Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 1, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:57:56

Sam Harris on Trump; Ethan Klein on Tate; Jan. 6; Oh, Canada & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	When it comes to voters, does the president differentiate between the ultra-MAGA folks who he sees as an extremist threat to democracy and the average GOP voter?
	So, can't talk about voters from here.
	As you know...
	So...
	No, no, no.
	I get you.
	I get you.
	I just need to say that, right?
	Just to be clear.
	She looks so uncomfortable.
	...has been really clear about the leadership.
	The MAGA Republicans.
	Leadership.
	They're the ones who have the platform.
	They're the ones who, again, the extremist part of the Republican Party.
	Extremist.
	The ones who, you know, folks listen to in their own party.
	And by inciting violence, by trying to take away, they're the ones who are the legislators and trying to take away our rights, trying to take away our freedoms.
	And that's who the president is speaking to, right?
	He's being very targeted in that way and calling that out and saying, you know, we can't allow our democracy to be attacked in this way.
	And they have a responsibility.
	They have a responsibility in how they are doing their business on behalf of their constituents.
	We have a responsibility to ensure that democracy is not threatened.
	So we attack the legislators who are the elected representatives to carry out democracy for and on behalf of the people who elected them.
	When it comes to...
	Talk about voters from here.
	She looks so uncomfortable with everything she's saying.
	I just need to say that, right?
	Just to be clear.
	But that face right here, I don't want to be here.
	$180,000 a year is not enough.
	Hold on one second.
	Hello?
	Okay.
	Thanks.
	Sorry.
	I may have to pause for a few minutes and a second.
	She does not want to be there.
	There is not enough money in the world that can replace human dignity.
	Just to be clear, I mean, the president has been really clear about the leadership.
	The leadership.
	It's the leadership.
	And by the way, can you believe we're having this discussion?
	What do you mean by ultra MAGA versus...
	MAGA Republican.
	Ultra MAGA versus...
	How do we distinguish slurs for a large portion of the population?
	How do we determine that?
	Oh.
	Thank you.
	Sorry, guys.
	I have to handle the text.
	We're not talking about the people.
	We're talking about the extremist leadership.
	They're the ones who...
	Again, the extremist part of the Republican Party.
	They're the ones who...
	What's that part?
	You know, folks listen to in their own party.
	And by inciting violence, by trying to take away...
	They're the ones who are the legislators and trying to take away our rights.
	The legislators are inciting violence and trying to take away our rights.
	That's an interesting way of describing things.
	The legislators are trying to take away rights.
	The legislators are the extremists.
	And who do they mean by trying to take away rights?
	I mean, I had this discussion with someone on Twitter.
	They're implicitly, if not specifically referring to SCOTUS, who in their mind, with the Dobbs decision...
	Are taking away women's reproductive rights where, in fact and in law, all that they're doing is passing the buck to the states at the state level to determine what those rights are and how they should be regulated.
	Referring to the representatives as extremists who are taking away our rights, some might say that that is specifically the type of extremist rhetoric that is a threat to democracy.
	SCOTUS or not legislators agreed.
	But when they're talking about extremists taking away rights, they're specifically talking about the Dobbs decision.
	They're specifically talking about the courts taking away rights.
	And then legislators taking away rights?
	The legislators enact, legislate.
	And if they take away rights...
	In the sense that they legislate in a way that some people don't like.
	That's to some extent democracy.
	And to say then that the legislators doing what they were elected to do is itself a threat to democracy.
	And then to label them as extremists.
	I don't want to say the hashtag confession through projection because it's only 11:05 in the morning.
	But we might be seeing a little bit of that in this particular diatribe.
	Good morning, people.
	It is morning.
	Except on the Nova Scotia, good afternoon.
	East Coast, good extra early morning.
	Going live at 11, earlier than normal because Robert Barnes is going to be live on the Duran at 1 o 'clock today, Eastern Time.
	And I don't want to step on any toes and I also don't want to overlap because it conflicts with the audience.
	I know some people say, look, everyone's got their own audience.
	Barnes is going to be on with the Duran at 1 o 'clock.
	Couldn't find the link, but I'll find it and share it.
	And I don't want to overlap.
	So after you're done, watching the Canadian rant and rave and discuss things that you may or may not be interested in because we're talking about Sam Harris and Ethan Klein among actual important issues.
	After you're done here, mosey on over to the Duran with the Barnes talking about the big stuff.
	What else is going on?
	I've got a confession.
	You're the best and most genuine.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, I've missed a number of the super chats that I wanted to bring up to give the standard disclaimers.
	So we are calling all normal Republicans extremists.
	That is the MO.
	That is the, you know, that's the stage of dehumanizing rhetoric.
	Just call normal people extremists so you don't have to listen to them, so you can demonize, criminalize, and suppress them.
	And so you can also whip up your base into thinking certain things which might not necessarily be excusable or acceptable become excusable or acceptable because they're extremists who are threatening your democracy.
	When Justin Trudeau gets up there and tells you that those people are putting us all at risk and they're putting your kids at risk, that could lead people to think that unacceptable things could become acceptable.
	When you're facing an existential threat, not only for yourself, but for your children.
	And yeah, standard disclaimers, people.
	The Super Chats, I've missed them.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't like that, simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Let me make sure that everything is good on Rumble.
	And...
	Then we'll go on to the topics of the day.
	Oh my goodness, the topics of the day, people.
	Sam Harris, Ethan Klein, as the light-hearted, idiotic stories of the day.
	Then, January 6th, we're going to mosey through the Department of Justice's response to...
	What's his name?
	Donald Trump's...
	Motion to appoint a special master.
	What else was there in there?
	And absurdities.
	Absurdities coming out of Canada.
	Justin Trudeau tweeting.
	Let's start with this one.
	Justin Trudeau tweeting that they're going to launch.
	They're going to launch.
	Just so I don't misquote it.
	Update.
	This is from yesterday, August 31, 2022.
	Ask yourselves, by the way, they would need another...
	Why would it have taken two years to get this up in the first place?
	Especially in the current global context.
	But update.
	The new national hotline for mental health crisis and suicide prevention will launch next year.
	As of November 30, 2023.
	That is 15 months from now.
	You will be able to call or text 988...
	To be directed to mental health crisis or suicide prevention services free of charge at any time of day.
	November 2023.
	People may recall the sunset provision that was included in the recent legislation which sought to expand medical assistance in dying.
	And the...
	The controversy over a piece of legislation was when it was being drafted, this is from the Psychiatric Times, when it was being drafted, there was discussion that including a specific exclusion, that medical assistance in dying could not be offered to those suffering from mental illness, that could be discriminatory.
	You can't deny medical assistance in dying to people who are mentally ill, who may in law not be able to consent.
	Or contract to certain things.
	From the Psychiatric Times, Is good.
	Is acceptable.
	Is not problematic.
	This led to a dramatic turn of events in the unelected Canadian Senate, which considered Bill C-7.
	This is the one at issue to expand medical assistance in time.
	In an unprecedented move, Senator Stan Kutcher, MD, appointed by Justin Trudeau, who was also a psychiatrist, declared that the exclusion of individuals with psychiatric disabilities Also known as mental illness, and I say that without judgment.
	It's not a derogatory minimizing term.
	It's psychiatric disabilities is mental illness.
	Declared that the exclusion of individuals with psychiatric disabilities would be discriminatory.
	He introduced an amendment allowing MAID, medical assistance in dying, for mental illness available within 18 months of the bill passing.
	When the modified legislation was returned to the House of Commons, the discussion was quickly shut down by a liberal coalition and the Bloc Party from Quebec, a province that promotes euthanasia and aims to restrict conscientious objection to euthanasia by healthcare professionals.
	A vote was forced on March 17, 2021.
	C7 expansion of euthanasia in Canada became law, complete with the last-minute amendment to sunset the mental illness exclusion after two years.
	Can we do the math of two years from March 2021?
	Would go to March 2023.
	March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November.
	Eight months later, they'll be establishing a mental hotline.
	That was just the homework to show that Kutcher was appointed by Trudeau.
	They're establishing a mental health suicide prevention hotline while expanding...
	Medically assisted suicide to the mentally ill.
	And this is not to be hyperbolic.
	This is not to be glib or facetious.
	If it would be discriminatory to exclude mental illness from medical assistance in dying, will it be discriminatory to try to talk anyone out of it who is suffering from mental illness that calls a hotline for suicide prevention?
	If it's discriminatory to deny it to them...
	Is it going to be discriminatory to try to talk them out of it if they call this hotline for assistance?
	Setting aside whether or not, you know, the question as to whether or not they're even going to get the advice that a soldier with PTSD had gotten when he called for assistance.
	When he called for help, they recommended medical assistance in dying.
	So the government is touting itself.
	It's, oh, we're here for you Canadians.
	A mental crisis, suicide prevention hotline.
	At the exact same time, we are eliminating the exclusion of mental illness from medical assistance in dying.
	And I say the jokes, the stinging observations, the comments.
	Is this hotline going to be a client list?
	People are going to call up this hotline.
	And by the way, I've seen video now coming out of Saskatchewan where when you call Saskatchewan Health, there's literally an option for maids, for medical assistance in dying.
	There's literally an option for it.
	Labels.
	And I can't vet any of the comments coming through here.
	I've called a suicide hotline before.
	They connected me with adult social services and adult services.
	With adult social services.
	Adult social services left a calling card at my door that was four years ago.
	That's how it works.
	Maids works quickly though.
	It's like a sick joke coming from the government.
	We're opening up a mental unwellness hotline to try to talk the mentally unwell out of that which we said would be discriminatory to To prevent them from having access to.
	How's that going to work in reality?
	And literally, is this hotline going to have direct lines to medical assistance in dying?
	We'll see how it's implemented.
	And more importantly, two years?
	How quickly did the government implement and spend a billion dollars on a vaccine passport for the provinces?
	How quickly did they find the funds for that?
	How quickly did the provinces...
	Implement vaccine passports to prevent the unvaccinated from going to restaurants, movies, libraries.
	How quickly did they do that?
	But when it comes to mental unwellness, mental issues, mental crises, that arguably are the direct consequence of government action, inaction, policy, abuse, whatever, takes two years.
	It takes two years.
	Thank you.
	I mean, it's...
	It's satire meets reality.
	Here, we're putting up a hotline.
	Having mental issues?
	Call us, and we might recommend that which we said would be discriminatory not to offer to you.
	All right, so that's the latest coming out of Canada.
	Now, I don't know who's not interested in this.
	I'm going to say this.
	I'm going to preface this.
	I'm not familiar with Sam Harris.
	I mean, I have known of the name.
	I know that he was mentioned.
	With the likes of Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris' name has come up.
	I knew nothing more of him than the name, than the context.
	So when I heard, when I saw that video that went viral on trigonometry where Sam Harris now infamously said, I don't care if there were dead children in Hunter Biden's basement, I still would have voted for Joe Biden.
	and and And people were railing on him.
	As of the minute that came out, railing.
	I mean, I don't know if it was trending.
