but we're not going to go follow in that line, that vein of disclosure, transparency, so that people can see what on earth could have possibly justified this.
Where's Sexy Barnes?
I think he's...
I don't know where Barnes is at.
I texted him earlier.
When I was looking for the courthouse, but then I told him I found the courthouse, so I guess he didn't need to get back to me.
This is all about the FBI covering their tracks with regards to Trump attempting to declassify the Spygate documents that the DOJ refused to do.
Possible.
That's possible.
There are a number of theories.
And Barnes' operating theory is that this wasn't a Joe Biden hit job.
This was a deep state, administrative state operation where Trump has...
Insurance documents or documents which would embarrass the administrative state, the deep state, if they were to be disclosed.
So that's the rundown of what happened today.
Then I left.
You see all of the media out there.
It's like after the hearing ends, and I say this without judgment, it's just the nature of the industry.
I'm going to rumble just to make sure.
I got to rumble right.
Here we go.
It's the nature of the industry.
After the hearing's over, all of these journalists, they're sitting, they're scuttling away on their computers.
They all need to bust out to be the first ones to get the story to press.
They need to be the first ones to get the story out there because that's what it is.
Journalism is first to market with the best product.
A little combination of both.
And so they're all trying to run out, get their stories typed up so they can get them published.
And what does the lone wolf Viva do?
A minute and a half summary, as I walk past all of the media, post it to Twitter, I think I might have been first to market with the scoop.
And I think I might have been first to market with the detailed breakdown of the hearing.
Judge Reinhart excused everybody, recess, and he's going to issue his formal order, but that's what was in it.
Crumble rant from Kitty724 with love.
And welcome to America.
Appreciate all you do.
And just get those two little hard things.
Thank you very much.
Viva.
I got it out first.
And that's...
I think I get the double entendre now.
It was fun, though.
It was a lot of fun.
And the funny thing is this.
I'm upfront about it.
I'm quite vocal about it.
I believe there's rampant politicized corruption going on here.
And the weird thing is...
It's institutional.
And this is the thing.
It's beyond the parts of the machine.
Every police officer I saw there today, fantastic, funny, good-natured people, the guy who let me in, you know, tells me, no cameras, and good luck getting in.
I said, what are my chances?
Slim to none.
Okay, I'll take my chances.
Good laugh.
The marshal there, making sure everyone has their masks on, sense of humor.
Individually, People tend to be good.
But you could feel, I won't call it corruption, but political corruption of the institution itself.
You've got, everybody's, the corruption is this.
It's the normalizing of the political weaponization of the institutions.
Everyone's just there doing their job.
Prosecutors there on paper, pen and paper, I'm sure they think they have a defensible case.
He took boxes.
It's not the classified documents.
He took documents.
This all, by the way, originated from a NARA complaint, a National Archives Registration Act complaint.
He didn't bring back documents that he was supposed to return.
It all starts there.
And then the institution which has been weaponized and corrupted as an institution...
The wheels start moving and everyone is just a little cog in that weaponized, politicized, corrupted machine.
Prosecutions prosecuting to the full extent of the law.
It's exactly what we saw in Canada with Tamara Lich and that Crown Prosecutor Karimji.
On paper, if you detach your brain from your spinal cord...
If you stop thinking on paper, yeah, okay, so there's a potential crime.
We've got to do it.
Okay.
Looking at the affidavit.
Doesn't really matter.
Set aside that it's the President of the United States coming from an FBI with its history on paper.
Okay.
There you go.
Stamp.
And then the wheels just keep going like that.
And the funny thing is, I'm not sure if the media was there.
I don't know what the media wants.
Do they want the documentation if it's going to reveal nothing?
Do they prefer not to have it if they can continue to run with, you know, whatever clickbait?
Hypotheticals they have, still waiting for those nuclear documents that they said were there.
And in their pleadings, they did mention, they said, well, we know that some of the document is top secret NCSI or NICS or whatever.
We know it.
And the judge's like, well, how do you know that?
He's like, well, you know, anonymous sources.
And it's almost like the media was there to try to get the soundbites that they want.
Yep.
In open court, it's confirmed.
