All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:17:38
Quebec Re-Elects a Tyrant! Trumps Sues CNN! And More! Taco Tuesday with Viva Frei!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, one thing I used to always say, like, I used to not believe in any of these conspiracies.
And I'd say, why would they lie?
That was always the thing I would say is, why would they lie?
Like, that makes no sense.
Like, why would you fake that?
Why would you do a 9-11?
Like, why would you do that?
And there's reasons.
And the reasons are pretty dark and pretty demonic.
And so that opened me up to saying, okay, I might have to be responsible for my family's food.
Okay, well, I have to figure out how to farm.
Because I couldn't trust...
You know, Pockets of the Future has a great YouTube channel, and he was talking about how you have to read the ingredients now.
It's like this metaphor for all of life as a truther, where it's like before you never had to read the ingredients.
You're just like, why would anyone want to hurt me?
And now you have to read the ingredients, and that's how I am with every news event.
It's like, read the ingredients.
Why are they doing that?
And people are like...
Well, why would they want to traumatize you?
I'm like, it's just a way to make slaves.
Trauma, fear, trauma, fear.
And then people just look, you create like this Stockholm syndrome where you look to the dominant force, which would be the corporate banking state apparatus.
And you're like, help me, save me, daddy.
And so that's why trauma makes the clown world go round.
And that's why to see them start on kids.
I'm like, oh, there's some real evil in this world.
And when you see evil, you have to realize that there's also real good in this world.
All right.
Well, everyone, let's just start off by saying, how goes the battle with everyone in the chat?
I'm going to get into the Owen Benjamin clip in a bit.
It was a good segue, or at least a good introduction.
Fear makes the clown world go round.
Stockholm Syndrome.
And the election results out of Quebec last night.
There we go.
I'm sad in Quebec at the moment.
Tam, pow, pow.
Well, we're going to do a follow-up on yesterday's stream.
Because yesterday was the summary of the situation in Quebec and Canada.
And today is the results of the election in Quebec.
What's the word I'm looking for?
A decisive majority victory from Supreme Leader Francois Legault's tyrannical charter rights-violating government.
It seems, make people live in enough fear, they'll actually re-elect you for the trouble.
You may have noticed, people, today is a promotion.
What does it say when you start this stream?
It says, contains a paid promotion.
I got a sponsor for this video now.
And it's a sponsor that I'm actually using as well in real life.
So it'll make it very easy to do the sponsorship for.
We're going to get to it in a bit.
It's called Home Title Lock.
And it's not a joke.
It's 20 bucks a month and I actually use it.
Because it's the Wild West.
In the States, but in Florida in particular.
But let's just get started on the news of the day.
The items of the day.
We're going to go over the Quebec election results.
We're going to talk about some of the responses.
Pierre Poilier, congratulating François Legault.
Looking forward to working together with him.
We'll get there.
Donald Trump suing CNN.
We're going to walk through the lawsuit.
I don't think it's going to go very far if we're applying the Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow standards.
If we're applying the Alex Jones standards, my goodness, CNN is going to be bankrupt.
In the context of this lawsuit, it's going to be more the Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow defense.
CNN is commentary.
Nobody takes it as a matter of fact.
They can have whichever guests they want say whatever they want.
If they were to apply the Alex Jones standard, CNN is going to be held liable for every guest they have on their channel.
They'll be put through a discovery process that is impossible to satisfy, resulting in a default judgment which will bankrupt CNN, preclude CNN from raising any defenses.
Whatsoever in the context of that lawsuit.
People are shocked in Quebec.
How can they be shocked?
41% of them voted for this.
41% of these, 66% of the population of the eligible voters have voted for this.
Someone said gold.
No, not today.
Not today.
Although American Hartford Gold is still going to be a company that I'll gladly have as a sponsor.
With the neurotic individual, even going through a sponsorship is a difficult thing for me.
Someone says it's not live on Rumble.
It is.
Refresh your page, because I've refreshed it and we're live.
Everybody should go watch Alison Morrow's interview with Owen Benjamin.
I know what I think of Owen Benjamin.
I know what I thought I thought of Owen Benjamin.
And I watched the entire interview.
And now I can safely say that...
I might have to go back and revisit some of the things that I thought I thought about Owen Benjamin.
It won't change some of the other things that I do think about Owen Benjamin.
And the interview itself is revelatory for who Owen Benjamin is as a person.
And, you know, chemistry-wise, how he's built, how he responds to certain things, and philosophically.
But everybody should go watch that interview, because there was an interesting...
Let me just get this off here.
There was an interesting exchange between Alison Morrow, who's a former journalist, and Owen Benjamin, when Alison Morrow pulled up a Reddit post to ask Owen Benjamin questions on it.
And Owen Benjamin, I think, responded somewhat aggressively, reflexively.
You could tell that in Owen Benjamin's response, there was a lot of life experience.
And I'll dare say, you know, resentment and anger built up in his response that was projected onto the person asking the question.
um But then I did understand Owen Benjamin's objection to being questioned on some random anonymous post in Reddit that lists a slew of, you know, throw the spaghetti at the wall of accusations.
And then every time Owen Benjamin does an interview, he's got to respond to people questioning him.
It might be their first time asking him these questions, but I presume...
With Owen Benjamin, and it's the lesson I learned with Michael Cernovich.
It's not the first time for them.
And I remember Cernovich saying, when I was doing what I thought was my due diligence, asking the hard questions of Cernovich.
You know, people say, there's clips of you saying offensive things on the internet.
How do you respond to that?
And Cernovich was very, very polite with me and very patient with me.
And I hope it's because he saw the genuine, good-natured manner in which I was asking these questions.
Said, this just gets very tiresome.
It just gets very old.
I've answered these questions a hundred times.
If I do this with every interview, then every interview consists of, it might be your first time asking these questions, but it's my 50th time answering them.
What was...
Okay, Owen is a flat earther.
Dude, okay.
You know what I think?
I don't have any fundamental problems with someone who thinks the earth is flat.
It's a crazy thing.
I don't have any fundamental problems with someone who thinks we never went to the moon.
I could even go one step further.
It might shock some people, but I don't even have any fundamental problems with people who expose other conspiracy theories, which I radically disagree with, which I think are totally far-fetched and outlandish.
I don't even have problems with them for exposing those beliefs.
Someone thinks the earth is flat?
Okay.
Does that mean that they are not good cooks?
Does that mean that they are defaulted out of every other aspect of life because they happen to hold one belief, which I think is totally untenable?
No!
Now, some of the more offensive things people say, which illustrate...
I'm not saying offensive in the sentimental, problematic beliefs.
That's a separate issue.
Flat Earth, didn't go to the moon, 15 shooters in JFK.
Certain historical events never happened or didn't happen the way they happened.
Hey, I'll even listen to somebody tell me about that.
I won't necessarily try to get into the game of convincing them that they're wrong or why I'm right, but I got no problem with that.
I know what I think of Owen Benjamin and his progression over time.