	I don't follow the trending things, and I don't know if it was trending.
	Just a lot of people were railing against him, saying, you know, he finally said the quiet part out loud, showing his true colors, yada, yada, yada.
	I watched that clip, and I was just amazed at, I forget the name of the interviewer now offhand, but the face of the interviewers are like, Oh my God, I can't believe what you just said.
	Take a second to think about it, back up a little, and rephrase.
	And Sam Harris backed up, thought about what he was saying, and in a very calculated and methodical and well-thought-out manner, went ahead to reiterate and dig that hole even deeper.
	Internet went nuts.
	And I was like, I didn't know Sam from a hole in the wall.
	I said, okay, one stupid thing that might have come out improperly, Especially when you talk a lot on the interwebs, every now and again, it happens.
	You can hear yourself talking, but you can't really stop yourself.
	I can understand that sentiment.
	And I'm like, I'm not jumping on this bandwagon right now.
	Everyone else is giving him a hard time.
	Well, the benefit of the doubt, in as much as I should have ever given it or...
	You know, was ignorant enough to know that it was not appropriate.
	The benefit of the doubt has been eliminated.
	Listen.
	I'm going to play it.
	I'm going to pause and just commentate.
	He, in his podcast, in a three minute and 17 second audio clip.
	I mean, if there has ever been...
	The applicable use of the Billy Madison, what you just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard.
	At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you come anything close to what could be considered a rational thought.
	Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
	I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
	If there's ever been a moment that justifies that clip, it's this clip.
	But let's go through this together.
	Because I initially felt bad for Sam Harris.
	The benefit of the doubt has been eliminated.
	Listen to this.
	This is from Tom Elliott.
	I keep forgetting who Tom Elliott is.
	Biased journalist telegram.
	Irony.
	Anybody who says they're biased typically is more reliable than someone who I say this with confession through projection because I know what I say about myself in terms of not being biased.
	Listen to this, people.
	Listen to this.
	I will pause it every now and again.
	This will show you, by the way, that speaking slowly and using fancy words does not make intelligence.
	It does not make rational thought.
	It does not make logical thought.
	And above all else, it does not make for fair thought.
	Because what you're going to hear here is egregiously unfair, presumptuous, and above all else, absolutely illogical.
	Let's start.
	I've said on several occasions that I think Donald Trump is a worse person than Osama bin Laden.
	You heard that right, people.
	He said on several occasions that Donald Trump is a worse person than Osama bin Laden.
	How are we defining worse person?
	I'm not sure, but we'll get there.
	I mean, be responsible for one of the greatest acts of atrocities in human history.
	Maybe you're not quite as bad as Orange Man.
	Hear him out.
	Let's hear him out.
	The statement is obviously meant to get your attention.
	I get that it's surprising.
	Oh, it's obviously meant to get our attention.
	And it's supposed to be hyperbolic.
	I get that it's surprising.
	Counterintuitive.
	But it's not meant to be hyperbolic.
	Oh, okay, thanks.
	I can defend every word of a statement like that.
	He can defend every word of a statement like that.
	A subjective qualification of a human being.
	Okay, benefit of the doubt is still here, people.
	What I can't defend are people's misunderstandings and erroneous extrapolations of a statement like that.
	Erroneous extrapolations of a statement like that.
	Sam, it's not that hard.
	You said Donald Trump is a worse person than Osama bin Laden.
	That's not hard to understand.
	You specified it's not hyperbolic.
	That's not hard to understand.
	But by the way, people out there, he can't help it if you're stupid.
	And you misunderstood what he said.
	Black and white was not hyperbole.
	Let's just keep going, though.
	Perhaps I should just clarify that statement again.
	Yeah, let's hear it.
	Because it actually goes a long way to explaining my view of Trump.
	Why I think he's such a terrible person, but not nearly as scary as some people think he is.
	And not nearly as scary as many people think I think he is.
	I don't know what scary has to do with it.
	You said he's a worse person than Osama bin Laden.
	That's the material statement here.
	I think Osama bin Laden was a more or less normal human being, psychologically.
	Anyone else's brain actually melting and you feel like it's coming out of your nose?
	Who is this guy?
	Let me see.
	Is Sam Harris a psychiatrist?
	Is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?
	Sam?
	I didn't realize that his mother apparently founded Golden Girls, which Susan Harris was one of the Golden Girls founders, I guess.
	Okay, that's not what I want to know.
	Is Sam Harris a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
	Doesn't look it.
	Doesn't look it.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Okay, let's just keep going here.
	This is going to get good.
	He was just living in the grip of a dangerous and idiotic worldview.
	So he wasn't...
	What did he just say here?
	Listen to this.
	More or less normal human being, psychologically.
	He was just living in the grip of a dangerous and idiotic worldview.
	He was a normal person living in the grip of a dangerous and idiotic worldview.
	Try to fit those two things together.
	Normal psychologically.
	But suffering from something very deeply psychologically problematic, dangerous and problematic, according to Sam Harris.
	The moral structure he imagined he was living under and wanted to impose on the rest of the world, given his beliefs, was despicable.
	So he created immense harm, and it's very good that we killed him.
	But within the framework of his odious beliefs, he demonstrated many virtues.
	Can you believe this?
	In the grips of odious beliefs, did terrible things, but he displayed many virtues.
	And wait until you hear what Sam Harris thinks are the virtues of Osama bin Laden compared to what he thinks are the vices of Donald Trump.
	He was a man who certainly seemed to be capable of real self-sacrifice.
	And he was committed to ideals beyond his narrow self-interest.
	This is the concept of a true believer, which...
	He was, by all accounts, personally quite courageous.
	I don't claim to know that much about him, but it wouldn't surprise me.
	He was quite courageous by sending other people to do the most heinous deeds imaginable.
	If he was generally a person of real integrity and generosity and compassion in his dealings with his fellow Muslims, none of these things can be said about Donald Trump.
	You have to hear that, by the way.
	Sam Harris seems to be largely unaware of a very, very material fact that the number one victim of certain ideological terrorism are Muslims themselves.
	and Sam Harris here.
	I don't know him, but it wouldn't surprise me if contrary to everything that is known, he was actually very compassionate and he has to qualify not to others because that would make Sam Harris look like an idiot, but to his own people, which some might vehemently disagree with And compassion in his dealings with his fellow Muslims.
	None of these things can be said about Donald Trump.
	Trump is, without question...
	Without question, by the way.
	There's no point in having the discussion.
	Without question.
	It's done.
	If you have the question, you're an idiot.
	One of the least honest and most malignantly selfish human beings I have ever come across.
	He's never come across Trump.
	But throw in fancy words.
	Malignantly selfish.
	Oh, he's the least honest.
	Malignantly selfish.
	A man...
	As I tweeted to Sam Harris before he blocked me, who even Howard Stern recognized had no need to run for office, was going to get nothing out of it, was going to go from a loved, wealthy individual with a life that everyone adored to the most hated man in the world who could never make certain people happy.
	Howard Stern warned him, this sacrifice that you're making is one that you don't need.
	It's one that in hindsight, you're probably not going to have wanted.
	It's going to bring you nothing but headache.
	But Sam Harris has come to his determinations About a man and most malignantly selfish human beings I have ever come across.
	He's never come across.
	And the paradox here, it's not really a paradox, but it's what makes the point I'm making confusing to many people.
	Yeah, you're all dumb.
	If you've misunderstood what Sam is saying, you're dumb.
	It's not that he's idiotic.
	It's that you're dumb.
	Paradox is that if Trump were a better person, he would be worse in many ways.
	If he were brave.
	And self-sacrificing.
	Self-sacrificing.
	Sam Harris, a man who goes from, I don't know, relatively wealthy, making money hand over fist, to...
	What's the presidential salary?
	It's less than Fauci, because Fauci is the highest-paid federal employee.
	So, what, $270,000?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No self-sacrifice there, Sam.
	No sacrifice in giving up business, in giving up entertainment opportunities.
	And maybe the argument's gonna be, "It's not sacrifice,'cause the prestige that comes with Trump is not giving up anything.
	To have become president gives him something that's worth more than money.
	Yeah, that's the argument.
	To pretend with a serious face, that's not necessarily the face of him talking here, that there's no self-sacrifice in a man who basically went from an independently self-made or...
	You know, family, however you want to call it.
	A very wealthy individual who then goes into politics as opposed to all those other politicians who go into politics and then get immensely wealthy?
	Oh yeah, no self-sacrifice there.
	But let's hear more about what Sam Harris thinks about the most selfish man he's ever come across that he's never come across.
	And idealistic.
	If he were capable of being strongly committed to something beyond his narrow self-interest, he would be capable of creating much greater harm.
	Narrow self-interest.
	What was Trump's narrow self-interest in running for president and in the policy as president?
	What was his narrow self-interest in building a wall?
	In the world.
	But he's not.
	He's not, of course.
	He is a child in a man's body.
	Oh, it's beautiful.
	He lies as freely as he breathes and just as compulsively.
	Hey, Sam, people don't breathe compulsively.
	They breathe.
	They believe.
	They breathe reflexively.
	Your breathing system is not voluntarily, it's not a compulsion.
	It's, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Systemic.
	There's a word for that part of your neurological system.
	Even your analogies, they sound nice and they sound smart.
	People do not breathe compulsively.
	He lies as freely as he breathes and just as compulsively.
	He can't even put the interests of his children above his own, much less commit himself to any ideal that requires real self-sacrifice.
	Can you imagine this, by the way?
	Level of dishonesty and stupidity.
	He can't even put the interests of his children.
	He can't even put the interests of his children above his own.
	Oh, sucking and blowing it.
	I haven't pulled up a tweet yet of Sam Harris accusing Trump of nepotism.
	Has Sam Harris accused Jared Kushner?
	Geez Louise.
	Ivanka Trump.
	Has he accused any of the kids of nepotism?
	Of having only gotten their jobs because of who their daddy was?
	So he accuses him on the one hand of not even being able to put his own interests above those of his kids while simultaneously saying that he's giving his kids favors because of who he is.
	Freely as he breathes.
	Oh my God.
	And just as compulsively above his own.
	Much less commit himself to any ideal that requires real self-sacrifice.
	What does Sam Harris know about real self-sacrifice?
	Unlike bin Laden.
	It is patently obvious that Trump isn't psychologically normal.
	Oh, of course it is.
	It's patently obvious, Sam.
	And anybody who questions it, because we're now into the realm of diagnosing people, Osama bin Laden, totally psychologically fine because Sam said so.
	Donald Trump, it's patently obvious he's not.
	End of story.
	He really is missing something that almost every other person on Earth has.
	He is an absolute black hole of self-regard.
	When I say that wherever you are on Earth, you could probably walk a thousand miles in any direction and not meet a less admirable human being than Trump.
	Can you imagine the arrogant pomposity that this diatribe takes?
	This is basically TDS porn.
	I mean, this is Trump derangement syndrome, Trump derangement syndrome, pornography.
	I mean it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Tell me more about how much you hate Donald Trump.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let me just...
	Hold on one second.