Judicial knowledge.
There's top secret information in there.
Therefore, everything is justified.
So that's it.
It's institutionalized.
The judge is interested only in becoming famous.
I doubt that he wanted to become famous for this.
A gigantic opportunity to become a Democrat mover and shaker may be a future congressional dog.
Viva Fry supports Justin Trudeau.
And you go block now.
Not because of the message, but because it's a bot.
Local news.
First at 6. Apologies at 11. Not bad.
And what do we got here?
And I got to bring up something that my brother sent me.
If you must break the law, do it to seize power.
In all other cases, observe it.
Julius Caesar.
That's it.
That's the old expression.
If you're going to aim at the king, don't miss.
The shoe will drop when the Reinhardt doesn't release, gets released, and it will.
If you must break the law, break it to seize power.
It's funny.
He said that, and that's pretty much what Hitler did.
Make sure that you will not be able to be taken down once you break the law.
It's Machiavellian before Machiavelli.
And it's also the old expression.
If you're aiming at the king, don't miss.
See, like, I don't...
It's a nice avatar.
Judge Cause, ex-wife.
Speaking of loving Justin Trudeau, let me tell you why I don't love Justin Trudeau.
My brother sent me something because my brother has now gotten...
He's gotten into Twitter.
He's gotten into the madness.
And by the way, I started watching...
I'm almost done, but Uninformed Consent.
What's amazing, uninformed consent, I shared the link, or not I shared, the link was shared in our locals community.
It's nothing new to people who have been paying attention and following this for the last year.
But it's in a digestible documentary, well-produced, compelling.
And if that doesn't enrage you in the sense of...
If it doesn't enrage you...
You've given up.
You've given up.
And I had someone with an open mind watch it, and they said if even 10% of that is true, it's over the top.
My brother sent me some court rulings out of Canada where the judges are effectively taking judicial notice of the fact that the Fauci Jews...
Judicial notice.
Let me just see where it is here.
You sent me the link to the judgment.
Give me one second.
I'm going to email this to myself.
Judicial notice means the judge can just determine it on his or her own because it's such an undeniable or known fact like the sun rises to the east, sets to the west.
You don't need experts to come and prove that.
Judicial notice.
Judicial notice.
The earth is round, despite what some people think.
Judicial notice.
It's undeniable fact that is so apparent, one need not waste the time of the court having an expert prove it.
And there's a number of things that you can have as judicial notice, historical fact, scientific fact when it's obvious enough.
But now it's this.
Let me see here.
So he sent me this decision, a published decision.
He did a little bit of the homework for me.
Paragraph 24, he says.
This is, as far as I understand it, let's just see here.
The mother brings a motion for an interim order allowing her to obtain medical vaccinations recommended by Ottawa Public Health guidelines for the party's seven-year-old child.
In particular, the mother seeks to have the child vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella.
And COVID-19 in accordance with OPH.
I presume the objection is not to the measles, mumps, rubella.
I presume.
I haven't seen this decision yet.
And upon recommendation of the child's family physician.
In addition, the mother seeks an order dispensing with the need to obtain the father's consent for any future vaccinations and for the father's...
Is this homemade ginger ale?
People, hold on one second.
This is homemade ginger ale.
That's not bad.
Thank you.
Are you giving it to me or are you taking it away?
Okay.
Close the door.
Please.
Homemade ginger ale.
Not bad.
I saw them making it since yesterday.
Okay.
The father opposes the motion.
He does not support the administration of medically required vaccines to children.
He is skeptical of vaccines because family members...
He also has safety concerns because he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease.
The father relies on materials from the United States Center for Disease Control to support his position that individuals who have a parent or sibling with an autoimmune disorder should not receive MMR vaccines.
With respect to the COVID-19 vaccine, he argues that there is worldwide research that the current vaccine for children aged 5 to 11 has side effects and the risks of those side effects outweigh the vaccine.
We're not going to go into it.
Paragraph 24. Based on the evidence provided and upon consideration of the above noted factors, I find that it is in the best interest of the child that the mother have interim decision-making responsibility for...
The child on matters of health, including vaccinations.