Watching that interview with Alison Morrow gave me some insight into him as a person and to certain issues at large, one of which was dealing with trolls.
There was a great section from it.
I was going to post the clip, but it might have some naughty language.
Oh, and Benjamin's like, I feel like at some point you just have to stop feeding the trolls.
Whereas initially, reflexively, especially for someone who espouses free speech principles like myself, you say, I got to respond to them.
They've made a claim and I want to retort and correct when you're never going to ever make any headway with them.
And then you feel this compulsion to respond.
Where it becomes a consuming force and a distraction from what you ought to be doing.
And it was a very, very insightful point.
There's people who believe a lot of wacky things.
I won't entertain some of them just because I so radically disagree with them.
If they could still save them, I'm just not going to get involved with it.
So that's it.
Rumble is messed up, by the way.
Let me go see.
Rumble looks fine to me.
We are 2,000 people on Rumble.
The chat is, Owen Benjamin is a total backstabbing psycho from...
I also don't get into personal drama, but...
Anyhow.
What was I gonna say?
So, yeah, Quebec.
We'll do the Quebec, then we'll do the ad.
Then we'll move over to Rumble.
Then we'll talk about the lawsuit.
Donald Trump's lawsuit.
And other things.
So we had our elections in Quebec, people.
And...
66. 0.06% of the population voted.
And by the way, when I said I was having technical issues at the beginning of this stream, StreamYards changed the share icon, share screen, to present.
So I didn't know where the share screen went.
Now it's present screen.
And I'm going to go to Twitter.
So no one accuses me of being...
Again, people believe in gematria, these things like play with numbers, you can find all sorts of patterns.
I got no problem with people who believe in that.
Sometimes it's even, when it's synchronicity type coincidence, it's funny.
So when we have what I believe to be something of a demonic result, I'm saying demonic in a colloquial sense, when we have what I think to be very unpleasant results, tyrannical results of an election, and you go to look at the numbers, and it just turns out that 66.06% of the Quebec population voted.
That's funny.
I don't think it's inspired by the devil.
I don't think any Dominion chicanery went on.
What they say was Dominion chicanery.
People voted.
I've run for office, for federal office in Canada.
We don't have what people accused Dominion of having in Canada.
I don't even adhere to those beliefs in the States.
I think the way that they go about influencing the election is exactly the way they described it in that Time magazine article.
Control information, change rules and laws, at least in the States.
This is what they described in the Time magazine article.
But in Canada, in Quebec, control the media, control the free flow of information, demonize every political adversary, and offer money to people.
Literally, literally.
And they'll vote for you.
And don't take my word for it.
Let's just watch this while I take a sip of my Perrier, Yerva Maté.
The day of voting is in Quebec.
There's nothing to play.
I need your vote.
Each vote will count.
I have an team ready to serve you.
I want to serve you.
If we're elected, we're going to send you a 4-4-4-4.
As of December, I'm going to send you a check of your own money.
If we get elected.
Why can't you do that before?
Why couldn't you have done that?
It doesn't matter.
And I know people who, you know, there's people who say, he's doing the devil horns with his fingers.
Literally promising money.
Anyhow, he was reelected.
And it highlights certain issues with our electoral system, but it was just funny.
66.06% voted, and the results.
We have a first-past-the-post system in Quebec and Canada.
First-past-the-post means whoever gets the most votes in any riding wins the seats, even if it's not an absolute majority.
So, federally speaking...
338 federal ridings.
Each riding is first past the post.
Whoever gets the majority of the votes in that riding wins the riding.
In theory, you could have a government that is 100% one party, even though they only got 35% of the vote in any given riding.
Even if they only got 35% of the popular vote, to put it that way.
So in Quebec, there's 125 seats of the National Assembly.
The Coalition Avenir de Québec, the one in the upper left here in the blue, the CAC, they've got 90 seats.
They get 90 of 125 seats, which is about 75% of the seats, even though they only got 41% of the vote.
PLQ, which is the Parti Liberal de Québec, the Liberal Party of Québec, they only got 15% or 14.37% of the total vote.
They got 21 seats.
That's sort of more proportionate.
Québec Solidaire, which is another political party, got 15.42% of the vote, more than Parti Libéral, but they got half as many seats.
Parti Québec, Parti Québécois, PQ, Parti Québécois, they got 14.6%, more than the Liberal Party, and they got a seventh as many seats.
And then you got the Parti Conservateur de Québec, Éric Duhaime's party.
They got nearly 13% of the vote.
Almost as much as the Liberal Party, Parti Liberal, who got 21 seats, they get zero seats.
So now what you have is 13% of the Quebec population that is just outright not represented in the Quebec Legislative Assembly.
That's a problem.
Now, some people are saying, oh, the CAC got re-elected, but 59% of the population voted against them.
Wrong.
Wrong.
There's very little difference, if any, between the CAC, the Parti Libéral du Québec.
What was the other one?
What was the other one?
Son of a gun.
There's virtually no difference between Québec solidaire, CAC, Parti Libéral du Québec, Parti Québécois.
There's very, very little difference.
So what you have, basically, is people voting for their own leaders who are vying for control.
But you basically have 87%.
Let's see.
86% of Quebec voting for a variation of the same party.
Remember when they had the vote on Bill 15 to strip parents of parental supremacy under the Youth Protection Act?
Unanimous!
All of these different parties unanimously voted to amend the Youth Protection Act to remove parental supremacy as the overarching guiding principle.
Oh yeah, but they're totally different parties.
So, what's absolutely shocking is that 41% of the population voted to re-elect François Legault, Supreme Leader Sunset Thief.
And I did a little Locals Exclusive stream beforehand, and I told him, I went to bed angry, and I woke up angry.
And I would say angry like mad.
Angry like disappointed.
Angry like, I'm sitting here wondering, Now, sincerely, am I the crazy person?
I know a lot of you are going to laugh at that.
It's like, look at this.
Am I, oh, I'm sweating in my armpits.
That's embarrassing.
Why did I do that?
A lot of you are going to laugh at that.
Am I the crazy person?
People are going to look at me and say, yeah, of course, you've been crazy for a long time.
People have been telling you that.
I'm not crazy.
But when I look at a population that re-elected the man, the party, Who has been abusing them.
And I'm saying this like constitutional abuse, psychological abuse, economic abuse.
They re-elect that man?
Am I the crazy one for having a problem with it?
Uneducated, yes.
Crazy, no.
If I'm uneducated...
Am I the crazy one?
Should I just get used to it?
Am I wrong for objecting to it?
I mean, if everybody else has no problem with it and they vote for it back in office, maybe I'm the one who has a problem for having a problem with it.
That's the results.
We had federal elections last year.
It was a slim minority that Trudeau got re-elected by.
He got like 23% of the votes.
Something along those lines.
41% of Quebec.
I mean, when you think that old people are the ones who vote in the highest numbers, hey, well-played Machiavelli.
Promising them $400 to $600 plus $2,000, that's one heck of a way to buy some votes.
Let's see if he does it.
Oh, it'll be classic if he never actually does it.