	Zip.
	Tell me more.
	Go on.
	Oh, yes.
	The man is almost completely lacking in personal virtue.
	More, Sam.
	More.
	And I admit, he can be funny.
	Oh, you're so honest.
	He might actually be the least admirable person on Earth.
	Oh, he might be the least admirable person.
	On earth, give me more, Sam.
	You haven't, you haven't, I'm almost there.
	I'm almost there.
	Oh, great job with Jackson Hinkle last night.
	That was phenomenal.
	Sam Harris, and then he blocked me on Twitter, by the way.
	Even before this, all that I said was, you know, it takes some audacity to make these statements.
	Howard Stern recognized that Trump, you know, made a sacrifice he did not need to make.
	And how on earth?
	I mean, whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	What a voice of courage.
	Say what you believe about somebody else and then block people for criticizing you for your immensely moronic statements.
	That's courage.
	That's self-sacrifice.
	That's standing by what you believe in, Sam Harris.
	Oh yeah, please.
	Go on.
	Tell me more about how dirty and naughty Donald Trump is.
	Okay, we're done with Sam Harris.
	I couldn't avoid it.
	The level of...
	It's delusional.
	I mean, it is delusional.
	It's not called Trump derangement syndrome for no reason.
	But the idea to forgive one person's ideological framework, they're good.
	They're just caught up in something dangerous and terrible that was responsible for one of the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind.
	But he's courageous.
	He's self-sacrificing, even though he sent other people to do the deed.
	But Donald Trump is clearly, patently deranged.
	You can't walk a thousand miles anywhere and not come across anyone who's worse than Donald Trump.
	I'm not being hyperbolic, though.
	But if you've misunderstood that statement, I can't help you.
	Okay, done.
	Hey, Viva, didn't know if you saw it yet.
	Poole went over on one of his shows.
	YouTube changed policy on masks and jabbed content.
	Seems looser than before.
	I talked about this on the Twitterverse.
	Yeah, by all accounts, it seems that they've loosened up their rules.
	They've just gone in there and stealth modified, stealth edited, so that you can now make certain statements that you couldn't make before.
	Such as, I'll just say allegedly, because I don't want to get in trouble.
	Allegedly, potentially.
	The jab doesn't prevent transmission.
	I mean, it's not like we didn't know this for a little while.
	It's not like the doctors haven't been confirming this, but sometimes the system is slow to respond.
	So now you can make certain affirmations that you couldn't make a year ago.
	And that goes to show you exactly why this is not a question of free speech because YouTube's a private company.
	This is an argument against censorship as a principle and certainly against creating terms of service.
	That change over time as facts become known.
	What you seek to ban as far as discourse goes in terms of terms of service should not be things that are susceptible of evolving or being contradicted over time.
	Criminal harassment will not change over time.
	Targeted harassment, certain statements that create a Let's just say objective risks, objective fears, etc., etc.
	Those aren't susceptible of changing over time.
	Terms of service that are drafted and crafted for the purposes of protecting and promoting a narrative?
	Well, the mere fact that a year later, that which was foreboding a year earlier, is a good indication that these terms of service are not actually about terms of service.
	They're not actually about facts, science, open discussion, and more importantly, progress as far as knowledge is concerned.
	They're about something else.
	So I did see that.
	And the fact that they've modified their terms of service or whatever it is, community guidelines.
	I don't know which class it fits under.
	The fact that they've modified them now to reflect what people were saying a year ago but getting punished for it shows you why they're very, very problematic and very dangerous.
	Because if people were allowed to have the open discussion a year ago without the fear of being banned, deplatformed, demonetized, whatever, knowledge and information probably could have been more hastily It could have been...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	There might have been more informational educational evolution at a more rapid pace than if there was something artificially stunting the discussion on social media.
	Janos...
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	I see what you're going on.
	Biggits at home.
	Painless deletion for all.
	Edited to suit the master bots.
	It's...
	And I've heard stories now, and one day maybe I'll have people on to discuss about their first-hand accounts.
	Pressure.
	This is going back to maids.
	Pressure to submit.
	Unsolicited suggestion.
	And can you imagine somebody suffering from mental distress and unsolicited somebody on the other end who was called for help?
	Says maybe you should just, you want help offing yourself?
	We can make it real painless.
	David, look up Sam Harris, Bill Mara, and Ben Affleck.
	Oh my goodness!
	I didn't put two and two together.
	I remember that clip.
	I'm going to have to go back and view that clip again.
	I forget exactly what happened, but now I remember.
	Ben Affleck.
	Oh, God, I've forgotten the details, but I'll go back and look at it.
	What an arrogant, awful person.
	Sam, the all-knowing nobody.
	But if I just talk slowly and put in big words, it's a paradox, but not really a paradox because you're so stupid, you don't understand.
	Trump is...
	Without a doubt.
	It's another thing, by the way.
	Even when I criticize publicly politicians, it's very difficult to purport to know how they are on a personal level.
	Imagine accusing Obama of being a bad father.
	I don't know enough about Obama as a father.
	As a politician, I certainly know that he was responsible for gun running that led to people being killed.
	I know that.
	Justin Trudeau, I can only imagine.
	What he's like as a husband and a father.
	That wouldn't be my go-to critique.
	It's very presumptuous.
	And I remember once...
	What do you say?
	I remember once I made a joke about someone else's marriage.
	It was among friends.
	It was a joke.
	But I immediately realized how inappropriate it is to...
	Even to make jokes that interfere with very personal aspects of anybody's life.
	To sit there and say that Trump as a father is selfish because he puts his own interests above that of his kids.
	You have to be a special kind of jack-a-ninny to even look at other people and see that.
	It actually leads me to question what Sam is like.
	Because to look at anybody else and of all the things that you're going to accuse them of, to accuse them of that.
	It means that that has to be somewhere in your psyche, in your brain, of, like, patterns of behavior to look out for.
	And it's typically because those are patterns of behavior that the individual himself or herself is guilty of.
	So, yeah.
	But by and large, you have to leave the family.
	Unless I'm trying to think of an example.
	Which is why, you know, having kids and having a family is one thing.
	Parading them around for political purposes becomes, you know, opens a door that shouldn't be opened.
	Yes, it is projection.
	Where did that?
	Here we go.
	Sadie R, the Prime Minister of Behavior.
	Sadie, projection.
	Projecting, hashtag, confession through projection.
	What do we got here?
	This is a real thing.
	This is a real thing.
	Like, for like a day, the TOS said it was okay to speak violence towards people.
	They banned.
	I remember hearing something along those lines.
	It doesn't matter.
	The Tim Pool thing?
	They changed the terms.
	We saw it happen in real time.
	Once upon a time, you couldn't even say the word coronavirus.
	You had to go with my Sharona Cyrus.
	Once upon a time, you couldn't talk about the Great Reset.
	The Great Reset led to demonetization.
	It was a conspiracy theory.
	They suppressed the discussion, but lo and behold, truth is like a line.
	Let it out, and it defends itself.
	Over time, that conspiracy theory was proven to be 1,000% accurate, black and white on their own website.
	Then you could mention the Great Reset.
	You could mention you'll own nothing and be happy.
	You could mention the 2030 agenda.
	And it became permissible because the truth became known.
	The truth probably would have become known a lot quicker had they not suppressed it through narrative-driven terms of service tinkering, depending on what the narrative is of the day or the questionable, compromising fact of the day.
	I didn't mean questionable.
	I meant compromising.
	Oh, and the Wuhan.
	That's right.
	There's another one.
	Couldn't talk about it.
	Potentially, not definitively.
	Potentially having originated as a man-made or man-tinkered-with virus coming out of Wuhan, China.
	That was racist.
	Oh, wait a minute.
	What's that?
	That's probably true now.
	The Lancet, a year later, says that's always been a perfectly...
	The Lancet Medical Journal, a year and a half later, says it's always been a perfectly plausible theory.
	Oh, now we can talk about it.
	My goodness, how quickly, how much more quickly would it come to this determination had we been able to freely discuss it in the first place?
	Viva, when would be an appropriate time as a topic to educate Canadians about the policy in regards usage of nitrogen and starvation?
	Dr. Moore would be a great guest.
	Screen grab.
	I'm not sure about the substance of that tweet.
	Thank you for the tweet, Melina, and I'm going to look into it.
	I don't want anyone thinking by virtue of me reading a tweet.
	I'm giving an opinion, affirming, or whatever.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Sam Harris.
	My God.
	I mean, it's so shocking.
	And the...
	Oh, it's like, speak slowly and use fancy words.
	And such makes the truth.
	All right.
	Did I miss a super chat?
	Oh, no, I saw it.
	Okay.
	Now, on to stupid...
	Take number two of the day, and it's going to be fun to just go over some basics of a law.
	Bing, bang, bang, where is it?
	Where is it?
	Oh, here we go.
	Ethan Klein, H3H3.
	Ethan is so looking for inconsistencies in ideological adversary's logic that he abandons all logic himself, or at the very least, you know, provides snippets of information.
	Not enough to come to any conclusion, but enough to dupe some people into thinking that there's a double standard somewhere.
	Here we go.
	Dear free speech champions, I think he's talking to me.
	Let me see we're in the same thing here.
	Yeah.
	He has to be talking to me because I am a...
	And we should also distinguish between free speech and protected speech.
	They mean the same thing, but sometimes they're used interchangeably.
	Protected speech is what's important.
	Not unlimited free speech to run around shouting whatever you want, whenever you want, and making threats and defaming people.
	Dear free speech champions that defended Andrew Tate.
	Tell me what you think about this.
	Okay, let's hear it.
	I just got a cease and desist letter from Andrew Tate.
	Oh, didn't realize that when you support free speech, it means you support total absence of any laws whatsoever.
	I didn't realize that.
	Oh, if he supports free speech, you've got to support my right to threaten somebody's life.
	I mean, you have to.
	That's what free speech means, right, Ethan Klein?
	I just got a cease and desist letter from...
	Andrew Tate.
	Andrew Tate's been in the news recently because he was deplatformed overnight purportedly for being dangerous and putting out dangerous messaging.
	He demands I stop talking about him.
	Something me thinks this is an inaccurate description of reality.
	He demands I stop talking about him because I can imagine you go to a lawyer.
	And you say, lawyer, make him stop talking about me.
	And the lawyer writes a cease and desist letter that says, dear Ethan Klein, stop talking about my client, a public figure who's been in the headline.
	Stop talking about him.
	Do therefore govern yourselves accordingly.
	That's exactly what the lawyer's letter said.
	No doubt.
	Hashtag sarcasm.
	Thoughts?
	Well, okay.
	Let me see how far down my response was here.
	Well, I just asked, what is Tate alleging?
	You said that is potentially unlawful because you do have to bear in mind the limitations to protected speech have to be lawful.
	They have to be criminal or civil limitations on what you can say with impunity.
	Did you publicly accuse them of having committed crimes?
	Were you attempting to interfere in contracts to which you are not a party, also known as tortious interference with contracts?
	Did you joke about bombing him like he did with the NRA?
