Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:52:39

Alex Jones Billion Dollar Verdict; Kanye West Cancelled; CDC Director Pushing Jab AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you for joining today's Director Debrief.
	Updated COVID-19 vaccines are now available for children ages 5 through 11. This expanded eligibility is a critical step in our fight against COVID-19.
	It's our highest priority to optimize protection so that our children, our future, can remain healthy and protected.
	I've heard conversations about the updated COVID-19 vaccine that are now available.
	So let's talk about what you need to know.
	Tell us.
	The updated vaccines are bivalent, meaning half of the vaccine formula targets the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and the other half of the vaccine targets BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants.
	The updated COVID-19 vaccines are formulated to restore waning protection, And to better protect against currently circulated COVID-19 variants.
	Just wait for the punchline.
	Laboratory data suggests they also increase our immune response to help protect against the most common variants today.
	If your child is five or older, please make sure they have completed the primary vaccine series.
	And if they have, and it's been at least two months since their last COVID-19 vaccine dose, please get them an updated COVID-19 vaccine now.
	Two months since their last dose.
	Go get the updated vaccine.
	Yeah, I paused it at an opportune moment here because this...
	I'm not a doctor.
	And the same is true for you.
	So you can be healthy and well to take care of your children and yourself.
	As we approach the winter months...
	Am I projecting or does it look like she has zero confidence in what she's saying?
	It almost looks like...
	She's a prisoner, a hostage, being forced to recite a speech.
	Am I projecting?
	It's critical that we all remain vigilant and stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines.
	Am I projecting or does she just look very uncomfortable and almost like she doesn't believe what she's saying herself?
	If you're eligible, I strongly encourage you to roll up your sleeve and get your updated COVID-19 vaccine today.
	You can visit vaccines.gov to find a location near you.
	This is the director's brief.
	October 12, people.
	That's yesterday.
	This is not something that's months old.
	This is yesterday.
	Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, knowing what we know now, knowing what we've seen Pfizer execs admitting.
	Knowing what we know now, knowing what we know about certain demographics potentially responding not so good to certain things, knowing what we know now, knowing that...
	When was it?
	Was it Bourla just the other day?
	Knowing what we know now, telling you to go administer this procedure to your five-year-old and up after you get the primary batch done.
	And do it if it's been done two months or more ago.
	I'm trying to find the Albert Bourla tweet.
	Bourla?
	Here we go.
	I think this is it, right?
	I'm pleased to share with you.
	This is from Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.
	Follow the science.
	I'm pleased to share that we have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. FDA for our Omicron-adapted COVID-19 jibby-jab for children.
	How the hell did they get emergency use authorization?
	Sincere question.
	Does there not need to be an emergency in order for there to be the issuance of an emergency use authorization?
	In the absence of any existing treatment to treat the emergency, what's the emergency?
	Right to jail.
	What's the emergency for 5 to 11-year-olds?
	And then you get Rochelle Walensky of the CDC up there pushing this, imploring people to get their 5 to 11-year-olds jibby-jabbed.
	What's the emergency?
	What's the benefits?
	What's the risk to that demographic?
	This has been around for two and a half freaking years.
	We know the risks to that specific demographic.
	And it's, don't cite me, virtually non-existent.
	And they come up and they push this and they continue to push it despite everything we know.
	Emergency use authorization.
	Oh!
	How did that work, FDA?
	Just like that.
	It's become the new candy at Halloween.
	You get emergency use authorization.
	Everybody gets emergency use authorization for an emergency that doesn't exist.
	Anyhow.
	The FDA approval board is a revolving door with big pharma, so what do we expect?
	And someone said I was projecting.
	She looks like she believes it.
	I don't believe that she believes it.
	I don't know what could compel people to behave like this.
	Moving at the speed of science was what the Pfizer executive...
	I think she was an executive.
	The Pfizer rep.
	Moving at the speed of science is what they said.
	Oh, well, we didn't know that it didn't protect against transmission.
	Because we were moving at the speed of science, which means moving faster than the results that we have to substantiate the claims that we've made publicly.
	That's not moving at the speed of science.
	That's moving at the speed of politics.
	She gets paid big money to read the script.
	Money, money, money.
	What good is all the money in the world for he who has sold their soul?
	I'm mangling that.
	I'm mangling that.
	Oh, proverb from the Bible.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Have to start a little early this morning because I'm going to be alone with the kids for a week.
	My wife, she has left me for a week.
	My wife took off, not took off.
	My wife has work-related stuff that she needs to tend to.
	And I will be alone with the kids and the dogs for a week.
	So that means...
	Breakfast in the morning.
	Bringing to school.
	Picking up.
	Both sets of children.
	Walking the dogs.
	Winston the blind Westie and Pudge the paralyzed Puggle.
	So it's going to be a full week for me, but I can do it.
	I can do it and stream during the day.
	And we've got a big show today.
	It still feels weird calling it a show.
	We're going to discuss a lot of stuff today.
	Alex Jones...
	Now, aggregate between both trials, and I'll use trials in quotes, over a billion dollars, but in Connecticut, fair and just damages for the 16 plaintiffs of $965 million.
	It's so preposterous, and everybody understands it's preposterous.
	It's just a question of whether you like the insanity or not.
	It's like that episode of The Simpsons when Chester P. Lampwick is suing the creators of Itchy and Scratchy, Meyer Goldwyn.
	And he says, you stole my itchy and scratch.
	He says, you come in here and ask for...
	How much are you asking for again?
	$800 billion.
	Well, they got $1 billion.
	After a non-trial on the merits, we're going to get into this.
	We're going to go over it.
	$90 million in just and fair damages to the FBI agent who didn't have a kid at Sandy Hook, who didn't have anyone that he was related to that died.
	$90 million to an FBI agent because he alleges, and it was a default verdict, Alex Jones called him a crisis actor and questioned him based on an outdated photo of him in an FBI suit.
	Kanye West, remember when PayPal issued that mistake draft, we're going to take $2,500 from your bank account if you violate the rules of our platform, say something misinformation that we don't like.
	Oh, there was a mistake.
	They took it back.
	Well, within the last 24 hours, Cat Turd, and it's not a joke, Cat Turd is on Twitter.
	It's a big conservative handle.
	Had his banking.
	Cat Turd's a man, a male, right?
	Had his or her, say him.
	Banking canceled the Bank of America.
	Kanye West, who I believe I'm legally required to call Ye now.
	JPMorgan Chase.
	Thank you, Kanye.
	We no longer want to do business with you.
	Please close all of your banking.
	Stop doing it with us and have another account by November 21st.
	I'm sure that's going to be very easy to do.
	And I'm going to talk about the Canadian Commission and some other fun stuff.
	You know, there's an indictment for the fisherman cheaters.
	For anybody who doesn't know, they got indicted.
	So on the lighter side of things.
	Standard disclaimers.
	Question of YouTube.
	Hosted and made money from Alex Jones' videos for years after the comments, shouldn't they be sued too?
	Fair question.
	How about law and crime?
	Law and crime made a lot of money during those trials.
	Super chats, ad revenue.
	No, but they made money documenting.
	Alex Jones made money with the lies.
	Which...
	Let's even operate on that basis.
	CNN made a lot of money with a lot of lies.
	Sandman.
	Yeah.
	Trump removing the bust of Martin Luther King.
	That might have not been CNN.
	Shithole countries.
	A lot of news made a lot of money off fake news debunked stories.
	Russia hoax, PP hoax, steel dossier.
	No, no, they made a lot of money.
	The doors have been opened.
	And the people who are cheering this on because they like the injustice, be careful what you wish for.
	Okay, we will be moving over to Rumble soon.
	Everything looks good.
	Everything looks good on Rumble.
	Okay, good.
	And that's it.
	We're going to talk about the Jones first.
	So that will be on both YouTube and Rumble.
	And then we'll move over to Rumble.
	And whatever remainder of the stream goes on Rumble, I'll post it to YouTube tomorrow, a day late, as I do.
	And before we go on...
	Before we go on...
	You may have noticed it said the stream contains a paid promotion because I have sponsors, which is bold and courageous of some sponsors.
	And today's sponsor of the video, and it's something that I actually am drinking myself, Field of Greens, people.
	Field of Greens.
	You've heard it.
	There's a green powder market.
	It's called Powdered Greens.
	It is a big market and it's not all the same.
	And I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor of Field of Greens to go over the company and vet it to make sure it was what it was.
	Field of Greens, it's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
	It's a food and it's an organic food, USDA organic.
	It's called desiccated, which means dried and pulverized.
	It's like vegetable jerky, like grind up beef jerky, mix it in water and you'll get the proteins from the beef.
	It's desiccated vegetables.
	One spoonful is one serving of vegetables.
	You take it once or twice a day.
	If you can't get all the vegetables you need, get all the vegetables you need anyhow.
	And if you can't, it sure as heck is healthier than a soft drink in the afternoon, and it actually tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water because it basically is, for the healthiest possible reasons, nutrients, vegetables, desiccated vegetables, and you stir it around and you drink it, and it doesn't taste bad at all.
	Actually tastes good.
	And if you can't get your vegetables in your diet every day like you should, a spoonful with a glass of water goes down and it's delicious.
	And no, it's not defecated vegetables.
	When I was on the call with the doctor, I thought that's what he said.
	F and S on the interwebs and on telephone sound quite similar.
	So when I say my name is Friheit, people often hear Sriheit, desiccated, dried, pulverized.
	It's a food, it's not a supplement, and it's not an extract.
	And it's USDA organic, made in America, and it's damn good.
	Okay.
	Jones.
	$965 million in the Connecticut case.
	You'll recall in the Texas case, it was a modest, a mild, a reasonable $45 million, which included punitive damages, which are going to be reduced because Texas has a cap on punitive.
	From what I understand, this is Connecticut.
	These are not punitive damages.
	These are compensatory damages, and there is no limit on compensatory damages.
	So barring an appeal and a successful appeal, because it will be appealed, barring a successful appeal, a jury can award whatever they want by compensatory damages, and there's no limit.
	I mean, no limit in a factual sense and no limit in a moral sense.
	Whether or not you think Alex Jones is guilty is one thing.
	People were making comparisons.
	O.J. Simpson, in his wrongful death lawsuit that was filed by Anna Nicole...
	Not Anna Nicole Smith.
	Oh, his wife, Nicole Smith Brown.
	Filed by his wife and Goldman's family.
	They got roughly the same amount.
	For wrongful death...
	against the individual who caused the wrongful death in the civil trial.
	People...
	This is so light years beyond anything that the world has ever seen.
	If it doesn't get successfully overturned, enjoy the world that we have ushered in.
	This is beyond a First Amendment issue.
	You go to social media.
	And Barnes and I have talked about this.