But then you have, where I have some other big problems, Pierre Poiliev.
Pierre Poiliev comes out.
And says...
Let me bring this tweet out.
Congratulates him.
He congratulates him because politics is politics and you have to congratulate the victor.
There's a way to do it.
There's a way that it should be done and there's a way that it could be done.
And there's a way that I would do it, which is probably why I would never have any meaningful success in politics.
Pierre Poiliev comes out and says the following.
Here.
Share.
Congratulations, Premier François Legault, on another decisive mandate from the Quebec people.
That's depressing.
I look forward to continuing our work together for the people of Quebec and Cannes.
I look forward to continuing our work together.
So where I might have stopped here is if I were writing this and I'm going to write it to needle somebody because I am, as the shirt says, nonetheless, maybe someone would say I'm a troll, but an honesty troll.
I'd say congratulations on another decisive mandate from the people of Quebec.
You should know that the people of Quebec cannot mandate you to violate certain charter rights.
I look forward to ensuring that you respect the Constitution and your governance, and rest assured that if you do not respect the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, I, if I ever make it to federal leader, will see to it that provincially we respect charter rights.
Something along those lines.
It would have to be shorter to fit into Twitter.
But no, he says, I look forward to working together, to our work together.
Now, it's funny.
I had a reply to that, which is now getting buried down here.
This is a reply to Pierre Poilievre.
It's nice that Pierre talked the talk once upon a time.
This is the walk.
And his walk now is, I'm going to work with the guy who imposed unconstitutional lockdowns, unconstitutional curfews, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional and inhumane vaccine passports.
Supreme Leader Legault imposed unconstitutional lockdowns, curfews, and vaccine passports, to name a few.
You stand against these things.
How exactly are you going to work together?
Someone to that said, I'm going to just drop this out now.
I don't think we need to see the rest, but how's that going to happen?
Someone in response to that said, Viva, Legault got the mandate.
The people of Quebec voted.
And I said, You can't get a mandate to violate the Charter of Rights.
Like, it's not because you got a mandate to enslave a portion of your population that you can enslave a portion of the population because that was your platform that you ran on and you got the mandate, so all good.
No.
You can't get a mandate to violate Charter Rights, Constitutional Rights, and the law.
So, the mandate, in as much as 41% of the population did, in fact, give Legault mandate for something.
You can't give a politician a mandate to break the law.
Then the person with whom I'm exchanging, it's a sincere back and forth.
Says, well, you know, he'll just use the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights.
That's Section 33 that stipulates a government can specifically violate certain rights guaranteed under this charter if they do so specifically under a provision of law that is duly passed that cannot exceed a term of five years.
There is this thing called the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights.
It was in there because when they unified or when they redid the Constitution, Provinces wanted to make sure that they would not be effectively governed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
And so they inserted this notwithstanding clause to be used with the utmost of parsimony would be an understatement of the decade.
Exceptional remedy.
If a province like Quebec wanted to enact certain language laws, which prima facie would violate certain language rights, well...
The province said, we want to retain that power to govern without being subject to the de facto governance of the Supreme Court of Canada.
So insert this notwithstanding clause.
We can deviate or violate certain rights under the charter if we specifically enact legislation that specifically says we are violating a specific charter right.
It can only be done under certain conditions for certain periods of time, and if the population doesn't like it, they vote those people out of office.
So I said, A, there are certain charter rights that cannot be the object of the notwithstanding clause, one of which is mobility rights, which is why in Brian Peckford's charter challenge, they went after mobility rights in particular, because that is one of the provisions of the charter, from my understanding, and from what was explained by Keith Wilson, the lawyer, that cannot be deviated from violated by.
The notwithstanding clause.
So a government cannot say, notwithstanding your rights in the charter, we are preventing you from being able to move freely within the country.
You can't do that.
So A, there are certain charter rights which cannot be violated under the notwithstanding clause.
So mandate or no mandate, that's the law.
Secondly, if your goal is to hold a tyrant's feet to the fire, you would act in such a way to compel them to invoke the notwithstanding clause as often as they think necessary.
To govern in the manner that they want to govern as a tyrant.
Notwithstanding your rights, we're doing this.
You would want to make them invoke that as many times as possible so it's on the record.
You don't want to let them skirt around actually doing it and just go do it by order and counsel or by health decree.
Hold their feet to the fire.
That's what opposition does.
So if you're going to work together with Francois Legault, I'll work together with you to make sure you respect the Charter of Rights.
And if you're going to deviate from it, violate the rights guaranteed in it, I'm going to make Damn sure it's on paper that you've invoked the notwithstanding clause however many times you think you're going to invoke it.
Okay.
Now I think I see people in the chat.
I don't know.
Okay, I can't tell if these are complimentary reads.
I think they are.
Sergeant Pepper with a guitar.
That's that.
Now I'm extremely self-conscious about the sweat under my armpit.
I should have worn the black shirt.
You can't see sweat on a black shirt.
That's what's going on in Quebec and Canada.
They voted.
They've re-elected Francois Legault with a decisive majority government.
I don't believe that there was any chicanery.
You don't need to get into the complex methods of rigging elections when you can just use the media.
Your power to buy votes, your power to manipulate, your power to instill fear.
You don't need to go to the complex system when you can just manufacture consent in a manner that is totally lawful.
That entire Time Magazine article was a description of manufacturing consent.
Change rules, change laws, control the flow of information.
De-platform people.
Demonize other people.
Use the media to do it.
You do not need to go to the complex methods of overt rigging when you can just use the methods that already exist or time-tested and true.
All right.
And now it's time for the sponsored video.
So this is not a joke, by the way.
I actually use home title lock.
We came down to Florida.
It's the Wild West out here.
Health insurance, car insurance.
Insurance is up the wazoo, like someone's reaching up, hand over fist, and just taking stuff from you.
I was notified that there are potential risks that I was not aware of in Canada about people not changing the deed, like not saying, I hitherto am the owner of this property.
Get out, it's mine.
But people borrowing against other people's property.
And I don't know how it works.
And I didn't think it was a real thing.
I get this request to say, Home Title Lock wants to work with you.
I was like, why do I even need to worry about this stuff?
So I call our home insurance guy.
And he says, yeah, in Florida, and it might be a state's thing, but it's certainly a Florida thing.
They literally, one of the methods of fraud is to borrow money against other people's homes.
By pulling their deed from the registry, forging it, going to a bank, borrowing against it, and then you wake up with a certain amount of money borrowed against your house.
And I double-checked with my insurance guy, and he said, it's an actual thing.
Home title lock.
Do I share the screen?
Oh, they used an old picture of me.
Hold on, let's do this here.
Present.
Home title lock, 20 bucks a month, and how does it work?
And I'm using it, people.
Oh yeah, I think it's forward slash Viva.
Home title lock forward slash Viva.
I think that's it.
If we just delete all of this.
It's a real thing.
So 20 bucks a month.
And the way it works, as has been described to me, which is why I'm using it, is that if someone pulls your deed, you'll get notified.