	Remember that joke that Ethan Klein said?
	Let's go B-O-M-B the N-R-A.
	I was just joking.
	It was just a joke.
	I forget what his wife's name is.
	They immediately knew he'd done messed up.
	They have to try to backtrack.
	In his backtrack, it was just a joke.
	He made it exponentially worse.
	For anybody who's seen the entire clip, it went from a dumb comment that he says, don't do it, I was just joking, to let's B-O-M-B them with love.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Go.
	Blow up the place with love.
	He made the reality of his stupid comment even worse with a bigger clip that most people haven't actually seen.
	That was my question.
	Did Ethan Klein say, go BOMB Andrew Tate's house?
	Something like that?
	I didn't know when I put this tweet out.
	I just had a sneaking suspicion.
	Lo and behold, I found the tweet, or at least I suspect one of the tweets that might have...
	Could possibly have led to a lawyer's letter.
	So brave to, this is in response to Tucker Carlson having Andrew Tate on.
	So brave to have this sex trafficking, violent misogynist.
	So you know what I said?
	The only one of the three here that, had you just said the violent misogynist, probably wouldn't be a problem because everyone would know that he's being hyperbolic.
	Matter of opinion.
	Even with the others, you know, he'll make the argument, well, it's what I think and I'm being hyperbolic and we're going to get into the Tucker Carlson defense because it's kind of relevant to this.
	There's something called defamation per se.
	There's something called tortious interference with business contracts, tortious interference with prospective business economic opportunities.
	When you are accusing someone of crimes that could get them deplatformed and arguably Sorry, Ethan Klein.
	You're not just talking about someone.
	You're trying to destroy someone economically, reputationally, on social media.
	I don't know if this is the tweet that was referenced in the letter where Tate's lawyers told Ethan Klein to stop talking about him.
	I suspect it might have been.
	Now let's steel man this all here, people.
	So brave to have this criminal shmapist on.
	Some people are going to say, oh, I'm going to invoke the Tucker Carlson defense.
	Do we all remember the Tucker Carlson defense?
	When I say I'm saying facts, I'm not saying facts.
	It's the same thing as the Rachel Maddow defense.
	Let me pull up the article.
	Dave?
	Oh, no, no, no, that's not it.
	Here, Tucker Carlson.
	You literally can't believe the facts Tucker Carlson tells you.
	So say Fox's lawyers.
	Now, this was in the context, for those who don't recall, where Tucker was talking about women who were trying to get Trump in trouble, made some accusations against him, and said, pay us and we'll be quiet.
	Let me just make sure I'm actually summarizing that.
	Tucker Carlson appears to be made of Teflon, Phlox News, yada, yada.
	He's been accused of anti-immigrant and racist comments, which, okay, that's not the one.
	Carlson even attacked his own network's chief news anchor on air with no real consequences.
	Okay.
	Now comes claims that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth.
	It was fine when it was Rachel Maddow that got off the hook, but not fine when Tucker Carlson did.
	And I'll say for both of them, Same rationale, same argument.
	That's the assertion coming from Carlson's critics.
	It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News' own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander.
	It worked, by the way.
	The judge, leaning heavily on the argument of Fox's lawyers, the general tenor of the show, would then inform a viewer that Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and instead is engaging in exaggeration and non-literal commentary.
	This was when he accused these women of extortion, which is a crime.
	He says, they asked for money, for hush-hush money.
	This is extortion.
	And they sued and said, this is defamatory, slanderous.
	You've accused us of a crime.
	Extortion.
	We haven't been accused.
	We haven't been charged.
	We haven't been found guilty.
	And the defense worked.
	Now, there are contexts in which one can say, here's the pattern of behavior.
	And then throw out an accusation, which is necessarily a matter of opinion, or at the very least, contextually, clearly a matter of opinion.
	When you say, here's their conduct, it's extortion.
	But, you know, the claim was there and they lost.
	The claim in Tate's case...
	Oh, sorry.
	No, no.
	We want to bring up defamation per se.
	Defamation per se.
	When we're talking about, and then with the caveat of public figures, actual malice, defamation per se, libel per se is defamatory statement that is actionable in itself to constitute libel per se.
	The words themselves must be damaging to the affected person.
	As a result, words that can reasonably be interpreted as having another meaning do not constitute per se, but they could be per quad, I believe is the alternative.
	Examples of per se include statements that falsely claim a person committed a crime, of moral turpitude, and claims that a person suffers from a loathsome disease, an STD.
	Unlike a traditional action for libel, in action per se, malice is presumed.
	That would be the criteria for public figures, potentially.
	And damages may be recovered without the plaintiff needing to plead or prove special damages.
	However, such claims are subject to the defenses of the material.
	When read in context, would be perceived by a reasonable person to be nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.
	Flags, people.
	Flags.
	When in context would be nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.
	That will be Ethan's defense if this ever goes anywhere further, which it probably won't.
	For example...
	In an action against a consumer who posted negative reviews on his website about a warranty provider, the court held that such reviews were a personal opinion and whatever.
	Or, you know, under the context, nothing more than a matter of personal opinion, when Tucker Carlson says they asked for money to be quiet based on fabricated accusations, it's extortion.
	He's clearly issuing an opinion, stating an opinion based on a set of facts.
	So, getting back to...
	Tate and...
	Did I close it?
	Getting back to Tate.
	Now, look at this.
	The question's going to be, in context, do we think that Ethan Klein is being hyperbolic, issuing a statement of opinion?
	Or making a statement of fact that is quite clearly susceptible of damaging someone's reputation?
	I appreciate...
	Apparently, Tate's under investigation in the UK.
	Under investigation, still does not allow you to make certain statements of fact as though there's been a conviction.
	But in this tweet here, do we read this as hyperbolic, necessarily a matter of opinion, or do we read this as defamatory, and potentially attempting to interfere with Tate's contracts with others?
	Potentially trying to subject Tate to scorn, ridicule, public hatred, and get him cancelled.
	Arguable.
	One thing is not arguable.
	I just got a cease and desist letter from Tate.
	He demands that I stop talking about him.
	Yeah, that's not exactly what's going on there, Ethan.
	Scratching the surface with two minutes of interweb research can reveal that.
	Whether or not you can invoke the Tucker Carlson defense, I suspect you probably could.
	No one takes Ethan Klein seriously to begin with.
	I suspect that might be a defense.
	But let's not pretend to be the victims of our own...
	Of our own conduct here.
	Dr. Patrick Moore was on a podcast recently and explained that what would be the impact of banning nitrogen.
	Now, people are going to say that they're not banning nitrogen in Canada, people.
	That's the political response at this time.
	And I've read about some new proposals for a new policy by the Canadian government to fight climate change.
	The liberal talking points now are people are freaking out about a nitrogen ban that doesn't exist.
	No one's talking about banning nitrogen in Canada.
	Except, let me just see if I can find this in two seconds.
	nitrogen reduction, Canada.
	This seems to be from the federal government.
	Plan to cut fertilizer emissions by 30%.
	Okay.
	There'll be an argument.
	Whether or not the plan is to cut it, whether or not it's mandatory, whether or not it's nitrogen and not emissions.
	I'll look into it.
	No opinion for now.
	I just know what people are saying on both sides.
	I tend not to trust a lot of the people on one side.
	Just going to cut it by 70%.
	I don't know if this is factually correct, people.
	Do not quote me.
	Let's just do the super chat.
	We're done with Ethan Klein.
	We're done with Tate.
	And now we're going to get into the serious and the upsetting stuff of the day.
	We're going to get back to January 6th.
	And then we're going to go over the latest in the Trump raid.
	Apparently there's a hearing today on the motion to appoint a special master.
	I don't think I'll be able to get there.
	I might still try.
	I'll see if I'll get into trouble with the missus.
	One of my best friends is friends with Marla Maples.
	She has nothing but the nicest thing to say about her ex.
	That's telling.
	Trump was never a racist until he ran for office.
	Trump was never the scum of the earth until he ran against the Democrats.
	Oh, and by the way, listen to Tom Woods' podcast coming out Sunday.
	We touch on this.
	As to my political red pill awakening of sorts, Trump was never a racist.
	He was never a narcissist.
	He was never a sexual deviant until he ran for office, but not just ran for office, until he ran against the Democrats.
	And when you become awakened to patterns, You then go back in history and see that those patents have always been there.
	Don't like a Supreme Court justice?
	Dig up or fabricate wild accusations of sexual disconduct.
	Oh, I'm not talking about Judge Kavanaugh.
	I'm talking about Clarence Thomas.
	I'm not talking about Roe Moore.
	But once you see how it's happened in real time, you go back and you see, my goodness, if it's happened once, it's happened more than once.
	Trump didn't take showers with his daughter or use his son to launder the money from his influence-peddling operation.
	Now, now, now, Josh.
	But Trump is the most dangerous person ever, therefore I don't even care about these things.
	I'll forgive for the greater good, because I'm so much smarter than everybody who misunderstands what I'm saying.
	Ethan Klein is a schemical?
	Schmeckle?
	Schemical?
	Oh, schemical?
	Is that a word?
	I feel bad.
	I'm going to learn another word today.
	Okay, it looks like schemical.
	Let me see what that means.
	S-C-H.
	M-I-C-L.
	Definition.
	It looks like chemical is the only word that comes up.
	Okay.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	You've seen Ethan Klein before.
	You know what he's about.
	The question is, is anyone taking that tweet seriously?
	That might be his defense.
	You think Klein is a yutz?
	Now, a yutz, I know what a yutz is.
	People, you know, now that I'm...
	Okay, get down here.
	Make me sweat.
	Oh, hold up.
	It's like having a fur coat on my lap.
	You know, I'll be following a few stories until there's developments one way or the other.
	The medical assistance, the maids situation in Canada, I'm following it now.
	January 6th, you know, I was invested in the Michael Flynn judicial saga.
	That came to an end.
	Jussie Smollett judicial saga, that came to an end.
	Still following Project Veritas because they've got ongoing judicial sagas.
	Sorry.
	It's a hair floating around.
	It's a play.
	It's a play on words, you clowns.
	I think we most...
	Well, yeah, of course I got that.
	I'm not an idiot.
	And I totally did not misunderstand what Sam Harris was saying.
	The January 6th defendants.
	I hope I'm not repetitive on this because I did a Locals exclusive yesterday at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Did a Locals exclusive and talked about this.
	So I hope I'm not repeating something that I might have actually said in a prior stream.
	I saw this video yesterday, and then I saw the responses to this video, and I get...
	It's not a black pill, because the black pill comes from a horrendous realization that things will not get better.
	Things can and will get better, like...
	I forget who said it in the Bible.
	I know King Solomon was involved.
	This too shall pass.
	But when I saw this story, and then I read the comments, and I say, my goodness, how do we reach...
	People who are so deeply indoctrinated or so deeply ignorant.
	Here.
	I'll play a little bit of the video.
	I won't play too much of it.
	Hold on.
	This is the wife of a January 6th defendant who's been in jail for 590 days as of yesterday.