	We're going to go through all the points, and I'm going to steelman the case against Jones, as I've done since the beginning, and I'm going to sensitize everybody that even if, and I'll say even if, if, if, if, if, you believe Alex Jones said the things he said, which I think we can all agree on, you believe they were defamatory, hurtful, etc., which I think we can mostly agree on, even if you believe all of that, even if you believe...
	He defaulted on his obligations, his discovery obligations in the trial.
	Even if you believe that, the way this trial went down, a default verdict followed by a trial on the quantum in which the defendant didn't have his hands tied behind his back.
	He had duct tape placed over his mouth.
	Even if you agree to all of that, you cannot accept the outcome of this, if only as a matter of principle and law.
	But that seems to have been pushed by the wayside.
	Given the politics and the emotions in this case.
	Okay, let's start from the beginning.
	Did Norm Patterson expect the total final judgment to be increased to 2 to 2.5 billion total?
	Because it's 965 million compensatory damages.
	Thus far, I don't think they've adjudicated on punitive.
	They haven't adjudicated on legal fees.
	I mean, legal fees.
	As if the legal fees, which might be 20% of any judgment, I don't understand anything you're saying, but I like hearing you talk.
	Sorry, forgot mig.
	You're going to understand it because we're going to go step by step now.
	The veggies are freeze-dried, ground-fined, and put under vacuum again, then sold to lawyers, sometimes desiccated lawyers.
	Well, okay.
	Let's start from the beginning.
	People on the interwebs.
	Point number one that you're going to have to either respond to or understand is false.
	He had his trial.
	No, he didn't.
	Now, that's not to say he didn't go through the process.
	Alex Jones, on the merits of the defamation and intentional inflection of emotional distress, went through the process to some extent, never had a trial.
	There was never a jury trial finding culpability, responsibility on the...
	Defamation, intentional infliction of emotional stress.
	There was no jury trial in this case.
	Understand that.
	There was no jury trial on the merits, on the substance of the lawsuit.
	How can that be?
	How can that be?
	And this is where you're going to have to get into the second point.
	You're going to say to someone, sir, the false memory that you have and the false memory that society as a whole is going to have in 10 years is that Alex Jones went through a trial on the merits.
	It was a month long in Connecticut.
	They talked about all of the evidence on the merits.
	They talked about the statements he made.
	They talked about everything.
	The school, the children, the families, everything.
	There was a trial on the merits.
	It lasted four weeks.
	That's going to be the collective memory to those who have forgotten or were not there at the time in a decade.
	No.
	It's not a question of partisan spin.
	There was no trial on the merits because the judge, usurping the powers of the jury, Usurping the entire trial by jury says Alex Jones did not comply with discovery requests.
	He's not only foreclosed from pleading, foreclosed from defending.
	I issue a default guilty verdict against Alex Jones.
	He's defaulted so badly, he's not going to trial.
	Not only is he not going to trial, the plaintiffs aren't going to trial.
	The plaintiffs are not going to have to prove their case even in the absence of a defendant.
	I grant the plaintiffs' motion.
	By default verdict.
	No jury trial.
	Understand that.
	And then you're going to have to navigate the second point of this.
	There was no jury trial on the merits.
	The judge, by default verdict, bypassing a jury altogether, bypassing evidentiary hearing on the merits, declared guilty, Alex Jones, of intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.
	And then they went to a jury trial.
	On quantum alone.
	After the finding of culpability had already been done by the judge by virtue of default verdict.
	Okay.
	We understand that now.
	Point one.
	Now you're going to say that to someone and they're going to say, well, Alex Jones had his chance and he effed around and he found out.
	Okay.
	The argument is going to be Alex Jones refused.
	This is not the argument.
	This is how it happened.
	Allegedly.
	The court says Alex Jones failed to comply with discovery requests.
	He was asked to sit down.
	He was asked to communicate documents.
	He communicated millions of emails, text messages, yada, yada, yada.
	But he did not communicate, or he said he did not have Google Analytics, certain financial information that the plaintiffs wanted to prove that he made money off of the lies and the statements at issue.
	He did not fully comply with discovery.
	It's undoubtable and undeniable that he complied to some extent.
	He produced, according to some, more documents than any defendant in history.
	I mean, I don't know how you compare that, but produced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of emails, texts, etc., etc.
	You're going to hear people say, because this is how it happened, the court said, the court found Alex Jones effed around.
	He did not disclose information.
	He concealed documents.
	He said he didn't have things that we think he had.
	Therefore, he refused to comply with discovery requests.
	He had his opportunity and he played around.
	F around, find out, guilty by default verdict.
	That's how it happened.
	Now, whether or not Alex actually had the things that the court said he was not producing, let's even assume that he did.
	One thing that is clear, now you're going to say that's what happened.
	He F'd around, he found out.
	All he had to do is he had his day in court.
	He had many days in court.
	He did not comply.
	He screwed around.
	He lied, yada, yada.
	He got what he deserved.
	Okay.
	That's the way it happened.
	The argument to that is going to be, even if it's true that Alex Jones concealed, lied about having text messages relating to Sandy Hook, lied about not having access to or not using Google Analytics, these issues in the normal run of justice, at the very worst, might lead to some monetary sanctions, maybe some civil contempt, maybe even criminal contempt.
	But the plaintiffs would still have to go to court to a jury and prove their case.
	Ordinarily, even in the worst case scenario of an ordinary realm of justice, what would happen?
	Jones would be foreclosed from defending.
	He wouldn't be able to present evidence of his innocence.
	Most of the time, what that means is that even though he would be declared foreclosed from pleading, he can't defend himself, but he can still cross-examine plaintiffs on their evidence.
	That's what would happen in a normal run of things, even in the most extreme circumstances.
	The plaintiffs would still have to go to court.
	Still have to prove their case before a jury.
	Think about it this way.
	Someone says we had a contract.
	He agreed to pay me $100,000, I don't know, for re-roofing the house.
	I re-roofed the house.
	He didn't pay.
	Okay.
	I have the contract.
	Whatever.
	Let's just say the defendant tries to delete text messages where he said, yeah, I'm not paying you, whatever.
	Okay.
	There's evidence that the defendant tried to destroy evidence.
	Beyond concealed.
	Tried to destroy it.
	Well, you still have to go to court and prove you had a contract and the work was done.
	The judge does not get to say, well, okay, this guy destroyed some evidence, so I'm just going to presume that you have won your case.
	I can't even think of a theoretical example where that could be the appropriate sanction.
	I have to presume you made your case because of the Egregious abuse by the defendant?
	Maybe there's a hypothetical.
	In this case, and as we've seen during the trial, it wasn't the case.
	At the very best, even if we grant Alex Jones fail to disclose text messages about Sandy Hook, fail to communicate Google Analytics, these are secondary issues to the defamation itself.
	But bear in mind also, this is defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	We're talking quantum and secondary aspects.
	Plaintiffs necessarily have to have these statements themselves which are defamatory.
	And then maybe they can argue negative inferences from Jones's conduct as relates to other stuff.
	But the judge, seizing on these in Connecticut, and then the Texas judge seized on this default to also issue the default verdict in Texas, says, no, Alex Jones didn't fully comply with discovery.
	Therefore, I grant the plaintiff's case without them even having to prove the merits of it to a jury.
	Hold on.
	Rubia's in the house, and now I want to see what Rubia had to say.
	Rubia is a Texas attorney, and I don't think she's very sympathetic.
	Rubia, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
	I don't think, from my recollection, that you're actually very sympathetic to Jones as an individual as it relates to the statements.
	If I'm wrong, I don't need to put words in your mouth.
	But even people who hate Jones and think he deserves something have to agree here.
	These out-of-control verdicts are harmful to our society.
	Teaches lottery justice or lottery injustice.
	So people are going to say, Alex Jones, after all, all he had to do was comply.
	I would argue, as would others, there was nothing Jones could ever do to fully comply with discovery, but we'll never know that because that alternate universe will never occur.
	Even if we grant that he did not comply in the way the court said he did not comply, it's absurd.
	It's untenable legally and just as a matter of pure justice to say he didn't.
	Provide Google Analytics, although they had all of the evidence at trial, we'll get to that in a second, he messed around so badly that not only is he foreclosed from defending, verdict default, default verdict, without the plaintiffs even having to prove their case to a jury.
	It's inconceivable.
	Okay, that's the other argument.
	Let's go one step further.
	Anybody who watched this trial, all he had to do was F around and F around and find out, all he had to do was fully comply.
	All he had to do was fully comply.
	All right, well, one thing is clear.
	Then you say, well, he did fully comply.
	They got everything they needed because they had it all at trial.
	They had the Google Analytics.
	They had the text messages.
	People are going to say, oh, well, they got it.
	They got it, but they got it too late.
	He should have done it when they said, therefore, the punishment is just.
	If that's the game that people are going to play, that the judge holds the sword of Democles at any given moment, Capriciously, in the absence of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's ability to make their case, can say, case closed, default verdict.
	They don't even have to prove their case.
	Be careful what you wish for.
	Because one thing is clear, when you got to trial, and I was watching this trial, and I think most people are saying, he denied them evidence.
	Well, you saw at this trial, which was only on the quantum, they had all the evidence under the sun.
	They had Google Analytics.
	They had the text messages.
	They had all the videos that they needed.
	So whether or not he concealed it, delayed it, didn't give it to them at a time, that's what civil contempt is for.
	A fine a day until you comply.
	They had all of this information, and it was submitted as evidence during the trial.
	So people are going to say he had his jury trial.
	He didn't.
	It was a default verdict, jury trial on the quantum.
	F around and find out.
	He didn't fully comply.
	Okay, even if he didn't, the sanction is absolutely untenable.
	And besides which, they had all the evidence that he allegedly didn't give.
	Whether he gave it late, whether or not they had to twist his arm.
	Okay, that's what civil contempt sanctions are for.
	Let's get to the quantum now.
	$120 million to one of the plaintiffs.
	$90 million to the FBI agent.
	In a trial, by the way, I'm sorry, in a trial where even in this trial on the quantum, Jones could not make certain statements about his own innocence.
	People don't know this because they didn't watch the trial.
	The Waukesha killer is getting more deference than Alex Jones.
	A man who actually plowed his vehicle, killing six people, is getting more deference in his right to a defense.
	Yes, it's criminal.
	And yes, it's somewhat different criminal versus civil.
	Alex Jones...
	He made statements and didn't carry out acts.
	He didn't carry out the underlying acts that are at issue here, the most horrific acts imaginable.
	He was not allowed at trial to talk about the fact that he allegedly didn't make any money or he didn't make the millions that were being alleged that he made specifically off the Sandy Hook coverage.
	He wasn't allowed to testify that he apologized multiple times.
	He wasn't allowed to testify.
	What else?