While I've considered the best interest, all the best interest factors in arriving at my decision, I address below the most factors that have informed my decision.
That's not the paragraph, Dan.
Paragraph 85. Sorry.
Okay.
Best interest of the kid, by the way.
Bill 15 in Quebec removed parental supremacy as the overriding factor in decision-making for the child.
And I said, It's only a matter of time before the government is making that decision for you.
In this case, the government is saying it's in the best interest of the child to do what the mother says.
Because in this case, the mother's against the father and the court is deciding.
One day, it's going to be both parents against the court at the request of the kid and the court is going to come to this exact same decision.
Upon review of all the evidence filed, I find...
That I can rely on the mother's materials from the various Canadian health authorities to find that, as a general presumption, it is in the best interest of children as young as five to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
As a general presumption.
It's a presumption now.
Generally, it's in the child's best interest.
I find that while the father's materials do identify concerns raised by Dr. Robert Malone with respect to the safety risks of the Pfizer vaccine, This in and of itself does not displace the presumption.
Oh, I'm sorry.
So I've come to a presumption.
I have evidence to the contrary from another doctor, but it doesn't displace the presumption.
It is information that the parent who has decision-making responsibility will have to consider, along with all the other literature related to COVID-19 immunization, in consultation with the child's physician.
There we go.
Just washed my hands of it.
That's for the parent to decide in conjunction with the doctors.
The parent who, in this case, I side with.
Because one parent says, I don't want it.
The other one says, I do want it.
It's a general presumption.
It's in the child's best interest.
That's the presumption as determined by the court.
The mother was successful on this motion.
If the parties are not able to center the other issues of costs, yada, yada.
Let's see what it was.
The mother will have decision-making on matters of health, including vaccinations.
The mother will reasonably consult with the father prior to making decisions on the administration of any other vaccines other than the MMR and COVID-19 vaccines.
General presumption, people.
Yep, I know there's other people who say otherwise, but the general presumption, it's in the child's best interest.
Let's do it.
Medically necessary.
How about medically necessary?
And, you know, in this particular case, they only talked about, the judge only referenced Dr. Malone.
I presume this might have been argued before Dr. Kieran Moore out of Ontario, which is where this decision came from, identified the risks of as much as 1 in 5,000 for 18-year-olds and under.
Let's see, when was this argued?
Kieran Moore said that in July.
This was from June.
So this was released June, pleaded obviously earlier.
I presume that...
Not I presume.
This was before Dr. Kieran Moore came out and said, there's a small risk of myocarditis.
One in 5,000.
One in 5,000.
Small risk.
Okay.
Let's see what we got in Superchats over here.
Maybe try some highlights.
I am not dyeing my hair.
Highlights may be like blonde.
I could do streaks again, but no, I'm not going to dye my hair.
I am what I am.
Your live reporting is the best.
Those MSM hacks only wish they had half of what you have.
Thank you very much, Girls Inc.
or GLS Inc.
Thank you.
Viva, check out Trump's attorney right after the hearing.
Also, did you see Jamie Raskin flee from the run?
Priceless.
So one of Trump's attorneys was there.
Her name is Bob.
Her last name is Bob.
Let me see here.
I didn't want to...
It's so funny.
So you can tell when someone is a VIP.
Trump attorney.
Who is Trump's attorney?
Christina Bob.
Is that her?
I think that's her that I saw there.
You can tell when someone's a very important person.
All the journalists want to...
Oh, I sent you an email.
And they all want comments on the record from...
Christina Bob, let me just make sure.
Yeah, that's who I saw.
Christina Bob.
And I wasn't going to bother her with any questions, but it was clear the media wanted her, wanted questions from her, wanted statements from her.
I'm going to go follow her on Twitter.
Follow.
And now I'm following Christina Bob.
Okay, good.
So, no, I didn't see her statements afterwards.
What did she say?
Thanks, Joe, from chat.
Where's Joe?
God forbid the child has an adverse event.
The mother should be held to account.
So by the way, this is another thing.
Let me pull this up while it's right on point.
And I spoke with Laura Lynn about this before commenting on it because I wanted to make sure that I had questions.