	So 591.
	Hi, my name is Bonnie Nichols, and I'm the wife of January 6th defendant Ryan Nichols, who's been suffering in prolonged solitary confinement in the D.C. jail for over 19 months.
	Here's our story.
	So, Ryan served his country honorably as United States Marine Corps veteran.
	He took an oath to defend his constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that oath does not end whenever you leave active duty service.
	Ryan was very concerned about the election, as any American should be.
	So Ryan went to the Capitol on January 6th to peacefully protest his First Amendment rights, as millions of other Americans did that day.
	Well, stop it there, because I think that's all we're going to need to see for now.
	I'll post two things.
	The give-send-go for anybody who wants to donate, and a link to the tweet for anybody who wants to watch the entire tweet.
	This is obviously a video from the wife of a January 6th defendant who has been in pretrial detention for damn near two years.
	You can expect that it's going to be biased and one-sided.
	You can expect it.
	That doesn't mean that the underlying facts are not true, and it doesn't mean that even if it is glossing over some of the unfortunate facts, that it's any less of an outrage.
	So, she says her husband was there peacefully protesting.
	What was her husband's name?
	Terry Nichols?
	Not Bonnie Nichols.
	Ryan Nichols.
	Sorry.
	Ryan Nichols.
	Capital.
	And let's just see charges.
	Because he's accused of non-peaceful conduct.
	Here we go.
	He's accused of violent conduct.
	You can expect it to be glossed over from his advocates.
	His wife.
	You know, the mother of their two children.
	You can expect it.
	It doesn't undermine the outrage in this story.
	But let's just see here.
	Video of a Longview man accused of participating in a riot as evidence.
	Okay, that seems to be Ryan Nichols.
	Video of a Longview man reportedly taking part in the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol was shown as evidence during the January 6th hearing.
	Footage officials say is Ryan Nichols was shown at the committee to discuss how former president...
	Nichols, a former U.S. Marine, faces five felony and three misdemeanor charges for his alleged conduct.
	Prosecutors say Nichols assaulted officers and obstructed unofficial proceeding.
	So, he's being accused of assaulting officers.
	For what it's worth, you have to appreciate that, and we'll see the charges in some of the responses to the tweets.
	I don't want to say...
	This is not a question of being black-pilled.
	This is a question of being red-pilled.
	Randy Hillier, sitting member of provincial parliament, was also accused of assaulting police officers.
	Literally.
	Accused of assaulting police officers.
	They got the charge, they can run with the headlines, and it makes for bad media.
	So, I read everything with a degree of skepticism.
	But I will operate on the basis that he is, in fact, charged with, and I'll...
	You know, until proven guilty, that he's charged with assaulting police officers.
	I will not operate on the basis that it's a totally fabricated charge, out of whole cloth, but that he's charged with it.
	Then what?
	He's been in pretrial detention for 590 days.
	They have two kids, six and eight years old.
	According to his wife, has been...
	In solitary confinement for extended periods of time.
	According to his wife, he suffers from PTSD, which I have absolutely no problem taking for granted, given he's a veteran.
	And veterans often suffer from PTSD.
	Come back home, not only in some cases are they neglected by their government, not only in some cases are they suggested by their government to off themselves, in other cases they are...
	Turned into or depicted as or exploited as extremists.
	Threats to democracy, even though they literally fought and spilt their own blood in defense of democracy.
	Um...
	Thank you.
	Let me see if I'm not going to get some of the statements out here.
	But you go through the tweets and the responses and you have...
	I know it's the internet and people...
	People say things that they wouldn't say in real life.
	Everyone's a tough guy on Twitter.
	But the amount of people saying, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	The amount of people...
	I'm just going to go to my Twitter feed so I can find this.
	The amount of people saying, he's getting what he deserved.
	It's odd that it's going to be a Canadian with an appreciation for the Constitution and an understanding of the Constitution, bringing to the attention of those who would say, good, he's getting what he deserves, the Sixth and the Eighth Amendments of the Constitution, which apply to criminal defendants.
	First of all, here, I'll bring this tweet up here.
	Here we go.
	People running around like he's already been found guilty and that even if he were found guilty of pepper spraying a police officer, That somehow inhumane treatment could still be justified.
	This is from one tweet.
	I'm not trying to focus on anyone in particular.
	Actually, his crimes were civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, for which a January 6th defendant pled guilty, another one, to one charge of obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentenced to 55 months in jail.
	His crimes were civil disorder, obstruction of additional proceeding, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers using a dangerous weapon.
	Apparently, he had a crowbar with him at the time.
	Theft of government property.
	Entering and remaining in a restricted building on grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon.
	Disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds.
	Unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon on grounds of a building.
	Disorderly conduct.
	The spaghetti.
	The spaghetti tactic.
	Acts of physical violence, parading, demonstrating...
	Oh, sorry, can we just go back to one thing?
	Actually, his crimes were...
	Hmm.
	He hasn't been convicted.
	He hasn't, after 590 days in pretrial detention, even had a trial.
	Those aren't his crimes, average Joe.
	Those are the accusations.
	Those are the accusations, not crimes.
	And even if you were convicted of those crimes, you would then still have to ask yourself whether or not solitary confinement...
	Whether or not some of the treatment that he's allegedly endured could even be justified on someone convicted of those crimes.
	His alleged crimes.
	The 6th and 8th Amendment.
	People think like when you're accused of a crime, the Constitution goes out the window.
	When it's the exact opposite.
	It's when you're accused of a crime that the Constitution comes in to protect you.
	People who are not accused of crimes don't need 6th Amendment protection.
	They don't need 8th Amendment protection.
	It's specifically those who are accused of it.
	They need to make sure that they're not being abused, that they're not being unfairly treated, that they're not being unfairly prosecuted, that they're not being unfairly denied of their right to a full defense, a speedy trial.
	His alleged crimes, the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution, specifically apply to criminal defendants.
	They aren't suspended by virtue of criminal charges.
	The man stands accused.
	He might very well turn out to be guilty, but his constitutional rights are being violated.
	Sixth Amendment.
	Guarantees the rights of criminal defendants.
	It doesn't apply to non-criminal defendants because they don't need this protection.
	Including the right to public trial without unnecessary delay, near two years in pretrial detention.
	Denied bail, allegedly because of the severity of the accusations against him.
	The right to a lawyer.
	The right to an impartial jury.
	What are the chances any of the defendants get that in D.C.?
	Let's see which ones.
	I mean, this is not the text of the Sixth Amendment.
	Right to a public trial without unnecessary delay.
	Have we had public trials?
	I don't know, actually, in his particular case, so I'm not making a statement.
	I'm asking the question.
	Were the bail hearings in which he was denied bail public?
	Did the public get to scrutinize those hearings to see if it smelt of justice or injustice?
	A trial without unnecessary delay.
	Near two years in pretrial detention without a trial.
	Oh, but there's so many of them.
	The system is overloaded.
	We can't respect the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial.
	The right to an impartial jury.
	Good luck with that.
	The Eighth Amendment protects against imposing excessive bail.
	What bail?
	Can be more excessive than no bail.
	Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments.
	The wife said in her testimony, in her video, he had been restrained because he had been put on suicide watch.
	So he had been physically restrained, placed in solitary.
	He's been in detention, pre-trial detention for 591 days.
	He's got two young kids growing up without a dad.
	Thank you.
	Oh, but his crimes.
	His crimes.
	Straight to the gallows.
	And the ultimate irony.
	I mean, I've talked about it before.
	The same people, or at the very least, a large overlap in this Venn diagram of partisan...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Partisan delusion.
	A large overlap in this Venn diagram.
	Brittany Griner, the basketball player locked up for nine years in Russia after conviction?
	Injustice.
	How do we...
	What graph am I doing here?
	Injustice.
	Oh, you know what I'm getting at.
	People clamoring that Brittany Griner being sentenced to nine years for a petty drug smuggling charge in Russia.
	Putin's an autocrat.
	He's a dictator.
	He's a tyrant.
	He's a fascist.
	Inhumane.
	Cruel and unusual punishment.
	Nine years for smuggling cannabis into Russia?
	That's terrible!
	But a man who hasn't even been convicted yet in two years of pretrial detention for what might turn out to be a violent offense?
	No, no.
	There's nothing incongruous in all of this.
	Brittany Griner is being subjected to a cruel system that has a 98% conviction rate.
	I'm not sure if that's the actual number.
	Russia.
	Broken totalitarian judicial system.
	It's staged, it's rigged, it's tyrannical.
	Virtually guaranteed convictions, excessive punishments, Putin the tyrant.
	Oh, what's that?
	Washington, D.C., 90-plus percent conviction rate, five years for obstruction of congressional proceedings, and this guy's near two years, solitary, pretrial detention, without having a trial yet?
	Oh, yeah.
	If you didn't have double standards, some people out there, they'd have no standards at all.
	And by the way, I do think that Brittany Griner's punishment was excessive.
	I do say, however, smuggling drugs into foreign countries, especially ones that most people take to be autocratic autocracies.
	You're asking for big, big trouble.
	That's not to say play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	You got what you deserved.
	Otto Warmbier sentenced to 13 years hard labor in North Korea after a one-hour trial for allegedly stealing.
	Government materials or whatever from a hotel?
	Personally, I don't even believe that he did what he's accused of doing.
	I think it's just all Banana Republic trumped up charges.
	But in a million years, I wouldn't go to North Korea.
	But when it happens here, just forget about it.
	When it happens here to your ideological political adversaries, he's going to play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	But Brittany Griner got nine years in Russia for smuggling drugs into Russia.
	What do you have to do to reach people like this?
	How do you reach them?
	What do you have to do to open their eyes to the fact that A, he's accused.
	B, even if the charges are relating to violent offenses, violent accusations, assault, pepper spraying a police officer.
	The Molotov cocktail lawyers out of New York got out of jail.
	They threw Molotov cocktails at a police cruiser.
	They got out.
	The Disrupt 17 protesters had all their charges dropped, with the exception of a few who actually went to trial.
	The majority, if not a substantial portion, of those involved in the Disrupt 17, Trump's inauguration in 2017, had their charges dropped.
	I don't even know the majority.
	A lot of protesters from the Summer of Love burning buildings and mostly peaceful protests.
	Had their charges dropped.
	They had politicians raising bail so they could get out of jail.
	Here you have people, some of them did not even allegedly commit violent crimes, were in substantial pretrial detention.
	You think if you let this guy out, take his passport away?
	You think he's a flight risk?
	They took the president's passport.
	Take this guy's passport.
	Let him out.
	Let his two kids grow up with a father.
	The thing is, people are going to say they know what they're doing.
	They know that they're not only breaking a man, they're not only breaking a family, but they're breaking the future of two children.
	Some people are going to say that's what they want to do.
	The selective outrage is despicable.
	Griner does not deserve nine years in prison.
	I will vocally say it.
	I also would not go to Russia.
	Willie Nash.
	The inmate who was sentenced to 12 years in jail because he had a phone in prison does not deserve the 12 years in prison.