	That he didn't mean to cause them harm.
	Because recall, people, the judge unilaterally issued a default verdict that he was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Well, you can't say it was an accident.
	I didn't mean to do it.
	I feel guilty about it if it was intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	I just forgot what I was going to say.
	Oh yeah, no, that's right.
	He couldn't even say that he didn't mean to do it without being held in contempt.
	So the judge issues the default verdict without any trial on the merits in front of a jury.
	And then in the jury trial on Quantum, effectively says Jones cannot say anything to mitigate the Quantum apologized, retracted, didn't intend to cause harm because of her prior default verdict order.
	And then they issue a total of $965 million in real, just and fair damages to the defendants, to the plaintiffs.
	So that's where it's at.
	It's a systemic procedural injustice.
	You might think Jones deserves something, and people don't like me for it because I've said it from the beginning.
	He said some tremendously stupid things.
	I think had he gone to trial, He could have probably been found responsible for defamation, for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	But there were other issues in this case.
	Statute of limitations was one.
	On the merits.
	That's the other purely hypothetical.
	Let's just say that in my hypothetical roof repair, the guy destroyed the contract, but you waited five years to sue.
	Well, it doesn't matter if you waited.
	It doesn't matter if he destroyed the contract and did everything terrible if your action had lapsed.
	As a matter of statute of limitations.
	And so you need to go to trial and prove the essential elements of the existence of the claim, one of which is that it's not time-barred.
	And that was potentially an issue here.
	He could be guilty as guilty can be.
	He could have said the most offensive, insane things imaginable.
	If the plaintiffs are time-barred, that's a defense that goes beyond the guilt of the individual if they did not file the lawsuit within the required timeframe.
	Couldn't do that.
	But there are people on Twitter, they love it.
	They love it because they hate Alex Jones so much, they'll ignore an injustice because they hate the person against whom the injustice is being perpetrated.
	Thank you.
	So that's it.
	Did I miss anything on this?
	The trial was a Kafkaesque show trial.
	I mean, in the purest of senses, he was already guilty.
	He couldn't assert any statements in his own defense.
	He could not answer questions freely without the risk of being held in contempt as the judge vocally and repeatedly announced to the court.
	She would not hesitate to hold him in contempt of court.
	This makes me feel good.
	I'll tell you this.
	This actually makes me feel good, Rubia.
	Thank you.
	Because I got in trouble.
	People don't like it.
	He said very stupid things.
	If this were done properly, he probably would have been found...
	Liable to some on some of the statements.
	The punishment as well should only be proportionate and reasonable.
	But what happened here is an injustice, a procedural injustice, that nobody cares about now because it's Alex Jones.
	In the same way they didn't care when they deplatformed Alex Jones.
	Oh, and then all of a sudden, they start deplatforming people you do like, like procedural injustice.
	Well, too bad, you already ratified that.
	965...
	Million dollars.
	I mean, I don't want to compare it to wrongful death lawsuits, but I will.
	Alex Jones didn't kill anybody.
	Alex Jones had nothing to do with the tragedy.
	He made very careless, factually incorrect, and hurtful statements on limited occasions afterwards.
	And this guy's going to get ordered to pay, by orders of magnitude, more than medical malpractice, more than actual murder, more than actual wrongful death.
	People have lost their minds.
	People have lost their minds.
	I want to field this one.
	Cheryl Graham, thank you, Viva, for supporting Alex.
	I'm not supporting Alex per se.
	I'm supporting the principal here.
	I happen to think Alex has been vilified disproportionately so.
	He certainly says things which are hyperbolic, etc.
	And the things about Sandy Hook were just dumb.
	But, you know, the gay frogs business, okay, some people can find that offensive.
	I said after I had Alex on the show, you know, he describes things in hyperbolic manners.
	When he says the cell towers are mind control, well, people laugh at that and say it's stupid.
	But the only difference between mind control and mind interference is sort of like this superpower ability.
	But some types of control actually involve destruction.
	So people can...
	Interfere, control someone's mind by interfering with it and destroying its ability to function properly.
	Sound waves, pulsars, things like that are types of weapons.
	They don't control, but they certainly interfere with.
	And it's a known fact that cell towers, frequencies from cell phones, interfere with sleep patterns.
	And in that sense, Alex Jones calls it mind control to be hyperbolic, but it's certainly interference with certain bodily functions.
	And so in that sense, you know...
	Fact check, false, but substantively, there's some truth to it.
	But I'm not defending Alex for what he said.
	He said stupid things.
	We're defending a principle.
	We're defending a process.
	And if we're not, the process itself is gone.
	And the process is what ensures that it doesn't happen unjustly to someone you like.
	When it happens unjustly to someone you don't like, people tend to look the other way.
	Work hard, you'll sleep just fine.
	I can assure you that that is not true.
	In fact, it seems that the harder I work, the worse I sleep, because I wake up in the middle of the night thinking of things that I should not be thinking about.
	Rubio, we must allow speech.
	It is the basis of our society.
	If somebody lost their livelihood or had specific damages, then I think it makes a lot more sense, but this is crazy.
	And then the argument is going to be, well, people harassed the family, and Alex Jones directed them to do that.
	I watched the trial.
	The evidence was actually contrary to that.
	First of all, Alex Jones never asked, endorsed, encouraged anybody to go harass him.
	The evidence actually was that they were being harassed and some of these lies that are attributed to Alex Jones were being made prior to and were popular even before Jones covered it.
	But we didn't have a hearing on the merits.
	We only had a hearing on the merits of the quantum because the judge said, I declare Alex in nuclear default of his obligations to comply with discovery.
	I declare him guilty by default verdict.
	No need for a jury, that pesky little jury of your peers, things that, you know, fundamental justice.
	I declare him guilty.
	Now let's go to a trial by jury on the quantum.
	But by the way, Alex Jones, here's the things you can't say.
	I apologize.
	I regret it.
	I didn't mean to hurt anybody.
	I didn't make any money off of it.
	And I corrected myself.
	Can't say those things.
	So get up on the stand.
	And if you venture into those areas, I'm going to put you in jail.
	Okay, that's what you need to know, I think, about the Jones trial.
	If I've missed anything, we'll get to it on Rumble.
	Let's move over to Rumble.
	I keep forgetting.
	No, I pinned the link.
	Here, let's do this one more time here.
	I don't think I missed anything.
	We can go through the damages per family.
	Mark Shaw, if I ever need a lawyer, Viva's on top of my list.
	I can't do it because I could not deal with the crushing defeat that Pattis is dealing with.
	You know, Pattis gets up there.
	You work your tail off.
	You work your tail off, and then you get slapped with this.
	It's like, he didn't even need to be there.
	Pattis didn't even need to be there.
	It wouldn't have been any worse than this.
	Pattis was principled, was respectful, conducted this trial professionally.
	The outcome would have been no worse had they had a squid in a jar.
	Representing Alex Jones.
	I can't deal with that level of defeat.
	Maybe it makes me a coward or too sensitive.
	I also just can't tolerate these types of injustices.
	When banks and PayPal can shut you down and take your money for free speech, free speech dies.
	Well, that's a good segue.
	Kanye West.
	There's so many things wrong with what happened to Kanye.
	And by the way, just so everybody knows, I put the stream up.
	I will put this full stream up on YouTube tomorrow.
	Let us go over to Rumble so that we can reward the company that actually respects free speech.
	Let's do it.
	Okay, so I'm going to end it here.
	Everyone's got the link to move over, and I'll put it in the pinned comment afterwards.
	We're going to remove YouTube from the stream and go into Rumble.
	Exclusive in 3, 2, 1. I think we're alone now.
	Let's see here.
	I'm just going to go and make sure everything's good here.
	Okay, it looks good.
	Kanye West.
	There are so many things wrong with what's going on with Kanye now.
	Last week, everybody knows, he and Candace Owen broke the interwebs because both black Americans wore a shirt that said, White Lives Matter.
	At the time, I'm not critical.
	I was just saying, from a question of principle, in order to fight back, I don't try to push harder in the opposite direction.
	I try to remain reasonable.
	And so, if I were going to pull the...
	What's the word for it?
	Not a stunt, but rather, what's it called?
	What's it called?
	Well, I guess publicity stunt might be the word.
	If I were going to try to do something provocative like this, I still would tone it back a little bit.
	And if it's in response to Black Lives Matter and I were that type of provocative type, I wouldn't go with White Lives Matter.
	I would just have worn a shirt that said All Lives Matter.
	Because I wouldn't want to racialize it in the other direction when the point is specifically that we shouldn't prioritize conceptually, ideologically, whatever, one group of people over another.
	But I'm not Kanye West.
	I am not Ye.
	Nor am I Candace Owens.
	And the world needs all sorts of people.
	Otherwise, it would be very boring and very neurotic if everyone were just like me.
	Kanye West and Candace Owens go to Paris and they wear a shirt on a...
	I don't know where it was exactly.
	It says, white lives matter.
	And Kanye is immediately dubbed a racist, which goes against all prior principles that the left had hitherto held.
	But whatever.
	Called a racist.
	Goes on Tucker Carlson, gives an interview, talks about...
	He makes some interesting comments about Hanukkah.
	But he goes on Tucker Carlson.
	And now he's become the darling of the right, according to the left.
	And I think the Instagram post that probably got him yeeted.
	Yay has been yeeted.
	I just realized that.
	He goes on Instagram and posts...
	I want to bring it up so that I don't...
	Misrepresented.
	He posted on Instagram something which immediately had everyone, and I mean everyone, up in arms.
	Let me get the tweet.
	Not the tweet, the Instagram post.
	Before we go on, it's a few days back now.
	He posted an Instagram post, and it's, you know, after having gone after Black Lives Matter, He posted an Instagram post which was interesting and which irked a lot of people.
	I'm just going to try to keep you all entertained while I scroll down my Twitter feed to find the actual tweet.
	October 9th?
	When was it?
	Jeez, I know.
	I put together the model.
	I had the actual Instagram post.
	Oh yeah, Rappaport.
	Okay, Rappaport commented on it.
	So I know I'm in the right spot here.
	Tabarnouche.
	Where is the Instagram post itself?
	Oh, here we go.
	Okay, I got it.
	All right, good.
	This is the actual Instagram post.
	Yay!
	At Kanye West.
	I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going DEFCON 3, which many people believe is a typo for DEFCON.
	Defense.
	Command.
	Ah, whatever.
	I don't know what it is.
	I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going DEFCON 3 on Jewish people.
	The funny thing is, I actually can't be anti-Semitic because black people are actually Jew also.
	You guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone who opposes your agenda.
	Okay.
	What he meant by that, who knows?
	Because everyone can easily read that the way they want, and everyone can easily read that as something that violates Instagram's community guidelines, as did Instagram, and swiftly yeeted yay from the Instagrams.