And then there will be something of a freeze or a lock where they will not be able to borrow against the deed.
So you'll get notified if someone goes to the registry and pulls a deed.
And you'll get notified if, in theory, somebody gets even further than that and tries to borrow money.
Uh, against your house and they'll freeze it so that it can't be done.
20 bucks a month.
Now I know big dad, uh, big dad, rich dad, poor dad says, uh, a house is not an asset.
I'm going to disagree with him in that it's not an asset in the sense that it doesn't generate revenue, but it is an asset in the sense that it accrues revenue, uh, accrues worth value.
And, um, you don't want people borrowing against your house.
And then you wake up with having to repay an amount that someone borrowed against your house by forging your name on a document.
Home title lock.
And there was something else.
Hold on a second.
I'll get better at this one of these days.
I think that's it.
Oh!
If you go, you'll get...
Enter your address with a...
Hold on a second.
Let me make sure I read this right.
You make sure your home's title is securely in your name.
You go to the home title lock, which is actually what I did.
HomeTitleLock.com slash Reva.
Promo code VIVA.
You enter your address for free, no obligation.
That's $100 value, apparently.
And you'll find that out, and then it's $20 a month, and you can cancel at any time.
And you'll get a notification if someone tries to go, pull your deed to borrow from your house, and screw you.
It's like the Wild West in Florida.
The car accident litigation capital of the world, from what I understand, which explains the car insurance prices.
Liability insurance.
Hurricane insurance.
It's out the wazoo, but home title lock.
Okay, that's done.
We're done.
Good.
And now I think we're going to wind this down and go to rumble after I read these super chats.
And I'll put the link to home title.
I think I already did, but I'll put it in there afterwards.
The elect connection was rigged.
RCMP investigate.
Success marketing and web design?
If you have some evidence, go give it to the RCMP.
They don't need to rig the elections.
I did this.
They don't need to rig it in the sense that people are accusing Dominion of having done in the States.
It's paper.
There's ID.
There's two points at which you have to verify your address against the utilities bill or a valid piece of it.
That's not how they're rigging it.
How they're rigging it?
You get Francois Legault coming out promising you money.
Democracy needs limits to protect.
Oh, I think I understand the way you meant that, not a banned account.
And by the way, not a banned account.
I think I saw you also yesterday on Jimmy Dore.
Maureen Olivier Tandala says, I'm sad that Quebecers believe he handled the pandemic well.
When he killed our seniors and Quebec has the highest death rate from COVID in Canada, I want out.
That's the other thing.
It wasn't even as though what he did helped.
Quebec had the worst...
Had the worst rates, among the worst rates in Canada.
I don't know who was worse between Quebec and Ontario.
Long-term healthcare facilities hit hard.
Mangled.
And then he goes and imposes an unscientific, unconstitutional curfew.
And 41% of the people who voted voted him back in.
And no, I don't believe it was rigged in any technical sense, like vote suite, whatever.
No, people just voted for it.
Well, who else am I going to vote for?
Parti Quebecois.
Or whatever, the Québec solidaire, they want to be independent.
I'm not going to vote for them.
Oh, the Parti Liberal, they're too liberal.
Oh, the Parti Conservateur, they're crazy conspiracy theorists.
Our country has a charter of rights.
And it's, what's the word?
It's crafted effectively, like mutatis mutatis, the U.S. Constitution.
It's from the power of God.
The word God appears in there.
We have a charter of rights.
It's not a constitution in the U.S. sense.
And we certainly don't value it the way some Americans value the constitution as a...
What's the word?
Not a sanctimonious.
As a quasi-religious love for it.
What's the word I'm looking for?
Not sacrosanct.
Sacrosanct?
Is that the word?
Sacrosanct?
Anyhow.
All right, let's do this.
I'm going to move on over to Rumble.
We have, oh, we have a couple of Rumble rats.
Move on over to Rumble.
Link is here.
And we're going to go over a few more things there.
So people, let's do this.
We're moving from YouTube, heading over to Rumble in three, two, one.
I would do the, I think we're alone now, but I don't want to raise my arms.
I'm going to have to come to grips with the fact that I'm sweating here and underneath.
This shirt is a little hotter than most.
Here, look.
The honesty troll.
And it's outdoors.
It's hilarious because the black part of it attracts the sunlight, makes me sweat.
So the entire shirt turns into a big, sweaty, dark gray shirt.
I missed the rumble rant.
Trudeau has accepted fleeing son of Iran's supreme leader.
That's coming from Julie Antol.
While everyone trickles over here, I'll read the chat.
Free money from Raging Slime.
Why does the power go out when counting the votes?
So I did hear that the power went out in NDG.
This is when people's trauma of real incidents...
Makes people connect the dots that might not otherwise be connected.
You have a big country.
There's power outages.
It just happens.
But when you've seen many coincidences elsewhere, you begin to think that it's all part of some conspiracy.
Power goes out.
It happens.
Coincidence, random, 41%.
I mean, if you're going to rig it, You could be a little more modest in the rigging.
You don't have to rig it, though.
Rely on the ignorance of a large portion of the population.
And I don't mean that in a judgmental way.
They just don't follow the news the way all of us here do.
You control the media.
You control the messaging.
And you control the purse strings.
That's all you need to manufacture consent.
Let people think they did it willingly.
And you can basically...
You can basically...
Control the outcome.
All right.
Donald Trump's lawsuit.
It contains some stuff about the elections.
The lawsuit is not going to get very far, is my belief.
Having seen the lawsuits that have gotten tossed, it's not going to get far.
He's suing CNN for defamation.
At the very least, he's picked a better jurisdiction to file suit.
I like to think that...
Either Trump or Trump team is listening to Barnes and or me.
There's two elements in here that lead me to think it's either coincidence or they're watching.
They picked the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, to file suit.
Might be somewhat friendlier than, I don't know, say, Washington or New York.
Washington is probably not a good comparison, but New York.
Southern District of New York.
So, they picked a better jurisdiction.
Let me just make sure we're looking at the same thing here.
What have I done?
What have I done?
They picked a better jurisdiction.
The lawsuit itself, I think, is somewhat thin on the allegations of defamation.
Let's just read the intro.
These are, as some people call them, marketing tools.
Others might just call it...
It's not frivolous enough on its face that it's a total joke.
It's just having seen what we've seen, it's not going to get very far, but maybe it's being used as a tool to speak to the public.
I don't mind railing against CNN and their fake news.
The plaintiff, President Donald J. Trump, has been a longstanding critic of CNN, not because CNN does a bad job of reporting the news, but because CNN seeks to create the news.
Beyond simply highlighting any negative information about plaintiff and ignoring all positive information, yada yada, editorializing, which is not defamation, CNN has sought to use its massive influence, purportedly as a trusted news source, to defame the plaintiff in the minds of its viewers.
Yada yada yada, okay.
CNN's campaign of dissuasion in the...
I mean, we know all of this.
We know all of this.
But here, as part of its concerted effort to tilt the political balance to the left...