Laura Lynn, for those of you who don't know, let me just pull her up here.
I've been on her show a couple of times.
I'm going to try to find her on Twitter.
She posted a video of what He purports to be an irate father calling a pharmacist to ask them how it is that apparently they administered the Fauci juice, the mother did without the consent of the father to the kid.
The kid had allegedly, I don't know if any of this is true, an adverse reaction.
And the father was irate, calling up the pharmacist saying, what warnings did you give to my wife when she came in without my consent to have the child vaccinated?
So I'll play you the video.
I spoke with Laura Lynn so that I can say what I want to say.
Here, listen.
Can you question for a physician?
Yes, we can.
Yeah, hi, are you a pharmacist?
Yes, how can I help?
Yeah, hey, I've got a question.
My wife, against my wishes, I brought my seven-year-old son in there a few days ago for a COVID jab, and he's now in the hospital with myocarditis.
And I was obviously not very happy with you guys or with my wife.
She told me that she was not told that was a potential side effect.
So here's the deal.
Let's assume that this is...
An activist on the phone.
It never happened.
I don't know if it happened.
I don't know names, and I don't know if it's a true story.
Let's just assume he's an activist.
call the pharmacist to try to get this answer.
You got the jab?
Were you told?
So I'll clip it so you can go watch it.
So this is the question.
I don't know if it's a true story.
I don't know if it's some guy calling up with the story just to get that answer or if it actually happened to him because he gets irate.
Towards the end.
I called Laura Lynn.
I said, like, do you know details?
She doesn't know that she's looking into it, but no details.
This is one of those damned either way.
Either it's a true story, and that's an actual father, and it sounds like he's irate and the anger is palpable, or it's an activist.
Some guy calling a pharmacist, hoping to get that answer, but he got that answer.
Why wouldn't?
It is a true story.
He taped the conversation.
No, I know.
Until I can verify it, you have to analyze it from both sides.
He got that answer.
And the answer was assuming that it's an actual pharmacist on the other end.
This could be a hoax from beginning to end.
Never happened.
Set up two actors so that conservative, right-wing, anti-vaxxer, whatever you want to call them, can get their misinformation.
So with all that said, it's either totally fabricated, these are two actors, or it's an activist, it didn't happen to him, but he's calling a pharmacist and got that answer, or it's a true story, happened to him, happened to his kid, he got that answer from the pharmacist.
If it is, mind-blowing.
Because I can tell you one thing, I remember from way back when, back in the day, over a year ago, when I got my second and last of the Rona shots, because I'm not going to be, Up to date, Mr. Trudeau.
I know what they didn't tell me.
I know what they didn't tell me at the time.
It was in a parking lot of a pharmacy outside.
Literally behind a dumpster.
I know what they didn't tell me.
At that point, I knew to some extent what I was playing with.
I didn't need them to tell me.
I was reasonably informed back then.
Definitely not as informed as I am right now.
But I know that they didn't say certain things.
I know that they didn't disclaim anything.
Now, I happen to already know a bunch of things from, you know, standard vaccine always has issues, but potentials.
They didn't say anything.
Yeah, or it's staged.
It's possible.
Staged on both ends.
But I know what they didn't tell me when I went.
I'm a lawyer, so I have these reflexes all the time.
I know what they didn't tell me, and they didn't tell me anything.
Come in, boom, like a bunch of cattle.
Here you go.
Here's your paper.
Come back for your booster.
Okay.
Viva, I'll be driving up to Quebec next month from New York.
Will they drop the vax mandate?
No, they haven't done it yet.
Trudeau doesn't care about the science.
They say trust the science.
They did not have any science behind any of their idiotic vaccine policies.
They had no science.
They had polling.
There was no science to it.
Trudeau doesn't care what the CDC says.
He's got the, I forget what it is, Health Canada in Canada.
The government subsidized Health Canada is now going to give the government that subsidizes them the medical recommendations so they can continue doing what they're doing.
Trudeau doesn't want to let go of this proverbial ring.
He never will.
When I got the V, they asked if I was allergic to any of the components, but they didn't have them posted.
Okay, people.