	Okay.
	There's some discussion.
	I would be curious to know what yay meant by this, but we may never find out because it doesn't matter, and people don't care.
	He could say it was just a stupid joke, like Roseanne Barr.
	I didn't mean...
	For anybody to take it literally, it doesn't matter.
	People will misunderstand jokes by accident or on purpose when they want to.
	People will claim things were jokes dishonestly when they weren't.
	If they get into trouble after, who knows?
	Who knows?
	It doesn't matter.
	We'll never know the true intentions.
	It's impossible to know.
	All we know are the words.
	He gets yeeted from Instagram.
	And yesterday, he got notified.
	By JPMorgan Chase, he's no longer welcome there.
	Here we go.
	This was from Candace Owens.
	And the amazing thing is when someone who people have publicly supported, Candace Owens publicly supports Kanye.
	Ben Shapiro supports Kanye when he talks about things like pro-life, whatever.
	And then Kanye goes out and makes a tweet that's going to make people say, Why'd you do that, Kanye?
	I thought we were bros.
	And then people have to either backtrack on their support, you know, or defend, or say it's a misunderstanding.
	Let's try to get to the bottom of it, but we won't.
	Okay, this is from Candace Owens, who posted, earlier today, are we looking at the same thing?
	We are.
	Earlier today, I learned that Kanye West was officially kicked out of JPMorgan Chase Bank.
	I was told there was no official reason given.
	But they sent this letter as well to confirm that he has until late November to find another place for the Yeezy Empire to bank.
	She said she blacked out the names to preserve the identities of these two individuals who are not related to them.
	Dear Ye.
	By the way, his name was legally changed to Ye.
	So I think I might reflexively still call him Kanye because that's how I've known him my whole life.
	But this is from JPMorgan Chase.
	Allegedly.
	This could all be fake.
	It isn't.
	I'm in it.
	By all accounts, it's been reported in the news.
	We are sending this letter to confirm our recent discussion with Redacted that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, has decided to end its banking relationship with Yeezy LLC and its affiliated entities collectively to the company.
	To provide the company with sufficient time to transition to another financial institution, we will continue to maintain the accounts.
	Exhibit A. Including all related product services until November 21, 2022.
	To avoid any transaction delays, we suggest that you stop processing company transactions.
	Like, I've never run a business anywhere near the size of Yeezy.
	I had a law firm.
	I don't know how fees...
	Just stop processing company transactions and or using any products associated with the accounts five business days before the scheduled closure.
	I mean, I guess that gives them enough time.
	And they don't want people processing transactions afterwards so that he basically has until November 16 to figure his Yeezy out.
	After that date, the bank will close any open accounts and after deduction of any permissible service charges and pending transactions, remit all remaining funds in the form of a check delivered to the company.
	We just hope you have a bank account to deposit it into Yeezy.
	Yay.
	We ask that you promptly transfer your businesses to another financial institution before November 21, 2022.
	If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to whatever, blah, blah, blah.
	Sincerely, JPMorgan Chase.
	The funny thing is if we want to talk about the hypocrites, JP, if we want to go after the person and show that they are just immoral and have no principles and that this is not easy, yay, that was a very offensive Instagram post.
	We got to cancel your banking with us now.
	If we want to show that they're just egregious hypocrites with no morals despite what they purport to have.
	Or, by the way, parentheses, maybe they have a damn good reason.
	Maybe Yeezy has been involved in criminal activity, money laundering, I don't know, I don't know whatever.
	I mean, we were all, I don't know, I don't know what, maybe they have a damn good reason that they're not making public for whatever the reason.
	So there might be an entirely legitimate reason for which they are roughly the same week as that Instagram post a week after the White Lives Matter show.
	Whether or not it's just coincidental timing.
	Whether or not they've found their reason, whether or not they have a legitimate reason, it's always possible.
	Let's just assume that it's a knee-jerk reaction to mean shirts and mean Instagram posts.
	To show that JPMorgan Chase are hypocrites with no morals, who else did they do banking with?
	I believe it was Bernie Madoff was one of them.
	Oh yeah, look at that!
	Manhattan US Attorney and FBI Assistant Director in Charge announced filing of criminal charges against Oh, Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
	They got out of it.
	With J.P. Morgan Chase.
	In connection with Bernie Madoff's multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.
	Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
	Charges to be deferred for two years under an agreement requiring J.P. Morgan Chase to admit to its conduct.
	Oh!
	They'll be criminals for Bernie Madoff, but they won't keep open Kanye's bank account.
	They have moral standards and principles.
	They'll pay $1.7 billion to victims of Madoff's fraud and to reform its anti-money laundering services policies.
	$1.7 billion payment by J.P. Morgan is the largest ever bank forfeiture and Department of Justice penalty for a bank secrecy act violation.
	So maybe they have good reasons.
	Maybe...
	Maybe they found some criminal activity or they don't want to be ordered to pay another billion because Yeezy was up to no good.
	Maybe.
	Probably not.
	But maybe.
	Admit the possibility so that we don't make a bed that we have to sleep in afterwards and make accusations that we can't walk back.
	Maybe.
	Timing is very coincidental.
	No reasons given.
	And yay.
	And the Yeezy empire now need to find another bank.
	And the question is going to be, will they be able to?
	And by the way, if anyone thinks this is a one-off, I mean, when they debanked Jones, they had good reasons.
	Now they have good reasons against Ye.
	Even if there's no criminal activity, Kanye posted a mean Instagram post.
	Debank him.
	Share screen.
	They got Cat Turd, too.
	Here, where is Cat Turd's article here?
	Okay, so this is from Mia, which I don't think it's an entirely...
	It might not be the most reputable news source, but...
	The other outlets are covering it and they're going to catch up.
	I just like this one because of what they included in the article.
	Call me POS.
	For those of you who don't know, POS does not refer to point of sales.
	It refers to piece of shit.
	I never knew what a point of sales was until I, you know, had business.
	And then I was like, you call this a POS?
	Do you guys not know what that stands for?
	Like, could you have like a point of sales service?
	I call it a POS or maybe a Point of sales entry, like Pose?
	No, you went with...
	It's not point of sales, people.
	Commie pieces of Scheiser.
	Fans outraged as Bank of America cuts ties with Cat Turd and JPMorgan Chase cancels Kanye.
	This is from today.
	Updated...
	I don't know what time that is.
	Catrim claimed Bank of America won't fund their In the Litter Box podcast, and JPMorgan Chase told Kanye West to take his Yeezy business elsewhere.
	For those of you who are not on Twitter, there's an actual Twitter handle with a massive following and engaging tweets called Cat Turd.
	Kat turned two, I believe.
	Kanye's being canceled.
	Literally, now JPMorgan Chase has cut ties with the rapper.
	Amid his anti-Semitic remarks, Candace Owens earlier revealed on Twitter that the bank had sent Ye an official letter of termination with no reason given.
	Cat Turd.
	Took to their account Twitter saying, just so you know, Bank of America canceled our bank account for our podcast when Jules, my co-host, asked why they rudely said they didn't need a reason.
	And the reality is, they don't.
	You can't discriminate for reasons that are protected under the law, but a bank, at the very least, according to my understanding currently, need not maintain business relationships with a client that they don't want to maintain business relationships with.
	They can't do it on the basis of religion, race, creed, gender, whatever.
	But barring that, they don't have to keep an account for someone.
	They just don't want to have business to do with them.
	You can think of a bunch of reasons why, but what's the solution?
	Legislation maybe to treat these things like utilities where water services are not going to get cut off because someone made an anti-Semitic Instagram post.
	Financial services, many would argue.
	Are more basic utilities than water services because you need them to pay for the water services.
	Great, you can't cut the water off, except you can in Florida, by the way.
	You can't cut the water off, but we can cut your ability to pay for your essential services off.
	For no good reason.
	No legal reason.
	Just, we don't like you.
	Bank of America are commie POS losers.
	Beware.
	While they themselves were not given any reason for this move, fans of Cat Turds and the Heartless Singer were quick to add...
	Two and two, and slam both the companies for canceling people and groups.
	Cat Turd's hit podcast, In the Litter Box, was boycotted from Bank of America with no official reason.
	On the other hand, JPMorgan Chase gave the 45-year-old rapper an ultimatum right after he was locked out of his Twitter anti-Semitic remarks.
	What was the ultimatum they gave him?
	Owens revealed on Tuesday, yada yada.
	Okay, fine.
	One user who sides with Ye slammed the banking institution, saying, we have to cancel our accounts with companies who pulled this nonsense.
	We pushed back against PayPal, and they got the message.
	Yeah.
	Some might say PayPal is probably going to go right back to what they wanted to do.
	Oh, did we say...
	Okay.
	You all recall, it was last week.
	PayPal.
	A draft amendment coming November 2022.
	Interesting timing, by the way.
	I think that draft amendment was supposed to be in force come November 22nd, 2022.
	Yay has until November 21, 2022, to get rid of his banking with JPMorgan Chase.
	This draft amendment taking effect in November was going around saying, if you publish misinformation, it'll violate our...
	Off here a little bit.
	It'll violate...
	If you publish misinformation that violates our acceptable use policy, We may deem liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 and debit it from your bank account to which we, PayPal, have access in order to facilitate your PayPal banking transactions.
	They said this.
	Barnes and I talked about it Sunday.
	They said liquidated damages.
	People in law, that means, for those of you who don't know, arbitrary but predetermined value of the damages.
	Like if someone...
	You know, I'm trying to think of cases where you get liquidated damages.
	Non-payment of rent.
	When rent is due, you say, okay, every day you don't pay rent, I'm going to deem it to be liquidated damages of X. So I don't have to prove the actual quantum.
	It's just deemed the actual accepted quantum between the parties.
	Liquidated damages.
	Pre-adjudicated, that's the amount.
	We've agreed to it.
	So if I take you to court...
	I don't have to prove why it's $2,500.
	I just have to prove that we agreed to liquidate the damages in the amount of $2,500.
	So PayPal says, we're amending this.
	We are deeming it to be liquidated damages in the order of $2,500 if we determine that you have violated our acceptable use misinformation speech policies for that for which you use PayPal as our business.
	Got something in my eye.
	Ow.
	And then the world went crazy.
	Not realizing, of course, that...
	Hold on.
	Not realizing, of course, or not necessarily fully appreciating that PayPal already has something of this policy already in effect.
	Why did I do that?
	Why did I do that?
	PayPal already has something of this type of policy already in effect, but people were raging against this as relates to misinformation, liquidated damages.
	It's still in there, by the way, to some extent, just not as relates to the misinformation aspect.
	Acceptable use.
	But then PayPal comes out and says, it was a mistake.
	It was a draft circulating internally.