	Thank you.
	Fringe Canadian, how much did Trudeau pay you to leave the country and focus on Trump rather than issues at home?
	Fringe Canadian, do you follow me on Twitter?
	Okay, I don't know if it's a joke, so maybe because I've seen you here before and I know that you're a regular, but...
	If this is a serious accusation, do you follow me on social media, YouTube, and Twitter?
	Because if you do, this is...
	I don't want to say a dishonest statement because I don't want to presume intent.
	This is a wildly factually inaccurate statement.
	And by the way, Trudeau paid me nothing.
	Not only did no one pay me to leave, it was an extremely difficult process.
	Difficult...
	And costly.
	Rubia!
	Texas lawyer in the house.
	Long pretrial detentions has been a problem for many years.
	The left and right focus on their injustices.
	To me, it is a criminal justice problem.
	Fair and fast trials are required.
	I agree.
	Which is why I don't think I'm left or right on this.
	Because when I see it, I complain about it.
	And when I put out that...
	A long time ago, Willie Nash.
	It was like, oh, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	He's been to jail before.
	He knew not to have a phone in jail.
	Dude was in jail in...
	In this particular case, in 2000.
	Cell phones weren't really as much of a thing then as they are now, but even still, even, oh, it's his third strike, he should have known.
	No.
	Injustice is injustice, regardless of who it impacts.
	But yeah, there's no question.
	But the problem is, it's a criminal justice problem?
	Maybe.
	But when it's a criminal justice problem that seems to disproportionately and disparately impact...
	Certain demographics, or at the very least, has been politically weaponized in recent times.
	It may be a criminal justice system, but it might also be a politicized prosecutorial system problem.
	And, you know, by the way, anybody who says nine years for smuggling drugs into Russia is tyrannical and autocratic, while Biden is forgiving student debt by executive order, He could pardon a lot of non-violent, petty, marijuana possession criminals in the States.
	Yeah.
	What do we say here?
	Hold on.
	There was a funny joke.
	Viva shaved.
	Is he having his beard trimmings for a wig when he goes bald later in life?
	My dad still has hair.
	He's almost 80. No, he is 80. I don't think going bald is going to be my issue.
	White hair.
	It's going to be my issue.
	But yeah, no, it's...
	One cannot forget about what's going on with the January 6th defendants and like, oh yeah, just the other day, I mean, I talked about it.
	55 months for pleading guilty to a charge of obstruction of a congressional proceeding or an official proceeding.
	I forget what it was.
	Let me just see if there were any more.
	Oh, but you got what you deserved.
	close that it's just It spontaneously rains and it sounds like the roof is collapsing.
	Okay, that's the latest on the January 6th.
	Let me just see something here.
	No, no.
	Oh yeah, I just want to make sure that I got all of this here.
	I just want to see some of the comments.
	No, you go to the thread and look at this.
	Probably most of the charges are exaggerated.
	Exactly.
	No gray interpretation on the conclusions.
	Only black and white.
	What was the dangerous weapon?
	It was a crowbar.
	He had a confirmed crowbar on him, reported to have pepper spray, reported, and believed to have hidden firearms somewhere nearby, was wearing tactical gear, and stated on video he was bringing violence.
	So just dispense of a trial.
	That's it.
	No need for a trial anymore.
	The accusations are there.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	So the links are there, people, if you want to support.
	And then they want to demonize anybody who supports.
	How can you support an accused criminal?
	You know what?
	At some point, you're supporting a system and not an individual.
	At some point, you have to appreciate this guy might get convicted.
	And if he's in Washington, D.C., he will get convicted.
	That's not necessarily a good thing.
	That might be part of the problem as well.
	He will not get a fair trial.
	By a jury of his peers.
	Period.
	It's impossible.
	That being said, let's just say he gets a fair trial and he gets convicted.
	Fine.
	That's how the system works.
	It doesn't work by denying bail to people who are not immediate egregious threats to community or flight risks.
	It doesn't apply just as a rule to those who you don't like and then not apply as a rule to those who you do like.
	Give him the trial.
	Fair trial.
	Fair punishment.
	55 months for obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
	It's cruel and unusual.
	But we're no longer in sane, rational times.
	What was cruel and unusual in sane times is now par for the course in politics-ruins-everything times.
	Okay, let's just have this as a little warm-up.
	As a little warm-up to...
	The Trump bitness.
	Look at what Liz Cheney posted, people.
	Everything about this is preposterous.
	Liz Cheney posted this.
	It says, yet more indefensible conduct by Donald Trump revealed this morning.
	Liz Cheney taking the bait of the FBI or the Justice Department, speaking to the public through their filings.
	I think this was an exhibit.
	It was.
	Right there.
	Case number.
	That's the docket number because this was filed as an exhibit.
	Document 48-1 based on...
	Liz Cheney taking the bait.
	Showing great discretion in her appreciation of evidence.
	Can I add a link to a forward through?
	I'll put the link to where Barnes is going to be live in 40 minutes.
	I don't think I can add it right now to the stream.
	Took the bait, posted the picture.
	Look at this picture, people.
	This is an orgy of evidence, to go back to minority reports.
	The FBI apparently, they take out a bunch of documents from boxes, clearly, scattered on the floor, take pictures of, look at this, it says top secret, SCI, top secret, secret.
	They redact the other documents, although people were doing a good job enhancing and sharpening to actually read some of the text on this.
	And they say, look at this evidence that Trump had classified documents in his possession, of which we all knew for about a year and a half.
	But Liz Cheney, my goodness, she's fallen for it.
	Yet more indefensible conduct by Donald Trump revealed this morning.
	Because no president has ever taken records out of the White House when they leave.
	None.
	Ever.
	But it does put things into perspective, because when Liz Cheney lost, By one of the most humiliating margins of defeat in Wyoming.
	She came out and said, she's going to do everything she can, everything in her power, to make sure Trump stays out of the Oval Office.
	When she said it, it included spreading disinformation, misinformation online.
	Do you know which documents were declassified?
	And does the FBI typically scatter evidence on the floor for posting to social media, knowing damn well that what they were doing...
	Was going to go to social media to, like, just...
	So Sam Harris can now be convinced as to what a bad person Donald Trump is.
	They should have tagged Sam Harris in that post.
	Cheney.
	By the way, it's SamHarrisOrg, not Sam Harris.
	There are two blue checkmark Sam Harrises.
	One is SamHarrisOrg on Twitter, and the other is Sam Harris.
	And I made the mistake of accidentally tagging the wrong Sam Harris.
	Which caused me to have to delete a few tweets in which I tagged the wrong.
	Dude's got the name Sam Harris.
	Kind of looks like him.
	And he's a blue checkmark also.
	The cover page says it.
	I'm trying to find just a perfect example, but my understanding is that even when a document is declassified...
	It might still have the cover sheet.
	It might still have the classification marking on it.
	And probably does.
	I just haven't been able to find a prime example of it.
	But let's see what the latest was.
	Here.
	Listen to this.
	Trump lawyers DOJ go head-to-head over special master appointment in the Mar-a-Lago hearing because the Justice Department is opposing Trump's motion for appointment of a special master.
	Even though it's absolutely academic at this point, because the Justice Department has already gone through the documents.
	Their privileged team went through the documents in order to identify what the rest of the Justice Department, FBI, should not have the business looking at because it's privileged, confidential, solicitor, client, whatever.
	They've already looked it over, and they're still fighting the appointment of a special master.
	The Thursday hearing, I'll see if I can get down there, but I probably won't be able to.
	1 p.m., definitely won't be able to.
	Attorneys at the Justice Department argued in a filing earlier this week that appointing a special master is unnecessary.
	Oh, it is, because they've already looked through the documents.
	Oh, my God.
	It's unnecessary.
	We already saw it.
	It was our privilege to know.
	They won't talk to the rest of the Department of Justice.
	In as much as the FBI doesn't leak things to the New York Times about pre-dawn raids of Roger Stone and James O 'Keefe, the filing stated that the government records were likely concealed or removed from a storage room in Mar-a-Lago and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government investigation.
	From nuclear documents, people, to obstruction of the investigation.
	That's where this is going.
	If they don't get you on the substance, which they oftentimes don't because that's never the purpose of baseless accusations, they'll get you on the process.
	They'll get Michael Flynn on lying to the FBI in the context of an investigation that should never have occurred in the first place.
	Sorry, that's not the chat I meant to bring up.
	It's so top secret the Gov is okay with enemies taking a peek.
	Well, in fairness, Torchwood Gal, you can't really see much of what's in there.
	It's just the cover sheets and then you can maybe make up some words.
	But it went from nuclear documents, fake news that was leaked to the media after Merrick Garland said, we can't say anything more.
	It went from nuclear documents to what it always does, obstruction.
	He interfered with the investigation.
	So although the claims now have turned out to be total bunk, the documents either might have been declassified, there might have been legitimate argument over them, etc., etc.
	Now we've got him on obstruction.
	But I wanted to share the filing, because the filing is glorious.
	Look at this.
	Okay.
	We're not going to do the whole thing, people.
	How do I get rid of this like that?
	Yeah, there we go.
	Okay.
	This is the filing.
	Let me just...
	Oh, no.
	I just did something here.
	Okay.
	This is the filing.
	We'll just...
	We're not going through the whole thing.
	It's like, yeah, 36 pages.
	We're going to go through just the summary of the argument and then the conclusions because the conclusions being sought are revelatory.
	my notes.
	Page two to three.
	United States response to motion for judicial relief.
	So Trump filed a motion to appoint a special master and they oppose it.
	Summary of argument.
	Plaintiff's motion to appoint a special master, an independent court-appointed third party, to do a triage to make sure that the prosecutors do not gain access to review, retain, or use documents that they had no right to in the first place.
	That might have been privileged, whatever, etc.
	To enjoin further review of seized materials and require the return of seized items fails on multiple independent reasons.
	As an initial matter, the former president lacks standing to seek judicial relief.
	The man who's the object of the seizure of documents that he alleges were, at the very least, in part, solicitor-client privilege documents, The government's saying he lacks standing for judicial relief.
	The records don't belong to him.
	The allegedly personal documents, the passports, they seized the passports, and now they're saying that he has no standing because the other documents don't belong to him.
	Even the ones that he's saying are solicitor-client privilege between him and his counsel don't belong to him.
	Okay, let's see.
	Great argument.
	If I'm an objective judge in this, I'm saying that argument sounds a little disingenuous, Justice Department.
	The basis for the appointment of a special master is predicated on the fact that there might be solicitor-client, or in fact, are solicitor-client documents that were caught up in this effectively general warrant.
	And now you come to me and say he lacks standing because the documents that he alleges are his and that you have no right to don't belong to him?
	I ain't no American attorney, but that doesn't smell too good.
	The Presidential Records Act makes clear that United States has complete ownership possession and control of them.
	Even the documents that are not presidential records that might be solicitor-client privileged materials.
	Furthermore, the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment challenges to the validity of the search warrant and his arguments for returning or suppressing the material seized.