CNN has tried to taint the plaintiff with a series of ever more scandalous, false, and defamatory labels of racist, Russian lackey, insurrectionist, and ultimately Hitler.
Racist?
Opinion.
Russian lackey?
Opinion.
Insurrectionist?
Dumb opinion.
And Hitler?
Well, Trump is not the only one who gets compared to Hitler.
Everyone.
That...
The mainstream left disagrees with is a far-right fascist Hitler descent.
These labels are neither hyperbolic nor opinion.
That's an opinion.
They're repeatedly reported as true fact.
No, this is weak because you cannot literally say that Trump is literally Hitler as a fact because it's necessarily comparative, which is necessarily a statement of opinion, but whatever.
The Russian lackey, maybe.
Purported by allegedly reputable newscasts acting not merely with reckless disregard for the truth of their statements, but acting with real animosity for the plaintiff seeking to cause them true harm.
We know from the Project Veritas leaked videos, animosity or not, it's the slant.
It's the angle.
It's the agenda.
It's the narrative.
Stated.
Overt.
They seem to be trying to attack the actual malice standard that was set in...
Sullivan versus New York Times.
I don't know enough about American law to know if this is absolutely untenable.
But they're going after it.
What I think is settled law, but I also thought Roe v.
Wade was settled law under the Supreme Court standard.
Even though the actual malice standard is met here, which they have to meet, they're arguing it shouldn't apply anyhow.
In circumstances like these, the judicially created policy of the actual mala standard should not apply because ideological homogeneity in the media or in the channels of information distribution risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.
Suits like these do not throttle the First Amendment.
They vindicate the First Amendment marketplace of ideas.
Okay.
Good luck.
Let me just go to the chat and see what people in the chat are saying.
Good luck.
FJB is a dyslexic.
Okay, I can't read that.
Trump disappointed many supporters because he did not do enough to rid the swamp.
There's no question about that.
So that's the preface.
We go through the standard stuff.
Published in Florida, fine.
Florida has a law that requires notice.
They've sent it.
They've dotted the I's, crossed the T's.
Fine.
Factual allegations.
The most trusted news.
I mean, the whole thing is this.
The most trusted name in news, everybody knows, is opinion.
And everybody knows it's a joke.
I mean, it's a catchphrase.
It's not a statement of fact.
It's an opinion of the people saying it, like when my mother says that I'm good looking.
You're the most handsome boy of, you know, you're tied for fourth of all the boys in the house, but you're the most handsome boy in the world.
I know that that's not a statement of fact, even if my mother says it.
It holds itself to be the name of...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, fine.
We want to get to the actual allegations.
A news network that uses its platform to propagate its politics.
We all know this.
Purported to be a trusted news source, CNN anchors have denounced a competing network as providing a buffet of cultural war cuisine and, quote, predictably hypocritical.
This is also problematic strategically.
In the lawsuit, he's saying that the actual malice standards shouldn't apply for whatever the reason because when you have media controlling a narrative, that's a problem in and of itself.
While highlighting the fact that there are competing narratives out there of competing networks that have a much greater viewership than CNN.
So I think this argument is mutually incompatible, just thinking out loud and thinking critically.
It was right up at the beginning.
Let me see.
Just get back to here.
The actual malice standards shouldn't apply because they're channels of information distribution.
They risk repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness.
That's what they're arguing to argue that actual malice shouldn't apply even though if it does apply, they'll meet it.
While simultaneously, a few paragraphs later, recognizing that there are opposing networks out there that are offering a buffet of cultural war cuisine.
And are predictably hypocritical.
Meanwhile, CNN has undertaken a smear campaign to malign the plaintiff.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay.
And we all know the slurs.
Let's just get to the actual concrete statements of fact.
Here we go.
From reporting news to propagating political beliefs to intentional, willful, and malicious libel and slander.
Most notably, and the subject of this complaint, is CNN's persistent association of...
of the plaintiff to Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
They do it with Trump, but not for the Red Sermon.
When you have a deranged old man with his fists to the air with a backdrop of three pillars and blood-red curtains talking about...
Half of America or half of voting America being existential threats to democracy.
When labels like racist, which have typically been understood to be opinions as white nationalists, Russian lackey and insurrectionists did not have the desired effect.
Yada, yada, yada.
CNN upped the stakes to conjure associations between plaintiff and arguably the most heinous figure in modern history.
Hitler.
On January 9, 2022.
Concrete evidence, and we'll have to see if this works.
It aired its special report, The Fight to Save Democracy, by Fareed Zakaria.
I can't believe that I used to watch Fareed Zakaria for actual news.
I remember.
I remember watching Fareed Zakaria saying, he seems smart enough, but so young.
So dumb.
In the promotional video for the program, Zakaria states, quote, democracy everywhere is under attack.
But remember, America has been here before.
America has vanquished demagogues before.
So how do we do it now?
I see nothing remotely defamatory of that.
It's just stupid.
But maybe this lawsuit is intended only to highlight the stupidity of CNN, which needs no highlighting to anybody who has their eyes half open.
It goes on to discuss elections are under attack, not because of potential fraud in the election process, but because the plaintiff questioned the election's results.
A focal point of the report is a discussion of the ascendancy of Hitler and compares the plaintiff, inter-pursing discussion of Hitler and Nazi Germany with footage of the plaintiff.
Let's be very clear, Donald Trump is not Hitler, but the disclaimer is lost in an otherwise direct and graphic imagery.
It's weak, and I'll tell you, it's weak, but it's also dangerous, because you want to create a precedent where comparison to Hitler is going to be defamatory, when there are a lot of people who want to draw a lot of analogies between what are typically, you know, what are oftentimes referred to as false flags and the historical false flags of all time.
Reichstag fire being one, and...
Oh, jeez, the Polish tower when the Nazis staged the whole...
Attack on the radio station.
I forget what they call that one.
A lot of people on both sides make the comparison.
If that's going to be the basis for defamation, that's a knife that cuts both ways.
The similarities between Hitler in the 1930s and Trump in 2016 are notorious.
And the way you made the segment...
By and off the alternate images of both, even if not apparent before you made it now.
To show that the statements are having the impact that Donald Trump wants to prove that they have, they're going to Twitter replies, which I also think is a pretty weak thing to do.
There's a lot of outright stupidity out there on Twitter.
A lot.
And the argument is going to be, look, they were defamatory and people actually tended to believe them because I found some responses, replies on Twitter.
Yeah, that's...
I don't know.
That's not the best evidence, in my humble opinion, for these specific allegations, which are supposed to contain statements of fact that tend to injure the reputation, that are made with actual malice or with willful disregard for the truth of those statements.
On August 25, 2019, CNN broadcast its Reliable Sources program, hosted by then-anchor Brian Stelter.
An interview with...
Psychiatrist Alan Francis, I remember this.
In the broadcast, Francis claimed that Trump is as destructive a person in this country as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century.
Can you imagine a psychiatrist saying this?
Can you imagine anybody saying this?
I remember them saying this.