	We didn't intend to publish it.
	We did.
	Mea culpa.
	We're not actually doing this.
	Backtracking like pathological liars that they are.
	Because that's not an accident.
	And if that is an accident and you accidentally published the draft amendment to your terms of use, some might argue that you have no business handling people's bank accounts and having access to them in the first place.
	So the same week PayPal apologizes and retracts, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase implement effectively the exact same policy of punishing speech through economic retaliation, punishing speech with which they disagree that they don't like.
	ah
	sigh
	So that's the latest on Kanye, and we'll see where it goes.
	People are asking, what can be done?
	It would take, I believe, some form of legislative reform for this because you think about it conceptually, banks might say we don't want to do business with marijuana salespeople.
	Even if it's legal, it's just not our business.
	We don't want to do banking with porn producers, porn direct, whatever it is, the people who make pornography.
	They might say that.
	You can say, well, we can't compel a bank to do business with someone that they don't agree with by essence.
	Of course, the same people who say that are saying that the baker has to bake a specific cake with a specific message for people, even if it violates their religious freedoms.
	Set aside all of the mutual inconsistencies here.
	You can't force people to do business with people they don't want to do business with.
	If a bank says, I don't like your business, I don't like what you've gotten into, it's not an industry we want to deal with, so we don't want to do business with you.
	When it becomes viewpoint-based discrimination, if that's what's going on in Kanye, Well, then the question is, they can do it to the extent that they are not discriminating based on protected status.
	What's the solution?
	Something along the lines of the Texas social media law.
	You can't discriminate against people based on viewpoint discrimination.
	Declare these services to be utilities, and unless you're breaking the law, a bank cannot unilaterally say we're not doing business with you because we don't like what you said somewhere else, or we don't like your business.
	These are effectively utilities that allow for people to exist in civil society.
	Legislative reform?
	I bet you Mike Davis, who we had on sidebar last night, has some ideas and is maybe working on this.
	Cunning Stunts says, Viva, aren't they disregarding their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if they refuse business like that?
	Well, that's a separate question.
	Whether or not it has a negative impact on their shareholders.
	This is another way to resolve it.
	Class action lawsuit.
	You know, when Twitter bans Trump, there's, in my view, an easy class-action lawsuit against the directors for prejudicing the shares or the value of the company.
	There is no question, monetarily speaking, if we're doing accounting right, a Twitter with Donald Trump is worth more than a Twitter without Donald Trump.
	And when Twitter says...
	Oh, Trump is morally offensive.
	We're booting him from the platform.
	Well, if it's genuinely morally offensive to have Trump on the platform, in theory, it should increase the value of the shares because, I don't know, you're enhancing the goodwill of the company.
	If it's a political reprisal and you're banning the most popular person that drew people to the platform, you're going to prejudice shareholder value.
	And I don't see any reason why there would not be a class action lawsuit for decisions the directors took.
	That prejudice that compromised the value of the shares, had I known they would act like this, I would have never invested in the company in the first place.
	So a lawsuit is always the way to resolve things when it functions properly.
	I would not wish a default verdict even against JPMorgan Chase.
	I want to hear what they have to say.
	And nor would I ask for outrageous damages that are turning legitimate legal processes into Powerball.
	Lawsuits are also a way of righting the ship, leveling the playing ground.
	And I think that JPMorgan Chase here, I don't know.
	I should just see what the stock has taken.
	Some people might say, great, I'm going to invest in JPMorgan Chase.
	They don't tolerate anti-Semitism.
	It's a more valuable company.
	But when it's up 5% today, 4.62% today, maybe people like dealing with a bank that can arbitrarily shut off their banking.
	If they say something they don't like, hey, enjoy that bank.
	I'm sure that snake will never turn around and bite the hand that's caressing its soft, soft underbelly.
	So that's it.
	That's what's happening with Kanye.
	Cat turd.
	Booted from Bank of America for cat turd, allegedly.
	Maybe cat turd did something illegal as well, and Bank of America had all the reasons in the world.
	Maybe Kanye, maybe the Yeezy Empire is into, I don't know, money laundering, whatever.
	Maybe it's a Ponzi scheme and they learned their lesson from Manoff.
	Maybe.
	We all know what it looks like right now.
	And until proof to the contrary, that's the operating assumption.
	And if people are, yet again, applauding a $1 billion judgment after a default verdict and a Kafka-esque show trial, if they're cheering that on, and if they're cheering this on, you have no idea.
	The hell that you are ushering in.
	Voluntarily so, like lemmings marching to the cliff.
	Ah!
	Oh, we're an hour in and we haven't...
	Let me see what we've got left.
	We're going to talk about the Canadian emergencies.
	I have not been listening to the Emergencies Act inquiry now.
	Let's do the Canadian stuff.
	For those of you who've been following me, in fact, many of you might...
	I have only been introduced to me as a result of my Viva on the Street coverage of the Ottawa protests back in February.
	A moment in history that nobody knew would turn into what it turned into.
	And I'm sitting at home.
	People are saying, Viva, you got to go to Ottawa, see what's going on.
	The news are a bunch of liars.
	They're saying this has been taken over by Nazis and Confederate flags and people are pissing on statues and desecrating the Terry Fox monument.
	I was like, that's what I'm seeing in the news.
	And I'm being told from people on the ground that's not what's going on.
	I went down on the Monday after it all started on a Friday to live stream documents.
	And I said, I'm going down.
	I'm going to have my phone.
	It's going to be running.
	If there are people desecrating the War Memorial, if there are people parading around downtown Ottawa with Nazi flags and Confederate flags, I'm going to see it live with the rest of the world.
	If there are people fighting, taking dumps on statues like they said that they were.
	The world's going to see it with me.
	Unedited, unfiltered, and the world saw what they saw with me.
	It was setting aside the honking, which for the first four to five days, maybe seven days, was loud, incessant, localized to an area where I'm sure citizens heard it within the vicinity.
	The world saw what that protest was about.
	The most peaceful protest, albeit loud, maybe obnoxious, But if you don't have a protest that irritates or that gets attention, it's not a protest.
	It's just another day.
	The most peaceful protest I think Canada has ever seen, and possibly tied up there with the most peaceful protest ever.
	After three and a half weeks of this peaceful protest, Justin Trudeau claiming to have COVID again.
	Justin Trudeau fleeing Ottawa like a coward that he is.
	Justin Trudeau refusing to have any dialogue with the protesters.
	And despite breakthroughs with authorities to resolve the protest, Justin Trudeau invokes the Emergencies Act, the law that replaced the War Measures Act.
	The default verdict in the Alex Jones case is the nuclear weapon of judicial warfare.
	The Emergencies Act is the nuclear weapon of legislation.
	It allows for the suspension of civil rights, declaration of a state of emergency.
	It's the Emergencies Act to be invoked when there's a risk to state, critical infrastructure, when there are not existing laws to deal with a national emergency.
	That's when the Emergencies Act is intended to be invoked.
	Not when there's a three-block protest in Ottawa that is so peaceful, people's biggest complaint is that people have bouncy castles and hot tubs on Wellington Street, Ottawa.
	Justin Trudeau invokes the Emergencies Act, the nuclear weapon of Canadian legislation, brings in a militarized police force, pepper sprays, assaults protesters, assaults journalists, stomps protesters, stomped an 81-year-old native woman with a horse.
	It was an accident.
	It was an accident.
	When you parade on icy winter roads with horses through crowded protesters, it was an accident.
	It's also called negligence, if not deliberate malice, as was disclosed From some text messages between members of the RCMP.
	He invokes the Emergencies Act, brings in a highly militarized police force, busts heads, pepper sprays, arrests, violently suppresses the most peaceful protest I've ever seen and I think the nation has ever seen.
	The Emergencies Act, as a legislative measure, has an inquiry period where they look into the context, the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	Everyone out there, don't hold your breath.
	I don't think this is going to yield the results that people hope it's going to yield.
	I think this is going to be something like the Durham report, Canadian version.
	I don't think it's going to yield Justin Trudeau's removal of office.
	I don't think it's going to be particularly damning on Justin Trudeau.
	The inquiry starts today, or it started today.
	It's being live-streamed.
	Hold on, let me get you the link for anybody who wants to watch it.
	I put the link on Twitter and I'll share it on Locals.
	Oh, shoot!
	There's been a live chat going with locals that I have not been following.
	Damn it.
	Here, hold on.
	Let me get the link for the public hearings right there.
	Okay.
	Put it right here.
	Boom.
	Let me go to the Rumble.
	Sorry, Rumble peeps.
	I have not been...
	Locals, I have not been following this.
	Constitutionalist sent a $1 tip in Locals, and it says I just lost it.
	Hold on, I took a picture of it earlier.
	I got a laugh out of you on YouTube.
	I went live with my campaign, insuranceroadkill.com, so I might try and get another smile at least.
	That's from Constitutionalist.
	And Mighty Pair says, Viva, please address what can be done for the legal route to stop banks and payment services from using political weaponization to the bank people.
	And I think I got that.
	Okay, now I'm looking at the chat.
	And here you go, people.
	In the locals chat, which is right here, you can go be part of that community, support us if you want, or just be part of the community with no financial support and get a ton of stuff there.
	Sure.
	So the inquiry, which is a legislative requirement.
	They handpick a judge who's going to oversee the inquiry to look into the context, the circumstances surrounding Justin Trudeau's, in my personal opinion, abusive, unconstitutional, and undemocratic invocation of the Emergency Act.
	They're looking into it, and they're going to hear from witnesses, parties, yada, yada, yada.
	It starts today.
	People want me to livestream it?
	It's six weeks, people.
	It's scheduled for six weeks long.
	No.
	Six weeks long of witness testimony, presentation, etc.
	Then there's like a one-week recommendation period, and then the panel or the commission has until February 2023 to issue their final report.
	But it started today, and I started listening to it, and this is the frustrating thing about, you know...
	You know what all the respective parties are going to say, how they're going to say it, and what they're going to invoke to support their positions before they even say it.
	You know it.
	You know it.
	And what's going to end up happening here is the various entities, organizations, interested parties.
	You've got...
	I took the note down.
	The Ottawa Coalition that represents the citizens of Ottawa.
	They get up there.
	They say, what we're going to show is that this was traumatizing.
	It was a siege.
	It was an occupation.
	It was three weeks of harassment.
	The citizens are still traumatized.
	I'm not joking.
	That's what the Ottawa Coalition, representing the citizens of Ottawa, said.
	And you know it.
	You know it.
	You know what they're going to say.
	They're going to probably bring up news items that have since been debunked.
	The alleged arson by the protesters.
	They're going to cite Mendoncino.
	That liar who said that the Ottawa Convoy, they were going around threatening rape.