	For these reasons and others, he's shown no basis for the court to grant injunctive relief.
	Plaintiff will not likely succeed on the merits.
	We'll suffer no injury absent an injunction.
	Okay, that's a little also more disingenuous description.
	Let alone irreparable injury.
	And the harms to the government and the public would far outweigh any benefits to the plaintiff.
	When the idea is that the government wants to investigate with impunity, the harms might be greater to the government.
	Agreed.
	Oh, let's see here.
	Even if this court had jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claims, appointment of a special master is unnecessary.
	Interesting.
	And would significantly harm important governmental interests.
	Yeah, keeping Trump out of office.
	We got to find something.
	We need to have access to everything, even potentially privileged documents.
	It would harm our governmental interests.
	I'm sure Liz Cheney would agree with you.
	Including national security interests.
	Hmm.
	Speaking of latches and having taken too long to do something, when you knew that Trump had these documents since 2021, and I'll show you in the filing, latches.
	You took a year and a half to do this, and now you're saying it's going to compromise national security if we're not allowed to run amok?
	Listen to this.
	This is my favorite part.
	Appointment of a special master is disfavored in a case such as this.
	There has never before in the history of America been another case like this.
	This is unprecedented, even according to Magistrate Reinhart.
	And they're saying, oh, well, the case law says we don't need a special master in a case like this.
	There's never been a raid of a former president in the history of America.
	I don't know, maybe there was something with Nixon that I might be ignoring a nuance on.
	There has never been a case such as this in American history.
	And they're saying...
	It's disfavored in a case like this.
	Oh, may I see your case law, Justice Department?
	In any event, this is when it gets better.
	In any event, the government's filter team has already completed its work of segregating any seized materials that are potentially subject to attorney-client privilege.
	Didn't you just say that he lacks standing because the documents don't belong to him?
	Oh, but we've already completed our work in segregating any...
	So there was documents that belonged to him.
	And the government's investigative team has already reviewed all the remaining materials, including any that are potentially subject to claims of executive privilege.
	We've already seen it.
	We've already segregated the documents that might be attorney-client privilege, even though we just said that he has no standing.
	And we've already also...
	What do they say here?
	Reviewed any materials that might...
	Be covered by executive privilege.
	This is what you call sucking and blowing at the same time to the point where it makes you want to puke.
	By the way, they're also going to argue that executive privilege can't be invoked in this case because the Justice Department is part of the executive and therefore the privilege can't prevent them from looking into the privilege.
	Let me make sure I explain that clearly.
	The documents over which Trump is claiming executive privilege Well, the Justice Department is part of the executive, and therefore the privilege doesn't apply to them.
	In other words, unless I'm misunderstanding something, as of now, the Justice Department gets to see everything and anything the president does.
	The Justice Department is the captain now.
	And here we go.
	In case anyone thought there was any...
	Any hyperbole.
	Throughout 2021, the United States National Archives and Records Administration had ongoing communications with representatives of former President Trump, in which it sought the transfer of what it perceived were missing records from his administration.
	Throughout 2021.
	In its initial review of boxes, NARA identified articles marked as classified national security information up to the level of top secret and including sensitive compartmented information, yada, yada, yada.
	NARA informed the Department of Justice about this discovery, specifically on February 9, 2022.
	They'd known about it for a year.
	They knew about the severity of it in February.
	Three months before the midterms, they, instead of petitioning the court for a resolution of an ongoing dispute that had been ongoing for an extended period of time, speaking of latches, they raid a former president's property.
	And by their own admission, in their sweep, Gather up solicitor-client privilege information, which they've already looked over and segregated.
	I'm not going over the rest of this.
	Let me just see here.
	There was page four, which I think we're past now.
	Yep.
	Arguments.
	I want to go to the arguments.
	G. After further investigation indicated that the response of the subpoena was incomplete, the obstructive conduct occurred in connection with the response to the subpoena.
	Oh, they got them on the response to...
	A procedure that might have been abusive in the first place.
	Classified information was retained at the premises.
	DOJ obtained a court-authorized warrant.
	It was so unprecedented that after a year plus of negotiations, they had to go raid a president's office.
	Let me see here.
	I'll just get to the end, and then I'm going to go back to the chat.
	Hey, look at this.
	We don't need a special master, people.
	We've already done it.
	The Privilege Review Team has completed its work.
	The Privilege Review Team has completed its review of the materials in its custody.
	And control, in its custody and control, that were identified as potentially privileged.
	The privileged review team identified only a limited subset of potentially attorney-client privileged documents.
	They just said that Trump has no standing because the documents don't belong to him.
	But they've reviewed it themselves, notwithstanding the order of the court to appoint a special master.
	So sad, too late, too bad.
	And they've identified a limited subset.
	Limited subset.
	It means anything less than everything.
	Everything minus one is a limited subset of potentially attorney-client.
	We've already seen it.
	We've looked it over.
	But don't worry, we're not going to talk to anybody about it.
	Plaintiff lacks standing.
	It's just beautiful.
	Plaintiff is not entitled to the return of property or injunctive relief.
	He's not entitled to the return of any property, even that which we've already said might be solicitor-client privileged.
	Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.
	He waited too long, by the way.
	They actually alleged that Trump waited too long.
	To seek injunctive relief.
	Two weeks from the date of the seizure.
	They wait a year and a half to get extraordinary warrants for seizure.
	No latches there.
	Trump waits two weeks for the injunction for the appointment of a special master and other injunctive relief.
	Latches.
	He waited too long for injunctive relief.
	This is it.
	I'll link this so y 'all can read this.
	The appointment of a special master would interfere.
	Listen to what they say in the event that they do it.
	Look at what they want to subordinate the independent third party to.
	Listen to this.
	There's the argument that a former president cannot successfully assert executive privilege against the executive branch in its performance of executive functions.
	So they basically say, yeah, we decide there's no executive privilege.
	The Justice Department will determine what that is at this point.
	Then you've got your subsidiaries.
	Even if he could, in some circumstances, assert executive privilege, no such assertion would be valid here.
	It doesn't matter.
	This is legalese.
	It'll bore everybody.
	I want to get to the parameters of the, if they appoint a special master, the parameters of what the Justice Department says.
	If they appoint a special master, this is how it should be.
	Sorry, just let me do one thing here so I don't lose this chat.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Second, for all the above reasons, the court should not appoint a special master.
	We've already seen it.
	If the court decides to do so, the government proposes the following conditions.
	First, the court should direct the parties to confirm and submit proposals for special master.
	They should be required to submit an affidavit concerning any potential basis for disqualification before this court issues an appointment order.
	I jokingly said, yeah, Magistrate Reinhart probably should have done the same thing before issuing the warrant.
	Any potential basis for disqualification, like having recused yourself from another file involving Trump and other parties?
	Third, the court should specify the following duties and impose the following limitations.
	The special master's duties should be limited to assessing plaintiff's claim of attorney-client privilege.
	Sorry, I'll read this one because it gets good.
	The special master's duties should be limited to assessing...
	Plaintiff's claims of attorney-client privilege over the set of potentially privileged documents identified by the privilege review team.
	The Justice Department is saying, if you appoint a special master, they should only review what we, the Justice Department, through our privilege team, has identified.
	Don't look over everything that we have.
	Only look over everything that we have.
	Only look over that which we've said might fit.
	Into privileged documents.
	So the Justice Department is now dictating, circumscribing, limiting the powers of the court-appointed independent third-party special master.
	If you're going to appoint a special master, they should only have the right to look at documents that we have determined might be privileged.
	Does anyone understand that that...
	Do we appreciate how much putting the carriage in front of the horse that is?
	We've already looked through it.
	Here's what we think might qualify as privileged.
	Special master does not need to see anything else.
	We've investigated ourselves.
	We found no wrongdoing.
	And this is all that the investigator should be allowed to further investigate.
	If the special master must be permitted to review classified documents in order to avoid unnecessary delay, possess clearance.
	Okay.
	This did lead me to question whether or not everyone who took pictures of those documents who was involved in the raid had top secret SCI security clearance.
	The special master should be allowed to communicate ex parte with the court.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Fine.
	Any documents that reflect the Special Master's ruling, yada yada, should be preserved and filed.
	Okay, fine.
	The parties have 10 days after receiving it.
	Okay, this is all procedural garbage, but the court should impose a deadline for the Special Master's review with the final decision on all disputed items to be made by September 30th for the foregoing basis.
	It's just, we don't need a Special Master, but if you're going to appoint one, their review should be limited to that which we think they should have access to.
	That's not exactly how a special master works, as far as my limited understanding of what a special master does and is.
	I feel like you guys are missing one very key point.
	The actions taken are that of a FBI DOJ who view Trump as never had been legitimately and legally elected.
	Still not morally correct, but...
	The actions are taken by an FBI and Justice Department that falsified evidence To get an unlawful renewal of an unlawful spy warrant in the first place.
	It's the same FBI that literally falsified actual evidence to submit it to a court to try to get Trump.
	And now they're saying, well, first of all, damage is already done.
	We've already seen the documents.
	Try to put the toothpaste back in that horse.
	But yeah, it's...
	I mean, it would be comical if it weren't so disastrous.
	I mean, it would be comical if it weren't so disastrous.
	But they got a picture.
	They got a picture of...
	They got a picture of scary documents on the floor.
	Let me just see what I'm missing in the notes.
	So 141, people.
	I cannot go more than 19 minutes even if I want to because Barnes...
	It's going to be live on the Duran.
	You just know it's going to be epic before it even happens.
	Let me see here.
	I think not invite.
	I'm trying to go to my...
	As Trump used Mar-a-Lago during his presidency, would he not have had approved storage?
	Sounds as if the storage was changed post-presidency for this.
	It had...
	I mean...
	My understanding is it had all the proper security in place because he did use it as part of the presidency.
	What's clear is that they knew the documents were there.
	And as I've mentioned, specified before, paper documents under lock and key are exponentially more secure, especially in the context of a compound of a property which itself is under security detail because Trump still has security detail.
	It's the paper documents under lock and key.
	Are exponentially more secure than documents on an external server than an external server.
	Let me go to the chat.
	Let me just see.
	Okay, hold on.
	What's going on here?
	We got the legal defense alleged crimes, Sam Harris psychologist.
	No, so that's it.
	We've done it.
	It's, yeah, that's it.
	That's it.
	Let's go to the chat and see something here.
	Yeah, we got that one.
	Let's get to some...
	Oh, did I get anything on Rumble?
	I'm going to put the link in the chat for the Barnstream.
	Give me one second.
	Let me see what's on the Rumbles.
	Doesn't appear to be anything on Rumble.
	Okay, good.
	Now let's go here.
	Let's go here.
	And I'm going to get to the chat.
	Put your questions in the chat, people.
	See if there's anything that's interesting that...
	Might not have gotten to.
	Here's the link.
	Let's go here.
	Details.
	I don't think I can now forward.
	Redirect.
	I can while I'm still live.
	Here we go.
	Redirect.
	That'll be good.
	Hold on.
	Let me see if I can do this.