I also remember them, I remember psychiatrists or psychologists.
Remotely diagnosing Donald Trump as a patient who they'd never seen, based on public appearances.
We saw that guy do it during the Johnny Depp trial.
France's statements were analyzed by PolitiFact, a website that holds itself out as a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others in its truth-o-meter.
PolitiFact determined France's statements regarding the plaintiffs to be pants on fire rating untruth.
Again.
You know, they have someone on their show who makes a stupid statement, and now they're showing how the MSM, which PolitiFact are fake fact-checkers to begin with, but even they have some standards of truth, put it on pants on fire.
If I had to assess that fact-check, I would say, how do you fact-check a stupid matter of opinion?
I mean, I guess you could just based on number of people not killed, the number of genocides not perpetrated, the number of starvations that didn't occur under Trump's government versus Mao, Stalin, and Hitler?
But I think this is speaking to the public here.
CNN recently cancelled Stelter's Reliable Sources program, which was made public on August 18, 2022.
Reporting on the cancellation identifies Stelter's historic bias against the plaintiff, Republicans, and non-liberal news outlets.
It goes on.
We could just try to get a couple more of the statements.
On July 17, 2021, Jim Acosta, host of CNN's Newsroom, stated, when we have entered the realm of coups and Hitler, we have to pause.
The statement is the title of CNN's YouTube post of the broadcast segment.
The segment of the broadcast begins with Acosta stating, this week President Biden took on the big lie and the insurrection.
This is where I think they might have been listening.
Hopefully, maybe they see some of my tweets.
People were using the big lie, unironically, not appreciating that it's a direct reference to Hitler.
Hitler created the term the big lie.
Hold on.
Well, they're going to flesh it out here.
Defamation that is the subject of this complaint.
CNN's use of the big lie, a concept tied to Hitler to describe the plaintiff.
It's not tied to Hitler.
Hitler created the term the big lie.
He created the term to demonize Jews.
I can never pronounce it properly.
Is a gross distortion, a misrepresentative of the truth, used especially as propaganda technique.
Coined by Adolf Hitler when he dictated his book Mein Kampf to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
Hitler claimed that the technique has been used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German General Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist political leader in the Weimar Republic.
So I've been saying that for a long time, that when CNN and the likes are using the term the big lie, they're actually repeating a Hitlerian trope.
And now that's part of the argument that's the basis of this lawsuit.
Let's just get back to it.
In its campaign of dissuasion, CNN has branded the plaintiff as the one who subscribes to the notion of the big lie.
The big lie is a direct reference to the tactic employed by Hitler.
We just saw that.
Okay.
That's it.
Sentiment relayed by Banfield and Steisenhauser bear little resemblance to the current attitudes of the network.
CNN has adopted the big lie as its turn of phrase to describe the plaintiff and the plaintiff's concerns over election integrity.
The repeated use of the big lie in relation to the plaintiff is not innocently rendered, but rather a deliberate effort by CNN to propagate to its audience an association between the plaintiff and one of the most repugnant figures in the history.
And it goes on.
I mean, that's the essence of this.
Let's just get some more concrete examples up here.
January 16...
2022, CNN aired a television show entitled State of the Union that included host Jake Tapper making the following comments.
Tapper!
Over the weekend, while Martin Luther King III was in Arizona rallying to expand voting rights, Donald Trump was the same day in the same state doing the exact opposite, continuing to push his big lie.
Last year, we had a rigged election, and the proof is all over the place, is Trump.
They then walked the big lie.
They're the big lie.
Then they end the clip.
There is a reason Trump was in Arizona to push the legislature to disenfranchise the state's voters based on all of his deranged election lies.
Anyways, that's it.
So they're going...
That's the essence of it.
I like to make the joke.
We can read it there.
They're going defamation per se.
A defamation which on its face with no further explanation is defamatory.
Calling him Hitler, associating him with Hitler, comparing him to Hitler, using Hitler's trope, the big lie, to create the psychological association between Trump and Hitler, defamation per se, yada yada.
The problem?
I don't think it's going to go very far.
Based on the currently accepted legal precedent.
You recall it was the Rachel Maddow defense.
It was clearly intended to be hyperbolic when Rachel Maddow said that OAN is literally Russian paid propaganda, or that journalist was.
She didn't mean literally, literally.
Everyone knows that Rachel Maddow is a commentator.
It was hyperbolic, literally, literally, as in not literally.
So when she said literally, she didn't mean literally, literally.
And no one takes it as anything more than her opinion.
Okay, then you run with the headline, Rachel Maddow.
It's not real news.
She's just opinion.
Well, Tucker Carlson availed himself to the same defense in his defamation lawsuit when he was accused of defaming the one or two women who allegedly sought settlement monies from Donald Trump.
And he said they...
I don't think he used the word literally, but he said they engaged in extortion.
And they said, you publicly accused us of a crime.
That's defamation, per se.
Accusing someone of a serious crime is defamation per se.
And Tucker Carlson's successful defense was, at least that of Fox News, it's clearly opinion.
It's clearly intended to be hyperbolic sort of commentary, not to be taken as an actual factual accusation of having committed a crime or been found guilty of one because they weren't.
And so he also got out of his lawsuit on the same defense as Rachel Maddow.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I wouldn't hold Matt out to a standard that I wouldn't apply to Tucker.
And I can understand both of those rationales for dismissing the lawsuit.
When I listen to Tucker say that they committed extortion, it's extortion.
I didn't understand it as him saying they were found guilty of extortion because they weren't.
I didn't take it as him accusing them of extortion in the legal sense, because he's not a lawyer.
He wasn't doing it in his capacity as a lawyer if he has a law degree or as a prosecutor.
He was just basically saying, people who say, pay me money, or I'm going to rat out to the media that you allegedly touched me, well, that's a form of extortion.
That's what I understood to be opinion.
When Rachel Maddow said, literally paid Russian propaganda, I didn't literally believe her.
I literally thought that she was actually going to get out of that lawsuit.
Based on the substantive truth of the statement.
Because the reporter at issue that she was talking about for OAN, at one point, at one point, was remunerated by Sputnik.
Was it Sputnik?
He was at one point, an actual remunerated journalist by a Russian entity.
And I thought, mad I would have just gone with the other defense.
It's true enough.
When I said he's literally paid Russian propaganda, at one point in the recent history...
He was paid, and I think it was by Sputnik.
He was paid by Russian interests.
That makes him literally paid Russian propaganda.
True enough.
But she went with the, I didn't mean it factually.
Good for both of them.
Hold them to the same standard.
Fine.
So if they apply the Tucker and the Maddow, if they apply the Carlson and the Maddow standard, Trump will lose.
CNN will say, when we compare him to Hitler, we're not saying he's Hitler.
Nobody can be Hitler except for Hitler.
If they apply the Alex Jones standard, well, then CNN's going to lose.
If they apply the Alex Jones standard, let's set aside the whole default judgment for failure to comply with discovery requests that I think at this point, having washed everything, he would never have been able to comply with.
um I don't think Alex Jones could have ever complied with The discovery request, so it was just a foregone conclusion.