	I mean, you know what the various parties are going to say, how they're going to say it before they say it, and you've got to sit there and listen to them say it slower than you know it already in your head.
	But thus far today was the introduction.
	The judge announcing the process, how it's going to work.
	No formal schedule.
	The various interested parties.
	Ottawa Coalition was one of them.
	Ontario Provincial Police, the OPP, was another one.
	They're coming in.
	My goodness, by the way, the OPP, Ontario provincial police, who have got to defend their own declaration of a state of emergency.
	Well, you know what their position is going to be.
	It was out of control.
	It was an occupation.
	It was violent.
	It was dangerous.
	And Trudeau did nothing wrong.
	From what I heard this morning, the OPP comes up talking about police chief Slowly.
	His name is Slowly, by the way.
	No joke.
	S-L-O-L-Y.
	They're already using hyperbolic language.
	It was an occupation.
	It was an occupation.
	It was a siege.
	Oh, ground zero.
	The Ottawa police referred to the core of the protest as ground zero.
	An occupation.
	For some reason, they brought up slowly as being the first black police chief of Ottawa, as if that is relevant at all.
	Just pulling the same identity politics crap.
	That's pulled in American politics?
	Oh, Chief Slowly is the first black police chief.
	Oh, all right.
	Does that mean we can't criticize him for being a corrupt, incompetent nincompoop?
	There would be no other reason to bring up race as the Ottawa police did unless it's to already lay that up there.
	The critique of Slowly is influenced by racism.
	Undoubtedly, someone's going to go there during this trial.
	And then you got the convoy.
	I forget which organization it was, but one of the convoy organizations.
	Obviously going to come up there and say it was an abusive, illegitimate, unlawful, unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	And at the end of the day, they're going to say exceptional circumstances.
	Maybe there were other ways of going about resolving this, but Justin Trudeau was doing the best that he could under the circumstances.
	He maybe, yada, yada.
	But ultimately, no finding of culpability that's going to be meaningful at all.
	That is my cynical prediction of what's going to happen.
	And that's going to take six weeks of hearings and then another months of drafting a final report.
	So that's what's going on.
	So people out there saying, Viva, you're not covering it.
	It's six weeks.
	I wasn't going to cover the Alex Jones trial for four weeks, not because I wasn't interested in it, not because I don't think it would have been lucrative from a YouTube standpoint.
	It was too long.
	It was day in and day out, the same stuff.
	And, you know.
	24-7 live streaming of it.
	Oddly enough, for anybody interested, it's very easy content to produce.
	It's a lot easier than covering a variety of stories.
	But it was not something I was interested in doing.
	I didn't think it was value added.
	There's only so much insight you can get when it's day in, day out the same thing.
	It's going to be the same thing with Ottawa.
	When there's interesting witnesses, I'll be there.
	And I will be following it.
	The only thing I noticed is that on their live broadcast thingy thing, there's no rewind.
	So you've got to...
	You know, record and then hope to capture a clip that you want.
	And I, it can't be, there cannot be any prohibition, publication prohibitions on this or rebroadcast.
	There can't be in my mind.
	It's public hearings, but I would double check before you do anything.
	Don't come to me for legal advice that can get people in trouble.
	Oh, did Diagalon get out of jail yet?
	So McKenzie, Jeremy McKenzie, who I had on the channel, prior to the, Ill-advised is an understatement.
	Prior to the idiotic joke that they made about Pierre Paulievre's wife.
	Prior to that.
	But he's been arrested.
	I haven't heard of anybody having heard from him, so I don't know what the situation is with Jeremy McKenzie.
	Jeremy McKenzie, the founder of Diagalon, who was facing a bunch of gun charges.
	Other issues which we discussed on the stream, subsequent to that stream, made idiotic comments on a midnight, I don't know what platform it was on, but whatever, about Pierre Poglia's wife, which got him into even more trouble and since been arrested.
	And I haven't heard any news since his arrest.
	Sissy75, S-Y-S-Y-75 says, Ottowans should know they are in a capital city.
	Suck it up, buttercup.
	It is every Canadian's right to protest in capital city.
	If it's too hot for you, get out of the kitchen.
	The Ottawa Coalition, or the Coalition of Ottawa Citizens, already addressed that argument, which you knew people were going to make.
	Yes, it's Ottawa, but citizens live here.
	Children, women.
	It's not because they live in Ottawa, a capital city, that they should be expected to be subjected to this type of harassment.
	They've already raised that and addressed it in a very predictable manner.
	And it's true.
	Okay.
	You live in D.C. There's only so much protest or protest to a certain degree that you can be reasonably expected to expect and tolerate.
	They say, and then the argument is, oh, it looks like it's only the downtown.
	It looks like it's only Parliament Hill, but there are people who live there.
	They were subjected to 24-7 honking, although they didn't even say that.
	Incessant honking from 6 in the morning to 11 at night.
	The auto coalition.
	Actually said they were detonating fireworks and they were digging off buildings, digging off houses.
	But yeah, that's the argument.
	You live in Ottawa.
	Where else are people going to protest the federal government than on Wellington, on Capitol Hill, Parliament Hill?
	They've addressed it and you know what they're going to do.
	They're going to parade out citizens to say how loud it was.
	How obnoxious it was.
	How their kids couldn't sleep.
	That's what's going to happen.
	And their story's probably true.
	And then you're going to have the protesters come and say it was the most peaceful thing ever.
	Yeah, there was a lot of honking in the first week.
	We agreed to have a schedule afterwards.
	Oh, the Ottawa Coalition says they were carrying out jerry cans of gasoline.
	It was dangerous.
	Okay, so that's what's going on with the inquiry.
	What are they calling it?
	The Public Hearing.
	The Public Order Emergency Commission.
	Public Order Emergency Commission.
	I'll be following it, but we'll visit this in a bit.
	Let's just get through the remaining stories here and see what else we have.
	First, I'm just going to go see.
	I've gotten notification.
	Okay.
	So that's what's going on in Canada.
	This is what it looks like, everybody.
	The public hearings.
	The next two reports will not be marked as evidence, but they will be presented by Commission Council.
	So, six weeks.
	It already looks enthralling, people.
	It's already tremendously enthralling.
	That's what it looks like.
	If you want to go find it, you have the link.
	Okay.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	Let's get to some lighter stuff.
	Yes, I picked CNN just because a story like this, it doesn't matter where you get it from.
	Y 'all remember that story about those cheating fishermen who stuffed...
	Wait until you hear the size of the lead weights that they stuffed into these fish.
	They've been indicted.
	This was the fishing competition.
	It was on Lake Erie.
	Where was it?
	In Pennsylvania?
	I think it was Pennsylvania.
	They're going to tell us in here.
	The fishermen...
	Who, you know, being good criminals, thought it would trick people to stuff weights in the bellies of the fish they caught to enhance their weight so they could win the competition.
	Almost $30,000.
	They got caught.
	The videos went viral.
	The videos are outrageous.
	And they show you, if you're going to be a criminal, don't.
	But at the very least, take for granted that people around you are smarter than a fifth grader.
	Although, even a fifth grader would have thought to check the fish's belly for lead weights.
	Two men accused of cheating in an Ohio fishing tournament scandal have been indicted, prosecutors say.
	The two anglers accused of stuffing fish in an attempt to win thousands of dollars Ohio at an Ohio fishing tournament last month have been charged, authorities announced.
	The would-be winners, Jacob Runyon and Chase Kaminsky, were indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on...
	One charge each of cheating attempted grand theft because it's interesting.
	It's $30,000.
	That's more than grand theft threshold in most jurisdictions.
	Possessing criminal tools and the unlawful ownership of wild animals.
	I take all crime very seriously.
	What they attempted to do was not only dishonorable, but also criminal.
	Cuyahoga County Chief Michael C. O'Malley said in a news release.
	They were disqualified.
	After it was discovered, their fish were stuffed.
	Listen to this.
	With lead weights and fish fillets.
	I mean, it's so stupid.
	Hey, let's go with a really dense object.
	Oh, maybe they thought the fish fillets would...
	Maybe they used the fish fillets to protect the lead so that if someone felt it, they would feel the fish fillets so that they wouldn't actually feel a hard lead metal weight.
	Maybe they did put a little thought into this.
	So they fished the lights and lead weights.
	Moment discovered shared on social media.
	If declared winner, they would have won $29,000.
	Listen to this.
	The tournament's director found 10 weights inside the fish.
	I'm wondering if there's a typo here.
	Eight 12-ounce weights and two 8-ounce weights.
	12-ounce weights...
	Is that 16 ounces in a pound?
	That's a big-ass weight.
	Maybe they have those big weights because they're fishing deep for fish.
	When I fish in the ocean here, I'm only casting off the dock.
	I'm using a two-and-a-half-ounce weight.
	Eight 12-ounce weights and two 8-ounce weights in addition to several walleye fillets.
	I'm thinking they had to have tried to wrap the weights with the fish fillets.
	Okay, then we know what happened.
	They saw the video in viral.
	Neither Runyon nor Kaminsky responded to CNN's previous request for comments, and it wasn't immediately clear if either man had legal representation.
	I thought that was something else entirely over there.
	So that's it.
	Crime doesn't pay, especially when you are stupid criminals.
	And I mean like stupid criminals.
	Viva!
	Secondhand stupid is a real danger in society today.
	Oh my goodness.
	Anyhow, so they've been entitled.
	I mean, it's just for what?
	For $30,000.
	I mean, it's a lot of money.
	It's a lot of money, but how long does that last for integrity?
	And how long does that last now?
	I think their lives are sufficiently, absolutely compromised, if not outright ruined.
	Okay, so we got here.
	This was an article on Bloomberg.
	I'll clip that and put it in here so you can all read it if you want.
	Here.
	And let's go.
	But the next one, we're getting to Dr. Martin, people.
	Stick around for that for a second.
	Live chat in the Viva Barnes.
	Okay.
	Here's the link to the Alex Jones.
	Everyone in the chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com are more than up to date.
	On the Alex Jones trial.
	I mean, Barnes has been talking about it for a while.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Dr. Martin.
	I just saw someone in the chat say, tons of criminals are smart.
	Some criminals are smart, and some criminals seem to run the country.
	In my humble opinion, people, I'm not actually calling anyone a bona fide criminal because no one's been convicted yet, but I think the day is coming where people are going to start needing to get convicted.
	Listen to this.
	Remember representatives of the UK government who...
	I hope everybody knows...
	Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.
	Let me just see.
	Did Paul Martin?
	No, Paul Martin is the...
	Was a premier of Canada.
	John Campbell.
	Why am I calling him Paul Martin?
	Dr. John Campbell.
	Made into dames and knights and all sorts of things.
	Loses his temper.
	Emphatically telling us that everything that was normally done in any clinical trial was done during these trials.
	They gave us their word about this.