	Other channels.
	Here.
	Here we go.
	Look at that.
	Beautiful.
	Save changes.
	Okay.
	Now I can redirect.
	This stream will redirect to Barnes right after we're done, so now we can just get to the chat and see what's going on in here.
	Did you get your ears waxed yet?
	You make jokes.
	I was pulling out hair that grows on my ear.
	It's nasty.
	It's nasty.
	David Trudeau Freiheit is Viva's new name.
	Mazel.
	The bots have found us, people.
	The bots found us.
	Oh, well, okay.
	Now I have to block you because you're spamming.
	But I'm blocking a sub.
	That's bad for business.
	One set of rules for Trump, a completely different set for Hillary.
	I won't even play the what about game.
	I mean, we know it.
	It's as plain as anything.
	They're saying now the documents had...
	Look at the cover pages of the evidence that they submitted in this document that people are running with on social media.
	The cover pages said top secret.
	The emails in Hillary Clinton's server...
	Which, you know, they had classification markings on them as well.
	The question I want to know, and it's flabbergasting that no one even just asks it, do we know that those documents were not declassified?
	And my question, just as a matter of fact or law, is if they were declassified, would it change anything in the physical appearance of the document?
	Would those cover pages, if those documents were declassified, would they have like a red bar through them that says, Declassified.
	Don't worry about it, people.
	I wonder how many documents were added by the FBI.
	Well, once you've lost trust in institutions, there's very little you can do to regain it, and there's very little you can do to curb what will be presumptions that result from proven bad faith, or assumptions, I should say.
	The bots have been here for a while.
	That's great.
	I mean, they've invested the five minutes to become subs.
	Bots sneaking around sub mode.
	So here's my thought also.
	I went into sub mode five minutes before the stream started.
	So that might allow the bots to get the full five minutes to become subs.
	Snook season starts today.
	So yummy.
	Let's go.
	I showed that video yesterday.
	I found out how to show that video.
	Okay.
	Have I ever tasted Snook?
	So that's it.
	Not that.
	Let me just go back to my Twitter feed for one second just to see what else was going on.
	I'm not going to go to my notifications because I might see something that will upset me.
	Ethan Klein, we got to it.
	Mental health, Canada, dreadful state of affairs, we got to it.
	Oh, this is funny.
	So they're coming out with the booster now and the news that, you know, New York, New York, what's not?
	Yeah, the New York Post talking about the Omicron variant booster.
	Coming out, but it hasn't been tested on humans yet.
	And I asked, this is a serious question, but just humorously put, for everyone out there, would you sooner take the Omicron variant booster, which the media is trying to spin the fact that it hasn't been tested on humans as though it's not a terrible thing, or would you lake a full-on luck, damn typo, one inch of a New York subway handrail?
	Not joking.
	We're up to 13,000...
	70% would rather lick one inch of a New York City subway handrail.
	That'll tell you something.
	But let's just check out the outrageous story of the day.
	Omicron booster.
	Not.
	Look at this.
	I mean, it comes right up because I'm not...
	NBC News, people.
	It's not me.
	It's not me.
	This is NBC.
	Mainstream news.
	Let's see how they go about spinning this.
	Actually, have I seen this article?
	I think I have.
	The lack of human data.
	FDA expected to authorize new COVID boosters without data from tests in people.
	What could possibly go wrong, peeps?
	The lack of human data means officials likely won't know how much better the new shots are.
	How much better they are.
	Pathological framing.
	It's not that they won't know anything about...
	I shouldn't say that.
	They won't know how much better they are, if at all, until the fall booster campaign is underway.
	The presumption here is that they can only be better.
	They can't be worse than the previous two shots.
	That's the presumption.
	I will posit a theory which might contradict this underlying assumption.
	How much better, if at all?
	We won't know if they're better at all than the previous boosters.
	We also won't know if they could potentially be worse insofar as a third shot on two existing shots might create certain different results than if someone had just gotten this shot as a first shot for Omicron variant.
	Was I clear enough there or did I sort of mangle that?
	There's a good reason to think...
	A good reason to ask the question that it's not necessarily just a question of whether or not they're going to be better, if at all.
	Administering a third shot in the presence of two prior shots in and of itself could cause problems that just that shot alone, subject to its own tests, might not have caused.
	I think that's clear.
	The updated COVID vaccine boosters, a reformulated version targeting the BA, could be available around Labor Day.
	Awesome!
	Oh, a Labor Day special!
	Do I get like a discount code if I text it in?
	Labor Day 2-2.
	Omicron.
	They'll be the first COVID trials distributed without results from human trials.
	Does it matter?
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Idiots.
	If you have to ask that question, you're fake news.
	And you're worse than fake news.
	Because the Biden administration has pushed for a fall booster campaign to begin in September, the mRNA vaccine makers Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna have only had time to test the reformulated shots in mice.
	Don't worry, people.
	Not people.
	Don't worry.
	That means the Food and Drug Administration is relying on the mice trial data plus human trial results from a similar vaccine that targets the origins of the Omicron to evaluate the new shots according to a recent tweet from the FDA.
	Don't trust me.
	Do not trust me.
	I'm going to keep that open in the background.
	Here's the tweet, people.
	Here's the tweet.
	Oh, my God.
	Does it matter?
	Does research matter?
	Does data matter?
	Let's see this here.
	The FDA and the drug makers...
	This is going to make me angry.
	Because of the high levels of immunity from prior vaccination and infection, it would be impossible for the companies to test the new boosters in nearly as many people as the original shot.
	FDA asked the drug makers to update the shots in late June.
	Update.
	Update.
	Update for evolution of a virus.
	Moderna has finished enrollment for its new booster with 512 participants.
	How many pregnant women?
	How many breastfeeding women?
	Both companies are expected to release results later this year.
	Don't worry about that.
	After that, people have already taken it.
	The FDA's decision to consider boosters without human data is in line with how it evaluates modified vaccines for influenza each year.
	Something tells me that comparison is not going to be fair.
	Clinical studies in humans aren't required for approval of seasonal influences.
	Fine.
	Still, the flu vaccine isn't a fair comparison, said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia.
	The FDA's policy on influenza shots is based on decades of experiences with strain changes.
	Oh, it's also based on a different freaking technology, not based on mRNA technology that has, up until now, never been used in humans.
	Bygones.
	Bygones.
	Mild differences.
	The U.S. is still on its first iteration of the COVID vaccines, and the mRNA technology has only been in widespread use since late 2020.
	The agency is making huge assumptions in its consideration of the new COVID boosters, often said, adding that it's possible for the new shots may not be any more effective than the existing vaccines.
	Yeah, it's also possible they might be bad.
	I mean, it's possible.
	Not all experts see it the same way.
	I'm sorry.
	I should have stopped reading that a while back because now I'm angry.
	Now I'm just like, we're dealing with politicized science.
	H. Clinton wasn't president.
	She was secretary of state.
	Did not have the power to declassify anything.
	Your ethics complaint was just career swatting.
	You have lots of weirdos hate watching you.
	I know this for a matter of fact.
	There are people and groups that...
	It's like their Sunday afternoon activity.
	They survey social media and then try to, you know, try to harass people into silence.
	Has the booster been tested on a horse?
	Of course, of course.
	I don't know.
	A mice, mice, mice.
	But the booster will effectively be clinically tested on billions of people, according to Obama.
	So, yeah, there's that.
	We are in solid 12 Monkeys territory.
	I had to read the description of that movie.
	I never understood the movie.
	And I still don't.
	Comedy science.
	Okay.
	Did I have a chat here?
	Oh, no.
	That wasn't a chat.
	Why are you starring?
	Get out of there.
	Not medical advice.
	They want people to take an Omicron booster for another less lethal variant.
	Make sense of that.
	Omicron is unlikely to cover the next variant, just as the original didn't cover Omicron.
	I remember smarter people than myself.
	Doctors saying the less severe variants are nature's vaccine.
	I remember people saying that.
	Viva is lovely.
	Hit the like.
	Go ahead and hit the like, people.
	Yeah, no, I remember people saying that.
	And in as much as those tests are accurate, we had the Rona.
	When was it?
	Christmas time.
	I've had flus that were much more severe.
	And now I look back in retrospect and wonder, for anybody who's been following me for like years, December 2019, I remember being up in the country house at my parents' cottage.
	So sick.
	I was Googling meningitis because I thought I had caught meningitis or some brain infection from having handled a minnow that I found frozen in the ice.
	Because I was at my mother-in-law's place with my wife and we didn't have minnows.
	And we're walking along the ice and I see a minnow frozen into the ice.
	I was like, oh, get me an axe.
	I'm going to hack out this fish and I'm going to use it as a minnow for bait, for fishing, for ice fishing.
	And then two days later, I had 103 fever, a headache like never before.
	Chill, sweating, you know, everything for like for five days.
	And I was Googling whether or not I could have gotten some brain parasite from having handled frozen fish in ice.
	I felt like I had like unleashed something from the Arctic ice by drilling too deep.
	But yeah, so there's that.
	Yeah.
	I think this comment is a joke.
	It wasn't out of China yet, Viva.
	Come on.
	That's what people are saying.
	If it was here by March, it was here earlier.
	How do you know when...
	Two weeks to flatten the curve.
	How do you measure that if you don't know when the two weeks started?
	I was thinking...
	Dude, I was thinking of so many things.
	I remember it was in my search history.
	Okay, people, this has been phenomenal.
	Fantastic.
	We are deplorable.
	I would recommend everyone go watch.
	After this, I've done the flow through.
	I don't know exactly how it works, but we'll see how it works.
	What happens?
	Tomorrow?
	There will be a stream.
	Undoubtedly, there will be news.
	And get outside.
	Get some exercise.
	I'll say it.
	I think I like ending the stream with this now.
	In this ideological warfare of ideas, conduct yourself in such a way that would make your parents and your children proud and you can never go wrong.
	And if you don't, if your parents are no longer among the living and you don't have kids, Conduct yourself in a way that your conceptual parents and hypothetical children would be proud.
	You'll never be able to make a mistake.
	Let's see this.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to read this one because I just saw one word in it.
	I'm not going to read it, but thank you.
	Barnes link, don't forget.
	No, that's Twitter.
	It should be in the link over and I'll say here.
	I'll catch up now.
	Take it for a run.
	Thank you, Heather whatever.
	Two weeks to flatten.
	All right.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Laters and take care, people.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'll put the link in one last time before I go, and then it should copy over afterwards.
	And I'm going to go probably listen to this while I...
	Maybe I'll try to drive down to the courthouse.
	It's 45 minutes away.
	I'll get there by 2 o 'clock.
	It already started.
	Maybe there'll be room in there, but I don't think they'll be letting people in.
	No, not going to do it.
	Not going to do it.
	Okay, go.
	Everyone, that's not the channel I want to bring up.
	Good, good.
	Good guy, people.
	Go.
	Be well.
	Talk to people in real life.
	People are good.
	Despite what the government might be telling us about our neighbors and friends and family.
	Go.
	Enjoy the day.

▲