But setting all that aside, you'll recall in Alex Jones, part of the basis of the defamation, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, was that other people came on his show, made statements, and he is to be held liable for that, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, not the individuals themselves.
Well...
Someone comes on CNN, a psychiatrist, and says that Trump is worse than Hitler.
Trump is worse than Stalin.
Trump is worse than Mao.
Applying the Alex Jones standard, CNN should be held liable for that, potentially.
Something tells me they're not going to apply the Alex Jones standard to that.
Sputnik News, which is linked...
Schellig says, ah, Sputnik News, which is linked to the Russian government.
Yes, that's right.
That's with respect to the reporter that went from Sputnik to OAN.
But, anyhow.
Oh, is Alex Jones on a rumble?
Hold on, let me just see one thing here.
Okay.
Okay, I'll copy this.
Send it to myself by email.
That's the lawsuit.
If I'm betting, I'm betting it's going to get dismissed.
I'm betting that this is more for public consumption than for legal Ratification.
And you could see the way they've constructed the argument, you can't make mutually incompatible affirmations or take mutually incompatible positions within the same document.
It's not the best way to do it because someone with a reasonably analytic brain will find it and pick it apart.
So there's that.
We'll see where it goes.
But it makes for the headlines.
And what's he suing for?
$275 million, I think?
Hold on.
Let me get to the conclusion.
How much was he asking for?
Oh, $475 million.
Punitive damages.
Oh, sorry.
Compensatory damages in excess of $75,000.
That's the legal requirement.
Punitive damages in the amount of $475 million.
We'll see.
But I don't think it's going anywhere.
All right.
What else?
Let me take that out of the stream.
I'm going to learn a valuable lesson for the future.
Not to wear this particular shirt for a stream.
In good news, it looks like Clarence Thomas is going to get his wish to hear a lawsuit that's going to potentially...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Craft, reshape, pull back.
The current...
Legal application of Section 230 immunity.
Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies' immunity under Section 230.
This is coming from SCOTUS blog.
I read the blog from the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Not that we don't care about tech and terrorism.
We do.
Let's just go here.
Where was it?
Tech companies and terrorism.
We're at this paragraph here, but let me just see, where was it?
Oh, in Gonzalez v.
Google, the justices agreed to take up an important question regarding the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields internet platforms from liability for content published by others.
Congress passed the law in 1996.
We've gone over that thoroughly, the history of that law.
New York held an internet service provider liable for a defamatory statement posted on the website's message board.
Two years ago, in a statement respecting the justice's decision not to review a different case involving the scope of liability under section, it cannot be two years ago that Clarence Thomas stated that in his, called the dicta, it cannot be two years ago.
Clarence Thomas suggested that the courts should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by internet platforms.
On Monday morning, the justices agreed to do just that.
The question now before the court is whether Section 230 protects internet platforms when their algorithms target users and recommend someone else's content.
The case was filed by the family of an American woman killed This is fascinating.
The whole argument is that there's two facets to Section 230.
We really don't need to go into it again now, but that...
The platforms would not be held liable for content posted by others if they had reasonable measures to remove illegal content.
Illegal or unlawful or otherwise lascivious content.
And I'm going to screw up describing the second half.
And then the question became whether or not they can curate content, specifically curate content, while also claiming Section 230 immunity.
let's see where we were, a divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section 230 protects such recommendations, at least if the provider's algorithm treated content on its website similarly.
The majority acknowledged that Section 230 shelters more activity than Congress envisioned it would.
However, the majority concluded Congress, rather than the courts, It's interesting.
I just think the courts need to clarify What Section 230 means?
The text of it seems clear enough.
And if the text requires clarification, that's what the courts should do.
Not redraft it.
Interpret it as it's currently drafted.
The justices also agreed to take up a petition for review filed by Twitter in a lawsuit filed against it by the family of a Jordanian citizen killed in a ISIS attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, in the same opinion as its ruling in Gonzalez.
as the Ninth Circuit held that Twitter, Facebook, and Google could be held liable regardless of Section 230 for aiding and abetting international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use their platforms.
Thanks.
It's going to be interesting.
Any pairing back of the application of Section 230 or the immunity granted by Section 230 will be a step in the right direction.
The risk, however, is if there's no Section 230 immunity.
Tech companies are held liable, while people might think it's a victory on its face, when you see the penalties that big tech can pay without the slightest second thought versus penalties that would bankrupt smaller platforms, you then realize that total abolishment...
Total...
Abolishing Section 230 immunity entirely would create an environment in which only the big tech with the deepest pockets could survive having any penalties and it would suppress and destroy and bankrupt the smaller platforms.
So, between all-out removal of Section 230 immunity or specifying its scope and limitation, you know, there's...
Progress to be made without striking it down entirely, but setting certain limits and limiting certain immunities.
Okay, we got the Trump lawsuit.
Oh, there was an update in the North Dakota man charged.
Here we go.
Where do we want to get it from?
Law and crime?
No.
We'll go to USA News.
The story that not enough...
The world is shocking.
The world is shocking.
You have a situation where a 43-year-old man runs over and kills an 18-year-old, I won't say boy, an 18-year-old man.
A teenager.
Allegedly over a political dispute.
I think it was at 2 o'clock in the morning.
Runs over and kills another man over a political dispute at two in the morning.
The man obviously was intoxicated.
I say obviously was intoxicated.
Runs over the kid, and then claims that the kid was a Republican extremist, and the media, being the purveyors of fake news and promoters of political vitriol, instead of taking a step back and saying, who's the extremist here, parrots the talking point by quoting the murderer.
The alleged murderer.
No, he's an admitted murderer.
He's an admitted killer.
The fake news propagandists that need to promote the MAGA Republican extremist narrative spewed forth with vitriol by the President of the United States himself.
When referencing this story, quote, the admitted killer and frame the victim as a...
Republican extremists.
Not the man who drove him over because of a political dispute, allegedly.
The victim.
And not many people were talking about this.
Above and beyond platitudes.
It's a terrible incident.
I hate playing the game, what if it had been rules reversed?
What if it had been...
Just think about what happened in Charlottesville.
The individual who rammed into a crowd and...
Killed one of the people there.
That was headline news for months.
Now you have it.
Rules reversed.
If he's not Democrat, he's clearly not Republican.
Runs over and kills an 18-year-old boy.
Man.
Teenager.
Claims that he was a Republican extremist and the fake news mainstream media runs by quoting the admitted killer.
And framing the victim as a Republican extremist.
And then silence.
And worse than silence, by the way, the man was originally released from jail, was only charged with vehicular homicide, which is not murder, people.
It's not intentional homicide.
It's vehicular homicide and was released on a $50,000 bond.
Well, apparently he's now been, you know, maybe it was public scrutiny.
Maybe it's the system, just the wheels working slowly.
He's now been charged with murder.
By the way, Robert Govea, you know, when I'm not listening to Jimmy Dore, I go, I listen to Robert Govea.