	No corners were cut, everybody.
	Remember that they said this.
	They didn't cut any corners.
	It's as safe as anything else the FDA has ever approved.
	That's what they said.
	You got Walensky, we saw at the beginning of the stream, still peddling this stuff.
	And let's hope that this doesn't turn out to be less than accurate.
	Oh, it already has.
	Let's look at some of the information that's now been revealed today.
	And you can probably tell some of us aren't very happy about this.
	If he's not happy about it, I mean, he gets a little angrier later, but he's good at hiding it.
	At all.
	It's rolled out.
	Ms. Small.
	Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping the immunization before it entered the market?
	No.
	And they had the word.
	She said the word no.
	Now, this is my interpretation of this, because this is only me.
	COVID-Pfizer vaccine was not tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market.
	This was not done before the vaccine entered general rollout.
	Wait a minute here.
	When a British man gets angry, I mean, this is not the guy from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Biles yet, but I think...
	I think he could be.
	Despite us being assured that everything, all the normal stages were carried out as they would be for any new product.
	And yet it turns out now we know what, however long it is now later.
	It's admitted.
	So anybody watching this, it's admitted.
	We were moving at the speed of science, which meant moving faster than the speed of science.
	Two years later or whatever, this wasn't done.
	This really is, I think this is really quite scandalous.
	And I certainly feel personally let down by it.
	I'm sure a lot of you do.
	Let down is an understatement.
	Hoodwinked.
	Lied to.
	Exploited.
	Cheated.
	Abused.
	Assaulted.
	Assaulted is not a hyperbolic way of describing it.
	Someone applying force without my consent.
	Oh, they didn't apply force.
	They didn't make you do anything.
	It was all consensual, which will be the defense.
	You did it on your own.
	Yep.
	Based on...
	Misrepresentations.
	Sorry, hold on.
	I'm getting distracted.
	Just wait.
	Dr. Campbell loses his temper, but it's still...
	Miss Small again, you know we had to really move at the speed of science.
	Now, what I'd like to do now is pause and explain to you exactly what the speed of science means.
	But I haven't got a flipping clue.
	I do know not what it is.
	It's just words without meaning.
	The speed of science.
	Words without meaning.
	Verbal diarrhea is another way.
	What's that supposed to mean?
	What's it supposed to convey?
	What it's supposed to convey?
	We rushed things.
	We lied to you.
	And we did it because we were trying to get you to go along with it.
	And you wouldn't have had we told you that we're going at the speed of science, which means cutting the corners that we assured you we weren't cutting.
	Speed of science necessarily means, A, presumptively slow, not presumptively fast.
	The speed of science necessarily means not faster than the speed of science.
	And the speed of science means you verify and confirm.
	What you are affirming and not after the fact.
	And the speed of science does not mean deliberately misleading through false, inaccurate representations and deliberately misleading omissions.
	The speed of science, what you're describing, sounds like the speed of negligence.
	It sounds like the speed of potential criminal negligence, criminal misrepresentation, criminal fraud.
	Potential.
	Speed of science does not mean lying.
	It does not mean saying you have proven that which you have not proven because you weren't even looking for that.
	Speed of science.
	Yeah, put in as many asterisks as you can there.
	Not asterisks, sorry.
	Speed of science.
	What is it called, the dollar sign?
	Put in as many dollar signs as you can there.
	So anyways, John Campbell...
	Did I just say John?
	That's what I meant.
	He got a little...
	Let's just finish it so we can...
	It's not the full clip, and people should obviously watch Dr. Campbell.
	If I can find it again.
	Here it is.
	It just has no meaning to me at all, unless I'm a bit stupid, of course.
	If you've missed more once to come on the channel and explain it, then that's absolutely fine, of course.
	Maybe I'm just being a bit thick here and I don't understand what the speed of science is.
	This is British humor.
	Dry humor.
	Sarcasm.
	I've done two science degrees and a research degree, and I've never heard the term.
	Anyway, I always need to learn new things.
	I've only been doing science since I was 18. You've got to love the dry British humor.
	Cutting without being rude.
	Sassy without being expletive.
	Yes, speed of science.
	Hoodwinked.
	Not the word I would have used.
	Not the word I...
	Well, I think I may have been hoodwinked.
	I may have said hoodwinked.
	But it's a little worse than that.
	Okay, and then the talking points we've gotten to.
	Yep.
	Alex Jones.
	Oh, jeez, did I just close down?
	I didn't.
	I thought I just shut down the whole stream.
	Okay, let's get to some more fun stuff after I close this window down.
	Okay, except for the skipping by...
	Oh, David A. French.
	David A. French, you want a bad take in law.
	Defamation isn't protected speech.
	The message sent is that lying about the parents of murdered children has legal consequences, including compensatory and punitive damages.
	It's basic American law, not regime retaliation.
	Except for the whole skipping the jury trial part of the process French.
	I call French the banana republican lawyer.
	He wants to preserve his seat within the regime.
	Yeah, no.
	It's basic law.
	It's basic law.
	Skipping the jury trial by default verdict.
	Basically, it's basic law now.
	You got a lawyer telling you default verdicts.
	Skipping a trial by jury is basic law now.
	Okay.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay, anyways, now let's get to some fun stuff.
	AOC.
	AOC getting heckled hard.
	Some even say humiliated.
	And I'll say this.
	Good on these kids.
	Congresswoman, none of this matters unless there's a nuclear war, which you voted to send arms and weapons to Ukraine.
	Hold together, she's left the Democratic Party, because there are a bunch of war on, okay?
	You originally voted Ukraine as an outsider.
	It's amazing how everyone in this room would be defending this individual.
	If he were interrupting the Kavanaugh hearings.
	Would be defending this individual if he were disrupting a Trump inauguration.
	They'd be defending this individual if they were interrupting Jordan Peterson.
	They would defend this guy and cheer him on if it were directed at their political adversary.
	But now it's directed at their political ally.
	And the room is none too happy with this method of protest.
	all of the sudden.
	You're voting to start a third nuclear war with Russia and China.
	Why are you playing with the lives of American citizens?
	You're playing with our lives.
	There will be no neighbors if there's a nuclear bomb.
	You voted to mobilize and send money to Ukrainian Nazis.
	You're a coward.
	You're a progressive socialist.
	Where are you against the war?
	I think she's a champagne socialist is the term, but...
	Some people could say this is their political plants.
	They're out there on behalf of Tulsi, whatever.
	You never know.
	All that you know is how AOC responds.
	And wait for this.
	He's telling the right truth!
	You have done nothing!
	Tulsi Gabbard has shown guts where you've shown cowardice!
	And by the way, setting aside that there's masked people in this room, which I have no problem with.
	It shows...
	People are still wearing masks and feel safer wearing those masks.
	It's interesting.
	It's interesting now that the room has sort of toned down in their opposition to the...
	What do we call them?
	An activist?
	To the student?
	They've sort of stopped moaning and groaning.
	They've sort of stopped shouting him down.
	And it sounds like, almost, unless I'm projecting, these two individuals might have actually managed to change some people's minds or cause some reflection.
	I believed in you, and you became the very thing you sought to fight against.
	That's what you've become.
	You are the establishment, and you are the reason why everybody will end up in a nuclear war unless you choose to stand up right now.
	And now the crowd is clapping.
	I don't know if I'm reading it right.
	I think I'm reading it right.
	He might be overblowing the risk of nuclear war here, but maybe not.
	Overblown or not, the reality is that this is that much of a concern, an anxiety-inducing, soul-crushing reality that this individual has to live with, and a lot of people.
	But it actually sounds like the crowd went from jeering these two hecklers or interrupters to clapping them on.
	And denounce the Democratic Party!
	Will you do that?
	Yes or no?
	Okay?
	Simple.
	Are you going to stop nuclear war?
	Yes or no?
	You're jumping ahead of the line.
	I'd answer your question.
	But you're jumping ahead of the line, so no.
	This is bullshit.
	None of this matters if we're all dead.
	None of it.
	You know that.
	Then let's take it up right now, because this is the only thing that matters.
	This is the only thing that matters right now.
	We could be in a nuclear war at any minute and you continue to fund it.
	That's what's going on.
	Why not right now?
	You're the liar here.
	I'll get to it later.
	I'll get to it later.
	Why not now?
	Because you are being rude.
	Oh, I'll answer your question when I say so.
	Because you're being rude right now, sir.
	I mean, I know you're talking about a risk of nuclear war because of the escalation that is being perpetrated, not just by a bumbling, demented, incapacitated president, potentially, but because of a democratic, democrat, liberal, progressive party that is ushering on war with ever-increasing fervor.
	I'll get to it later.
	Not now because you're rude.
	How rude of you.
	Go in line and I assure you I'll get to your question later.
	And by that I mean never.
	But I get to say I'm not doing it now because you're rude.
	I've never done anything like what you're doing, Mr. Protester.
	I've never interrupted speeches.
	I've never gone and protested in the streets and then celebrated allegedly getting arrested.
	You're being rude and I'm not going to answer your question because I have no damn good answer for it.
	Good on that.
	Good on that kid.
	It was loud.
	It was not in your face.
	It wasn't an expletive-laden tirade.
	It was a kid.
	I'm a kid like I'm an old man.
	It was a young man letting someone who he supported know that she's betrayed him and that she has lived long enough now to become the villain.
	I'm not answering it because that would be rude.
	AOC became Pelosi.
	Oh, man.
	All right, so that was AOC getting, you know, comeuppance.
	The people see through your charades now, AOC.
	The people who supported you, who bought into your crap.
	I'm a working-class bartender.
	I represent you.
	And now I'm taking all y 'all money and I'm sending it to a foreign conflict that might very well lead us into World War III.
	But I'm not going to answer you because you're rude.
	That's rude.
	Go wait in line.
	What's it called?
	I'm the political elite now.
	You go wait in line, and when your turn comes around, I might listen to you.
	Oh, yeah, and until then, by the way, hold on.
	Let's just recall this.
	Until then, I'm just going to go ahead and I'm going to go back and find my vest.
	Where is it?
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	I'm going to go find my $3,000 jacket.
	Oh, apparently now this...
	Okay.
	Proenza Schuller.
	Proenza Schuller.
	Crepe, wrap, coat.
	Sounds disgusting.
	Dark.
	Apparently it now costs even more.
	Was it this?
	Apparently now it costs like...
	Oh, still the same price.
	Still the same price.
	Someone said it went up in price, which would have been funny, given the inflation that is also being caused by the very same policies of the very same party, of the very same woman who fights for the people.
	I don't always fight social justice, but when I do, I do it in a $3,000 US dollar, whatever the hell that was.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And then there's another good one here.
	Check this out.
	Check this out.
	Just fun stuff.
	VP Harris.