So that's it.
American Hartford Gold, people.
I feel like Howard Stern out of private parts when he's doing the ad reads.
I'm so unfamiliar with doing ad reads in the first place.
They have to be made funny and they have to be humorous, but they have to be good.
American Hartford Gold.
One.
What the heck is my problem?
866-318-2115.
Up to $1,500 free silver on your first order.
And by the way, I do my due diligence.
I called them up.
I said, what does this mean exactly?
How do you do it?
How do you get it?
And apparently, it's like 0.5% of the value of your order up to $1,500.
So if anybody can do math faster than me, you have to order a buttload of silver to max out on your $1,500 in free silver.
But it's there.
Text Viva.
998899.
And gold, people, you can only go so wrong with gold, and that's pretty much not wrong.
And now I understand why people wear the gold chains.
Easy liquidity.
Mobility.
I don't wear gold.
And that's it.
American heart for gold.
In inflation, in times of inflation, gold is a sure bet.
Okay.
Now I'm going to bring up the...
Plus shipping.
Do they charge for shipping?
I think they have to charge for shipping.
Barnes loves Viva.
Keith Hutchins always in the house with encouragement.
I am a clown.
I'm not sure if that's meant as an insult or a compliment because I actually read it.
It's like, oh, yes, I am a funny, I have a sense of humor, which I will not be losing anytime soon.
Okay, now I'm actually doing a podcast with Crypto Lawyer at 6 o 'clock and I need to exercise first.
People, I'll be, what is it called?
Jimmying over that courthouse every time there's a hearing.
It's fun.
I like it.
I am not going to be live streaming from federal property.
I'm not going to do anything that could potentially break a law that I don't even know exists.
I'm a good boy.
I'm going to go there, follow the rules, get the scoop, follow the story, and bring it to you in real time.
Hey, Dave, you see Dr. Campbell's take on the Thai heart complication.
No, I didn't.
I'm going to go see that.
Okay, and then one more Super Chat, and then we're going to call it a day, people.
Behind a dumpster, did you see pink elephants afterwards?
Viva, Viva, Viva.
No, it was in the parking lot dumpster area behind the pharmacy on St. Catherine Street and Argyle on one of those streets.
Could you do a segment on Bunham?
Hey, Viva, could you do a segment on USS Bunham Richard?
Burning?
No, I don't know.
I mean, I have to look into it.
At least you do not block me.
I don't block trolls who are actual humans.
But those robot ones...
Oh, but at least you do not block me.
Thank you, Keith.
Keith, I know that you like me.
If you didn't like me, you wouldn't be here.
Okay.
People, go enjoy the day.
It was fun today.
It was an adventure.
We'll do it again tomorrow.
Alex Stein.
Primetime 99. I think he's going to come on in the afternoon, so I'm going to make that happen.
It's going to be fun.
Yesterday's sidebar with Savannah Hernandez was phenomenal.
It was phenomenal.
If I do say so myself.
Okay.
Let me just make sure before we go that I have absolutely nothing left here on...
Not Rumble.
Oh, on Rumble.
That's where I want to go.
Sorry.
Hold on.
Are there any Rumble rants on the Rumbles?
There aren't.
But there's 300,000 silver for a full 1,500 at 0.5%.
So maybe it was 1%.
I thought it was 150,000.
Not that that's any different, but it could be also if you buy, you don't have to buy physical silver for that.
It could be stock ETFs or whatever they're called.
So anyhow, American Heart for Gold.
Call them and see what, you know, whatever.
Okay.
Viva, your take.
Love your take on the world.
Great day.
Thank you.
Viva from Big Pete.
You get on true social yet?
No, not yet.
And I knew it.
I knew it, Keith.
Good.
Okay.
I got banned from a gamer stream for making the joke that it's Trump's fault, you guys.
Okay.
I'm not getting into anybody else's interwebs drama.
Thank you for being here.
Snip clip.
Share away.
And you have more of a detailed analysis than you're going to get from any mainstream.
Oh, gosh.
I'm going to knock on my computer.
Go.
I'll see you tomorrow, peeps.
Have a good night.
▲
Export Selection