I listen to as much as I can, but he did a great piece where he walked through the, someone in the chat's going to know the word.
It's not the warrant.
Is it the statement of probable cause?
Basically, the document that sets out the facts supporting the charges.
He is now charged with murder, though.
Harambe the White says yes.
Robert Gouveia goes through the statement of offense.
Someone in the chat, help me out with the word.
I'm drawing a blank now.
And he did a good piece on it.
It's preposterous.
The man was drunk.
Gets into a fight at 2.45 in the morning or whatever.
Runs over the kid and then calls the cops and basically says, yeah, it was on purpose.
And the kid was calling his parents to try to get help to get out of a situation where he clearly knew that this man was getting increasingly unhinged.
Last call that the kid made was to his parents at 2.40 in the morning.
A North Dakota man who prosecutors say intentionally ran over an 18-year-old at a street dance has been charged with murder.
North Dakota man accused in the fatal hit and run of a teenager of a small town street dance is now charged with murder after prosecutors say he intentionally ran over the 18-year-old according to upgraded charges made public Friday.
Shannon Brandt was initially charged with criminal vehicular homicide in the September 18 killing of Kaler Ellingson.
But the charges...
But that charge has been dropped.
The new charge, murder with a dangerous weapon, is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison upon conviction.
Brandt is also charged with leaving the scene of a crash that resulted in death.
The probable cause affidavit.
There we go.
I got the term.
Released Friday.
Brandt told a 911 dispatcher that it was a total accident, that if it was a total accident, he wouldn't be so scared.
Quote, but I know it was more than that.
Brandt initially told the authorities that there had been a political argument and that Ellington was part of a, quote, Republican extremist group.
And this is what the media decided to run with.
Like Tom McDonald had a lyric in his song, they kill you and then they make it the evening news.
This is even worse.
They make the victim.
They describe the victim in terms that turn the victim into the victimizer.
He was part of a Republican extremist group.
Where would he have gotten that idea from?
You got Elizabeth Warren referring to SCOTUS as a group of extremists.
You got the President of the United States referring to MAGA Republicans as existential threats, threats to democracy, extremists.
Where would this man have gotten such an idea?
Many conservatives took to social media to decry...
I'm sorry, many conservatives?
First of all, this is either true or it's framing.
If it's true that it was only conservatives or many conservatives to be distinguished from those who did not take to social media to decry the alleged motive, we've got a problem.
If it was actually, in fact, only many conservatives taking to social media to decry the alleged motive in Ellingson's death, we've got a problem.
If this USA News has to frame it in a way that almost sounds blameworthy, Of conservatives.
They're trying to politicize an incident which is political in nature, where an alleged murderer allegedly killed an individual over an alleged political dispute and then claimed that the individual he killed was a Republican extremist.
If that doesn't shock everybody's conscience, conservative and liberal, Houston, we have a problem.
But investigators have said the case was not political in nature and that there is no evidence to support Brandt's claim that Ellison was a Republican extremist.
I'm sorry, you idiots.
If Ellison said that the kid was a Republican extremist, it's political in nature.
It's not political in nature only if they determine Ellison was a Republican extremist.
This incident, this murder, is political in nature because the alleged murderer says the victim.
Was an alleged Republican extremist.
That's what makes it a political incident.
Idiots.
You're either idiots or you're liars.
The outcome is the same, so it doesn't make a difference anymore.
Brandt's attorney won't comment.
Hit and run occurred early Sunday.
150 miles northeast of Bismarck.
New probable cause.
Let's get into that.
He allegedly asked the dispatcher if he was going to go to prison.
Listen to this.
He told the dispatcher that Ellingson wasn't going to let him go, and I hit him, and I didn't mean to, and he's subdued.
And I was scared to death, but he's subdued.
He can't do anything to me right now.
Thank you.
Brant later said, I almost, oh God, I almost just run away, but I thought, geez, obviously if it was a total accident, I wouldn't be scared, but I know that it was more than that.
There was a video where he was being questioned after the incident, and he said, I don't want to lose my house.
I don't want things to go by the wayside.
I've got a house.
I've got a job.
Am I going to go to jail for this?
The affidavit says that in one of the phone calls, Ellingson asked his mother if she knew who Brant was.
In another, Ellingson told his mother that maybe he could call his cousins or posse.
That's where he got the extremist, Republican extremist from.
His mother told him that he didn't need to do that and that she was on his way to pick him up.
And she never got there.
Or she got there and he wasn't.
Alive anymore.
Before investigators arrived, Brandt left the scene.
Yada, yada, yada.
The Highway Patrol's investigation shows no acceleration marks or skid marks on the gravel alley.
Investigators also found little to no damage to the front of his car.
There were some cracks underneath.
This was all in the affidavit for probable cause.
Well, now he's been charged with murder, and I believe his bond was $1 million.
It doesn't say here.
I believe the bond was set to 1 million.
Let me see.
1 million bond.
Yeah, so it was updated to a million dollars.
No, that's the wrong one.
So hold on.
Let's get that out of here.
That's obviously not the right case.
That's the right case.
Hold on.
People, was it not?
It was moved up to...
Here we go.
Okay.
So the Brant's bond is now set at 1 million.
All right.
It's disgusting.
It's not good news.
It's just as much justice as we'll ever be able to be had from this outrageous injustice.
It's like...
Media ignores it.
Or at least ignores the motivations.
It's not a political incident because there's no evidence that he was part of a Republican extremist group as alleged by the guy who killed him.
That's not what makes it political whether or not he was actually a Republican extremist.
The fact that he was run over because the person who ran him over thought he was, said he was, and told the police this is what makes it a political incident.
Anyway, so that's the...
That's that.
Let's go to the chat.
See what's going on in the chat.
I know I missed some rumble rants.
I know I missed some rumble rants.
Yeah.
I did talk about...
I talked about Owen Benjamin.
Hold on.
Let me just get my...
Let me just get my tab of...
Okay, we got the, oh my good God, how could I almost forget?
Chat, everybody's smarter than me when it comes to certain things.
Cars being one of them.
What kind of car is this?
Does anybody, like, what kind of vehicle is this?
I'm going to go to the Rumble chat.
I think Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau's social media accounts are being managed by the same gaslighters.
Jimmy, Viva should interview Jimmy Dore.
We're going to have it.
Okay, Full Metal Dragon says it's a Corvette.
Okay, now Uncle Respect says it's a Jaguar.
Jan Jagger says vet.
I thought of Corvette.
Okay, 68 Corvette.
68 Corvette, good.
Is it diesel or is it regular?
That's got to be diesel, correct?
Can you imagine?
Corvette Stingray.
Let's just see who's right.
I'm going to get this here.
Corvette Stingray.
I guess we have to go to 68 because...
Oh, that's what I'm seeing on the street.
I keep seeing a Corvette that looks like that on the street here.
Yeah, that's what it looks like.
Okay.
Corvette Stingray.
Is it diesel?
I don't know.
Okay, whatever.
▲
Export Selection