	What do they call it?
	There has to be a word for these vapid verbal diarrhea answers that Kamala is now becoming known for.
	Listen to this.
	The work that we did around the most recent Inflation Reduction Act.
	It was focused.
	Some might ask, well, what was the title about?
	No, no.
	It goes around dealing with the fact that life shouldn't be too expensive for working people.
	People work hard.
	They should be able to afford to pay their bills and feed their children and take a vacation from time.
	You might be asking yourself.
	No one in their right mind, unless they thought politicians are liars, Would ask, what is the title of the Inflation Reduction Act about?
	I'm going to venture a guess.
	I'm just a nincompoop lawyer.
	I'm going to venture a guess that the title of the Inflation Reduction Act is about reducing inflation by way of a legislation.
	A guess.
	It's a random guess.
	If, however, the actual law itself doesn't...
	Reduce inflation.
	And if I hear and read that the act itself is actually not going to do anything to reduce inflation, and if I'm living in a world where I see inflation rising at an exponentially rapid rate, yeah, I'm not going to ask what the title's about.
	I'm just going to ask, what the hell are you guys doing for jobs?
	This is your job.
	Every step of the way, everything you do screws things up worse than it was before.
	You passed the Inflation Reduction Act.
	Was there anything about...
	Transferring tens of billions of dollars to finance foreign conflict.
	Is there anything in the Inflation Act about that?
	What's the Inflation Reduction Act about?
	It's an amazing thing.
	She sounds like she's always giving a book review without having read the book.
	Yeah.
	All right, now let me just see one thing here because I think we're doing good.
	What's going on?
	Let's go to the Locals chat and see what's going on in there.
	Live chat at Locals.
	I love this.
	Okay, so we got Yael Rivka says, one of the nurses I work with almost lost her crap when a kid came in with shortness of breath over a year ago.
	She acted as though the unvaxxed were responsible because he was obviously going to have the Rona.
	Nope.
	Poor kid had asthma.
	Have I missed anything in the chat?
	Okay.
	There's a good discussion going on in the chat.
	For anybody who wants to go there, I'm going to put it back in...
	Post it back here in Rumble, and I'm going to go see what's going on in the Rumble chat.
	The video is an example of a normie waking up, banned from YouTube.
	Yep.
	And you can't hide it on the...
	Other than the fact, by the way, that going back to the AOC video...
	Other than the fact that the room was virtually empty, it was filled with a not insignificant amount of people who are quite angry with AOC, and rightly so.
	If I go to the public hearing inquiry.
	Today's hearings have been completed.
	Oh, so you know what's interesting?
	Here, let me share this.
	Maybe the hearings are not all day, day in and day out.
	Okay, we'll see.
	We'll cover the hearings in as much as possible.
	But, everyone, we've done good.
	Let's go see.
	Let's go see in the Twitterverse.
	I have not missed anything on Twitter.
	The diary.
	My running notes of a world's descent into madness.
	Or perhaps only Viva's descent into madness.
	I'm joking.
	It's the world.
	It's not me.
	Okay, so we covered the Ottawa Convoy, the Emergency Act thingy thing.
	We got Kamala Harris, AOC, Alex Jones, AOC's ridiculous jacket.
	Check this out, people.
	Gaslighting.
	We want to talk about gaslighting?
	Well, we've talked about this.
	Albert Bourla.
	Early data, but this is the same guy.
	This is the same guy who...
	April 1st said excited to share that updated analysis from our phase 3 study with BioNTech.
	Also showed our COVID vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa.
	100%!
	Let's see what we saw how that turned out.
	But trust him now.
	Trust him now.
	Selling his own product on Twitter.
	Early data from our trial evaluation.
	Early data from our trial evaluation, our Omicron.
	How about you?
	I mean, I am not one to criticize anybody's proofreading.
	They show increased neutralization, neutralizing antibodies compared to our original monovalent vaccine, suggesting it could potentially provide better reduction against Omicron.
	Someone told me this is where I could find a good ratio.
	The internet is funny.
	The internet is just funny.
	If there's a joke, someone...
	Out there is going to get the applicable joke.
	Okay.
	We got this.
	We got this.
	David French.
	We got that.
	We got that.
	Okay.
	I think we've done well.
	Oh!
	Let's actually talk about this one.
	This is Robert Gruller.
	Apparently got a strike on his channel on YouTube.
	A strike for reading Donald Trump's lawsuit, which...
	Let me just see what...
	I verified...
	I double-checked with Gruller just to make sure.
	Robert Gouveia.
	I'm sorry, I didn't mean to...
	Why did I say Gouveia?
	Robert Gouveia.
	Because he changed his last name, people.
	It's the same person, but I apologize for that.
	He got a strike for misinformation for reading Trump's defamation lawsuit.
	So it's not just that YouTube, through its opaque, arbitrary...
	Weaponized community guidelines, whatever.
	It's not just that they prohibit creators from making statements, taking positions, promoting ideas.
	They are striking lawyers for reading, analyzing legal proceedings in which third parties make allegations that YouTube deems to be misinformation.
	That's not soft censorship.
	That is hard censorship.
	Govea was not making any statements.
	Govea is reading a lawsuit.
	A lawsuit makes allegations.
	Going through Trump's defamation lawsuit, which touched on a number of subjects.
	One of which was, you know, is it the one where they're talking about Trump suing CNN?
	I think that's the one.
	Anyhow, a strike.
	A second strike, and now he's suspended for seven days.
	And fight it.
	Now that we know definitively that YouTube responds to the public pressure of tweets that gain traction, that generate chatter, this is bullcrap.
	They prohibit people from saying things, and now they're prohibiting lawyers from analyzing legal documents which might contain allegations that might violate community guidelines if they're made as affirmative statements of fact on the platform.
	And the Nick Ricada situation has showed us that you cannot allow YouTube to leave any unsubstantiated strike on a channel because it will come back and bite you in the butt later on.
	Fight all of them tooth and nail when you know you've done nothing wrong.
	So that's Gouvet's situation on YouTube and it's worth pointing out now.
	And then some more arguments.
	For my own...
	I've got to stop engaging where it does not look like I'm engaging with people who are engaging with the sincere intention of understanding.
	Here's another one.
	Here's another one.
	We've come a long way since 2020 in reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.
	Among Medicare beneficiaries, for example, we saw a 39% to 47% reduction in these outcomes, that being COVID hospitalizations and COVID deaths due to vaccination.
	We've noticed a decrease in that due to vaccination.
	Thanks for believing in the power of science.
	I swear to you, if this were intended to be a parody tweet from Albert Bourla's ego, this is how it would have been drafted.
	Oh.
	All right.
	And I think we've done good.
	Jonathan Turley, his conversion to full MAGA Republican is virtually complete.
	It's been a beautiful thing to watch, and I'd love to have him on the channel.
	And Rob Reiner's an idiot.
	Okay.
	So I think we can get rid of that.
	Everyone, Let's wind it up for the day.
	I'm going to see if there's anything in the chat.
	Nature Lover Freedom says we need to mobilize against only censorship now.
	Go retweet Govea's situation.
	It's just a strike.
	He's not having his channel taken down.
	Just a strike for reading a legal document as a lawyer.
	What would resolve that?
	A lawsuit in Texas.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	What's that?
	I'm not allowed reading a lawsuit on YouTube or Facebook if it makes allegations that YouTube says are disinformation.
	That sounds like a lawsuit under Texas law these days.
	Everyone, thank you very much for being here.
	I will do my best to keep up with that hearing.
	I'm going to see what the schedule is like, because if it's over by...
	If it's only morning hearings, maybe we could live stream it for fun just so everybody could see how utterly dull and utterly boring it is and utterly frustrating when you know what someone is going to say before they say it and politeness dictates that you have to listen to them say it first.
	Or in this case, reality dictates that you can't interrupt them and say, I know what you're going to say.
	Can we save the three hours?
	But my prediction is out there.
	This inquiry is going to result in diddly squat, bubkis, nothing, bagel, donut, goose egg.
	The only repercussions for Trudeau are going to be political by way of vote.
	And I think that's coming because I think people are just fed up with that party, fed up with that individual.
	And we'll be live tomorrow.
	So that is it.
	I'm going to go now.
	Have my...
	Desiccated field of greens, one portion.
	My wife is out of town for the week, which doesn't mean that I'm not going to get my required, what is it, five to six cups a day of fruits and vegetables.
	I'm going to get that anyhow, because what I go do obsessively is eat arugula directly out of the plastic container.
	But field of greens, I'm going to go have my one cup, one serving, cold water, drink it, and go on with my day having made the healthy choice.
	Everybody, thank you all.
	And I'll see you tomorrow.
	What I always say, don't lose faith, but don't have blind faith as though something's going to happen if you don't push for it.
	God helps those who help themselves.
	If you sit back and say, someone will save me, no one will save you.
	And you can curse all you want, but you've done nothing to help your own situation.
	God helps those who help themselves.
	The more you try, the more good things are going to happen.
	But do it in a way that will make your parents, your children...
	And your pet's proud.
	And you can never go astray.
	With that said, everybody, thank you for spending the morning to afternoon with me.
	Great to see you here.
	See you tomorrow.
	And keep on keeping on.
	Peace.
	Oh, wait.
	No, hold on a second.
	Almost forgot.
	I have to have a little video to lead out.
	Viva Fry.
	Let's just get a fishing video.
	Oh, yeah.
	This one.
	Let's do it.
	Let's do this one.
	The biggest pike.
	It wasn't the biggest pike, but it's a damn big pike.
	Alright, here we go.
	How do I share the screen?
	There's a big fish, people.
	It's a big fish.
	Here, hold on.
	Here we go.
	Yes.
	I thought I was snagged.
	What is it?
	Whoa!
	Oh, I'm still on camera.
	That could have been embarrassing.
	Enjoy.
	See you soon.
	See you tomorrow.
	See you tomorrow.
	This is the biggest fish.
	This is the biggest fish.
	This is, hands down, the biggest fish I've ever...
	Oh my gosh!
	Don't...
	Holy cows!
	Oh my gosh!
	This hook is coming out.
	Oh my gosh!
	Stay there, please.
	Stay there, please.
	Oh my gosh!
	Please!
	Please!
	This is the biggest fish.
	Oh, my God.
	Please, please, please stay.
	Please stay.
	Please stay.
	Look at this!
	This is the...
	Who sees this?
	Who sees this?
	Oh, my gosh!
	I don't know how big this is.
	I don't know how much this weighs.
	Oh my gloves are stuck in his things.
	Oh my.
	When I hooked that, I thought I hit a rock.
	I thought I was snagged in the water.
	Oh!
	I take this as a sign from above.
	I must keep doing YouTube.
	That was simply a monster.
	We can go in for the day now.

▲